Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies — Santa Monica City Council, September 27, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

Santa Monica's Energy Reach Code
Promoting Healthy, Safe, and Cost-Effective Homes & Buildings 2019 Reach Code
Cost-Effectiveness Studies
Study (Page 2)
Non-Residential Study (Page 1 )
Low-Rise Residential Additions Solar PV Study (Page
)
Pool Heating Study (Page )
Margin?
Title 24, Parts 6 and 11
Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances
2019 Cost-effectiveness Study:

Low-Rise Residential New Construction
Prepared for:

Kelly Cunningham
Codes and Standards Program
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Prepared by:

Frontier Energy, Inc.

Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Last Modified: July 17, 2019

LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

2.1 Building Prototypes....................................................................................................................................1

2.2 Measure Analysis........................................................................................................................................3

2.2.1 Federal Preemption............................................................................................................................4

2.2.2 Energy Design Rating..........................................................................................................................4

2.2.3 Energy Efficiency Measures ...............................................................................................................5

2.3 Package Development................................................................................................................................8

2.3.1 Solar Photovoltaics (PV) .....................................................................................................................8

2.3.2 Energy Storage (Batteries)..................................................................................................................8

2.4 Incremental Costs.......................................................................................................................................9

2.5 Cost-effectiveness....................................................................................................................................13

2.5.1 On-Bill Customer Lifecycle Cost........................................................................................................13

2.5.2 TDV Lifecycle Cost.............................................................................................................................15

2.6 Electrification Evaluation..........................................................................................................................15

2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................................................................18 3 Results ..............................................................................................................................................................18

3.1 PV and Battery System Sizing ...................................................................................................................19

3.2 Single Family Results ................................................................................................................................21

3.2.1 GHG Emission Reductions ................................................................................................................26

3.3 Multifamily Results...................................................................................................................................26

3.3.1 GHG Emission Reductions ................................................................................................................32

3.4 Electrification Results...............................................................................................................................32

3.4.1 Single Family.....................................................................................................................................33

3.4.2 Multifamily .......................................................................................................................................33 4 Conclusions & Summary...................................................................................................................................41 5 References........................................................................................................................................................44 Appendix A California Climate Zone Map..............................................................................................................46 Appendix B Utility Tariff Details.............................................................................................................................47 Appendix C Single Family Detailed Results............................................................................................................57 Appendix D Single Family Measure Summary.......................................................................................................61 Appendix E Multifamily Detailed Results ..............................................................................................................68 Appendix F Multifamily Measure Summary ..........................................................................................................72 Appendix G Results by Climate Zone.....................................................................................................................79 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Table 1: Prototype Characteristics.............................................................................................................................2 Table 2: Characteristics of the Mixed Fuel vs All-Electric Prototype..........................................................................3 Table 3: Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures .....................................................9 Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 10 Table 5: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone .................................................................................... 14 Table 6: Incremental Costs All-Electric Compared to a Mixed Fuel Home........................................................... 16 Table 7: PV & Battery Sizing Details by Package Type............................................................................................. 20 Table 8: Single Family Package Lifetime Incremental Costs.................................................................................... 22 Table 9: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case 1,2.......................................... 23 Table 10: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2......................................... 24 Table 11: Multifamily Package Incremental Costs per Apartment ......................................................................... 28 Table 12: Multifamily Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case1,2........................................... 29 Table 13: Multifamily Package Cost-effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2............................................ 30 Table 14: Single Family Electrification Results ....................................................................................................... 34 Table 15: Comparison of Single Family On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV ............................. 36 Table 16: Multifamily Electrification Results.......................................................................................................... 38 Table 17: Comparison of Multifamily On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV................................ 39 Table 18: Summary of Single Family Target EDR Margins....................................................................................... 43 Table 19: Summary of Multifamily Target EDR Margins......................................................................................... 43 Table 20: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .............................................................................................. 48 Table 21: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone.................................................................................................. 51 Table 22: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone......................................................................................... 53 Table 23: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................ 54 Table 24: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions........................................................................................ 56 Table 25: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results................................................ 57 Table 26: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results.......................... 58 Table 27: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ................................................ 59 Table 28: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results..................... 60 Table 29: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary ............................. 61 Table 30: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary.................. 62 Table 31: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ..................................... 63 Table 32: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary .............................. 64 Table 33: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary .................. 65 Table 34: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary ................................................... 66 Table 35: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary...................................... 67 Table 36: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results .................................................. 68 Table 37: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results............................ 69 Table 38: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results................................................... 70 Table 39: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results....................... 71 Table 40: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary................................ 72 Table 41: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary .................... 73 Table 42: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ....................................... 74 Table 43: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary................................. 75 Table 44: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary ..................... 76 Table 45: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary...................................................... 77 Table 46: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ........................................ 78 Table 47: Single Family Climate Zone 1 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 80 Table 48: Multifamily Climate Zone 1 Results Summary......................................................................................... 81 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Table 49: Single Family Climate Zone 2 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 82 Table 50: Multifamily Climate Zone 2 Results Summary......................................................................................... 83 Table 51: Single Family Climate Zone 3 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 84 Table 52: Multifamily Climate Zone 3 Results Summary......................................................................................... 85 Table 53: Single Family Climate Zone 4 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 86 Table 54: Multifamily Climate Zone 4 Results Summary......................................................................................... 87 Table 55: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary ............................................................................ 88 Table 56: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary............................................................................... 89 Table 57: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary............................................................ 90 Table 58: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary .............................................................. 91 Table 59: Single Family Climate Zone 6 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 92 Table 60: Multifamily Climate Zone 6 Results Summary......................................................................................... 93 Table 61: Single Family Climate Zone 7 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 94 Table 62: Multifamily Climate Zone 7 Results Summary......................................................................................... 95 Table 63: Single Family Climate Zone 8 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 96 Table 64: Multifamily Climate Zone 8 Results Summary......................................................................................... 97 Table 65: Single Family Climate Zone 9 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 98 Table 66: Multifamily Climate Zone 9 Results Summary......................................................................................... 99 Table 67: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary........................................................... 100 Table 68: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ............................................................. 101 Table 69: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary......................................................................... 102 Table 70: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary ........................................................................... 103 Table 71: Single Family Climate Zone 11 Results Summary .................................................................................. 104 Table 72: Multifamily Climate Zone 11 Results Summary..................................................................................... 105 Table 73: Single Family Climate Zone 12 Results Summary .................................................................................. 106 Table 74: Multifamily Climate Zone 12 Results Summary..................................................................................... 107 Table 75: Single Family Climate Zone 13 Results Summary .................................................................................. 108 Table 76: Multifamily Climate Zone 13 Results Summary..................................................................................... 109 Table 77: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ........................................................... 110 Table 78: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ............................................................. 111 Table 79: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary......................................................................... 112 Table 80: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary ........................................................................... 113 Table 81: Single Family Climate Zone 15 Results Summary .................................................................................. 114 Table 82: Multifamily Climate Zone 15 Results Summary..................................................................................... 115 Table 83: Single Family Climate Zone 16 Results Summary .................................................................................. 116 Table 84: Multifamily Climate Zone 16 Results Summary..................................................................................... 117 Figure 1: Graphical description of EDR scores (courtesy of Energy Code Ace)..........................................................5 Figure 2: B/C ratio comparison for PV and battery sizing ....................................................................................... 20 Figure 3: Single family Total EDR comparison......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 4: Single family EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV+Battery packages) .......................................... 25 Figure 5: Single family greenhouse gas emissions comparison............................................................................... 26 Figure 6: Multifamily Total EDR comparison........................................................................................................... 31 Figure 7: Multifamily EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV+Battery packages) .......................................... 31 Figure 8: Multifamily greenhouse gas emissions comparison ................................................................................ 32 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Figure 9: B/C ratio results for a single family all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home........................................................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 10: B/C ratio results for the single family Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 11: B/C ratio results for the single family neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 12: B/C ratio results for a multifamily all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 13: B/C ratio results for the multifamily Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 14: B/C ratio results for the multifamily neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 15: Map of California Climate Zones (courtesy of the California Energy Commission) ............................... 46 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Acronyms
2020 PV$ Present value costs in 2020
ACH50 Air Changes per Hour at 50 pascals pressure differential ACM Alternative Calculation Method
AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency
B/C Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
BEopt Building Energy Optimization Tool
BSC Building Standards Commission
CAHP California Advanced Homes Program
CBECC-Res Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating compliance with the California Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards CFI California Flexible Installation
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
CMFNH California Multifamily New Homes
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CPC California Plumbing Code
CZ California Climate Zone
DHW Domestic Hot Water
DOE Department of Energy
DWHR Drain Water Heat Recovery
EDR Energy Design Rating
EER Energy Efficiency Ratio
EF Energy Factor
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HERS Rater Home Energy Rating System Rater
HPA High Performance Attic
HPWH Heat Pump Water Heater
HSPF Heating Seasonal Performance Factor
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IECC International Energy Conservation Code
IOU Investor Owned Utility
kBtu kilo-British thermal unit
kWh Kilowatt Hour
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study LCC Lifecycle Cost
LLAHU Low Leakage Air Handler Unit
VLLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
MF Multifamily
NAECA National Appliance Energy Conservation Act
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NEM Net Energy Metering
NPV Net Present Value
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PV Photovoltaic
SCE Southern California Edison
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
SF Single Family
CASE Codes and Standards Enhancement
TDV Time Dependent Valuation
Therm Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 Title 24, Part 6
TOU Time-Of-Use
UEF Uniform Energy Factor
ZNE Zero-net Energy
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1 2019-07-17
1 Introduction
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (Energy Commission, 2018b) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies, the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances, or reach codes, that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.

Compliance package options and cost-effectiveness analysis in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs) are presented (see Appendix A California Climate Zone Map for a graphical depiction of Climate Zone locations).

All proposed package options include a combination of efficiency measures and on-site renewable energy. 2 Met
This analysis uses two different metrics to assess cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures. The main difference between the methodologies is the manner in which they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use.

Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based Lifecycle Cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration accounting for discount rate and energy cost inflation.

Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the societal of energy use including long-term projected costs such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs such as projected costs for carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season.

Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods (Horii et al., 2014). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6.

2.1 The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. At the time that this report was written, there are two single family prototypes and one low-rise multifamily prototype. All three are used in this analysis in development of the above-code packages. Table 1 describes the basic characteristics of each prototype. Additional details on the prototypes can be found in the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manual (Energy Commission, 2018a). The prototypes have equal geometry on all walls, windows and roof to be orientation neutral. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 2 2019-07-17
1 Characteristic Single Family
One-Story
Single Family
Two-Story Multifamily
Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 ft2
6,960 ft2:
(4) 780 ft2 &
(4) 960 ft2 units
Num. of Stories 1 2 2
Num. of Bedrooms 3 3
(4) 1-bed &
(4) 2-bed units
Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 15%
Source: 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual (California Energy Commission, 2018a).

The Energy Commission protocol for single family prototypes is to weight the simulated energy impacts by a factor that represents the distribution of single-story and two-story homes being built statewide, assuming 45 percent single-story and 55 percent two-story. Simulation results in this study are characterized according to this ratio, which is approximately equivalent to a 2,430-square foot (ft2) house. 1 The methodology used in the analyses for each of the prototypical building types begins with a design that precisely meets the minimum 2019 prescriptive requirements (zero compliance margin). Table 150.1-A in the 2019 Standards (Energy Commission, 2018b) lists the prescriptive measures that determine the baseline design in each climate zone. Other features are consistent with the Standard Design in the ACM Reference Manual (Energy Commission, 2019), and are designed to meet, but not exceed, the minimum requirements. Each prototype building has the following features:

Slab-on-grade foundation.

Vented attic.

High performance attic in climate zones where prescriptively required (CZ 4, 8-16) with insulation installed at the ceiling and below the roof deck per Option B. (Refer to Table 150.1-A in the 2019 Standards.)
Ductwork located in the attic for single family and within conditioned space for multifamily.

Both mixed fuel and all-electric prototypes are evaluated in this study. While in past code cycles an all-electric home was compared to a home with gas for certain end-uses, the 2019 code includes separate prescriptive and performance paths for mixed-fuel and all-electric homes. The fuel specific characteristics of the mixed fuel and all-electric prototypes are defined according to the 2019 ACM Reference Manual and described in Table 2. 2 1 2,430 ft2 = (45% x 2,100 ft2
) + (55% x 2,700 ft2)
2 Standards Section 150.1(c)8.A.iv.a specifies that compact hot water distribution design and a drain water heat recovery system or extra PV capacity are required when a heat pump water heater is installed prescriptively. The efficiency of the distribution and the drain water heat recovery systems as well as the location of the water heater applied in this analysis are based on the Standard Design assumptions in CBECC-Res which result in a zero-compliance margin for the 2019 basecase model.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 3 2019-07-17
2 of the -
Characteristic Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Space Heating/Cooling1 Gas furnace 80 AFUE
Split A/C 14 SEER, 11.7 EER
Split heat pump 8.2 HSPF,
14 SEER, 11.7 EER
Water Heater1,2, 3, 4 Gas tankless UEF = 0.81
50gal HPWH UEF = 2.0
SF: located in the garage
MF CZ 2,4,6-16: located in living space
MF CZ 1,3,5: located in exterior closet
Hot Water Distribution Code minimum. All hot water
lines insulated
Basic compact distribution credit,
(CZ 6-8,15)
Expanded compact distribution credit,
compactness factor = 0.6
(CZ 1-5,9-14,16)
Drain Water Heat
Recovery
Efficiency
None
CZ 1: unequal flow to shower = 42%
CZ 16: equal flow to shower & water
heater = 65%
None in other CZs
Cooking Gas Electric
Clothes Drying Gas Electric
1Equipment efficiencies are equal to minimum federal appliance efficiency standards. 2The multifamily prototype is evaluated with individual water heaters. HPWHs located in the living space do not have ducting for either inlet or exhaust air; CBECC-Res does not have the capability to model ducted HPWHs.
3UEF = uniform energy factor. HPWH = heat pump water heater. SF = single family. MF = multifamily.
4CBECC-Res applies a 50gal water heater when specifying a storage water heater. Hot water draws differ between the prototypes based on number of bedrooms.

2.2 Measure Analysis
The California Building Energy Code Compliance simulation tool, CBECC-RES 2019.1.0, was used to evaluate energy impacts using the 2019 Title 24 prescriptive standards as the benchmark, and the 2019 TDV values. TDV is the energy metric used by the Energy Commission since the 2005 Title 24 energy code to evaluate compliance with the Title 24 standards.

Using the 2019 baseline as the starting point, prospective energy efficiency measures were identified and modeled in each of the prototypes to determine the projected energy (Therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. A large set of parametric runs were conducted to evaluate various options and develop packages of measures that exceed minimum code performance. The analysis utilizes a parametric tool based on Micropas3to automate and manage the generation of CBECC-Res input files. This allows for quick evaluation of various efficiency measures across multiple climate zones and prototypes and improves quality control. The batch process functionality of CBECC-Res is utilized to simulate large groups of input files at once. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly data output from CBECC-Res and electricity and natural gas tariffs for each of the investor owned utilities (IOUs).
3 Developed by Ken Nittler of Enercomp, Inc.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 4 2019-07-17
The Reach Codes Team selected packages and measures based on cost-effectiveness as well as decades of experience with residential architects, builders, and engineers along with general knowledge of the relative acceptance of many measures.

2.2.1 The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting policies that mandate 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 equipment. While this study is limited by federal preemption, in practice builders may use any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance goals, including high efficiency appliances. Often, these measures are the simplest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance.

2.2.2 Ener
The 2019 Title 24 code introduces nergy Design Rating (EDR) as the primary metric to demonstrate compliance with the energy code. EDR is still based on TDV but it uses a building that is compliant with the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as the reference building. The reference building has an EDR score of 100 while a zero-net energy (ZNE) home has an EDR score of zero (Energy Commission, 2018d). See Figure 1 for a graphical representation of this. While the Reference Building is used to determine the rating, the Proposed Design is still compared to the Standard Design based on the prescriptive baseline assumptions to determine compliance.

The EDR is calculated by CBECC-Res and has two components:

1. which represents the building s energy use without solar generation.4

2. Total represents the final energy use of the building based on the combined impact of efficiency measures, PV generation and demand flexibility.

For a building to comply, two criteria are required:
(1) the proposed Efficiency EDR must be equal to or less than the Efficiency EDR of the Standard Design, and (2) the proposed Total EDR must be equal to or less than the Total EDR of the Standard Design.

Single family prototypes used in this analysis that are minimally compliant with the 2019 Title 24 code achieve a Total EDR between 20 and 35 in most climates.

This concept, consistent with loading o which prioritizes energy efficiency ahead of renewable generation, requires projects meet a minimum Efficiency EDR before PV is credited but allows for PV to be traded off with additional efficiency when meeting the Total EDR. A project may improve on building efficiency beyond the minimum required and subsequently reduce the PV generation capacity required to achieve the required Total EDR but may not increase the size of the PV system and trade this off with a reduction of efficiency measures. Figure 1 graphically summarizes how both Efficiency EDR and PV / demand flexibility EDR are used to calculate the Total EDR used in the 2019 code and in this analysis. 4 While there is no compliance credit for solar PV as there is under the 2016 Standards, the credit for installing electric storage battery systems that meet minimum qualifications can be applied to the Efficiency EDR. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 5 2019-07-17
1 (courtesy of Energy Code Ace5)
Results from this analysis are presented as EDR Margin, a reduction in the EDR score relative to the Standard Design. EDR Margin is a better metric to use than absolute EDR in the context of a reach code because absolute values vary, based on the home design and characteristics such as size and orientation. This approach aligns with how compliance is determined for the 2019 Title 24 code, as well as utility incentive programs, such as the California Advanced Homes Program (CAHP) & California Multifamily New Homes (CMFNH), which require minimum performance criteria based on an EDR Margin for low-rise residential projects. The EDR Margin is calculated according to Equation 1 for the two efficiency packages and Equation 2 for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages (see Section 2.3).
1 2

2.2.3 Following are descriptions of each of the efficiency measures evaluated under this analysis. Because not all of the measures described below were found to be cost-effective and cost-effectiveness varied by climate zone, not all measures are included in all packages and some of the measures listed are not included in any final package. For a list of measures included in each efficiency package by climate zone, see Appendix D Single Family Measure Summary and Appendix F Multifamily Measure Summary.

Reduced Infiltration (ACH50): Reduce infiltration in single family homes from the default infiltration assumption of five (5) air changes per hour at 50 Pascals (ACH50)6 by 40 to 60 percent to either 3 ACH50 or 2 ACH50. HERS 5 https://energycodeace.com/
6 Whole house leakage tested at a pressure difference of 50 Pascals between indoors and outdoors. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 6 2019-07-17
rater field verification and diagnostic testing of building air leakage according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.8 (Energy Commission, 2018c). This measure was not applied to multifamily homes because CBECC-Res does not allow reduced infiltration credit for multifamily buildings.

Improved Fenestration: Reduce window U-factor to 0.24. The prescriptive U-factor is 0.30 in all climates. In climate zones 1, 3, 5, and 16 where heating loads dominate, an increase in solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) from the default assumption of 0.35 to 0.50 was evaluated in addition to the reduction in U-factor.

Cool Roof
reflectance (ASR) equal to or greater than 0.25. Steep-sloped roofs were assumed in all cases. Title 24 specifies a prescriptive ASR of 0.20 for Climate Zones 10 through 15 and assumes 0.10 in other climate zones.

Exterior Wall Insulation: Decrease wall U-factor in 2x6 walls to 0.043 from the prescriptive requirement of 0.048 by increasing exterior insulation from one-inch R-5 to 1-1/2 inch R-7.5. This was evaluated for single family buildings only in all climate zones except 6 and 7 where the prescriptive requirement is higher (U-factor of

0.065) and improving beyond the prescriptive value has little impact.

High Performance Attics (HPA): HPA with R-38 ceiling insulation and R-30 insulation under the roof deck. In climates where HPA is already required prescriptively this measure requires an incremental increase in roof insulation from R-19 or R-13 to R-30. In climates where HPA is not currently required (Climate Zones 1 through 3, and 5 through 7), this measure adds roof insulation to an uninsulated roof as well as increasing ceiling insulation from R-30 to R-38 in Climate Zones 3, 5, 6 and 7.

Slab Insulation: Install R-10 perimeter slab insulation at a depth of 16-inches. For climate zone 16, where slab insulation is required, prescriptively this measure increases that insulation from R-7 to R-10.

Duct Location (Ducts in Conditioned Space): Move the ductwork and equipment from the attic to inside the conditioned space in one of the three following ways.

1. Locate ductwork in conditioned space. The air handler may remain in the attic provided that 12 linear feet or less of duct is located outside the conditioned space including the air handler and plenum. Meet the requirements of 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.2. (Energy Commission, 2018c)

2. All ductwork and equipment located entirely in conditioned space meeting the requirements of 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.3. (Energy Commission, 2018c)

3. All ductwork and equipment located entirely in conditioned space with ducts tested to have less than or equal to 25 cfm leakage to outside. Meet the requirements of Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space (VLLDCS) in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.3.8. (Energy Commission, 2018c) Option 1 and 2 above apply to single family only since the basecase for multifamily assumes ducts are within conditioned space. Option 3 applies to both single family and multifamily cases.

Reduced Distribution System (Duct) Leakage: Reduce duct leakage from 5% to 2% and install a low leakage air handler unit (LLAHU). This is only applicable to single family homes since the basecase for multifamily assumes ducts are within conditioned space and additional duct leakage credit is not available.

Low Pressure Drop Ducts: Upgrade the duct distribution system to reduce external static pressure and meet a maximum fan efficacy of 0.35 Watts per cfm for gas furnaces and 0.45 Watts per cfm for heat pumps operating at full speed. This may involve upsizing ductwork, reducing the total effective length of ducts, and/or selecting low pressure drop components such as filters. Fan watt draw must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.3 (Energy Commission, 2018c). New federal regulations that went into effect July 3, 2019 require higher fan efficiency for gas furnaces than for heat pumps and air handlers, which is why the recommended specification is different for mixed fuel and all-electric homes. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 7 2019-07-17
HERS Verification of Hot Water Pipe Insulation: The California Plumbing Code (CPC) requires pipe insulation on all hot water lines. This measure provides credit for HERS rater verification of pipe insulation requirements according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.6.3. (Energy Commission, 2018c) Compact Hot Water Distribution: Two credits for compact hot water distribution were evaluated.

1. Basic Credit: Design the hot water distribution system to meet minimum requirements for the basic compact hot water distribution credit according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA4.4.6 (Energy Commission, 2018c). In many single family homes this may require moving the water heater from an exterior to an interior garage wall. Multifamily homes with individual water heaters are expected to easily meet this credit with little or no alteration to plumbing design. CBECC-Res software assumes a 30% reduction in distribution losses for the basic credit.

2. Expanded Credit: Design the hot water distribution system to meet minimum requirements for the expanded compact hot water distribution credit according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.6.5 (Energy Commission, 2018c). In addition to requiring HERS verification that the minimum requirements for the basic compact distribution credit are met, this credit also imposes limitations on pipe location, maximum pipe diameter, and recirculation system controls allowed.

Drain Water Heat Recovery (DWHR): For multifamily buildings add DWHR that serves the showers in an unequal flow configuration (pre-heated water is piped directly to the shower) with 50% efficiency. This upgrade assumes all apartments are served by a DWHR with one unit serving each apartment individually. For a slab-on-grade building this requires a horizontal unit for the first-floor apartments.

Federally Preempted Measures:

The following additional measures were evaluated. Because these measures require upgrading appliances that are federally regulated to high efficiency models, they cannot be used to show cost-effectiveness in a local ordinance. The measures and packages are presented here to show that there are several options for builders to meet the performance targets. Heating and cooling capacities are autosized by CBECC-Res in all cases.

High Efficiency Furnace: For the mixed-fuel prototypes, upgrade natural gas furnace to one of two condensing furnace options with an efficiency of 92% or 96% AFUE.

High Efficiency Air Conditioner: For the mixed-fuel prototypes, upgrade the air conditioner to either single-stage SEER 16 / EER 13 or two-stage SEER 18 / EER 14 equipment.

High Efficiency Heat Pump: For the all-electric prototypes, upgrade the heat pump to either single-stage SEER 16 / EER 13 / HSPF 9 or two-stage SEER 18 / EER 14 / HSPF 10 equipment.

High Efficiency Tankless Water Heater: For the mixed-fuel prototype, upgrade tankless water heater to a condensing unit with a rated Uniform Energy Factor (UEF) of 0.96.

High Efficiency Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH): For the all-electric prototypes, upgrade the federal minimum heat pump water heater to a HPWH that meets the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) 7 Tier 3 rating.

The evaluated NEEA water heater is an 80gal unit and is applied to all three building prototypes. Using the same 7 Based on operational challenges experienced in the past, NEEA established rating test criteria to ensure newly installed HPWHs perform adequately, especially in colder climates. The NEEA rating requires an Energy Factor equal to the ENERGY STAR performance level and includes requirements regarding noise and prioritizing heat pump use over supplemental electric resistance heating. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 8 2019-07-17
water heater provides consistency in performance across all the equipment upgrade cases, even though hot water draws differ across the prototypes.

2.3 Three to four packages were evaluated for each prototype and climate zone, as described below. 1) Efficiency Non-Preempted: This package uses only efficiency preemption issues including envelope, and water heating and duct distribution efficiency measures. 2) Efficiency Equipment, Preempted: This package shows an alternative design that applies HVAC and water heating equipment that are more efficient than federal standards. The Reach Code Team considers this more reflective of how builders meet above code requirements in practice. 3) Efficiency & PV: Using the Efficiency Non-Preempted Package as a starting point8, PV capacity is added to offset most of the estimated electricity use. This only applies to the all-electric case, since for the mixed fuel cases, 100% of the projected electricity use is already being offset as required by 2019 Title 24, Part 6.
4) Efficiency & PV/Battery: Using the Efficiency & PV Package as a starting point, PV capacity is added as well as a battery system.

2.3.1 (PV)
Installation of on-site PV is required in the 2019 residential code. The PV sizing methodology in each package was developed to offset annual building electricity use and avoid oversizing which would violate net energy metering (NEM) rules.
9 In all cases, PV is evaluated in CBECC-Res according to the California Flexible Installation (CFI) assumptions.

The Reach Code Team used two options within the CBECC-Res software for sizing the PV system, described below. Analysis was conducted to determine the most appropriate sizing method for each package which is described in the results.

Standard Design PV the same PV capacity as is required for the Standard Design case10 Specify PV System Scaling a PV system sized to offset a specified percentage of the estimated electricity use of the Proposed Design case

2.3.2 ies)
A battery system was evaluated in CBECC- Time of Use with default efficiencies of 95% for both charging and discharging. Time of Use option assumes batteries are charged anytime PV generation is greater than the house load but controls when the battery storage system discharges.

During the summer months (July September) the battery begins to discharge at the beginning of the peak period at a maximum rate until fully discharged. During discharge the battery first serves the house load but will 8 In cases where there was no cost-effective Efficiency Non-Preempted Package, the most cost-effective efficiency measures for that climate zone were also included in the Efficiency & PV Package in order to provide a combination of both efficiency and PV beyond code minimum. 9 NEM rules apply to the IOU territories only.
10 The Standard Design PV system is sized to offset the electricity use of the building loads which are typically electric in a mixed fuel home, which includes all loads except space heating, water heating, clothes drying, and cooking.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 9 2019-07-17
discharge to the electric grid if there is excess energy available. During other months the battery discharges whenever the PV system does not cover the entire house load and does not discharge to the electric grid. This control option is considered to be most reflective of the current products on the market. This control option hour in CBECC-Res which differs by climate zone (either a 6pm or 7pm start). The Self Utilization Credit was taken when the battery system was modeled.

2.4 Table 4 below summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for measures evaluated in this study. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measures relative to the base case.
11 Replacement costs are applied to HVAC and DHW equipment, PV inverters, and battery systems over the 30-year evaluation period. There is no assumed maintenance on the envelope, HVAC, or DHW measures since there should not be any additional maintenance cost for a more efficient version of the same system type as the baseline. Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. When costs were obtained from a builder overhead and profit, a markup of ten percent was added. All costs are provided as present value in 2020 (2020 PV$). Costs due to variations in furnace, air conditioner, and heat pump capacity by climate zone were not accounted for in the analysis.

Equipment lifetimes applied in this analysis for the water heating and space conditioning measures are summarized in Table 3.
3 Measure Lifetime
Gas Furnace 20
Air Conditioner 20
Heat Pump 15
Gas Tankless Water Heater 20
Heat Pump Water Heater 15
Source: City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Costeffectiveness Analysis Draft (TRC, 2018) which is based on the Database of Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER).
12 11 Interest costs due to financing are not included in the incremental costs presented in the Table 4 but are accounted for in the lifetime cost analysis. All first costs are assumed to be financed in a mortgage, see Section

2.5 for details.
12 http://www.deeresources.com
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 10 2019-07-17
4 Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost (2020 PV$)
Source & Notes Single Family
Multifamily
(Per Dwelling
Unit)
Non-Preempted MeasuresReducedInfiltration

3.0 vs 5.0 ACH50 $391 n/a 2 for 3 ACH50 & $0.207/ft2 for 2 ACH50) + $100 HERS rater verification. 2.0 vs 5.0 ACH50 $613 n/a
Window U- factor 0.24 vs 0.30 $2,261 $607 $4.23/ft2 window area based on analysis conducted for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 cycles (Statewide CASE Team, 2018).Window SHGC 0.50 vs 0.35 $0 $0 Data from CASE Report along with direct feedback from Statewide CASE Team that higherSHGC does not necessarily have any incremental cost (Statewide CASE Team, 2017d). Appliesto CZ 1,3,5,16.

Cool Roof - Aged SolarReflectance

0.25 vs 0.20 $237 $58 Costs based on 2016 Cost-effectiveness Study for Cool Roofs reach code analysis for 0.28 solar reflectance product. (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2017b). 0.20 vs 0.10 $0 $0 Exterior WallInsulation R-7.5 vs R-5 $818 n/a Based on increasing - -7.5 in a 2x6 wall (Statewide CASE Team, 2017c). Applies to single family only in all climates except CZ 6, 7.Under-DeckRoofInsulation(HPA) R-13 vs R-0 $1,338 $334 Costs for R-13 ($0.64/ft2), R-19 ($0.78/ft2) and R-30 ($1.61/ft2) based on data presented in the 2019 HPA CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2017b) along with data collected directly frombuilders during the 2019 CASE process. The R-30 costs include additional labor costs forcabling. Costs for R-38 from .

R-19 vs R-13 $282 $70R-30 vs R-19 $1,831 $457R-38 vs R-30 $585 $146 Attic FloorInsulation R-38 vs R-30 $584 $146 : $0.34/ft2 ceiling areaSlab EdgeInsulation R-10 vs R-0 $553 $121 $4/linear foot of slab perimeter based on internet research. Assumes 16in depth.R-10 vs R-7 $157 $21 BEopt cost database. This applies to CZ 16 only where R-7 slab edge insulation is required prescriptively. Assumes 16in depth.

Duct Location
<12 feet in attic $358 n/a
Costs based on a 2015 report on the Evaluation of Ducts in Conditioned Space for NewCalifornia Homes (Davis Energy Group, 2015). HERS verification cost of $100 for the VerifiedLow Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space credit.

Ducts in
Conditioned
Space
$658 n/a
Verified Low
Leakage Ducts in
Conditioned
Space
$768 $110
2019
E
n
erg
y
Efficie
n
cy
Ordin
a
n
ce
Cost-effective
n
ess
Stu
d
y
11 2019-07-17
4 M
e
a
sure
Perform
a
n
ce
Lev
el
In
cre
m
e
ntal Co
st (2020
PV
$)
So
urce
&
N
ote
s
Sin
gle Fa
mily
M
ultifa
mily
(Per D
wellin
g
U
nit)
Distrib
utio
n
Syste
m
Le
aka
ge
2%
vs
5%
$
96 n/a
1-h
o
ur la
b
or. La
b
or rate
of $
96 p
er h
o
ur is fro
m
2019
RS
M
e
a
n
s for sh
e
et m
etal workers
a
n
d
in
clu
d
e
s
a
n
a
vera
ge
City
Co
st In
d
e
x for la
b
or for California
citie
s
& 10% for o
verh
e
a
d
a
n
d
profit. A
p
plie
s to
sin
gle fa
mily
o
nly
sin
ce
d
u
cts
are
a
ssu
m
e
d to
b
e in
co
n
ditio
n
e
d
sp
a
ce for
m
ultifa
mily
Low Le
aka
ge
Air
H
a
n
dler
$0
n/a
N
e
gligible
co
st b
a
se
d
o
n review
of a
vaila
ble
pro
d
u
cts. T
h
ere
are
m
ore th
a
n
6,000 En
ergy
Co
m
missio
n
certifie
d
u
nits
a
n
d th
e list in
clu
d
e
s
m
a
n
y furn
a
ce
a
n
d
h
e
at p
u
m
p
air h
a
n
dler
pro
d
u
ct lin
e
s fro
m th
e
m
ajor m
a
n
ufa
cturers, in
clu
din
g
minim
u
m
efficie
n
cy, low
co
st pro
d
u
ct
lin
e
s.

Low
Pre
ssure
Dro
p
D
u
cts
(Fa
n
W/cfm)

0.35 vs

0.45 $
96 $
48 Co
sts
a
ssu
m
e
o
n
e-h
o
ur la
b
or for sin
gle fa
mily
a
n
d
h
alf-h
o
ur p
er m
ultifa
mily
a
p
artm
e
nt. La
b
or
rate
of $
96 p
er h
o
ur is fro
m
2019
RSM
e
a
n
s for sh
e
et m
etal workers
a
n
d in
clu
d
e
s
a
n
a
vera
ge
City
Co
st In
d
e
x for la
b
or for California
citie
s. 0.45
vs

0.58 $
96 $
48 H
ot Water
Pip
e In
sulatio
n
HERS
verifie
d
$110
$
83 Co
st for HERS
verificatio
n
o
nly, b
a
se
d
o
n fe
e
d
b
a
ck fro
m
HERS raters. $100
p
er sin
gle fa
mily
h
o
m
e
a
n
d
$
7 5
p
er m
ultifa
mily
u
nit b
efore
m
arku
p.

Co
m
p
a
ct H
ot
WaterDistrib
utio
n
Ba
sic
cre
dit $150
$0
For sin
gle fa
mily
a
d
d
20-fe
et ve
ntin
g
at $12/ft to lo
cate
water h
e
ater o
n interior gara
ge
wall,
le
ss
20-fe
et sa
vin
gs for le
ss
PEX
a
n
d
pip
e in
sulatio
n
at $

4.88/ft. Co
sts fro
m
o
nlin
e retailers.

M
a
n
y
m
ultifa
mily
b
uildin
gs
are
e
x
p
e
cte
d to
m
e
et this
cre
dit with
o
ut a
n
y
ch
a
n
ge
s to
distrib
utio
n
d
e
sig
n.

Ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
cre
dit n/a
$
83 Co
st for HERS
verificatio
n
o
nly. $
7 5
p
er m
ultifa
mily
u
nit b
efore
m
arku
p. T
his
wa
s
o
nly
evalu
ate
d for m
ultifa
mily
b
uildin
gs.

Drain
Water
H
e
at Re
co
very
50%
efficie
n
cy
n/a
$
690
Co
st fro
m th
e
2019
D
W
H
R
CA
SE Re
p
ort a
ssu
min
g
a
2-in
ch
D
W
H
R
u
nit. T
h
e
CA
SE Re
p
ort
m
ultifa
mily
co
sts
were
b
a
se
d
o
n
o
n
e
u
nit servin
g
4 d
wellin
g
u
nits
with
a
ce
ntral water h
e
ater.

Sin
ce in
divid
u
al water h
e
aters
serve
e
a
ch
d
wellin
g
u
nit in this
a
n
alysis, th
e
Re
a
ch
Co
d
e
T
e
a
m
u
se
d
sin
gle fa
mily
co
sts fro
m th
e
CA
SE Re
p
ort. Co
sts in th
e
CA
SE Re
p
ort were
b
a
se
d
o
n
a

46.1%
efficie
nt u
nit, a
D
W
H
R
d
evice th
at m
e
ets th
e
50%
efficie
n
cy
a
ssu
m
e
d in this
a
n
alysis
m
a
y
co
st a little
m
ore. (Statewid
e
CA
SE T
e
a
m, 2017
a).

F
e
d
erally
Pre-e
m
pte
d
M
e
a
sure
s
Furn
a
ce
AFUE
92%
vs
80%
$139
$139
Eq
uip
m
e
nt costs fro
m
o
nlin
e retailers for 40-kBtu/h
u
nit. Co
st sa
vin
g for 6-fe
et of v
e
ntin
g
at
$
26/fo
ot d
u
e to lower co
st ve
ntin
g re
q
uire
m
e
nts for co
n
d
e
n
sin
g (PV
C) vs
n
o
n-co
n
d
e
n
sin
g
(stainle
ss) furn
a
ce
s. Re
pla
ce
m
e
nt at ye
ar 20
a
ssu
m
e
s
a
50% re
d
u
ctio
n in first co
st. V
alu
e
at
ye
ar 30
b
a
se
d
o
n re
m
ainin
g
u
seful life is in
clu
d
e
d.
96%
vs
80%
$
244
$
244
AirCo
n
ditio
n
er

SEER/EER
16/13
vs 14/11.7
$111 $111
Co
sts fro
m
o
nlin
e retailers for 2-to
n
u
nit. Re
pla
ce
m
e
nt at ye
ar 20
a
ssu
m
e
s
a
50% re
d
u
ctio
n in
first co
st. V
alu
e
at ye
ar 30
b
a
se
d
o
n re
m
ainin
g
u
seful life is in
clu
d
e
d. 18/14
vs 14/11.7
$1,148
$1,148
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 12 2019-07-17
4 Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost (2020 PV$)
Source & Notes Single Family
Multifamily
(Per Dwelling
Unit)
Heat PumpSEER/EER/HSPF
16/13/9 vs
14/11.7/8.2 $411 $411 Costs from online retailers for 2-ton unit. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. 18/14/10 vs
14/11.7/8.2 $1,511 $1,511
TanklessWater HeaterEnergy Factor

0.96 vs 0.81 $203 $203
Equipment costs from online retailers for 40-kBtu/h unit. Cost saving for 6-feet of venting at$26/foot due to lower cost venting requirements for condensing (PVC) vs non-condensing(stainless) furnaces. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost.

HPWH NEEA Tier 3 vs 2.0 EF $294 $294 Equipment costs from online retailers. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost.PV + BatteryPV System System size varies $3.72/W-DC $3.17/W-DC First costs are from LBNL Tracking the Sun 2018 costs (Barbose et al., 2018) and representcosts for the first half of 2018 of $3.50/W-DC for residential system and $2.90/W-DC for non- residential system 500 kW-DC. These costs were reduced by 16% for the solar investment taxcredit, which is the average credit over years 2020-2022.Inverter replacement cost of $0.14/W-DC present value includes replacements at year 11 at$0.15/W-DC (nominal) and at year 21 at $0.12/W-DC (nominal) per the 2019 PV CASE Report(California Energy Commission, 2017).System maintenance costs of $0.31/W-DC present value assume $0.02/W-DC (nominal)annually per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017).10% overhead and profit added to all costs Battery
System size
varies by building
type
$656/kWh $656/kWh
$633/kWh first cost based on the PV Plus Battery Study report (Statewide Reach Codes Team,2018) as the average cost of the three systems that were analyzed. This cost was reduced by16% for the solar investment tax credit, which is the average credit over years 2020-2022.Replacement cost at year 15 of $100/kWh based on target price reductions (Penn, 2018). 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 13 2019-07-17

2.5 Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness was evaluated for all sixteen climate zones and is presented based on both TDV energy, using methodology, and an On-Bill approach using residential customer utility rates.

Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the value of the energy impact associated with energy efficiency measures over the life of the measures (30 years) as compared to the prescriptive Title 24 requirements.

Results are presented as a lifecycle benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio, a net present value (NPV) metric which represents the cost-effectiveness of a measure over a 30-year lifetime taking into account discounting of future savings and costs and financing of incremental first 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 3. 3 In most cases the benefit is represented by annual utility savings or TDV savings and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. However, in some cases a measure may have incremental cost savings but with increased energy related costs. In this case, the benefit is the lower first cost and the cost is the increase in utility bills. The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 4.

E 4
Where:
n = analysis term
r = discount rate
The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies.

Analysis term of 30-years
Real discount rate of 3 percent
Inflation rate of 2 percent
First incremental costs are financed into a 30-year mortgage Mortgage interest rate of 4.5 percent
Average tax rate of 20 percent (to account for tax savings due to loan interest deductions)

2.5.1 On- Cost
Residential utility rates were used to calculate utility costs for all cases and determine On-Bill customer costeffectiveness for the proposed packages. The Reach Codes Team obtained the recommended utility rates from each IOU based on the assumption that the reach codes go into effect January of 2020. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and gas output from CBECC-Res and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 5. Appendix B Utility Tariff Details includes the utility rate schedules used for this study. The applicable residential time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases.13 Annual electricity production in excess of annual electricity consumption is credited to the utility account at the applicable wholesale rate based on the approved 13 Under NEM rulings by the CPUC (D-16-01-144, 1/28/16), all new PV customers shall be in an approved TOU rate structure. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=3800 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 14 2019-07-17
NEM2 tariffs for that utility. Minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges have been applied. Future change to the NEM tariffs are likely; however, there is a lot of uncertainty about what those changes will be and if they will become effective during the 2019 code cycle (2020-2022).

The net surplus compensation rates for each utility are as follows:
14 PG&E: $0.0287 / kWh
SCE: $0.0301 / kWh
SDG&E: $0.0355 / kWh
Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone according to Two SCE tariff options were evaluated: TOU-D-4-9 and TOU-D-PRIME. The TOU-D-PRIME rate is only available to customers with heat pumps for either space or water heating, a battery storage system, or an electric vehicle and therefore was only evaluated for the all-electric cases and the Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. The rate which resulted in the lowest annual cost to the customer was used for this analysis, which was TOU-D-4-9 in all cases with the exception of the single family all-electric cases in Climate Zone 14.

Table 5. Climate Zones 10 and 14 are evaluated with both SCE/SoCalGas and SDG&E tariffs since each utility has customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates.

Two SCE tariff options were evaluated: TOU-D-4-9 and TOU-D-PRIME. The TOU-D-PRIME rate is only available to customers with heat pumps for either space or water heating, a battery storage system, or an electric vehicle and therefore was only evaluated for the all-electric cases and the Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. The rate which resulted in the lowest annual cost to the customer was used for this analysis, which was TOU-D-4-9 in all cases with the exception of the single family all-electric cases in Climate Zone 14. 5 B
Climate Zones Electric / Gas
Utility
Electricity
(Time-of-use)
Natural
Gas
1-5, 11-13, 16 PG&E E-TOU, Option B G1
5 PG&E / SoCalGas E-TOU, Option B GR
6, 8-10, 14, 15 SCE / SoCal Gas TOU-D-4-9 or

TOU-D-PRIME GR
7, 10, 14 SDG&E TOU-DR1 GR
Source: Utility websites, See Appendix B Utility Tariff Details for details on the tariffs applied.

Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California study (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). Escalation of natural gas rates between 2019 and 2022 is based on the currently filed General Rate Cases (GRCs) for PG&E, SoCalGas and SDG&E. From 2023 through 2025, gas rates are assumed to escalate at 4% per year above inflation, which reflects historical rate increases between 2013 and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2019 through 2025 is assumed to be 2% per year above inflation, based on electric utility estimates. After 2025, escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are assumed to drop to a more conservative 1% escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories beginning in 2026 through 2050. See Appendix B Utility Tariff Details for additional details. 14 Net surplus compensation rates based on 1-year average February 2018 January 2019. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 15 2019-07-17

2.5.2 TDV Lifec
Cost-effectiveness was also assessed using the Energy C TDV LCC methodology. TDV is a normalized monetary format developed and used by the Energy Commission for comparing electricity and natural gas savings, and it considers the cost of electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and year. The 2019 TDV values are based on long term discounted costs of 30 years for all residential measures. The CBECC-Res simulation software outputs are in terms of TDV kBTUs. The present value of the energy cost savings in dollars is calculated by multiplying the TDV kBTU savings by a net present value (NPV) factor, also developed by the Energy Commission. The NPV factor is $0.173/TDV kBtu for residential buildings.

A variety of sources were reviewed when determining incremental costs. The sources are listed below.

SMUD All-Electric Homes Electrification Case Study (EPRI, 2016) City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018) Building Electrification Market Assessment (E3, 2019)
Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings (Hopkins et al., 2018) Analysis of the Role of Gas for a Low-Carbon California Future (Navigant, 2008) Rulemaking No. 15-03-010 An Order Instituting Rulemaking to Identify Disadvantaged Communities in the San Joaquin Valley and Analyze Economically Feasible Options to Increase Access to Affordable Energy in Those Disadvantages Communities (California Public Utilities Commission, 2016) 2010-2012 WO017 Ex Ante Measure Cost Study: Final Report (Itron, 2014) Natural gas infrastructure costs provided by utility staff through the Reach Code subprogram Costs obtained from builders, contractors and developers Incremental costs are presented in Table 6. Values in parentheses represent a lower cost or cost reduction in the electric option relative to mixed fuel. The costs from the available sources varied widely, making it difficult to develop narrow cost estimates for each component. For certain components data is provided with a low to high range as well as what were determined to be typical costs and ultimately applied in this analysis. Two sets of typical costs are presented, one which is applied in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology and another applied in the TDV methodology. Details of these differences are explained in the discussion of site gas infrastructure costs in the following pages.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 16 2019-07-17
6 s All-Electric F
Home
Measure Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Multifamily1
Single Family (Per Dwelling Unit) 1
Low High Typical
(On-Bill)
Typical
(TDV)
Low High Typical
(On-Bill)
Typical
(TDV)
Heat Pump vs Gas Furnace/Split AC ($2,770) $620 ($221)
Same as Single Family
Heat Pump Water Heater vs Gas
Tankless ($1,120) $1,120 $0
Electric vs Gas Clothes Dryer2($428) $820 $0
Electric vs Gas Cooking2 $0 $1,800 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $200 $800 $600 $150 $600 $600
In-House Gas Infrastructure ($1,670) ($550) ($800) ($600) ($150) ($600) Site Gas Infrastructure ($25,000) ($900) ($5,750) ($11,836) ($16,250) ($310) ($3,140) ($6,463) Total First Cost ($30,788) $3,710 ($6,171) ($12,257) ($20,918) $4,500 ($3,361) ($6,684) Present Value of Equipment Replacement Cost $1,266 $1,266 Lifetime Cost Including Replacement & Financing of First Cost ($5,349) ($11,872) ($2,337) ($5,899)
1 Low and high costs represent the potential range of costs and typical represents the costs used in this analysis and determined to be most representative of the conditions described in this report. Two sets of typical costs are presented, one which is applied in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology and another applied in the TDV methodology. 2Typical costs assume electric resistance technology. The high range represents higher end induction cooktops and heat pump clothes dryers. Lower cost induction cooktops are available.

Typical incremental costs for switching from a mixed fuel design to an all-electric design are based on the following assumptions:

Appliances: The Reach Code Team determined that the typical first installed cost for electric appliances is very similar to that for natural gas appliances. This was based on information provided by HVAC contractors, plumbers and builders as well as a review of other studies. After review of various sources, the Reach Code Team concluded that the cost difference between gas and electric resistance options for clothes dryers and stoves is negligible and that the lifetimes of the two technologies are also similar.

HVAC: Typical HVAC incremental costs were based on the City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018) which assumes approximately $200 first cost savings for the heat pump relative to the gas furnace and air conditioner. Table 6 also includes the present value of the incremental replacement costs for the heat pump based on a 15-year lifetime and a 20-year lifetime for the gas furnace in the mixed fuel home.

DHW: Typical costs for the water heating system were based on equivalent installed first costs for the HPWH and tankless gas water heater. This accounts for slightly higher equipment cost but lower installation labor due to the elimination of the gas flue. Incremental replacement costs for the HPWH are based on a 15-year lifetime and a 20-year lifetime for the tankless water heater.

For multifamily, less data was available and therefore a range of low and high costs is not provided. The typical first cost for multifamily similarly is expected to be close to the same for the mixed fuel and allelectric designs. However, there are additional considerations with multifamily such as greater complexity for venting of natural gas appliances as well as for locating the HPWH within the conditioned space (all climates except Climate Zones 1, 3, and 5, see Table 2) that may impact the total costs.

Electric service upgrade: The study assumes an incremental cost to run 220V service to each appliance of $200 per appliance for single family homes and $150 per appliance per multifamily apartment based on cost estimates from builders and contractors. The Reach Code Team reviewed production builder utility plans for 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 17 2019-07-17
mixed-fuel homes and consulted with contractors to estimate which electricity and/or natural gas services are usually provided to the dryer and oven. Typical practice varied, with some builders providing both gas and electric service to both appliances, others providing both services to only one of the appliances, and some only providing gas. For this study, the Reach Code Team determined that for single family homes the typical cost is best qualified by the practice of providing 220V service and gas to either the dryer and the oven and only gas service to the other.
mixed fuel home.

It is assumed that no upgrades to the electrical panel are required and that a 200 Amp panel is typically installed for both mixed fuel and all-electric new construction homes. There are no incremental electrical site infrastructure requirements.

In-house gas infrastructure (from meter to appliances): Installation cost to run a gas line from the meter to the appliance location is $200 per appliance for single family and $150 per appliance per multifamily apartment based on cost estimates from builders and contractors. The cost estimate includes providing gas to the water heater, furnace, dryer and cooktop.

Site gas infrastructure: The cost-effective analysis components with the highest degree of variability are the costs for on-site gas infrastructure. These costs can be project dependent and may be significantly impacted by such factors as utility territory, site characteristics, distance to the nearest gas main and main location, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of dwelling units per development. All gas utilities participating in this study were solicited for cost information. The typical infrastructure costs for single family homes presented in Table 6 are based on cost data provided by PG&E and reflect those for a new subdivision in an undeveloped area requiring the installation of natural gas infrastructure, including a main line. Infrastructure costs for infill development can also be highly variable and may be higher than in an undeveloped area. The additional costs associated with disruption of existing roads, sidewalks, and other structures can be significant. Total typical costs in Table 6 assume $10,000 for extension of a gas main, $1,686 for a service lateral, and $150 for the meter.

Utility Gas Main Extensions rules15 specify that the developer has the option to only pay 50% of the total cost for a main extension after subtraction of allowances for installation of gas appliances. This 50% refund and the appliance allowance deductions are accounted for in the site gas infrastructure costs under the On-Bill costeffectiveness methodology. The net costs to the utility after partial reimbursement from the developer are included in utility ratebase and recovered via rates to all customers. The total cost of $5,750 presented in Table 6 reflects a 50% refund on the $10,000 extension and appliance deductions of $1,086 for a furnace, water heater, cooktop, and dryer. Under the On-Bill methodology this analysis assumes this developer option will remain available through 2022 and that the cost savings are passed along to the customer.

The 50% refund and appliance deductions were not applied to the site gas infrastructure costs under the TDV cost-effectiveness methodology based on input received from the Energy Commission and agreement from the Reach Code technical advisory team that the approach is appropriate. TDV cost savings impacts extend beyond the customer and account for societal impacts of energy use. Accounting for the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades was determined to be justified when evaluating under the TDV methodology. 15 PG&E Rule 15: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_RULES_15.pdf SoCalGas Rule 20: https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/20.pdf SDG&E Rule 15: http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-RULES_GRULE15.pdf 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 18 2019-07-17
Less information was available for the costs associated with gas infrastructure for low-rise multifamily development. The typical cost in Table 6 for the On-Bill methodology Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018). These costs, provided by the City of Palo Alto, are approximately $25,100 for an 8-unit new construction building and reflect connection to an existing main for infill development. Specific costs include plan review, connection charges, meter and manifold, plumbing distribution, and street cut fees. While these costs are specifically based on infill development and from one municipal utility, the estimates are less than those provided by PG&E reflecting the average cost differences charged to the developer between single family and multifamily in an undeveloped area (after accounting for deductions per the Gas Main Extensions rule). To convert costs charged to the developer to account for the full infrastructure upgrade cost (costs applied in the TDV methodology analysis), a factor of

2.0616 was calculated based on the single family analysis. This same factor was applied to the multifamily cost of $3,140 to arrive at $6,463 (see Table 6).

2.7 Equivalent CO2 emission savings were calculated based on outputs from the CBECC-Res simulation software.

Electricity emissions vary by region and by hour of the year. CBECC-Res applies two distinct hourly profiles, one for Climate Zones 1 through 5 and 11 through 13 and another for Climate Zones 6 through 10 and 14 through

16. For natural gas a fixed factor of 0.005307 metric tons/therm is used. To compare the mixed fuel and allelectric cases side-by-side, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are presented as CO2-equivalent emissions per square foot of conditioned floor area.
3 Results
The primary objective of the evaluation is to identify cost-effective, non-preempted performance targets for both single family and low-rise multifamily prototypes, under both mixed fuel and all-electric cases, to support the design of local ordinances requiring new low-rise residential buildings to exceed the minimum state requirements. The packages presented are representative examples of designs and measures that can be used to meet the requirements. In practice, a builder can use any combination of non-preempted or preempted compliant measures to meet the requirements.

This analysis covered all sixteen climate zones and evaluated two efficiency packages, including a nonpreempted package and a preempted package that includes upgrades to federally regulated equipment, an Efficiency & PV Package for the all-electric scenario only, and an Efficiency & PV/Battery Package. For the efficiency-only packages, measures were refined to ensure that the non-preempted package was cost-effective based on one of the two metrics applied in this study, TDV or On-Bill. The preempted equipment package, which the Reach Code Team considers to be a package of upgrades most reflective of what builders commonly apply to exceed code requirements, was designed to be cost-effective based on the On-Bill cost-effectiveness approach.

Results are presented as EDR Margin instead of compliance margin. EDR is the metric used to determine code compliance in the 2019 cycle. Target EDR Margin is based on taking the calculated EDR Margin for the case and rounding down to the next half of a whole number. Target EDR Margin for the Efficiency Package are defined based on the lower of the EDR Margin of the non-preempted package and the equipment, preempted package.

For example, if for a particular case the cost-effective non-preempted package has an EDR Margin of 3 and the preempted package an EDR Margin of 4, the Target EDR Margin is set at 3. 16 This factor includes the elimination of the 50% refund for the main extension and adding back in the appliance allowance deductions.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 19 2019-07-17
For a package to qualify, a minimum EDR Margin of 0.5 was required. This is to say that a package that only achieved an EDR Margin of 0.4, for example, was not considered. An EDR Margin less than 0.5 generally corresponds to a compliance margin lower than 5% and was considered too small to ensure repeatable results.

In certain cases, the Reach Code Team did not identify a cost-effective package that achieved the minimum EDR Margin of 0.5.

Although some of the efficiency measures evaluated were not cost-effective and were eliminated, the following measures are included in at least one package:

Reduced infiltration
Improved fenestration
Improved cool roofs
High performance attics
Slab insulation
Reduced duct leakage
Verified low leakage ducts in conditioned space
Low pressure-drop distribution system
Compact hot water distribution system, basic and expanded High efficiency furnace, air conditioner & heat pump (preempted) High efficiency tankless water heater & heat pump water heater (preempted)

3.1 The approach to determining the size of the PV and battery systems varied based on each package and the source fuel. Table 7 describes the PV and battery sizing approaches applied to each of the four packages. For the Efficiency Non-preempted and Efficiency Equipment, Preempted packages a different method was applied to each the two fuel scenarios. In all mixed fuel cases, the PV was sized to offset 100% of the estimated electrical load and any electricity savings from efficiency measures were traded off with a smaller PV system. Not downsizing the PV system after adding efficiency measures runs the risk of producing more electricity than is consumed, reducing cost-effectiveness and violating NEM rules. While the impact of this in most cases is minor, analysis confirmed that cost-effectiveness improved when reducing the system size to offset 100% of the electricity usage as opposed to keeping the PV system the same size as the Standard Design.

In the all-electric Efficiency cases, the PV system size was left to match the Standard Design (Std Design PV), and the inclusion of energy efficiency measures was not traded off with a reduced capacity PV system. Because the PV system is sized to meet the electricity load of a mixed fuel home, it is cost-effective to keep the PV system the same size and offset a greater percentage of the electrical load.

For the Efficiency & PV case on the all-electric home, the Reach Code Team evaluated PV system sizing to offset 100%, 90% and 80% of the total calculated electricity use. Of these three, sizing to 90% proved to be the most cost-effective based on customer utility bills. This is a result of the impact of the annual minimum bill which is around $120 across all the utilities. The sweet spot is a PV system that reduces electricity bills just enough to match the annual minimum bill; increasing the PV size beyond this adds first cost but does not result in utility bill savings.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 20 2019-07-17
7 Package Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Efficiency (Envelope & Equipment) PV Scaled @ 100% electricity Std Design PV Efficiency & PV n/a PV Scaled @ 90%
Efficiency & PV/Battery
PV Scaled @ 100% electricity
5kWh / SF home

2.75kWh/ MF apt
PV Scaled @ 100%
5kWh / SF home

2.75kWh/ MF apt
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate battery and PV capacity for the Efficiency & PV/Battery Packages using the 1-story 2,100 square foot prototype in Climate Zone 12. Results are shown in Figure 2. The current version of CBECC-Res requires a minimum battery size of 5 kWh to qualify for the selfutilization credit. CBECC-Res allows for PV icity load when battery storage systems are installed; however, the Reach Code Team considered this high, potentially problematic from a grid perspective, and likely not acceptable to the utilities or customers. The Reach Code Team compared cost-effectiveness of 5kWh and 7.5kWh battery systems as well as of PV systems sized to offset 90%, 100%, or 120% of the estimated electrical load.

Results show that from an on-bill perspective a smaller battery size is more cost-effective. The sensitivity analysis also showed that increasing the PV capacity from 90% to 120% of the electricity use reduced costeffectiveness. From the TDV perspective there was little difference in results across all the scenarios, with the larger battery size being marginally more cost-effective. Based on these results, the Reach Code Team applied to the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package a 5kWh battery system for single family homes with PV sized to offset 100% of the electricity load. Even though PV scaled to 90% was the most cost-effective, sizing was increased to 100% to evaluate greater generation beyond the Efficiency & PV Package and to achieve zero net electricity. These results also show that in isolation, the inclusion of a battery system reduces cost-effectiveness compared to the same size PV system without batteries.

For multifamily buildings the battery capacity was scaled to reflect the average ratio of battery size to PV system capacity (kWh/kW) for the single family Efficiency & PV Package. This resulted in a 22kWh battery for the multifamily building, or 2.75kWh per apartment.
2 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 21 2019-07-17

3.2 Table 8 through Table 10 contain cost effectiveness findings for the single family packages. Table 8 summarizes the package costs for all of the mixed fuel and all-electric efficiency, PV and battery packages. The mixed fuel results are evaluated and presented relative to a mixed fuel code compliant basecase while the all-electric results are relative to an all-electric code compliant basecase.

Table 9 and Table 10 present the B/C ratios for all the single family packages according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies for the mixed fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively. Results are cost-effective based on TDV for all cases except for Climate Zone 7 where no cost-effective combination of non-preempted efficiency measures was found that met the minimum 0.5 EDR Margin threshold. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as >1 refer to instances where there are incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with the upgrade and benefits are realized immediately.

Figure 3 presents a comparison of Total EDRs for single family buildings and Figure 4 presents the EDR Margin results. Each graph compares the mixed fuel and all-electric cases as well as the various packages. The EDR Margin for the Efficiency Package for most climates is between 1.0 and 5.5 for mixed fuel cases and slightly higher, between 1.5 and 6.5, for the all-electric design. No cost-effective mixed fuel or all-electric nonpreempted Efficiency package was found Climate Zone 7.

For the mixed fuel case, the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package increased the EDR Margin to values between 7.0 and 10.5. Because of the limitations on oversizing PV systems to offset natural gas use it is not feasible to achieve higher EDR Margins by increasing PV system capacity.

For the all-electric case, the Efficiency & PV Package resulted in EDR Margins of 11.0 to 19.0 for most climates; adding a battery system increased the EDR Margin by an additional 7 to 13 points. Climate zones 1 and 16, which have high heating loads, have much higher EDR Margins for the Efficiency & PV package (26.5-31.0). The Standard Design PV, which is what is applied in the all-electric Efficiency Package, is not sized to offset any of the heating load. When the PV system is sized to offset 90% of the total electricity use, the increase is substantial as a result. In contrast, in Climate Zone 15 the Standard Design PV system is already sized to cover the cooling electricity load, which represents 40% of whole building electricity use. Therefore, increasing the PV size to offset 90% of the electric load in this climate only results in adding approximately 120 Watts of PV capacity and subsequently a negligible impact on the EDR.

Additional results details can be found in Appendix C Single Family Detailed Results with summaries of measures included in each of the packages in Appendix D Single Family Measure Summary. A summary of results by climate zone is presented in Appendix G Results by Climate Zone. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 22 2019-07-17
8 Lifetime Costs
Climate
Zone
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery CZ01 +$1,355 +$1,280 +$5,311 +$7,642 +$2,108 +$18,192 +$24,770CZ02 +$1,504 +$724 +$5,393 +$3,943 +$2,108 +$12,106 +$18,132CZ03 +$1,552 +$1,448 +$5,438 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,517 +$14,380CZ04 +$1,556 +$758 +$5,434 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,786 +$14,664CZ05 +$1,571 +$772 +$5,433 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,307 +$14,047CZ06 +$1,003 +$581 +$4,889 +$926 +$846 +$6,341 +$12,036CZ07 n/a +$606 +$4,028 n/a +$846 +$4,436 +$9,936CZ08 +$581 +$586 +$4,466 +$926 +$412 +$5,373 +$11,016CZ09 +$912 +$574 +$4,785 +$1,180 +$846 +$5,778 +$11,454CZ10 +$1,648 +$593 +$5,522 +$1,773 +$949 +$6,405 +$12,129CZ11 +$3,143 +$1,222 +$7,026 +$3,735 +$2,108 +$10,827 +$17,077CZ12 +$1,679 +$654 +$5,568 +$3,735 +$2,108 +$11,520 +$17,586CZ13 +$3,060 +$611 +$6,954 +$4,154 +$2,108 +$10,532 +$16,806CZ14 +$1,662 +$799 +$5,526 +$4,154 +$2,108 +$10,459 +$16,394CZ15 +$2,179 -($936) +$6,043 +$4,612 +$2,108 +$5,085 +$11,382CZ16 +$3,542 +$2,441 +$7,399 +$5,731 +$2,108 +$16,582 +$22,838 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 23 2019-07-17
9 - 1,2
CZ Utility
Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 5.3 3.4 2.8 6.9 4.9 4.1 5.0 10.6 0.9 1.6 10.502 PG&E 3.3 1.6 1.7 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.0 10.1 0.5 1.6 10.003 PG&E 3.0 1.3 1.3 4.1 1.9 2.0 2.5 10.0 0.4 1.4 10.004 PG&E 2.5 0.9 1.2 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.5 10.1 0.3 1.5 10.005 PG&E 2.7 1.1 1.2 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.5 9.4 0.4 1.3 9.005 PG&E/SoCalGas 2.7 0.9 1.2 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.5 9.4 0.3 1.3 9.006 SCE/SoCalGas 2.0 0.7 1.2 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.5 9.8 0.8 1.3 9.507 SDG&E 0.0 - - 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.0 9.2 0.1 1.3 9.008 SCE/SoCalGas 1.3 0.6 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.0 8.4 0.9 1.3 8.009 SCE/SoCalGas 2.6 0.7 2.0 2.9 1.8 3.7 2.5 8.8 1.0 1.5 8.510 SCE/SoCalGas 3.2 0.6 1.3 3.2 2.0 3.8 3.0 9.6 1.0 1.5 9.510 SDG&E 3.2 0.8 1.3 3.2 2.6 3.8 3.0 9.6 0.6 1.5 9.511 PG&E 4.3 0.8 1.2 5.1 2.5 3.7 4.0 9.2 0.4 1.5 9.012 PG&E 3.5 1.2 1.8 3.4 3.3 4.6 3.0 9.6 0.4 1.7 9.513 PG&E 4.6 0.8 1.3 5.8 5.3 8.4 4.5 9.7 0.4 1.6 9.514 SCE/SoCalGas 5.0 1.6 2.5 5.8 4.0 6.1 4.5 9.0 1.3 1.7 9.014 SDG&E 5.0 1.9 2.5 5.8 4.9 6.1 4.5 9.0 1.2 1.7 9.015 SCE/SoCalGas 4.8 1.0 1.6 5.0 >1 >1 4.5 7.1 1.1 1.5 7.016 PG&E 5.4 1.6 1.5 6.2 2.2 2.2 5.0 10.5 0.9 1.4 10.5 12Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix D Single Family Measure Summary. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 24 2019-07-17
10 -E All- Case1,2
CZ Utility
Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 15.2 1.8 1.7 6.9 2.9 2.7 6.5 31.4 1.8 1.5 31.0 41.2 1.4 1.4 41.002 PG&E 4.9 1.2 1.1 5.1 2.3 2.1 4.5 19.4 1.8 1.4 19.0 30.1 1.4 1.4 30.003 PG&E 4.7 2.6 2.4 4.4 1.8 1.6 4.0 18.5 2.2 1.7 18.0 29.3 1.5 1.6 29.004 PG&E 3.4 1.9 1.8 3.9 1.5 1.5 3.0 17.2 2.1 1.6 17.0 28.6 1.5 1.6 28.505 PG&E 4.4 2.6 2.3 4.4 1.9 1.7 4.0 18.2 2.3 1.8 18.0 28.7 1.6 1.6 28.505 PG&E/SoCalGas 4.4 2.6 2.3 4.4 1.9 1.7 4.0 18.2 2.3 1.8 18.0 28.7 1.6 1.6 28.506 SCE/SoCalGas 2.0 1.3 1.4 2.9 2.2 2.3 2.0 14.3 1.2 1.5 14.0 26.1 1.2 1.4 26.007 SDG&E 0.0 - - 2.2 1.6 1.7 0.0 11.3 1.9 1.5 11.0 24.2 1.3 1.5 24.008 SCE/SoCalGas 1.6 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.8 3.0 1.5 10.9 1.0 1.5 10.5 21.6 1.1 1.4 21.509 SCE/SoCalGas 2.78 0.8 2.0 3.3 2.1 3.2 2.5 11.5 1.1 1.6 11.5 21.3 1.1 1.5 21.010 SCE/SoCalGas 3.1 0.9 1.5 3.4 2.3 3.2 3.0 11.1 1.1 1.5 11.0 21.2 1.1 1.5 21.010 SDG&E 3.1 1.1 1.5 3.4 2.6 3.2 3.0 11.1 1.7 1.5 11.0 21.2 1.4 1.5 21.011 PG&E 4.6 1.2 1.5 5.9 3.0 3.3 4.5 14.2 1.8 1.6 14.0 23.2 1.5 1.6 23.012 PG&E 3.8 0.8 1.1 5.1 2.0 2.5 3.5 15.7 1.7 1.4 15.5 25.4 1.3 1.5 25.013 PG&E 5.1 1.1 1.4 6.0 2.9 3.3 5.0 13.4 1.7 1.5 13.0 22.5 1.4 1.5 22.014 SCE/SoCalGas 5.6 1.0 1.5 6.0 2.3 3.1 5.5 15.5 1.2 1.6 15.5 23.9 1.3 1.6 23.514 SDG&E 5.6 1.3 1.5 6.0 2.9 3.1 5.5 15.5 1.8 1.6 15.5 23.9 1.7 1.6 23.515 SCE/SoCalGas 5.6 1.1 1.6 7.3 3.3 4.5 5.5 6.2 1.1 1.6 6.0 13.5 1.2 1.5 13.016 PG&E 9.7 1.7 1.7 4.9 2.4 2.3 4.5 27.0 2.1 1.6 26.5 35.4 1.7 1.5 35.0 1 savings and annual utility bill savings.2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix D Single Family Measure Summary 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 25 2019-07-17
3 Total
4 comparison
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 26 2019-07-17

3.2.1 Figure 5 compares annual GHG emissions for both mixed fuel and all-electric single family 2019 code compliant cases with Efficiency, Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. GHG emissions vary by climate but are consistently higher in mixed fuel cases than all-electric. Standard Design mixed fuel emissions range from 1.3 (CZ 7) to 3.3 (CZ 16) lbs CO2e/square foot of floor area, where all-electric Standard Design emissions range from

0.7 to 1.7 lbs CO2e/ ft2. Adding efficiency, PV and batteries to the mixed fuel code compliant prototype reduces GHG emissions by 20% on average to between 1.0 and 1.8 lbs CO2e/ft2, with the exception of Climate Zones 1 and 16. Adding efficiency, PV and batteries to the all-electric code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 65% on average to 0.8 lbs CO2e/ft2 or less. None of the cases completely eliminate GHG emissions.

Because of the time value of emissions calculation for electricity in CBECC-Res, there is always some amount of GHG impacts with using electricity from the grid.
5 emissions comparison

3.3 Table 11 through Table 13 contain cost effectiveness findings for the multifamily packages. Table 11 summarizes the package costs for all the mixed fuel and all-electric efficiency, PV and battery packages.

Table 12 and Table 13 present the B/C ratios for all the packages according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies for the mixed fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively. All the packages are cost-effective based on TDV except Climate Zone 3 for the all-electric cases where no cost-effective combination of nonpreempted efficiency measures was found that met the minimum 0.5 EDR Margin threshold. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as >1 are incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with this upgrade and benefits are realized immediately.

It is generally more challenging to achieve equivalent savings targets cost-effectively for the multifamily cases than for the single family cases. With less exterior surface area per floor area the impact of envelope measures 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 27 2019-07-17
is diminished in multifamily buildings. Ducts are already assumed to be within conditioned space and therefore only one of the duct measures found to be cost-effective in single family homes can be applied.

Figure 6 presents a comparison of Total EDRs for the multifamily cases and Figure 7 presents the EDR Margin results. Each graph compares the mixed fuel and all-electric cases as well as the various packages. Cost-effective efficiency packages were found for all mixed fuel cases. The Target EDR Margins for the mixed fuel Efficiency Package are 0.5 for Climate Zones 3, 5 and 7, between 1.0 and 2.5 for Climate Zones 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 through 12 and 16, and between 3.0 and 4.0 in Climate Zones 13 through 15. For the all-electric case, no cost-effective nonpreempted efficiency packages were found in Climate Zone 3. The Target EDR Margins are between 0.5 and 2.5 for Climate Zones 2, 4 through 10 and 12, and between 3.0 and 4.0 in Climate Zones 1, 11, and 13 through 16.

For the mixed fuel case, the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package results in an EDR Margin of between 8.5 and 11.5 across all climate zones. Most of these packages were not found to be cost-effective based on utility bill savings alone, but they all are cost-effective based on TDV energy savings. For the all-electric case, the Efficiency & PV Package resulted in EDR Margins of 10.5 to 17.5 for most climates; adding a battery system increased the EDR Margin by an additional 10 to 15 points. Climate zones 1 and 16, which have high heating loads, have much higher EDR Margins for the Efficiency & PV package (19.5-22.5). The Standard Design PV, which is what is applied in the Efficiency Package, is not sized to offset any of the heating load. When the PV system is sized to offset 90% of the total electricity use, the increase is substantial as a result. In Climate Zone 15 the Standard Design PV system is already sized to cover the cooling electricity load, which represents 30% of whole building electricity use. Therefore, increasing the PV size to offset 90% of the electric load in this climate only results in adding approximately 240 Watts of PV capacity per apartment and subsequently a much smaller impact on the EDR than in other climate zones. Because of the limitations on oversizing PV systems to offset natural gas use it is not feasible to achieve comparable EDR Margins for the mixed fuel case as in the all-electric case.

Additional results details can be found in Appendix E Multifamily Detailed Results with summaries of measures included in each of the packages in Appendix F Multifamily Measure Summary. A summary of results by climate zone is presented in Appendix G Results by Climate Zone. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 28 2019-07-17
11 Multif
Climate
Zone
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Non- Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV/Battery Non- Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery CZ01 +$960 +$507 +$3,094 +$949 +$795 +$5,538 +$8,919CZ02 +$309 +$497 +$2,413 +$361 +$795 +$3,711 +$6,833CZ03 +$175 +$403 +$2,279 n/a +$795 +$3,272 +$6,344CZ04 +$329 +$351 +$2,429 +$361 +$795 +$3,158 +$6,201CZ05 +$180 +$358 +$2,273 +$247 +$795 +$3,293 +$6,314CZ06 +$190 +$213 +$2,294 +$231 +$361 +$2,580 +$5,590CZ07 +$90 +$366 +$2,188 +$202 +$361 +$2,261 +$5,203CZ08 +$250 +$213 +$2,353 +$231 +$361 +$2,240 +$5,249CZ09 +$136 +$274 +$2,234 +$231 +$361 +$2,232 +$5,236CZ10 +$278 +$250 +$2,376 +$361 +$361 +$2,371 +$5,395CZ11 +$850 +$317 +$2,950 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,601 +$6,759CZ12 +$291 +$434 +$2,394 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,835 +$6,943CZ13 +$831 +$290 +$2,936 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,462 +$6,650CZ14 +$874 +$347 +$2,957 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,356 +$6,380CZ15 +$510 -($157) +$2,604 +$1,011 +$1,954 +$1,826 +$5,020CZ16 +$937 +$453 +$3,028 +$843 +$795 +$4,423 +$7,533 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 29 2019-07-17
12 Multif -E 1,2
CZ Utility
Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 3.4 1.1 1.2 2.3 1.3 1.4 2.0 11.5 0.4 1.2 11.502 PG&E 1.8 1.0 1.7 2.3 1.1 1.5 1.5 10.9 0.2 1.6 10.503 PG&E 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.2 0.5 10.3 0.1 1.4 10.004 PG&E 1.3 0.8 1.2 1.9 1.1 1.7 1.0 11.2 0.2 1.6 11.005 PG&E 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.5 9.9 0.2 1.4 9.505 PG&E/SoCalGas 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.3 0.5 9.9 0.1 1.4 9.506 SCE/SoCalGas 1.3 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.0 10.7 0.6 1.4 10.507 SDG&E 0.9 0.7 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.4 0.5 11.0 0.0 1.4 11.008 SCE/SoCalGas 1.5 0.7 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.0 9.9 0.7 1.3 9.509 SCE/SoCalGas 1.8 1.5 3.3 2.8 1.7 2.9 1.5 9.7 0.9 1.5 9.510 SCE/SoCalGas 1.7 0.8 1.7 2.9 2.0 3.3 1.5 10.4 1.0 1.6 10.010 SDG&E 1.7 1.1 1.7 2.9 2.6 3.3 1.5 10.4 0.2 1.6 10.011 PG&E 2.9 0.7 1.2 3.2 1.8 3.3 2.5 10.5 0.4 1.6 10.512 PG&E 1.9 1.1 2.2 2.8 1.2 2.2 1.5 10.3 0.3 1.7 10.013 PG&E 3.1 0.6 1.3 3.4 2.0 3.8 3.0 10.7 0.4 1.6 10.514 SCE/SoCalGas 3.1 0.7 1.2 3.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 9.6 1.1 1.4 9.514 SDG&E 3.1 0.9 1.2 3.3 2.5 3.0 3.0 9.6 0.5 1.4 9.515 SCE/SoCalGas 4.2 1.4 2.3 4.4 >1 >1 4.0 8.8 1.3 1.7 8.516 PG&E 2.4 1.1 1.2 2.9 1.8 2.1 2.0 9.9 0.5 1.3 9.5 12Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix F Multifamily Measure Summary. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 30 2019-07-17
13 - - 1,2
CZ Utility
Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Target
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
01 PG&E 3.6 1.6 1.4 3.3 2.4 2.3 3.0 22.5 2.0 1.5 22.5 34.5 1.3 1.4 34.502 PG&E 1.9 1.7 2.1 3.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 17.5 2.4 1.8 17.5 30.9 1.4 1.7 30.503 PG&E 0.0 - - 2.7 1.7 1.6 0.0 16.1 2.4 1.7 16.0 29.5 1.3 1.6 29.504 PG&E 1.4 1.4 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 15.0 2.4 1.8 15.0 28.9 1.3 1.8 28.505 PG&E 0.6 1.1 0.9 3.6 2.1 2.0 0.5 17.1 2.5 1.8 17.0 30.3 1.4 1.7 30.005 PG&E/SoCalGas 0.6 1.1 0.9 3.6 2.1 2.0 0.5 17.1 2.5 1.8 17.0 30.3 1.4 1.7 30.006 SCE/SoCalGas 1.0 0.7 1.3 2.2 1.6 1.9 1.0 13.8 1.2 1.7 13.5 27.5 1.2 1.6 27.507 SDG&E 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.9 1.6 1.7 0.5 12.8 2.1 1.8 12.5 27.1 1.2 1.6 27.008 SCE/SoCalGas 1.2 0.9 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.0 11.6 1.3 1.8 11.5 24.2 1.2 1.6 24.009 SCE/SoCalGas 1.6 1.3 2.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 11.3 1.3 1.9 11.0 23.3 1.3 1.7 23.010 SCE/SoCalGas 1.8 1.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.5 10.8 1.3 1.8 10.5 23.3 1.3 1.7 23.010 SDG&E 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.5 10.8 2.1 1.8 10.5 23.3 1.4 1.7 23.011 PG&E 3.5 1.4 1.6 3.9 2.0 2.3 3.5 13.4 2.2 1.8 13.0 25.3 1.4 1.8 25.012 PG&E 2.6 0.9 1.1 2.9 1.6 1.6 2.5 14.4 2.1 1.6 14.0 26.6 1.3 1.7 26.513 PG&E 3.3 1.3 1.6 3.8 2.0 2.3 3.0 12.2 2.1 1.7 12.0 23.9 1.4 1.7 23.514 SCE/SoCalGas 3.7 1.2 1.6 3.8 1.6 2.2 3.5 14.0 1.4 1.9 14.0 24.8 1.4 1.8 24.514 SDG&E 3.7 1.5 1.6 3.8 2.0 2.2 3.5 14.0 2.2 1.9 14.0 24.8 1.7 1.8 24.515 SCE/SoCalGas 4.4 1.5 2.3 6.4 1.2 1.7 4.0 7.1 1.4 2.1 7.0 16.9 1.3 1.8 16.516 PG&E 4.1 2.1 2.1 3.2 1.6 1.7 3.0 19.6 2.6 1.9 19.5 29.9 1.6 1.7 29.5 1 tility bill savings.2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix F Multifamily Measure Summary. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 31 2019-07-17
6 Total
7 comparison
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 32 2019-07-17

3.3.1 Figure 8 compares annual GHG emissions for both mixed fuel and all-electric multifamily 2019 code compliant cases with Efficiency, Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. GHG emissions vary by climate but are consistently higher in mixed fuel cases than all-electric. Standard design mixed fuel emissions range from 2.0 to 3.0 lbs CO2e/square foot of floor area, where all-electric standard design emissions range from 1.2 to 1.7 lbs CO2e/ ft2. Adding PV, batteries and efficiency to the mixed fuel code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 17% on average to between 1.7 and 2.2 lbs CO2e/ft2, except Climate Zone 16. Adding PV, batteries and efficiency to the all-electric code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 64% on average to

0.6 lbs CO2e/ft2 or less with the exception of Climate Zones 14, 15 and 16. As in the single family case, none of the cases completely eliminate GHG emissions because of the time value of emissions calculation for electricity in CBECC-Res.
8 3.4 Electrification Results
Cost-effectiveness results comparing mixed fuel and all-electric cases are summarized below. The tables show average annual utility bill impacts and lifetime utility bill impacts, which account for fuel escalation for electricity and natural gas (see Section 2.5), lifetime equipment cost savings, and both On-Bill and TDV cost-effectiveness (B/C ratio). Positive utility bill values indicate lower utility costs for the all-electric home relative to the mixed fuel case while negative values in red and parenthesis indicate higher utility costs for the all-electric case.

Lifetime equipment cost savings include savings due to eliminating natural gas infrastructure and replacement costs for appliances based on equipment life. Positive values for the lifetime equipment cost savings indicate lower installed costs for the all-electric and negative values indicate higher costs. B/C ratios 1.0 or greater indicate positive costwas incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with this upgrade and benefits are realized immediately. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 33 2019-07-17
Three scenarios were evaluated:

1. 2019 Code Compliant: Compares a 2019 code compliant all-electric home with a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home.

2. Efficiency & PV Package: Compares an all-electric home with efficiency and PV sized to 90% of the annual electricity use to a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. The first cost savings in the code compliant all-electric house is invested in above code efficiency and PV reflective of the Efficiency & PV packages described above.

3. Neutral Cost Package: Compares an all-electric home with PV beyond code minimum with a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. The PV system for the all-electric case is sized to result in a zero lifetime incremental cost relative to a mixed fuel home.

3.4.1 Table 14, Table 15, Figure 9, Figure 10, and Figure 11 present results of cost-effectiveness analysis for electrification of single family buildings, according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. Based on typical cost assumptions arrived at for this analysis, the lifetime equipment costs for the single family code compliant all-electric option are approximately $5,350 less than the mixed fuel code compliant option. Cost savings are entirely due to the elimination of gas infrastructure, which was assumed to be a savings of $5,750. When evaluating cost-effectiveness based on TDV, the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction are not applied and therefore the cost savings are twice as much.

Under the Efficiency & PV Package and the On-Bill analysis, the incremental cost of the efficiency and PV is typically more than the cost savings seen in the code compliant case, which results in a net cost increase in most climate zones for the all-electric case. In climates with small heating loads (7 and 15) there continues to be an incremental cost savings for the all-electric home. With the TDV analysis, there is still an incremental cost savings in all climates except 1 and 16 for single family.

Utility impacts differ by climate zone and utility, but utility costs for the code compliant all-electric option are typically higher than for the compliant mixed fuel design. There are utility cost savings across all climates zones and building types for the all-electric Efficiency & PV Package, resulting in a more cost-effective option.

The all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective based on the On-Bill approach for single family homes in Climate Zones 6 through 9, 10 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15. The code compliant option is cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 1 and 16. If the same costs used for the On-Bill approach are also used for the TDV approach (incorporating the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction), the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climate Zones 6 through 10. The Efficiency & PV all-electric option is cost-effective in all climate zones based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. In many cases it is cost-effective immediately with lower equipment and utility costs.

The last set of results in Table 14 shows the neutral cost case where the cost savings for the all-electric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings in all cases except Climate Zones 1, 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 16. For these three cases the Reach Code Team evaluated how much additional PV would be required to result in a cost-effective package. These results are presented in Table 15 and show that an additional 1.6kW in Climate Zone 1 results in a B/C ratio of 1.1. For Climate Zone 14 and 16 adding 0.25kW and

1.2kW, respectively, results in a B/C ratio of 1.2. Neutral cost cases are cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 16.

3.4.2 Multifamily
Multifamily results are found in Table 16, Table 17, Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14. Lifetime costs for the multifamily code compliant all-electric option are approximately $2,300 less than the mixed fuel code compliant option, entirely due to the elimination of gas infrastructure. When evaluating cost-effectiveness based on TDV, 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 34 2019-07-17
the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction are not applied and therefore the cost savings are approximately 2.5 times higher.

With the Efficiency & PV Package and the On-Bill analysis, due to the added cost of the efficiency and PV there is a net cost increase for the all-electric case in all climate zones for except 7, 8, 9, and 15. With the TDV analysis, there is still an incremental cost savings in all climates. Like the single family results, utility costs are typically higher for the code compliant all-electric option but lower than the code compliant mixed fuel option with the Efficiency & PV Package.

The all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective based on the On-Bill approach for multifamily in Climate Zones 6 through 9, 10 and 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15. Based on the TDV methodology, the code compliant option for multifamily is cost-effective for all climate zones. If the same costs used for the On-Bill approach are also used for the TDV approach (incorporating the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction), the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climate Zones 8 and 9. Like the single family cases, the Efficiency & PV all-electric option is cost-effective in all climate zones based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies.

The last set of results in Table 16 show the neutral cost case where the cost savings for the all-electric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings in all cases except Climate Zone 1. For this case the Reach Code Team evaluated how much additional PV would be required to result in a cost-effective package.

These results are presented in Table 17 and show that an additional 0.3kW per apartment results in a B/C ratio of 1.1. Neutral cost cases are cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 16. 14 On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness
CZ Utility
Average Annual Utility Bill
Savings
Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Net
Utility
Savings
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio2
TDV Cost
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
TDV
B/C
Ratio
2019 Code Compliant Home
01 PG&E -($1,194) +$712 -($482) -($14,464) +$5,349 0.4 -($13,081) +$11,872 0.9 02 PG&E -($825) +$486 -($340) -($10,194) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,456) +$11,872 1.6 03 PG&E -($717) +$391 -($326) -($9,779) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,766) +$11,872 1.5 04 PG&E -($710) +$387 -($322) -($9,671) +$5,349 0.6 -($7,447) +$11,872 1.6 05 PG&E -($738) +$367 -($371) -($11,128) +$5,349 0.5 -($8,969) +$11,872 1.3 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($738) +$370 -($368) -($11,034) +$5,349 0.5 -($8,969) +$11,872 1.3 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($439) +$289 -($149) -($4,476) +$5,349 1.2 -($4,826) +$11,872 2.5 07 SDG&E -($414) +$243 -($171) -($5,134) +$5,349 1.0 -($4,678) +$11,872 2.5 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($347) +$249 -($97) -($2,921) +$5,349 1.8 -($3,971) +$11,872 3.0 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($377) +$271 -($107) -($3,199) +$5,349 1.7 -($4,089) +$11,872 2.9 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($403) +$280 -($123) -($3,684) +$5,349 1.5 -($4,458) +$11,872 2.7 10 SDG&E -($496) +$297 -($198) -($5,950) +$5,349 0.9 -($4,458) +$11,872 2.7 11 PG&E -($810) +$447 -($364) -($10,917) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,024) +$11,872 1.7 12 PG&E -($740) +$456 -($284) -($8,533) +$5,349 0.6 -($6,281) +$11,872 1.9 13 PG&E -($742) +$413 -($329) -($9,870) +$5,349 0.5 -($6,480) +$11,872 1.8 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($661) +$413 -($248) -($7,454) +$5,349 0.7 -($7,126) +$11,872 1.7 14 SDG&E -($765) +$469 -($296) -($8,868) +$5,349 0.6 -($7,126) +$11,872 1.7 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($297) +$194 -($103) -($3,090) +$5,349 1.7 -($5,364) +$11,872 2.2 16 PG&E -($1,287) +$712 -($575) -($17,250) +$5,349 0.3 -($17,391) +$11,872 0.7 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 35 2019-07-17
On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness
CZ Utility
Average Annual Utility Bill
Savings
Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Net
Utility
Savings
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio2
TDV Cost
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency & PV Package
01 PG&E -($99) +$712 +$613 +$18,398 -($12,844) 1.4 +$13,364 -($6,321) 2.1 02 PG&E -($89) +$486 +$397 +$11,910 -($6,758) 1.8 +$9,307 -($234) 39.7 03 PG&E -($87) +$391 +$304 +$9,119 -($3,169) 2.9 +$6,516 +$3,355 >1 04 PG&E -($85) +$387 +$302 +$9,074 -($3,438) 2.6 +$6,804 +$3,086 >1 05 PG&E -($98) +$367 +$268 +$8,054 -($2,959) 2.7 +$5,625 +$3,564 >1 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($98) +$370 +$272 +$8,148 -($2,959) 2.8 +$5,625 +$3,564 >1 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($188) +$289 +$102 +$3,049 -($992) 3.1 +$4,585 +$5,531 >1 07 SDG&E -($137) +$243 +$106 +$3,174 +$912 >1 +$2,176 +$7,436 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($160) +$249 +$89 +$2,664 -($25) 107.9 +$3,965 +$6,499 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($169) +$271 +$102 +$3,067 -($429) 7.1 +$5,368 +$6,094 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($173) +$280 +$107 +$3,216 -($1,057) 3.0 +$5,165 +$5,466 >1 10 SDG&E -($137) +$297 +$160 +$4,805 -($1,057) 4.5 +$5,165 +$5,466 >1 11 PG&E -($147) +$447 +$300 +$8,988 -($5,478) 1.6 +$9,776 +$1,045 >1 12 PG&E -($92) +$456 +$364 +$10,918 -($6,172) 1.8 +$9,913 +$352 >1 13 PG&E -($144) +$413 +$269 +$8,077 -($5,184) 1.6 +$8,960 +$1,339 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($241) +$413 +$172 +$5,164 -($5,111) 1.0 +$9,850 +$1,412 >1 14 SDG&E -($139) +$469 +$330 +$9,910 -($5,111) 1.9 +$9,850 +$1,412 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($107) +$194 +$87 +$2,603 +$264 >1 +$2,598 +$6,787 >1 16 PG&E -($130) +$712 +$582 +$17,457 -($11,234) 1.6 +$9,536 -($4,710) 2.0 Neutral Cost Package
01 PG&E -($869) +$712 -($157) -($4,704) +$0 0 -($6,033) +$6,549 1.1 02 PG&E -($445) +$486 +$40 +$1,213 +$0 >1 +$868 +$6,505 >1 03 PG&E -($335) +$391 +$56 +$1,671 +$0 >1 +$483 +$6,520 >1 04 PG&E -($321) +$387 +$66 +$1,984 +$0 >1 +$1,062 +$6,521 >1 05 PG&E -($335) +$367 +$31 +$938 +$0 >1 -($163) +$6,519 40.1 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($335) +$370 +$34 +$1,031 +$0 >1 -($163) +$6,519 40.1 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($227) +$289 +$63 +$1,886 +$0 >1 +$3,258 +$6,499 >1 07 SDG&E -($72) +$243 +$171 +$5,132 +$0 >1 +$3,741 +$6,519 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($144) +$249 +$105 +$3,162 +$0 >1 +$4,252 +$6,515 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($170) +$271 +$100 +$3,014 +$0 >1 +$4,271 +$6,513 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($199) +$280 +$81 +$2,440 +$0 >1 +$3,629 +$6,494 >1 10 SDG&E -($155) +$297 +$143 +$4,287 +$0 >1 +$3,629 +$6,494 >1 11 PG&E -($426) +$447 +$21 +$630 +$0 >1 +$1,623 +$6,504 >1 12 PG&E -($362) +$456 +$94 +$2,828 +$0 >1 +$2,196 +$6,525 >1 13 PG&E -($370) +$413 +$43 +$1,280 +$0 >1 +$1,677 +$6,509 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($416) +$413 -($4) -($107) +$0 0 +$2,198 +$6,520 >1 14 SDG&E -($391) +$469 +$79 +$2,356 +$0 >1 +$2,198 +$6,520 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($98) +$194 +$97 +$2,900 +$0 >1 +$2,456 +$6,483 >1 16 PG&E -($878) +$712 -($166) -($4,969) +$0 0 -($8,805) +$6,529 0.7 1Red values in parentheses indicate an increase in utility bill costs or an incremental first cost for the all-electric home. 2 indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 36 2019-07-17
15 OnPV
CZ Utility
Neutral Cost Min. Cost Effectiveness
PV
Capacity
(kW)
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
PV Capacity
(kW)
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 4.7 -($4,704) +$0 0 6.3 +$6,898 -($6,372) 1.1
14 SCE/SoCalGas 4.5 -($107) +$0 0 4.8 +$1,238 -($1,000) 1.2 16 PG&E 4.1 -($4,969) +$0 0 5.3 +$5,883 -($4,753) 1.2
9 all-
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 37 2019-07-17
10 -
11 -
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 38 2019-07-17
16 ( Unit)
On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness
CZ Utility
Average Annual Utility Bill
Savings
Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Net
Utility
Savings
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio2
TDV Cost
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
TDV
B/C
Ratio
2019 Code Compliant Home
01 PG&E -($396) +$193 -($203) -($6,079) +$2,337 0.4 -($5,838) +$5,899 1.0 02 PG&E -($310) +$162 -($148) -($4,450) +$2,337 0.5 -($4,144) +$5,899 1.4 03 PG&E -($277) +$142 -($135) -($4,041) +$2,337 0.6 -($4,035) +$5,899 1.5 04 PG&E -($264) +$144 -($120) -($3,595) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,329) +$5,899 1.8 05 PG&E -($297) +$140 -($157) -($4,703) +$2,337 0.5 -($4,604) +$5,899 1.3 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($297) +$178 -($119) -($3,573) +$2,337 0.7 -($4,604) +$5,899 1.3 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($191) +$161 -($30) -($902) +$2,337 2.6 -($2,477) +$5,899 2.4 07 SDG&E -($206) +$136 -($70) -($2,094) +$2,337 1.1 -($2,390) +$5,899 2.5 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($169) +$157 -($12) -($349) +$2,337 6.7 -($2,211) +$5,899 2.7 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($177) +$159 -($18) -($533) +$2,337 4.4 -($2,315) +$5,899 2.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($183) +$159 -($23) -($697) +$2,337 3.4 -($2,495) +$5,899 2.4 10 SDG&E -($245) +$139 -($106) -($3,192) +$2,337 0.7 -($2,495) +$5,899 2.4 11 PG&E -($291) +$153 -($138) -($4,149) +$2,337 0.6 -($4,420) +$5,899 1.3 12 PG&E -($277) +$155 -($122) -($3,665) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,557) +$5,899 1.7 13 PG&E -($270) +$146 -($124) -($3,707) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,821) +$5,899 1.5 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($255) +$187 -($69) -($2,062) +$2,337 1.1 -($3,976) +$5,899 1.5 14 SDG&E -($328) +$175 -($154) -($4,607) +$2,337 0.5 -($3,976) +$5,899 1.5 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($154) +$142 -($12) -($367) +$2,337 6.4 -($2,509) +$5,899 2.4 16 PG&E -($404) +$224 -($180) -($5,411) +$2,337 0.4 -($5,719) +$5,899 1.0 Efficiency & PV Package
01 PG&E -($19) +$193 +$174 +$5,230 -($3,202) 1.6 +$2,467 +$361 >1 02 PG&E -($10) +$162 +$152 +$4,549 -($1,375) 3.3 +$2,605 +$2,187 >1 03 PG&E -($12) +$142 +$130 +$3,910 -($936) 4.2 +$1,632 +$2,626 >1 04 PG&E -($8) +$144 +$136 +$4,080 -($822) 5.0 +$2,381 +$2,740 >1 05 PG&E -($19) +$140 +$121 +$3,635 -($956) 3.8 +$1,403 +$2,606 >1 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($19) +$178 +$159 +$4,765 -($956) 5.0 +$1,403 +$2,606 >1 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($84) +$161 +$77 +$2,309 -($243) 9.5 +$1,940 +$3,319 >1 07 SDG&E -($49) +$136 +$87 +$2,611 +$75 >1 +$1,583 +$3,638 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($74) +$157 +$83 +$2,480 +$96 >1 +$1,772 +$3,658 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($76) +$159 +$82 +$2,469 +$104 >1 +$1,939 +$3,667 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($79) +$159 +$80 +$2,411 -($34) 70.9 +$1,737 +$3,528 >1 10 SDG&E -($77) +$139 +$61 +$1,842 -($34) 54.2 +$1,737 +$3,528 >1 11 PG&E -($25) +$153 +$128 +$3,834 -($1,264) 3.0 +$2,080 +$2,298 >1 12 PG&E -($11) +$155 +$144 +$4,316 -($1,498) 2.9 +$2,759 +$2,064 >1 13 PG&E -($26) +$146 +$121 +$3,625 -($1,125) 3.2 +$2,083 +$2,437 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($99) +$187 +$87 +$2,616 -($1,019) 2.6 +$2,422 +$2,543 >1 14 SDG&E -($86) +$175 +$88 +$2,647 -($1,019) 2.6 +$2,422 +$2,543 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($67) +$142 +$75 +$2,247 +$511 >1 +$1,276 +$4,073 >1 16 PG&E -($24) +$224 +$200 +$5,992 -($2,087) 2.9 +$2,629 +$1,476 >1 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 39 2019-07-17
On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness
CZ Utility
Average Annual Utility Bill
Savings
Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Net
Utility
Savings
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio2
TDV Cost
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Neutral Cost Package
01 PG&E -($228) +$193 -($35) -($1,057) +$0 0 -($2,267) +$3,564 1.6 02 PG&E -($115) +$162 +$47 +$1,399 +$0 >1 +$59 +$3,563 >1 03 PG&E -($81) +$142 +$61 +$1,843 +$0 >1 +$138 +$3,562 >1 04 PG&E -($64) +$144 +$80 +$2,402 +$0 >1 +$983 +$3,563 >1 05 PG&E -($90) +$140 +$50 +$1,490 +$0 >1 -($152) +$3,564 23.4 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($90) +$178 +$87 +$2,620 +$0 >1 -($152) +$3,564 23.4 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($90) +$161 +$71 +$2,144 +$0 >1 +$1,612 +$3,562 >1 07 SDG&E -($32) +$136 +$105 +$3,135 +$0 >1 +$1,886 +$3,560 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($67) +$157 +$90 +$2,705 +$0 >1 +$1,955 +$3,564 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($71) +$159 +$87 +$2,623 +$0 >1 +$1,924 +$3,561 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($78) +$159 +$81 +$2,431 +$0 >1 +$1,588 +$3,561 >1 10 SDG&E -($71) +$139 +$68 +$2,033 +$0 >1 +$1,588 +$3,561 >1 11 PG&E -($93) +$153 +$59 +$1,783 +$0 >1 -($48) +$3,562 74.0 12 PG&E -($82) +$155 +$73 +$2,184 +$0 >1 +$739 +$3,564 >1 13 PG&E -($79) +$146 +$68 +$2,034 +$0 >1 +$310 +$3,560 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($141) +$187 +$45 +$1,359 +$0 >1 +$747 +$3,562 >1 14 SDG&E -($137) +$175 +$38 +$1,131 +$0 >1 +$747 +$3,562 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($50) +$142 +$92 +$2,771 +$0 >1 +$1,738 +$3,560 >1 16 PG&E -($194) +$224 +$30 +$900 +$0 >1 -($1,382) +$3,564 2.6 1Red values in parentheses indicate an increase in utility bill costs or an incremental first cost for the all-electric home. 2 indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 17 OnUnit)
CZ Utility
Neutral Cost Min. Cost Effectiveness
PV
Capacity
(kW)
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C Ratio
PV
Capacity
(kW)
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C Ratio
01 PG&E 2.7 -($1,057) +$0 0 3.0 +$1,198 -($1,052) 1.1
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 40 2019-07-17
12 multi -
13 -
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 41 2019-07-17
14 -
4 Conclusion Summary
This report evaluated the feasibility and cost-effective specifications through the application of efficiency measures, PV, and electric battery storage in all 16 California climate zones. The analysis found cost-effective packages across the state for both single family and low-rise multifamily buildings.

For the building types and climate zones where cost-effective packages were identified, the results of this analysis can be used by local jurisdictions to support the adoption of reach codes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated according to two metrics: On-Bill customer lifecycle benefit-to-cost and TDV lifecycle benefit-to-cost.

While all the above code targets presented are based on packages that are cost-effective under at least one of these metrics, they are not all cost-effective under both metrics. Generally, the test for being cost-effective under the TDV methodology is less challenging than under the On-Bill methodology. Therefore, all packages presented are cost-effective based on TDV, and may or may not be cost-effective based on the On-Bill method.

It is up to each jurisdiction to determine what metric is most appropriate for their application. A summary of results by climate zone are presented in Appendix G Results by Climate Zone.

Above code targets are presented as Target EDR Margin, which have been defined for each scenario where a cost-effective package was identified.
requirements. Jurisdictions may adopt less stringent requirements. For the Efficiency Package the Target EDR Margin was defined based on the lower EDR Margin of the Efficiency Non-Preempted Package and the Efficiency Equipment, Preempted Package. For example, if the cost-effective Non-Preempted package has an EDR Margin of 3 and the Preempted package an EDR Margin of 4, the Target EDR Margin is set at 3.

The average incremental cost for the single family Efficiency packages is ~$1,750. The Efficiency & PV Package average incremental cost is $9,180 and for the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package it is approximately $5,600 for the 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 42 2019-07-17
mixed fuel cases and $15,100 for the all-electric cases. The incremental costs for each multifamily apartment are approximately 30-40% lower. See Table 8 and Table 11 for a summary of package costs by case.

Table 18 and Table 19 summarize the maximum Target EDR Margins determined to be cost effective for each package for single family and multifamily, respectively. Cases indicate where no cost-effective package was identified under either On-Bill or TDV methodology.

This analysis also looked at the GHG emissions impacts of the various packages. An all-electric design reduces GHG emissions 40-50% in most cases relative to a comparable mixed fuel design.

There is significant interest throughout California on electrification of new buildings. The Reach Code Team assembled data on the cost differences between a code compliant mixed fuel building and a code compliant allelectric building. Based on lifetime equipment cost savings (the difference in first cost for equipment and infrastructure combined with incremental replacement costs) of $5,349 for an all-electric single family home this analysis found that from a customer on-bill perspective, the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climates Zones 6 through 9, 10 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15, and cost-effective in all climate zones except 1 and 16 based on TDV. For multifamily buildings, based on a cost savings of $2,337 per apartment, the code compliant option is cost-effective in Climates Zones 6 through 9, 10 & 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15, and cost-effective based on TDV.

Adding efficiency and PV to the code compliant all-electric buildings increases the cost-effectiveness in all climate zones. The Efficiency & PV Package is cost-effective when compared to a mixed fuel code compliant building in all climate zones for both single family and multifamily buildings based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. The Efficiency & PV package adds PV to offset 90% of the electricity use of the home. While this results in higher installed costs, the reduced lifetime utility costs are larger ($0 to $6,000 lifetime incremental equipment costs in many climates for single family homes and an associated $4,500 to $13,500 lifetime utility cost savings across the same cases), resulting in positive B/C ratios for all cases.

The Reach Code Team also evaluated a neutral cost electrification scenario where the cost savings for the allelectric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings and positive on-bill B/C ratio in all cases except Climate Zones 1 and 16 for single family, and Climate Zone 1 for low-rise multifamily. Increasing the PV sizes in those climates by approximately 30% resulted in positive on-bill B/C ratios, while still not resulting in oversizing of PV systems.

Other studies have shown that cost-effectiveness of electrification increases with high efficiency space conditioning and water heating equipment in the all-electric home. This was not directly evaluated in this analysis but based on the favorable cost-effectiveness results of the Equipment, Preempted package for the individual mixed fuel and allanalysis would result in increased cost-effectiveness.

The Reach Code Team found there can be substantial variability in first costs, particularly related to natural gas infrastructure. Costs are project-dependent and will be impacted by such factors as site characteristics, distance to the nearest gas main, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of homes per development among other things. While the best cost data available to the Reach Code Team was applied in this analysis, individual projects may experience different costs, either higher or lower than the estimates presented here.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 43 2019-07-17
18 Margins
Clim
ate
Z
o
n
e
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Efficiency
Efficiency &
PV/Battery Efficiency Efficiency & PV
Efficiency &
PV/Battery
01 5.0 10.5 6.5 31.0 41.0
02 3.0 10.0 4.5 19.0 30.0
03 2.5 10.0 4.0 18.0 29.0
04 2.5 10.0 3.0 17.0 28.5
05 2.5 9.0 4.0 18.0 28.5
06 1.5 9.5 2.0 14.0 26.0
07 n/a 9.0 n/a 11.0 24.0
08 1.0 8.0 1.5 10.5 21.5
09 2.5 8.5 2.5 11.5 21.0
10 3.0 9.5 3.0 11.0 21.0
11 4.0 9.0 4.5 14.0 23.0
12 3.0 9.5 3.5 15.5 25.0
13 4.5 9.5 5.0 13.0 22.0
14 4.5 9.0 5.5 15.5 23.5
15 4.5 7.0 5.5 6.0 13.0
16 5.0 10.5 4.5 26.5 35.0
19 Margins
Clim
ate
Z
o
n
e
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Efficiency
Efficiency &
PV/Battery Efficiency Efficiency & PV
Efficiency &
PV/Battery
01 2.0 11.5 3.0 22.5 34.5
02 1.5 10.5 1.5 17.5 30.5
03 0.5 10.0 n/a 16.0 29.5
04 1.0 11.0 1.0 15.0 28.5
05 0.5 9.5 0.5 17.0 30.0
06 1.0 10.5 1.0 13.5 27.5
07 0.5 11.0 0.5 12.5 27.0
08 1.0 9.5 1.0 11.5 24.0
09 1.5 9.5 1.5 11.0 23.0
10 1.5 10.0 1.5 10.5 23.0
11 2.5 10.5 3.5 13.0 25.0
12 1.5 10.0 2.5 14.0 26.5
13 3.0 10.5 3.0 12.0 23.5
14 3.0 9.5 3.5 14.0 24.5
15 4.0 8.5 4.0 7.0 16.5
16 2.0 9.5 3.0 19.5 29.5
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 44 2019-07-17
5 References
California Energy Commission. 2017. Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. 2018a. 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual. CEC-400-2018- 023-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC400-2018-023/CEC-400-2018-023-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018b. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400-2018-020-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-020/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018c. 2019 Reference Appendices. CEC-400-2018-021-CMF. December 2018.

California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-021/CEC-400-2018- 021-CMF.pdf
California Energy Commission. 2018d. 2019 Residential Compliance Manual. CEC-400-2018-017-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-017/CEC-400- 2018-017-CMF.pdf
California Energy Commission. 2019. 2019 Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. CEC400-2019-005-CMF. May 2019. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-005/CEC-400-2019-005-CMF.pdf California Public Utilities Commission. 2016. Rulemaking No. 15-03-010 An Order Instituting Rulemaking to Identify Disadvantaged Communities in the San Joaquin Valley and Analyze Economically Feasible Options to Increase Access to Affordable Energy in Those Disadvantages Communities. Proposed Decision of Commissioner Guzman Aceves. April 07, 2017. http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M183/K389/183389022.PDF Davis Energy Group. 2015. Evaluation of Ducts in Conditioned Space for New California Homes. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. March 2015. https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/evaluation-ducts-conditionedspace-new-california-homes Energy & Environmental Economics. 2019. Residential Building Electrification in California. April 2019. https://www.ethree.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf EPRI. 2016. SMUD All-Electric Homes Electrification Case Study: Summary for the Three-Prong Test Discussion.

Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. September. 2016. Presentation to Sacramento Municipal Utility District. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-07- 09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents/
Itron. 2014. 2010-2012 WO017 Ex Ante Measure Cost Study: Final Report. Itron. May 2014. Presented to California Public Utilities Commission.

Barbose, Galen and Darghouth, Naim. 2018. Tracking the Sun. Installed Price Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States 2018 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September 2018. https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/tracking_the_sun_2018_edition_final_0.pdf Navigant. 2018. Analysis of the Role of Gas for a Low-Carbon California Future. July 24, 2018. Prepared for Southern California Gas Company.
https://www.socalgas.com/1443741887279/SoCalGas_Renewable_Gas_Final-Report.pdf 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 45 2019-07-17
Penn, Ivan. 2018. Cheaper Battery Is Unveiled as a Step to a Carbon-Free Grid. The New York Times. September 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/business/energy-environment/zinc-battery-solar-power.html.

Accessed January 29, 2019.

Statewide CASE Team. 2017a. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Drain Water Heat Recovery Final Report. July 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASEReport_DWHR_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017b. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative High Performance Attics Final Report. September 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASEReport_HPA_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017c. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative High Performance Walls Final Report. September 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASEReport_HPW_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017d. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Residential High Performance Windows & Doors Final Report. August 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-Report_Res-Windows-and-Doors_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2018. Energy Savings Potential and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High Efficiency Windows in California. Prepared by Frontier Energy. May 2018. https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/energysavings-potential-and-cost-effectiveness-analysis-high-efficiency-windows-california Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2016. CALGreen Cost-Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Davis Energy Group. November 2016. http://localenergycodes.com/download/50/file_path/fieldList/2016%20RNC%20Tiers%201-2%20CostEff%20Report Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2017a. CALGreen All-Electric Cost-Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Davis Energy Group. October 2017. http://localenergycodes.com/download/276/file_path/fieldList/2016%20RNC%20All-Electric%20CostEff%20Report Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2017b. 2016 Title 24 Residential Reach Code Recommendations: Costeffectiveness Analysis for All California Climate Zones. Prepared for Southern California Edison. Prepared by TRC Energy Services. August 2017.
http://localenergycodes.com/download/283/file_path/fieldList/2016%20RNC%20Reach%20Code%20Tier%203 %20Cost-Eff%20Report
Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2018. PV + Battery Storage Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Prepared by EnergySoft. July, 2018.
http://localenergycodes.com/download/430/file_path/fieldList/PV%20Plus%20Battery%20Storage%20Report Hopkins, Asa, Takahashi, Kenji, Glick, Devi, Whited, Melissa. 2018. Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings. Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. October 2018. http://www.synapseenergy.com/sites/default/files/Decarbonization-Heating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf TRC. 2018. City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis Draft. September 2018. https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66742 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 46 2019-07-17
A
15 (courtesy of the California Energy Commission17)
17 https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 47 2019-07-17
B
PG&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 48 SCE ............................................................................................................................................................... 51 SoCalGas ....................................................................................................................................................... 53 SDG&E........................................................................................................................................................... 54 Escalation Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 56 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 48 2019-07-17
PG&E
The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 20 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. 20 ma
Baseline
Territory
CZ01 V
CZ02 X
CZ03 T
CZ04 X
CZ05 T
CZ11 R
CZ12 S
CZ13 R
CZ16 Y
The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending January 2019 according to the rates shown below.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 49 2019-07-17
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 50 2019-07-17
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 51 2019-07-17
SCE
The following pages provide details on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 21 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. 21 SCE
Baseline
Territory
CZ06 6
CZ08 8
CZ09 9
CZ10 10
CZ14 14
CZ15 15
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 52 2019-07-17
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 53 2019-07-17
SoCalGas
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 22 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.
22 Baseline
Territory
CZ05 2
CZ06 1
CZ08 1
CZ09 1
CZ10 1
CZ14 2
CZ15 1
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 54 2019-07-17
SDG&E
Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 23 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.
23 Baseline
Territory
CZ07 Coastal
CZ10 Inland
CZ14 Mountain
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 55 2019-07-17
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 56 2019-07-17
The average annual escalation rates in the following table were used in this study and Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). These rates are applied to the 2019 rate schedules over a thirty-year period beginning in 2020. SDG&E was not covered in the E3 study. The Reach Code Team applied the same approach that E3 applied for PG&E and SoCalGas to arrive at average escalation rates between 2020 and 2022. 24 Statewide Electric
Residential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
Natural Gas Residential Core Rate
(%/yr escalation, real)
PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
2020 2.0% 1.48% 6.37% 5.00%
2021 2.0% 5.69% 4.12% 3.14%
2022 2.0% 1.11% 4.12% 2.94%
2023 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2024 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2025 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2026 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2027 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2028 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2029 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2030 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2031 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2032 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2033 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2034 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2035 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2036 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2037 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2038 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2039 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2040 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2041 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2042 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2043 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2044 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2045 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2046 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2047 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2048 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2049 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 57 2019-07-17
C
25 ost-Effective
BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted
CZ Utility
RDEl atoT
ycnei ciffE
RDE
neerGLAC
RDE1rei T
tegraT
rep2OCsbl tf qs
WkVP
RDEl atoT
ycnei ciffE
RDE
ycnei ciffE
ni graMRDE
pmoC%
ni graM
rep2OCsbl tf qs
WkVP
C/Blli B-nO
oitaR
C/BVDT
oitaR
RDEl atoT
ycnei ciffE
RDE
ycnei ciffE
ni graMRDE
pmoC%
ni graM
rep2OCsbl tf qs
WkVP
C/Blli B-nO
oitaR
C/BVDT
oitaR
1 PG&E 32.5 54.2 23 3.0 3.3 27.9 49.0 5.3 18.8% 2.5 3.2 3.4 2.8 26.0 47.3 6.9 25.1% 2.3 3.2 4.9 4.12 PG&E 25.0 46.0 12 2.2 2.8 22.0 42.7 3.3 16.3% 1.9 2.8 1.6 1.7 21.8 42.6 3.3 16.4% 1.9 2.8 3.8 3.63 PG&E 23.9 46.9 10 1.9 2.7 21.3 43.9 3.0 16.7% 1.6 2.7 1.3 1.3 20.1 42.8 4.1 22.8% 1.5 2.7 1.9 2.04 PG&E 23.1 44.9 8 1.9 2.7 20.8 42.4 2.5 13.9% 1.7 2.7 0.9 1.2 20.5 42.2 2.7 14.9% 1.6 2.7 2.4 2.75 PG&E 22.2 44.4 10 1.8 2.6 19.7 41.7 2.7 16.7% 1.6 2.5 1.1 1.2 19.7 41.7 2.6 16.2% 1.5 2.5 2.3 2.55 PG&E/SoCalGas 22.2 44.4 10 1.8 2.6 19.7 41.7 2.7 16.7% 1.6 2.5 0.9 1.2 19.7 41.7 2.6 16.2% 1.5 2.5 2.0 2.56 SCE/SoCalGas 23.3 49.9 10 1.6 2.7 21.5 47.8 2.0 12.1% 1.5 2.7 0.7 1.2 21.5 47.9 2.0 11.8% 1.4 2.7 1.6 2.07 SDG&E 20.3 49.1 5 1.3 2.6 20.3 49.1 0.0 0.0% 1.3 2.6 - - 18.8 47.6 1.5 12.4% 1.2 2.6 1.5 1.48 SCE/SoCalGas 21.3 46.9 10 1.4 2.9 20.1 45.6 1.3 7.7% 1.3 2.9 0.6 1.4 19.7 45.3 1.6 9.4% 1.3 2.9 1.3 1.89 SCE/SoCalGas 24.5 47.7 13 1.5 2.9 22.3 45.1 2.6 11.7% 1.5 2.9 0.7 2.0 21.9 44.8 2.9 13.4% 1.4 2.9 1.8 3.7 10 SCE/SoCalGas 24.2 46.3 10 1.6 3.0 21.7 43.1 3.2 14.3% 1.5 3.0 0.6 1.3 21.5 43.1 3.2 14.6% 1.4 3.0 2.0 3.810 SDG&E 24.2 46.3 11 1.6 3.0 21.7 43.1 3.2 14.3% 1.5 3.0 0.8 1.3 21.5 43.1 3.2 14.6% 1.4 3.0 2.6 3.811 PG&E 24.6 44.9 12 2.1 3.6 21.3 40.6 4.3 16.4% 1.9 3.4 0.8 1.2 20.7 39.9 5.1 19.2% 1.8 3.4 2.5 3.712 PG&E 25.5 44.8 11 2.1 3.0 22.5 41.3 3.5 14.9% 1.9 2.9 1.2 1.8 22.5 41.4 3.4 14.4% 1.9 3.0 3.3 4.613 PG&E 25.7 46.5 15 2.0 3.8 22.2 41.9 4.6 16.9% 1.8 3.6 0.8 1.3 21.2 40.7 5.8 21.4% 1.7 3.6 5.3 8.414 SCE/SoCalGas 25.3 46.3 11 2.3 3.2 21.5 41.3 5.0 18.5% 2.1 3.0 1.6 2.5 20.8 40.4 5.8 21.7% 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.114 SDG&E 25.3 46.3 22 2.3 3.2 21.5 41.3 5.0 18.5% 2.1 3.0 1.9 2.5 20.8 40.4 5.8 21.7% 2.0 3.0 4.9 6.115 SCE/SoCalGas 22.4 49.1 11 1.7 5.4 19.7 44.3 4.8 14.8% 1.6 5.0 1.0 1.6 19.5 44.1 5.0 15.4% 1.5 5.0 >1 >116 PG&E 30.4 48.9 22 3.3 2.7 25.0 43.5 5.4 20.6% 2.6 2.7 1.6 1.5 24.8 42.7 6.2 23.5% 2.7 2.6 2.2 2.2 es where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 58 2019-07-17
26 PV/ ost-Effective
CZ Utility
BASECASE Efficiency & PV/Battery
Total
EDR
CALGreen Tier 1
EDR Target
lbs CO2
per sqft
PV
kW
Total
EDR
Total
EDR
Margin
% Comp
Margin
lbs CO2
per sqft
PV
kW
On-Bill B/C
Ratio

TDV B/C
Ratio
1 PG&E 32.5 23 3.0 3.3 21.9 10.6 31.8% 2.4 3.3 1.0 1.82 PG&E 25.0 12 2.2 2.8 14.9 10.1 27.3% 1.8 2.9 0.5 1.73 PG&E 23.9 10 1.9 2.7 13.9 10.0 27.7% 1.5 2.8 0.4 1.54 PG&E 23.1 8 1.9 2.7 13.0 10.1 24.9% 1.5 2.8 0.3 1.65 PG&E 22.2 10 1.8 2.6 12.8 9.4 29.7% 1.4 2.6 0.4 1.55 PG&E/SoCalGas 22.2 10 1.8 2.6 12.8 9.4 29.7% 1.4 2.6 0.3 1.56 SCE/SoCalGas 23.3 10 1.6 2.7 13.6 9.8 20.1% 1.2 2.8 0.9 1.47 SDG&E 20.3 5 1.3 2.6 11.1 9.2 9.0% 1.0 2.7 0.1 1.58 SCE/SoCalGas 21.3 10 1.4 2.9 12.9 8.4 23.7% 1.1 3.0 1.1 1.59 SCE/SoCalGas 24.5 13 1.5 2.9 15.7 8.8 24.7% 1.2 3.0 1.1 1.7 10 SCE/SoCalGas 24.2 10 1.6 3.0 14.6 9.6 27.3% 1.3 3.1 1.1 1.610 SDG&E 24.2 11 1.6 3.0 14.6 9.6 27.3% 1.3 3.1 0.6 1.611 PG&E 24.6 12 2.1 3.6 15.4 9.2 29.4% 1.8 3.5 0.4 1.612 PG&E 25.5 11 2.1 3.0 15.9 9.6 28.9% 1.8 3.0 0.5 1.913 PG&E 25.7 15 2.0 3.8 16.1 9.7 28.9% 1.7 3.7 0.4 1.714 SCE/SoCalGas 25.3 11 2.3 3.2 16.3 9.0 30.1% 1.8 3.1 1.5 1.914 SDG&E 25.3 22 2.3 3.2 16.3 9.0 30.1% 1.8 3.1 1.4 1.915 SCE/SoCalGas 22.4 11 1.7 5.4 15.3 7.1 25.1% 1.4 5.1 1.3 1.716 PG&E 30.4 22 3.3 2.7 19.9 10.5 32.6% 2.4 2.8 0.9 1.5 >1 indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 59 2019-07-17
27 All-Electric ost-Effective
CZ Utility
BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted
RDEl atoT
RDEycnei ciffE
1rei TneerGLAC
tegraTRDE
tfqsrep2OCsbl Wk VP
RDEl atoT
RDEycnei ciffE
RDEycnei ciffE
ni graM
ni graMpmoC%
tfqsrep2OCsbl Wk VP
oitaRC/Blli B-nO
oitaRC/BVDT
RDEl atoT
RDEycnei ciffE
RDEycnei ciffE
ni graM
ni graMpmoC%
tfqsrep2OCsbl Wk VP
oitaRC/Blli B-nO
oitaRC/BVDT
1 PG&E 46.8 68.2 36 1.5 3.3 31.8 53.0 15.2 40.2% 1.0 3.3 1.8 1.7 39.9 61.3 6.9 18.3% 1.3 3.3 2.9 2.72 PG&E 32.8 53.7 16 1.1 2.8 27.9 48.7 4.9 20.5% 0.9 2.8 1.2 1.1 27.7 48.5 5.1 21.2% 0.9 2.8 2.3 2.13 PG&E 33.1 55.6 14 1.0 2.7 28.5 50.9 4.7 20.6% 0.8 2.7 2.6 2.4 28.7 51.2 4.4 19.6% 0.9 2.7 1.8 1.64 PG&E 31.3 52.8 12 1.0 2.7 27.9 49.4 3.4 15.5% 0.9 2.7 1.9 1.8 27.4 48.9 3.9 17.6% 0.9 2.7 1.5 1.55 PG&E 32.5 54.2 16 1.0 2.6 28.1 49.9 4.4 19.7% 0.9 2.6 2.6 2.3 28.0 49.8 4.4 20.3% 0.9 2.6 1.9 1.75 PG&E/SoCalGas 32.5 54.2 12 1.0 2.6 28.1 49.9 4.4 19.7% 0.9 2.6 2.6 2.3 28.0 49.8 4.4 20.3% 0.9 2.6 1.9 1.76 SCE/SoCalGas 29.7 55.8 12 0.9 2.7 27.7 53.8 2.0 10.9% 0.8 2.7 1.3 1.4 26.8 53.0 2.9 16.0% 0.8 2.7 2.2 2.37 SDG&E 27.1 55.3 7 0.7 2.6 27.1 55.3 0.0 0.0% 0.7 2.6 - - 24.8 53.0 2.2 16.9% 0.7 2.6 1.6 1.78 SCE/SoCalGas 26.1 51.5 10 0.8 2.9 24.5 49.9 1.6 8.9% 0.8 2.9 0.6 1.2 24.4 49.7 1.8 9.7% 0.8 2.9 2.8 3.09 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 51.9 13 0.9 2.9 26.0 49.1 2.8 12.5% 0.8 2.9 0.8 2.0 25.5 48.6 3.3 14.7% 0.8 2.9 2.1 3.2 10 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 50.7 11 0.9 3.0 25.7 47.6 3.1 14.0% 0.9 3.0 0.9 1.5 25.3 47.2 3.4 15.5% 0.8 3.0 2.3 3.210 SDG&E 28.8 50.7 12 0.9 3.0 25.7 47.6 3.1 14.0% 0.9 3.0 1.1 1.5 25.3 47.2 3.4 15.5% 0.8 3.0 2.6 3.211 PG&E 30.0 50.2 13 1.1 3.6 25.4 45.6 4.6 16.2% 1.0 3.6 1.2 1.5 24.1 44.3 5.9 20.8% 0.9 3.6 3.0 3.312 PG&E 30.9 50.1 13 1.0 3.0 27.1 46.3 3.8 15.3% 0.9 3.0 0.8 1.1 25.8 45.0 5.1 20.4% 0.9 3.0 2.0 2.513 PG&E 30.7 51.5 16 1.1 3.8 25.7 46.4 5.1 17.4% 0.9 3.8 1.1 1.4 24.7 45.4 6.0 20.9% 0.9 3.8 2.9 3.314 SCE/SoCalGas 31.3 52.2 8 1.4 3.2 25.7 46.6 5.6 18.9% 1.2 3.2 1.0 1.5 25.3 46.2 6.0 20.5% 1.2 3.2 2.3 3.114 SDG&E 31.3 52.2 39 1.4 3.2 25.7 46.6 5.6 18.9% 1.2 3.2 1.3 1.5 25.3 46.2 6.0 20.5% 1.2 3.2 2.9 3.115 SCE/SoCalGas 26.2 52.8 8 1.3 5.4 20.6 47.2 5.6 16.8% 1.1 5.4 1.1 1.6 18.9 45.5 7.3 21.8% 1.0 5.4 3.3 4.516 PG&E 46.5 64.6 39 1.7 2.7 36.8 54.9 9.7 25.2% 1.4 2.7 1.7 1.7 41.6 59.7 4.9 12.7% 1.6 2.7 2.4 2.3 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 60 2019-07-17
28 All-Electric PV-PV/B ost-Effective
CZ Utility
BASECASE Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery
RDEl atoT
1rei TneerGLAC
tegraTRDE
tfqsrep2OCsbl Wk VP
RDEl atoT
RDEl atoT
ni graM
ni graMpmoC%
tfqsrep2OCsbl Wk VP
oitaRC/Blli B-nO
oitaRC/BVDT
RDEl atoT
RDEl atoT
ni graM
ni graMpmoC%
tfqsrep2OCsbl Wk VP
oitaRC/Blli B-nO
oitaRC/BVDT
1 PG&E 46.8 36 1.5 3.3 15.4 31.4 40.2% 0.5 6.0 1.8 1.5 5.6 41.2 51.9% 0.3 6.76 1.5 1.42 PG&E 32.8 16 1.1 2.8 13.4 19.4 20.5% 0.5 4.9 1.8 1.4 2.7 30.1 31.5% 0.3 5.51 1.4 1.53 PG&E 33.1 14 1.0 2.7 14.6 18.5 20.6% 0.5 4.5 2.2 1.7 3.7 29.3 31.6% 0.2 5.10 1.6 1.64 PG&E 31.3 12 1.0 2.7 14.1 17.2 15.5% 0.5 4.5 2.1 1.6 2.8 28.6 26.5% 0.2 5.15 1.5 1.75 PG&E 32.5 16 1.0 2.6 14.3 18.2 19.7% 0.5 4.3 2.3 1.8 3.8 28.7 32.7% 0.2 4.84 1.7 1.75 PG&E/SoCalGas 32.5 12 1.0 2.6 14.3 18.2 19.7% 0.5 4.3 2.3 1.8 3.8 28.7 32.7% 0.2 4.84 1.7 1.76 SCE/SoCalGas 29.7 12 0.9 2.7 15.5 14.3 10.9% 0.6 4.1 1.2 1.5 3.6 26.1 18.9% 0.3 4.68 1.2 1.57 SDG&E 27.1 7 0.7 2.6 15.8 11.3 0.7% 0.6 3.7 1.9 1.5 2.9 24.2 6.7% 0.3 4.21 1.3 1.68 SCE/SoCalGas 26.1 10 0.8 2.9 15.1 10.9 8.9% 0.6 4.0 1.0 1.5 4.5 21.6 24.9% 0.3 4.54 1.1 1.59 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 13 0.9 2.9 17.3 11.5 12.5% 0.7 4.1 1.1 1.6 7.6 21.3 25.5% 0.4 4.66 1.2 1.6 10 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 11 0.9 3.0 17.7 11.1 14.0% 0.7 4.2 1.1 1.5 7.6 21.2 27.0% 0.4 4.78 1.2 1.610 SDG&E 28.8 12 0.9 3.0 17.7 11.1 14.0% 0.7 4.2 1.7 1.5 7.6 21.2 27.0% 0.4 4.78 1.5 1.611 PG&E 30.0 13 1.1 3.6 15.8 14.2 16.2% 0.6 5.4 1.8 1.6 6.8 23.2 29.2% 0.4 6.11 1.5 1.712 PG&E 30.9 13 1.0 3.0 15.2 15.7 15.3% 0.5 5.0 1.7 1.4 5.6 25.4 29.3% 0.3 5.62 1.3 1.513 PG&E 30.7 16 1.1 3.8 17.3 13.4 17.4% 0.6 5.4 1.7 1.5 8.2 22.5 29.4% 0.4 6.14 1.4 1.614 SCE/SoCalGas 31.3 8 1.4 3.2 15.8 15.5 18.9% 0.9 4.8 1.2 1.6 7.4 23.9 30.9% 0.6 5.39 1.4 1.614 SDG&E 31.3 39 1.4 3.2 15.8 15.5 18.9% 0.9 4.8 1.8 1.6 7.4 23.9 30.9% 0.6 5.39 1.7 1.615 SCE/SoCalGas 26.2 8 1.3 5.4 20.0 6.2 16.8% 1.1 5.5 1.1 1.6 12.7 13.5 27.0% 0.8 6.25 1.2 1.616 PG&E 46.5 39 1.7 2.7 19.6 27.0 25.2% 0.9 5.5 2.1 1.6 11.1 35.4 34.3% 0.6 6.17 1.7 1.6 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 61 2019-07-17
D
29 Non- VVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 62 2019-07-17
30 LLAHU - Low Leakage Air Handling UnitVVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 63 2019-07-17
31 PV/
VVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 64 2019-07-17
32 All-Electric Non- VVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 65 2019-07-17
33 All-Electric
LLAHU - Low Leakage Air Handling UnitVVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 66 2019-07-17
34 All-Electric
VVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 67 2019-07-17
35 All-Electric PV/
VVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 68 2019-07-17
E
36 -E
enoZetamil C
ytilitU
BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted
RDEl atoT
RDEycnei ciffE
1rei TneerGLAC
tegraTRDE
tfqsrep2OCsbl r ep Wk VP gni dli uB RDEl at oT
RDEycnei ciffE
RDEycnei ciffE
ni graM
ni graMpmoC%
tfqsrep2OCsbl r ep Wk VP gni dli uB
oitaRC/Blli B-nO
oitaRC/BVDT
RDEl atoT
RDEycnei ciffE
RDEycnei ciffE
ni graM
ni graMpmoC%
tfqsrep2OCsbl r ep Wk VP gni dli uB
oitaRC/Blli B-nO
oitaRC/BVDT
01 PG&E 28.6 60.7 23 2.7 15.9 25.1 57.3 3.4 19.3% 2.3 16.0 1.1 1.2 26.4 58.4 2.3 12.2% 2.5 15.9 1.3 1.402 PG&E 25.7 56.5 12 2.4 13.9 24.2 54.7 1.8 9.9% 2.3 13.8 1.0 1.7 23.6 54.2 2.3 12.5% 2.2 13.9 1.1 1.503 PG&E 24.7 57.8 10 2.1 13.5 24.0 57.2 0.6 4.7% 2.1 13.5 1.0 1.1 23.1 56.2 1.6 11.2% 1.9 13.4 1.1 1.204 PG&E 25.5 56.8 8 2.2 13.6 24.3 55.5 1.3 7.7% 2.1 13.5 0.8 1.2 23.8 54.9 1.9 10.9% 2.0 13.5 1.1 1.705 PG&E 24.2 57.4 10 2.1 12.6 23.7 56.9 0.5 4.4% 2.0 12.6 1.0 1.0 22.7 55.9 1.5 10.9% 1.9 12.6 1.2 1.305 PG&E/SoCalGas 24.2 57.4 10 2.1 12.6 23.7 56.9 0.5 4.4% 2.0 12.6 0.8 1.0 22.7 55.9 1.5 10.9% 1.9 12.6 1.1 1.306 SCE/SoCalGas 26.8 63.2 10 2.2 13.9 25.8 61.9 1.3 7.0% 2.1 13.8 0.6 1.5 25.5 61.9 1.3 7.4% 2.0 13.9 1.4 1.707 SDG&E 26.8 64.5 5 2.1 13.2 26.1 63.6 0.9 5.3% 2.1 13.1 0.7 2.2 25.0 62.5 2.0 12.2% 2.0 13.2 1.1 1.408 SCE/SoCalGas 25.7 61.8 10 2.2 14.6 24.6 60.3 1.5 7.4% 2.1 14.5 0.7 1.4 24.6 60.7 1.1 5.7% 2.0 14.6 1.4 1.709 SCE/SoCalGas 26.4 59.7 13 2.2 14.7 25.0 57.9 1.8 8.2% 2.2 14.4 1.5 3.3 24.1 56.9 2.8 12.9% 2.1 14.4 1.7 2.910 SCE/SoCalGas 27.0 58.7 10 2.3 15.1 25.7 57.0 1.7 7.7% 2.2 14.9 0.8 1.7 24.7 55.8 2.9 13.0% 2.1 14.8 2.0 3.310 SDG&E 27.0 58.7 11 2.3 15.1 25.7 57.0 1.7 7.7% 2.2 14.9 1.1 1.7 24.7 55.8 2.9 13.0% 2.1 14.8 2.6 3.311 PG&E 24.5 54.5 12 2.4 16.6 22.3 51.6 2.9 11.9% 2.2 16.3 0.7 1.2 22.2 51.3 3.2 13.2% 2.2 16.1 1.8 3.312 PG&E 25.9 55.3 11 2.3 14.9 24.3 53.4 1.9 8.8% 2.2 14.8 1.1 2.2 23.5 52.5 2.8 12.8% 2.1 14.7 1.2 2.213 PG&E 26.1 55.9 15 2.3 17.5 23.7 52.8 3.1 12.1% 2.1 17.1 0.6 1.3 23.7 52.5 3.4 13.2% 2.1 16.9 2.0 3.814 SCE/SoCalGas 25.6 55.9 11 2.8 14.6 23.1 52.8 3.1 12.8% 2.5 14.3 0.7 1.2 23.2 52.6 3.3 13.3% 2.5 14.2 2.0 3.014 SDG&E 25.6 55.9 22 2.8 14.6 23.1 52.8 3.1 12.8% 2.5 14.3 0.9 1.2 23.2 52.6 3.3 13.3% 2.5 14.2 2.5 3.015 SCE/SoCalGas 25.0 59.2 11 2.5 21.6 22.7 55.0 4.2 12.9% 2.4 20.4 1.4 2.3 22.6 54.8 4.4 13.5% 2.3 20.4 >1 >116 PG&E 29.4 57.3 22 3.5 13.4 26.6 54.9 2.4 11.3% 3.0 13.7 1.1 1.2 26.9 54.4 2.9 13.1% 3.1 13.2 1.8 2.1 >1 es cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 69 2019-07-17
37 -E
CZ Utility
BASECASE Efficiency & PV/Battery
Total
EDR
CALGreen
Tier 1 EDR
Target
lbs CO2
per sqft
PV kW
per
Building
Total
EDR
Total
EDR
Margin
% Comp
Margin
lbs CO2
per sqft
PV kW
per
Building
On-Bill
B/C Ratio

TDV B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 28.6 23 2.7 15.9 17.1 11.5 29.3% 2.1 16.5 0.4 1.302 PG&E 25.7 12 2.4 13.9 14.8 10.9 16.9% 2.1 14.2 0.2 1.803 PG&E 24.7 10 2.1 13.5 14.4 10.3 10.7% 1.9 13.9 0.1 1.604 PG&E 25.5 8 2.2 13.6 14.3 11.2 15.7% 1.9 13.9 0.2 1.805 PG&E 24.2 10 2.1 12.6 14.3 9.9 9.4% 1.8 13.1 0.2 1.605 PG&E/SoCalGas 24.2 10 2.1 12.6 14.3 9.9 9.4% 1.8 13.1 0.2 1.606 SCE/SoCalGas 26.8 10 2.2 13.9 16.1 10.7 10.0% 1.8 14.2 0.6 1.507 SDG&E 26.8 5 2.1 13.2 15.8 11.0 7.3% 1.7 13.6 0.0 1.608 SCE/SoCalGas 25.7 10 2.2 14.6 15.8 9.9 13.4% 1.8 14.9 0.8 1.509 SCE/SoCalGas 26.4 13 2.2 14.7 16.7 9.7 15.2% 1.8 14.9 1.0 1.710 SCE/SoCalGas 27.0 10 2.3 15.1 16.6 10.4 13.7% 1.9 15.3 1.1 1.810 SDG&E 27.0 11 2.3 15.1 16.6 10.4 13.7% 1.9 15.3 0.3 1.811 PG&E 24.5 12 2.4 16.6 14.0 10.5 19.9% 2.0 16.7 0.4 1.812 PG&E 25.9 11 2.3 14.9 15.6 10.3 17.8% 2.0 15.2 0.3 2.013 PG&E 26.1 15 2.3 17.5 15.4 10.7 20.1% 2.0 17.5 0.4 1.814 SCE/SoCalGas 25.6 11 2.8 14.6 16.0 9.6 20.8% 2.2 14.7 1.2 1.514 SDG&E 25.6 22 2.8 14.6 16.0 9.6 20.8% 2.2 14.7 0.6 1.515 SCE/SoCalGas 25.0 11 2.5 21.6 16.2 8.8 18.9% 2.1 20.9 1.4 1.916 PG&E 29.4 22 3.5 13.4 19.5 9.9 19.3% 2.7 14.1 0.5 1.4 es cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 70 2019-07-17
38 All-Electric -E
CZ Utility
BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted
RDEl atoT
RDEycnei ciffE
rei TneerGLAC
tegraTRDE1
rep2OCsbl tf qs
repWkVP
gni dli uB
RDEl atoT
RDEycnei ciffE
RDEycnei ciffE
ni graM
pmoC%
ni graM
rep2OCsbl tf qs
repWkVP
gni dli uB
C/Blli B-nO
oitaR
oitaRC/BVDT
RDEl atoT
RDEycnei ciffE
RDEycnei ciffE
ni graM
pmoC%
ni graM
rep2OCsbl tf qs
repWkVP
gni dli uB
C/Blli B-nO
oitaR
oitaRC/BVDT
01 PG&E 41.1 70.6 36 1.6 15.9 37.5 67.0 3.6 14.6% 1.5 15.9 1.6 1.4 37.1 67.3 3.3 18.4% 1.4 15.9 2.4 2.302 PG&E 34.3 63.4 16 1.4 13.9 32.4 61.5 1.9 9.1% 1.3 13.9 1.7 2.1 31.1 60.2 3.2 15.1% 1.3 13.9 1.6 1.603 PG&E 33.5 64.2 14 1.3 13.5 33.5 64.2 0.0 0.0% 1.3 13.5 - - 30.4 61.5 2.7 19.5% 1.1 13.5 1.7 1.604 PG&E 32.0 61.4 12 1.3 13.6 30.5 60.0 1.4 8.0% 1.2 13.6 1.4 1.5 29.7 59.2 2.2 12.2% 1.2 13.6 1.2 1.105 PG&E 34.7 65.4 16 1.3 12.6 34.1 64.8 0.6 3.4% 1.3 12.6 1.1 0.9 30.6 61.8 3.6 23.5% 1.2 12.6 2.1 2.005 PG&E/SoCalGas 34.7 65.4 12 1.3 12.6 34.1 64.8 0.6 3.4% 1.3 12.6 1.1 0.9 30.6 61.8 3.6 23.5% 1.2 12.6 2.1 2.006 SCE/SoCalGas 31.9 65.9 12 1.3 13.9 30.9 64.9 1.0 5.9% 1.3 13.9 0.7 1.3 29.8 63.7 2.2 13.0% 1.2 13.9 1.6 1.907 SDG&E 31.7 66.6 7 1.2 13.2 31.1 66.0 0.6 4.6% 1.2 13.2 0.6 1.0 29.7 64.7 1.9 13.6% 1.1 13.2 1.6 1.708 SCE/SoCalGas 29.8 63.6 10 1.3 14.6 28.6 62.4 1.2 6.5% 1.2 14.6 0.9 1.7 27.9 61.7 1.9 10.3% 1.2 14.6 1.6 1.809 SCE/SoCalGas 30.4 61.9 13 1.3 14.7 28.7 60.3 1.6 8.1% 1.3 14.7 1.3 2.7 28.8 60.4 1.5 7.4% 1.2 14.7 1.6 1.610 SCE/SoCalGas 31.2 61.3 11 1.4 15.1 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.7% 1.3 15.1 1.2 2.0 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.6% 1.3 15.1 1.7 2.010 SDG&E 31.2 61.3 12 1.4 15.1 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.7% 1.3 15.1 1.5 2.0 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.6% 1.3 15.1 2.0 2.011 PG&E 31.9 60.6 13 1.4 16.6 28.5 57.1 3.5 13.1% 1.3 16.6 1.4 1.6 28.1 56.7 3.9 14.4% 1.3 16.6 2.0 2.312 PG&E 32.0 59.9 13 1.3 14.9 29.4 57.3 2.6 11.4% 1.2 14.9 0.9 1.1 29.0 57.0 2.9 13.0% 1.2 14.9 1.6 1.613 PG&E 32.1 60.5 16 1.4 17.5 28.8 57.2 3.3 12.6% 1.2 17.5 1.3 1.6 28.3 56.7 3.8 14.3% 1.2 17.5 2.0 2.314 SCE/SoCalGas 32.5 61.6 8 1.7 14.6 28.9 57.9 3.7 13.8% 1.6 14.6 1.2 1.6 28.7 57.8 3.8 14.3% 1.6 14.6 1.6 2.214 SDG&E 32.5 61.6 39 1.7 14.6 28.9 57.9 3.7 13.8% 1.6 14.6 1.5 1.6 28.7 57.8 3.8 14.3% 1.6 14.6 2.0 2.215 SCE/SoCalGas 28.2 61.0 8 1.8 21.6 23.9 56.6 4.4 14.2% 1.6 21.6 1.5 2.3 21.9 54.6 6.4 20.6% 1.5 21.6 1.2 1.716 PG&E 40.2 66.6 39 1.9 13.4 36.2 62.5 4.1 15.0% 1.7 13.4 2.1 2.1 37.1 63.4 3.2 11.4% 1.7 13.4 1.6 1.7 both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 71 2019-07-17
39 Multif All-Electric - -E
enoZetamil C
ytilitU
BASECASE Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery
RDEl atoT
rei TneerGLAC
tegraTRDE1
rep2OCsbl tf qs
repWkVP
gni dli uB
RDEl atoT
RDEl atoT
ni graM
pmoC%
ni graM
rep2OCsbl tf qs
repWkVP
gni dli uB
C/Blli B-nO
oitaR
oitaRC/BVDT
RDEl atoT
RDEl atoT
ni graM
pmoC%
ni graM
rep2OCsbl tf qs
repWkVP
gni dli uB
C/Blli B-nO
oitaR
oitaRC/BVDT
01 PG&E 41.1 36 1.6 15.9 18.6 22.5 14.6% 0.8 26.9 2.0 1.5 6.6 34.5 24.6% 0.4 30.3 1.4 1.502 PG&E 34.3 16 1.4 13.9 16.8 17.5 9.1% 0.7 21.9 2.4 1.8 3.4 30.9 16.1% 0.3 24.8 1.4 1.803 PG&E 33.5 14 1.3 13.5 17.4 16.1 2.6% 0.7 20.8 2.4 1.7 4.0 29.5 8.6% 0.3 23.6 1.4 1.704 PG&E 32.0 12 1.3 13.6 17.0 15.0 8.0% 0.7 20.2 2.4 1.8 3.1 28.9 16.0% 0.3 22.9 1.4 1.905 PG&E 34.7 16 1.3 12.6 17.6 17.1 3.4% 0.7 19.9 2.5 1.8 4.4 30.3 8.4% 0.3 22.5 1.5 1.805 PG&E/SoCalGas 34.7 12 1.3 12.6 17.6 17.1 3.4% 0.7 19.9 2.5 1.8 4.4 30.3 8.4% 0.3 22.5 1.5 1.806 SCE/SoCalGas 31.9 12 1.3 13.9 18.1 13.8 5.9% 1.0 19.5 1.2 1.7 4.4 27.5 8.9% 0.5 22.1 1.3 1.707 SDG&E 31.7 7 1.2 13.2 18.9 12.8 4.6% 0.9 18.1 2.1 1.8 4.6 27.1 6.6% 0.5 20.5 1.3 1.708 SCE/SoCalGas 29.8 10 1.3 14.6 18.2 11.6 6.5% 1.0 19.4 1.3 1.8 5.6 24.2 12.5% 0.5 22.0 1.3 1.709 SCE/SoCalGas 30.4 13 1.3 14.7 19.1 11.3 8.1% 1.0 19.4 1.3 1.9 7.1 23.3 15.1% 0.6 22.0 1.4 1.810 SCE/SoCalGas 31.2 11 1.4 15.1 20.4 10.8 8.7% 1.1 19.9 1.3 1.8 7.9 23.3 14.7% 0.6 22.5 1.3 1.810 SDG&E 31.2 12 1.4 15.1 20.4 10.8 8.7% 1.1 19.9 2.1 1.8 7.9 23.3 14.7% 0.6 22.5 1.5 1.811 PG&E 31.9 13 1.4 16.6 18.5 13.4 13.1% 0.8 22.8 2.2 1.8 6.6 25.3 21.1% 0.4 25.8 1.5 1.912 PG&E 32.0 13 1.3 14.9 17.6 14.4 11.4% 0.7 21.7 2.1 1.6 5.4 26.6 20.4% 0.4 24.5 1.3 1.813 PG&E 32.1 16 1.4 17.5 19.9 12.2 12.6% 0.8 23.3 2.1 1.7 8.2 23.9 20.6% 0.4 26.4 1.4 1.814 SCE/SoCalGas 32.5 8 1.7 14.6 18.5 14.0 13.8% 1.3 20.2 1.4 1.9 7.7 24.8 21.8% 0.8 22.8 1.4 1.914 SDG&E 32.5 39 1.7 14.6 18.5 14.0 13.8% 1.3 20.2 2.2 1.9 7.7 24.8 21.8% 0.8 22.8 1.8 1.915 SCE/SoCalGas 28.2 8 1.8 21.6 21.1 7.1 14.2% 1.5 23.6 1.4 2.1 11.3 16.9 20.2% 1.1 26.6 1.4 1.916 PG&E 40.2 39 1.9 13.4 20.6 19.6 15.0% 1.2 22.0 2.6 1.9 10.3 29.9 23.0% 0.8 24.8 1.7 1.8 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 72 2019-07-17
F
40 Non- VLLDCS Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 73 2019-07-17
41 VLLDCS Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 74 2019-07-17
42 VLLDCS Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 75 2019-07-17
43 All-Electric Non- VLLDCS Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 76 2019-07-17
44 All-Electric
VLLDCS Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 77 2019-07-17
45 All-Electric
VLLDCS Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 78 2019-07-17
46 All-Electric
VLLDCS Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 79 2019-07-17
G
Climate Zone 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 80 Climate Zone 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 82 Climate Zone 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 84 Climate Zone 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 86 Climate Zone 5 PG&E .................................................................................................................................. 88 Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas.................................................................................................................. 90 Climate Zone 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 92 Climate Zone 7 ............................................................................................................................................ 94 Climate Zone 8 ............................................................................................................................................ 96 Climate Zone 9 ............................................................................................................................................ 98 Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas................................................................................................................. 100 Climate Zone 10 SDGE............................................................................................................................... 102 Climate Zone 11 ........................................................................................................................................ 104 Climate Zone 12 ........................................................................................................................................ 106 Climate Zone 13 ........................................................................................................................................ 108 Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas................................................................................................................. 110 Climate Zone 14 SDGE............................................................................................................................... 112 Climate Zone 15 ........................................................................................................................................ 114 Climate Zone 16 ........................................................................................................................................ 116 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 80 2019-07-17
47 Climate Zone 1PG&ESingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 581 n/a n/a 3.00 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 480 5.0 (0.08) 2.51 0.49 $1,355 3.38 2.82Efficiency-Equipment 0 440 6.5 (0.07) 2.32 0.68 $1,280 4.92 4.10Efficiency & PV/Battery (28) 480 10.5 0.04 2.40 0.60 $4,788 0.96 1.79 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 7,079 0 n/a n/a 1.51 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 4,461 0 15.0 0.00 1.01 0.50 $7,642 1.79 1.66Efficiency-Equipment 5,933 0 6.5 0.00 1.29 0.22 $2,108 2.94 2.74Efficiency & PV 889 0 31.0 2.67 0.52 1.00 $18,192 1.81 1.45Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 0 41.0 3.45 0.28 1.23 $24,247 1.48 1.43 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 7,079 0 0.0 0.00 1.51 1.49 ($5,349) 0.37 0.91Efficiency & PV 889 0 31.0 2.67 0.52 2.48 $12,844 1.43 2.11Neutral Cost 5,270 0 8.0 1.35 1.26 1.74 $0 0.00 1.09Min Cost Effectiveness 3,160 0 18.0 2.97 0.95 2.04 ($6,372) 1.08 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV,Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 81 2019-07-17
48 Climate Zone 1PG&EMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 180 n/a n/a 2.75 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 147 3.0 0.00 2.31 0.44 $960 1.10 1.18Efficiency-Equipment (0) 159 2.0 (0.01) 2.48 0.27 $507 1.29 1.41Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 147 11.5 0.07 2.13 0.61 $2,807 0.39 1.33 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,624 0 n/a n/a 1.62 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 2,328 0 3.5 0.00 1.46 0.15 $949 1.55 1.40Efficiency-Equipment 2,278 0 3.0 0.00 1.41 0.20 $795 2.39 2.26Efficiency & PV 499 0 22.5 1.37 0.75 0.86 $5,538 2.04 1.50Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 34.5 1.80 0.38 1.24 $8,632 1.38 1.47 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,624 0 0.0 0.00 1.62 1.13 ($2,337) 0.38 1.01Efficiency & PV 62 0 22.5 1.37 0.75 2.00 $3,202 1.63 >1Neutral Cost 1,693 0 9.5 0.70 1.25 1.50 $0 0.00 1.57Min Cost Effectiveness 1,273 0 14.0 1.01 1.09 1.66 ($1,052) 1.14 3.76 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV,Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 82 2019-07-17
49 Climate Zone 2PG&ESingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 421 n/a n/a 2.23 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 0 360 3.0 (0.04) 1.94 0.30 $1,504 1.63 1.66Efficiency-Equipment (0) 352 3.0 (0.03) 1.90 0.33 $724 3.77 3.63Efficiency & PV/Battery (22) 360 10.0 0.06 1.82 0.41 $4,871 0.53 1.73 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 5,014 0 n/a n/a 1.11 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 4,079 0 4.5 0.00 0.94 0.18 $3,943 1.21 1.07Efficiency-Equipment 4,122 0 5.0 0.00 0.94 0.17 $2,108 2.25 2.10Efficiency & PV 847 0 19.0 2.07 0.49 0.63 $12,106 1.83 1.38Efficiency & PV/Battery (15) 0 30.0 2.71 0.26 0.86 $17,610 1.41 1.48 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 5,014 0 0.0 0.00 1.11 1.12 ($5,349) 0.52 1.59Efficiency & PV 847 0 19.0 2.07 0.49 1.75 $6,758 1.76 39.70Neutral Cost 2,891 0 9.5 1.36 0.82 1.41 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 83 2019-07-17
50 Climate Zone 2PG&EMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 150 n/a n/a 2.37 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 0 142 1.5 (0.02) 2.25 0.12 $309 0.97 1.75Efficiency-Equipment (0) 134 2.0 (0.01) 2.15 0.22 $497 1.08 1.49Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 142 10.5 0.04 2.07 0.30 $2,125 0.20 1.81 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,151 0 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 2,038 0 1.5 0.00 1.32 0.06 $361 1.73 2.05Efficiency-Equipment 1,928 0 3.0 0.00 1.25 0.13 $795 1.56 1.56Efficiency & PV 476 0 17.5 1.00 0.72 0.67 $3,711 2.42 1.82Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 30.5 1.36 0.35 1.04 $6,546 1.44 1.82 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,151 0 0.0 0.00 1.38 0.99 ($2,337) 0.53 1.42Efficiency & PV 60 0 17.5 1.00 0.72 1.65 $1,375 3.31 >1Neutral Cost 1,063 0 10.5 0.70 0.96 1.41 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 84 2019-07-17
51 Climate Zone 3PG&ESingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 348 n/a n/a 1.88 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 296 2.5 (0.03) 1.63 0.26 $1,552 1.28 1.31Efficiency-Equipment (0) 273 4.0 (0.03) 1.52 0.37 $1,448 1.91 1.97Efficiency & PV/Battery (20) 296 10.0 0.07 1.50 0.38 $4,915 0.42 1.53 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,355 0 n/a n/a 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 3,584 0 4.5 0.00 0.85 0.15 $1,519 2.60 2.36Efficiency-Equipment 3,670 0 4.0 0.00 0.86 0.14 $2,108 1.76 1.62Efficiency & PV 790 0 18.0 1.77 0.46 0.54 $8,517 2.22 1.68Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 0 29.0 2.37 0.23 0.76 $13,857 1.56 1.64 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,355 0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.89 ($5,349) 0.55 1.53Efficiency & PV 790 0 18.0 1.77 0.46 1.43 $3,169 2.88 >1Neutral Cost 2,217 0 10.5 1.35 0.70 1.18 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 85 2019-07-17
52 Climate Zone 3PG&EMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 133 n/a n/a 2.13 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 127 0.5 (0.00) 2.06 0.07 $175 1.00 1.11Efficiency-Equipment (0) 119 1.5 (0.00) 1.94 0.19 $403 1.11 1.23Efficiency & PV/Battery (10) 127 10.0 0.05 1.86 0.27 $1,991 0.12 1.61 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,944 0 n/a n/a 1.27 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,944 0 0.0 0.00 1.27 0.00 $0 - - Efficiency-Equipment 1,698 0 2.5 0.00 1.13 0.14 $795 1.73 1.58Efficiency & PV 457 0 16.0 0.92 0.69 0.58 $3,272 2.43 1.73Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 29.5 1.26 0.33 0.94 $6,057 1.38 1.71 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,944 0 0.0 0.00 1.27 0.86 ($2,337) 0.58 1.46Efficiency & PV 57 0 16.0 0.92 0.69 1.43 $936 4.18 >1Neutral Cost 845 0 11.5 0.70 0.85 1.28 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 86 2019-07-17
53 Climate Zone 4PG&ESingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant 0 347 n/a n/a 1.88 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 0 306 2.5 (0.03) 1.68 0.20 $1,556 0.93 1.15Efficiency-Equipment (0) 294 2.5 (0.02) 1.62 0.26 $758 2.39 2.67Efficiency & PV/Battery (18) 306 10.0 0.07 1.55 0.33 $4,911 0.33 1.64 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,342 0 n/a n/a 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 3,775 0 3.0 0.00 0.89 0.11 $1,519 1.92 1.84Efficiency-Equipment 3,747 0 3.5 0.00 0.88 0.12 $2,108 1.52 1.52Efficiency & PV 814 0 17.0 1.84 0.48 0.52 $8,786 2.13 1.62Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 0 28.5 2.44 0.25 0.75 $14,141 1.52 1.67 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,342 0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.88 ($5,349) 0.55 1.59Efficiency & PV 814 0 17.0 1.84 0.48 1.40 $3,438 2.64 >1Neutral Cost 2,166 0 10.0 1.35 0.70 1.18 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 87 2019-07-17
54 Climate Zone 4PG&EMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 134 n/a n/a 2.16 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 127 1.0 (0.01) 2.06 0.10 $329 0.75 1.24Efficiency-Equipment (0) 123 1.5 (0.01) 2.01 0.15 $351 1.06 1.74Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 127 11.0 0.04 1.87 0.29 $2,141 0.19 1.82 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,887 0 n/a n/a 1.25 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,794 0 1.0 0.00 1.21 0.05 $361 1.38 1.54Efficiency-Equipment 1,712 0 2.0 0.00 1.15 0.10 $795 1.23 1.09Efficiency & PV 453 0 15.0 0.83 0.69 0.57 $3,158 2.43 1.81Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 28.5 1.17 0.32 0.93 $5,914 1.37 1.86 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,887 0 0.0 0.00 1.25 0.90 ($2,337) 0.65 1.77Efficiency & PV 57 0 15.0 0.83 0.69 1.47 $822 4.96 >1Neutral Cost 767 0 11.0 0.70 0.82 1.33 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 88 2019-07-17
55 Climate Zone 5PG&ESingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant 0 331 n/a n/a 1.79 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 281 2.5 (0.03) 1.55 0.24 $1,571 1.10 1.22Efficiency-Equipment (0) 279 2.5 (0.02) 1.54 0.25 $772 2.29 2.48Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 281 9.0 0.07 1.43 0.36 $4,911 0.41 1.46 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,452 0 n/a n/a 1.01 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 3,687 0 4.0 0.00 0.86 0.15 $1,519 2.58 2.31Efficiency-Equipment 3,737 0 4.0 0.00 0.87 0.14 $2,108 1.85 1.70Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 0.55 $8,307 2.31 1.76Efficiency & PV/Battery (8) 0 28.5 2.29 0.24 0.78 $13,525 1.65 1.70 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,452 0 0.0 0.00 1.01 0.78 ($5,349) 0.48 1.32Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 1.33 $2,959 2.72 >1Neutral Cost 2,172 0 11.0 1.35 0.70 1.10 $0 >1 40.07 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 89 2019-07-17
56 Climate Zone 5PG&EMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant 0 131 n/a n/a 2.10 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 0.5 (0.00) 2.03 0.07 $180 0.99 1.03Efficiency-Equipment (0) 117 1.5 (0.00) 1.92 0.19 $358 1.24 1.34Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 126 9.5 0.05 1.84 0.26 $1,985 0.17 1.58 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,044 0 n/a n/a 1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,990 0 0.5 0.00 1.30 0.03 $247 1.09 0.86Efficiency-Equipment 1,738 0 3.5 0.00 1.15 0.17 $795 2.15 2.03Efficiency & PV 465 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 0.62 $3,293 2.53 1.82Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 30.0 1.24 0.34 0.98 $6,026 1.50 1.77 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,044 0 0.0 0.00 1.32 0.78 ($2,337) 0.50 1.28Efficiency & PV 58 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 1.40 $956 3.80 >1Neutral Cost 874 0 12.5 0.70 0.87 1.23 $0 >1 23.44 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 90 2019-07-17
57 Climate Zone 5PG&E/SoCalGasSingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On- Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant 0 331 n/a n/a 1.79 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 281 2.5 (0.03) 1.55 0.24 $1,571 0.92 1.22Efficiency-Equipment (0) 279 2.5 (0.02) 1.54 0.25 $772 1.98 2.48Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 281 9.0 0.07 1.43 0.36 $4,911 0.35 1.46 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,452 0 n/a n/a 1.01 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 3,687 0 4.0 0.00 0.86 0.15 $1,519 2.58 2.31Efficiency-Equipment 3,737 0 4.0 0.00 0.87 0.14 $2,108 1.85 1.70Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 0.55 $8,307 2.31 1.76Efficiency & PV/Battery (8) 0 28.5 2.29 0.24 0.78 $13,525 1.65 1.70 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,452 0 0.0 0.00 1.01 0.78 ($5,349) 0.48 1.32Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 1.33 $2,959 2.75 >1Neutral Cost 2,172 0 11.0 1.35 0.70 1.10 $0 >1 40.07 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 91 2019-07-17
58 Climate Zone 5PG&E/SoCalGasMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant 0 131 n/a n/a 2.10 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 0.5 (0.00) 2.03 0.07 $180 0.85 1.03Efficiency-Equipment (0) 117 1.5 (0.00) 1.92 0.19 $358 1.09 1.34Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 126 9.5 0.05 1.84 0.26 $1,985 0.16 1.58 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,044 0 n/a n/a 1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,990 0 0.5 0.00 1.30 0.03 $247 1.09 0.86Efficiency-Equipment 1,738 0 3.5 0.00 1.15 0.17 $795 2.15 2.03Efficiency & PV 465 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 0.62 $3,293 2.53 1.82Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 30.0 1.24 0.34 0.98 $6,026 1.50 1.77 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,044 0 0.0 0.00 1.32 0.78 ($2,337) 0.65 1.28Efficiency & PV 58 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 1.40 $956 4.98 >1Neutral Cost 874 0 12.5 0.70 0.87 1.23 $0 >1 23.44 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 92 2019-07-17
59 Climate Zone 6SCE/SoCalGasSingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 249 n/a n/a 1.57 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 0 229 2.0 (0.02) 1.47 0.10 $1,003 0.66 1.15Efficiency-Equipment (0) 218 1.5 (0.01) 1.41 0.15 $581 1.58 2.04Efficiency & PV/Battery (13) 229 9.5 0.08 1.22 0.34 $4,367 0.95 1.42 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 3,099 0 n/a n/a 0.87 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 2,885 0 2.0 0.00 0.83 0.05 $926 1.31 1.41Efficiency-Equipment 2,746 0 2.5 0.00 0.80 0.08 $846 2.20 2.29Efficiency & PV 722 0 14.0 1.37 0.63 0.24 $6,341 1.19 1.48Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 26.0 1.93 0.33 0.55 $11,513 1.20 1.50 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 3,099 0 0.0 0.00 0.87 0.69 ($5,349) 1.19 2.46Efficiency & PV 722 0 14.0 1.37 0.63 0.93 $992 3.07 >1Neutral Cost 959 0 12.0 1.36 0.67 0.89 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 93 2019-07-17
60 Climate Zone 6SCE/SoCalGasMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 114 n/a n/a 2.17 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 112 1.0 (0.01) 2.14 0.03 $190 0.65 1.49Efficiency-Equipment (0) 103 1.0 (0.00) 2.03 0.15 $213 1.43 1.74Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 112 10.5 0.04 1.76 0.41 $2,007 0.64 1.55 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,558 0 n/a n/a 1.28 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,531 0 1.0 0.00 1.26 0.02 $231 0.65 1.34Efficiency-Equipment 1,430 0 2.0 0.00 1.20 0.08 $361 1.62 1.91Efficiency & PV 427 0 13.5 0.70 0.97 0.31 $2,580 1.24 1.71Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 27.5 1.02 0.49 0.79 $5,303 1.28 1.67 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,558 0 0.0 0.00 1.28 0.90 ($2,337) 2.59 2.38Efficiency & PV 53 0 13.5 0.70 0.97 1.20 $243 9.50 >1Neutral Cost 459 0 12.5 0.70 0.99 1.18 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 94 2019-07-17
61 Climate Zone 7SDG&ESingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 196 n/a n/a 1.30 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 196 0.0 0.00 1.30 0.00 $0 - - Efficiency-Equipment 0 171 1.5 (0.00) 1.18 0.12 $606 1.50 1.40Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 189 9.0 0.10 1.04 0.26 $3,506 0.07 1.52 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,479 0 n/a n/a 0.75 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 2,479 0 0.0 0.00 0.75 0.00 $0 - - Efficiency-Equipment 2,222 0 2.0 0.00 0.69 0.06 $846 1.60 1.65Efficiency & PV 674 0 11.0 1.10 0.58 0.17 $4,436 1.87 1.55Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 24.0 1.61 0.29 0.46 $9,413 1.32 1.56 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,479 0 0.0 0.00 0.75 0.55 ($5,349) 1.04 2.54Efficiency & PV 674 0 11.0 1.10 0.58 0.72 ($912) >1 >1Neutral Cost 267 0 13.5 1.35 0.55 0.75 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 95 2019-07-17
62 Climate Zone 7SDG&EMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 110 n/a n/a 2.11 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 108 0.5 (0.01) 2.08 0.03 $90 0.73 2.24Efficiency-Equipment (0) 99 2.0 (0.00) 1.96 0.15 $366 1.07 1.41Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 108 11.0 0.05 1.71 0.40 $1,900 0.04 1.61 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,434 0 n/a n/a 1.21 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,416 0 0.5 0.00 1.20 0.01 $202 0.60 1.02Efficiency-Equipment 1,319 0 1.5 0.00 1.14 0.07 $361 1.59 1.71Efficiency & PV 412 0 12.5 0.61 0.94 0.27 $2,261 2.08 1.76Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 27.0 0.92 0.47 0.74 $4,916 1.26 1.71 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,434 0 0.0 0.00 1.21 0.90 ($2,337) 1.12 2.47Efficiency & PV 51 0 12.5 0.61 0.94 1.17 ($75) >1 >1Neutral Cost 294 0 13.5 0.70 0.91 1.20 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 96 2019-07-17
63 Climate Zone 8SCE/SoCalGasSingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 206 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 198 1.0 (0.02) 1.34 0.05 $581 0.57 1.41Efficiency-Equipment 0 181 1.5 (0.01) 1.27 0.12 $586 1.30 1.82Efficiency & PV/Battery (13) 198 8.0 0.08 1.11 0.27 $3,944 1.10 1.48 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,576 0 n/a n/a 0.80 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 2,483 0 1.5 0.00 0.78 0.02 $926 0.57 1.22Efficiency-Equipment 2,352 0 1.5 0.00 0.75 0.05 $412 2.82 3.03Efficiency & PV 703 0 10.5 1.13 0.62 0.18 $5,373 1.00 1.48Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 21.5 1.67 0.32 0.48 $10,493 1.14 1.49 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,576 0 0.0 0.00 0.80 0.58 ($5,349) 1.83 2.99Efficiency & PV 703 0 10.5 1.13 0.62 0.77 $25 107.93 >1Neutral Cost 439 0 11.0 1.36 0.60 0.78 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 97 2019-07-17
64 Climate Zone 8SCE/SoCalGasMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 109 n/a n/a 2.18 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 106 1.5 (0.02) 2.13 0.05 $250 0.70 1.36Efficiency-Equipment (0) 99 1.0 (0.00) 2.04 0.14 $213 1.37 1.67Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 106 9.5 0.03 1.77 0.41 $2,066 0.84 1.50 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,409 0 n/a n/a 1.26 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,373 0 1.0 0.00 1.24 0.02 $231 0.87 1.72Efficiency-Equipment 1,276 0 1.5 0.00 1.18 0.08 $361 1.63 1.75Efficiency & PV 426 0 11.5 0.60 0.99 0.27 $2,240 1.26 1.78Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 24.0 0.92 0.53 0.73 $4,962 1.31 1.68 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,409 0 0.0 0.00 1.26 0.91 ($2,337) 6.69 2.67Efficiency & PV 53 0 11.5 0.60 0.99 1.18 ($96) >1 >1Neutral Cost 309 0 12.0 0.70 0.98 1.20 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 98 2019-07-17
65 Climate Zone 9SCE/SoCalGasSingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant 0 229 n/a n/a 1.53 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 216 2.5 (0.04) 1.46 0.07 $912 0.69 1.97Efficiency-Equipment 0 201 2.5 (0.04) 1.38 0.15 $574 1.80 3.66Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 216 8.5 0.05 1.23 0.30 $4,263 1.11 1.66 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,801 0 n/a n/a 0.87 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 2,645 0 2.5 0.00 0.84 0.04 $1,180 0.78 1.96Efficiency-Equipment 2,460 0 3.0 0.00 0.80 0.07 $846 2.11 3.22Efficiency & PV 745 0 11.5 1.16 0.66 0.21 $5,778 1.08 1.64Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 0 21.0 1.72 0.37 0.50 $10,932 1.16 1.60 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,801 0 0.0 0.00 0.87 0.66 ($5,349) 1.67 2.90Efficiency & PV 745 0 11.5 1.16 0.66 0.87 $429 7.15 >1Neutral Cost 594 0 10.0 1.36 0.67 0.86 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 99 2019-07-17
66 Climate Zone 9SCE/SoCalGasMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant 0 111 n/a n/a 2.24 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 109 1.5 (0.03) 2.19 0.05 $136 1.46 3.35Efficiency-Equipment (0) 101 2.5 (0.03) 2.08 0.16 $274 1.66 2.87Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 109 9.5 0.03 1.84 0.40 $1,947 1.03 1.71 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,468 0 n/a n/a 1.33 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,414 0 1.5 0.00 1.30 0.03 $231 1.29 2.70Efficiency-Equipment 1,334 0 1.5 0.00 1.25 0.08 $361 1.63 1.58Efficiency & PV 441 0 11.0 0.60 1.04 0.29 $2,232 1.34 1.91Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 23.0 0.92 0.58 0.75 $4,949 1.35 1.77 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,468 0 0.0 0.00 1.33 0.91 ($2,337) 4.38 2.55Efficiency & PV 55 0 11.0 0.60 1.04 1.20 ($104) >1 >1Neutral Cost 331 0 11.0 0.70 1.03 1.21 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 100 2019-07-17
67 Climate Zone 10SCE/SoCalGasSingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 239 n/a n/a 1.61 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 217 3.0 (0.07) 1.48 0.13 $1,648 0.63 1.33Efficiency-Equipment (0) 209 3.0 (0.06) 1.45 0.16 $593 2.05 3.84Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 217 9.5 0.03 1.25 0.36 $4,999 1.00 1.64 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,981 0 n/a n/a 0.94 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 2,673 0 3.0 0.00 0.88 0.07 $1,773 0.92 1.52Efficiency-Equipment 2,563 0 3.0 0.00 0.85 0.10 $949 2.27 3.19Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.24 $6,405 1.08 1.50Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 21.0 1.74 0.41 0.53 $11,606 1.16 1.58 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,981 0 0.0 0.00 0.94 0.67 ($5,349) 1.45 2.66Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.91 $1,057 3.04 >1Neutral Cost 770 0 9.0 1.36 0.74 0.87 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 101 2019-07-17
68 Climate Zone 10SCE/SoCalGasMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 112 n/a n/a 2.29 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 108 1.5 (0.02) 2.23 0.06 $278 0.81 1.69Efficiency-Equipment (0) 102 2.5 (0.04) 2.13 0.16 $250 1.96 3.27Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 108 10.0 0.03 1.88 0.41 $2,089 1.12 1.79 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,507 0 n/a n/a 1.39 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,425 0 1.5 0.00 1.34 0.05 $361 1.16 2.00Efficiency-Equipment 1,369 0 1.5 0.00 1.31 0.08 $361 1.71 1.98Efficiency & PV 450 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 0.30 $2,371 1.31 1.79Efficiency & PV/Battery (4) 0 23.0 0.93 0.63 0.76 $5,108 1.35 1.78 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,507 0 0.0 0.00 1.39 0.90 ($2,337) 3.35 2.36Efficiency & PV 56 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 1.20 $34 70.89 >1Neutral Cost 372 0 10.5 0.70 1.10 1.19 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 102 2019-07-17
69 Climate Zone 10SDG&ESingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 239 n/a n/a 1.61 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 217 3.0 (0.07) 1.48 0.13 $1,648.10 0.80 1.33Efficiency-Equipment (0) 209 3.0 (0.06) 1.45 0.16 $593.40 2.64 3.84Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 217 9.5 0.03 1.25 0.36 $4,999.50 0.64 1.64 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,981 0 n/a n/a 0.94 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 2,673 0 3.0 0.00 0.88 0.07 $1,772.82 1.08 1.52Efficiency-Equipment 2,563 0 3.0 0.00 0.85 0.10 $948.63 2.62 3.19Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.24 $6,405.39 1.68 1.50Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 21.0 1.74 0.41 0.53 $11,606.13 1.48 1.58 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,981 0 0.0 0.00 0.94 0.67 ($5,349) 0.90 2.66Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.91 $1,057 4.55 >1Neutral Cost 770 0 9.0 1.36 0.74 0.87 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 103 2019-07-17
70 Climate Zone 10SDG&EMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 112 n/a n/a 2.29 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 108 1.5 (0.02) 2.23 0.06 $278.06 1.09 1.69Efficiency-Equipment (0) 102 2.5 (0.04) 2.13 0.16 $249.93 2.60 3.27Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 108 10.0 0.03 1.88 0.41 $2,088.94 0.27 1.79 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,507 0 n/a n/a 1.39 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,425 0 1.5 0.00 1.34 0.05 $360.62 1.53 2.00Efficiency-Equipment 1,369 0 1.5 0.00 1.31 0.08 $360.85 2.05 1.98Efficiency & PV 450 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 0.30 $2,370.68 2.12 1.79Efficiency & PV/Battery (4) 0 23.0 0.93 0.63 0.76 $5,107.56 1.52 1.78 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,507 0 0.0 0.00 1.39 0.90 ($2,337) 0.73 2.36Efficiency & PV 56 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 1.20 $34 54.15 >1Neutral Cost 372 0 10.5 0.70 1.10 1.19 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 104 2019-07-17
71 Climate Zone 11PG&ESingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 378 n/a n/a 2.14 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 333 4.0 (0.19) 1.90 0.24 $3,143 0.78 1.20Efficiency-Equipment 0 320 5.0 (0.21) 1.83 0.31 $1,222 2.50 3.68Efficiency & PV/Battery (18) 333 9.0 (0.09) 1.78 0.36 $6,503 0.39 1.64 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,585 0 n/a n/a 1.15 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 3,815 0 4.5 0.00 0.99 0.16 $3,735 1.24 1.47Efficiency-Equipment 3,533 0 5.5 0.00 0.93 0.22 $2,108 2.97 3.33Efficiency & PV 957 0 14.0 1.79 0.60 0.55 $10,827 1.84 1.55Efficiency & PV/Battery (13) 0 23.0 2.49 0.36 0.79 $16,555 1.54 1.66 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,585 0 0.0 0.00 1.15 0.99 ($5,349) 0.49 1.69Efficiency & PV 957 0 14.0 1.79 0.60 1.54 $5,478 1.64 >1Neutral Cost 2,429 0 7.0 1.36 0.85 1.29 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 105 2019-07-17
72 Climate Zone 11PG&EMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 141 n/a n/a 2.38 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 0 127 2.5 (0.05) 2.18 0.20 $850 0.65 1.17Efficiency-Equipment (0) 126 3.0 (0.06) 2.16 0.22 $317 1.84 3.29Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 127 10.5 0.01 2.00 0.38 $2,663 0.43 1.77 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,974 0 n/a n/a 1.42 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,732 0 3.5 0.00 1.29 0.13 $1,011 1.40 1.64Efficiency-Equipment 1,707 0 3.5 0.00 1.26 0.16 $795 2.02 2.33Efficiency & PV 504 0 13.0 0.77 0.81 0.61 $3,601 2.22 1.81Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 25.0 1.14 0.45 0.98 $6,472 1.48 1.89 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,974 0 0.0 0.00 1.42 0.96 ($2,337) 0.56 1.33Efficiency & PV 63 0 13.0 0.77 0.81 1.56 $1,264 3.03 >1Neutral Cost 866 0 9.0 0.70 0.99 1.38 $0 >1 73.96 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 106 2019-07-17
73 Climate Zone 12PG&ESingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 390 n/a n/a 2.11 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 344 3.5 (0.06) 1.88 0.23 $1,679 1.18 1.83Efficiency-Equipment 0 338 3.0 (0.05) 1.85 0.26 $654 3.31 4.65Efficiency & PV/Battery (23) 344 9.5 0.04 1.76 0.35 $5,045 0.48 1.89 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,492 0 n/a n/a 1.05 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 3,958 0 3.5 0.00 0.94 0.10 $3,735 0.78 1.06Efficiency-Equipment 3,721 0 5.0 0.00 0.90 0.15 $2,108 2.00 2.51Efficiency & PV 867 0 15.5 1.97 0.51 0.53 $11,520 1.69 1.41Efficiency & PV/Battery (15) 0 25.0 2.62 0.29 0.76 $17,064 1.33 1.53 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,492 0 0.0 0.00 1.05 1.07 ($5,349) 0.63 1.89Efficiency & PV 867 0 15.5 1.97 0.51 1.60 $6,172 1.77 >1Neutral Cost 2,374 0 8.0 1.35 0.76 1.36 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 107 2019-07-17
74 Climate Zone 12PG&EMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 143 n/a n/a 2.33 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 135 1.5 (0.02) 2.21 0.12 $291 1.10 2.22Efficiency-Equipment 0 128 2.5 (0.03) 2.12 0.21 $434 1.25 2.22Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 135 10.0 0.03 2.03 0.30 $2,106 0.34 1.98 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,963 0 n/a n/a 1.34 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,792 0 2.5 0.00 1.24 0.09 $1,011 0.91 1.12Efficiency-Equipment 1,744 0 2.5 0.00 1.21 0.13 $795 1.56 1.63Efficiency & PV 472 0 14.0 0.84 0.73 0.60 $3,835 2.08 1.65Efficiency & PV/Battery (8) 0 26.5 1.20 0.38 0.96 $6,656 1.31 1.76 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,963 0 0.0 0.00 1.34 1.00 ($2,337) 0.64 1.66Efficiency & PV 59 0 14.0 0.84 0.73 1.60 $1,498 2.88 >1Neutral Cost 872 0 9.5 0.70 0.92 1.42 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 108 2019-07-17
75 Climate Zone 13PG&ESingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 352 n/a n/a 2.02 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 311 4.5 (0.21) 1.80 0.22 $3,060 0.76 1.28Efficiency-Equipment (0) 292 5.5 (0.24) 1.70 0.32 $611 5.26 8.40Efficiency & PV/Battery (19) 311 9.5 (0.11) 1.69 0.33 $6,432 0.39 1.69 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,180 0 n/a n/a 1.08 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 3,428 0 5.0 0.00 0.92 0.15 $4,154 1.12 1.40Efficiency-Equipment 3,177 0 6.0 0.00 0.87 0.21 $2,108 2.88 3.30Efficiency & PV 934 0 13.0 1.61 0.57 0.50 $10,532 1.70 1.47Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 0 22.0 2.32 0.35 0.73 $16,283 1.45 1.59 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,180 0 0.0 0.00 1.08 0.94 ($5,349) 0.54 1.83Efficiency & PV 934 0 13.0 1.61 0.57 1.44 $5,184 1.56 >1Neutral Cost 2,092 0 7.0 1.36 0.79 1.23 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 109 2019-07-17
76 Climate Zone 13PG&EMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 135 n/a n/a 2.30 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 123 3.0 (0.05) 2.12 0.18 $831 0.63 1.27Efficiency-Equipment (0) 121 3.0 (0.07) 2.10 0.21 $290 1.95 3.75Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 123 10.5 0.00 1.95 0.35 $2,649 0.43 1.82 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,849 0 n/a n/a 1.36 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,629 0 3.0 0.00 1.24 0.12 $1,011 1.31 1.56Efficiency-Equipment 1,590 0 3.5 0.00 1.21 0.16 $795 1.98 2.28Efficiency & PV 501 0 12.0 0.73 0.80 0.56 $3,462 2.12 1.71Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 23.5 1.11 0.44 0.92 $6,362 1.41 1.82 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,849 0 0.0 0.00 1.36 0.94 ($2,337) 0.63 1.54Efficiency & PV 63 0 12.0 0.73 0.80 1.50 $1,125 3.22 >1Neutral Cost 773 0 8.5 0.70 0.94 1.36 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 110 2019-07-17
77 Climate Zone 14SCE/SoCalGasSingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 371 n/a n/a 2.35 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 319 4.5 (0.17) 2.06 0.29 $1,662 1.57 2.46Efficiency-Equipment (0) 305 5.5 (0.19) 1.98 0.36 $799 3.95 6.14Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 319 9.0 (0.08) 1.83 0.52 $5,004 1.45 1.92 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,725 0 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 3,819 0 5.5 0.00 1.19 0.19 $4,154 0.95 1.46Efficiency-Equipment 3,676 0 6.0 0.00 1.16 0.22 $2,108 2.29 3.13Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 0.45 $10,459 1.21 1.62Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 23.5 2.21 0.63 0.75 $15,872 1.40 1.65 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,725 0 0.0 0.00 1.38 0.97 ($5,349) 0.72 1.67Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 1.42 $5,111 1.01 >1Neutral Cost 2,299 0 8.5 1.35 1.15 1.19 $0 0.00 >1Min Cost Effectiveness 1,853 0 10.0 1.61 1.12 1.23 ($1,000) 1.24 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV,Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 111 2019-07-17
78 Climate Zone 14SCE/SoCalGasMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 141 n/a n/a 2.76 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 3.0 (0.04) 2.53 0.23 $874 0.73 1.21Efficiency-Equipment (0) 126 3.0 (0.05) 2.52 0.23 $347 1.96 2.99Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 126 9.5 0.01 2.18 0.58 $2,669 1.21 1.53 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,022 0 n/a n/a 1.73 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,759 0 3.5 0.00 1.58 0.15 $1,011 1.24 1.65Efficiency-Equipment 1,748 0 3.5 0.00 1.56 0.16 $795 1.59 2.20Efficiency & PV 504 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 0.47 $3,356 1.39 1.91Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 24.5 1.03 0.79 0.94 $6,093 1.42 1.86 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,022 0 0.0 0.00 1.73 1.03 ($2,337) 1.13 1.48Efficiency & PV 63 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 1.50 $1,019 2.57 >1Neutral Cost 772 0 10.0 0.7 1.41 1.35 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 112 2019-07-17
79 Climate Zone 14SDG&ESingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 371 n/a n/a 2.35 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 319 4.5 (0.17) 2.06 0.29 $1,662 1.92 2.46Efficiency-Equipment (0) 305 5.5 (0.19) 1.98 0.36 $799 4.88 6.14Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 319 9.0 (0.08) 1.83 0.52 $5,004 1.36 1.92 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,725 0 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 3,819 0 5.5 0.00 1.19 0.19 $4,154 1.30 1.46Efficiency-Equipment 3,676 0 6.0 0.00 1.16 0.22 $2,108 2.92 3.13Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 0.45 $10,459 1.80 1.62Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 23.5 2.21 0.63 0.75 $15,872 1.73 1.65 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 4,725 0 0.0 0.00 1.38 0.97 ($5,349) 0.60 1.67Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 1.42 $5,111 1.94 >1Neutral Cost 2,299 0 8.5 1.35 1.15 1.19 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 113 2019-07-17
80 Climate Zone 14SDG&EMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 141 n/a n/a 2.76 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 3.0 (0.04) 2.53 0.23 $874 0.93 1.21Efficiency-Equipment (0) 126 3.0 (0.05) 2.52 0.23 $347 2.48 2.99Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 126 9.5 0.01 2.18 0.58 $2,669 0.57 1.53 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,022 0 n/a n/a 1.73 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,759 0 3.5 0.00 1.58 0.15 $1,011 1.47 1.65Efficiency-Equipment 1,748 0 3.5 0.00 1.56 0.16 $795 2.00 2.20Efficiency & PV 504 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 0.47 $3,356 2.16 1.91Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 24.5 1.03 0.79 0.94 $6,093 1.77 1.86 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,022 0 0.0 0.00 1.73 1.03 ($2,337) 0.51 1.48Efficiency & PV 63 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 1.50 $1,019 2.60 >1Neutral Cost 772 0 10.0 0.70 1.41 1.35 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 114 2019-07-17
81 Climate Zone 15SCE/SoCalGasSingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant 0 149 n/a n/a 1.69 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 0 141 4.5 (0.43) 1.56 0.13 $2,179 1.00 1.58Efficiency-Equipment (0) 132 4.5 (0.45) 1.51 0.18 ($936) >1 >1Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 141 7.0 (0.34) 1.38 0.32 $5,521 1.25 1.65 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,149 0 n/a n/a 1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 1,230 0 5.5 0.00 1.12 0.20 $4,612 1.12 1.58Efficiency-Equipment 866 0 7.0 0.00 1.04 0.28 $2,108 3.30 4.47Efficiency & PV 1,030 0 6.0 0.12 1.10 0.22 $5,085 1.12 1.57Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 13.0 0.83 0.84 0.48 $10,860 1.22 1.61 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,149 0 0.0 0.00 1.32 0.37 ($5,349) 1.73 2.21Efficiency & PV 1,030 0 6.0 0.12 1.10 0.59 ($264) >1 >1Neutral Cost 23 0 6.0 1.36 1.13 0.57 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for eachcase which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 115 2019-07-17
82 Climate Zone 15SCE/SoCalGasMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant 0 93 n/a n/a 2.53 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 0 92 4.0 (0.15) 2.42 0.11 $510 1.35 2.28Efficiency-Equipment 0 86 4.0 (0.16) 2.33 0.20 ($157) >1 >1Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 92 8.5 (0.10) 2.13 0.40 $2,317 1.45 1.91 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,243 0 n/a n/a 1.78 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 954 0 4.0 0.00 1.61 0.17 $1,011 1.50 2.28Efficiency-Equipment 764 0 6.0 0.00 1.50 0.29 $1,954 1.24 1.72Efficiency & PV 548 0 7.0 0.24 1.50 0.28 $1,826 1.43 2.07Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 0 16.5 0.62 1.08 0.70 $4,732 1.42 1.91 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 1,243 0 0.0 0.00 1.78 0.75 ($2,337) 6.36 2.35Efficiency & PV 68 0 7.0 0.24 1.50 1.03 ($511) >1 >1Neutral Cost 78 0 7.5 0.70 1.48 1.05 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 116 2019-07-17
83 Climate Zone 16PG&ESingle Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant (0) 605 n/a n/a 3.31 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 0 454 5.0 0.01 2.59 0.72 $3,542 1.62 1.46Efficiency-Equipment 0 474 6.0 (0.08) 2.66 0.65 $2,441 2.19 2.20Efficiency & PV/Battery (18) 454 10.5 0.10 2.36 0.95 $6,877 0.93 1.47 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 7,694 0 n/a n/a 1.73 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 5,696 0 9.5 0.00 1.38 0.35 $5,731 1.72 1.69Efficiency-Equipment 6,760 0 4.5 0.00 1.55 0.18 $2,108 2.36 2.32Efficiency & PV 1,032 0 26.5 2.75 0.94 0.79 $16,582 2.09 1.62Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 0 35.0 3.45 0.64 1.09 $22,315 1.75 1.58 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 7,694 0 0.0 0.00 1.73 1.58 ($5,349) 0.31 0.68Efficiency & PV 1,032 0 26.5 2.75 0.94 2.37 $11,234 1.55 2.02Neutral Cost 5,398 0 8.5 1.35 1.51 1.80 $0 0.00 0.74Min Cost Effectiveness 3,358 0 16.0 2.56 1.32 1.99 ($4,753) 1.24 1.40 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV,Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 117 2019-07-17
84 Climate Zone 16PG&EMultifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
1 leuFdexiM
Code Compliant 0 206 n/a n/a 3.45 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 172 2.0 0.03 3.02 0.44 $937 1.11 1.19Efficiency-Equipment (0) 183 2.5 (0.02) 3.12 0.33 $453 1.76 2.15Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 172 9.5 0.08 2.65 0.80 $2,741 0.52 1.41 2 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,699 0 n/a n/a 1.86 n/a n/a n/a n/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted 2,329 0 4.0 0.00 1.70 0.16 $843 2.08 2.05Efficiency-Equipment 2,470 0 3.0 0.00 1.74 0.13 $795 1.59 1.70Efficiency & PV 518 0 19.5 1.07 1.23 0.63 $4,423 2.58 1.89Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 29.5 1.42 0.75 1.11 $7,245 1.71 1.76 otleuFdexiM
3 cirtcelE-llA
Code Compliant 2,699 0 0.0 0.00 1.86 1.59 ($2,337) 0.43 1.03Efficiency & PV 65 0 19.5 1.07 1.23 2.22 $2,087 2.87 >1Neutral Cost 1,518 0 10.0 0.70 1.56 1.90 $0 >1 2.58 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each casewhich is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costsdiffer for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.

Margin?
Title 24, Parts 6 and 11
Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances
2019 Mid-Rise New Construction Reach
Code Cost-Effectiveness Study
Prepared for:

Kelly Cunningham
Codes and Standards Program
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Prepared by:

Frontier Energy, Inc.

Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
EnergySoft
Last Modified: June 22, 2020
1 LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

2.1 Building Prototypes......................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Measure Analysis............................................................................................................................. 3

2.2.1 Federal Preemption................................................................................................................ 3

2.2.2 Energy Efficiency Measures.................................................................................................... 3

2.2.3 All Electric Measures.............................................................................................................. 4

2.2.4 Renewable Energy .................................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Package Development..................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Incremental Costs............................................................................................................................ 6

2.4.1 Energy Efficiency Measure Costs............................................................................................ 6

2.4.2 All Electric Measure Costs ...................................................................................................... 8

2.4.3 Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs............................................................................................ 9

2.5 Cost-effectiveness......................................................................................................................... 10

2.5.1 On-Bill Customer Lifecycle Cost............................................................................................ 11

2.5.2 TDV Lifecycle Cost................................................................................................................. 12

2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................................ 12 3 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Mid-Rise Multifamily Results......................................................................................................... 13 Efficiency Only: ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Efficiency + PV: ..................................................................................................................................... 14 4 Conclusions & Summary........................................................................................................................ 20 5 References............................................................................................................................................. 22 Appendix A California Climate Zone Map................................................................................................... 24 Appendix B Utility Tariff Details.................................................................................................................. 25 Appendix C PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo...................................................................................... 47 Appendix D Detailed Results Mixed-Fuel ................................................................................................... 50 Appendix E Detailed Results All-Electric..................................................................................................... 53 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study ii
Table 1: Prototype Characteristics.............................................................................................................................2 Table 2: Incremental Cost Assumptions.....................................................................................................................7 Table 3: Costs for Gas versus Electric Water Heating Equipment over 30-Year Period of Analysis...........................8 Table 4: Solar Thermal Detailed Costs over 30-Year Period of Analysis ....................................................................9 Table 5: Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Building .................................................................9 Table 6: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone .................................................................................... 12 Table 7: Mixed-Fuel Package Results: Efficiency Only (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT) .................................... 15 Table 8: Mixed-Fuel Package Results: PV + Efficiency 0.3 kWDC per Apartment (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 9: All-Electric Package Results: Efficiency Only (SAVINGS/COSTS PER APARTMENT) ................................... 17 Table 10: All-Electric Package Results: PV + Efficiency 0.1 kWDC per Apartment (SAVINGS/COSTS PER APARTMENT)........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 11: Mixed-Fuel Measure Package Summary ................................................................................................. 19 Table 12: All-Electric Measure Package Summary .................................................................................................. 19 Table 13: Mid-Rise Multifamily Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost-Effectiveness..................................... 21 Table 14: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .............................................................................................. 26 Table 15: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/Therm)........................................................................................................ 26 Table 16: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone.................................................................................................. 32 Table 17: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone......................................................................................... 35 Table 18: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/Therm) .................................................................................................. 35 Table 19: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................ 38 Table 20: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/Therm)...................................................................................................... 41 Table 22: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions........................................................................................ 46 Table 23: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency Only Package Results (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1.................................. 50 Table 24: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency + PV Package Results (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1................................. 51 Table 25: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency + PV Package Results , cont. (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1....................... 52 Figure 1: 5-story mid-rise multifamily prototype depiction.......................................................................................2 Figure 2: Prescriptive central heat pump water heater system schematic................................................................5 Figure 3: Map of California climate zones. (Source, California Energy Commission) ............................................. 24 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study iii
Acronyms
2020 PV$ Present value costs in 2020
ACM Alternative Calculation Method
B/C Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
BSC Building Standards Commission
CBECC-ComComputer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating compliance with the California Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards CFI California Flexible Installation
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
CPC California Plumbing Code
CZ California Climate Zone
DHW Domestic Hot Water
DOE Department of Energy
DWHR Drain Water Heat Recovery
EDR Energy Design Rating
EER Energy Efficiency Ratio
EF Energy Factor
EPS Expanded Polystyrene
HERS Rater Home Energy Rating System Rater
HPWH Heat Pump Water Heater
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IOU Investor Owned Utility
kBtu kilo-British thermal unit
kWh Kilowatt Hour
kWDC Kilowatt Direct Current. Nominal rated power of a photovoltaic system LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LCC Lifecycle Cost
MF Multifamily
NAECA National Appliance Energy Conservation Act
NEM Net Energy Metering
NPV Net Present Value
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PV Photovoltaic
SCE Southern California Edison
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study iv
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
SF Solar Fraction
SHGC Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District
CASE Codes and Standards Enhancement
TDV Time Dependent Valuation
Therm Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 Title 24, Part 6
TOU Time-Of-Use
UEF Uniform Energy Factor
W Watts
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 1 2020-06-22
1 Introduction
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (California Energy Commission, 2018b) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies, the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances, or reach codes, that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.

This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2020, for new mid-rise (four- to seven-story) multifamily residential construction. The analysis includes evaluation of both mixed-fuel and all-electric residential construction, documenting that the performance requirements can be met by either type of building design. Compliance package options and cost-effectiveness analysis in all 16 California climate zones (CZs) are presented (see Appendix A California Climate Zone Map for a graphical depiction of Climate Zone locations). 2 This analysis uses two different metrics to assess cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures. The main difference between the methodologies is the manner in which they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use:

Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the societal of energy use including long-term projected costs, such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs, such as projected costs for carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season.

2.1 The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. The CEC recently developed new prototype designs for multifamily buildings to more closely reflect typical designs for new multifamily buildings across the state. The new prototypes include two low-rise residential designs, a mid-rise, and a high-rise design. At the time that this report was written, there was one mid-rise multifamily prototype, which is used in this analysis in development of the above-code packages (TRC, 2019). The midrise prototype is a 6-story building with one below-grade parking level, ground floor commercial space, and four stories of residential space. Table 1 describes the basic characteristics of the mid-rise prototype and Figure 1 shows a depiction of the building. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2 2020-06-22
1 Characteristic Multifamily 5-Story Mid-Rise
Conditioned Floor Area
113,100 ft2 Total:
33,660 ft2 Nonresidential &
79,440 ft2 Residential
Number of Stories
6 Stories Total:
1 Story Parking Garage (below grade)
1 Story of Nonresidential Space
4 Stories of Residential Space
Number of Dwelling Units /
Bedrooms
(8) studios,
(40)1-bed units,
(32)2-bed units, &
(8) 3-bed units
Foundation Concrete podium with underground parking
Wall Assembly Wood frame over a first-floor concrete podium Roof Assembly Flat roof
Window-to-Wall Area Ratio 22.5%
HVAC System Ducted split heat pumps at each apartment
Domestic Hot Water System Gas central boiler with solar thermal sized to meet the prescriptive requirements by climate zone
Source: TRC 2019
Source: TRC 2019
1 5- -
The methodology used in the analyses for the prototypical building type begins with a design that meets the minimum 2019 Title 24 prescriptive requirements (zero compliance margin). Table 140.3-B and 140.3-C in the 2019 Title 24 (California Energy Commission, 2018a) lists the prescriptive measures that determine the baseline design in each climate zone for the nonresidential and high-rise residential spaces, respectively. Other features are consistent with the Standard Design in the Nonresidential ACM Reference Manual (California Energy Commission, 2019a) with one exception. The apartments use split system heat pumps instead of a split furnace 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 3 2020-06-22
and air conditioner that is prescribed in Table 2 of the Nonresidential ACM Reference Manual. This modeling choice was made to better reflect current market data, which shows heat pumps to be the most common system type and a very low prevalence of gas furnaces for multifamily buildings four stories and greater. This is based on a report completed by TRC (TRC, 2019) and validated by analysis of CA HERS Registry Data by SCE that showed 47% of low-rise multifamily new construction in the 2013 and 2016 code cycles had electric space heating. The analysis also assumed electric cooking in the apartment units to reflect current market data.

Laundry was not addressed in this study. The building prototype assumes central laundry facilities and no laundry in the units.

2.2 Measure Analysis
EnergyPro 8.1, which uses the California Building Energy Code Compliance simulation tool, CBECC-Com 2019.1.2, as the simulation engine, was used to evaluate energy impacts using the 2019 Title 24 prescriptive standards as the benchmark, and the 2019 TDV values. CBECC-Com was used for this analysis to evaluate the mid-rise building for code compliance under the 2019 non-residential standards. TDV is the energy metric used by the Energy Commission since the 2005 Title 24 energy code to evaluate compliance with the Title 24 Standards.

Using the 2019 baseline as the starting point, prospective energy efficiency measures were identified and modeled to determine the projected site energy (Therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly data output from CBECC-Com, and electricity and natural gas tariffs for each of the investor owned utilities (IOUs).

This analysis focused on the residential apartments only. A prior study and report demonstrated the costeffectiveness of above code packages for nonresidential buildings (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a). The Statewide Reach Code Team selected measures for evaluation based on the residential and nonresidential 2019 reach code analysis ((Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a), (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019b)) as well as experience with and outreach to architects, builders, and engineers along with general knowledge of the relative acceptance of many measures. Efficiency measure packages found to be cost-effective in the nonresidential building reach code analysis were applied to the nonresidential spaces for evaluating performance relative to compliance, but the incremental costs and energy impacts of these measures on the nonresidential spaces were not included in this analysis. Refer to the nonresidential reach code study for more details (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a).

2.2.2 Following are descriptions of each of the efficiency measures evaluated for the residential spaces under this analysis. Because not all of the measures described below were found to be cost-effective, and costeffectiveness varied by climate zone, not all measures are included in all packages and some of the measures listed are not included in any final package.

Improved Fenestration Lower U-factor: Reduce window U-factor to 0.25 Btu/hr-ft2-°F. The prescriptive maximum U-factor is 0.36 in all climates. This measure is applied to all windows on floors two through five. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 4 2020-06-22
Improved Fenestration Lower SHGC: Reduce window solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) to 0.22. The prescriptive maximum SHGC is 0.25 for fixed windows in all climates. The Statewide Reach Code Team evaluated increased SHGC in heating dominated climates (Climate Zone 1, 3, 5, and 16) but results were better with a lower SHGC. This measure is applied to all windows on floors two through five.

Exterior Wall Insulation: Add one inch of R-4 exterior continuous insulation. To meet the prescriptive wall requirements, exterior wall insulation is used in the basecase, therefore this measure adds additional R-value to existing exterior insulation. This measure is applied to all walls on floors two through five.

HERS Verification of Hot Water Pipe Insulation: The California Plumbing Code (CPC) requires pipe insulation on all hot water lines. This measure provides credit for HERS Rater verification of pipe insulation requirements according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.6.3. (California Energy Commission, 2018b).

Low Pressure Drop Ducts: Upgrade the duct distribution system to reduce external static pressure and meet a maximum fan efficacy of 0.25 watts per cfm operating at full speed. This may involve upsizing ductwork, reducing the total effective length of ducts, and/or selecting low pressure drop components, such as filters. This measure is applied to the ducted split heat pumps serving the apartments.

Solar Thermal: Prescriptively, central water heating systems require a solar thermal system with a 20% solar fraction in Climates Zones 1 through 9 and 35% solar fraction in Climate Zones 10 through 16. This measure upgrades the prescriptive solar thermal system to meet a 50% solar fraction in all climates, assuming there is available roof space for the additional collectors.

Drain Water Heat Recovery: Add drain water heat recovery with a 50% effectiveness to serve all the apartments. The assumption is for an unequal flow design where the output of the heat exchanger feeds only the cold water inlets to the apartment showers, not the water heater cold water makeup.

Efficiency measures were applied to the nonresidential spaces based on the 2019 Nonresidential Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a).

2.2.3 This analysis assumes that the basecase prototype model uses individual heat pumps for space heating and all electric appliances in the apartments. Therefore, the domestic hot water system is the only equipment serving the apartment spaces to electrify in the all-electric design . The Statewide Reach Code Team evaluated two configurations for electric heat pump water heaters (HPWHs) described below.

Clustered Heat Pump Water Heater: This clustered design uses residential integrated storage HPWHs to serve more than one apartment; 4 to 5 bedrooms on average for a total of 32 HPWHs in the 88-unit building. The water heaters are located in interior closets throughout the building and designed for short plumbing runs without using a hot water recirculation loop. A minimum efficiency 2.0 UEF HPWH was used for this analysis (to avoid federal preemption). This approach has been selectively used in multifamily projects because of its reliance on lower cost small capacity HPWH products. Since it uses residential equipment with each HPWH serving fewer than 8 apartments the CBECC-Com compliance software had the capability to evaluate this design strategy, even before central HPWH recirculation options were incorporated into the software. The clustered strategy is not a prescriptive option but is allowed in the performance path if the water heater serves no more than 8 units and has no recirculation control. The standard design assumes solar thermal, so the proposed design is penalized in compliance for no solar thermal and made up with other efficiency measures. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 5 2020-06-22
Prescriptive Central Heat Pump Water Heater: Per Section 150.1(c)8C of the 2019 Standards, the Energy Commission made an executive determination outlining requirements of a prescriptive approach for central heat pump water heating systems in December 2019 (California Energy Commission, 2019b). Key aspects of the prescriptive approach are described below:

The system must be configured with a design similar to what is presented in the schematic in Figure 2 of the executive determination document.

HPWH must be single-pass split system with the compressor located outdoors and be able to operate down to -20°F. In CBECC-Com 2019.1.2, the current version at the time of writing this report, the software only has the capability of modeling Sanden HPWHs.

The system must include either a solar thermal water heating system that meets the current prescriptive requirements or 0.1 kWDC of photovoltaic system capacity per apartment/dwelling unit.

For this configuration the Statewide Reach Code Team evaluated costs for a central HPWH system using Sanden compressors that met these prescriptive requirements. Based on the system sizing requirements, 15 Sanden units and 1,200 gallons of primary storage capacity are required for the 88-unit building. At the time that costeffectiveness was initially compared for the two HPWH configurations, the latest CBECC-Com software with the ability to model central HPWH systems was not yet available. To estimate the energy use for the central configuration, the water heating energy use for the clustered configuration was used. It is expected that the energy use of the central system will be higher than the clustered approach primarily as a result of recirculation pump energy and losses.
2 All-electric measures were applied to the nonresidential spaces based on the 2019 Nonresidential Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a).

2.2.4 Solar Photovoltaic (PV): There is no existing requirement for PV in the 2019 Title 24 nonresidential code for high-rise residential buildings (four or more stories). The PV sizing methodology was developed to offset a portion of annual residential electricity use and avoid oversizing which would violate net energy metering (NEM) 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 6 2020-06-22
rules. In all cases, PV is evaluated using the PV simulations within CBECC-Com using a Standard module type, 180 degree azimuth, and 22 degree .tilt. The analysis evaluated PV system capacities equal to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 1 kWDC per apartment. The PV system offsets approximately XX4%, XX8%, XX13%, and 42%, of the apartment electricity usage, respectively. Assuming 15 Watts per square foot for a typical commercial PV system, 1 kWDC per apartment, or 88 kWDC total, would take up about 25% of the total roof area.

2.3 Package Development
Four packages were evaluated for each climate zone, as described below. 1) Efficiency Mixed-fuel: This package applies efficiency including envelope, water heating distribution, and duct distribution efficiency measures. 2) Efficiency All Electric: This package applies efficiency measures in addition to converting any natural gas appliances to electric appliances. For the residential spaces, only water heating is converted from natural gas to electric. 3) Efficiency & PV Mixed-fuel: Beginning with the Efficiency Package , PV was added to offset a portion of the apartment estimated electricity use.
4) Efficiency & PV All Electric: Beginning with the Efficiency Package, PV was added to offset a portion of the apartment estimated electricity use.

2.4 2.4.1
Table 22 summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for measures evaluated in this study relative to the residential parts of the building. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measures relative to the base case. Replacement costs are applied to PV inverters and battery systems over the 30-year evaluation period. There is no assumed maintenance on the envelope, HVAC, or DHW measures. Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. When costs were obtained from a source that did not already include builder overhead and profit, a markup of 10% was added. All costs are provided as present value in 2020 (2020 PV$). Costs due to variations in furnace, air conditioner, and heat pump capacity by climate zone were not accounted for in the analysis. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 7 2020-06-22
2 Measure Performance Level
Incremental Cost
(2020 PV$) Source & Notes
Non-Preempted MeasuresWindow U- factor 0.25 vs 0.36 $28,301 $6.95/ft2 window area based on analysis conducted for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 code cycles (Statewide CASE Team, 2018).Window SHGC 0.22 vs 0.25 $0 Data from CASE Report along with direct feedback from Statewide CASE Team that higher SHGC does not necessarily have any incremental cost impact (Statewide CASE Team, 2017b).Exterior WallInsulation Add 1-inch $14,058 $0.86/ft2 based on insulation on a wall with some level of existingexterior insulation. Costs are averaged from two sources ((Statewide CASE Team, 2014),(Statewide CASE Team, 2017a)) and for expanded polystyrene (EPS) and polyisocyanurateproducts with a 10% mark-up added to account for cost increases over time.

HERS VerifiedPipe Insulation
HERS verified pipe
insulation vs no
verification
$7,260 $83 per apartment for a HERS Rater to conduct verification of pipe insulation based on feedback from HERS Raters.

Low PressureDrop Ducts

0.25 W/cfm vs 0.35
W/cfm $12,654
$144 per apartment. Costs assume 1.5 hourshrs labor per multifamily apartment. Labor rate of$96 per hour is from 2019 RSMeans for sheet metal workers and includes an average City CostIndex for labor for California cities.

Solar Thermal
50% solar fraction
vs prescriptive
20%-35%
$79,560
Costs based on 2022 multifamily solar thermal measure CASE proposal (Statewide CASE Team,2020) and include first cost of $70,727 and $8,834 present value forreplacement/maintenance costs.

Drain WaterHeat Recovery
50% effectiveness,
flows to shower $16,984
Costs from 2019 DWHR CASE Report which assumes 1 heat exchanger per 4 units (StatewideCASE Team, 2017c). Costs do not include additional cost of water meters at each apartment(per SB7), which would add approx. $175 per dwelling unit.

Renewable Energy (PV)PV System System size varies $3.17/WDC First costs are from LBNL Tracking the Sun 2018 costs (Barbose et al., 2018) and representcosts for the first half of 2018 of $2.90/WDC for nonresidential systems 500 kWDC. These costswere reduced by 16% for the solar investment tax credit, which is the average credit overyears 2020-2022.Inverter replacement cost of $0.14/WDC present value includes replacements at year 11 at$0.15/WDC (nominal) and at year 21 at $0.12/WDC (nominal) per the 2019 PV CASE Report(California Energy Commission, 2017).System maintenance costs of $0.31/WDC present value assumes additional $0.02/WDC(nominal) annually per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017).10% overhead and profit added to all costs. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 8 2020-06-22

2.4.2 The Statewide Reach Code Team reached out to stakeholders to collect project cost information for central gas boilers and both clustered and central HPWH designs. Project data sources included Association for Energy Affordability (AEA), Redwood Energy, Mithun, Ecotope, and the All-Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway 2022 Draft CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020). Costs are presented in Table 3. 3 30-Year
Analysis
Central
Gas Boiler
(CZs 1-9)
Central Gas
Boiler
(CZs 10-16)
Clustered
HPWH
Central
HPWH
System Quantity/Description
1 boiler
recirc
32 units
80 gal. each
no recirc
15 units
.1,200-gal
total
recirc
Total Equipment Cost $98,733 $126,778 $213,364
Solar Thermal
(20% SF)
110,096
(35% SF)
$131,817 - -
Solar PV - - -
$23,580
(8.8 kWDC)
Total First Cost $202,920 $224,641 $126,778 $236,944
Maintenance/Replacement Cost (NPV) $69,283 $69,283 $81,374 $120,683 Total Cost (NPV) $272,203 $293,924 $208,152 $357,627
Incremental Cost CZ 1-9 (NPV) ($64,051) $85,424
Incremental Cost CZ 10-16 (NPV) ($85,772) $63,703
Typical costs for the water heating systems are based on the following assumptions:

Central Gas Boiler: Based on the average of total estimated project costs from contractors for four multi-family projects ranging from 32 to 340 apartments and cost estimates for mid-rise and high-rise buildings from the AllElectric Multifamily Compliance Pathway 2022 Draft CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020). The cost per dwelling unit ranged from $547 to $2,089 and the average cost applied in this analysis was $1,122 per dwelling unit. Costs include installation of gas piping from the building meter to the water heater. Water heater lifetime is assumed to be 15 years and the net present value replacement cost at year 15 is $63,373.

Clustered HPWH: Based on costs from one project with RHEEM HPWHs used in a clustered design. Costs include water heater interior closet, electrical outlets, and increased breaker size and sub feed. Water heater based on

2.0 UEF 80-gallon appliance with 32 total HPWHs serving the building (1 per 4 to 5 bedrooms). Water heater lifetime is assumed to be 15 years and the net present value replacement cost at year 15 is $81,374. This design assumes 8 water heater closets per floor, at approximately 15 square feet per closet. While this has an impact on leasable floor area, the design impacts have been found to be minimal when addressed early in design.

Central HPWH: Based on average total installed project costs from four multi-family projects with Sanden HPWHs ranging from 4 to 16 Sanden units per project. The cost per Sanden HPWH ranged from $13,094 to $15,766 and the average cost applied in this analysis was $14,224 per HPWH. Based on the prescriptive system sizing requirements, 15 Sanden units are required for the 88-unit building, resulting in a total first cost of $213,364. Water heater lifetime is assumed to be 15 years. Because Sanden HPWHS are an emerging technology in the United States, it is expected that over time their costs will decrease and for replacement at year 15 the costs are assumed to have decreased by 15%.
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 9 2020-06-22
Solar Thermal: Based on system costs provided in the All-Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway 2022 Draft CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020). First costs reflect the material, labor, and markup costs presented in the Draft CASE Report for the mid-rise prototype. Replacement and maintenance costs assume replacement of the solar thermal tank at year 15 at $6,110 and glycol replacement of $1,300 each time at years 9, 18, and 27.

The cost of the remaining useful life of the glycol at year 30 is deducted from the final cost. The Draft CASE Report included costs for replacing the solar collectors at year 20. Collectors can have longer lifetimes up to 30 years if well maintained, therefore this analysis does not assume any replacement of the collectors over the 30 year analysis period.
4 30-Yea
Solar Fraction 20% 35%
Materials $33,975 $48,975
Labor $47,740 $49,776
Markup 27.5% 27.5%
First Cost $104,187 $125,908
Replacement/Maintenance (PV) $5,910 $5,910
Total PV Cost $110,096 $131,817

2.4.3 nfrastructure Costs
This analysis assumes that in an all-electric new construction project, natural gas would not be supplied to the building. Eliminating natural gas to the building would save costs associated with connecting a service line from the street main to the building, piping distribution within the building, and monthly meter connection charges from the utility. Incremental costs for natural gas infrastructure in the mixed-fuel building are presented in Table

5. Cost data for the plan review and service extension was estimated on a per building basis and then apportioned to the residential and nonresidential portions of the buildings based on annual gas consumption.

For the basecase prototype building 49% to 93% of estimated building annual gas use is attributed to the residential water heating system across all climate zones. A statewide average of 80% was calculated and applied to the costs in Table 5 based on housing starts provided by the California Energy Commission for the 2019 Title 24 code development process. The meter costs were based on the service provided to the residential and nonresidential portion of the building separately. Following the table are descriptions of assumptions for each of the cost components. Costs for gas piping from the meter to the gas boilers are included in the central gas boiler costs above. Gas piping distribution costs were typically included in total project costs and could not be broken out in all cases.
5 - Building
Item Total NonResidential
Portion
Residential
Portion
Natural Gas Plan Review $2,316 $452 $1,864
Service Extension1 $4,600 $898 $3,702
Meter $7,200 $3,600 $3,600
Total First Cost $14,116 $4,950 $9,166
1Service extension costs include 50% reduction assuming portion of the costs are passed on to gas customers.

Natural Gas Plan Review: Total costs are based on TRC analysis for Palo Alto (TRC, 2019) and then split between the residential and nonresidential spaces in the building proportionately according to annual gas consumption with 80% of the annual load is attributed to residential units on a statewide basis.

Service Extension: Service extension costs to the building were taken from PG&E memo dated December 5, 2019, to Energy Commission staff, include costs for trenching, and assume non-residential new construction within a developed area (see Appendix C PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo, PG&E, 2019). The total cost of 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 10 2020-06-22
$9,200 from the memo is reduced by 50% to account for the portion of the costs paid for by all customers due to application of Utility Gas Main Extensions rules1. The resultant cost is apportioned between the residential and nonresidential spaces in the building based on annual gas consumption of residential and nonresidential uses, with 80% of the annual load natural gas use attributed to residential units on a statewide basis.

Meter: Cost per meter provided by PG&E for commercial meters. Assume one meter for nonresidential boilers serving space heating and service water heating, and another for residential boilers serving domestic hot water.

2.5 Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness was evaluated for all 16 California climate zones and is presented based on both TDV energy, methodology, and an On-Bill approach using residential customer utility rates. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the value of the energy impact associated with energy efficiency measures over the life of the measures (30 years) as compared to the prescriptive Title 24 requirements.

Cost-effectiveness is presented using both lifecycle net present value (NPV) savings and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics, which represent the cost-effectiveness of a measure over a 30-year lifetime taking into account discounting of future savings and costs.

Net Present Value (NPV) Savings: NPV benefits minus NPV costs is reported as a cost effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost effective. Negative savings represent net costs. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are more negative (i.e., material and maintenance cost savings).

Benefit-to-Cost (B/C) Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 30 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criteria for cost effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. 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 1. 1 Improving the efficiency of a project often requires an initial incremental investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual - utility or TDV savings, and the cost 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 increased energy costs 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 Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values.
1 PG&E Rule 15: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_RULES_15.pdf SoCalGas Rule 20: https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/20.pdf SDG&E Rule 15: http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-RULES_GRULE15.pdf 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 11 2020-06-22
The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 2.

E 2
Where:
n = analysis term
r = real discount rate
t = year at which cost/benefit is incurred
The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies.

Analysis term of 30 years
Real discount rate of 3% (does not include inflation)

2.5.1 On- Cost
Residential utility rates were used to calculate utility costs for all cases and determine On-Bill customer costeffectiveness for the proposed packages. Utility costs of the nonresidential spaces were not evaluated in this study, only apartment and water heating energy use. The Statewide Reach Code Team obtained the recommended utility rates from each IOU based on the assumption that the reach codes go into effect in 2020.

Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and gas output from CBECC-Com, and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 6. Appendix B Utility Tariff Details includes details on the utility rate schedules used for this study. The applicable residential time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases. For cases with PV generation, the approved NEM2 tariffs were applied along with minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges. For the PV cases annual electric production was always less than annual electricity consumption; and therefore, no credits for surplus generation were necessary. Future changes to the NEM tariffs are likely; however, there is a lot of uncertainty about what those changes will be and if they will become effective during the 2019 Title 24 code cycle (2020-2022).

Based on guidance from the IOUs, the residential electric TOU tariffs that apply to individually metered residential apartments were also used to calculate electricity costs for the central water heating systems. Where baseline allowances are included in the tariffs (SCE TOU-D and SDG&E TOU-DR1) the allowances were applied on a per unit basis for all-electric service.

Based on guidance from the IOUs, master metered multifamily service gas tariffs were used to calculate gas costs for the central water heating systems. The baseline quantities were applied on a per unit basis, as is defined in the schedules, and when available water heating only baseline values were used.

Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone according to Table 6. Climate Zones 10 and 14 are evaluated with both SCE/SoCalGas and SDG&E tariffs since each utility has customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates. Two municipal utility rates were also evaluated, Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) in Climate Zone 12 and City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) in Climate Zone 4. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 12 2020-06-22
6 I B
Climate Zones Electric/Gas
Utility
Electricity
(Apartment
Use)
Electricity
(Central Water
Heating)
Natural Gas
(Central Water
Heating)
1 1-5, 11-13, 16 PG&E E-TOU-C E-TOU-CPG&E GM
5 PG&E/SoCalGas
SoCalGas GM-E
6, 8-10, 14,15 SCE/SoCalGas TOU-D
(Option 4-9)
TOU-D
(Option 4-9)
7, 10, 14 SDG&E TOU-DR1 TOU-DR1 SDG&E GM
12 SMUD/PG&E R-TOD (RT02) GSN-T PG&E GM
4 CPAU E-1 E-2 G-2
1 These rates are allowed assuming no gas is used in the apartments.

Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). Escalation of natural gas rates between 2019 and 2022 is based on the currently filed General Rate Cases (GRCs) for PG&E, SoCalGas and SDG&E. From 2023 through 2025, gas rates are assumed to escalate at 4% per year above inflation, which reflects historical rate increases between 2013 and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2019 through 2025 is assumed to be 2% per year above inflation, based on electric utility estimates. After 2025, escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are assumed to drop to a more conservative 1% escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories beginning in 2026 through 2050. See Appendix B Utility Tariff Details for additional details.

2.5.2 TDV Lifec
Cost-effectiveness was also assessed using the Energy C TDV LCC methodology. TDV is a normalized monetary format developed and used by the Energy Commission for comparing electricity and natural gas savings, and it considers the cost of electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and year. The 2019 TDV values are based on long term discounted costs of 30 years for all residential measures. The CBECC-Com simulation software results are expressed in terms of TDV kBtus. The present value of the energy cost savings in dollars is calculated by multiplying the TDV kBtu savings by a net present value (NPV) factor, also developed by the Energy Commission. The 30-year NPV factor is $0.154/TDV kBtu for nonresidential projects under 2019 Title 24.

Like the customer B/C ratio, a TDV B/C ratio value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The ratio is calculated according to Equation 3. 3 2.6
Equivalent CO2 emission savings were calculated based on estimates from Zero Code reports available in CBECCCom simulation software.2 Electricity emissions vary by region and by hour of the year, accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard 2 More information at: : https://zero-code.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ZERO-Code-TSD-California.pdf 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 13 2020-06-22
projections. Two distinct hourly profiles, one for Climate Zones 1 through 5 and 11 through 13 and another for Climate Zones 6 through 10 and 14 through 16. For natural gas a fixed factor of 0.005307 metric tons/therm is used. To compare the mixed fuel and all-electric cases side-by-side, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are presented as CO2-equivalent emissions per dwelling unit. 3 Results
The primary objective of the evaluation is to identify cost-effective, non-preempted performance targets for mid-rise multifamily buildings, under both mixed-fuel and all-electric cases, to support the design of local ordinances requiring new mid-rise residential buildings to exceed the minimum state requirements. The packages presented are representative examples of designs and measures that can be used to meet the requirements. In practice, a builder can use any combination of non-preempted or preempted compliant measures to meet the requirements.

This analysis evaluated a package of efficiency measures applied to a mixed-fuel design and a similar package for an all-electric design. Each design was evaluated using the predominant utility rates in all 16 California climate zones. Solar PV was also added to the efficiency packages and a sensitivity analysis was conducted at various PV system capacities to optimize cost-effectiveness.

Although some of the efficiency measures evaluated were not cost-effective and were eliminated, the following measures are included in at least one package:

Improved fenestration
Wall insulation
Low pressure-drop distribution system
HERS verified pipe insulation
The following measures were evaluated but were found to not be cost-effective and were not included in any of the packages.

Solar thermal system with higher solar fraction than prescriptive requirements Drain water heat recovery
Cost-effectiveness results for the all-electric case are based upon the clustered HPWH approach only. Lower first costs with the clustered approach resulted in better cost-effectiveness than the central HPWH design.

3.1 Mid- Results
Table 7 and Table 9 present results for the mixed-fuel and all-electric packages, respectively. Each table shows cost-effectiveness results for Efficiency Only packages and Efficiency + PV packages (with a 17.6 kWDC PV system sized based on 0.2 kWDC per apartment). Both mixed-fuel and all-electric results are relative to the mixed-fuel 2019 Title 24 prescriptive baseline. B/C ratios for all packages are presented according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies for the mixed-fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively. Detailed results are presented in Appendix D Detailed Results Mixed-Fuel and Appendix E Detailed Results All-Electric.

Compliance margins for the Mixed-Fuel Efficiency Only cases range from 5% to 8%, which meets the CALGreen Tier 1 energy performance requirement for high-rise residential buildings. Mixed-Fuel Efficiency Only cases are cost-effective based on TDV in all climate zones except for 1 and 16. The cases are cost-effective from an On-Bill perspective in all climate zones except 1.

The All-Electric Efficiency Only package does not meet minimum code requirements in Climate Zones 1 and 16.

Compliance margins for all other climate zones range from 1% to 5%. All-Electric Efficiency Only cases are cost- 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 14 2020-06-22
effective in all climate zones based on TDV. Cost-effectiveness from an On-Bill perspective is favorable in all climate zones except 1, 16, and 5 in SCG territory.

Efficiency
Several PV system size options were evaluated for the Efficiency + PV packages. Of the PV system sizes evaluated, 0.2 kWDC per apartment represents the smallest system that resulted in B/C ratios greater than one based on both metrics in all climate zones for the mixed-fuel scenario. Adding a 0.1 kWDC per apartment in the all-electric cases, resulted in B/C ratios greater than one in all climate zones.

Table 11 and Table 12 describe the efficiency measures included in the mixed-fuel and all-electric packages, respectively.
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 15 2020-06-22
7 Mixed- Results (SAVINGS/COST
1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.

Climate
Zone
Elec
Utility
Gas
Utility
Comp.

Margin
Total
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Total
Electric
Savings
(kWh)
GHG
Reductions
(lb. CO2)
Savings (2020 PV$)
Incremental
Cost (2020
PV$)
B/C Ratio1 NPV
Utility
Cost
Savings
TDV
Savings
On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
CZ01 PGE PGE 5.8% 0 26 18 $133 $105 $304 0.44 0.35 ($171) ($199)CZ02 PGE PGE 5.9% 0 47 29 $391 $285 $144 2.72 1.98 $248 $141CZ03 PGE PGE 6.7% 0 44 27 $345 $226 $144 2.40 1.57 $202 $82CZ04 PGE PGE 6.6% 0 61 37 $465 $331 $144 3.24 2.31 $321 $188 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 6.6% 0 61 37 $248 $331 $144 1.73 2.31 $104 $188 CZ05 PGE PGE 6.7% 0 42 24 $320 $206 $144 2.22 1.43 $176 $62 CZ05-2 PGE SCG 6.7% 0 42 24 $320 $206 $144 2.22 1.43 $176 $62 CZ06 SCE SCG 7.1% 0 74 42 $424 $351 $144 2.95 2.44 $280 $207CZ07 SDGE SDGE 7.6% 0 81 48 $593 $374 $144 4.13 2.60 $449 $230CZ08 SCE SCG 7.0% 0 84 50 $484 $420 $144 3.37 2.92 $341 $276CZ09 SCE SCG 6.5% 0 83 51 $468 $441 $144 3.26 3.06 $324 $297CZ10 SCE SCG 6.5% 0 82 50 $410 $427 $144 2.85 2.97 $266 $283 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 6.5% 0 82 50 $599 $427 $144 4.16 2.97 $455 $283 CZ11 PGE PGE 6.8% 0 104 70 $637 $635 $625 1.02 1.02 $11 $10CZ12 PGE PGE 6.8% 0 93 60 $572 $568 $304 1.88 1.87 $268 $265 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 6.8% 0 93 71 $319 $568 $304 1.05 1.87 $15 $265 CZ13 PGE PGE 7.3% 0 132 89 $798 $779 $625 1.28 1.25 $173 $154CZ14 SCE SCG 6.0% 0 80 49 $407 $449 $304 1.34 1.48 $103 $145 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 6.0% 0 80 49 $576 $449 $304 1.90 1.48 $273 $145 CZ15 SCE SCG 6.8% 0 145 93 $719 $802 $625 1.15 1.28 $94 $177CZ16 PGE PGE 7.4% 0 117 76 $646 $563 $625 1.03 0.90 $21 ($62) 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 16 2020-06-22
8 Mixed- Results: 0.2 kWDC
1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.

Climate
Zone
Elec
Utility
Gas
Utility
Comp.

Margin
Total
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Total
Electric
Savings
(kWh)
GHG
Reductions
(lb. CO2)
Savings (2020 PV$)
Incremental
Cost (2020
PV$)
B/C Ratio1 NPV
Utility
Cost Savings TDV Savings
On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
CZ01 PGE PGE 5.8% 0 291 131 $1,637 $1,090 $937 1.75 1.16 $701 $153CZ02 PGE PGE 5.9% 0 360 163 $2,431 $1,469 $777 3.13 1.89 $1,655 $692CZ03 PGE PGE 6.7% 0 359 161 $2,400 $1,397 $777 3.09 1.80 $1,624 $620CZ04 PGE PGE 6.6% 0 385 176 $2,579 $1,562 $777 3.32 2.01 $1,802 $785 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 6.6% 0 61 176 $1,335 $1,562 $777 1.72 2.01 $558 $785 CZ05 PGE PGE 6.7% 0 379 168 $2,480 $1,461 $777 3.19 1.88 $1,704 $685 CZ05-2 PGE SCG 6.7% 0 379 168 $2,480 $1,461 $777 3.19 1.88 $1,704 $685 CZ06 SCE SCG 7.1% 0 392 178 $1,987 $1,587 $777 2.56 2.04 $1,210 $810CZ07 SDGE SDGE 7.6% 0 411 189 $2,770 $1,647 $777 3.57 2.12 $1,993 $870CZ08 SCE SCG 7.0% 0 402 186 $2,059 $1,708 $777 2.65 2.20 $1,282 $931CZ09 SCE SCG 6.5% 0 410 192 $1,876 $1,742 $777 2.41 2.24 $1,099 $965CZ10 SCE SCG 6.5% 0 409 190 $1,797 $1,681 $777 2.31 2.16 $1,020 $904 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 6.5% 0 409 190 $2,646 $1,681 $777 3.41 2.16 $1,869 $904 CZ11 PGE PGE 6.8% 0 422 206 $2,438 $1,877 $1,258 1.94 1.49 $1,180 $619CZ12 PGE PGE 6.8% 0 406 193 $2,352 $1,794 $937 2.51 1.91 $1,415 $857 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 6.8% 0 406 193 $1,226 $1,794 $937 1.31 1.91 $289 $857 CZ13 PGE PGE 7.3% 0 441 221 $2,548 $1,965 $1,258 2.03 1.56 $1,290 $707CZ14 SCE SCG 6.0% 0 439 201 $1,923 $1,901 $937 2.05 2.03 $987 $964 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 6.0% 0 439 201 $2,819 $1,901 $937 3.01 2.03 $1,882 $964 CZ15 SCE SCG 6.8% 0 478 234 $2,128 $2,110 $1,258 1.69 1.68 $870 $852CZ16 PGE PGE 7.4% 0 457 222 $2,567 $1,818 $1,258 2.04 1.44 $1,309 $560 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 17 2020-06-22
9 All- (SAVINGS/COSTS
1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.2 incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings.

Climate
Zone
Elec
Utility
Gas
Utility
Comp.

Margin
Total
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Total
Electric
Savings
(kWh)
GHG
Reductions
(lb. CO2)
Savings (2020 PV$)
Incremental
Cost (2020
PV$)
B/C Ratio1,2 NPV
Utility
Cost Savings
TDV
Savings
On- Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
CZ01 PGE PGE -0.4% 125 -873 1040 -$674 $199 -$446 0.7 >1 ($228) $645CZ02 PGE PGE 1.6% 114 -762 971 -$238 $528 -$606 2.5 >1 $368 $1,134CZ03 PGE PGE 1.1% 115 -767 975 -$287 $390 -$606 2.1 >1 $319 $996CZ04 PGE PGE 3.4% 111 -714 952 -$102 $625 -$606 6.0 >1 $504 $1,231 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 3.4% 111 -714 952 $345 $625 -$606 >1 >1 $951 $1,231 CZ05 PGE PGE 1.3% 117 -788 991 -$350 $391 -$606 1.7 >1 $255 $996 CZ05-2 PGE SCG 1.3% 117 -788 991 -$827 $391 -$606 0.7 >1 ($221) $996 CZ06 SCE SCG 3.7% 107 -670 933 $153 $612 -$606 >1 >1 $759 $1,218CZ07 SDGE SDGE 4.8% 106 -653 930 -$58 $665 -$606 10.4 >1 $547 $1,271CZ08 SCE SCG 3.9% 104 -633 912 $227 $693 -$606 >1 >1 $833 $1,298CZ09 SCE SCG 3.8% 104 -633 912 $212 $739 -$606 >1 >1 $817 $1,345CZ10 SCE SCG 1.8% 90 -626 743 -$214 $396 -$853 4.0 >1 $639 $1,249 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 1.8% 90 -626 743 -$478 $396 -$853 1.8 >1 $375 $1,249 CZ11 PGE PGE 2.0% 91 -619 769 -$241 $430 -$371 1.5 >1 $130 $802CZ12 PGE PGE 1.4% 94 -662 773 -$414 $288 -$693 1.7 >1 $279 $980 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 1.4% 94 -662 773 $1,060 $288 -$693 >1 >1 $1,753 $980 CZ13 PGE PGE 2.6% 90 -579 777 -$62 $505 -$371 6.0 >1 $309 $876CZ14 SCE SCG 1.1% 92 -653 759 -$258 $305 -$693 2.7 >1 $435 $998 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 1.1% 92 -653 759 -$532 $305 -$693 1.3 >1 $161 $998 CZ15 SCE SCG 4.4% 74 -409 679 $332 $832 -$371 >1 >1 $704 $1,203CZ16 PGE PGE -5.8% 108 -777 895 -$621 $127 -$371 0.6 >1 ($250) $498 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 18 2020-06-22
10 - 1 kWDC (SAVINGS/COSTS
1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.2 incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings.

Climate
Zone
Elec
Utility
Gas
Utility
Comp.

Margin
Total
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Total
Electric
Savings
(kWh)
GHG
Reductions
(lb. CO2)
Savings (2020 PV$)
Incremental
Cost (2020
PV$)
B/C Ratio1,2 NPV
Utility
Cost Savings TDV Savings
On- Bill TDV On- Bill TDV
CZ01 PGE PGE -0.4% 125 -741 1,097 $78 $692 -$129 >1 >1 $208 $821CZ02 PGE PGE 1.6% 114 -606 1,038 $782 $1,120 -$289 >1 >1 $1,071 $1,409CZ03 PGE PGE 1.1% 115 -609 1,042 $741 $975 -$289 >1 >1 $1,030 $1,264CZ04 PGE PGE 3.4% 111 -552 1,021 $955 $1,240 -$289 >1 >1 $1,244 $1,529 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 3.4% 111 -714 1,021 $904 $1,240 -$289 >1 >1 $1,194 $1,529 CZ05 PGE PGE 1.3% 117 -619 1,063 $730 $1,018 -$289 >1 >1 $1,019 $1,307 CZ05-2 PGE SCG 1.3% 117 -619 1,063 $254 $1,018 -$289 >1 >1 $543 $1,307 CZ06 SCE SCG 3.7% 107 -512 1,001 $935 $1,231 -$289 >1 >1 $1,224 $1,520CZ07 SDGE SDGE 4.8% 106 -488 1,000 $1,049 $1,302 -$289 >1 >1 $1,339 $1,591CZ08 SCE SCG 3.9% 104 -474 981 $1,014 $1,337 -$289 >1 >1 $1,304 $1,626CZ09 SCE SCG 3.8% 104 -469 983 $924 $1,390 -$289 >1 >1 $1,213 $1,679CZ10 SCE SCG 1.8% 90 -463 813 $480 $1,023 -$536 >1 >1 $1,016 $1,559 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 1.8% 90 -463 813 $546 $1,023 -$536 >1 >1 $1,082 $1,559 CZ11 PGE PGE 2.0% 91 -460 837 $660 $1,052 -$55 >1 >1 $714 $1,106CZ12 PGE PGE 1.4% 94 -505 839 $476 $900 -$376 >1 >1 $852 $1,276 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 1.4% 94 -505 839 $1,513 $900 -$376 >1 >1 $1,890 $1,276 CZ13 PGE PGE 2.6% 90 -424 843 $813 $1,098 -$55 >1 >1 $867 $1,153CZ14 SCE SCG 1.1% 92 -473 835 $500 $1,031 -$376 >1 >1 $877 $1,407 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 1.1% 92 -473 835 $589 $1,031 -$376 >1 >1 $965 $1,407 CZ15 SCE SCG 4.4% 74 -242 750 $1,037 $1,485 -$55 >1 >1 $1,091 $1,540CZ16 PGE PGE -5.8% 108 -608 969 $339 $754 -$55 >1 >1 $394 $809 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 19 2020-06-22
11 Mixed- Summary
Climate
Zone
Compliance
Margin

MEASURE SPECIFICATION
Window
U-value
Window
SHGC
Add
Wall
Ins.

Fan Watt
Draw
HERS
Pipe Ins.

CZ01 5.8% + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ02 5.9% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ03 6.7% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ04 6.6% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ05 6.7% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ06 7.1% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ07 7.6% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ08 7.0% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ09 6.5% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ10 6.5% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ11 6.8% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ12 7.3% 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ13 7.3% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ14 6.8% 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ15 6.8% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ16 7.4% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No
12 All- Summary
Climate
Zone

MEASURE SPECIFICATION
Compliance
Margin
Window
U-value
Window
SHGC
Add
Wall
Ins.

Fan Watt
Draw
HERS
Pipe Ins.

CZ01 -0.4% + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ02 1.6% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ03 1.1% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ04 3.4% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ05 1.3% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ06 3.7% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ07 4.8% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ08 3.9% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ09 3.8% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ10 1.8% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ11 2.0% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ12 2.0% 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ13 2.6% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ14 2.0% 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ15 4.4% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ16 -5.8% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 20 2020-06-22
4 This report evaluated the feasibility and cost- specifications for newly constructed mid-rise multifamily buildings. The analysis included application of efficiency measures, electric appliances, and PV in all 16 California climate zones, and found cost-effective packages across the state. For the building designs and climate zones where cost-effective packages were identified, the results of this analysis can be used by local jurisdictions to support the adoption of reach codes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated according to two metrics: On-Bill customer lifecycle benefit-to-cost ratio and TDV lifecycle benefit-to-cost ratio.

For mixed-fuel buildings, this analysis demonstrates that there are cost-effective Efficiency Only packages that achieve a minimum 5% compliance margin in most climate zones. The exception is Climate Zone 1 where the package was not cost-effective based on either the TDV or the On-Bill methodology. In all other cases the package is cost-effective for at least one of the metrics.

When 0.1 kWDC per apartment is included, all climate zones are cost-effective based on at least one of the metrics. The addition of 0.1 kWDC per apartment, or 8.8 kWDC total for the building, results in an incremental cost for the PV system of $27,855. When 0.2 kWDC per apartment is included, all climate zones are cost-effective based on both metrics. The addition of 0.2 kWDC per apartment, or 17.6 kWDC for the building, results in an incremental cost for the PV system of $55,711.

This study evaluated electrification of residential loads in new mid-rise multifamily buildings. Based on typical construction across California, the basecase condition incorporated all electric appliances within the apartment spaces. As a result, only central water heating was converted from natural gas to electric as part of this analysis.

For all-electric buildings, this analysis demonstrates that there are cost-effective All-Electric Efficiency Only packages that meet minimum Title 24 code compliance in all climate zones except 1 and 16. The package is costeffective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones. It is cost-effective based on the On-Bill methodology in Climate Zones 2 through 15, except for Climate Zones 5 in SCG territory.

When 0.1 kWDC per apartment is included, all climate zones are cost-effective based on both metrics. The addition of 0.1 kWDC per apartment, or 8.8 kWDC for the building, results in an incremental cost for the PV system of $27,855.

Additional considerations
This study found that electrification of central domestic hot water loads, in combination with efficiency measures, can result in a benefit to the consumer through lower utility bills under certain electricity and gas tariff scenarios (Climate Zones 6, 8, 9, 15, 4 in CPAU territory, and 12 in SMUD territory territory).

The all-electric results demonstrate a trend with On-Bill cost-effectiveness across the different electric utilities. Net Present Value in SCE and SDG&E territories, as well as SMUD and CPAU territories, are typically higher than the cases in PG&E territory. This indicates that rate design can play an important role in encouraging or discouraging electrification.

This study did not evaluate federally preempted high efficiency appliances. Specifying high efficiency equipment is a viable approach to meeting Title 24 code compliance and local ordinance requirements and is commonly used by project teams. Other studies have found that efficiency packages and electrification packages that employ high efficiency equipment can be quite cost-effective ((Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019b), (Energy & Environmental Economics. 2019)).

If PV capacity is added to both the mixed-fuel and all-electric efficiency packages, all cases are costeffective based on at least one of the two evaluated metrics. In some cases, cost-effectiveness improves, and in other cases it decreases relative to the case with efficiency and/or electrification measures only.

The cost-effectiveness of adding PV up to 1 kW per apartment, as an independent measure, results in On-Bill benefit-to-cost ratios between 2.3 and 3.1 for PGE territory, 2.1 to 2.3 for SCE territory, and 3.2 to 3.5 for SDG&E territory. The TDV B/C ratio for PV alone is approximately 2.0 for most climate zones 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 21 2020-06-22
for all service territories. Adding PV in addition to the efficiency packages improves cost-effectiveness where the B/C ratios for the efficiency measures alone are lower than the B/C ratios for PV alone, and vice versa where they are higher. Annual basecase electricity costs and annual utility savings from PV are lower in SCE territory than in PG&E and SDG&E territories. This is due to lower off-peak cost and a bigger difference in peak versus off-peak rate for the TOU-D SCE electricity rate tariff. Most PV production occurs during off-peak times (4 pm to 9 pm peak period).

Table 13 summarizes compliance margin and cost-effectiveness results for the mixed-fuel and all-electric cases.

Compliance margin is reported in the cells and cost-effectiveness is indicated by the color of the cell according to the following:

Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both OnBill and TDV approaches.

Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach but not both.

Cells not highlighted either depict a negative compliance margin (red text) or a package that was not cost-effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.

For more detail on the results, please refer to Section 3.1 Mid-Rise Multifamily Results, Appendix D Detailed Results Mixed-Fuel and Appendix E Detailed Results All-Electric. 13 Mid- -Effectiveness
Climate
Zone
Elec
Utility
Gas
Utility
Mixed-Fuel All-Electric
No PV

0.1 kWDC
/Apt

0.2 kWDC
/Apt

0.3 kWDC
/Apt No PV

0.1 kWDC
/Apt

0.2 kWDC
/Apt

0.3 kWDC
/Apt
CZ01 PGE PGE 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% -0.4% -0.4% -0.4% -0.4% CZ02 PGE PGE 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
CZ03 PGE PGE 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%
CZ04 PGE PGE 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%
CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% CZ05 PGE PGE 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
CZ05-2 PGE SCG 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
CZ06 SCE SCG 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7%
CZ07 SDGE SDGE 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%
CZ08 SCE SCG 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9%
CZ09 SCE SCG 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8%
CZ10 SCE SCG 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%
CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% CZ11 PGE PGE 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
CZ12 PGE PGE 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%
CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% CZ13 PGE PGE 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%
CZ14 SCE SCG 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%
CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% CZ15 SCE SCG 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4%
CZ16 PGE PGE 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% -5.8% -5.8% -5.8% -5.8% 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 22 2020-06-22
5 References
California Energy Commission. 2017. Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. 2018a. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400-2018-020-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-020/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018b. 2019 Reference Appendices. CEC-400-2018-021-CMF. December 2018.

California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-021/CEC-400-2018- 021-CMF.pdf
California Energy Commission. 2019a. 2019 Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual.

CEC-400-2019-006-CMF. May 2019. California Energy Commission. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-006/CEC-400-2019-006-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2019b. Executive Director Determination Pursuant to Section 150.1(c)8C for Central Heat Pump Water Heating System. December 26, 2019. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=231318&DocumentContentId=63067 Energy & Environmental Economics. 2019. Residential Building Electrification in California. April 2019. https://www.ethree.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf Horii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-07- 09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents/
Barbose, Galen and Darghouth, Naim. 2018. Tracking the Sun. Installed Price Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States 2018 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September 2018. https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/tracking_the_sun_2018_edition_final_0.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2014. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Nonresidential Opaque Envelope. December 2014. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2016-T24-CASEReport-NR-Opaque-Envelope-Dec2014-V3.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017a. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative High Performance Walls Final Report. September 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASEReport_HPW_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017b. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Residential High Performance Windows & Doors Final Report. August 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-Report_Res-Windows-and-Doors_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017c. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Drain Water Heat Recovery Final Report. July 2017. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASEReport_DWHR_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2018. Energy Savings Potential and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High Efficiency Windows in California. Prepared by Frontier Energy. May 2018. https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/energysavings-potential-and-cost-effectiveness-analysis-high-efficiency-windows-california Statewide CASE Team. 2020. All-Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway Draft CASE Report. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2022-T24-Draft-CASE-Report_MF-All-Electric.pdf 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 23 2020-06-22
Statewide Reach Code Team. 2019a. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Southern California Edison. Prepared by TRC. July 25, 2019. https://localenergycodes.com/download/801/file_path/fieldList/2019%20NR%20NC%20Cost%20Effectiveness% 20Study-2019-07-25.pdf
Statewide Reach Code Te am. 2019b. 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction.

Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy. August 1, 2019. https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach%20Codes TRC. 2018. City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis Draft. September 2018. https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66742 TRC. 2019. Multifamily Prototypes. June 7, 2019. Submitted to Southern California Edison. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SCEMFModeling_MultifamilyPrototypesReport_2019-06-07_clean.pdf 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 24 2020-06-22
Fi 3 (Source, California Energy Commission3)
3 https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 25 2020-06-22
B
PG&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 SCE ............................................................................................................................................................... 32 SoCalGas ....................................................................................................................................................... 35 SDG&E........................................................................................................................................................... 38 SMUD............................................................................................................................................................. 42 Escalation Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 44 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 26 2020-06-22
PG&E
The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 14 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. 14 ma
Baseline
Territory
CZ01 V
CZ02 X
CZ03 T
CZ04 X
CZ05 T
CZ11 R
CZ12 S
CZ13 R
CZ16 Y
The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending April 2020 according to the rates shown in Table 15. Rates are based on historical data provided by PG&E.4 15 ($/Therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2020 $0.45813 $0.99712 $1.59540 $1.45525 $2.05353
Feb 2020 $0.44791 $0.99712 $1.59540 $1.44503 $2.04331
Mar 2020 $0.35346 $1.13126 $1.64861 $1.48472 $2.00207
Apr 2020 $0.23856 $1.13126 $1.64861 $1.36982 $1.88717
May 2019 $0.21791 $0.99933 $1.59892 $1.21724 $1.81683
June 2019 $0.20648 $0.99933 $1.59892 $1.20581 $1.80540
July 2019 $0.28462 $0.99933 $1.59892 $1.28395 $1.88354
Aug 2019 $0.30094 $0.96652 $1.54643 $1.26746 $1.84737
Sept 2019 $0.25651 $0.96652 $1.54643 $1.22303 $1.80294
Oct 2019 $0.27403 $0.98932 $1.58292 $1.26335 $1.85695
Nov 2019 $0.33311 $0.96729 $1.54767 $1.30040 $1.88078
Dec 2019 $0.401787/ $0.96729 $1.54767 $1.36907 $1.94945 4The PG&E procurement and transportation charges were obtained from the following site:
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/GRF.SHTML#RESGAS
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 27 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 28 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 29 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 30 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 31 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 32 2020-06-22
SCE
The following pages provide details on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 16 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. 16 SCE
Baseline
Territory
CZ06 6
CZ08 8
CZ09 9
CZ10 10
CZ14 14
CZ15 15
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 33 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 34 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 35 2020-06-22
SoCalGas
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 17 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.
17 Baseline
Territory
CZ05 2
CZ06 1
CZ08 1
CZ09 1
CZ10 1
CZ14 2
CZ15 1
The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending April 2020 according to the rates shown in Table 18. Historical natural gas rate data was only available for procurement charges
5 . To estimate total costs by month, the baseline and excess transmission charges were assumed to be relatively consistence and applied for the entire year based on April 2020 costs. 18 Month Procurement
Charge
Transmission Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2020 $0.34730 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.16472 $1.51916
Feb 2020 $0.28008 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.09750 $1.45194
Mar 2020 $0.22108 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.03850 $1.39294
Apr 2020 $0.20307 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.02049 $1.37493
May 2019 $0.23790 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.05532 $1.40976
June 2019 $0.24822 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.06564 $1.42008
July 2019 $0.28475 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.10217 $1.45661
Aug 2019 $0.27223 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.08965 $1.44409
Sept 2019 $0.26162 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.07904 $1.43348
Oct 2019 $0.30091 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.11833 $1.47277
Nov 2019 $0.27563 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.09305 $1.44749
Dec 2019 $0.38067 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.19809 $1.55253
5 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site:
https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/energy-market-services/gas-prices 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 36 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 37 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 38 2020-06-22
SDG&E
Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 19 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. All-Electric baseline allowances were applied. 19 Baseline
Territory
CZ07 Coastal
CZ10 Inland
CZ14 Mountain
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 39 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 40 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 41 2020-06-22
The SDG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending April 2020 according to the rates shown in Table 20. Historical natural gas rate data was only available f procurement charges6. To estimate total costs by month, the baseline and excess transmission charges were assumed to be relatively consistence and applied for the entire year based on April 2020 costs. 20 SDG&E
Month Procurement
Charge
Transmission Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2020 $0.34761 $1.36166 $1.59166 $1.70927 $1.93927
Feb 2020 $0.28035 $1.36166 $1.59166 $1.64201 $1.87201
Mar 2020 $0.22130 $1.36166 $1.59166 $1.58296 $1.81296
Apr 2020 $0.20327 $1.35946 $1.59125 $1.56273 $1.79452
May 2019 $0.23804 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.30153 $1.49057
June 2019 $0.24838 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.31187 $1.50091
July 2019 $0.28491 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.34840 $1.53744
Aug 2019 $0.27239 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.33588 $1.52492
Sept 2019 $0.26178 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.32527 $1.51431
Oct 2019 $0.30109 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.36458 $1.55362
Nov 2019 $0.27580 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.33929 $1.52833
Dec 2019 $0.38090 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.44439 $1.63343
6 The SDG&E procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following sets of documents:
http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-SCHEDS_GM_2020.pdf http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-SCHEDS_GM_2019.pdf 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 42 2020-06-22
SMUD
Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study.

RTOD Rate Schedule
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 43 2020-06-22
GSN_T Rate Schedule:
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 44 2020-06-22
CPAU
Following are the CPAU electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study.

E1 Rate Schedule:

E2 Rate Schedule:
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 45 2020-06-22
G-2 Rate Schedule:

G2 Monthly Per Therm Rates:

Effective
Date
Commodity
Rate
Cap and Trade
Compliance
Charge
Transportation
Charge
Carbon
Offset
Charge
G2 Total
Volumetric
Rate
1/1/20 $0.3289 0.033 0.09941 0.040 1.11151
2/1/20 0.2466 0.033 0.09941 0.040 1.02921
3/1/20 0.2416 0.033 0.09891 0.040 1.02371
4/1/20 0.2066 0.033 0.09891 0.040 0.98871
5/1/20 0.2258 0.033 0.09891 0.040 1.00791
6/1/20 0.2279 0.033 0.09891 0.040 1.01001
7/1/19 0.2471 0.033 0.11757 0.040 1.04787
j8/1/19 0.2507 0.033 0.10066 0.040 1.03456
9/1/19 0.2461 0.033 0.10066 0.040 1.02996
10/1/19 0.2811 0.033 0.10288 0.040 1.06718
11/1/19 0.2923 0.033 0.10288 0.040 1.07838
12/1/19 0.3781 0.033 0.10288 0.040 1.16418
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 46 2020-06-22
The average annual escalation rates in the following table were used in this study and Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). These rates are applied to the 2019 rate schedules over a 30-year period beginning in 2020. SDG&E was not covered in the E3 study. The Statewide Reach Code Team applied the same approach that E3 applied for PG&E and SoCalGas to arrive at average escalation rates between 2020 and 2022. The statewide electricity escalation rates were also applied to the analysis for SMUD and CPAU. PG&E gas escalation rates were applied to CPAU as the best available estimate since CPAU uses PG&E gas infrastructure. 21 sumptions
Statewide Electric
Residential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
Natural Gas Residential Core Rate
(%/yr escalation, real)
PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
2020 2.0% 1.48% 6.37% 5.00%
2021 2.0% 5.69% 4.12% 3.14%
2022 2.0% 1.11% 4.12% 2.94%
2023 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2024 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2025 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2026 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2027 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2028 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2029 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2030 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2031 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2032 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2033 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2034 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2035 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2036 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2037 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2038 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2039 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2040 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2041 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2042 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2043 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2044 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2045 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2046 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2047 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2048 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2049 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 47 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 48 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 49 2020-06-22
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 50 2020-06-22
D Mixed-Fuel
22 Mixed- 1
Apartments Central Water Heating Total Savings (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio1 ClimateZone
ElecUtility
GasUtility
GasSavings(therms)
ElecSavings(kWh)
Year 1UtilityCostSavings
GasSavings(therms)
ElecSavings(kWh)
Year 1UtilityCostSavings
Year 1UtilityCostSavings
On-BillUtilityCostSavings
TDVCostSavings
TotalInc.Cost ($)
On- Bill TDV
CZ01 PGE PGE 0.0 26 $6 0.0 0 $0 $6 $133 $105 $304 0.44 0.35CZ02 PGE PGE 0.0 47 $17 0.0 0 $0 $17 $391 $285 $144 2.72 1.98CZ03 PGE PGE 0.0 44 $15 0.0 0 $0 $15 $345 $226 $144 2.40 1.57CZ04 PGE PGE 0.0 61 $20 0.0 0 $0 $20 $465 $331 $144 3.24 2.31CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 0.0 61 $10 0.0 0 $0 $10 $248 $331 $144 1.73 2.31CZ05 PGE PGE 0.0 42 $14 0.0 0 $0 $14 $320 $206 $144 2.22 1.43CZ05-2 PGE SCG 0.0 42 $14 0.0 0 $0 $14 $320 $206 $144 2.22 1.43CZ06 SCE SCG 0.0 74 $18 0.0 0 $0 $18 $424 $351 $144 2.95 2.44CZ07 SDGE SDGE 0.0 81 $25 0.0 0 $0 $25 $593 $374 $144 4.13 2.60CZ08 SCE SCG 0.0 84 $20 0.0 0 $0 $20 $484 $420 $144 3.37 2.92CZ09 SCE SCG 0.0 83 $20 0.0 0 $0 $20 $468 $441 $144 3.26 3.06CZ10 SCE SCG 0.0 82 $17 0.0 0 $0 $17 $410 $427 $144 2.85 2.97CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 0.0 82 $25 0.0 0 $0 $25 $599 $427 $144 4.16 2.97CZ11 PGE PGE 0.0 104 $27 0.0 0 $0 $27 $637 $635 $625 1.02 1.02CZ12 PGE PGE 0.0 93 $24 0.0 0 $0 $24 $572 $568 $304 1.88 1.87CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 0.0 93 $13 0.0 0 $0 $13 $319 $568 $304 1.05 1.87CZ13 PGE PGE 0.0 132 $34 0.0 0 $0 $34 $798 $779 $625 1.28 1.25CZ14 SCE SCG 0.0 80 $17 0.0 0 $0 $17 $407 $449 $304 1.34 1.48CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 0.0 80 $24 0.0 0 $0 $24 $576 $449 $304 1.90 1.48CZ15 SCE SCG 0.0 145 $30 0.0 0 $0 $30 $719 $802 $625 1.15 1.28CZ16 PGE PGE 0.0 117 $27 0.0 0 $0 $27 $646 $563 $625 1.03 0.90 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 51 2020-06-22
23 Mixed- APARTMENT)1

0.1 kWDC per Apartment 0.2 kWDC per Apartment
ClimateZone
ElecUtility
GasUtility
On-BillUtility CostSavings(2020 PV$)
TDV CostSavings(2020 PV$)
Total Inc.Cost
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
On-BillUtility CostSavings(2020 PV$)
TDV CostSavings(2020 PV$)
Total Inc.Cost
On-BillB/CRatio
TDVB/CRatio
CZ01 PGE PGE $885 $597 $620 1.43 0.96 $1,637 $1,090 $937 1.75 1.16CZ02 PGE PGE $1,411 $877 $460 3.07 1.91 $2,431 $1,469 $777 3.13 1.89CZ03 PGE PGE $1,373 $812 $460 2.98 1.76 $2,400 $1,397 $777 3.09 1.80CZ04 PGE PGE $1,522 $947 $460 3.31 2.06 $2,579 $1,562 $777 3.32 2.01CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU $807 $947 $460 1.75 2.06 $1,335 $1,562 $777 1.72 2.01CZ05 PGE PGE $1,400 $834 $460 3.04 1.81 $2,480 $1,461 $777 3.19 1.88CZ05-2 PGE SCG $1,400 $834 $460 3.04 1.81 $2,480 $1,461 $777 3.19 1.88CZ06 SCE SCG $1,206 $969 $460 2.62 2.11 $1,987 $1,587 $777 2.56 2.04CZ07 SDGE SDGE $1,701 $1,010 $460 3.69 2.19 $2,770 $1,647 $777 3.57 2.12CZ08 SCE SCG $1,272 $1,064 $460 2.76 2.31 $2,059 $1,708 $777 2.65 2.20CZ09 SCE SCG $1,181 $1,091 $460 2.57 2.37 $1,876 $1,742 $777 2.41 2.24CZ10 SCE SCG $1,104 $1,054 $460 2.40 2.29 $1,797 $1,681 $777 2.31 2.16CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE $1,622 $1,054 $460 3.52 2.29 $2,646 $1,681 $777 3.41 2.16CZ11 PGE PGE $1,537 $1,256 $942 1.63 1.33 $2,438 $1,877 $1,258 1.94 1.49CZ12 PGE PGE $1,462 $1,181 $620 2.36 1.90 $2,352 $1,794 $937 2.51 1.91CZ12-2 SMUD PGE $772 $1,181 $620 1.25 1.90 $1,226 $1,794 $937 1.31 1.91CZ13 PGE PGE $1,673 $1,372 $942 1.78 1.46 $2,548 $1,965 $1,258 2.03 1.56CZ14 SCE SCG $1,165 $1,175 $620 1.88 1.89 $1,923 $1,901 $937 2.05 2.03CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE $1,697 $1,175 $620 2.74 1.89 $2,819 $1,901 $937 3.01 2.03CZ15 SCE SCG $1,423 $1,456 $942 1.51 1.55 $2,128 $2,110 $1,258 1.69 1.68CZ16 PGE PGE $1,606 $1,191 $942 1.71 1.26 $2,567 $1,818 $1,258 2.04 1.44 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 52 2020-06-22
24 Mixed-Fuel Results 1

0.3 kWDC per Apartment 1 kWDC per Apartment
ClimateZone
ElecUtility
GasUtility
On-BillUtility CostSavings(2020 PV$)
TDV CostSavings(2020 PV$)
Total Inc.Cost
On-BillB/CRatio
TDVB/CRatio
On-BillUtility CostSavings(2020 PV$)
TDV CostSavings(2020 PV$)
Total Inc.Cost
On-BillB/CRatio
TDVB/CRatio
CZ01 PGE PGE $2,389 $1,582 $1,253 1.91 1.26 $7,466 $5,029 $3,469 2.15 1.45CZ02 PGE PGE $3,452 $2,061 $1,093 3.16 1.88 $9,590 $6,203 $3,309 2.90 1.87CZ03 PGE PGE $3,428 $1,982 $1,093 3.14 1.81 $9,687 $6,079 $3,309 2.93 1.84CZ04 PGE PGE $3,635 $2,177 $1,093 3.32 1.99 $9,992 $6,483 $3,309 3.02 1.96CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU $1,863 $2,177 $1,093 1.70 1.99 $5,184 $6,483 $3,309 1.57 1.96CZ05 PGE PGE $3,561 $2,089 $1,093 3.26 1.91 $10,109 $6,482 $3,309 3.05 1.96CZ05-2 PGE SCG $3,561 $2,089 $1,093 3.26 1.91 $10,109 $6,482 $3,309 3.05 1.96CZ06 SCE SCG $2,769 $2,206 $1,093 2.53 2.02 $7,593 $6,534 $3,309 2.29 1.97CZ07 SDGE SDGE $3,805 $2,283 $1,093 3.48 2.09 $10,818 $6,739 $3,309 3.27 2.04CZ08 SCE SCG $2,838 $2,352 $1,093 2.60 2.15 $7,543 $6,861 $3,309 2.28 2.07CZ09 SCE SCG $2,570 $2,393 $1,093 2.35 2.19 $7,285 $6,948 $3,309 2.20 2.10CZ10 SCE SCG $2,490 $2,308 $1,093 2.28 2.11 $7,197 $6,697 $3,309 2.17 2.02CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE $3,670 $2,308 $1,093 3.36 2.11 $10,636 $6,697 $3,309 3.21 2.02CZ11 PGE PGE $3,338 $2,498 $1,575 2.12 1.59 $9,480 $6,846 $3,791 2.50 1.81CZ12 PGE PGE $3,242 $2,406 $1,253 2.59 1.92 $9,299 $6,694 $3,469 2.68 1.93CZ12-2 SMUD PGE $1,680 $2,406 $1,253 1.34 1.92 $4,855 $6,694 $3,469 1.40 1.93CZ13 PGE PGE $3,423 $2,558 $1,575 2.17 1.62 $9,402 $6,709 $3,791 2.48 1.77CZ14 SCE SCG $2,682 $2,626 $1,253 2.14 2.10 $7,820 $7,707 $3,469 2.25 2.22CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE $3,940 $2,626 $1,253 3.14 2.10 $11,557 $7,707 $3,469 3.33 2.22CZ15 SCE SCG $2,832 $2,764 $1,575 1.80 1.76 $7,676 $7,342 $3,791 2.03 1.94CZ16 PGE PGE $3,527 $2,445 $1,575 2.24 1.55 $10,032 $6,836 $3,791 2.65 1.80 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 53 2020-06-22
E -Electric
25: All- 1,2
Apartments Central Water Heating Total Savings (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio ClimateZone
ElecUtility
GasUtility
GasSavings(therms)
ElecSavings(kWh)
Year 1UtilityCostSavings
GasSavings(therms)
ElecSavings(kWh)
Year 1UtilityCostSavings
Year 1UtilityCostSavings
On-BillUtilityCostSavings
TDVCostSavings
TotalInc.Cost ($)
On- Bill TDV
CZ01 PGE PGE 0.0 26 $6 124.6 -899 -$46 -$40 -$674 $199 -$446 0.7 >1CZ02 PGE PGE 0.0 48 $17 114.3 -810 -$38 -$21 -$238 $528 -$606 2.5 >1CZ03 PGE PGE 0.0 44 $15 114.9 -811 -$38 -$23 -$287 $390 -$606 2.1 >1CZ04 PGE PGE 0.0 62 $20 110.7 -775 -$35 -$15 -$102 $625 -$606 6.0 >1CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 0.0 62 $11 110.7 -775 -$5 $5 $345 $625 -$606 >1 >1CZ05 PGE PGE 0.0 42 $14 117.3 -830 -$40 -$26 -$350 $391 -$606 1.7 >1CZ05-2 PGE SCG 0.0 42 $14 117.3 -830 -$66 -$53 -$827 $391 -$606 0.7 >1CZ06 SCE SCG 0.0 74 $18 107.0 -744 -$28 -$10 $153 $612 -$606 >1 >1CZ07 SDGE SDGE 0.0 81 $25 105.9 -734 -$43 -$18 -$58 $665 -$606 10.4 >1CZ08 SCE SCG 0.0 84 $20 103.6 -717 -$27 -$6 $227 $693 -$606 >1 >1CZ09 SCE SCG 0.0 83 $20 103.5 -716 -$27 -$7 $212 $739 -$606 >1 >1CZ10 SCE SCG 0.0 83 $17 90.0 -709 -$40 -$23 -$214 $396 -$853 4.0 >1CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 0.0 83 $25 90.0 -709 -$59 -$34 -$478 $396 -$853 1.8 >1CZ11 PGE PGE 0.0 104 $27 91.1 -723 -$46 -$19 -$241 $430 -$371 1.5 >1CZ12 PGE PGE 0.0 93 $24 93.9 -755 -$51 -$27 -$414 $288 -$693 1.7 >1CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 0.0 93 $13 93.9 -755 $22 $36 $1,060 $288 -$693 >1 >1CZ13 PGE PGE 0.0 132 $34 89.6 -711 -$45 -$11 -$62 $505 -$371 6.0 >1CZ14 SCE SCG 0.0 80 $17 92.2 -733 -$42 -$25 -$258 $305 -$693 2.7 >1CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 0.0 80 $24 92.2 -733 -$61 -$36 -$532 $305 -$693 1.3 >1CZ15 SCE SCG 0.0 145 $30 73.8 -554 -$28 $3 $332 $832 -$371 >1 >1CZ16 PGE PGE 0.0 119 $28 107.8 -896 -$64 -$37 -$621 $127 -$371 0.6 >1 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.2
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 54 2020-06-22
26 19 All- 1,2

0.1 kWDC per Apartment 0.2 kWDC per Apartment
ClimateZone
ElecUtility
GasUtility
On-BillUtility CostSavings(2020 PV$)
TDV CostSavings(2020 PV$)
TotalInc.Cost
On-BillB/CRatio
TDVB/CRatio
On-BillUtility CostSavings(2020 PV$)
TDV CostSavings(2020 PV$)
Total Inc.Cost
On-BillB/CRatio
TDVB/CRatio
CZ01 PGE PGE $78 $692 -$129 >1 >1 $830 $1,184 $187 4.44 6.33CZ02 PGE PGE $782 $1,120 -$289 >1 >1 $1,802 $1,712 $27 65.85 62.55CZ03 PGE PGE $741 $975 -$289 >1 >1 $1,768 $1,560 $27 64.62 57.02CZ04 PGE PGE $955 $1,240 -$289 >1 >1 $2,012 $1,855 $27 73.51 67.79CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU $904 $1,240 -$289 >1 >1 $1,432 $1,855 $27 52.33 67.79CZ05 PGE PGE $730 $1,018 -$289 >1 >1 $1,810 $1,646 $27 66.14 60.14CZ05-2 PGE SCG $254 $1,018 -$289 >1 >1 $1,334 $1,646 $27 48.74 60.14CZ06 SCE SCG $935 $1,231 -$289 >1 >1 $1,716 $1,849 $27 62.71 67.56CZ07 SDGE SDGE $1,049 $1,302 -$289 >1 >1 $2,118 $1,938 $27 77.41 70.82CZ08 SCE SCG $1,014 $1,337 -$289 >1 >1 $1,802 $1,981 $27 65.83 72.37CZ09 SCE SCG $924 $1,390 -$289 >1 >1 $1,619 $2,040 $27 59.16 74.56CZ10 SCE SCG $480 $1,023 -$536 >1 >1 $1,173 $1,650 -$219 >1 >1CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE $546 $1,023 -$536 >1 >1 $1,570 $1,650 -$219 >1 >1CZ11 PGE PGE $660 $1,052 -$55 >1 >1 $1,560 $1,673 $262 5.96 6.39CZ12 PGE PGE $476 $900 -$376 >1 >1 $1,366 $1,513 -$60 >1 >1CZ12-2 SMUD PGE $1,513 $900 -$376 >1 >1 $1,967 $1,513 -$60 >1 >1CZ13 PGE PGE $813 $1,098 -$55 >1 >1 $1,687 $1,691 $262 6.44 6.46CZ14 SCE SCG $500 $1,031 -$376 >1 >1 $1,259 $1,757 -$60 >1 >1CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE $589 $1,031 -$376 >1 >1 $1,710 $1,757 -$60 >1 >1CZ15 SCE SCG $1,037 $1,485 -$55 >1 >1 $1,741 $2,139 $262 6.65 8.17CZ16 PGE PGE $339 $754 -$55 >1 >1 $1,299 $1,381 $262 4.96 5.27 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.2 savings and energy cost savings. Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.0 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 55 2020-06-22
27 All- 1,2

0.3 kWDC per Apartment 1.0 kWDC per Apartment
ClimateZone
ElecUtility
GasUtility
On-BillUtility CostSavings(2020 PV$)
TDV CostSavings(2020 PV$)
Total Inc.Cost
On-BillB/CRatio
TDVB/CRatio
On-BillUtility CostSavings(2020 PV$)
TDV CostSavings(2020 PV$)
Total Inc.Cost
On-BillB/CRatio
TDV B/CRatio
CZ01 PGE PGE $1,582 $1,676 $504 3.14 3.33 $6,660 $5,123 $2,719 2.45 1.88CZ02 PGE PGE $2,822 $2,304 $344 8.21 6.70 $8,960 $6,446 $2,560 3.50 2.52CZ03 PGE PGE $2,796 $2,146 $344 8.13 6.24 $9,055 $6,242 $2,560 3.54 2.44CZ04 PGE PGE $3,069 $2,470 $344 8.92 7.18 $9,425 $6,777 $2,560 3.68 2.65CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU $1,960 $2,470 $344 5.70 7.18 $5,281 $6,777 $2,560 2.06 2.65CZ05 PGE PGE $2,890 $2,274 $344 8.40 6.61 $9,439 $6,667 $2,560 3.69 2.60CZ05-2 PGE SCG $2,414 $2,274 $344 7.02 6.61 $8,962 $6,667 $2,560 3.50 2.60CZ06 SCE SCG $2,498 $2,467 $344 7.26 7.17 $7,322 $6,796 $2,560 2.86 2.65CZ07 SDGE SDGE $3,154 $2,575 $344 9.17 7.49 $10,166 $7,030 $2,560 3.97 2.75CZ08 SCE SCG $2,581 $2,625 $344 7.51 7.63 $7,286 $7,133 $2,560 2.85 2.79CZ09 SCE SCG $2,314 $2,691 $344 6.73 7.83 $7,028 $7,247 $2,560 2.75 2.83CZ10 SCE SCG $1,866 $2,277 $97 19.22 23.46 $6,573 $6,666 $2,313 2.84 2.88CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE $2,594 $2,277 $97 26.72 23.46 $9,560 $6,666 $2,313 4.13 2.88CZ11 PGE PGE $2,461 $2,294 $578 4.25 3.97 $8,602 $6,641 $2,794 3.08 2.38CZ12 PGE PGE $2,256 $2,125 $257 8.78 8.28 $8,313 $6,413 $2,473 3.36 2.59CZ12-2 SMUD PGE $2,421 $2,125 $257 9.43 8.28 $5,596 $6,413 $2,473 2.26 2.59CZ13 PGE PGE $2,562 $2,284 $578 4.43 3.95 $8,541 $6,435 $2,794 3.06 2.30CZ14 SCE SCG $2,017 $2,482 $257 7.85 9.67 $7,155 $7,563 $2,473 2.89 3.06CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE $2,831 $2,482 $257 11.02 9.67 $10,448 $7,563 $2,473 4.23 3.06CZ15 SCE SCG $2,445 $2,793 $578 4.23 4.83 $7,289 $7,371 $2,794 2.61 2.64CZ16 PGE PGE $2,260 $2,009 $578 3.91 3.47 $8,764 $6,399 $2,794 3.14 2.29 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.2 energy cost savings. Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.0 Title 24, Parts 6 and 11
Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances
2019 Nonresidential New Construction
Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
Prepared for:

Christopher Kuch
Codes and Standards Program
Southern California Edison Company
Prepared by:

TRC
EnergySoft
Last Modified: July 15, 2019

LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Neither SCE nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.

Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................1 2 Methodology and Assumptions...............................................................................................................3

2.1 Building Prototypes..........................................................................................................................3

2.2 Cost Effectiveness............................................................................................................................5 3 Measure Description and Cost.................................................................................................................7

3.1 Energy Efficiency Measures.............................................................................................................7

3.1.1 Envelope...................................................................................................................................1

3.1.2 HVAC and SWH.........................................................................................................................1

3.1.3 Lighting.....................................................................................................................................2

3.2 Solar Photovoltaics and Battery Measures......................................................................................6

3.2.1 Solar Photovoltaics...................................................................................................................6

3.2.2 Battery Storage ........................................................................................................................8

3.2.3 PV-only and PV+Battery Packages...........................................................................................9

3.3 All Electric Measures........................................................................................................................9

3.3.1 HVAC and Water Heating.........................................................................................................9

3.3.2 Infrastructure Impacts ...........................................................................................................13

3.4 Preempted High Efficiency Appliances..........................................................................................15

3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................................15 4 Results....................................................................................................................................................16

4.1 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Office..................................................................................17

4.2 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail ..................................................................................26

4.3 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel .......................................................................................34

4.4 Cost Effectiveness Results – PV-only and PV+Battery ...................................................................43 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Further Considerations.............................................................................48

5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................48

5.2 Conclusions and Further Considerations.......................................................................................51 6 Appendices.............................................................................................................................................53

6.1 Map of California Climate Zones....................................................................................................53

6.2 Lighting Efficiency Measures..........................................................................................................54

6.3 Drain Water Heat Recovery Measure Analysis..............................................................................54

6.4 Utility Rate Schedules....................................................................................................................55

6.5 Mixed Fuel Baseline Energy Figures...............................................................................................56

6.6 Hotel TDV Cost Effectiveness with Propane Baseline....................................................................58

6.7 PV-only and PV+Battery-only Cost Effectiveness Results Details..................................................62

6.7.1 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Office..........................................................................62

6.7.2 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail ..........................................................................72

6.7.3 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel ...............................................................................81

6.8 List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored ..............................................................................90 Figure 1. Measure Category and Package Overview .......................................................................................2 Figure 2. Prototype Characteristics Summary ................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Utility Tariffs used based on Climate Zone .......................................................................................6 Figure 4. Energy Efficiency Measures - Specification and Cost........................................................................3 Figure 5. Medium Office – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 135 kW Array ...................................................6 Figure 6. Medium Retail – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 110 kW Array....................................................7 Figure 7. Small Hotel – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 80 kW Array ...........................................................7 Figure 8. Medium Office Upfront PV Costs......................................................................................................8 Figure 9. All-Electric HVAC and Water Heating Characteristics Summary.....................................................10 Figure 10. Medium Office HVAC System Costs..............................................................................................11 Figure 11. Medium Retail HVAC System Costs ..............................................................................................12 Figure 12. Small Hotel HVAC and Water Heating System Costs....................................................................13 Figure 13. Medium Office Electrical Infrastructure Costs for All-Electric Design ..........................................14 Figure 14. Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Prototypes.............................................15 Figure 15. High Efficiency Appliance Assumptions........................................................................................15 Figure 16. Package Summary.........................................................................................................................16 Figure 17. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE .........................................19 Figure 18. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B............................20 Figure 19. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE .........................................21 Figure 20. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum .............22 Figure 21. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3A – All-Electric + EE ..........................................23 Figure 22. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B ............................24 Figure 23. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3C – All-Electric + HE..........................................25 Figure 24. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE..........................................27 Figure 25. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B............................28 Figure 26. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE..........................................29 Figure 27. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum..............30 Figure 28. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3A – All-Electric + EE...........................................31 Figure 29. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B.............................32 Figure 30. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3C – All-Electric + HE ..........................................33 Figure 31. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE ...............................................36 Figure 32. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B ................................. 37 Figure 33. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE...............................................38 Figure 34. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum ...................39 Figure 35. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3A – All-Electric + EE ................................................40 Figure 36. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B ..................................41 Figure 37. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3C – All-Electric + HE................................................42 Figure 38. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office - PV and Battery ...............................................................45 Figure 39. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail - PV and Battery................................................................46 Figure 40. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel - PV and Battery .....................................................................47 Figure 41. Medium Office Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness....................................49 Figure 42. Medium Retail Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness.....................................50 Figure 43. Small Hotel Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness..........................................51 Figure 44. Map of California Climate Zones...................................................................................................53 Figure 45. Impact of Lighting Measures on Proposed LPDs by Space Function ............................................54 Figure 46. Utility Tariffs Analyzed Based on Climate Zone – Detailed View..................................................55 Figure 47. Medium Office – Mixed Fuel Baseline ..........................................................................................56 Figure 48. Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel Baseline...........................................................................................57 Figure 49. Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel Baseline................................................................................................58 Figure 50. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 2 All-Electric Federal Code Minimum........................................................................................................................................................59 Figure 51. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3A (All-Electric + EE) ........60 Figure 52. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3B (All-Electric + EE + PV) 60 Figure 53. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3C (All Electric + HE) ........61 Figure 54. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office - Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV .....................................................64 Figure 55. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery .........................65 Figure 56. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV ................................................66 Figure 57. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ...................67 Figure 58. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office– All-Electric + 3kW PV......................................................68 Figure 59. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ..........................69 Figure 60. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 135kW PV.................................................70 Figure 61. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery....................71 Figure 62. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 3kW PV.....................................................73 Figure 63. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery..........................74 Figure 64. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 110kW PV ................................................75 Figure 65. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 110 kW PV + 50 kWh Battery...................76 Figure 66. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 3kW PV .....................................................77 Figure 67. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery...........................78 Figure 68. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 110kW PV .................................................79 Figure 69. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 110kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ....................80 Figure 70. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV ..........................................................82 Figure 71. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ...............................83 Figure 72. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel - Mixed Fuel +80kW PV..........................................................84 Figure 73. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ...........................85 Figure 74. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 3kW PV...........................................................86 Figure 75. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery................................87 Figure 76. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 80kW PV.........................................................88 Figure 77. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 80kW PV + 50 kWh Battery............................89 Figure 78. List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored .............................................................................90 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 52 2019-07-15
1 Introduction
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (CEC, 2019) 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 efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Reach Code Team.

This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements for design in newly-constructed nonresidential buildings. Buildings specifically examined include medium office, medium retail, and small hotels. Measures include energy efficiency, solar photovoltaics (PV), and battery storage. In addition, the report includes a comparison between a baseline mixed-fuel design and all-electric design for each occupancy type.

The Reach Code team analyzed the following seven packages as compared to 2019 code compliant mixedfuel design baseline:

Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + Energy Efficiency (EE): Mixed-fuel design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies.

Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + Battery (B): Same as Package 1A, plus solar PV and batteries.

Package 1C – Mixed-fuel + High Efficiency (HE): Baseline code-minimum building with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption. The intent of this package is to assess the standalone contribution that high efficiency appliances would make toward achieving high performance thresholds.

Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: All-electric design with federal code minimum appliance efficiency. No solar PV or battery.

Package 3A – All-Electric + EE: Package 2 all-electric design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies.

Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 3A, plus solar PV and batteries.

Package 3C – All-Electric + HE: All-electric design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption.

Figure 1 summarizes the baseline and measure packages. Please refer to Section 3 for more details on the measure descriptions.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 52 2019-07-15
1 Ca Package verview
Measure
Category
Report
Section
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Baseline 1A 1B 1C 2 3A 3B 3C
Fed Code
Minimum
Efficiency
EE EE+ PV
+B HE
Fed Code
Minimum
Efficiency
EE EE+ PV
+B HE
Energy
Efficiency
Measures

3.1 X X X X
Solar PV +
Battery 3.2 X X
All-Electric
Measures 3.3 X X X X
Preemptive
Appliance
Measures

3.4 X X
The team separately developed cost effectiveness results for PV-only and PV+Battery packages, excluding any efficiency measures. For these packages, the PV is modeled as a “minimal” size of 3 kW and a larger size based on the available roof area and electric load of the building. PV sizes are combined with two sizes of battery storage for both mixed fuel and all electric buildings to form eight different package combinations as outlined below:

Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV Only
Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery
Mixed-Fuel + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller
Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery All-Electric + 3 kW PV Only
All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery
All-Electric + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller
All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery.

Each of the eight packages are evaluated against a baseline model designed as per 2019 Title 24 Part 6 requirements. The Standards baseline for all occupancies in this report is a mixed-fuel design.

The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment.
1 Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting 1 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTML#se10.3.431_197 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 52 2019-07-15
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 equipment. However, because high efficiency appliances are often the easiest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance, this study provides an analysis of high efficiency appliances for informational purposes. While federal preemption would limit a reach code, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements, including higher efficiency appliances that are federally regulated.
2 With input from several stakeholders, the Reach Codes team selected three building types—medium office, medium retail, and small hotel—to represent a predominant segment of nonresidential new construction in the state.

This analysis used both on-bill and time dependent valuation of energy (TDV) based approaches to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures, as well as quantifying the costs associated with the measures.

The main difference between the methodologies is the valuation of energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use. TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time dependent value of energy including long-term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon emissions. With the TDV approach, electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods.2 The Reach Code Team performed energy simulations using EnergyPro 8.0 software for 2019 Title 24 code compliance analysis, which uses CBECC-Com 2019.1.0 for the calculation engine. The baseline prototype models in all climate zones have been designed to have compliance margins as close as possible to 0 to reflect a prescriptively-built building.3

2.1 The DOE provides building prototype models which, when modified to comply with 2019 Title 24 requirements, can be used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of efficiency measures. These prototypes have historically been used by the California Energy Commission to assess potential code enhancements.

The Reach Code Team performed analysis on a medium office, a medium retail, and a small hotel prototype.

Water heating includes both service water heating (SWH) for office and retail buildings and domestic hot water for hotels. In this report, water heating or SWH is used to refer to both. The Standard Design HVAC and SWH systems are based on the system maps included in the 2019 Nonresidential Alternate 2 Horii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis. 2014. “Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014- 07-09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents
3 EnergySoft and TRC were able to develop most baseline prototypes to achieve a compliance margin of less than +/-1 percent except for few models that were at +/- 6 percent. This indicates these prototypes are not exactly prescriptive according to compliance software calculations. To calculate incremental impacts, TRC conservatively compared the package results to that of the proposed design of baseline prototypes (not the standard design). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 52 2019-07-15
Calculation Method Reference Manual.
4 The Standard Design is the baseline for all nonresidential projects and assumes a mixed-fuel design using natural gas as the space heating source in all cases. Baseline HVAC and SWH system characteristics are described below and in Figure 2:

The baseline medium office HVAC design package includes two gas hot water boilers, three packaged rooftop units (one for each floor), and variable air volume (VAV) terminal boxes with hot water reheat coils. The SWH design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30-gallon storage tank.

The baseline medium retail HVAC design includes five single zone packaged rooftop units (variable flow and constant flow depending on the zone) with gas furnaces for heating. The SWH design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30-gallon storage tank.

The small hotel has two baseline equipment systems, one for the nonresidential spaces and one for the guest rooms.

The nonresidential HVAC design includes two gas hot water boilers, four packaged rooftop units and twelve VAV terminal boxes with hot water reheat coils. The SWH design include a small electric resistance water heater with 30-gallon storage tank.

The residential HVAC design includes one single zone air conditioner (AC) unit with gas furnace for each guest room and the water heating design includes one central gas water heater with a recirculation pump for all guest rooms.
2 Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel
Conditioned Floor Area 53,628 24,691 42,552
Number of Stories 3 1 4
Number of Guest Rooms 0 0 78
Window-to-Wall Area Ratio 0.33 0.07 0.11
Baseline HVAC System
Packaged DX VAV with gas
furnaces + VAV terminal
units with hot water reheat.

Central gas hot water
boilers
Single zone packaged
DX units with gas
furnaces
Nonresidential: Packaged DX VAV
with hot water coil + VAV
terminal units with hot water
reheat. Central gas hot water
boilers.

Residential: Single zone DX AC
unit with gas furnaces
Baseline Water Heating
System
30-gallon electric resistance
water heater
30-gallon electric
resistance water
heater
Nonresidential: 30-gallon electric
resistance water heater
Residential: Central gas water
heater with recirculation loop
4 Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual For the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-006/CEC-400-2019-006-CMF.pdf 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 52 2019-07-15

2.2 The Reach Code Team analyzed the cost effectiveness of the packages by applying them to building prototypes (as applicable) using the life cycle cost methodology, which is approved and used by the Energy Commission to establish cost effective building energy standards (Title 24, Part 6).5 Per Energy Commission’s methodology, the Reach Code Team assessed the incremental costs of the energy efficiency measure packages and compared them to the energy cost savings over the measure life of 15 years. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2019 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements. The energy savings benefits are estimated using both TDV of energy and typical utility rates for each building type:

Time Dependent Valuation: TDV is a normalized monetary format developed and used by the Energy Commission for comparing electricity and natural gas savings, and it considers the cost of electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and year. Simulation outputs are translated to TDV savings benefits using 2019 TDV multipliers and 15-year discounted costs for the nonresidential measure packages.

Utility bill impacts (On-bill): Utility energy costs are estimated by applying appropriate IOU rates to estimated annual electricity and natural gas consumption. The energy bill savings are calculated as the difference in utility costs between the baseline and proposed package over a 15- year duration accounting for discount rate and energy cost escalation.

In coordination with the IOU rate team, and rate experts at a few electric publicly owned utilities (POUs), the Reach Code Team used the current nonresidential utility rates publicly available at the time of analysis to analyze the cost effectiveness for each proposed package. The utility tariffs, summarized in Figure 3, were determined based on the annual load profile of each prototype, and the most prevalent rate in each territory. For some prototypes there are multiple options for rates because of the varying load profiles of mixed-fuel buildings versus all-electric buildings. Tariffs were integrated in EnergyPro software to be applied to the hourly electricity and gas outputs. The Reach Code Team did not attempt to compare or test a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost effectiveness.

The currently available and applicable time-of–use (TOU) nonresidential rates are applied to both the base and proposed cases with PV systems.6 Any annual electricity production in excess of annual electricity consumption is credited at the applicable wholesale rate based on the approved NEM tariffs for that utility. For a more detailed breakdown of the rates selected refer to Appendix 6.4 Utility Rate Schedules. Note that most utility time-of-use rates will be updated in the near future, which can affect cost effectiveness results. For example, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will introduce new rates for new service connections in late 2019, and existing accounts will be automatically rolled over to new rates in November 2020.
5 Architectural Energy Corporation (January 2011) Life-Cycle Cost Methodology. California Energy Commission. Available at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/general_cec_documents/2011-01- 14_LCC_Methodology_2013.pdf
6 Under NEM rulings by the CPUC (D-16-01-144, 1/28/16), all new PV customers shall be in an approved TOU rate structure. As of March 2016, all new PG&E net energy metering (NEM) customers are enrolled in a time-of-use rate. (http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/plans/tou/index.page?). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 52 2019-07-15
3 Climate
Zones
Electric / Gas Utility Electricity (Time-of-use) Natural Gas
IOUs
1-5,11-13,16 PG&E A-1/A-10 G-NR1
5 PG&E / Southern California Gas Company A-1/A-10 G-10 (GN10) 6,8-10,14,15 SCE / Southern California Gas Company TOU-GS-1/TOU-GS2/TOU-GS-3G-10 (GN10) 7,10,14 San Diego Gas and Electric Company
(SDG&E)
A-1/A-10 GN-3
Electric POUs
4 City of Palo Alto (CPAU) E-2 n/a
12 Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD)
GS n/a
6,7,8,16 Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power (LADWP)
A-2 (B) n/a
The Reach Code Team obtained measure costs through interviews with contractors and California distributors and review of online sources, such as Home Depot and RS Means. Taxes and contractor markups were added as appropriate. Maintenance costs were not included because there is no assumed maintenance on the envelope measures. For HVAC and SWH measures the study assumes there are no additional maintenance cost for a more efficient version of the same system type as the baseline.

Replacement costs for inverters were included for PV systems, but the useful life all other equipment exceeds the study period.

The Reach Code Team compared the energy benefits with incremental measure cost data to determine cost effectiveness for each measure package. The calculation is performed for a duration of 15 years for all nonresidential prototypes with a 3 percent discount rate and fuel escalation rates based on the most recent General Rate Case filings and historical escalation rates. 7 Cost effectivenessis presented using net
present value and benefit-to-cost ratio metrics.

Net Present Value (NPV): The Reach Code Team uses net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs) as the cost effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost effective. Negative savings represent net costs. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are more negative (i.e., material and maintenance cost savings).

Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (B/C): Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 15 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criteria for cost effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure.
7 2019 TDV Methodology Report, California Energy Commission, Docket number: 16-BSTD-06 https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=216062 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 52 2019-07-15
There are several special circumstances to consider when reviewing these results:

Improving the efficiency of a project often requires an initial incremental investment. 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). Typically, utility bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’ 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 the ‘cost.’
In cases where a measure package is cost effective immediately (i.e., there are upfront cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), cost effectiveness is represented by “>1”.

The B/C ratios sometimes appear very high even though the cost numbers are not very high (for example, an upfront cost of $1 but on-bill savings of $200 over 30 years would equate to a B/C ratio of 200). NPV is also displayed to clarify these potentially confusing conclusions – in the example, the NPV would be equal to a modest $199.
3 Using the 2019 Title 24 code baseline as the starting point, The Reach Code Team identified potential measure packages to determine the projected energy (therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. The Reach Code Team developed an initial measure list based on experience with designers and contractors along with general knowledge of the relative acceptance and preferences of many measures, as well as their incremental costs.

The measures are categorized into energy efficiency, solar PV and battery, all-electric, and preempted high efficiency measures in subsections below.

3.1 This section describes all the energy efficiency measures considered for this analysis to develop a nonpreempted, cost-effective efficiency measure package. The Reach Code Team assessed the costeffectiveness of measures for all climate zones individually and found that the packages did not need to vary by climate zone, with the exception of a solar heat gain coefficient measure in hotels, as described in more detail below. The measures were developed based on reviews of proposed 2022 Title 24 codes and standards enhancement measures, as well as ASHRAE 90.1 and ASHRAE 189.1 Standards. Please refer to Appendix Section 6.86.7 for a list of efficiency measures that were considered but not implemented. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 1 2019-07-15
Figure 4 provides a summary of the cost of each measure and the applicability of each measure to the prototype buildings.

3.1.1 Envelope
Modify Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) fenestration
Office and Retail - All Climate Zones: reduce window SHGC from the prescriptive value of 0.25 to 0.22
Hotel
Climate zones 1, 2, 3, 5, and 16: Increase the SHGC for all nonresidential spaces from the prescriptive value of 0.25 to 0.45 in both common and guest room spaces.

Climate zones 4, and 6-15: Reduce window SHGC from the prescriptive value of 0.25 to

0.22, only for common spaces.

In all cases, the fenestration visible transmittance and U-factor remain at prescriptive values.

Fenestration as a function of orientation: Limit the amount of fenestration area as a function of orientation. East-facing and west-facing windows are each limited to one-half of the average amount of north-facing and south-facing windows.

3.1.2 HVAC SW
Drain water heat recovery (DWHR): Add shower drain heat recovery in hotel guest rooms. DWHR captures waste heat from a shower drain line and uses it to preheat hot water. Note that this measure cannot currently be modeled on hotel/motel spaces, and the Reach Code Team integrated estimated savings outside of modeling software based on SWH savings in residential scenarios. Please see Appendix Section 6.3 for details on energy savings analysis.

VAV box minimum flow: Reduce VAV box minimum airflows from the current T24 prescriptive requirement of 20 percent of maximum (design) airflow to the T24 zone ventilation minimums.

Economizers on small capacity systems: Require economizers and staged fan control in units with cooling c 3 , which matches the requirement in the 2018 International Green Construction Code and adopts ANSI/ASHRAE/ICC/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1.

This measure reduces the T24 prescriptive threshold on air handling units that are required to have economizers, which is > 54,000 Btu/hr.

Solar thermal hot water: For all-electric hotel only, add solar thermal water heating to supply the following portions of the water heating load, measured in solar savings fraction (SSF):
20 percent SSF in CZs 2, 3, and 5-9
25 percent in CZ4
35 percent SSF in CZs 1 and 10-16.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 2 2019-07-15

3.1.3 Lighting
Interior lighting reduced lighting power density (LPD): Reduce LPD by 15 percent for Medium Office, 10 percent for Medium Retail and by 10 percent for the nonresidential areas of the Small Hotel.

Institutional tuning: Limit the maximum output or maximum power draw of lighting to 85 percent of full light output or full power draw.

Daylight dimming plus off: Turn daylight-controlled lights completely off when the daylight available in the daylit zone is greater than 150 percent of the illuminance received from the general lighting system at full power. There is no associated cost with this measure, as the 2019 T24 Standards already require multilevel lighting and daylight sensors in primary and secondary daylit spaces. This measure is simply a revised control strategy and does not increase the number of sensors required or labor to install and program a sensor.

Occupant sensing in open plan offices: In an open plan office area greater than 250 ft2, control lighting based on occupant sensing controls. Two workstations per occupancy sensor.

Details on the applicability and impact of each measure by building type and by space function can be found in Appendices 6.2. The appendix also includes the resulting LPD that is modeled as the proposed by building type and by space function.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 3 2019-07-15
4 Specificatio
Measure Baseline T24 Requirement
Measure Applicability
1A, 1B, 3A, 3C Incremental Cost Sources & Notes
Med
Office
Med
Retail
Small Hotel
Guest
rooms
Comm
Spaces
EnvelopeModify SHGC Fenestration SHGC of 0.25
$1.60 /ft2 windowfor SHGCdecreases, $0/ft2for SHGC increases Costs from one manufacturer.

Fenestration as a Functionof Orientation
Limit on total window area andwest-facing window area as afunction of wall area. $0
No additional cost associatedwith the measure which is adesign consideration not anequipment cost.

HVAC and SHWDrain Water Heat Recovery No heat recovery required $841 /unit Assume 1 heat recovery unitfor every 3 guestrooms. Costsfrom three manufacturers.

VAV Box Minimum Flow 20 percent of maximum (design) airflow $0 No additional cost associatedwith the measure which is adesign consideration not anequipment cost.

Economizers on SmallCapacity Systems
Economizers required for units> 54,000 Btu/hr $2,857 /unit Costs from one manufacturer’srepresentative and onemechanical contractor. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 4 2019-07-15
Measure Baseline T24 Requirement
Measure Applicability
1A, 1B, 3A, 3C Incremental Cost Sources & Notes
Med
Office
Med
Retail
Small Hotel
Guest
rooms
Comm
Spaces
Solar Thermal Hot Water
For central heat pump waterheaters, there is no prescriptivebaseline requirement. (electric
only)
$33/therm-yr
Installed costs reported in theCalifornia Solar InitiativeThermal Program Database,2015-present.8 Costs includetank and were only availablefor gas backup systems. Costsare reduced by 19 percent perfederal income tax creditaverage through 2022.

LightingInterior Lighting ReducedLPD
Per Area Category Method,varies by Primary FunctionArea. Office area 0.60 – 0.70W/ft2 depending on area ofspace. Hotel function area 0.85W/ft2. Retail Merchandise Sales1.00 W/ft2 $0
Industry report on LED pricinganalysis shows that costs arenot correlated with efficacy.9 8 http://www.csithermalstats.org/download.html9 http://calmac.org/publications/LED_Pricing_Analysis_Report_-_Revised_1.19.2018_Final.pdf 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 5 2019-07-15
Measure Baseline T24 Requirement
Measure Applicability
1A, 1B, 3A, 3C Incremental Cost Sources & Notes
Med
Office
Med
Retail
Small Hotel
Guest
rooms
Comm
Spaces
Institutional Tuning
No requirement, but PowerAdjustment Factor (PAF) creditof 0.10 available for luminairesin non-daylit areas and 0.05 forluminaires in daylit areas10 $0.06/ft2 Industry report on institutional tuning11
Daylight Dimming Plus Off No requirement, but PAF credit of 0.10 available. $0 Given the amount of lighting controls already required, this measure is no additional cost.

Occupant Sensing in OpenPlan Offices
No requirement, but PAF creditof 0.30 available.
$189 /sensor; $74/powered relay;$108 /secondaryrelay
2 workstations per sensor;1 fixture per workstation;4 workstations per masterrelay;120 ft2/workstation in openoffice area, which is 53% oftotal floor area of the mediumoffice 10 Power Adjustment Factors allow designers to tradeoff increased lighting power densities for more efficient designs. In this study, PAF-related measuresassume that the more efficient design is incorporated without a tradeoff for increased lighting power density.11 https://slipstreaminc.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/task-tuning-report-mndoc-2015.pdf 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 6 2019-07-15

3.2 Measures
This section describes the PV and battery measures considered for this analysis. The Reach Code Team estimated the required PV sizes for each building prototype for the efficiency measure packages and the stand alone PV and battery options.

3.2.1 2019 Title 24 requires nonresidential buildings to reserve at least 15 percent of the roof area as a “solar zone,” but does not include any requirements or compliance credits for the installation of photovoltaic systems. The Reach Code Team analyzed a range of PV system sizes to determine cost effectiveness. To determine upper end of potential PV system size, the Reach Code Team assumed a PV generation capacity of either
15 W/ft2covering 50 percent of the roof area, or
Enough to nearly offset the annual energy consumption.

The medium office and small hotel prototypes had small roof areas compared to their annual electricity demand, thus the PV system capacity at 50 percent of the roof area was less than the estimated annual usage. The medium office and small hotel had a 135 kW and 80 kW array, respectively. The medium retail building has a substantially large roof area that would accommodate a PV array that generates more than the annual electricity load of the building. The PV array for the medium retail building was sized at 110 kW to not exceed the annual electricity consumption of the building when accounting for the minimum annual energy demand across climate zones with efficiency packages.

The modeling software for nonresidential buildings does not allow auto-sizing of PV based on a desired percent offset of electricity use. Moreover, the PV size is also constrained by the availability of roof area.

Hence, a common size of PV is modeled for all the packages including all electric design. Figure 5 through Figure 7 below demonstrate the percent of electricity offset by PV for both mixed fuel and all electric buildings over their respective federal minimum design package. 5 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Climate Zone
Medium Office - Percent kWh Offset by PV
Mixed-Fuel All-Electric
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 7 2019-07-15
6 Pe
7 The costs for PV include first cost to purchase and install the system, inverter replacement costs, and annual maintenance costs. A summary of the medium office costs and sources is given in Figure 8.

Upfront solar PV system costs are reduced by the federal income tax credit (ITC), approximately 19 percent due to a phased reduction in the credit through the year 2022.12 12 The federal credit drops to 26% in 2020, and 22% in 2021 before dropping permanently to 10% for commercial projects and 0% for residential projects in 2022. More information on federal Investment Tax Credits available at:
https://www.seia.org/initiatives/solar-investment-tax-credit-itc 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Climate Zone
Medium Retail - Percent kWh Offset by PV
Mixed fuel All electric
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Climate Zone
Small Hotel - Percent kWh Offset by PV
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 8 2019-07-15
8 Unit Cost Cost Useful Life (yrs.) Source
Solar PV System $2.30 / Wdc $310,500 30 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Q1 201613
Inverter Replacement $0.15 / Wdc $20,250 10
E3 Rooftop Solar PV System Report14
Maintenance Costs $0.02 / Wdc $2,700 1
PV energy output is built into CBECC-Com and is based on NREL’s PVWatts calculator, which includes long term performance degradation estimates.15

3.2.2 Battery
This measure includes installation of batteries to allow energy generated through PV to be stored and used later, providing additional energy cost benefits. This report does not focus on optimizing battery sizes or controls for each prototype and climate zone, though the Reach Code Team ran test simulations to assess the impact of battery sizes on TDV savings and found diminishing returns as the battery size increased.

The team set battery control to the Time of Use Control (TOU) method, which assumes batteries are charged anytime PV generation is greater than the building load but discharges to the electric grid beginning during the highest priced hours of the day (the “First Hour of the Summer Peak”). Because there is no default hour available in CBECC-Com, the team applied the default hour available in CBECC-Res to start discharging (hour 19 in CZs 2, 4, and 8-15, and hour 20 in other CZs). This control option is most reflective of the current products on the market. While this control strategy is being used in the analysis, there would be no mandate on the control strategy used in practice.

The current simulation software has approximations of how performance characteristics change with environmental conditions, charge/discharge rates, and degradation with age and use. More information is on the software battery control capabilities and associated qualification requirements are available in the Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual and the 2019 Reference Appendices for the 2019 Title 24 Standards.
16,17
The Reach Code Team used costs of $558 kWh based on a 2018 IOU Codes and Standards Program report, assuming a replacement is necessary in year 15.
18 Batteries are also eligible for the ITC if they are installed at the same time as the renewable generation source and at least 75 percent of the energy used to charge 13 Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66532.pdf 14 Available at: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 15 More information available at: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/downloads/pvwattsv5.pdf 16 Battery controls are discussed in Sections 2.1.5.4 and Appendix D of the Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual, available here: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-005/CEC-400-2019-005-CMF.pdf 17 Qualification Requirements for Battery Storage Systems are available in JA12 of the 2019 Reference Appendices:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-021/CEC-400-2018-021-CMF.pdf 18 Available at: http://localenergycodes.com/download/430/file_path/fieldList/PV%20Plus%20Battery%20Storage%20Report 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 9 2019-07-15
the battery comes from a renewable source. Thus, the Reach Code Team also applied a 19 percent cost reduction to battery costs.

3.2.3 PV PV+Battery
The Reach Code Team analyzed solar PV and battery storage only, without other efficiency measures in both mixed-fuel and all-electric building designs. Two different sizes of solar PV and battery storage were analyzed.

Small PV Size: 3 kW, assumed to be the minimal PV system considered for installation in a nonresidential building.

Large PV Size: PV capacity equal to 15 W/ft2 over 50 percent of the roof area, or sized to nearly offset annual electricity consumption, as described in Section 3.2.1.

Small Battery Size: 5 kWh, assumed to be the minimal battery system considered for installation in a nonresidential building, and representative of smaller products currently available on the market.

Large Battery Size: 50 kWh, assumed to be a substantially large size for a nonresidential setting.

Generally, the reach code team found diminishing on-bill and TDV benefits as the battery size increased.

As described in Section 1 and Section 4.4, each PV size was run as a standalone measure. When packaged with a battery measure, the small PV size was paired with the small battery size, and the large PV size was paired with the large battery size.

3.3 Measures
The Reach Code Team investigated the cost and performance impacts and associated infrastructure costs associated with changing the baseline HVAC and water heating systems to all-electric equipment. This includes heat pump space heating, electric resistance reheat coils, electric water heater with storage tank, heat pump water heating, increasing electrical capacity, and eliminating natural gas connections that would have been present in mixed-fuel new construction. The Reach Code Team selected electric systems that would be installed instead of gas-fueled systems in each prototype.

3.3.1 The nonresidential standards use a mixed-fuel baseline for the Standard Design systems. In most nonresidential occupancies, the baseline is natural gas space heating. Hotel/motels and high-rise residential occupancies also assume natural gas baseline water heating systems for the guest rooms and dwelling units. In the all-electric scenario, gas equipment serving these end-uses is replaced with electric equipment, as described in Figure 9.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 10 2019-07-15
9 -
Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel
HVAC
System
Baseline
Packaged DX + VAV
with HW reheat.

Central gas boilers.

Single zone
packaged DX with
gas furnaces
NonRes: Packaged DX + VAV with
HW reheat. Central gas boilers.

Res: Single zone DX AC unit with
gas furnaces
Proposed AllElectric
Packaged DX + VAV
with electric
resistance reheat.

Single zone
packaged heat
pumps
NonRes: Packaged DX + VAV with
electric resistance reheat
Res: Single zone heat pumps
Water
Heating
System
Baseline Electric resistance
with storage
Electric resistance
with storage
NonRes: Electric resistance
storage
Res: Central gas storage with
recirculation
Proposed AllElectricElectric resistance
with storage
Electric resistance
with storage
NonRes: Electric resistance
storage
Res: Individual heat pumps
The Reach Code Team received cost data for baseline mixed-fuel equipment as well as electric equipment from an experienced mechanical contractor in the San Francisco Bay Area. The total construction cost includes equipment and material, labor, subcontractors (for example, HVAC and SHW control systems), and contractor overhead.

3.3.1.1 Medium Office
The baseline HVAC system includes two gas hot water boilers, three packaged rooftop units, and VAV hot water reheat boxes. The SHW design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30- gallon storage tank.

For the medium office all-electric HVAC design, the Reach Code Team investigated several potential allelectric design options, including variable refrigerant flow, packaged heat pumps, and variable volume and temperature systems. After seeking feedback from the design community, the Reach Code Team determined that the most feasible all-electric HVAC system, given the software modeling constraints is a VAV system with an electric resistance reheat instead of hot water reheat coil. A parallel fan-powered box (PFPB) implementation of electric resistance reheat would further improve efficiency due to reducing ventilation requirements, but an accurate implementation of PFPBs is not currently available in compliance software.

Note that the actual natural gas consumption for the VAV hot water reheat baseline may be higher than the current simulation results due to a combination of boiler and hot water distribution losses. A recent research study shows that the total losses can account for as high as 80 percent of the boiler energy use.19 19 Raftery, P., A. Geronazzo, H. Cheng, and G. Paliaga. 2018. Quantifying energy losses in hot water reheat systems. Energy and Buildings, 179: 183-199. November. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.020. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3qs8f8qx
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 11 2019-07-15
If these losses are considered savings for the electric resistance reheat (which has zero associated distribution loss) may be higher.

The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water heater as the baseline and has no associated incremental costs.

Cost data for medium office designs are presented in Figure 10. The all-electric HVAC system presents cost savings compared to the hot water reheat system from elimination of the hot water boiler and associated hot water piping distribution. CZ10 and CZ15 all-electric design costs are slightly higher because they require larger size rooftop heat pumps than the other climate zones.

Climate Zone Mixed Fuel
Baseline All Electric System Incremental cost for All-Electric CZ01 $1,202,538 $1,106,432 $(96,106)
CZ02 $1,261,531 $1,178,983 $(82,548)
CZ03 $1,205,172 $1,113,989 $(91,183)
CZ04 $1,283,300 $1,205,434 $(77,865)
CZ05 $1,207,345 $1,113,989 $(93,356)
CZ06 $1,216,377 $1,131,371 $(85,006)
CZ07 $1,227,932 $1,148,754 $(79,178)
CZ08 $1,250,564 $1,172,937 $(77,626)
CZ09 $1,268,320 $1,196,365 $(71,955)
CZ10 $1,313,580 $1,256,825 $(56,755)
CZ11 $1,294,145 $1,221,305 $(72,840)
CZ12 $1,274,317 $1,197,121 $(77,196)
CZ13 $1,292,884 $1,221,305 $(71,579)
CZ14 $1,286,245 $1,212,236 $(74,009)
CZ15 $1,357,023 $1,311,994 $(45,029)
CZ16 $1,295,766 $1,222,817 $(72,949)

3.3.1.2 Medium Retail
The baseline HVAC system includes five packaged single zone rooftop ACs with gas furnaces. Based on fan have variable air
volume fans, while smaller units have constant volume fans. The SHW design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30-gallon storage tank.

For the medium retail all-electric HVAC design, the Reach Code Team assumed packaged heat pumps instead of the packaged ACs. The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water heater as the baseline and has no associated incremental costs.

Cost data for medium retail designs are presented in Figure 11. Costs for rooftop air-conditioning systems are very similar to rooftop heat pump systems.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 12 2019-07-15
Climate Zone Mixed Fuel
Baseline All Electric System Incremental cost for All-Electric CZ01 $328,312 $333,291 $4,978
CZ02 $373,139 $373,702 $563
CZ03 $322,849 $326,764 $3,915
CZ04 $329,900 $335,031 $5,131
CZ05 $359,888 $362,408 $2,520
CZ06 $335,728 $341,992 $6,265
CZ07 $345,544 $349,808 $4,265
CZ08 $368,687 $369,792 $1,104
CZ09 $415,155 $411,069 $(4,087)
CZ10 $345,993 $346,748 $755
CZ11 $418,721 $414,546 $(4,175)
CZ12 $405,110 $400,632 $(4,477)
CZ13 $376,003 $375,872 $(131)
CZ14 $405,381 $406,752 $1,371
CZ15 $429,123 $427,606 $(1,517)
CZ16 $401,892 $404,147 $2,256

3.3.1.3 Small Hotel
The small hotel has two different baseline equipment systems, one for the nonresidential spaces and one for the guest rooms. The nonresidential HVAC system includes two gas hot water boilers, four packaged rooftop units and twelve VAV terminal boxes with hot water reheat coil. The SHW design includes a small electric water heater with storage tank. The residential HVAC design includes one single zone AC unit with gas furnace for each guest room and the water heating design includes one central gas storage water heater with a recirculation pump for all guest rooms.

For the small hotel all-electric design, the Reach Code Team assumed the nonresidential HVAC system to be packaged heat pumps with electric resistance VAV terminal units, and the SHW system to remain a small electric resistance water heater.

For the guest room all-electric HVAC system, the analysis used a single zone (packaged terminal) heat pump and a central heat pump water heater serving all guest rooms. Central heat pump water heating with recirculation serving guest rooms cannot yet be modeled in CBECC-Com, and energy impacts were modeled by simulating individual heat pump water heaters in each guest room. The reach code team believes this is a conservative assumption, since individual heat pump water heaters will have much higher tank standby losses. The Reach Code Team attained costs for central heat pump water heating installation including storage tanks and controls and used these costs in the study.

Cost data for small hotel designs are presented in Figure 12. The all-electric design presents substantial cost savings because there is no hot water plant or piping distribution system serving the nonresidential spaces, as well as the lower cost of packaged terminal heat pumps serving the residential spaces compared to split DX/furnace systems with individual flues. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 13 2019-07-15
Climate Zone Mixed Fuel
Baseline All Electric System Incremental cost for All-Electric CZ01 $2,337,531 $1,057,178 $(1,280,353)
CZ02 $2,328,121 $1,046,795 $(1,281,326)
CZ03 $2,294,053 $1,010,455 $(1,283,598)
CZ04 $2,302,108 $1,018,675 $(1,283,433)
CZ05 $2,298,700 $1,015,214 $(1,283,486)
CZ06 $2,295,380 $1,011,753 $(1,283,627)
CZ07 $2,308,004 $1,026,029 $(1,281,975)
CZ08 $2,333,662 $1,053,717 $(1,279,946)
CZ09 $2,312,099 $1,030,355 $(1,281,744)
CZ10 $2,354,093 $1,075,348 $(1,278,745)
CZ11 $2,347,980 $1,068,426 $(1,279,554)
CZ12 $2,328,654 $1,047,660 $(1,280,994)
CZ13 $2,348,225 $1,068,858 $(1,279,367)
CZ14 $2,345,988 $1,066,263 $(1,279,725)
CZ15 $2,357,086 $1,079,241 $(1,277,845)
CZ16 $2,304,094 $1,019,973 $(1,284,121)

3.3.2 Electric heating appliances and equipment often require a larger electrical connection than an equivalent natural gas appliance because of the higher voltage and amperage necessary to electrically generate heat.

Thus, many buildings may require larger electrical capacity than a comparable building with natural gas appliances. This includes:

Electric resistance VAV space heating in the medium office and common area spaces of the small hotel.

Heat pump water heating for the guest room spaces of the small hotel.

3.3.2.1 Electrical Panel Sizing and Wiring
This section details the additional electrical panel sizing and wiring required for all-electric measures. In an all-electric new construction scenario, heat pumps replace packaged DX units which are paired with either a gas furnace or a hot water coil (supplied by a gas boiler). The electrical requirements of the replacement heat pump would be the same as the packaged DX unit it replaces, as the electrical requirements would be driven by the cooling capacity, which would remain the same between the two units.

VAV terminal units with hot water reheat coils that are replaced with electric resistance reheat coils require additional electrical infrastructure. In the case of electric resistance coils, the Reach Code Team assumed that on average, a VAV terminal unit serves around 900 ft2 of conditioned space and has a heating capacity of 5 kW (15 kBtu/hr/ft2). The incremental electrical infrastructure costs were determined based on RS Means. Calculations for the medium office shown in Figure 13 include the cost to add electrical panels as well as the cost to add electrical lines to each VAV terminal unit electric resistance coil in the medium office prototype. Additionally, the Reach Code Team subtracted the electrical infrastructure costs associated with hot water pumps required in the mixed fuel baseline, which are not required in the all-electric measures.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 14 2019-07-15
The Reach Code Team calculated costs to increase electrical capacity for heat pump water heaters in the small hotel similarly.

AllA - No. VAV Boxes 60
B - VAV box heating capacity (watts) 4,748
C - No. hot water pumps 2
D - Hot water pump power (watts) 398
E - Voltage 208
F (AxB - CxD)/E Panel ampacity required 1,366
G F/400 Number of 400-amp panels required 4
H - Cost per 400-amp panel $3,100
I GxH Total panel cost $12,400
J - Total electrical line length required (ft) 4,320
K - Cost per linear foot of electrical line $3.62
L JxK Total electrical line cost $15,402
I + L Total electrical infrastructure incremental cost $27,802

3.3.2.2 Natural Gas
This analysis assumes that in an all-electric new construction scenario natural gas would not be supplied to the site. Eliminating natural gas in new construction would save costs associated with connecting a service line from the street main to the building, piping distribution within the building, and monthly connection charges by the utility.

The Reach Code Team determined that for a new construction building with natural gas piping, there is a service line (branch connection) from the natural gas main to the building meter. In the medium office prototype, natural gas piping is routed to the boiler. The Reach Code Team assumed that the boiler is on the first floor, and that 30 feet of piping is required from the connection to the main to the boiler. The Reach Code Team assumed 1” corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) material is used for the plumbing distribution. The Reach Code Team included costs for a natural gas plan review, service extension, and a gas meter, as shown in Figure 14 below. The natural gas plan review cost is based on information received from the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The meter costs are from PG&E and include both material and labor.

The service extension costs are based on guidance from PG&E, who noted that the cost range is highly varied and that there is no “typical” cost, with costs being highly dependent on length of extension, terrain, whether the building is in a developed or undeveloped area, and number of buildings to be served. While an actual service extension cost is highly uncertain, the team believes the costs assumed in this analysis are within a reasonable range based on a sample range of costs provided by PG&E. These costs assume development in a previously developed area. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 15 2019-07-15
-
Cost Type Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel
Natural Gas Plan Review $2,316 $2,316 $2,316
Service Extension $13,000 $13,000 $13,000
Meter $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
Plumbing Distribution $633 $9,711 $37,704
Total Cost $18,949 $28,027 $56,020

3.4 The Reach Code Team developed a package of high efficiency (HE) space and water heating appliances based on commonly available products for both the mixed-fuel and all-electric scenarios. This package assesses the standalone contribution that high efficiency measures would make toward achieving high performance thresholds. The Reach Code Team reviewed the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) certified product database to estimate appropriate efficiencies.20 The Reach Code Team determined the efficiency increases to be appropriate based on equipment type, summarized in Figure 15, with cost premiums attained from a Bay Area mechanical contractor. The ranges in efficiency are indicative of varying federal standard requirements based on equipment size.

Federal Minimum Efficiency Preempted Efficiency Cost Premium for HE Appliance
Gas space heating and
water heating 80-82% 90-95% 10-15%
Large packaged rooftop
cooling

9.8-12 EER

11.4-12.9 IEER

10.5-13 EER
15-15.5 IEER
10-15%
Single zone heat pump
space heating

7.7 HSPF

3.2 COP
10 HSPF

3.5 COP
6-15%
Heat pump water heating 2.0 UEF 3.3 UEF None (market does not carry 2.0 UEF)

3.5 The analysis uses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates from Zero Code reports available in CBECC-Com.21 Zero Code uses 8760 hourly multipliers accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard projections. Fugitive 20 Available at: https://www.ahridirectory.org/Search/SearchHome?ReturnUrl=%2f 21 More information available at: https://zero-code.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ZERO-Code-TSD-California.pdf 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 16 2019-07-15
emissions are not included. There are two strings of multipliers – one for Northern California climate zones, and another for Southern California climate zones.22 4 The Reach Code Team evaluated cost effectiveness of the following measure packages over a 2019 mixedfuel code compliant baseline for all climate zones, as detailed in Sections 4.1 -- 4.3 and reiterated in Figure 16:

Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE: Mixed-fuel design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies.

Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 1A, plus solar PV and batteries.

Package 1C – Mixed-fuel + HE: Alternative design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption.

Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: All-electric design with federal code minimum appliance efficiency. No solar PV or battery.

Package 3A – All-Electric + EE: All-electric design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies.

Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 3A, plus solar PV and batteries.

Package 3C – All-Electric + HE: All-electric design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption.

Package
Fuel Type Energy
Efficiency
Measures
PV & Battery
(PV + B)
High Efficiency
Appliances
Mixed (HE) Fuel All-Electric
Mixed-Fuel Code Minimum
Baseline X
1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE X X
1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B X X X
1C – Mixed-fuel + HE X X
2 – All-Electric Federal CodeMinimum Reference X
3A – All-Electric + EE X X
3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B X X X
3C – All-Electric + HE X X
22 CBECC-Com documentation does not state which climate zones fall under which region. CBECC-Res multipliers are the same for CZs 1-5 and 11-13 (presumed to be Northern California), while there is another set of multipliers for CZs 6-10 and 14-16 (assumed to be Southern California).
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 17 2019-07-15
Section 4.4 presents the results of the PV-only and PV+Battery analysis.

The TDV and on-bill based cost effectiveness results are presented in terms of B/C ratio and NPV in this 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 a ‘benefit’ 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.’ Overarching factors to keep in mind when reviewing the results include:

To pass the Energy Commission’s application process, local reach codes must both be cost effective and exceed the energy performance budget using TDV (i.e., have a positive compliance margin). To emphasize these two important factors, the figures in this Section highlight in green the modeling results that have either a positive compliance margin or are cost effective. This will allow readers to identify whether a scenario is fully or partially supportive of a reach code, and the opportunities/challenges that the scenario presents. Conversely, Section 4.4 only highlights results that both have a positive compliance margin and are cost effective, to allow readers to identify reach code-ready scenarios.

Note: Compliance margin represents the proportion of energy usage that is saved compared to the baseline, measured on a TDV basis.

The Energy Commission does not currently allow compliance credit for either solar PV or battery storage. Thus, the compliance margins in Packages 1A are the same as 1B, and Package 3A is the same as 3B. However, The Reach Code Team did include the impact of solar PV and battery when calculating TDV cost-effectiveness.

When performance modeling residential buildings, the Energy Commission allows the Standard Design to be electric if the Proposed Design is electric, which removes TDV-related penalties and associated negative compliance margins. This essentially allows for a compliance pathway for allelectric residential buildings. Nonresidential buildings are not treated in the same way and are compared to a mixed-fuel standard design.

Results do not include an analysis and comparison of utility rates. As mentioned in Section 2.2, 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.

Note that most utility time-of-use rates are continuously updated, which can affect cost effectiveness results.

As a point of comparison, mixed-fuel baseline energy figures are provided in Appendix 6.5.

4.1 Figure 17 through Figure 23 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Office packages.

Notable findings for each package include:
1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE: Packages achieve +12 to +20 percent compliance margins depending on climate zone. All packages are cost effective in all climate zones using the TDV approach. All packages are cost effective using the On-Bill approach except for LADWP territory. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 18 2019-07-15
1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: All packages are cost effective using the On-Bill and TDV approaches, except On-Bill in LADWP territory. When compared to 1A, the B/C ratio changes depending on the utility and climate zone (some increase while others decrease). However, NPV savings are increased across the board, suggesting that larger investments yield larger returns. 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE: Packages achieve +3 to +5 percent compliance margins depending on climate zone, but no packages were cost effective. The incremental costs of a high efficiency condensing boiler compared to a non-condensing boiler contributes to 26-47% of total incremental cost depending on boiler size. Benefits of condensing boiler efficiency come from resetting hot water return temperature as boiler efficiency increases at lower hot water temperature. However, hot water temperature reset control cannot currently be implemented in the software. In addition, the natural gas energy cost constitutes no more than 5% of total cost for 15 climate zones, so improving boiler efficiency has limited contribution to reduction of total energy cost.
2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference:

Packages achieve between -27 percent and +1 percent compliance margins depending on climate zone. This is likely because the modeled system is electric resistance, and TDV values electricity consumption more heavily than natural gas. This all-electric design without other efficiency measures does not comply with the Energy Commission’s TDV performance budget.

All incremental costs are negative due to the elimination of natural gas infrastructure.

Packages achieve utility cost savings and are cost effective using the On-Bill approach in CZs 6- 10 and 14-15. Packages do not achieve savings and are not cost effective using the On-Bill approach in most of PG&E territory (CZs 1,2,4, 11-13, and 16). Packages achieve savings and are cost effective using TDV in all climate zones except CZ16. 3A – All-Electric + EE: Packages achieve positive compliance margins except -15 percent in CZ16, which has a higher space heating load than other climate zones. All packages are cost effective in all climate zones except CZ16.
3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: Packages achieve positive compliance margins except -15 percent in CZ16. All packages are cost-effective from a TDV perspective in all climate zones. All packages are cost effective from an On-Bill perspective in all climate zones except in CZ 2 and CZ 16 in LADWP territory.
3C – All-Electric + HE: Packages achieve between -26 percent and +2 percent compliance margins depending on climate zone. The only packages that are cost effective and with a positive compliance margin are in CZs 7-9 and 15. As described in Package 1C results, space heating is a relatively low proportion of energy costs in most climate zones, limiting the costs gains for higher efficiency equipment.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 19 2019-07-15
Med Mixed- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reduc- tions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1A: Mixed Fuel + EECZ01 PG&E 34,421 -808 4.5 18% $66,649 $125,902 $71,307 1.9 1.1 $59,253 $4,658CZ02 PG&E 40,985 -505 8.1 17% $66,649 $163,655 $99,181 2.5 1.5 $97,005 $32,532CZ03 PG&E 36,266 -463 7.0 20% $66,649 $141,897 $84,051 2.1 1.3 $75,248 $17,401CZ04 PG&E 40,590 -547 7.7 14% $66,649 $162,139 $95,410 2.4 1.4 $95,489 $28,761CZ04-2 CPAU 40,590 -547 7.7 14% $66,649 $85,537 $95,410 1.3 1.4 $18,887 $28,761CZ05 PG&E 38,888 -499 7.4 18% $66,649 $154,044 $91,115 2.3 1.4 $87,395 $24,465CZ05-2 SCG 38,888 -499 7.4 18% $66,649 $156,315 $91,115 2.3 1.4 $89,665 $24,465CZ06 SCE 39,579 -305 8.7 20% $66,649 $86,390 $100,469 1.3 1.5 $19,741 $33,820CZ06-2 LADWP 39,579 -305 8.7 20% $66,649 $51,828 $100,469 0.8 1.5 ($14,821) $33,820CZ07 SDG&E 41,817 -6 11.3 20% $66,649 $204,394 $112,497 3.1 1.7 $137,745 $45,848CZ08 SCE 41,637 -60 10.8 18% $66,649 $89,783 $113,786 1.3 1.7 $23,134 $47,137CZ08-2 LADWP 41,637 -60 10.8 18% $66,649 $54,876 $113,786 0.8 1.7 ($11,773) $47,137CZ09 SCE 42,539 -210 10.1 16% $66,649 $95,636 $115,647 1.4 1.7 $28,987 $48,998CZ09-2 LADWP 42,539 -210 10.1 16% $66,649 $58,168 $115,647 0.9 1.7 ($8,481) $48,998CZ10 SDG&E 41,857 -216 9.8 17% $66,649 $210,303 $108,726 3.2 1.6 $143,654 $42,077CZ10-2 SCE 41,857 -216 9.8 17% $66,649 $92,736 $108,726 1.4 1.6 $26,087 $42,077CZ11 PG&E 42,523 -390 9.1 13% $66,649 $166,951 $104,001 2.5 1.6 $100,301 $37,352CZ12 PG&E 41,521 -466 8.4 14% $66,649 $161,594 $100,135 2.4 1.5 $94,945 $33,486CZ12-2 SMUD 41,521 -466 8.4 14% $66,649 $71,734 $100,135 1.1 1.5 $5,085 $33,486CZ13 PG&E 42,898 -434 9.0 13% $66,649 $169,107 $99,992 2.5 1.5 $102,457 $33,343CZ14 SDG&E 42,224 -441 8.6 14% $66,649 $211,529 $106,913 3.2 1.6 $144,880 $40,264CZ14-2 SCE 42,224 -441 8.6 14% $66,649 $95,809 $106,913 1.4 1.6 $29,160 $40,264CZ15 SCE 45,723 -147 11.2 12% $66,649 $102,714 $118,034 1.5 1.8 $36,065 $51,384CZ16 PG&E 37,758 -736 5.8 14% $66,649 $145,947 $79,755 2.2 1.2 $79,297 $13,106CZ16-2 LADWP 37,758 -736 5.8 14% $66,649 $40,115 $79,755 0.6 1.2 ($26,534) $13,106 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 20 2019-07-15
Mixed- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (mtons) Comp- liance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + PV + BatteryCZ01 PG&E 211,225 -808 39.9 18% $397,405 $645,010 $454,284 1.6 1.1 $247,605 $56,879CZ02 PG&E 255,787 -505 50.6 17% $397,405 $819,307 $573,033 2.1 1.4 $421,902 $175,628CZ03 PG&E 245,421 -463 48.8 20% $397,405 $777,156 $536,330 2.0 1.3 $379,751 $138,925CZ04 PG&E 267,612 -547 52.7 14% $397,405 $836,221 $597,471 2.1 1.5 $438,816 $200,066CZ04-2 CPAU 267,612 -547 52.7 14% $397,405 $621,879 $597,471 1.6 1.5 $224,474 $200,066CZ05 PG&E 264,581 -499 52.5 18% $397,405 $897,216 $578,856 2.3 1.5 $499,811 $181,451CZ05-2 SCG 264,581 -499 52.5 18% $397,405 $899,487 $578,856 2.3 1.5 $502,082 $181,451CZ06 SCE 257,474 -305 52.1 20% $397,405 $484,229 $594,416 1.2 1.5 $86,824 $197,011CZ06-2 LA 257,474 -305 52.1 20% $397,405 $282,360 $594,416 0.7 1.5 ($115,045) $197,011CZ07 SDG&E 264,530 -6 55.7 20% $397,405 $817,528 $610,548 2.1 1.5 $420,123 $213,143CZ08 SCE 258,348 -60 54.0 18% $397,405 $479,073 $625,249 1.2 1.6 $81,668 $227,844CZ08-2 LA 258,348 -60 54.0 18% $397,405 $275,704 $625,249 0.7 1.6 ($121,701) $227,844CZ09 SCE 262,085 -210 54.3 16% $397,405 $480,241 $622,528 1.2 1.6 $82,836 $225,123CZ09-2 LA 262,085 -210 54.3 16% $397,405 $282,209 $622,528 0.7 1.6 ($115,196) $225,123CZ10 SDG&E 258,548 -216 53.4 17% $397,405 $839,931 $595,323 2.1 1.5 $442,526 $197,918CZ10-2 SCE 258,548 -216 53.4 17% $397,405 $485,523 $595,323 1.2 1.5 $88,118 $197,918CZ11 PG&E 253,623 -390 50.9 13% $397,405 $826,076 $585,682 2.1 1.5 $428,671 $188,277CZ12 PG&E 252,868 -466 50.3 14% $397,405 $802,715 $582,866 2.0 1.5 $405,310 $185,461CZ12-2 SMUD 252,868 -466 50.3 14% $397,405 $415,597 $582,866 1.0 1.5 $18,192 $185,461CZ13 PG&E 250,915 -434 50.4 13% $397,405 $806,401 $573,606 2.0 1.4 $408,996 $176,201CZ14 SDG&E 283,684 -441 56.4 14% $397,405 $874,753 $676,271 2.2 1.7 $477,348 $278,866CZ14-2 SCE 283,684 -441 56.4 14% $397,405 $493,888 $676,271 1.2 1.7 $96,483 $278,866CZ15 SCE 274,771 -147 56.0 12% $397,405 $476,327 $640,379 1.2 1.6 $78,922 $242,974CZ16 PG&E 266,490 -736 51.8 14% $397,405 $842,205 $575,563 2.1 1.4 $444,800 $178,158CZ16-2 LA 266,490 -736 51.8 14% $397,405 $260,372 $575,563 0.7 1.4 ($137,033) $178,158 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 21 2019-07-15
Mixed- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1C: Mixed Fuel + HECZ01 PG&E 288 688 4.1 3% $61,253 $18,656 $12,314 0.3 0.2 ($42,597) ($48,939)CZ02 PG&E 3,795 550 4.3 4% $68,937 $36,683 $24,676 0.5 0.4 ($32,254) ($44,261)CZ03 PG&E 1,241 439 2.9 3% $57,529 $20,150 $11,885 0.4 0.2 ($37,379) ($45,644)CZ04 PG&E 5,599 529 4.7 5% $72,074 $44,915 $30,928 0.6 0.4 ($27,158) ($41,145)CZ04-2 CPAU 5,599 529 4.7 5% $72,074 $24,175 $30,928 0.3 0.4 ($47,898) ($41,145)CZ05 PG&E 3,470 453 3.6 4% $60,330 $35,072 $18,232 0.6 0.3 ($25,258) ($42,097)CZ05-2 SCG 3,470 453 3.6 4% $60,330 $32,777 $18,232 0.5 0.3 ($27,553) ($42,097)CZ06 SCE 3,374 298 2.6 3% $55,594 $19,446 $16,132 0.3 0.3 ($36,148) ($39,462)CZ06-2 LADWP 3,374 298 2.6 3% $55,594 $13,450 $16,132 0.2 0.3 ($42,145) ($39,462)CZ07 SDG&E 5,257 140 2.3 4% $54,111 $41,086 $19,903 0.8 0.4 ($13,025) ($34,208)CZ08 SCE 5,921 176 2.7 4% $60,497 $22,210 $24,055 0.4 0.4 ($38,287) ($36,442)CZ08-2 LADWP 5,921 176 2.7 4% $60,497 $14,064 $24,055 0.2 0.4 ($46,434) ($36,442)CZ09 SCE 7,560 224 3.5 4% $61,311 $28,576 $31,835 0.5 0.5 ($32,735) ($29,476)CZ09-2 LADWP 7,560 224 3.5 4% $61,311 $18,262 $31,835 0.3 0.5 ($43,049) ($29,476)CZ10 SDG&E 5,786 288 3.2 4% $62,685 $50,717 $24,628 0.8 0.4 ($11,968) ($38,057)CZ10-2 SCE 5,786 288 3.2 4% $62,685 $24,575 $24,628 0.4 0.4 ($38,110) ($38,057)CZ11 PG&E 8,128 441 4.9 5% $71,101 $54,188 $37,849 0.8 0.5 ($16,912) ($33,252)CZ12 PG&E 6,503 478 4.7 5% $68,329 $47,329 $34,556 0.7 0.5 ($20,999) ($33,773)CZ12-2 SMUD 6,503 478 4.7 5% $68,329 $24,003 $34,556 0.4 0.5 ($44,325) ($33,773)CZ13 PG&E 8,398 432 5.0 5% $69,474 $51,347 $37,229 0.7 0.5 ($18,128) ($32,246)CZ14 SDG&E 7,927 470 5.0 5% $69,463 $62,744 $37,133 0.9 0.5 ($6,718) ($32,329)CZ14-2 SCE 7,927 470 5.0 5% $69,463 $32,517 $37,133 0.5 0.5 ($36,946) ($32,329)CZ15 SCE 15,140 219 5.5 5% $66,702 $43,773 $52,359 0.7 0.8 ($22,929) ($14,344)CZ16 PG&E 3,111 912 6.3 5% $71,765 $36,002 $24,914 0.5 0.3 ($35,763) ($46,851)CZ16-2 LADWP 3,111 912 6.3 5% $71,765 $23,057 $24,914 0.3 0.3 ($48,708) ($46,851) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 22 2019-07-15
All-Electric Federal nimum
CZ Utility
ElecSavings(kWh)
Gas Savings(therms)
GHGReductions(mtons)
Comp- lianceMargin
IncrementalPackageCost*
LifecycleUtility CostSavings
$TDVSavings
B/CRatio(On-bill)
B/CRatio(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
Package 2: All-Electric Federal Code MinimumCZ01 PG&E -53,657 4967 10.1 -15% ($87,253) ($98,237) ($58,420) 0.9 1.5 ($10,984) $28,833CZ02 PG&E -49,684 3868 5.0 -7% ($73,695) ($101,605) ($41,429) 0.7 1.8 ($27,910) $32,266CZ03 PG&E -35,886 3142 5.6 -7% ($82,330) ($57,345) ($29,592) 1.4 2.8 $24,986 $52,738CZ04 PG&E -48,829 3759 4.7 -6% ($69,012) ($90,527) ($40,570) 0.8 1.7 ($21,515) $28,443CZ04-2 CPAU -48,829 3759 4.7 -6% ($69,012) ($19,995) ($40,570) 3.5 1.7 $49,018 $28,443CZ05 PG&E -40,531 3240 4.5 -8% ($84,503) ($63,663) ($39,997) 1.3 2.1 $20,840 $44,506CZ06 SCE -26,174 2117 3.1 -4% ($76,153) $24,908 ($20,571) >1 3.7 $101,061 $55,581CZ06-2 LADWP -26,174 2117 3.1 -4% ($76,153) $26,366 ($20,571) >1 3.7 $102,518 $55,581CZ07 SDG&E -12,902 950 0.9 -2% ($70,325) $46,879 ($11,407) >1 6.2 $117,204 $58,918CZ08 SCE -15,680 1219 1.5 -2% ($68,774) $17,859 ($12,648) >1 5.4 $86,633 $56,125CZ08-2 LADWP -15,680 1219 1.5 -2% ($68,774) $18,603 ($12,648) >1 5.4 $87,376 $56,125CZ09 SCE -19,767 1605 2.4 -2% ($63,102) $20,920 ($14,462) >1 4.4 $84,022 $48,640CZ09-2 LADWP -19,767 1605 2.4 -2% ($63,102) $21,929 ($14,462) >1 4.4 $85,030 $48,640CZ10 SDG&E -27,414 2053 2.2 -4% ($47,902) $38,918 ($23,339) >1 2.1 $86,820 $24,562CZ10-2 SCE -27,414 2053 2.2 -4% ($47,902) $20,765 ($23,339) >1 2.1 $68,666 $24,562CZ11 PG&E -40,156 3062 3.6 -4% ($63,987) ($72,791) ($32,837) 0.9 1.9 ($8,804) $31,150CZ12 PG&E -43,411 3327 4.1 -5% ($68,343) ($85,856) ($35,463) 0.8 1.9 ($17,512) $32,880CZ12-2 SMUD -43,411 3327 4.1 -5% ($68,343) ($5,109) ($35,463) 13.4 1.9 $63,234 $32,880CZ13 PG&E -39,649 3063 3.8 -4% ($62,726) ($70,705) ($32,408) 0.9 1.9 ($7,980) $30,318CZ14 SDG&E -44,322 3266 3.4 -5% ($65,156) $6,043 ($38,422) >1 1.7 $71,199 $26,735CZ14-2 SCE -44,322 3266 3.4 -5% ($65,156) $4,798 ($38,422) >1 1.7 $69,954 $26,735CZ15 SCE -19,917 1537 1.8 -2% ($36,176) $12,822 ($15,464) >1 2.3 $48,998 $20,711CZ16 PG&E -94,062 6185 5.6 -27% ($64,096) ($212,158) ($150,871) 0.3 0.4 ($148,062) ($86,775)CZ16-2 LADWP -94,062 6185 5.6 -27% ($64,096) $1,493 ($150,871) >1 0.4 $65,589 ($86,775) * The Incremental Package Cost is equal to the sum of the incremental HVAC and water heating equipment costs fromFigure 10, the electrical infrastructure incremental cost of $27,802 (see section 3.3.2.1), and the natural gas infrastructure incremental costs of $(18,949) (seesection 3.3.2.2). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 23 2019-07-15
All- EE
CZ Utility
ElecSavings(kWh)
Gas Savings(therms)
GHGReductions(mtons)
Comp- lianceMargin
IncrementalPackageCost
LifecycleUtility CostSavings
$TDVSavings
B/CRatio(On-bill)
B/CRatio(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
Package 3A: All-Electric + EECZ01 PG&E -19,115 4967 19.4 7% ($20,604) $20,630 $28,112 >1 >1 $41,234 $48,716CZ02 PG&E -11,811 3868 15.2 10% ($7,046) $39,260 $58,563 >1 >1 $46,306 $65,609CZ03 PG&E 2,530 3142 16.2 16% ($15,681) $85,241 $68,682 >1 >1 $100,922 $84,363CZ04 PG&E -10,839 3759 14.8 9% ($2,363) $59,432 $58,420 >1 >1 $61,795 $60,783CZ04-2 CPAU -10,839 3759 14.8 9% ($2,363) $70,680 $58,420 >1 >1 $73,043 $60,783CZ05 PG&E -2,316 3240 14.6 12% ($17,854) $85,380 $58,802 >1 >1 $103,234 $76,656CZ06 SCE 15,399 2117 14.3 18% ($9,503) $114,962 $89,921 >1 >1 $124,466 $99,425CZ06-2 LADWP 15,399 2117 14.3 18% ($9,503) $82,389 $89,921 >1 >1 $91,893 $99,425CZ07 SDG&E 33,318 950 13.8 20% ($3,676) $256,704 $111,399 >1 >1 $260,380 $115,076CZ08 SCE 30,231 1219 14.2 18% ($2,124) $110,144 $111,781 >1 >1 $112,268 $113,906CZ08-2 LADWP 30,231 1219 14.2 18% ($2,124) $76,069 $111,781 >1 >1 $78,194 $113,906CZ09 SCE 24,283 1605 14.3 15% $3,547 $119,824 $108,249 33.8 30.5 $116,277 $104,702CZ09-2 LADWP 24,283 1605 14.3 15% $3,547 $83,549 $108,249 23.6 30.5 $80,001 $104,702CZ10 SDG&E 12,344 2053 12.6 13% $18,748 $230,553 $82,905 12.3 4.4 $211,806 $64,158CZ10-2 SCE 12,344 2053 12.6 13% $18,748 $105,898 $82,905 5.6 4.4 $87,150 $64,158CZ11 PG&E 929 3062 14.5 10% $2,662 $85,988 $75,030 32.3 28.2 $83,326 $72,368CZ12 PG&E -3,419 3327 14.8 10% ($1,694) $68,866 $69,589 >1 >1 $70,560 $71,283CZ12-2 SMUD -3,419 3327 14.8 10% ($1,694) $71,761 $69,589 >1 >1 $73,455 $71,283CZ13 PG&E 1,398 3063 14.8 9% $3,923 $89,799 $71,307 22.9 18.2 $85,875 $67,384CZ14 SDG&E -5,469 3266 13.5 9% $1,493 $206,840 $69,016 138.6 46.2 $205,347 $67,523CZ14-2 SCE -5,469 3266 13.5 9% $1,493 $94,143 $69,016 63.1 46.2 $92,650 $67,523CZ15 SCE 25,375 1537 13.7 10% $30,474 $114,909 $104,335 3.8 3.4 $84,435 $73,862CZ16 PG&E -65,877 6185 12.7 -15% $2,553 ($91,477) ($85,673) -35.8 -33.6 ($94,030) ($88,226)CZ16-2 LADWP -65,877 6185 12.7 -15% $2,553 $72,780 ($85,673) 28.5 -33.6 $70,227 ($88,226) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 24 2019-07-15
All- CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (mtons) Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + PV + BCZ01 PG&E 157,733 4967 54.9 7% $310,152 $518,421 $410,946 1.7 1.3 $208,269 $100,794CZ02 PG&E 203,026 3868 57.8 10% $323,710 $692,336 $532,273 2.1 1.6 $368,626 $208,563CZ03 PG&E 211,706 3142 58.0 16% $315,075 $708,235 $520,866 2.2 1.7 $393,160 $205,791CZ04 PG&E 216,204 3759 59.9 9% $328,393 $741,382 $560,576 2.3 1.7 $412,989 $232,183CZ04-2 CPAU 216,204 3759 59.9 9% $328,393 $607,074 $560,576 1.8 1.7 $278,681 $232,183CZ05 PG&E 223,399 3240 59.8 12% $312,902 $799,992 $546,592 2.6 1.7 $487,090 $233,690CZ06 SCE 233,299 2117 57.7 18% $321,252 $509,969 $583,963 1.6 1.8 $188,716 $262,711CZ06-2 LA 233,299 2117 57.7 18% $321,252 $311,931 $583,963 1.0 1.8 ($9,322) $262,711CZ07 SDG&E 256,034 950 58.3 20% $327,079 $870,156 $609,498 2.7 1.9 $543,076 $282,419CZ08 SCE 246,944 1219 57.4 18% $328,631 $499,506 $623,292 1.5 1.9 $170,874 $294,661CZ08-2 LA 246,944 1219 57.4 18% $328,631 $296,991 $623,292 0.9 1.9 ($31,640) $294,661CZ09 SCE 243,838 1605 58.5 15% $334,303 $504,498 $615,178 1.5 1.8 $170,195 $280,875CZ09-2 LA 243,838 1605 58.5 15% $334,303 $307,626 $615,178 0.9 1.8 ($26,677) $280,875CZ10 SDG&E 229,044 2053 56.2 13% $349,503 $851,810 $569,549 2.4 1.6 $502,306 $220,046CZ10-2 SCE 229,044 2053 56.2 13% $349,503 $491,383 $569,549 1.4 1.6 $141,880 $220,046CZ11 PG&E 212,047 3062 56.4 10% $333,418 $743,403 $556,758 2.2 1.7 $409,985 $223,340CZ12 PG&E 207,955 3327 56.7 10% $329,062 $713,054 $552,415 2.2 1.7 $383,993 $223,353CZ12-2 SMUD 207,955 3327 56.7 10% $329,062 $414,371 $552,415 1.3 1.7 $85,310 $223,353CZ13 PG&E 209,431 3063 56.3 9% $334,679 $728,822 $544,969 2.2 1.6 $394,143 $210,289CZ14 SDG&E 236,002 3266 61.3 9% $332,249 $865,181 $638,517 2.6 1.9 $532,933 $306,269CZ14-2 SCE 236,002 3266 61.3 9% $332,249 $488,163 $638,517 1.5 1.9 $155,914 $306,269CZ15 SCE 254,426 1537 58.5 10% $361,229 $487,715 $626,728 1.4 1.7 $126,486 $265,499CZ16 PG&E 162,915 6185 58.6 -15% $333,309 $580,353 $406,746 1.7 1.2 $247,044 $73,437CZ16-2 LA 162,915 6185 58.6 -15% $333,309 $290,566 $406,746 0.9 1.2 ($42,742) $73,437 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 25 2019-07-15
All- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3C: All-Electric + HECZ01 PG&E -53,390 4967 10.2 -14% ($43,987) ($93,740) ($57,752) 0.5 0.8 ($49,753) ($13,765)CZ02 PG&E -45,916 3868 6.1 -5% ($22,722) ($77,212) ($26,394) 0.3 0.9 ($54,490) ($3,672)CZ03 PG&E -34,656 3142 6.0 -6% ($38,261) ($45,796) ($25,153) 0.8 1.5 ($7,535) $13,108CZ04 PG&E -43,248 3759 6.3 -3% ($15,229) ($56,932) ($18,996) 0.3 0.8 ($41,703) ($3,767)CZ04-2 CPAU -43,248 3759 6.3 -3% ($15,229) ($5,298) ($18,996) 2.9 0.8 $9,932 ($3,767)CZ05 PG&E -37,068 3240 5.4 -6% ($40,434) ($38,330) ($29,544) 1.1 1.4 $2,104 $10,890CZ06 SCE -22,805 2117 4.0 -2% ($30,237) $39,812 ($9,594) >1 3.2 $70,050 $20,644CZ06-2 LADWP -22,805 2117 4.0 -2% ($30,237) $35,414 ($9,594) >1 3.2 $65,651 $20,644CZ07 SDG&E -7,646 950 2.5 1% ($22,564) $86,159 $6,062 >1 >1 $108,722 $28,625CZ08 SCE -9,761 1219 3.2 1% ($18,443) $37,375 $8,305 >1 >1 $55,818 $26,748CZ08-2 LADWP -9,761 1219 3.2 1% ($18,443) $29,973 $8,305 >1 >1 $48,416 $26,748CZ09 SCE -12,211 1605 4.5 2% ($10,282) $46,335 $13,364 >1 >1 $56,617 $23,646CZ09-2 LADWP -12,211 1605 4.5 2% ($10,282) $37,030 $13,364 >1 >1 $47,313 $23,646CZ10 SDG&E -21,642 2053 3.7 -1% $11,340 $84,901 ($3,818) 7.5 -0.3 $73,561 ($15,158)CZ10-2 SCE -21,642 2053 3.7 -1% $11,340 $40,659 ($3,818) 3.6 -0.3 $29,319 ($15,158)CZ11 PG&E -32,052 3062 5.9 0% ($8,519) ($29,013) ($3,007) 0.3 2.8 ($20,495) $5,512CZ12 PG&E -36,926 3327 6.0 -1% ($15,443) ($48,955) ($9,546) 0.3 1.6 ($33,511) $5,898CZ12-2 SMUD -36,926 3327 6.0 -1% ($15,443) $9,916 ($9,546) >1 1.6 $25,359 $5,898CZ13 PG&E -31,253 3063 6.3 0% ($7,257) ($27,782) ($3,055) 0.3 2.4 ($20,525) $4,202CZ14 SDG&E -36,402 3266 5.7 -1% ($10,651) $61,605 ($9,832) >1 1.1 $72,256 $819CZ14-2 SCE -36,402 3266 5.7 -1% ($10,651) $30,625 ($9,832) >1 1.1 $41,276 $819CZ15 SCE -4,775 1537 6.0 3% $28,927 $52,955 $32,790 1.8 1.1 $24,028 $3,863CZ16 PG&E -90,949 6185 6.5 -26% ($8,467) ($194,115) ($142,041) 0.0 0.1 ($185,648) ($133,574)CZ16-2 LADWP -90,949 6185 6.5 -26% ($8,467) $37,127 ($142,041) >1 0.1 $45,594 ($133,574) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 26 2019-07-15

4.2 E R
Figure 24 through Figure 30 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Retail packages.

Notable findings for each package include:
1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE:

Packages achieve +9% to +18% compliance margins depending on climate zone, and all packages are cost effective in all climate zones.

Incremental package costs vary across climate zones because of the HVAC system size in some climate zones are small enough (<54 kBtu/h) to have the economizers measure applied.

B/C ratios are high compared to other prototypes because the measures applied are primarily low-cost lighting measures. This suggests room for the inclusion of other energy efficiency measures with lower cost-effectiveness to achieve even higher compliance margins for a cost effective package.
1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: All packages are cost effective using both the On-Bill and TDV approach, except On-Bill in LADWP territory. Adding PV and battery to the efficiency packages reduces the B/C ratio but increases overall NPV savings. 1C – Mixed-fuel + HE: Packages achieve +1 to +4% compliance margins depending on climate zone, and packages are cost effective in all climate zones except CZs 1, 3 and 5 using the TDV approach.
2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference:

Packages achieve between -12% and +1% compliance margins depending on climate zone.

Packages achieve positive savings using both the On-Bill and TDV approaches in CZs 6-10 and 14-15. Packages do not achieve On-Bill or TDV savings in most of PG&E territory (CZs 1, 2, 4, 5, 12-13, and 16).

Packages are cost effective in all climate zones except CZ16.

All incremental costs are negative primarily due to elimination of natural gas infrastructure. 3A – All-Electric + EE: Packages achieve between +3% and +16% compliance margins depending on climate zone. All packages are cost effective in all climate zones. 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: All packages are cost effective using both the On-Bill and TDV approaches, except On-Bill in LADWP territory. Adding PV and Battery to the efficiency package reduces the B/C ratio but increases overall NPV savings. 3C – All-Electric + HE: Packages achieve between -8% and +5% compliance margins depending on climate zone, and packages are cost effective using both On-Bill and TDV approaches in all CZs except CZs 1 and 16.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 27 2019-07-15
Mixed- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1A: Mixed Fuel + EECZ01 PG&E 15,210 1209 11.10 18% $2,712 $68,358 $60,189 25.2 22.2 $65,646 $57,478CZ02 PG&E 18,885 613 8.73 13% $5,569 $76,260 $59,135 13.7 10.6 $70,691 $53,566CZ03 PG&E 18,772 462 7.87 16% $5,569 $66,813 $57,135 12.0 10.3 $61,244 $51,566CZ04 PG&E 19,100 439 7.84 14% $5,569 $75,989 $58,036 13.6 10.4 $70,420 $52,467CZ04-2 CPAU 19,100 439 7.84 14% $5,569 $51,556 $58,036 9.3 10.4 $45,987 $52,467CZ05 PG&E 17,955 415 7.41 16% $5,569 $63,182 $55,003 11.3 9.9 $57,613 $49,435CZ05-2 SCG 17,955 415 7.41 16% $5,569 $61,810 $55,003 11.1 9.9 $56,241 $49,435CZ06 SCE 12,375 347 5.54 10% $2,712 $31,990 $41,401 11.8 15.3 $29,278 $38,689CZ06-2 LADWP 12,375 347 5.54 10% $2,712 $21,667 $41,401 8.0 15.3 $18,956 $38,689CZ07 SDG&E 17,170 136 5.65 13% $5,569 $73,479 $49,883 13.2 9.0 $67,910 $44,314CZ08 SCE 12,284 283 5.15 10% $2,712 $30,130 $41,115 11.1 15.2 $27,419 $38,403CZ08-2 LADWP 12,284 283 5.15 10% $2,712 $20,243 $41,115 7.5 15.2 $17,531 $38,403CZ09 SCE 13,473 302 5.51 10% $5,569 $32,663 $46,126 5.9 8.3 $27,094 $40,557CZ09-2 LADWP 13,473 302 5.51 10% $5,569 $22,435 $46,126 4.0 8.3 $16,866 $40,557CZ10 SDG&E 19,873 267 6.99 12% $5,569 $83,319 $58,322 15.0 10.5 $77,751 $52,753CZ10-2 SCE 19,873 267 6.99 12% $5,569 $39,917 $58,322 7.2 10.5 $34,348 $52,753CZ11 PG&E 21,120 578 9.14 13% $5,569 $86,663 $67,485 15.6 12.1 $81,095 $61,916CZ12 PG&E 20,370 562 8.85 13% $5,569 $81,028 $64,409 14.6 11.6 $75,459 $58,840CZ12-2 SMUD 20,370 562 8.85 13% $5,569 $44,991 $64,409 8.1 11.6 $39,422 $58,840CZ13 PG&E 22,115 620 9.98 15% $2,712 $109,484 $83,109 40.4 30.6 $106,772 $80,398CZ14 SDG&E 25,579 406 9.38 13% $2,712 $116,354 $80,055 42.9 29.5 $113,643 $77,343CZ14-2 SCE 26,327 383 9.42 13% $2,712 $57,290 $83,065 21.1 30.6 $54,578 $80,354CZ15 SCE 26,433 169 8.35 12% $2,712 $57,152 $79,506 21.1 29.3 $54,440 $76,794CZ16 PG&E 15,975 752 8.72 13% $2,712 $72,427 $55,025 26.7 20.3 $69,715 $52,314CZ16-2 LADWP 15,975 752 8.72 13% $2,712 $31,906 $55,025 11.8 20.3 $29,194 $52,314 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 28 2019-07-15
Mixed- CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + PV + BatteryCZ01 PG&E 158,584 1209 40.79 18% $277,383 $509,092 $383,683 1.8 1.4 $231,709 $106,300CZ02 PG&E 189,400 613 43.75 13% $280,240 $590,043 $465,474 2.1 1.7 $309,803 $185,234CZ03 PG&E 191,016 462 43.52 16% $280,240 $578,465 $452,795 2.1 1.6 $298,224 $172,554CZ04 PG&E 195,014 439 44.14 14% $280,240 $605,369 $480,989 2.2 1.7 $325,129 $200,748CZ04-2 CPAU 195,014 439 44.14 14% $280,240 $451,933 $480,989 1.6 1.7 $171,693 $200,748CZ05 PG&E 196,654 415 44.30 16% $280,240 $589,771 $464,749 2.1 1.7 $309,530 $184,509CZ05-2 SCG 196,654 415 44.30 16% $280,240 $588,407 $464,749 2.1 1.7 $308,167 $184,509CZ06 SCE 185,903 347 41.61 10% $277,383 $322,495 $456,596 1.2 1.6 $45,111 $179,213CZ06-2 LA 185,903 347 41.61 10% $277,383 $191,428 $456,596 0.7 1.6 ($85,955) $179,213CZ07 SDG&E 197,650 136 43.24 13% $280,240 $496,786 $477,582 1.8 1.7 $216,545 $197,342CZ08 SCE 187,869 283 41.48 10% $277,383 $326,810 $478,132 1.2 1.7 $49,427 $200,749CZ08-2 LA 187,869 283 41.48 10% $277,383 $190,379 $478,132 0.7 1.7 ($87,004) $200,749CZ09 SCE 191,399 302 42.32 10% $280,240 $334,869 $472,770 1.2 1.7 $54,629 $192,530CZ09-2 LA 191,399 302 42.32 10% $280,240 $201,759 $472,770 0.7 1.7 ($78,481) $192,530CZ10 SDG&E 200,033 267 44.01 12% $280,240 $547,741 $472,880 2.0 1.7 $267,501 $192,640CZ10-2 SCE 200,033 267 44.01 12% $280,240 $340,822 $472,880 1.2 1.7 $60,582 $192,640CZ11 PG&E 192,846 578 44.07 13% $280,240 $582,969 $490,855 2.1 1.8 $302,728 $210,615CZ12 PG&E 191,720 562 43.70 13% $280,240 $586,836 $485,076 2.1 1.7 $306,596 $204,836CZ12-2 SMUD 191,720 562 43.70 13% $280,240 $319,513 $485,076 1.1 1.7 $39,273 $204,836CZ13 PG&E 195,031 620 45.19 15% $277,383 $605,608 $486,285 2.2 1.8 $328,225 $208,901CZ14 SDG&E 217,183 406 47.86 13% $277,383 $559,148 $534,915 2.0 1.9 $281,765 $257,532CZ14-2 SCE 217,927 383 47.91 14% $277,383 $354,757 $538,058 1.3 1.9 $77,373 $260,674CZ15 SCE 208,662 169 44.51 12% $277,383 $338,772 $496,107 1.2 1.8 $61,389 $218,724CZ16 PG&E 210,242 752 48.76 13% $277,383 $608,779 $490,262 2.2 1.8 $331,395 $212,879CZ16-2 LA 210,242 752 48.76 13% $277,383 $207,160 $490,262 0.7 1.8 ($70,223) $212,879 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 29 2019-07-15
Cost Mixed- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1C: Mixed Fuel + HECZ01 PG&E 57 346 2.04 2% $9,006 $6,301 $6,065 0.7 0.7 ($2,705) ($2,941)CZ02 PG&E 2,288 229 2.01 3% $9,726 $23,016 $13,998 2.4 1.4 $13,291 $4,273CZ03 PG&E 1,087 171 1.31 2% $9,063 $6,782 $7,186 0.7 0.8 ($2,282) ($1,877)CZ04 PG&E 1,862 159 1.46 3% $9,004 $17,891 $10,878 2.0 1.2 $8,887 $1,874CZ04-2 CPAU 1,862 159 1.46 3% $9,004 $7,821 $10,878 0.9 1.2 ($1,182) $1,874CZ05 PG&E 664 162 1.11 1% $9,454 $5,119 $4,725 0.5 0.5 ($4,335) ($4,729)CZ05-2 SCG 664 162 1.11 1% $9,454 $4,558 $4,725 0.5 0.5 ($4,896) ($4,729)CZ06 SCE 2,648 90 1.24 3% $8,943 $11,646 $11,427 1.3 1.3 $2,703 $2,484CZ06-2 LADWP 2,648 90 1.24 3% $8,943 $7,329 $11,427 0.8 1.3 ($1,614) $2,484CZ07 SDG&E 2,376 49 0.95 2% $9,194 $20,103 $9,779 2.2 1.1 $10,909 $585CZ08 SCE 2,822 72 1.20 3% $9,645 $11,989 $12,877 1.2 1.3 $2,344 $3,233CZ08-2 LADWP 2,822 72 1.20 3% $9,645 $7,427 $12,877 0.8 1.3 ($2,218) $3,233CZ09 SCE 4,206 88 1.73 4% $10,446 $16,856 $18,745 1.6 1.8 $6,410 $8,299CZ09-2 LADWP 4,206 88 1.73 4% $10,446 $10,604 $18,745 1.0 1.8 $158 $8,299CZ10 SDG&E 4,226 119 1.88 4% $9,514 $36,412 $19,008 3.8 2.0 $26,898 $9,494CZ10-2 SCE 4,226 119 1.88 4% $9,514 $17,094 $19,008 1.8 2.0 $7,580 $9,494CZ11 PG&E 4,188 225 2.56 4% $10,479 $31,872 $22,393 3.0 2.1 $21,392 $11,913CZ12 PG&E 3,675 214 2.34 4% $10,409 $29,653 $20,525 2.8 2.0 $19,243 $10,115CZ12-2 SMUD 3,675 214 2.34 4% $10,409 $12,823 $20,525 1.2 2.0 $2,414 $10,115CZ13 PG&E 4,818 180 2.46 4% $9,809 $34,149 $23,623 3.5 2.4 $24,340 $13,814CZ14 SDG&E 6,439 153 2.71 4% $12,103 $44,705 $26,348 3.7 2.2 $32,601 $14,245CZ14-2 SCE 6,439 153 2.71 4% $12,103 $22,032 $26,348 1.8 2.2 $9,929 $14,245CZ15 SCE 8,802 48 2.76 5% $12,534 $25,706 $31,402 2.1 2.5 $13,171 $18,868CZ16 PG&E 2,316 390 2.97 3% $11,999 $22,663 $13,888 1.9 1.2 $10,665 $1,890CZ16-2 LADWP 2,316 390 2.97 3% $11,999 $11,921 $13,888 1.0 1.2 ($78) $1,890 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 30 2019-07-15
All- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 2: All-Electric Federal Code MinimumCZ01 PG&E -29,155 3893 13.85 -4.1% ($23,048) ($8,333) ($13,910) 2.8 1.7 $14,715 $9,138CZ02 PG&E -21,786 2448 7.49 -1.0% ($27,464) ($16,476) ($4,483) 1.7 6.1 $10,987 $22,981CZ03 PG&E -14,583 1868 6.26 -0.4% ($24,111) $263 ($1,450) >1 16.6 $24,374 $22,661CZ04 PG&E -14,186 1706 5.30 -0.1% ($22,896) ($8,753) ($220) 2.6 104.2 $14,143 $22,676CZ04-2 CPAU -14,186 1706 5.30 -0.1% ($22,896) $12,493 ($220) >1 104.2 $35,389 $22,676CZ05 PG&E -14,334 1746 5.47 -1.2% ($25,507) ($1,567) ($4,197) 16.3 6.1 $23,940 $21,309CZ06 SCE -7,527 1002 3.32 0.5% ($21,762) $18,590 $1,868 >1 >1 $40,351 $23,630CZ06-2 LADWP -7,527 1002 3.32 0.5% ($21,762) $19,309 $1,868 >1 >1 $41,071 $23,630CZ07 SDG&E -3,812 522 1.76 0.3% ($23,762) $54,345 $1,318 >1 >1 $78,107 $25,080CZ08 SCE -5,805 793 2.70 0.4% ($26,922) $16,735 $1,846 >1 >1 $43,658 $28,768CZ08-2 LADWP -5,805 793 2.70 0.4% ($26,922) $17,130 $1,846 >1 >1 $44,052 $28,768CZ09 SCE -7,241 970 3.32 0.4% ($32,113) $18,582 $1,978 >1 >1 $50,695 $34,091CZ09-2 LADWP -7,241 970 3.32 0.4% ($32,113) $19,089 $1,978 >1 >1 $51,202 $34,091CZ10 SDG&E -10,336 1262 3.99 0.1% ($27,272) $54,453 $505 >1 >1 $81,724 $27,777CZ10-2 SCE -10,336 1262 3.99 0.1% ($27,272) $20,996 $505 >1 >1 $48,268 $27,777CZ11 PG&E -19,251 2415 7.95 0.5% ($32,202) ($7,951) $2,615 4.1 >1 $24,251 $34,817CZ12 PG&E -19,471 2309 7.28 -0.1% ($32,504) ($14,153) ($461) 2.3 70.4 $18,351 $32,042CZ12-2 SMUD -19,471 2309 7.28 -0.1% ($32,504) $12,939 ($461) >1 70.4 $45,443 $32,042CZ13 PG&E -16,819 1983 6.15 -0.4% ($28,158) ($10,575) ($2,022) 2.7 13.9 $17,582 $26,136CZ14 SDG&E -13,208 1672 5.44 0.7% ($26,656) $41,117 $4,461 >1 >1 $67,772 $31,117CZ14-2 SCE -13,208 1672 5.44 0.7% ($26,656) $18,467 $4,461 >1 >1 $45,123 $31,117CZ15 SCE -2,463 518 2.14 0.9% ($29,544) $16,796 $5,823 >1 >1 $46,339 $35,367CZ16 PG&E -41,418 4304 13.23 -12.2% ($25,771) ($49,862) ($52,542) 0.5 0.5 ($24,091) ($26,771)CZ16-2 LADWP -41,418 4304 13.23 -12.2% ($25,771) $39,319 ($52,542) >1 0.5 $65,090 ($26,771) * The Incremental Package Cost is the addition of the incremental HVAC and water heating equipment costs from Figure 11 and the natural gas infrastructureincremental cost savings of $28,027 (see section 3.3.2.2). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 31 2019-07-15
All- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3A: All-Electric + EECZ01 PG&E -5,478 3893 20.64 15% ($20,336) $63,593 $51,224 >1 >1 $83,929 $71,560CZ02 PG&E 2,843 2448 14.58 13% ($21,895) $74,997 $56,893 >1 >1 $96,892 $78,788CZ03 PG&E 7,791 1868 12.73 16% ($18,542) $68,968 $56,586 >1 >1 $87,511 $75,128CZ04 PG&E 8,572 1706 11.89 14% ($17,327) $81,957 $57,904 >1 >1 $99,284 $75,231CZ04-2 CPAU 8,572 1706 11.89 14% ($17,327) $63,082 $57,904 >1 >1 $80,408 $75,231CZ05 PG&E 6,973 1746 11.68 15% ($19,938) $63,677 $51,949 >1 >1 $83,615 $71,887CZ06 SCE 7,431 1002 7.72 11% ($19,050) $47,072 $42,610 >1 >1 $66,122 $61,660CZ06-2 LADWP 7,431 1002 7.72 11% ($19,050) $37,078 $42,610 >1 >1 $56,128 $61,660CZ07 SDG&E 14,350 522 6.98 13% ($18,193) $127,461 $50,828 >1 >1 $145,654 $69,021CZ08 SCE 8,524 793 6.90 10% ($24,210) $43,679 $42,258 >1 >1 $67,890 $66,468CZ08-2 LADWP 8,524 793 6.90 10% ($24,210) $34,038 $42,258 >1 >1 $58,248 $66,468CZ09 SCE 8,403 970 7.81 10% ($26,545) $47,819 $47,356 >1 >1 $74,364 $73,901CZ09-2 LADWP 8,403 970 7.81 10% ($26,545) $37,934 $47,356 >1 >1 $64,478 $73,901CZ10 SDG&E 11,737 1262 10.23 12% ($21,703) $137,436 $58,761 >1 >1 $159,139 $80,464CZ10-2 SCE 11,737 1262 10.23 12% ($21,703) $58,257 $58,761 >1 >1 $79,959 $80,464CZ11 PG&E 5,892 2415 15.13 12% ($26,633) $85,256 $65,859 >1 >1 $111,889 $92,492CZ12 PG&E 5,548 2309 14.46 12% ($26,935) $80,631 $63,903 >1 >1 $107,566 $90,838CZ12-2 SMUD 5,548 2309 14.46 12% ($26,935) $59,311 $63,903 >1 >1 $86,246 $90,838CZ13 PG&E 10,184 1983 14.15 14% ($25,446) $110,105 $80,604 >1 >1 $135,551 $106,050CZ14 SDG&E 16,583 1672 13.83 15% ($23,944) $171,200 $88,471 >1 >1 $195,145 $112,415CZ14-2 SCE 16,583 1672 13.83 15% ($23,944) $656,178 $159,604 >1 >1 $680,122 $183,548CZ15 SCE 23,642 518 9.44 12% ($26,832) $65,573 $76,781 >1 >1 $92,404 $103,612CZ16 PG&E -18,232 4304 19.80 3% ($23,059) $38,796 $14,152 >1 >1 $61,855 $37,211CZ16-2 LADWP -18,232 4304 19.80 3% ($23,059) $67,793 $14,152 >1 >1 $90,852 $37,211 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 32 2019-07-15
All- CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + PV + BCZ01 PG&E 137,956 3893 50.51 15% $254,335 $510,831 $374,432 2.0 1.5 $256,496 $120,097CZ02 PG&E 173,387 2448 49.87 13% $252,777 $590,112 $463,431 2.3 1.8 $337,336 $210,654CZ03 PG&E 180,055 1868 48.55 16% $256,129 $585,861 $452,399 2.3 1.8 $329,732 $196,270CZ04 PG&E 184,499 1706 48.38 14% $257,345 $608,814 $481,011 2.4 1.9 $351,470 $223,666CZ04-2 CPAU 184,499 1706 48.38 14% $257,345 $465,690 $481,011 1.8 1.9 $208,345 $223,666CZ05 PG&E 185,690 1746 48.84 15% $254,734 $600,933 $461,804 2.4 1.8 $346,199 $207,071CZ06 SCE 180,968 1002 43.91 11% $255,621 $335,909 $457,959 1.3 1.8 $80,288 $202,337CZ06-2 LADWP 180,968 1002 43.91 11% $255,621 $206,021 $457,959 0.8 1.8 ($49,601) $202,337CZ07 SDG&E 194,837 522 44.67 13% $256,478 $550,714 $478,637 2.1 1.9 $294,236 $222,159CZ08 SCE 184,120 793 43.32 10% $250,461 $340,301 $479,406 1.4 1.9 $89,840 $228,945CZ08-2 LADWP 184,120 793 43.32 10% $250,461 $203,813 $479,406 0.8 1.9 ($46,648) $228,945CZ09 SCE 186,346 970 44.77 10% $248,127 $349,524 $474,176 1.4 1.9 $101,397 $226,049CZ09-2 LADWP 186,346 970 44.77 10% $248,127 $216,654 $474,176 0.9 1.9 ($31,473) $226,049CZ10 SDG&E 191,923 1262 47.46 12% $252,969 $593,514 $473,605 2.3 1.9 $340,545 $220,636CZ10-2 SCE 191,923 1262 47.46 12% $252,969 $356,958 $473,605 1.4 1.9 $103,989 $220,636CZ11 PG&E 177,639 2415 50.26 12% $248,039 $585,689 $489,317 2.4 2.0 $337,650 $241,278CZ12 PG&E 176,919 2309 49.46 12% $247,736 $591,104 $484,702 2.4 2.0 $343,368 $236,966CZ12-2 SMUD 176,919 2309 49.46 12% $247,736 $335,286 $484,702 1.4 2.0 $87,550 $236,966CZ13 PG&E 183,129 1983 49.48 14% $249,226 $608,560 $483,670 2.4 1.9 $359,334 $234,444CZ14 SDG&E 208,183 1672 52.54 15% $250,727 $593,232 $544,079 2.4 2.2 $342,505 $293,351CZ14-2 SCE 264,589 1672 80.97 15% $250,727 $656,178 $580,403 2.6 2.3 $405,450 $329,676CZ15 SCE 205,869 518 45.67 12% $247,840 $347,125 $493,339 1.4 2.0 $99,285 $245,499CZ16 PG&E 176,114 4304 60.13 3% $251,612 $567,822 $446,795 2.3 1.8 $316,210 $195,183CZ16-2 LADWP 176,114 4304 60.13 3% $251,612 $241,757 $446,795 1.0 1.8 ($9,856) $195,183 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 33 2019-07-15
All- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3C: All-Electric + HECZ01 PG&E -26,199 3893 14.76 -2% ($587) $369 ($5,757) >1 0.1 $956 ($5,170)CZ02 PG&E -16,989 2448 8.95 3% ($4,211) $12,323 $11,251 >1 >1 $16,534 $15,463CZ03 PG&E -11,703 1868 7.15 2% ($2,213) $9,159 $6,944 >1 >1 $11,372 $9,157CZ04 PG&E -10,675 1706 6.37 3% ($316) $14,317 $11,383 >1 >1 $14,633 $11,700CZ04-2 CPAU -10,675 1706 6.37 3% ($316) $20,599 $11,383 >1 >1 $20,915 $11,700CZ05 PG&E -11,969 1746 6.19 1% ($2,298) $5,592 $1,824 >1 >1 $7,890 $4,122CZ06 SCE -3,919 1002 4.35 3% $1,418 $29,751 $13,734 21.0 9.7 $28,333 $12,316CZ06-2 LADWP -3,919 1002 4.35 3% $1,418 $25,891 $13,734 18.3 9.7 $24,473 $12,316CZ07 SDG&E -955 522 2.59 3% ($710) $74,518 $11,229 >1 >1 $75,227 $11,939CZ08 SCE -2,224 793 3.74 4% ($3,719) $28,067 $15,075 >1 >1 $31,785 $18,793CZ08-2 LADWP -2,224 793 3.74 4% ($3,719) $23,848 $15,075 >1 >1 $27,566 $18,793CZ09 SCE -2,089 970 4.84 4% ($8,268) $34,648 $21,162 >1 >1 $42,916 $29,430CZ09-2 LADWP -2,089 970 4.84 4% ($8,268) $28,837 $21,162 >1 >1 $37,105 $29,430CZ10 SDG&E -4,868 1262 5.58 4% ($5,222) $91,136 $20,041 >1 >1 $96,358 $25,263CZ10-2 SCE -4,868 1262 5.58 4% ($5,222) $37,200 $20,041 >1 >1 $42,422 $25,263CZ11 PG&E -12,651 2415 9.95 5% ($8,217) $29,015 $26,172 >1 >1 $37,232 $34,389CZ12 PG&E -13,479 2309 9.10 4% ($9,239) $20,839 $21,228 >1 >1 $30,078 $30,466CZ12-2 SMUD -13,479 2309 9.10 4% ($9,239) $26,507 $21,228 >1 >1 $35,746 $30,466CZ13 PG&E -9,935 1983 8.23 4% ($4,975) $30,123 $24,063 >1 >1 $35,097 $29,037CZ14 SDG&E -5,407 1672 7.71 5% $121 $88,669 $31,029 732.5 256.3 $88,547 $30,908CZ14-2 SCE -5,407 1672 7.71 5% $121 $40,709 $31,029 336.3 256.3 $40,588 $30,908CZ15 SCE 6,782 518 4.77 6% ($2,508) $42,238 $37,379 >1 >1 $44,745 $39,887CZ16 PG&E -35,297 4304 15.03 -8% $1,102 ($21,384) ($33,754) -19.4 -30.6 ($22,486) ($34,856)CZ16-2 LADWP -35,297 4304 15.03 -8% $1,102 $48,625 ($33,754) 44.1 -30.6 $47,523 ($34,856) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 34 2019-07-15

4.3 E R otel
The following issues must be considered when reviewing the Small Hotel results:

The Small Hotel is a mix of residential and nonresidential space types, which results in different occupancy and load profiles than the office and retail prototypes.

A potential laundry load has not been examined for the Small Hotel. The Reach Code Team attempted to characterize and apply the energy use intensity of laundry loads in hotels but did not find readily available data for use. Thus, cost effectiveness including laundry systems has not been examined.

Contrary to the office and retail prototypes, the Small Hotel baseline water heater is a central gas storage type. Current compliance software cannot model central heat pump water heater systems with recirculation serving guest rooms.
23 The only modeling option for heat pump water
heating is individual water heaters at each guest room even though this is a very uncommon configuration. TRC modeled individual heat pump water heaters but as a proxy for central heat pump water heating performance, but integrated costs associated with tank and controls for central heat pump water heating into cost effectiveness calculations.

Assuming central heat pump water heating also enabled the inclusion of a solar hot water thermal collection system, which was a key efficiency measure to achieving compliance in nearly all climate zones.

Figure 31 through Figure 37 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Small Hotel packages. Notable findings for each package include:
1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE:

Packages achieve +3 to +10% compliance margins depending on climate zone.

Packages are cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach in all CZs except 12 (using SMUD rates), 14 (using SCE rates), and 15 (with SCE rates).

The hotel is primarily guest rooms with a smaller proportion of nonresidential space.

Thus, the inexpensive VAV minimum flow measure and lighting measures that have been applied to the entirety of the Medium Office and Medium Retail prototypes have a relatively small impact in the Small Hotel.
24 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: Packages are cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach in all CZs. Solar PV generally increases cost effectiveness compared to efficiency-only, particularly when using an NPV metric.
1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE: Packages achieve +2 to +5% compliance margins depending on climate zone. The package is cost effective using the On-Bill approach in a minority of climate zones, and cost effective using TDV approach only in CZ15.
23 The IOUs and CEC are actively working on including central heat pump water heater modeling with recirculation systems in early 2020.
24 Title 24 requires that hotel/motel guest room lighting design comply with the residential lighting standards, which are all mandatory and are not awarded compliance credit for improved efficacy. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 35 2019-07-15
2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference:

This all-electric design does not comply with the Energy Commission’s TDV performance budget. Packages achieve between -50% and -4% compliance margins depending on climate zone. This may be because the modeled HW system is constrained to having an artificially low efficiency to avoid triggering federal pre-emption, and the heat pump space heating systems must operate overnight when operation is less efficient.

All packages are cost effective in all climate zones.
3A – All-Electric + EE: Packages achieve positive compliance margins in all CZs ranging from 0% to +17%, except CZ16 which had a -18% compliance margin. All packages are cost effective in all climate zones. The improved degree of cost effectiveness outcomes in Package 3A compared to Package 1A appear to be due to the significant incremental package cost savings. 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: All packages are cost effective. Packages improve in B/C ratio when compared to 3A and increase in magnitude of overall NPV savings. PV appears to be more costeffective with higher building electricity loads. 3C – All-Electric + HE:

Packages do not comply with Title 24 in all CZs except CZ15 which resulted in a +0.04% compliance margin.

All packages are cost effective.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 36 2019-07-15
Mixed- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1A: Mixed Fuel + EECZ01 PG&E 3,855 1288 5.65 9% $20,971 $34,339 $36,874 1.6 1.8 $13,368 $15,903CZ02 PG&E 3,802 976 3.91 7% $20,971 $26,312 $29,353 1.3 1.4 $5,341 $8,381CZ03 PG&E 4,153 1046 4.48 10% $20,971 $31,172 $35,915 1.5 1.7 $10,201 $14,944CZ04 PG&E 5,007 395 0.85 6% $21,824 $24,449 $24,270 1.1 1.1 $2,625 $2,446CZ04-2 CPAU 4,916 422 0.98 6% $21,824 $18,713 $24,306 0.9 1.1 ($3,111) $2,483CZ05 PG&E 3,530 1018 4.13 9% $20,971 $28,782 $34,448 1.4 1.6 $7,810 $13,477CZ05-2 SCG 3,530 1018 4.13 9% $20,971 $23,028 $34,448 1.1 1.6 $2,057 $13,477CZ06 SCE 5,137 418 1.16 8% $21,824 $16,001 $26,934 0.7 1.2 ($5,823) $5,110CZ06-2 LADWP 5,137 418 1.16 8% $21,824 $11,706 $26,934 0.5 1.2 ($10,118) $5,110CZ07 SDG&E 5,352 424 1.31 8% $21,824 $26,699 $27,975 1.2 1.3 $4,876 $6,152CZ08 SCE 5,151 419 1.21 7% $21,824 $15,931 $23,576 0.7 1.1 ($5,893) $1,752CZ08-2 LADWP 5,151 419 1.21 7% $21,824 $11,643 $23,576 0.5 1.1 ($10,180) $1,752CZ09 SCE 5,229 406 1.16 6% $21,824 $15,837 $22,365 0.7 1.0 ($5,987) $541CZ09-2 LADWP 5,229 406 1.16 6% $21,824 $11,632 $22,365 0.5 1.0 ($10,192) $541CZ10 SDG&E 4,607 342 0.92 5% $21,824 $25,506 $22,219 1.2 1.0 $3,683 $396CZ10-2 SCE 4,607 342 0.92 5% $21,824 $13,868 $22,219 0.6 1.0 ($7,956) $396CZ11 PG&E 4,801 325 0.87 4% $21,824 $22,936 $19,503 1.1 0.9 $1,112 ($2,321)CZ12 PG&E 5,276 327 0.90 5% $21,824 $22,356 $21,305 1.0 0.98 $532 ($519)CZ12-2 SMUD 5,276 327 0.90 5% $21,824 $15,106 $21,305 0.7 0.98 ($6,717) ($519)CZ13 PG&E 4,975 310 0.87 4% $21,824 $23,594 $19,378 1.1 0.9 $1,770 ($2,445)CZ14 SDG&E 4,884 370 0.82 4% $21,824 $24,894 $21,035 1.1 0.96 $3,070 ($789)CZ14-2 SCE 4,884 370 0.82 4% $21,824 $14,351 $21,035 0.7 0.96 ($7,473) ($789)CZ15 SCE 5,187 278 1.23 3% $21,824 $13,645 $18,089 0.6 0.8 ($8,178) ($3,735)CZ16 PG&E 2,992 1197 4.95 6% $20,971 $27,813 $30,869 1.3 1.5 $6,842 $9,898CZ16-2 LADWP 2,992 1197 4.95 6% $20,971 $19,782 $30,869 0.9 1.5 ($1,190) $9,898 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 37 2019-07-15
Mixed- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1B: Mixed Fuel + EE + PV + BCZ01 PG&E 107,694 1288 28.73 9% $228,341 $366,509 $295,731 1.6 1.3 $138,168 $67,390CZ02 PG&E 130,144 976 31.14 7% $228,341 $359,248 $336,575 1.6 1.5 $130,907 $108,233CZ03 PG&E 129,107 1046 31.57 10% $228,341 $430,737 $335,758 1.9 1.5 $202,396 $107,416CZ04 PG&E 132,648 395 28.46 6% $229,194 $355,406 $338,455 1.6 1.5 $126,212 $109,262CZ04-2 CPAU 132,556 422 28.59 6% $229,194 $322,698 $338,492 1.4 1.5 $93,504 $109,298CZ05 PG&E 136,318 1018 32.73 9% $228,341 $452,611 $352,342 2.0 1.5 $224,269 $124,001CZ05-2 SCG 136,318 1018 32.73 9% $228,341 $446,858 $352,342 2.0 1.5 $218,516 $124,001CZ06 SCE 131,051 418 28.47 8% $229,194 $217,728 $336,843 0.9 1.5 ($11,466) $107,649CZ06-2 LADWP 131,051 418 28.47 8% $229,194 $131,052 $336,843 0.6 1.5 ($98,142) $107,649CZ07 SDG&E 136,359 424 29.63 8% $229,194 $306,088 $345,378 1.3 1.5 $76,894 $116,184CZ08 SCE 132,539 419 28.85 7% $229,194 $227,297 $353,013 1.0 1.5 ($1,897) $123,819CZ08-2 LADWP 132,539 419 28.85 7% $229,194 $134,739 $353,013 0.6 1.5 ($94,455) $123,819CZ09 SCE 131,422 406 28.82 6% $229,194 $230,791 $343,665 1.0 1.5 $1,597 $114,471CZ09-2 LADWP 131,422 406 28.82 6% $229,194 $136,024 $343,665 0.6 1.5 ($93,170) $114,471CZ10 SDG&E 134,146 342 29.05 5% $229,194 $339,612 $342,574 1.5 1.5 $110,418 $113,380CZ10-2 SCE 134,146 342 29.05 5% $229,194 $226,244 $342,574 1.0 1.5 ($2,949) $113,380CZ11 PG&E 128,916 325 27.62 4% $229,194 $352,831 $337,208 1.5 1.5 $123,637 $108,014CZ12 PG&E 131,226 327 28.04 5% $229,194 $425,029 $338,026 1.9 1.5 $195,835 $108,832CZ12-2 SMUD 131,226 327 28.04 5% $229,194 $213,176 $338,026 0.9 1.5 ($16,018) $108,832CZ13 PG&E 127,258 310 27.33 4% $229,194 $351,244 $324,217 1.5 1.4 $122,050 $95,023CZ14 SDG&E 147,017 370 30.96 4% $229,194 $861,445 $217,675 3.8 0.9 $632,251 ($11,518)CZ14-2 SCE 147,017 370 30.96 4% $229,194 $244,100 $381,164 1.1 1.7 $14,906 $151,970CZ15 SCE 137,180 278 29.12 3% $229,194 $225,054 $348,320 1.0 1.5 ($4,140) $119,127CZ16 PG&E 141,478 1197 34.60 6% $228,341 $377,465 $357,241 1.7 1.6 $149,124 $128,899CZ16-2 LADWP 141,478 1197 34.60 6% $228,341 $136,563 $357,241 0.6 1.6 ($91,778) $128,899 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 38 2019-07-15
33 Mixed- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1C: Mixed Fuel + HECZ01 PG&E 10 632 3.76 2% $22,839 $11,015 $10,218 0.5 0.4 ($11,823) ($12,621)CZ02 PG&E 981 402 2.69 3% $23,092 $16,255 $11,808 0.7 0.5 ($6,837) ($11,284)CZ03 PG&E 81 383 2.30 2% $20,510 $7,066 $6,850 0.3 0.3 ($13,444) ($13,660)CZ04 PG&E 161 373 2.26 2% $22,164 $8,593 $7,645 0.4 0.3 ($13,571) ($14,519)CZ04-2 CPAU 161 373 2.26 2% $22,164 $7,097 $7,645 0.3 0.3 ($15,067) ($14,519)CZ05 PG&E 154 361 2.19 2% $21,418 $6,897 $6,585 0.3 0.3 ($14,521) ($14,833)CZ05-2 SCG 154 361 2.19 2% $21,418 $4,786 $6,585 0.2 0.3 ($16,632) ($14,833)CZ06 SCE 237 201 1.27 2% $20,941 $3,789 $4,882 0.2 0.2 ($17,152) ($16,059)CZ06-2 LADWP 237 201 1.27 2% $20,941 $3,219 $4,882 0.2 0.2 ($17,722) ($16,059)CZ07 SDG&E 1,117 158 1.28 2% $19,625 $13,771 $7,342 0.7 0.4 ($5,854) ($12,283)CZ08 SCE 1,302 169 1.39 2% $20,678 $8,378 $8,591 0.4 0.4 ($12,300) ($12,088)CZ08-2 LADWP 1,302 169 1.39 2% $20,678 $5,802 $8,591 0.3 0.4 ($14,877) ($12,088)CZ09 SCE 1,733 178 1.56 3% $20,052 $10,489 $11,164 0.5 0.6 ($9,563) ($8,888)CZ09-2 LADWP 1,733 178 1.56 3% $20,052 $7,307 $11,164 0.4 0.6 ($12,745) ($8,888)CZ10 SDG&E 3,170 220 2.29 4% $22,682 $35,195 $19,149 1.6 0.8 $12,513 ($3,533)CZ10-2 SCE 3,170 220 2.29 4% $22,682 $16,701 $19,149 0.7 0.8 ($5,981) ($3,533)CZ11 PG&E 3,343 323 2.96 4% $23,344 $27,633 $20,966 1.2 0.9 $4,288 ($2,379)CZ12 PG&E 1,724 320 2.44 4% $22,302 $11,597 $15,592 0.5 0.7 ($10,705) ($6,710)CZ12-2 SMUD 1,724 320 2.44 4% $22,302 $11,156 $15,592 0.5 0.7 ($11,146) ($6,710)CZ13 PG&E 3,083 316 2.81 3% $22,882 $23,950 $17,068 1.0 0.7 $1,068 ($5,814)CZ14 SDG&E 3,714 312 2.99 4% $23,299 $35,301 $21,155 1.5 0.9 $12,002 ($2,144)CZ14-2 SCE 3,714 312 2.99 4% $23,299 $18,460 $21,155 0.8 0.9 ($4,839) ($2,144)CZ15 SCE 8,684 97 3.21 5% $20,945 $26,738 $31,600 1.3 1.5 $5,792 $10,655CZ16 PG&E 836 700 4.42 3% $24,616 $18,608 $14,494 0.8 0.6 ($6,007) ($10,121)CZ16-2 LADWP 836 700 4.42 3% $24,616 $15,237 $14,494 0.6 0.6 ($9,378) ($10,121) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 39 2019-07-15
All- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 2: All-Electric Federal Code MinimumCZ01 PG&E -159,802 16917 53.92 -28% ($1,296,784) ($582,762) ($115,161) 2.2 11.3 $714,022 $1,181,623CZ02 PG&E -118,739 12677 40.00 -12% ($1,297,757) ($245,434) ($51,620) 5.3 25.1 $1,052,322 $1,246,137CZ03 PG&E -110,595 12322 40.48 -14% ($1,300,029) ($326,633) ($51,166) 4.0 25.4 $973,396 $1,248,863CZ04 PG&E -113,404 11927 36.59 -13% ($1,299,864) ($225,307) ($53,134) 5.8 24.5 $1,074,556 $1,246,730CZ04-2 CPAU -113,404 11927 36.59 -13% ($1,299,864) ($17,768) ($53,134) 73.2 24.5 $1,282,096 $1,246,730CZ05 PG&E -108,605 11960 38.34 -15% ($1,299,917) ($350,585) ($54,685) 3.7 23.8 $949,332 $1,245,232CZ06 SCE -78,293 8912 29.36 -5% ($1,300,058) ($61,534) ($28,043) 21.1 46.4 $1,238,524 $1,272,015CZ06-2 LA -78,293 8912 29.36 -5% ($1,300,058) $43,200 ($28,043) >1 46.4 $1,343,258 $1,272,015CZ07 SDG&E -69,819 8188 28.04 -7% ($1,298,406) ($137,638) ($23,199) 9.4 56.0 $1,160,768 $1,275,207CZ08 SCE -71,914 8353 28.21 -6% ($1,296,376) ($53,524) ($22,820) 24.2 56.8 $1,242,852 $1,273,556CZ08-2 LA -71,914 8353 28.21 -6% ($1,296,376) $42,841 ($22,820) >1 56.8 $1,339,217 $1,273,556CZ09 SCE -72,262 8402 28.38 -6% ($1,298,174) ($44,979) ($21,950) 28.9 59.1 $1,253,196 $1,276,224CZ09-2 LA -72,262 8402 28.38 -6% ($1,298,174) $46,679 ($21,950) >1 59.1 $1,344,853 $1,276,224CZ10 SDG&E -80,062 8418 26.22 -8% ($1,295,176) ($172,513) ($36,179) 7.5 35.8 $1,122,663 $1,258,997CZ10-2 SCE -80,062 8418 26.22 -8% ($1,295,176) ($63,974) ($36,179) 20.2 35.8 $1,231,202 $1,258,997CZ11 PG&E -99,484 10252 30.99 -10% ($1,295,985) ($186,037) ($49,387) 7.0 26.2 $1,109,948 $1,246,598CZ12 PG&E -99,472 10403 32.08 -10% ($1,297,425) ($340,801) ($45,565) 3.8 28.5 $956,624 $1,251,860CZ12-2 SMUD -99,067 10403 32.21 -10% ($1,297,425) $5,794 ($44,354) >1 29.3 $1,303,219 $1,253,071CZ13 PG&E -96,829 10029 30.60 -10% ($1,295,797) ($184,332) ($50,333) 7.0 25.7 $1,111,465 $1,245,464CZ14 SDG&E -101,398 10056 29.68 -11% ($1,296,156) ($325,928) ($56,578) 4.0 22.9 $970,228 $1,239,578CZ14-2 SCE -101,398 10056 29.68 -11% ($1,296,156) ($121,662) ($56,578) 10.7 22.9 $1,174,494 $1,239,578CZ15 SCE -49,853 5579 18.07 -4% ($1,294,276) $209 ($21,420) >1 60.4 $1,294,485 $1,272,856CZ16 PG&E -216,708 17599 41.89 -50% ($1,300,552) ($645,705) ($239,178) 2.0 5.4 $654,847 $1,061,374CZ16-2 LA -216,708 17599 41.89 -50% ($1,300,552) $30,974 ($239,178) >1 5.4 $1,331,526 $1,061,374 * The Incremental Package Cost is the addition of the incremental HVAC and water heating equipment costs from Figure 12, the electrical infrastructureincremental cost of $26,800 (see section 3.3.2.1), and the natural gas infrastructure incremental cost savings of $56,020 (see section 3.3.2.2). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 40 2019-07-15
All- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp-liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3A: All-Electric + EECZ01 PG&E -113,259 16917 62.38 1.3% ($1,251,544) ($200,367) $5,460 6.2 >1 $1,051,177 $1,257,005CZ02 PG&E -90,033 12677 45.46 4% ($1,265,064) ($108,075) $15,685 11.7 >1 $1,156,989 $1,280,749CZ03 PG&E -83,892 12322 45.93 6% ($1,267,509) ($198,234) $20,729 6.4 >1 $1,069,274 $1,288,237CZ04 PG&E -91,197 11927 40.36 0.2% ($1,263,932) ($112,892) $703 11.2 >1 $1,151,041 $1,264,635CZ04-2 CPAU -90,981 11927 40.42 0.2% ($1,263,932) $32,557 $918 >1 >1 $1,296,489 $1,264,850CZ05 PG&E -82,491 11960 43.62 5% ($1,267,355) ($221,492) $18,488 5.7 >1 $1,045,863 $1,285,843CZ06 SCE -61,523 8912 32.45 7% ($1,267,916) ($33,475) $15,142 37.9 >1 $1,234,441 $1,283,057CZ06-2 LADWP -61,523 8912 32.45 7% ($1,267,916) $57,215 $15,142 >1 >1 $1,325,130 $1,283,057CZ07 SDG&E -53,308 8188 31.22 7% ($1,266,354) ($81,338) $22,516 15.6 >1 $1,185,015 $1,288,870CZ08 SCE -55,452 8353 31.33 3% ($1,264,408) ($23,893) $9,391 52.9 >1 $1,240,515 $1,273,800CZ08-2 LADWP -55,452 8353 31.33 3% ($1,264,408) $57,058 $9,391 >1 >1 $1,321,466 $1,273,800CZ09 SCE -55,887 8402 31.40 2% ($1,266,302) ($19,887) $9,110 63.7 >1 $1,246,415 $1,275,412CZ09-2 LADWP -55,887 8402 31.40 2% ($1,266,302) $60,441 $9,110 >1 >1 $1,326,743 $1,275,412CZ10 SDG&E -60,239 8418 29.96 2% ($1,256,002) ($126,072) $7,365 10.0 >1 $1,129,930 $1,263,367CZ10-2 SCE -60,239 8418 29.96 2% ($1,256,002) ($33,061) $7,365 38.0 >1 $1,222,940 $1,263,367CZ11 PG&E -77,307 10252 35.12 1% ($1,256,149) ($80,187) $3,114 15.7 >1 $1,175,962 $1,259,263CZ12 PG&E -75,098 10403 36.73 2% ($1,256,824) ($234,275) $9,048 5.4 >1 $1,022,550 $1,265,872CZ12-2 SMUD -75,098 10403 36.73 2% ($1,256,824) $54,941 $9,048 >1 >1 $1,311,765 $1,265,872CZ13 PG&E -75,052 10029 34.72 0.3% ($1,256,109) ($79,378) $1,260 15.8 >1 $1,176,731 $1,257,369CZ14 SDG&E -76,375 10056 34.28 0.1% ($1,255,704) ($170,975) $543 7.3 >1 $1,084,729 $1,256,247CZ14-2 SCE -76,375 10056 34.28 0.1% ($1,255,704) ($34,418) $543 36.5 >1 $1,221,286 $1,256,247CZ15 SCE -33,722 5579 21.43 2% ($1,257,835) $26,030 $12,262 >1 >1 $1,283,864 $1,270,097CZ16 PG&E -139,676 17599 55.25 -14% ($1,255,364) ($197,174) ($66,650) 6.4 18.8 $1,058,190 $1,188,714CZ16-2 LADWP -139,676 17599 55.25 -14% ($1,255,364) $165,789 ($66,650) >1 18.8 $1,421,153 $1,188,714 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 41 2019-07-15
All-Elect
CZ Utility
ElecSavings(kWh)
GasSavings(therms)
GHGReductions(mtons)
Comp- lianceMargin
IncrementalPackage Cost
LifecycleUtility CostSavings
$TDVSavings
B/CRatio(On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3B: All-Electric + EE + PV + BCZ01 PG&E -8,900 16917 87.15 1% ($1,044,174) $90,964 $324,376 >1 >1 $1,135,139 $1,368,551CZ02 PG&E 36,491 12677 73.03 4% ($1,057,694) $242,514 $313,711 >1 >1 $1,300,208 $1,371,405CZ03 PG&E 41,239 12322 73.43 6% ($1,060,139) $155,868 $308,385 >1 >1 $1,216,007 $1,368,524CZ04 PG&E 36,628 11927 69.70 0.2% ($1,056,562) $240,799 $308,682 >1 >1 $1,297,361 $1,365,244CZ04-2 CPAU 36,844 11927 69.76 0.2% ($1,056,562) $336,813 $418,836 >1 >1 $1,393,375 $1,475,398CZ05 PG&E 36,365 11960 73.11 5% ($1,059,985) $119,173 $317,952 >1 >1 $1,179,158 $1,377,937CZ06 SCE 64,476 8912 60.47 7% ($1,060,545) $156,327 $311,730 >1 >1 $1,216,872 $1,372,275CZ06-2 LADWP 64,476 8912 60.47 7% ($1,060,545) $180,648 $311,730 >1 >1 $1,241,193 $1,372,275CZ07 SDG&E 77,715 8188 60.45 7% ($1,058,983) $197,711 $330,458 >1 >1 $1,256,694 $1,389,441CZ08 SCE 71,990 8353 59.49 3% ($1,057,038) $165,393 $320,814 >1 >1 $1,222,432 $1,377,852CZ08-2 LADWP 71,990 8353 60.24 3% ($1,057,038) $180,367 $443,809 >1 >1 $1,237,405 $1,500,847CZ09 SCE 70,465 8402 59.29 2% ($1,058,932) $175,602 $301,459 >1 >1 $1,234,534 $1,360,391CZ09-2 LADWP 70,465 8402 59.29 2% ($1,058,932) $183,220 $301,459 >1 >1 $1,242,152 $1,360,391CZ10 SDG&E 69,581 8418 58.04 2% ($1,048,632) $161,513 $294,530 >1 >1 $1,210,145 $1,343,162CZ10-2 SCE 69,581 8418 58.04 2% ($1,048,632) $164,837 $294,530 >1 >1 $1,213,469 $1,343,162CZ11 PG&E 47,260 10252 61.57 1% ($1,048,779) $253,717 $286,797 >1 >1 $1,302,496 $1,335,576CZ12 PG&E 51,115 10403 64.07 2% ($1,049,454) $104,523 $305,446 >1 >1 $1,153,977 $1,354,900CZ12-2 SMUD 51,115 10403 64.99 2% ($1,049,454) $253,197 $430,977 >1 >1 $1,302,651 $1,480,431CZ13 PG&E 47,757 10029 60.77 0.3% ($1,048,739) $251,663 $281,877 >1 >1 $1,300,402 $1,330,616CZ14 SDG&E 66,084 10056 64.54 0.1% ($1,048,334) $148,510 $334,938 >1 >1 $1,196,844 $1,383,272CZ14-2 SCE 66,084 10056 64.54 0.1% ($1,048,334) $185,018 $334,938 >1 >1 $1,233,352 $1,383,272CZ15 SCE 98,755 5579 49.04 2.1% ($1,050,465) $233,308 $311,121 >1 >1 $1,283,772 $1,361,585CZ16 PG&E -873 17599 84.99 -14% ($1,047,994) $191,994 $240,724 >1 >1 $1,239,987 $1,288,718CZ16-2 LADWP -873 17599 84.99 -14% ($1,047,994) $291,279 $240,724 >1 >1 $1,339,273 $1,288,718 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 42 2019-07-15
All- CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3C: All-Electric + HECZ01 PG&E -154,840 16917 56.24 -24% ($1,281,338) ($606,619) ($101,272) 2.1 12.7 $674,719 $1,180,066CZ02 PG&E -118,284 12677 41.18 -11% ($1,283,243) ($395,641) ($44,505) 3.2 28.8 $887,602 $1,238,738CZ03 PG&E -113,413 12322 40.80 -14% ($1,288,782) ($522,458) ($51,582) 2.5 25.0 $766,324 $1,237,200CZ04 PG&E -115,928 11927 37.09 -13% ($1,287,878) ($383,177) ($53,285) 3.4 24.2 $904,701 $1,234,593CZ04-2 CPAU -115,928 11927 37.09 -13% ($1,287,878) ($24,170) ($53,285) 53.3 24.2 $1,263,708 $1,234,593CZ05 PG&E -111,075 11960 38.75 -15% ($1,288,242) ($530,740) ($56,124) 2.4 23.0 $757,502 $1,232,119CZ06 SCE -83,000 8912 29.41 -15% ($1,288,695) ($154,625) ($32,244) 8.3 40.0 $1,134,069 $1,256,451CZ06-2 LADWP -83,000 8912 29.41 -15% ($1,288,695) ($17,626) ($32,244) 73.1 40.0 $1,271,068 $1,256,451CZ07 SDG&E -73,823 8188 28.32 -7% ($1,285,759) ($268,207) ($24,069) 4.8 53.4 $1,017,552 $1,261,690CZ08 SCE -75,573 8353 28.56 -6% ($1,281,241) ($157,393) ($21,912) 8.1 58.5 $1,123,848 $1,259,329CZ08-2 LADWP -75,573 8353 28.56 -6% ($1,281,241) ($18,502) ($21,912) 69.2 58.5 $1,262,739 $1,259,329CZ09 SCE -74,790 8402 29.04 -4% ($1,285,139) ($138,746) ($16,992) 9.3 75.6 $1,146,393 $1,268,147CZ09-2 LADWP -74,790 8402 29.04 -4% ($1,285,139) ($6,344) ($16,992) 202.6 75.6 $1,278,794 $1,268,147CZ10 SDG&E -80,248 8418 27.57 -5% ($1,278,097) ($235,479) ($24,107) 5.4 53.0 $1,042,617 $1,253,990CZ10-2 SCE -80,248 8418 27.57 -5% ($1,278,097) ($123,371) ($24,107) 10.4 53.0 $1,154,726 $1,253,990CZ11 PG&E -98,041 10252 32.73 -7% ($1,279,528) ($278,242) ($35,158) 4.6 36.4 $1,001,286 $1,244,370CZ12 PG&E -100,080 10403 33.24 -9% ($1,282,834) ($480,347) ($38,715) 2.7 33.1 $802,487 $1,244,119CZ12-2 SMUD -100,080 10403 33.24 -9% ($1,282,834) ($23,362) ($38,715) 54.9 33.1 $1,259,472 $1,244,119CZ13 PG&E -94,607 10029 32.47 -7% ($1,279,301) ($276,944) $244,552 4.6 >1 $1,002,357 $1,523,853CZ14 SDG&E -97,959 10056 31.91 -7% ($1,279,893) ($302,123) ($37,769) 4.2 33.9 $977,770 $1,242,124CZ14-2 SCE -97,959 10056 31.91 -7% ($1,279,893) ($129,082) ($37,769) 9.9 33.9 $1,150,811 $1,242,124CZ15 SCE -45,226 5579 20.17 0.04% ($1,276,847) ($6,533) $227 195.4 >1 $1,270,314 $1,277,074CZ16 PG&E -198,840 17599 47.73 -39% ($1,288,450) ($605,601) ($185,438) 2.1 6.9 $682,848 $1,103,011CZ16-2 LADWP -198,840 17599 47.73 -39% ($1,288,450) $40,268 ($185,438) >1 6.9 $1,328,718 $1,103,011 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 43 2019-07-15

4.4 PV- PV+Battery
The Reach Code Team ran packages of PV-only and PV+Battery measures, without any additional efficiency measures, to assess cost effectiveness on top of the mixed-fuel baseline building and the allelectric federal code minimum reference (Package 2 in Sections 4.1 – 4.3).

Jurisdictions interested in adopting PV-only reach codes should reference the mixed-fuel cost effectiveness results because a mixed-fuel building is the baseline for the nonresidential prototypes analyzed in this study. PV or PV+Battery packages are added to all-electric federal code minimum reference which (in many scenarios) do not have a positive compliance margin compared to the mixedfuel baseline model, and are solely provided for informational purposes. Jurisdictions interested in reach codes requiring all-electric+PV or all-electric+PV+battery should reference package 3B results in Sections

4.1 – 4.3.
25 Each of the following eight packages were evaluated against a mixed fuel baseline designed as per 2019 Title 24 Part 6 requirements.

Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV Only:

Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh battery
Mixed-Fuel + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller
Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery All-Electric + 3 kW PV Only
All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery
All-Electric + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller
All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery Figure 38 through Figure 40 summarize the on-bill and TDV B/C ratios for each prototype for the two PV only packages and the two PV plus battery packages. Compliance margins are 0 percent for all mixed-fuel packages. For all-electric packages, compliance margins are equal to those found in Package 2 for each prototype in Sections 4.1 – 4.3. The compliance margins are not impacted by renewables and battery storage measures and hence not shown in the tables. These figures are formatted in the following way:

Cells highlighted in green have a B/C ratio greater than 1 and are cost-effective. The shade of green gets darker as cost effectiveness increases.

Cells not highlighted have a B/C ratio less than one and are not cost effective. 25 Because this study shows that the addition of battery generally reduces cost effectiveness, removing a battery measure would only increase cost effectiveness. Thus, a jurisdiction can apply the EE+PV+Battery cost effectiveness findings to support EE+PV reach codes, because EE+PV would still remain cost effective without a battery. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 44 2019-07-15
Please see Appendix 6.7 for results in full detail. Generally, for mixed-fuel packages across all prototypes, all climate zones were proven to have cost effective outcomes using TDV except in CZ1 with a 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery scenario. Most climate zones also had On-Bill cost effectiveness. The addition of a battery slightly reduces cost effectiveness.

In all-electric packages, the results for most climate zones were found cost effective using both TDV and On-Bill approaches with larger PV systems or PV+Battery systems. Most 3 kW PV systems were also found to be cost effective except in some scenarios analyzing the Medium Office using the On-Bill method. CZ16 results continue to show challenges being cost effective with all electric buildings, likely due to the high heating loads in this climate. The addition of a battery slightly reduces the cost effectiveness for allelectric buildings with PV. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 45 2019-07-15
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 46 2019-07-15
for
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 47 2019-07-15
Battery
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 48 2019-07-15
5 Summary Conclusions
The Reach Codes Team developed packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with PV generation and battery storage systems, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes team coordinated assumptions 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.

5.1 Summary
Figure 41 through Figure 43 summarize results for each prototype and depict the compliance margins achieved for each climate zone and package. Because local reach codes must both exceed the Energy Commission performance budget (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) and be cost-effective, the Reach Code Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary for potential reach code policies:

Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches.

Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.

Cells not highlighted either depict a negative compliance margin or a package that was not cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.

For more detail on the results in the Figures, please refer to Section 4 Results. As described in Section 4.4, PV-only and PV+Battery packages in the mixed-fuel building were found to be cost effective across all prototypes, climate zones, and packages using the TDV approach, and results are not reiterated in the following figures.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 49 2019-07-15
CZ Utility
Mixed Fuel All Electric
EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE
CZ01 PG&E 18% 18% 3% -15% 7% 7% -14%
CZ02 PG&E 17% 17% 4% -7% 10% 10% -5%
CZ03 PG&E 20% 20% 3% -7% 16% 16% -6%
CZ04 PG&E 14% 14% 5% -6% 9% 9% -3%
CZ04-2 CPAU 14% 14% 5% -6% 9% 9% -3%
CZ05 PG&E 18% 18% 4% -8% 12% 12% -6%
CZ05-2 SCG 18% 18% 4% NA NA NA NA
CZ06 SCE 20% 20% 3% -4% 18% 18% -2%
CZ06-2 LADWP 20% 20% 3% -4% 18% 18% -2%
CZ07 SDG&E 20% 20% 4% -2% 20% 20% 1%
CZ08 SCE 18% 18% 4% -2% 18% 18% 1%
CZ08-2 LADWP 18% 18% 4% -2% 18% 18% 1%
CZ09 SCE 16% 16% 4% -2% 15% 15% 2%
CZ09-2 LADWP 16% 16% 4% -2% 15% 15% 2%
CZ10 SDG&E 17% 17% 4% -4% 13% 13% -1%
CZ10-2 SCE 17% 17% 4% -4% 13% 13% -1%
CZ11 PG&E 13% 13% 5% -4% 10% 10% 0%
CZ12 PG&E 14% 14% 5% -5% 10% 10% -1%
CZ12-2 SMUD 14% 14% 5% -5% 10% 10% -1%
CZ13 PG&E 13% 13% 5% -4% 9% 9% 0%
CZ14 SDG&E 14% 14% 5% -5% 9% 9% -1%
CZ14-2 SCE 14% 14% 5% -5% 9% 9% -1%
CZ15 SCE 12% 12% 5% -2% 10% 10% 3%
CZ16 PG&E 14% 14% 5% -27% -15% -15% -26%
CZ16-2 LADWP 14% 14% 5% -27% -15% -15% -26%
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 50 2019-07-15
CZ Utility
Mixed Fuel All Electric
EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE
CZ01 PG&E 18% 18% 2% -4.1% 15% 15% -2%
CZ02 PG&E 13% 13% 3% -1.0% 13% 13% 3%
CZ03 PG&E 16% 16% 2% -0.4% 16% 16% 2%
CZ04 PG&E 14% 14% 3% -0.1% 14% 14% 3%
CZ04-2 CPAU 14% 14% 3% -0.1% 14% 14% 3%
CZ05 PG&E 16% 16% 1% -1.2% 15% 15% 1%
CZ05-2 SCG 16% 16% 1% NA NA NA NA
CZ06 SCE 10% 10% 3% 0.5% 11% 11% 3%
CZ06-2 LADWP 10% 10% 3% 0.5% 11% 11% 3%
CZ07 SDG&E 13% 13% 2% 0.3% 13% 13% 3%
CZ08 SCE 10% 10% 3% 0.4% 10% 10% 4%
CZ08-2 LADWP 10% 10% 3% 0.4% 10% 10% 4%
CZ09 SCE 10% 10% 4% 0.4% 10% 10% 4%
CZ09-2 LADWP 10% 10% 4% 0.4% 10% 10% 4%
CZ10 SDG&E 12% 12% 4% 0.1% 12% 12% 4%
CZ10-2 SCE 12% 12% 4% 0.1% 12% 12% 4%
CZ11 PG&E 13% 13% 4% 0.5% 12% 12% 5%
CZ12 PG&E 13% 13% 4% -0.1% 12% 12% 4%
CZ12-2 SMUD 13% 13% 4% -0.1% 12% 12% 4%
CZ13 PG&E 15% 15% 4% -0.4% 14% 14% 4%
CZ14 SDG&E 13% 13% 4% 0.7% 15% 15% 5%
CZ14-2 SCE 13% 13% 4% 0.7% 15% 15% 5%
CZ15 SCE 12% 12% 5% 0.9% 12% 12% 6%
CZ16 PG&E 13% 13% 3% -12.2% 3% 3% -8%
CZ16-2 LADWP 13% 13% 3% -12.2% 3% 3% -8%
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 51 2019-07-15
Figure
CZ Utility
Mixed Fuel All Electric
EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE
CZ01 PG&E 9% 9% 2% -28% 1% 1% -24%
CZ02 PG&E 7% 7% 3% -12% 4% 4% -11%
CZ03 PG&E 10% 10% 2% -14% 6% 6% -14%
CZ04 PG&E 6% 6% 2% -13% 0.2% 0.2% -13%
CZ04-2 CPAU 6% 6% 2% -13% 0.2% 0.2% -13%
CZ05 PG&E 9% 9% 2% -15% 5% 5% -15%
CZ05-2 SCG 9% 9% 2% NA NA NA NA
CZ06 SCE 8% 8% 2% -5% 7% 7% -15%
CZ06-2 LADWP 8% 8% 2% -5% 7% 7% -15%
CZ07 SDG&E 8% 8% 2% -7% 7% 7% -7%
CZ08 SCE 7% 7% 2% -6% 3% 3% -6%
CZ08-2 LADWP 7% 7% 2% -6% 3% 3% -6%
CZ09 SCE 6% 6% 3% -6% 2% 2% -4%
CZ09-2 LADWP 6% 6% 3% -6% 2% 2% -4%
CZ10 SDG&E 5% 5% 4% -8% 2% 2% -5%
CZ10-2 SCE 5% 5% 4% -8% 2% 2% -5%
CZ11 PG&E 4% 4% 4% -10% 1% 1% -7%
CZ12 PG&E 5% 5% 4% -10% 2% 2% -9%
CZ12-2 SMUD 5% 5% 4% -10% 2% 2% -9%
CZ13 PG&E 4% 4% 3% -10% 0.3% 0.3% -7%
CZ14 SDG&E 4% 4% 4% -11% 0.1% 0.1% -7%
CZ14-2 SCE 4% 4% 4% -11% 0.1% 0.1% -7%
CZ15 SCE 3% 3% 5% -4% 2% 2% 0.04%
CZ16 PG&E 6% 6% 3% -50% -14% -14% -39%
CZ16-2 LADWP 6% 6% 3% -50% -14% -14% -39%

5.2 Findings are specific to the scenarios analyzed under this specific methodology, and largely pertain to office, retail, and hotel-type occupancies. Nonresidential buildings constitute a wide variety of occupancy profiles and process loads, making findings challenging to generalize across multiple building types.

Findings indicate the following overall conclusions:

1. This study assumed that electrifying space heating and service water heating could eliminate natural gas infrastructure alone, because these were the only gas end-uses included the prototypes. Avoiding the installation of natural gas infrastructure results in significant cost savings and is a primary factor toward cost-effective outcomes in all-electric designs, even with necessary increases in electrical capacity.

2. There is ample opportunity for cost effective energy efficiency improvements, as demonstrated by the compliance margins achieved in many of the efficiency-only and efficiency + PV packages.

Though much of the energy savings are attributable to lighting measures, efficiency measures selected for these prototypes are confined to the building systems that can be modeled. There is 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 52 2019-07-15
likely further opportunity for energy savings through measures that cannot be currently demonstrated in compliance software, such as high-performance control sequences or variable speed parallel fan powered boxes.

3. High efficiency appliances triggering federal preemption do not achieve as high compliance margins as the other efficiency measures analyzed in this study. Cost effectiveness appears to be dependent on the system type and building type. Nonetheless, specifying high efficiency equipment will always be a key feature in integrated design.

4. Regarding the Small Hotel prototype:
a. The Small Hotel presents a challenging prototype to cost-effectively exceed the state’s energy performance budget without efficiency measures. The Reach Code Team is uncertain of the precision of the results due to the inability to directly model either drain water heat recovery or a central heat pump water heater with a recirculation loop. b. Hotel results may be applicable to high-rise (4 or more stories) multifamily buildings. Both hotel and multifamily buildings have the same or similar mandatory and prescriptive compliance options for hot water systems, lighting, and envelope. Furthermore, the Alternate Calculation Method Reference Manual specifies the same baseline HVAC system for both building types.
c. Hotel compliance margins were the lowest among the three building types analyzed, and thus the most conservative performance thresholds applicable to other nonresidential buildings not analyzed in this study. As stated previously, the varying occupancy and energy profiles of nonresidential buildings makes challenging to directly apply these results across all buildings.

5. Many all-electric and solar PV packages demonstrated greater GHG reductions than their mixedfuel counterparts, contrary to TDV-based performance, suggesting a misalignment among the TDV metric and California’s long-term GHG-reduction goals. The Energy Commission has indicated that they are aware of this issue and are seeking to address it.

6. Changes to the Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Reference Manual can drastically impact results. Two examples include:
a. When performance modeling residential buildings, the Standard Design is electric if the Proposed Design is electric, which removes TDV-related penalties and associated negative compliance margins. This essentially allows for a compliance pathway for all-electric residential buildings. If nonresidential buildings were treated in the same way, all-electric cost effectiveness using the TDV approach would improve. b. The baseline mixed-fuel system for a hotel includes a furnace in each guest room, which carries substantial plumbing costs and labor costs for assembly. A change in the baseline system would lead to different base case costs and different cost effectiveness outcomes.

7. All-electric federal code-minimum packages appear to be cost effective, largely due to avoided natural gas infrastructure, but in most cases do not comply with the Energy Commission’s minimum performance budget (as described in item 7a above). For most cases it appears that adding cost-effective efficiency measures achieves compliance. All-electric nonresidential projects can leverage the initial cost savings of avoiding natural gas infrastructure by adding energy efficiency measures that would not be cost effective independently. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 53 2019-07-15
6 Appendices

6.1 Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 44. The map in Figure 44 along with a zipcode search directory is available at:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 54 2019-07-15

6.2 Measures
Figure 45 details the applicability and impact of each lighting efficiency measure by prototype and space function and includes the resulting LPD that is modeled as the proposed by building type and by space function.

Space Function
Baseline Impact
Modeled
Proposed
LPD
(W/ft2)
Interior
Lighting
Reduced
LPD
Institutional
Tuning
Daylight
Dimming
Plus OFF
Occupant
Sensing in
Open Office
Plan
LPD
(W/ft2)
Medium Office
Office Area (Open plan office) -
Interior 0.65 15% 10% - 17% 0.429
Office Area (Open plan office) -
Perimeter 0.65 15% 5% 10% 30% 0.368
Medium Retail
Commercial/Industrial Storage
(Warehouse) 0.45 10% 5% - - 0.386
Main Entry Lobby 0.85 10% 5% - - 0.729
Retail Sales Area (Retail
Merchandise Sales) 0.95 5% 5% - - 0.857
Small Hotel
Commercial/Industrial Storage
(Warehouse) 0.45 10% 5% - - 0.386
Convention, Conference,
Multipurpose, and Meeting 0.85 10% 5% - - 0.729
Corridor Area 0.60 10% 5% - - 0.514
Exercise/Fitness Center and
Gymnasium Areas 0.50 10% - - - 0.450
Laundry Area 0.45 10% - - - 0.405
Lounge, Breakroom, or Waiting
Area 0.65 10% 5% - - 0.557
Mechanical 0.40 10% - - - 0.360
Office Area (>250 ft2) 0.65 10% 5% - - 0.557

6.3 Drain
To support potential DWHR savings in the Small Hotel prototype, the Reach Code Team modeled the drain water heat recovery measure in CBECC-Res 2019 in the all-electric and mixed fuel 6,960 ft2 prototype residential buildings. The Reach Code Team assumed one heat recovery device for every three showers assuming unequal flow to the shower. Based on specifications from three different drain water heat recovery device manufacturers for device effectiveness in hotel applications, the team assumed a heat recovery efficiency of 50 percent.

The Reach Code Team modeled mixed fuel and all-electric residential prototype buildings both with and without heat recovery in each climate zone. Based on these model results, the Reach Code Team determined the percentage savings of domestic water heating energy in terms of gas, electricity, and TDV for mixed fuel and all-electric, in each climate zone. The Reach Code Team then applied the savings 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 55 2019-07-15
percentages to the Small Hotel prototype domestic water heating energy in both the mixed-fuel and allelectric to determine energy savings for the drain water heat recovery measure in the Small Hotel. The Reach Code Team applied volumetric energy rates to estimate on-bill cost impacts from this measure.

6.4 Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the IOU and POU rates depicted in Figure 46 to determine the On-Bill savings for each prototype.

Utility
Climate
Zones
Electric /
Gas Utility
Electricity (Time-of-use) Natural Gas
Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel All Prototypes
CZ01 PG&E A-10 A-1 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ02 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ03 PG&E A-10 A-1 or A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ04 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ04-2 CPAU/PG&E E-2 E-2 E-2 G-NR1
CZ05 PG&E A-10 A-1 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ05-2 PG&E/SCG A-10 A-1 A-1 or A-10 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ06 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ06 LADWP/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ07 SDG&E
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU) GN-3
CZ08 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ08-2 LADWP/SCG A-2 (B) A-2 (B) A-2 (B) G-10 (GN-10)
CZ09 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ09-2 LADWP/SCG A-2 (B) A-2 (B) A-2 (B) G-10 (GN-10)
CZ10 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ10-2 SDG&E
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU) GN-3
CZ11 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-10 G-NR1
CZ12 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ12-2 SMUD/PG&E GS GS GS G-NR1
CZ13 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-10 G-NR1
CZ14 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-3 TOU-GS-3 TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ14-2 SDG&E
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU) GN-3
CZ15 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-3 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ16 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ16-2 LADWP/SCG A-2 (B) A-2 (B) A-2 (B) G-10 (GN-10)
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 56 2019-07-15

6.5 Figures 47 to 49 show the annual electricity and natural gas consumption and cost, compliance TDV, and GHG emissions for each prototype under the mixed fuel design baseline. 47 Climate
Zone Utility
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Electricity
Cost
Natural
Gas Cost
Compliance
TDV
GHG
Emissions
(lbs)
Medium Office Mixed Fuel Baseline
CZ01 PG&E 358,455 4,967 $109,507 $6,506 84 266,893
CZ02 PG&E 404,865 3,868 $130,575 $5,256 122 282,762
CZ03 PG&E 370,147 3,142 $116,478 $4,349 88 251,759
CZ04 PG&E 431,722 3,759 $140,916 $5,144 141 299,993
CZ04-2 CPAU 431,722 3,759 $75,363 $5,144 141 299,993
CZ05 PG&E 400,750 3,240 $131,277 $4,481 106 269,768
CZ05-2 SCG 400,750 3,240 $131,277 $3,683 106 269,768
CZ06 SCE 397,441 2,117 $74,516 $2,718 105 253,571
CZ06-2 LA 397,441 2,117 $44,311 $2,718 105 253,571
CZ07 SDG&E 422,130 950 $164,991 $4,429 118 257,324
CZ08 SCE 431,207 1,219 $79,181 $1,820 132 265,179
CZ08-2 LA 431,207 1,219 $46,750 $1,820 132 265,179
CZ09 SCE 456,487 1,605 $86,190 $2,196 155 287,269
CZ09-2 LA 456,487 1,605 $51,111 $2,196 155 287,269
CZ10 SDG&E 431,337 2,053 $173,713 $5,390 130 272,289
CZ10-2 SCE 431,337 2,053 $80,636 $2,603 130 272,289
CZ11 PG&E 464,676 3,062 $150,520 $4,333 163 310,307
CZ12 PG&E 441,720 3,327 $142,902 $4,647 152 299,824
CZ12-2 SMUD 441,720 3,327 $65,707 $4,647 152 299,824
CZ13 PG&E 471,540 3,063 $150,919 $4,345 161 316,228
CZ14 SDG&E 467,320 3,266 $185,812 $6,448 165 314,258
CZ14-2 SCE 467,320 3,266 $92,071 $3,579 165 314,258
CZ15 SCE 559,655 1,537 $105,388 $2,058 211 347,545
CZ16 PG&E 405,269 6,185 $127,201 $8,056 116 312,684
CZ16-2 LA 405,269 6,185 $43,115 $8,056 116 312,684
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 57 2019-07-15
48 Climate
Zone Utility
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Electricity
Cost
Natural
Gas Cost
Compliance
TDV
GHG
Emissions
(lbs)
Medium Retail Mixed Fuel Baseline
CZ01 PG&E 184,234 3,893 $43,188 $5,247 155 156,972
CZ02 PG&E 214,022 2,448 $70,420 $3,572 202 157,236
CZ03 PG&E 199,827 1,868 $47,032 $2,871 165 140,558
CZ04 PG&E 208,704 1,706 $66,980 $2,681 187 143,966
CZ04-2 CPAU 208,704 1,706 $36,037 $2,681 187 143,966
CZ05 PG&E 195,864 1,746 $45,983 $2,697 155 135,849
CZ05-2 SCG 195,864 1,746 $45,983 $2,342 155 135,849
CZ06 SCE 211,123 1,002 $36,585 $1,591 183 135,557
CZ06-2 LA 211,123 1,002 $21,341 $1,591 183 135,557
CZ07 SDG&E 211,808 522 $75,486 $4,055 178 130,436
CZ08 SCE 212,141 793 $36,758 $1,373 190 133,999
CZ08-2 LA 212,141 793 $21,436 $1,373 190 133,999
CZ09 SCE 227,340 970 $40,083 $1,560 218 146,680
CZ09-2 LA 227,340 970 $23,487 $1,560 218 146,680
CZ10 SDG&E 235,465 1,262 $87,730 $4,700 228 154,572
CZ10-2 SCE 235,465 1,262 $41,000 $1,853 228 154,572
CZ11 PG&E 234,560 2,415 $76,670 $3,547 244 170,232
CZ12 PG&E 228,958 2,309 $75,084 $3,426 234 165,133
CZ12-2 SMUD 228,958 2,309 $32,300 $3,426 234 165,133
CZ13 PG&E 242,927 1,983 $81,995 $3,034 258 170,345
CZ14 SDG&E 264,589 1,672 $97,581 $5,059 277 178,507
CZ14-2 SCE 264,589 1,672 $46,217 $2,172 277 178,507
CZ15 SCE 290,060 518 $50,299 $1,083 300 179,423
CZ16 PG&E 212,204 4,304 $67,684 $5,815 197 180,630
CZ16-2 LA 212,204 4,304 $20,783 $5,815 197 180,630
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 58 2019-07-15
Climate
Zone Utility
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Electricity
Cost
Natural
Gas Cost
Compliance
TDV
GHG
Emissions
(lbs)
Small Hotel Mixed Fuel Baseline
CZ01 PG&E 184,234 3,893 $43,188 $5,247 155 340,491
CZ02 PG&E 214,022 2,448 $70,420 $3,572 202 293,056
CZ03 PG&E 199,827 1,868 $47,032 $2,871 165 284,217
CZ04 PG&E 208,704 1,706 $66,980 $2,681 187 281,851
CZ04-2 CPAU 208,704 1,706 $36,037 $2,681 187 281,851
CZ05 PG&E 195,864 1,746 $45,983 $2,697 155 281,183
CZ05-2 SCG 195,864 1,746 $45,983 $2,342 155 281,183
CZ06 SCE 211,123 1,002 $36,585 $1,591 183 244,664
CZ06-2 LA 211,123 1,002 $21,341 $1,591 183 244,664
CZ07 SDG&E 211,808 522 $75,486 $4,055 178 233,884
CZ08 SCE 212,141 793 $36,758 $1,373 190 236,544
CZ08-2 LA 212,141 793 $21,436 $1,373 190 236,544
CZ09 SCE 227,340 970 $40,083 $1,560 218 242,296
CZ09-2 LA 227,340 970 $23,487 $1,560 218 242,296
CZ10 SDG&E 235,465 1,262 $87,730 $4,700 228 255,622
CZ10-2 SCE 235,465 1,262 $41,000 $1,853 228 255,622
CZ11 PG&E 234,560 2,415 $76,670 $3,547 244 282,232
CZ12 PG&E 228,958 2,309 $75,084 $3,426 234 270,262
CZ12-2 SMUD 228,958 2,309 $32,300 $3,426 234 270,262
CZ13 PG&E 242,927 1,983 $81,995 $3,034 258 284,007
CZ14 SDG&E 264,589 1,672 $97,581 $5,059 277 283,287
CZ14-2 SCE 264,589 1,672 $46,217 $2,172 277 283,287
CZ15 SCE 290,060 518 $50,299 $1,083 300 260,378
CZ16 PG&E 212,204 4,304 $67,684 $5,815 197 358,590
CZ16-2 LA 212,204 4,304 $20,783 $5,815 197 358,590

6.6 Effectiveness
The Reach Codes Team further analyzed TDV cost effectiveness of the all-electric packages with a mixedfuel design baseline using propane instead of natural gas. Results for each package are shown in Figure

50. through Figure 53. below.

All electric models compared to a propane baseline have positive compliance margins in all climate zones when compared to results using a natural gas baseline. Compliance margin improvement is roughly 30 percent, which also leads to improved cost effectiveness for the all-electric packages. These outcomes are likely due to the TDV penalty associated with propane when compared to natural gas. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 59 2019-07-15
Across packages, TDV cost effectiveness with a propane baseline follows similar trends as the natural gas baseline. Adding efficiency measures increased compliance margins by 3 to 10 percent depending on climate zone, while adding high efficiency HVAC and SHW equipment alone increased compliance margins by smaller margins of about 2 to 4 percent compared to the All-Electric package. 50 Hotel -
Climate
Zone
Complianc
e
Margin
(%)
Incremental
Package Cost $-TDV Savings
B/C Ratio
(TDV) NPV (TDV)
CZ01 -4% ($1,271,869) ($28,346) 44.9 $1,243,523
CZ02 27% ($1,272,841) $170,263 >1 $1,443,104
CZ03 -3% ($1,275,114) ($16,425) 77.6 $1,258,689
CZ04 26% ($1,274,949) $155,466 >1 $1,430,414
CZ05 27% ($1,275,002) $154,709 >1 $1,429,710
CZ06 17% ($1,275,143) $126,212 >1 $1,401,355
CZ07 25% ($1,273,490) $117,621 >1 $1,391,111
CZ08 24% ($1,271,461) $122,087 >1 $1,393,548
CZ09 23% ($1,273,259) $123,525 >1 $1,396,784
CZ10 18% ($1,270,261) $109,522 >1 $1,379,783
CZ11 19% ($1,271,070) $129,428 >1 $1,400,498
CZ12 -4% ($1,272,510) ($26,302) 48.4 $1,246,208
CZ13 18% ($1,270,882) $124,357 >1 $1,395,239
CZ14 17% ($1,271,241) $117,621 >1 $1,388,861
CZ15 -7% ($1,269,361) ($45,338) 28.0 $1,224,023
CZ16 9% ($1,275,637) $68,272 >1 $1,343,908
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 60 2019-07-15
51 Hotel llElectric
Climate
Zone
Compliance
Margin (%)
Incremental
Package Cost $-TDV Savings
B/C Ratio
(TDV) NPV (TDV)
CZ01 35% ($1,250,898) $252,831 >1 $1,503,729
CZ02 34% ($1,251,870) $217,238 >1 $1,469,108
CZ03 37% ($1,254,142) $218,642 >1 $1,472,784
CZ04 31% ($1,250,769) $191,393 >1 $1,442,162
CZ05 36% ($1,254,031) $208,773 >1 $1,462,804
CZ06 25% ($1,250,964) $159,714 >1 $1,410,677
CZ07 32% ($1,249,311) $154,111 >1 $1,403,422
CZ08 29% ($1,247,282) $146,536 >1 $1,393,818
CZ09 27% ($1,249,080) $146,671 >1 $1,395,751
CZ10 22% ($1,246,081) $134,477 >1 $1,380,559
CZ11 23% ($1,246,891) $157,138 >1 $1,404,029
CZ12 27% ($1,248,330) $167,945 >1 $1,416,276
CZ13 22% ($1,246,703) $149,270 >1 $1,395,973
CZ14 21% ($1,247,061) $145,269 >1 $1,392,331
CZ15 14% ($1,245,182) $93,647 >1 $1,338,829
CZ16 20% ($1,254,665) $154,035 >1 $1,408,701
52 Hotel llElectric
Climate
Zone
Compliance
Margin (%)
Incremental
Package Cost $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (TDV)
CZ01 35% ($1,043,528) $511,688 >1 $1,555,215
CZ02 34% ($1,044,500) $524,460 >1 $1,568,960
CZ03 37% ($1,046,772) $518,485 >1 $1,565,257
CZ04 31% ($1,043,399) $505,579 >1 $1,548,978
CZ05 36% ($1,046,660) $526,668 >1 $1,573,328
CZ06 25% ($1,043,594) $469,623 >1 $1,513,216
CZ07 32% ($1,041,941) $471,513 >1 $1,513,454
CZ08 29% ($1,039,912) $475,973 >1 $1,515,885
CZ09 27% ($1,041,710) $467,971 >1 $1,509,681
CZ10 22% ($1,038,711) $454,832 >1 $1,493,543
CZ11 23% ($1,039,521) $474,844 >1 $1,514,364
CZ12 27% ($1,040,960) $484,667 >1 $1,525,627
CZ13 22% ($1,039,333) $454,108 >1 $1,493,441
CZ14 21% ($1,039,691) $505,398 >1 $1,545,090
CZ15 14% ($1,037,811) $423,879 >1 $1,461,691
CZ16 20% ($1,047,295) $480,407 >1 $1,527,702
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 61 2019-07-15
53 Hotel
Climate
Zone
Compliance
Margin (%)
Incremental
Package Cost $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (TDV)
CZ01 27% ($1,256,423) $194,975 >1 $1,451,398
CZ02 28% ($1,258,328) $177,378 >1 $1,435,706
CZ03 28% ($1,263,867) $164,094 >1 $1,427,961
CZ04 26% ($1,262,963) $155,314 >1 $1,418,277
CZ05 26% ($1,263,327) $153,271 >1 $1,416,598
CZ06 17% ($1,263,779) $122,011 >1 $1,385,790
CZ07 24% ($1,260,844) $116,751 >1 $1,377,594
CZ08 25% ($1,256,326) $122,995 >1 $1,379,321
CZ09 24% ($1,260,223) $128,482 >1 $1,388,706
CZ10 20% ($1,253,181) $121,595 >1 $1,374,776
CZ11 21% ($1,254,613) $143,658 >1 $1,398,271
CZ12 23% ($1,257,919) $142,901 >1 $1,400,820
CZ13 21% ($1,254,386) $138,625 >1 $1,393,011
CZ14 20% ($1,254,978) $136,430 >1 $1,391,407
CZ15 14% ($1,251,932) $96,087 >1 $1,348,019
CZ16 15% ($1,263,534) $122,011 >1 $1,385,545
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 62 2019-07-15

6.7 PV- PV+Battery- The Reach Code Tea evaluated cost effectiveness of installing a PV system and battery storage in six different measure combinations over a 2019code-compliant baseline for all climate zones. The baseline for all nonresidential buildings is a mixed-fuel design.All mixed fuel models are compliant with 2019 Title24, whereas all electric models can show negative compliance. The compliance margin is thesame as that of their respective federal minimum design and is not affected by addition of solar PV or battery. These scenarios evaluate the costeffectiveness of PV and/or battery measure individually. The climate zones where all-electric design is not compliant will have the flexibility toramp up the efficiency of appliance or add another measure to be code compliant, as per package 1B and 3B in main body of the report. The largenegative lifecycle costs in all electric packages are due to lower all-electric HVAC system costs and avoided natural gas infrastructure costs. This iscommonly applied across all climate zones and packages over any additional costs for PV and battery.6.7.1Figure 54 through Figure 61 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Office packages. Notable findings for each package include:

Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV Only: All packages are cost effective using the On-Bill and TDV approaches.Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: The packages are mostly cost effective on a TDV basis except in CZ1. As compared to the 3 kW PVonly package, battery reduces cost effectiveness. This package is not cost effective for LADWP and SMUD territories using an On-Billapproach.

Mixed-Fuel + PV only: The packages are less cost effective as compared to 3 kW PV packages in most climate zones. In areas served byLADWP, the B/C ratio is narrowly less than 1 and not cost effective.Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: The packages are cost effective in all climate zones except for in the areas served by LADWP. On-Billand TDV B/C ratios are slightly lower compared to the PV only package.All-Electric + 3 kW PV: Packages are on-bill cost effective in ten of sixteen climate zones. Climate zones 1,2,4,12, and 16 were not found tobe cost-effective from an on-bill perspective. These zones are within PG&E’s service area. Packages are cost effective using TDV in allclimate zones except CZ16.All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: Packages are slightly more cost effective than the previous minimal PV only package. Packages areon-bill cost effective in most climate zones except for 1,2 and 16 from an on-bill perspective. These zones are within PG&E’s service area.Packages are cost effective using TDV in all climate zones except CZ16.All-Electric + PV only: All packages are cost effective and achieve savings using the On-Bill and TDV approaches. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 63 2019-07-15
All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: All packages are cost effective and achieve savings using the On-Bill and TDV approaches. On-Bill andTDV B/C ratios are slightly lower compared to the PV only package. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 64 2019-07-15
54 CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle $- TDV Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV
(On-bill)
NPV
(TDV)
Mixed Fuel + 3kW PVCZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $5,566 $15,743 $8,448 2.8 1.5 $10,177 $2,882CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $5,566 $20,372 $10,500 3.7 1.9 $14,806 $4,934CZ03 PG&E 4,660 0 0.9 $5,566 $20,603 $9,975 3.7 1.8 $15,037 $4,409CZ04 PG&E 5,056 0 1.0 $5,566 $20,235 $11,073 3.6 2.0 $14,669 $5,507CZ04-2 CPAU 5,056 0 1.0 $5,566 $11,945 $11,073 2.1 2.0 $6,379 $5,507CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $5,566 $23,159 $10,834 4.2 1.9 $17,593 $5,268CZ06 SCE 4,853 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,968 $10,930 2.0 2.0 $5,402 $5,364CZ06-2 LADWP 4,853 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,575 $10,930 1.2 2.0 $1,009 $5,364CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $5,566 $17,904 $11,025 3.2 2.0 $12,338 $5,459CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,768 $11,359 1.9 2.0 $5,202 $5,793CZ08-2 LADWP 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,503 $11,359 1.2 2.0 $937 $5,793CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 1.0 $5,566 $10,622 $11,216 1.9 2.0 $5,056 $5,650CZ09-2 LADWP 4,889 0 1.0 $5,566 $6,217 $11,216 1.1 2.0 $651 $5,650CZ10 SDG&E 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $21,280 $10,787 3.8 1.9 $15,714 $5,221CZ10-2 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $11,598 $10,787 2.1 1.9 $6,032 $5,221CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $5,566 $19,869 $10,644 3.6 1.9 $14,303 $5,078CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.9 $5,566 $19,643 $10,644 3.5 1.9 $14,077 $5,078CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.9 $5,566 $8,005 $10,644 1.4 1.9 $2,439 $5,078CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $5,566 $19,231 $10,262 3.5 1.8 $13,665 $4,696CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.0 $5,566 $18,789 $12,600 3.4 2.3 $13,223 $7,034CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.0 $5,566 $10,512 $12,600 1.9 2.3 $4,946 $7,034CZ15 SCE 5,099 0 1.0 $5,566 $10,109 $11,550 1.8 2.1 $4,543 $5,984CZ16 PG&E 5,096 0 1.0 $5,566 $21,836 $10,882 3.9 2.0 $16,270 $5,316CZ16-2 LADWP 5,096 0 1.0 $5,566 $6,501 $10,882 1.2 2.0 $935 $5,316 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 65 2019-07-15
Figu 55 Battery
CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5kWh BatteryCZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $9,520 $15,743 $8,448 1.7 0.9 $6,223 ($1,072)CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $9,520 $20,372 $10,500 2.1 1.1 $10,852 $980CZ03 PG&E 4,660 0 0.9 $9,520 $20,603 $9,975 2.2 1.0 $11,083 $455CZ04 PG&E 5,056 0 1.0 $9,520 $20,235 $11,073 2.1 1.2 $10,714 $1,553CZ04-2 CPAU 5,056 0 1.0 $9,520 $11,945 $11,073 1.3 1.2 $2,425 $1,553CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $9,520 $23,159 $10,834 2.4 1.1 $13,639 $1,314CZ06 SCE 4,853 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,968 $10,930 1.2 1.1 $1,448 $1,410CZ06-2 LADWP 4,853 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,575 $10,930 0.7 1.1 ($2,945) $1,410CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $9,520 $17,904 $11,025 1.9 1.2 $8,384 $1,505CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,768 $11,359 1.1 1.2 $1,248 $1,839CZ08-2 LADWP 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,503 $11,359 0.7 1.2 ($3,017) $1,839CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 1.0 $9,520 $10,622 $11,216 1.1 1.2 $1,102 $1,696CZ09-2 LADWP 4,889 0 1.0 $9,520 $6,217 $11,216 0.7 1.2 ($3,303) $1,696CZ10 SDG&E 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $21,280 $10,787 2.2 1.1 $11,760 $1,267CZ10-2 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $11,598 $10,787 1.2 1.1 $2,078 $1,267CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $9,520 $19,869 $10,644 2.1 1.1 $10,349 $1,123CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.9 $9,520 $19,643 $10,644 2.1 1.1 $10,123 $1,123CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.9 $9,520 $8,005 $10,644 0.8 1.1 ($1,515) $1,123CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $9,520 $19,231 $10,262 2.0 1.1 $9,711 $742CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.0 $9,520 $18,789 $12,600 2.0 1.3 $9,269 $3,080CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.0 $9,520 $10,512 $12,600 1.1 1.3 $992 $3,080CZ15 SCE 5,099 0 1.0 $9,520 $10,109 $11,550 1.1 1.2 $589 $2,030CZ16 PG&E 5,096 0 1.0 $9,520 $21,836 $10,882 2.3 1.1 $12,316 $1,362CZ16-2 LADWP 5,096 0 1.0 $9,520 $6,501 $10,882 0.7 1.1 ($3,019) $1,362 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 66 2019-07-15
56 CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On- bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed Fuel +135kW PVCZ01 PG&E 177,340 0 34.3 $302,856 $526,352 $380,399 1.7 1.3 $223,497 $77,544CZ02 PG&E 215,311 0 41.5 $302,856 $666,050 $471,705 2.2 1.6 $363,194 $168,849CZ03 PG&E 209,717 0 40.7 $302,856 $645,010 $449,797 2.1 1.5 $342,154 $146,942CZ04 PG&E 227,535 0 44.0 $302,856 $686,434 $497,431 2.3 1.6 $383,578 $194,575CZ04-2 CPAU 227,535 0 44.0 $302,856 $537,521 $497,431 1.8 1.6 $234,665 $194,575CZ05 PG&E 226,195 0 44.1 $302,856 $753,230 $486,596 2.5 1.6 $450,374 $183,741CZ06 SCE 218,387 0 42.3 $302,856 $401,645 $492,515 1.3 1.6 $98,789 $189,659CZ06-2 LADWP 218,387 0 42.3 $302,856 $233,909 $492,515 0.8 1.6 ($68,947) $189,659CZ07 SDG&E 223,185 0 43.3 $302,856 $623,078 $496,667 2.1 1.6 $320,223 $193,811CZ08 SCE 217,171 0 42.0 $302,856 $389,435 $510,270 1.3 1.7 $86,579 $207,414CZ08-2 LADWP 217,171 0 42.0 $302,856 $222,066 $510,270 0.7 1.7 ($80,790) $207,414CZ09 SCE 220,010 0 43.2 $302,856 $387,977 $505,783 1.3 1.7 $85,122 $202,928CZ09-2 LADWP 220,010 0 43.2 $302,856 $226,516 $505,783 0.7 1.7 ($76,340) $202,928CZ10 SDG&E 217,148 0 42.5 $302,856 $632,726 $485,451 2.1 1.6 $329,870 $182,595CZ10-2 SCE 217,148 0 42.5 $302,856 $394,884 $485,451 1.3 1.6 $92,028 $182,595CZ11 PG&E 211,556 0 40.9 $302,856 $671,691 $478,912 2.2 1.6 $368,835 $176,056CZ12 PG&E 211,824 0 40.9 $302,856 $653,242 $478,101 2.2 1.6 $350,386 $175,245CZ12-2 SMUD 211,824 0 40.9 $302,856 $345,255 $478,101 1.1 1.6 $42,399 $175,245CZ13 PG&E 208,465 0 40.5 $302,856 $651,952 $462,732 2.2 1.5 $349,096 $159,876CZ14 SDG&E 241,965 0 46.7 $302,856 $659,487 $566,351 2.2 1.9 $356,632 $263,496CZ14-2 SCE 241,965 0 46.7 $302,856 $401,712 $566,351 1.3 1.9 $98,856 $263,496CZ15 SCE 229,456 0 43.9 $302,856 $378,095 $520,102 1.2 1.7 $75,239 $217,246CZ16 PG&E 229,317 0 44.8 $302,856 $707,095 $489,508 2.3 1.6 $404,239 $186,652CZ16-2 LADWP 229,317 0 44.8 $302,856 $223,057 $489,508 0.7 1.6 ($79,799) $186,652 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 67 2019-07-15
57 CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On- bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + 50 kWh BatteryCZ01 PG&E 176,903 0 35.3 $330,756 $525,948 $381,450 1.6 1.2 $195,192 $50,694CZ02 PG&E 214,861 0 42.6 $330,756 $665,864 $472,898 2.0 1.4 $335,108 $142,142CZ03 PG&E 209,255 0 41.8 $330,756 $644,170 $451,611 1.9 1.4 $313,414 $120,855CZ04 PG&E 227,076 0 45.0 $330,756 $685,605 $502,108 2.1 1.5 $354,849 $171,352CZ04-2 CPAU 227,076 0 45.0 $330,756 $536,463 $502,108 1.6 1.5 $205,707 $171,352CZ05 PG&E 225,752 0 45.1 $330,756 $753,558 $487,742 2.3 1.5 $422,803 $156,986CZ06 SCE 217,939 0 43.4 $330,756 $401,356 $494,042 1.2 1.5 $70,601 $163,286CZ06-2 LADWP 217,939 0 43.4 $330,756 $233,673 $494,042 0.7 1.5 ($97,083) $163,286CZ07 SDG&E 222,746 0 44.4 $330,756 $628,383 $498,147 1.9 1.5 $297,627 $167,391CZ08 SCE 216,724 0 43.1 $330,756 $389,184 $511,511 1.2 1.5 $58,428 $180,755CZ08-2 LADWP 216,724 0 43.1 $330,756 $221,839 $511,511 0.7 1.5 ($108,917) $180,755CZ09 SCE 219,563 0 44.2 $330,756 $387,728 $506,929 1.2 1.5 $56,972 $176,173CZ09-2 LADWP 219,563 0 44.2 $330,756 $226,303 $506,929 0.7 1.5 ($104,453) $176,173CZ10 SDG&E 216,700 0 43.5 $330,756 $638,040 $486,644 1.9 1.5 $307,284 $155,888CZ10-2 SCE 216,700 0 43.5 $330,756 $394,633 $486,644 1.2 1.5 $63,877 $155,888CZ11 PG&E 211,129 0 41.9 $330,756 $670,932 $481,298 2.0 1.5 $340,177 $150,543CZ12 PG&E 211,386 0 41.9 $330,756 $652,465 $482,826 2.0 1.5 $321,709 $152,070CZ12-2 SMUD 211,386 0 41.9 $330,756 $344,668 $482,826 1.0 1.5 $13,913 $152,070CZ13 PG&E 208,045 0 41.5 $330,756 $651,191 $473,280 2.0 1.4 $320,435 $142,524CZ14 SDG&E 241,502 0 47.7 $330,756 $672,601 $569,454 2.0 1.7 $341,846 $238,698CZ14-2 SCE 241,502 0 47.7 $330,756 $401,450 $569,454 1.2 1.7 $70,694 $238,698CZ15 SCE 229,062 0 44.8 $330,756 $377,827 $521,963 1.1 1.6 $47,071 $191,208CZ16 PG&E 228,825 0 45.9 $330,756 $706,201 $496,190 2.1 1.5 $375,445 $165,434CZ16-2 LADWP 228,825 0 45.9 $330,756 $222,802 $496,190 0.7 1.5 ($107,953) $165,434 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 68 2019-07-15
58 All- CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PVCZ01 PG&E -49,716 4967 10.9 ($80,523) ($84,765) ($49,972) 0.9 1.6 ($4,242) $30,551CZ02 PG&E -44,899 3868 6.0 ($66,965) ($83,115) ($30,928) 0.8 2.2 ($16,150) $36,037CZ03 PG&E -31,226 3142 6.5 ($75,600) ($39,441) ($19,617) 1.9 3.9 $36,159 $55,983CZ04 PG&E -43,772 3759 5.7 ($62,282) ($70,999) ($29,496) 0.9 2.1 ($8,717) $32,786CZ04-2 CPAU -43,772 3759 5.7 ($62,282) ($8,050) ($29,496) 7.7 2.1 $54,232 $32,786CZ05 PG&E -35,504 3240 5.5 ($77,773) ($42,559) ($29,162) 1.8 2.7 $35,214 $48,611CZ06 SCE -21,321 2117 4.0 ($69,422) $35,862 ($9,641) >1 7.2 $105,284 $59,781CZ06-2 LADWP -21,321 2117 4.0 ($69,422) $32,936 ($9,641) >1 7.2 $102,358 $59,781CZ07 SDG&E -7,943 950 1.9 ($63,595) $64,781 ($382) >1 166.6 $128,376 $63,214CZ08 SCE -10,854 1219 2.5 ($62,043) $28,651 ($1,289) >1 48.1 $90,694 $60,755CZ08-2 LADWP -10,854 1219 2.5 ($62,043) $25,122 ($1,289) >1 48.1 $87,165 $60,755CZ09 SCE -14,878 1605 3.3 ($56,372) $31,542 ($3,246) >1 17.4 $87,913 $53,126CZ09-2 LADWP -14,878 1605 3.3 ($56,372) $28,145 ($3,246) >1 17.4 $84,517 $53,126CZ10 SDG&E -22,588 2053 3.1 ($41,171) $59,752 ($12,553) >1 3.3 $100,924 $28,619CZ10-2 SCE -22,588 2053 3.1 ($41,171) $32,039 ($12,553) >1 3.3 $73,211 $28,619CZ11 PG&E -35,455 3062 4.5 ($57,257) ($53,776) ($22,194) 1.1 2.6 $3,481 $35,063CZ12 PG&E -38,704 3327 5.0 ($61,613) ($66,808) ($24,819) 0.9 2.5 ($5,195) $36,794CZ12-2 SMUD -38,704 3327 5.0 ($61,613) $2,897 ($24,819) >1 2.5 $64,510 $36,794CZ13 PG&E -35,016 3063 4.7 ($55,996) ($52,159) ($22,146) 1.1 2.5 $3,836 $33,849CZ14 SDG&E -38,945 3266 4.5 ($58,426) $24,867 ($25,821) >1 2.3 $83,293 $32,605CZ14-2 SCE -38,945 3266 4.5 ($58,426) $15,338 ($25,821) >1 2.3 $73,764 $32,605CZ15 SCE -14,818 1537 2.8 ($29,445) $22,852 ($3,914) >1 7.5 $52,298 $25,532CZ16 PG&E -88,966 6185 6.6 ($57,366) ($193,368) ($139,989) 0.3 0.4 ($136,002) ($82,623)CZ16-2 LADWP -88,966 6185 6.6 ($57,366) $36,354 ($139,989) >1 0.4 $93,720 ($82,623) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 69 2019-07-15
59 All- Battery
CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On- bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh BatteryCZ01 PG&E -49,716 4967 10.9 ($78,897) ($84,765) ($49,972) 0.9 1.6 ($5,868) $28,925CZ02 PG&E -44,899 3868 6.0 ($78,897) ($83,115) ($30,928) 0.9 2.6 ($4,218) $47,969CZ03 PG&E -31,226 3142 6.5 ($78,897) ($39,441) ($19,617) 2.0 4.0 $39,456 $59,280CZ04 PG&E -43,772 3759 5.7 ($78,897) ($70,999) ($29,496) 1.1 2.7 $7,898 $49,400CZ04-2 CPAU -43,772 3759 5.7 ($78,897) ($8,050) ($29,496) 9.8 2.7 $70,847 $49,400CZ05 PG&E -35,504 3240 5.5 ($78,897) ($42,559) ($29,162) 1.9 2.7 $36,338 $49,735CZ06 SCE -21,321 2117 4.0 ($78,897) $35,862 ($9,641) >1 8.2 $114,759 $69,256CZ06-2 LADWP -21,321 2117 4.0 ($78,897) $32,936 ($9,641) >1 8.2 $111,833 $69,256CZ07 SDG&E -7,943 950 1.9 ($78,897) $64,781 ($382) >1 206.6 $143,678 $78,515CZ08 SCE -10,854 1219 2.5 ($78,897) $28,651 ($1,289) >1 61.2 $107,548 $77,608CZ08-2 LADWP -10,854 1219 2.5 ($78,897) $25,122 ($1,289) >1 61.2 $104,019 $77,608CZ09 SCE -14,878 1605 3.3 ($78,897) $31,542 ($3,246) >1 24.3 $110,439 $75,651CZ09-2 LADWP -14,878 1605 3.3 ($78,897) $28,145 ($3,246) >1 24.3 $107,042 $75,651CZ10 SDG&E -22,588 2053 3.1 ($78,897) $59,752 ($12,553) >1 6.3 $138,649 $66,344CZ10-2 SCE -22,588 2053 3.1 ($78,897) $32,039 ($12,553) >1 6.3 $110,936 $66,344CZ11 PG&E -35,455 3062 4.5 ($78,897) ($53,776) ($22,194) 1.5 3.6 $25,121 $56,703CZ12 PG&E -38,704 3327 5.0 ($78,897) ($66,808) ($24,819) 1.2 3.2 $12,089 $54,078CZ12-2 SMUD -38,704 3327 5.0 ($78,897) $2,897 ($24,819) >1 3.2 $81,794 $54,078CZ13 PG&E -35,016 3063 4.7 ($78,897) ($52,159) ($22,146) 1.5 3.6 $26,738 $56,751CZ14 SDG&E -38,945 3266 4.5 ($78,897) $24,867 ($25,821) >1 3.1 $103,764 $53,076CZ14-2 SCE -38,945 3266 4.5 ($78,897) $15,338 ($25,821) >1 3.1 $94,235 $53,076CZ15 SCE -14,818 1537 2.8 ($78,897) $22,852 ($3,914) >1 20.2 $101,749 $74,983CZ16 PG&E -88,966 6185 6.6 ($78,897) ($193,368) ($139,989) 0.4 0.6 ($114,472) ($61,092)CZ16-2 LADWP -88,966 6185 6.6 ($78,897) $36,354 ($139,989) >1 0.6 $115,250 ($61,092) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 70 2019-07-15
60 All- CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 135kW PVCZ01 PG&E 123,683 4967 44.5 $163,217 $405,731 $321,979 2.5 2.0 $242,514 $158,762CZ02 PG&E 165,627 3868 46.6 $176,775 $562,528 $430,276 3.2 2.4 $385,753 $253,501CZ03 PG&E 173,831 3142 46.3 $168,140 $575,864 $420,205 3.4 2.5 $407,725 $252,066CZ04 PG&E 178,706 3759 48.7 $181,458 $601,431 $456,861 3.3 2.5 $419,973 $275,403CZ04-2 CPAU 178,706 3759 48.7 $181,458 $517,526 $456,861 2.9 2.5 $336,069 $275,403CZ05 PG&E 185,664 3240 48.6 $165,967 $664,842 $446,600 4.0 2.7 $498,875 $280,633CZ06 SCE 192,214 2117 45.3 $174,317 $423,657 $471,944 2.4 2.7 $249,340 $297,626CZ06-2 LADWP 192,214 2117 45.3 $174,317 $259,270 $471,944 1.5 2.7 $84,953 $297,626CZ07 SDG&E 210,282 950 44.3 $180,145 $669,979 $485,260 3.7 2.7 $489,834 $305,115CZ08 SCE 201,491 1219 43.5 $181,696 $407,277 $497,622 2.2 2.7 $225,580 $315,925CZ08-2 LADWP 201,491 1219 43.5 $181,696 $240,657 $497,622 1.3 2.7 $58,960 $315,925CZ09 SCE 200,242 1605 45.6 $187,368 $408,922 $491,322 2.2 2.6 $221,554 $303,953CZ09-2 LADWP 200,242 1605 45.6 $187,368 $248,452 $491,322 1.3 2.6 $61,084 $303,953CZ10 SDG&E 189,734 2053 44.7 $202,568 $667,551 $462,111 3.3 2.3 $464,982 $259,543CZ10-2 SCE 189,734 2053 44.7 $202,568 $412,659 $462,111 2.0 2.3 $210,091 $259,543CZ11 PG&E 171,399 3062 44.5 $186,483 $597,807 $446,074 3.2 2.4 $411,324 $259,592CZ12 PG&E 168,413 3327 45.0 $182,127 $571,758 $442,638 3.1 2.4 $389,632 $260,511CZ12-2 SMUD 168,413 3327 45.0 $182,127 $343,602 $442,638 1.9 2.4 $161,475 $260,511CZ13 PG&E 168,817 3063 44.3 $187,744 $581,964 $430,324 3.1 2.3 $394,220 $242,580CZ14 SDG&E 197,643 3266 50.1 $185,314 $667,762 $527,930 3.6 2.8 $482,449 $342,616CZ14-2 SCE 197,643 3266 50.1 $185,314 $408,424 $527,930 2.2 2.8 $223,110 $342,616CZ15 SCE 209,539 1537 45.7 $214,294 $390,267 $504,638 1.8 2.4 $175,972 $290,343CZ16 PG&E 135,255 6185 50.4 $186,374 $470,199 $338,637 2.5 1.8 $283,825 $152,263CZ16-2 LADWP 135,255 6185 50.4 $186,374 $250,807 $338,637 1.3 1.8 $64,433 $152,263 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 71 2019-07-15
All- Battery
CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On- bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
All-Electric + 135kW PV + 50 kWh BatteryCZ01 PG&E 123,280 4967 45.4 $191,117 $404,994 $323,077 2.1 1.7 $213,877 $131,960CZ02 PG&E 165,200 3868 47.7 $204,675 $561,747 $431,469 2.7 2.1 $357,072 $226,795CZ03 PG&E 173,384 3142 47.4 $196,040 $575,043 $422,019 2.9 2.2 $379,003 $225,979CZ04 PG&E 178,259 3759 49.8 $209,358 $600,621 $461,634 2.9 2.2 $391,263 $252,276CZ04-2 CPAU 178,259 3759 49.8 $209,358 $516,495 $461,634 2.5 2.2 $307,137 $252,276CZ05 PG&E 185,229 3240 49.7 $193,867 $664,046 $447,793 3.4 2.3 $470,179 $253,926CZ06 SCE 191,767 2117 46.5 $202,217 $423,369 $473,519 2.1 2.3 $221,152 $271,301CZ06-2 LADWP 191,767 2117 46.5 $202,217 $259,033 $473,519 1.3 2.3 $56,816 $271,301CZ07 SDG&E 209,848 950 45.4 $208,045 $675,307 $486,787 3.2 2.3 $467,262 $278,743CZ08 SCE 201,047 1219 44.7 $209,596 $407,027 $498,910 1.9 2.4 $197,430 $289,314CZ08-2 LADWP 201,047 1219 44.7 $209,596 $240,432 $498,910 1.1 2.4 $30,835 $289,314CZ09 SCE 199,802 1605 46.6 $215,268 $408,676 $492,515 1.9 2.3 $193,408 $277,246CZ09-2 LADWP 199,802 1605 46.6 $215,268 $248,242 $492,515 1.2 2.3 $32,974 $277,246CZ10 SDG&E 189,293 2053 45.7 $230,468 $672,867 $463,352 2.9 2.0 $442,399 $232,884CZ10-2 SCE 189,293 2053 45.7 $230,468 $412,412 $463,352 1.8 2.0 $181,944 $232,884CZ11 PG&E 170,987 3062 45.5 $214,383 $597,062 $448,509 2.8 2.1 $382,680 $234,126CZ12 PG&E 167,995 3327 46.0 $210,027 $571,002 $447,411 2.7 2.1 $360,975 $237,384CZ12-2 SMUD 167,995 3327 46.0 $210,027 $343,043 $447,411 1.6 2.1 $133,017 $237,384CZ13 PG&E 168,408 3063 45.3 $215,644 $581,225 $440,920 2.7 2.0 $365,580 $225,275CZ14 SDG&E 197,188 3266 51.2 $213,214 $680,893 $531,080 3.2 2.5 $467,679 $317,866CZ14-2 SCE 197,188 3266 51.2 $213,214 $408,166 $531,080 1.9 2.5 $194,952 $317,866CZ15 SCE 209,148 1537 46.6 $242,194 $390,000 $506,499 1.6 2.1 $147,806 $264,305CZ16 PG&E 134,809 6185 51.4 $214,274 $469,378 $341,978 2.2 1.6 $255,105 $127,704CZ16-2 LADWP 134,809 6185 51.4 $214,274 $250,580 $341,978 1.2 1.6 $36,306 $127,704 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 72 2019-07-15

6.7.2 EffectFigure 62 through Figure 69 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Retail packages. Notable findings for each package include:

Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for all climate zones using the On-Bill and TDV approaches.Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: The packages are less cost effective as compared to the 3 kW PV only package and not costeffective for LADWP and SMUD service area.Mixed-Fuel + PV only: Packages achieve positive energy cost savings and are cost effective using the On-Bill approach for all climate zonesexcept for LADWP territory (CZs 6, 8, 9 and 16). Packages achieve positive savings and are cost effective using the TDV approach for allclimate zones.Mixed Fuel + PV + 5 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces On-Bill B/C ratios but is still cost effective for all climate zones exceptfor LADWP territory. Packages achieve savings and cost effective using the TDV approach for all climate zones.All-Electric + 3 kW PV: Packages are cost effective using the On-Bill and TDV approach for all climate zones except for CZ16 under PG&Eservice.All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: Similar to minimal PV only package, adding battery is cost effective as well using the On-Bill andTDV approach for all climate zones except for CZ16 under PG&E service.All-Electric + PV only: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings in all climate zones for both the On-Bill and TDV approachesAll-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces B/C ratios for both the On-Bill and TDV approaches. Packages are not cost effective for all climate zones except CZ6, CZ8 and CZ9 under LADWP service area. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 73 2019-07-15
Figu 62 Mixed- CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PVCZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.76 $5,566 $12,616 $8,460 2.3 1.5 $7,050 $2,894CZ02 PG&E 4,685 0 0.91 $5,566 $17,635 $10,262 3.2 1.8 $12,069 $4,696CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.92 $5,566 $15,146 $10,152 2.7 1.8 $9,580 $4,586CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 0.94 $5,566 $18,519 $10,614 3.3 1.9 $12,953 $5,048CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 0.94 $5,566 $11,507 $10,614 2.1 1.9 $5,941 $5,048CZ05 PG&E 4,910 0 0.95 $5,566 $15,641 $10,548 2.8 1.9 $10,075 $4,982CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.93 $5,566 $11,374 $10,724 2.0 1.9 $5,808 $5,158CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.93 $5,566 $7,069 $10,724 1.3 1.9 $1,503 $5,158CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 0.96 $5,566 $22,452 $11,031 4.0 2.0 $16,886 $5,465CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.93 $5,566 $11,838 $11,339 2.1 2.0 $6,272 $5,773CZ08-2 LA 4,826 0 0.93 $5,566 $7,342 $11,339 1.3 2.0 $1,776 $5,773CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 0.96 $5,566 $11,187 $11,229 2.0 2.0 $5,621 $5,663CZ09-2 LA 4,889 0 0.96 $5,566 $6,728 $11,229 1.2 2.0 $1,162 $5,663CZ10 SDG&E 4,948 0 0.97 $5,566 $20,999 $10,987 3.8 2.0 $15,433 $5,421CZ10-2 SCE 4,948 0 0.97 $5,566 $11,384 $10,987 2.0 2.0 $5,818 $5,421CZ11 PG&E 4,718 0 0.91 $5,566 $15,381 $10,680 2.8 1.9 $9,815 $5,114CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.91 $5,566 $16,442 $10,614 3.0 1.9 $10,876 $5,048CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.91 $5,566 $8,247 $10,614 1.5 1.9 $2,681 $5,048CZ13 PG&E 4,750 0 0.92 $5,566 $16,638 $10,592 3.0 1.9 $11,072 $5,026CZ14 SDG&E 5,258 0 1.01 $5,566 $19,576 $12,218 3.5 2.2 $14,010 $6,652CZ14-2 SCE 5,258 0 1.01 $5,566 $10,227 $12,218 1.8 2.2 $4,661 $6,652CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 0.96 $5,566 $10,476 $11,339 1.9 2.0 $4,910 $5,773CZ16 PG&E 5,336 0 1.04 $5,566 $20,418 $11,361 3.7 2.0 $14,852 $5,795CZ16-2 LA 5,336 0 1.04 $5,566 $6,987 $11,361 1.3 2.0 $1,421 $5,795 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 74 2019-07-15
63 Battery
CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh BatteryCZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.76 $9,520 $12,616 $8,460 1.3 0.9 $3,096 ($1,060)CZ02 PG&E 4,685 0 0.91 $9,520 $17,635 $10,262 1.9 1.1 $8,115 $742CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.92 $9,520 $15,146 $10,152 1.6 1.1 $5,626 $632CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 0.94 $9,520 $18,519 $10,614 1.9 1.1 $8,999 $1,094CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 0.94 $9,520 $11,507 $10,614 1.2 1.1 $1,987 $1,094CZ05 PG&E 4,910 0 0.95 $9,520 $15,641 $10,548 1.6 1.1 $6,120 $1,028CZ05-2 SCG 4,910 0 0.95 $9,520 $15,641 $10,548 1.6 1.1 $6,120 $1,028CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.93 $9,520 $11,374 $10,724 1.2 1.1 $1,854 $1,204CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.93 $9,520 $7,069 $10,724 0.7 1.1 ($2,452) $1,204CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 0.96 $9,520 $22,452 $11,031 2.4 1.2 $12,932 $1,511CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.93 $9,520 $11,838 $11,339 1.2 1.2 $2,317 $1,819CZ08-2 LA 4,826 0 0.93 $9,520 $7,342 $11,339 0.8 1.2 ($2,178) $1,819CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 0.96 $9,520 $11,187 $11,229 1.2 1.2 $1,667 $1,709CZ09-2 LA 4,889 0 0.96 $9,520 $6,728 $11,229 0.7 1.2 ($2,792) $1,709CZ10 SDG&E 4,948 0 0.97 $9,520 $20,999 $10,987 2.2 1.2 $11,479 $1,467CZ10-2 SCE 4,948 0 0.97 $9,520 $11,384 $10,987 1.2 1.2 $1,863 $1,467CZ11 PG&E 4,718 0 0.91 $9,520 $15,381 $10,680 1.6 1.1 $5,861 $1,160CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.91 $9,520 $16,442 $10,614 1.7 1.1 $6,922 $1,094CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.91 $9,520 $8,247 $10,614 0.9 1.1 ($1,273) $1,094CZ13 PG&E 4,750 0 0.92 $9,520 $16,638 $10,592 1.7 1.1 $7,117 $1,072CZ14 SDG&E 5,258 0 1.01 $9,520 $19,576 $12,218 2.1 1.3 $10,056 $2,698CZ14-2 SCE 5,258 0 1.01 $9,520 $10,227 $12,218 1.1 1.3 $707 $2,698CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 0.96 $9,520 $10,476 $11,339 1.1 1.2 $956 $1,819CZ16 PG&E 5,336 0 1.04 $9,520 $20,418 $11,361 2.1 1.2 $10,898 $1,841CZ16-2 LA 5,336 0 1.04 $9,520 $6,987 $11,361 0.7 1.2 ($2,533) $1,841 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 75 2019-07-15
64 Mixed- CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 110kW PVCZ01 PG&E 144,499 0 27.97 $201,904 $454,462 $309,935 2.3 1.5 $252,558 $108,031CZ02 PG&E 171,790 0 33.31 $201,904 $477,584 $376,300 2.4 1.9 $275,681 $174,396CZ03 PG&E 173,534 0 33.55 $201,904 $538,530 $372,146 2.7 1.8 $336,626 $170,243CZ04 PG&E 177,229 0 34.42 $201,904 $489,934 $389,067 2.4 1.9 $288,030 $187,163CZ04-2 CPAU 177,229 0 34.42 $201,904 $418,173 $389,067 2.1 1.9 $216,269 $187,163CZ05 PG&E 180,044 0 34.84 $201,904 $556,787 $386,958 2.8 1.9 $354,883 $185,054CZ06 SCE 174,855 0 33.92 $201,904 $288,188 $393,198 1.4 1.9 $86,284 $191,295CZ06-2 LA 174,855 0 33.92 $201,904 $165,538 $393,198 0.8 1.9 ($36,366) $191,295CZ07 SDG&E 181,854 0 35.32 $201,904 $373,974 $404,713 1.9 2.0 $172,070 $202,809CZ08 SCE 176,954 0 34.23 $201,904 $284,481 $415,789 1.4 2.1 $82,577 $213,885CZ08-2 LA 176,954 0 34.23 $201,904 $161,366 $415,789 0.8 2.1 ($40,538) $213,885CZ09 SCE 179,267 0 35.18 $201,904 $289,050 $412,097 1.4 2.0 $87,146 $210,193CZ09-2 LA 179,267 0 35.18 $201,904 $168,822 $412,097 0.8 2.0 ($33,082) $210,193CZ10 SDG&E 181,443 0 35.41 $201,904 $410,310 $402,999 2.0 2.0 $208,406 $201,095CZ10-2 SCE 181,443 0 35.41 $201,904 $291,236 $402,999 1.4 2.0 $89,332 $201,095CZ11 PG&E 172,983 0 33.46 $201,904 $464,776 $391,550 2.3 1.9 $262,872 $189,646CZ12 PG&E 172,597 0 33.33 $201,904 $467,870 $389,573 2.3 1.9 $265,966 $187,669CZ12-2 SMUD 172,597 0 33.33 $201,904 $267,086 $389,573 1.3 1.9 $65,182 $187,669CZ13 PG&E 174,151 0 33.81 $201,904 $478,857 $387,968 2.4 1.9 $276,953 $186,065CZ14 SDG&E 192,789 0 36.97 $201,904 $396,181 $448,268 2.0 2.2 $194,277 $246,364CZ14-2 SCE 192,789 0 36.97 $201,904 $288,782 $448,268 1.4 2.2 $86,878 $246,364CZ15 SCE 183,214 0 35.12 $201,904 $277,867 $415,789 1.4 2.1 $75,963 $213,885CZ16 PG&E 195,665 0 37.97 $201,904 $522,352 $416,558 2.6 2.1 $320,448 $214,654CZ16-2 LA 195,665 0 37.97 $201,904 $171,802 $416,558 0.9 2.1 ($30,101) $214,654 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 76 2019-07-15
65 Mixed- Battery
CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed Fuel + 110kW PV + 50 kWh BatteryCZ01 PG&E 143,423 0 29.48 $229,804 $452,119 $324,373 2.0 1.4 $222,315 $94,569CZ02 PG&E 170,542 0 35.14 $229,804 $486,704 $398,363 2.1 1.7 $256,900 $168,559CZ03 PG&E 172,266 0 35.66 $229,804 $535,974 $395,374 2.3 1.7 $306,170 $165,570CZ04 PG&E 175,940 0 36.32 $229,804 $525,788 $422,579 2.3 1.8 $295,984 $192,775CZ04-2 CPAU 175,940 0 36.32 $229,804 $416,019 $422,579 1.8 1.8 $186,216 $192,775CZ05 PG&E 178,728 0 36.91 $229,804 $554,968 $409,086 2.4 1.8 $325,164 $179,283CZ06 SCE 173,567 0 35.99 $229,804 $290,599 $412,690 1.3 1.8 $60,795 $182,886CZ06-2 LA 173,567 0 35.99 $229,804 $169,786 $412,690 0.7 1.8 ($60,018) $182,886CZ07 SDG&E 180,508 0 37.61 $229,804 $425,793 $427,040 1.9 1.9 $195,989 $197,236CZ08 SCE 175,616 0 36.29 $229,804 $296,318 $434,687 1.3 1.9 $66,514 $204,883CZ08-2 LA 175,616 0 36.29 $229,804 $170,489 $434,687 0.7 1.9 ($59,315) $204,883CZ09 SCE 177,966 0 36.74 $229,804 $300,540 $421,195 1.3 1.8 $70,736 $191,391CZ09-2 LA 177,966 0 36.74 $229,804 $178,852 $421,195 0.8 1.8 ($50,952) $191,391CZ10 SDG&E 180,248 0 36.91 $229,804 $459,486 $410,537 2.0 1.8 $229,683 $180,733CZ10-2 SCE 180,248 0 36.91 $229,804 $301,219 $410,537 1.3 1.8 $71,415 $180,733CZ11 PG&E 171,779 0 34.85 $229,804 $490,245 $417,679 2.1 1.8 $260,442 $187,875CZ12 PG&E 171,392 0 34.77 $229,804 $497,363 $417,371 2.2 1.8 $267,559 $187,567CZ12-2 SMUD 171,392 0 34.77 $229,804 $273,783 $417,371 1.2 1.8 $43,979 $187,567CZ13 PG&E 173,052 0 34.97 $229,804 $488,196 $397,791 2.1 1.7 $258,392 $167,987CZ14 SDG&E 191,703 0 38.31 $229,804 $420,241 $452,641 1.8 2.0 $190,437 $222,837CZ14-2 SCE 191,703 0 38.31 $229,804 $294,010 $452,641 1.3 2.0 $64,206 $222,837CZ15 SCE 182,299 0 36.01 $229,804 $279,036 $416,382 1.2 1.8 $49,232 $186,578CZ16 PG&E 194,293 0 40.00 $229,804 $535,137 $432,951 2.3 1.9 $305,333 $203,147CZ16-2 LA 194,293 0 40.00 $229,804 $175,573 $432,951 0.8 1.9 ($54,231) $203,147 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 77 2019-07-15
66 Ef All- CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PVCZ01 PG&E -25,214 3893 14.61 ($16,318) $4,288 ($5,450) >1 3.0 $20,606 $10,868CZ02 PG&E -17,101 2448 8.40 ($20,734) $859 $5,779 >1 >1 $21,593 $26,513CZ03 PG&E -9,851 1868 7.18 ($17,381) $15,418 $8,702 >1 >1 $32,799 $26,083CZ04 PG&E -9,353 1706 6.24 ($16,166) $9,110 $10,394 >1 >1 $25,276 $26,560CZ04-2 CPAU -9,353 1706 6.24 ($16,166) $24,000 $10,394 >1 >1 $40,166 $26,560CZ05 PG&E -9,423 1746 6.42 ($18,776) $14,076 $6,351 >1 >1 $32,852 $25,127CZ06 SCE -2,759 1002 4.24 ($15,032) $29,710 $12,592 >1 >1 $44,741 $27,623CZ06-2 LA -2,759 1002 4.24 ($15,032) $26,292 $12,592 >1 >1 $41,324 $27,623CZ07 SDG&E 1,148 522 2.72 ($17,032) $76,810 $12,350 >1 >1 $93,842 $29,382CZ08 SCE -979 793 3.64 ($20,192) $28,576 $13,185 >1 >1 $48,768 $33,377CZ08-2 LA -979 793 3.64 ($20,192) $24,475 $13,185 >1 >1 $44,667 $33,377CZ09 SCE -2,352 970 4.28 ($25,383) $29,776 $13,207 >1 >1 $55,159 $38,590CZ09-2 LA -2,352 970 4.28 ($25,383) $25,823 $13,207 >1 >1 $51,207 $38,590CZ10 SDG&E -5,388 1262 4.95 ($20,541) $75,458 $11,493 >1 >1 $95,999 $32,034CZ10-2 SCE -5,388 1262 4.95 ($20,541) $32,394 $11,493 >1 >1 $52,936 $32,034CZ11 PG&E -14,533 2415 8.86 ($25,471) $7,618 $13,295 >1 >1 $33,090 $38,766CZ12 PG&E -14,764 2309 8.19 ($25,774) $2,210 $10,152 >1 >1 $27,984 $35,926CZ12-2 SMUD -14,764 2309 8.19 ($25,774) $21,215 $10,152 >1 >1 $46,988 $35,926CZ13 PG&E -12,069 1983 7.08 ($21,428) $5,647 $8,570 >1 >1 $27,075 $29,998CZ14 SDG&E -7,950 1672 6.45 ($19,926) $60,412 $16,679 >1 >1 $80,338 $36,605CZ14-2 SCE -7,950 1672 6.45 ($19,926) $28,631 $16,679 >1 >1 $48,557 $36,605CZ15 SCE 2,534 518 3.10 ($22,813) $27,271 $17,162 >1 >1 $50,084 $39,976CZ16 PG&E -36,081 4304 14.26 ($19,041) ($30,111) ($41,181) 0.6 0.5 ($11,070) ($22,140)CZ16-2 LA -36,081 4304 14.26 ($19,041) $45,706 ($41,181) >1 0.5 $64,747 ($22,140) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 78 2019-07-15
67 All- Battery
CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On- bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh BatteryCZ01 PG&E -25,214 3893 14.61 ($14,692) $4,288 ($5,450) >1 2.7 $18,980 $9,242CZ02 PG&E -17,101 2448 8.40 ($14,692) $859 $5,779 >1 >1 $15,551 $20,472CZ03 PG&E -9,851 1868 7.18 ($14,692) $15,418 $8,702 >1 >1 $30,110 $23,394CZ04 PG&E -9,353 1706 6.24 ($14,692) $9,110 $10,394 >1 >1 $23,802 $25,086CZ04-2 CPAU -9,353 1706 6.24 ($14,692) $24,000 $10,394 >1 >1 $38,693 $25,086CZ05 PG&E -9,423 1746 6.42 ($14,692) $14,076 $6,351 >1 >1 $28,768 $21,043CZ06 SCE -2,759 1002 4.24 ($14,692) $29,710 $12,592 >1 >1 $44,402 $27,284CZ06-2 LA -2,759 1002 4.24 ($14,692) $26,292 $12,592 >1 >1 $40,984 $27,284CZ07 SDG&E 1,148 522 2.72 ($14,692) $76,810 $12,350 >1 >1 $91,502 $27,042CZ08 SCE -979 793 3.64 ($14,692) $28,576 $13,185 >1 >1 $43,268 $27,877CZ08-2 LA -979 793 3.64 ($14,692) $24,475 $13,185 >1 >1 $39,167 $27,877CZ09 SCE -2,352 970 4.28 ($14,692) $29,776 $13,207 >1 >1 $44,468 $27,899CZ09-2 LA -2,352 970 4.28 ($14,692) $25,823 $13,207 >1 >1 $40,516 $27,899CZ10 SDG&E -5,388 1262 4.95 ($14,692) $75,458 $11,493 >1 >1 $90,150 $26,185CZ10-2 SCE -5,388 1262 4.95 ($14,692) $32,394 $11,493 >1 >1 $47,086 $26,185CZ11 PG&E -14,533 2415 8.86 ($14,692) $7,618 $13,295 >1 >1 $22,310 $27,987CZ12 PG&E -14,764 2309 8.19 ($14,692) $2,210 $10,152 >1 >1 $16,902 $24,845CZ12-2 SMUD -14,764 2309 8.19 ($14,692) $21,215 $10,152 >1 >1 $35,907 $24,845CZ13 PG&E -12,069 1983 7.08 ($14,692) $5,647 $8,570 >1 >1 $20,339 $23,262CZ14 SDG&E -7,950 1672 6.45 ($14,692) $60,412 $16,679 >1 >1 $75,104 $31,371CZ14-2 SCE -7,950 1672 6.45 ($14,692) $28,631 $16,679 >1 >1 $43,323 $31,371CZ15 SCE 2,534 518 3.10 ($14,692) $27,271 $17,162 >1 >1 $41,963 $31,855CZ16 PG&E -36,081 4304 14.26 ($14,692) ($30,111) ($41,181) 0.5 0.4 ($15,419) ($26,489)CZ16-2 LA -36,081 4304 14.26 ($14,692) $45,706 ($41,181) >1 0.4 $60,398 ($26,489) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 79 2019-07-15
68 All- CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 110kW PVCZ01 PG&E 115,344 3893 41.82 $143,932 $454,277 $296,025 3.2 2.1 $310,345 $152,093CZ02 PG&E 150,004 2448 40.80 $139,516 $470,236 $371,817 3.4 2.7 $330,720 $232,301CZ03 PG&E 158,951 1868 39.82 $142,869 $544,095 $370,696 3.8 2.6 $401,226 $227,827CZ04 PG&E 163,043 1706 39.73 $144,084 $488,619 $388,847 3.4 2.7 $344,534 $244,763CZ04-2 CPAU 163,043 1706 39.73 $144,084 $432,905 $388,847 3.0 2.7 $288,821 $244,763CZ05 PG&E 165,711 1746 40.30 $141,473 $565,525 $382,760 4.0 2.7 $424,051 $241,287CZ06 SCE 167,328 1002 37.24 $145,218 $306,670 $395,066 2.1 2.7 $161,452 $249,848CZ06-2 LA 167,328 1002 37.24 $145,218 $184,797 $395,066 1.3 2.7 $39,579 $249,848CZ07 SDG&E 178,042 522 37.07 $143,218 $428,332 $406,032 3.0 2.8 $285,114 $262,814CZ08 SCE 171,149 793 36.94 $140,058 $301,219 $417,635 2.2 3.0 $161,161 $277,577CZ08-2 LA 171,149 793 36.94 $140,058 $178,419 $417,635 1.3 3.0 $38,361 $277,577CZ09 SCE 172,027 970 38.50 $134,867 $307,640 $414,075 2.3 3.1 $172,773 $279,208CZ09-2 LA 172,027 970 38.50 $134,867 $187,813 $414,075 1.4 3.1 $52,946 $279,208CZ10 SDG&E 171,107 1262 39.40 $139,708 $463,692 $403,505 3.3 2.9 $323,984 $263,796CZ10-2 SCE 171,107 1262 39.40 $139,708 $311,464 $403,505 2.2 2.9 $171,755 $263,796CZ11 PG&E 153,732 2415 41.41 $134,778 $467,356 $394,165 3.5 2.9 $332,578 $259,387CZ12 PG&E 153,126 2309 40.61 $134,476 $467,106 $389,111 3.5 2.9 $332,630 $254,635CZ12-2 SMUD 153,126 2309 40.61 $134,476 $283,343 $389,111 2.1 2.9 $148,867 $254,635CZ13 PG&E 157,332 1983 39.97 $138,822 $477,831 $385,947 3.4 2.8 $339,008 $247,124CZ14 SDG&E 179,582 1672 42.42 $140,324 $437,575 $452,729 3.1 3.2 $297,251 $312,405CZ14-2 SCE 179,582 1672 42.42 $140,324 $309,064 $452,729 2.2 3.2 $168,740 $312,405CZ15 SCE 180,751 518 37.26 $137,436 $294,877 $421,612 2.1 3.1 $157,440 $284,176CZ16 PG&E 154,248 4304 51.20 $141,209 $473,892 $364,016 3.4 2.6 $332,682 $222,807CZ16-2 LA 154,248 4304 51.20 $141,209 $211,677 $364,016 1.5 2.6 $70,467 $222,807 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 80 2019-07-15
69 All- Battery
CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On- bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
All-Electric + 90kW PV + 50 kWh BatteryCZ01 PG&E 114,356 3893 43.52 $171,832 $451,043 $310,265 2.6 1.8 $279,211 $138,433CZ02 PG&E 148,793 2448 42.89 $167,416 $475,081 $394,099 2.8 2.4 $307,664 $226,683CZ03 PG&E 157,707 1868 42.12 $170,769 $541,418 $394,034 3.2 2.3 $370,649 $223,265CZ04 PG&E 161,769 1706 41.82 $171,984 $523,603 $422,535 3.0 2.5 $351,618 $250,551CZ04-2 CPAU 161,769 1706 41.82 $171,984 $430,567 $422,535 2.5 2.5 $258,582 $250,551CZ05 PG&E 164,408 1746 42.68 $169,373 $561,966 $405,087 3.3 2.4 $392,592 $235,714CZ06 SCE 166,052 1002 39.48 $173,118 $306,697 $414,756 1.8 2.4 $133,579 $241,638CZ06-2 LA 166,052 1002 39.48 $173,118 $187,941 $414,756 1.1 2.4 $14,823 $241,638CZ07 SDG&E 176,705 522 39.47 $171,118 $479,038 $428,490 2.8 2.5 $307,920 $257,372CZ08 SCE 169,825 793 39.14 $167,958 $312,602 $436,709 1.9 2.6 $144,645 $268,751CZ08-2 LA 169,825 793 39.14 $167,958 $187,142 $436,709 1.1 2.6 $19,185 $268,751CZ09 SCE 170,747 970 40.23 $162,767 $318,113 $423,370 2.0 2.6 $155,346 $260,604CZ09-2 LA 170,747 970 40.23 $162,767 $197,006 $423,370 1.2 2.6 $34,240 $260,604CZ10 SDG&E 169,935 1262 41.08 $167,608 $503,504 $411,284 3.0 2.5 $335,896 $243,675CZ10-2 SCE 169,935 1262 41.08 $167,608 $317,927 $411,284 1.9 2.5 $150,319 $243,675CZ11 PG&E 152,559 2415 42.99 $162,678 $491,775 $420,667 3.0 2.6 $329,096 $257,989CZ12 PG&E 151,956 2309 42.21 $162,376 $494,703 $417,063 3.0 2.6 $332,327 $254,687CZ12-2 SMUD 151,956 2309 42.21 $162,376 $288,950 $417,063 1.8 2.6 $126,573 $254,687CZ13 PG&E 156,271 1983 41.25 $166,722 $485,422 $395,770 2.9 2.4 $318,699 $229,047CZ14 SDG&E 178,505 1672 43.94 $168,224 $452,456 $457,387 2.7 2.7 $284,232 $289,163CZ14-2 SCE 178,505 1672 43.94 $168,224 $311,520 $457,387 1.9 2.7 $143,296 $289,163CZ15 SCE 179,840 518 38.23 $165,336 $296,004 $422,293 1.8 2.6 $130,668 $256,957CZ16 PG&E 152,965 4304 53.53 $169,109 $483,205 $378,299 2.9 2.2 $314,096 $209,190CZ16-2 LA 152,965 4304 53.53 $169,109 $215,341 $378,299 1.3 2.2 $46,231 $209,190 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 81 2019-07-15

6.7.3Figure 70 through Figure 77 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Small Hotel packages. Notable findings for each package include:

Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for all climate zones for both the On-Bill and TDV approaches.Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: The packages are less cost effective as compared to the previous minimal PV only package andnot cost effective for LADWP and SMUD service area. The addition of battery reduces the cost effectiveness of packages.Mixed-Fuel + PV only: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for the On-Bill approach for all climate zones except for LADWPterritory. Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for the TDV approach for all climate zones.Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces On-Bill B/C ratios. Packages are not cost effective for LADWP territory,SMUD territory as well as for climate zones 6,8,9 under PG&E service area.

All-Electric + 3 kW PV: All packages are cost effective using the On-Bill approach. All packages are cost effective using the TDV approachbut do not achieve positive energy cost savings.

All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: Similar to minimal PV only package, all packages are cost effective using the On-Bill approach. Allpackages are cost effective using the TDV approach but do not achieve positive energy cost savings.All-Electric + PV only: All packages are cost effective for both On-Bill and TDV approaches. Packages achieve on-bill savings for all climatezones.All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces On-Bill B/C ratios but is still cost effective for all climate zones. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 82 2019-07-15
70 CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle $- TDV Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV
(On-bill)
NPV
(TDV)
Mixed Fuel + 3kW PVCZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $5,566 $12,616 $8,326 2.3 1.5 $7,050 $2,760CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $5,566 $12,639 $10,332 2.3 1.9 $7,073 $4,766CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.9 $5,566 $15,146 $9,991 2.7 1.8 $9,580 $4,425CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 1.0 $5,566 $13,266 $10,445 2.4 1.9 $7,700 $4,879CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 1.0 $5,566 $11,507 $10,445 2.1 1.9 $5,941 $4,879CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $5,566 $16,048 $10,634 2.9 1.9 $10,482 $5,068CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,276 $10,559 1.8 1.9 $4,710 $4,993CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,307 $10,559 1.1 1.9 $741 $4,993CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $5,566 $14,576 $10,861 2.6 2.0 $9,010 $5,295CZ08 SCE 4,824 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,837 $11,202 1.9 2.0 $5,271 $5,636CZ08-2 LA 4,824 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,505 $11,202 1.2 2.0 $939 $5,636CZ09 SCE 4,779 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,298 $10,824 1.9 1.9 $4,732 $5,258CZ09-2 LA 4,779 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,201 $10,824 1.1 1.9 $635 $5,258CZ10 SDG&E 4,905 0 1.0 $5,566 $16,302 $10,710 2.9 1.9 $10,736 $5,144CZ10-2 SCE 4,905 0 1.0 $5,566 $9,468 $10,710 1.7 1.9 $3,902 $5,144CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $5,566 $14,193 $10,483 2.6 1.9 $8,627 $4,917CZ12 PG&E 4,770 0 0.9 $5,566 $15,262 $10,596 2.7 1.9 $9,696 $5,030CZ12-2 SMUD 4,770 0 0.9 $5,566 $7,848 $10,596 1.4 1.9 $2,282 $5,030CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $5,566 $14,674 $10,105 2.6 1.8 $9,108 $4,539CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.1 $5,566 $16,615 $12,375 3.0 2.2 $11,049 $6,809CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.1 $5,566 $10,021 $12,375 1.8 2.2 $4,455 $6,809CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 1.0 $5,566 $9,542 $11,164 1.7 2.0 $3,976 $5,598CZ16 PG&E 5,240 0 1.0 $5,566 $14,961 $10,975 2.7 2.0 $9,395 $5,409CZ16-2 LA 5,240 0 1.0 $5,566 $5,670 $10,975 1.0 2.0 $104 $5,409 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 83 2019-07-15
71 Battery
CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5kWh BatteryCZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $9,520 $12,616 $8,326 1.3 0.9 $3,096 ($1,194)CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $9,520 $12,639 $10,332 1.3 1.1 $3,119 $811CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.9 $9,520 $15,146 $9,991 1.6 1.0 $5,626 $471CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 1.0 $9,520 $13,266 $10,445 1.4 1.1 $3,746 $925CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 1.0 $9,520 $11,507 $10,445 1.2 1.1 $1,987 $925CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $9,520 $16,048 $10,634 1.7 1.1 $6,528 $1,114CZ05-2 SCG 5,027 0 1.0 $9,520 $16,048 $10,634 1.7 1.1 $6,528 $1,114CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,276 $10,559 1.1 1.1 $756 $1,039CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,307 $10,559 0.7 1.1 ($3,213) $1,039CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $9,520 $14,576 $10,861 1.5 1.1 $5,056 $1,341CZ08 SCE 4,824 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,837 $11,202 1.1 1.2 $1,317 $1,682CZ08-2 LA 4,824 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,505 $11,202 0.7 1.2 ($3,015) $1,682CZ09 SCE 4,779 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,298 $10,824 1.1 1.1 $778 $1,303CZ09-2 LA 4,779 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,201 $10,824 0.7 1.1 ($3,319) $1,303CZ10 SDG&E 4,905 0 1.0 $9,520 $16,302 $10,710 1.7 1.1 $6,782 $1,190CZ10-2 SCE 4,905 0 1.0 $9,520 $9,468 $10,710 0.99 1.1 ($52) $1,190CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $9,520 $14,193 $10,483 1.5 1.1 $4,673 $963CZ12 PG&E 4,770 0 0.9 $9,520 $15,262 $10,596 1.6 1.1 $5,742 $1,076CZ12-2 SMUD 4,770 0 0.9 $9,520 $7,848 $10,596 0.8 1.1 ($1,672) $1,076CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $9,520 $14,674 $10,105 1.5 1.1 $5,154 $584CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.1 $9,520 $16,615 $12,375 1.7 1.3 $7,095 $2,855CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.1 $9,520 $10,021 $12,375 1.1 1.3 $501 $2,855CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 1.0 $9,520 $9,542 $11,164 1.0 1.2 $22 $1,644CZ16 PG&E 5,240 0 1.0 $9,520 $14,961 $10,975 1.6 1.2 $5,441 $1,455CZ16-2 LA 5,240 0 1.0 $9,520 $5,670 $10,975 0.6 1.2 ($3,851) $1,455 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 84 2019-07-15
72 CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On- bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed Fuel + 80kW PVCZ01 PG&E 105,090 0 20.6 $179,470 $336,440 $221,883 1.9 1.2 $156,970 $42,413CZ02 PG&E 127,592 0 25.0 $179,470 $320,009 $275,130 1.8 1.5 $140,539 $95,660CZ03 PG&E 126,206 0 24.8 $179,470 $403,900 $266,426 2.3 1.5 $224,430 $86,956CZ04 PG&E 128,894 0 25.4 $179,470 $322,782 $278,536 1.8 1.6 $143,312 $99,066CZ04-2 CPAU 128,894 0 25.4 $179,470 $306,862 $278,536 1.7 1.6 $127,392 $99,066CZ05 PG&E 134,041 0 26.5 $179,470 $427,935 $283,834 2.4 1.6 $248,465 $104,364CZ06 SCE 127,168 0 25.0 $179,470 $200,425 $281,488 1.1 1.6 $20,955 $102,018CZ06-2 LA 127,168 0 25.0 $179,470 $119,357 $281,488 0.7 1.6 ($60,113) $102,018CZ07 SDG&E 132,258 0 26.1 $179,470 $247,646 $289,700 1.4 1.6 $68,176 $110,230CZ08 SCE 128,641 0 25.3 $179,470 $207,993 $298,594 1.2 1.7 $28,523 $119,124CZ08-2 LA 128,641 0 25.3 $179,470 $122,591 $298,594 0.7 1.7 ($56,879) $119,124CZ09 SCE 127,447 0 25.3 $179,470 $211,567 $288,830 1.2 1.6 $32,096 $109,360CZ09-2 LA 127,447 0 25.3 $179,470 $123,486 $288,830 0.7 1.6 ($55,984) $109,360CZ10 SDG&E 130,792 0 25.8 $179,470 $274,832 $285,386 1.5 1.6 $95,361 $105,916CZ10-2 SCE 130,792 0 25.8 $179,470 $206,865 $285,386 1.2 1.6 $27,395 $105,916CZ11 PG&E 125,366 0 24.6 $179,470 $316,781 $279,331 1.8 1.6 $137,311 $99,861CZ12 PG&E 127,203 0 25.0 $179,470 $406,977 $282,358 2.3 1.6 $227,507 $102,888CZ12-2 SMUD 127,203 0 25.0 $179,470 $198,254 $282,358 1.1 1.6 $18,784 $102,888CZ13 PG&E 123,535 0 24.4 $179,470 $317,261 $269,908 1.8 1.5 $137,791 $90,437CZ14 SDG&E 143,387 0 28.1 $179,470 $309,521 $330,345 1.7 1.8 $130,051 $150,875CZ14-2 SCE 143,387 0 28.1 $179,470 $225,083 $330,345 1.3 1.8 $45,612 $150,875CZ15 SCE 133,246 0 25.9 $179,470 $207,277 $297,648 1.2 1.7 $27,807 $118,177CZ16 PG&E 139,738 0 27.3 $179,470 $341,724 $292,728 1.9 1.6 $162,254 $113,258CZ16-2 LA 139,738 0 27.3 $179,470 $114,215 $292,728 0.6 1.6 ($65,255) $113,258 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 85 2019-07-15
73 Battery
CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On- bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV + 50kWh BatteryCZ01 PG&E 104,026 0 23.2 $207,370 $332,596 $237,740 1.6 1.1 $125,226 $30,370CZ02 PG&E 126,332 0 28.1 $207,370 $336,179 $296,058 1.6 1.4 $128,809 $88,688CZ03 PG&E 124,934 0 28.0 $207,370 $399,220 $289,360 1.9 1.4 $191,850 $81,990CZ04 PG&E 127,602 0 28.5 $207,370 $332,161 $308,887 1.6 1.5 $124,790 $101,517CZ04-2 CPAU 127,602 0 28.5 $207,370 $303,828 $308,887 1.5 1.5 $96,458 $101,517CZ05 PG&E 132,725 0 29.8 $207,370 $423,129 $303,627 2.0 1.5 $215,758 $96,257CZ06 SCE 125,880 0 28.4 $207,370 $193,814 $297,950 0.9 1.4 ($13,556) $90,580CZ06-2 LA 125,880 0 28.4 $207,370 $123,083 $297,950 0.6 1.4 ($84,287) $90,580CZ07 SDG&E 130,940 0 29.5 $207,370 $274,313 $309,682 1.3 1.5 $66,943 $102,312CZ08 SCE 127,332 0 28.5 $207,370 $199,786 $312,899 1.0 1.5 ($7,584) $105,529CZ08-2 LA 127,332 0 28.5 $207,370 $124,651 $312,899 0.6 1.5 ($82,719) $105,529CZ09 SCE 126,232 0 28.2 $207,370 $206,706 $292,804 1.0 1.4 ($664) $85,433CZ09-2 LA 126,232 0 28.2 $207,370 $126,710 $292,804 0.6 1.4 ($80,660) $85,433CZ10 SDG&E 129,683 0 28.4 $207,370 $292,202 $287,278 1.4 1.4 $84,832 $79,908CZ10-2 SCE 129,683 0 28.4 $207,370 $206,171 $287,278 1.0 1.4 ($1,199) $79,908CZ11 PG&E 124,337 0 26.9 $207,370 $315,330 $283,683 1.5 1.4 $107,960 $76,313CZ12 PG&E 126,013 0 27.8 $207,370 $403,127 $297,118 1.9 1.4 $195,757 $89,748CZ12-2 SMUD 126,013 0 27.8 $207,370 $198,007 $297,118 1.0 1.4 ($9,363) $89,748CZ13 PG&E 122,591 0 26.5 $207,370 $315,541 $280,996 1.5 1.4 $108,171 $73,626CZ14 SDG&E 142,257 0 30.7 $207,370 $317,565 $334,697 1.5 1.6 $110,195 $127,327CZ14-2 SCE 142,257 0 30.7 $207,370 $224,195 $334,697 1.1 1.6 $16,824 $127,327CZ15 SCE 132,418 0 27.8 $207,370 $208,044 $299,199 1.0 1.4 $674 $91,829CZ16 PG&E 138,402 0 30.7 $207,370 $358,582 $315,699 1.7 1.5 $151,212 $108,329CZ16-2 LA 138,402 0 30.7 $207,370 $118,770 $315,699 0.6 1.5 ($88,600) $108,329 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 86 2019-07-15
74 All- CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PVCZ01 PG&E -155,861 16917 54.7 ($1,265,139) ($568,892) ($106,835) 2.2 11.8 $696,246 $1,158,304CZ02 PG&E -113,954 12677 40.9 ($1,266,111) ($229,433) ($41,288) 5.5 30.7 $1,036,679 $1,224,823CZ03 PG&E -105,862 12322 41.4 ($1,268,383) ($309,874) ($41,175) 4.1 30.8 $958,510 $1,227,208CZ04 PG&E -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,268,218) ($208,239) ($42,689) 6.1 29.7 $1,059,980 $1,225,530CZ04-2 CPAU -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,268,218) ($6,261) ($42,689) 202.6 29.7 $1,261,958 $1,225,530CZ05 PG&E -103,579 11960 39.3 ($1,268,272) ($332,879) ($44,051) 3.8 28.8 $935,393 $1,224,221CZ06 SCE -73,524 8912 30.3 ($1,268,413) $48,898 ($17,484) >1 72.5 $1,317,311 $1,250,929CZ06-2 LA -64,859 8188 29.0 ($1,266,760) ($120,842) ($12,337) 10.5 102.7 $1,145,918 $1,254,423CZ07 SDG&E -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,264,731) ($43,964) ($11,618) 28.8 108.9 $1,220,767 $1,253,113CZ08 SCE -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,264,731) $48,736 ($11,618) >1 108.9 $1,313,467 $1,253,113CZ08-2 LA -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,266,529) ($35,547) ($11,126) 35.6 113.8 $1,230,982 $1,255,403CZ09 SCE -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,266,529) $52,410 ($11,126) >1 113.8 $1,318,939 $1,255,403CZ09-2 LA -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,263,531) ($156,973) ($25,469) 8.0 49.6 $1,106,558 $1,238,061CZ10 SDG&E -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,263,531) ($54,711) ($25,469) 23.1 49.6 $1,208,820 $1,238,061CZ10-2 SCE -94,783 10252 31.9 ($1,264,340) ($169,847) ($38,904) 7.4 32.5 $1,094,493 $1,225,436CZ11 PG&E -94,702 10403 33.0 ($1,265,779) ($324,908) ($34,968) 3.9 36.2 $940,872 $1,230,811CZ12 PG&E -94,297 10403 33.1 ($1,265,779) $13,603 ($33,757) >1 37.5 $1,279,382 $1,232,022CZ12-2 SMUD -92,196 10029 31.5 ($1,264,152) ($168,358) ($40,229) 7.5 31.4 $1,095,794 $1,223,923CZ13 PG&E -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,264,510) ($308,542) ($44,202) 4.1 28.6 $955,969 $1,220,308CZ14 SDG&E -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,264,510) ($110,730) ($44,202) 11.4 28.6 $1,153,780 $1,220,308CZ14-2 SCE -44,856 5579 19.0 ($1,262,631) $8,996 ($10,256) >1 123.1 $1,271,627 $1,252,375CZ15 SCE -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,268,907) ($625,671) ($228,203) 2.0 5.6 $643,236 $1,040,704CZ16 PG&E -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,268,907) $37,142 ($228,203) >1 5.6 $1,306,049 $1,040,704CZ16-2 LA -155,861 16917 54.7 ($1,265,139) ($568,892) ($106,835) 2.2 11.8 $696,246 $1,158,304 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 87 2019-07-15
75 All- Battery
CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On- bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5kWh BatteryCZ01 PG&E -155,861 16917 54.7 ($1,288,428) ($568,892) ($106,835) 2.3 12.1 $719,536 $1,181,593CZ02 PG&E -113,954 12677 40.9 ($1,288,428) ($229,433) ($41,288) 5.6 31.2 $1,058,996 $1,247,140CZ03 PG&E -105,862 12322 41.4 ($1,288,428) ($309,874) ($41,175) 4.2 31.3 $978,554 $1,247,253CZ04 PG&E -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,288,428) ($208,239) ($42,689) 6.2 30.2 $1,080,190 $1,245,740CZ04-2 CPAU -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,288,428) ($6,261) ($42,689) 205.8 30.2 $1,282,167 $1,245,740CZ05 PG&E -103,579 11960 39.3 ($1,288,428) ($332,879) ($44,051) 3.9 29.2 $955,549 $1,244,377CZ06 SCE -73,524 8912 30.3 ($1,288,428) ($52,341) ($17,484) 24.6 73.7 $1,236,087 $1,270,944CZ06-2 LA -73,524 8912 30.3 ($1,288,428) $48,898 ($17,484) >1 73.7 $1,337,326 $1,270,944CZ07 SDG&E -64,859 8188 29.0 ($1,288,428) ($120,842) ($12,337) 10.7 104.4 $1,167,586 $1,276,091CZ08 SCE -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,288,428) ($43,964) ($11,618) 29.3 110.9 $1,244,464 $1,276,810CZ08-2 LA -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,288,428) $48,736 ($11,618) >1 110.9 $1,337,164 $1,276,810CZ09 SCE -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,288,428) ($35,547) ($11,126) 36.2 115.8 $1,252,881 $1,277,302CZ09-2 LA -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,288,428) $52,410 ($11,126) >1 115.8 $1,340,838 $1,277,302CZ10 SDG&E -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,288,428) ($156,973) ($25,469) 8.2 50.6 $1,131,455 $1,262,959CZ10-2 SCE -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,288,428) ($54,711) ($25,469) 23.5 50.6 $1,233,718 $1,262,959CZ11 PG&E -94,783 10252 31.9 ($1,288,428) ($169,847) ($38,904) 7.6 33.1 $1,118,582 $1,249,524CZ12 PG&E -94,702 10403 33.0 ($1,288,428) ($324,908) ($34,968) 4.0 36.8 $963,520 $1,253,460CZ12-2 SMUD -94,297 10403 33.1 ($1,288,428) $13,603 ($33,757) >1 38.2 $1,302,031 $1,254,671CZ13 PG&E -92,196 10029 31.5 ($1,288,428) ($168,358) ($40,229) 7.7 32.0 $1,120,071 $1,248,199CZ14 SDG&E -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,288,428) ($308,542) ($44,202) 4.2 29.1 $979,887 $1,244,226CZ14-2 SCE -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,288,428) ($110,730) ($44,202) 11.6 29.1 $1,177,698 $1,244,226CZ15 SCE -44,856 5579 19.0 ($1,288,428) $8,996 ($10,256) >1 125.6 $1,297,425 $1,278,172CZ16 PG&E -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,288,428) ($625,671) ($228,203) 2.1 5.6 $662,757 $1,060,225CZ16-2 LA -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,288,428) $37,142 ($228,203) >1 5.6 $1,325,570 $1,060,225 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 88 2019-07-15
Figur 76 All- CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 80kW PVCZ01 PG&E -54,712 16917 74.6 ($1,123,442) ($240,170) $106,722 4.7 >1 $883,272 $1,230,164CZ02 PG&E 8,853 12677 65.0 ($1,124,415) $128,649 $223,510 >1 >1 $1,253,063 $1,347,925CZ03 PG&E 15,612 12322 65.3 ($1,126,687) $44,532 $215,260 >1 >1 $1,171,219 $1,341,947CZ04 PG&E 15,490 11927 62.0 ($1,126,522) $145,778 $225,402 >1 >1 $1,272,300 $1,351,924CZ04-2 CPAU 15,490 11927 62.0 ($1,126,522) $289,094 $225,402 >1 >1 $1,415,616 $1,351,924CZ05 PG&E 25,436 11960 64.8 ($1,126,575) $56,019 $229,149 >1 >1 $1,182,594 $1,355,724CZ06 SCE 48,875 8912 54.4 ($1,126,716) $163,343 $253,445 >1 >1 $1,290,060 $1,380,161CZ06-2 LA 62,439 8188 54.1 ($1,125,064) $115,822 $266,502 >1 >1 $1,240,886 $1,391,565CZ07 SDG&E 56,727 8353 53.5 ($1,123,034) $147,987 $275,773 >1 >1 $1,271,022 $1,398,808CZ08 SCE 56,727 8353 53.5 ($1,123,034) $163,971 $275,773 >1 >1 $1,287,005 $1,398,808CZ08-2 LA 55,185 8402 53.7 ($1,124,832) $155,101 $266,880 >1 >1 $1,279,933 $1,391,712CZ09 SCE 55,185 8402 53.7 ($1,124,832) $169,010 $266,880 >1 >1 $1,293,843 $1,391,712CZ09-2 LA 50,731 8418 52.0 ($1,121,834) $113,936 $249,207 >1 >1 $1,235,770 $1,371,041CZ10 SDG&E 50,731 8418 52.0 ($1,121,834) $138,265 $249,207 >1 >1 $1,260,099 $1,371,041CZ10-2 SCE 25,882 10252 55.6 ($1,122,643) $162,626 $229,944 >1 >1 $1,285,269 $1,352,587CZ11 PG&E 27,731 10403 57.1 ($1,124,083) $12,954 $236,794 >1 >1 $1,137,037 $1,360,876CZ12 PG&E 28,136 10403 57.2 ($1,124,083) $206,756 $238,005 >1 >1 $1,330,839 $1,362,087CZ12-2 SMUD 26,706 10029 55.0 ($1,122,455) $165,991 $219,574 >1 >1 $1,288,446 $1,342,030CZ13 PG&E 41,989 10056 57.8 ($1,122,814) $22,333 $273,768 >1 >1 $1,145,147 $1,396,582CZ14 SDG&E 41,989 10056 57.8 ($1,122,814) $120,943 $273,768 >1 >1 $1,243,757 $1,396,582CZ14-2 SCE 83,393 5579 44.0 ($1,120,934) $210,511 $276,228 >1 >1 $1,331,445 $1,397,162CZ15 SCE -76,971 17599 69.2 ($1,127,210) ($199,308) $53,550 5.7 >1 $927,902 $1,180,760CZ16 PG&E -76,971 17599 69.2 ($1,127,210) $172,787 $53,550 >1 >1 $1,299,997 $1,180,760CZ16-2 LA -54,712 16917 74.6 ($1,123,442) ($240,170) $106,722 4.7 >1 $883,272 $1,230,164 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 89 2019-07-15
77 All- Battery
CZ IOU territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On- bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV)
All-Electric + 80kW PV + 50kWh BatteryCZ01 PG&E -55,323 16917 75.7 ($1,095,542) ($238,351) $118,605 4.6 >1 $857,191 $1,214,147CZ02 PG&E 7,849 12677 67.4 ($1,096,515) $129,794 $239,632 >1 >1 $1,226,309 $1,336,146CZ03 PG&E 14,594 12322 67.7 ($1,098,787) $43,166 $235,280 >1 >1 $1,141,953 $1,334,067CZ04 PG&E 14,459 11927 64.4 ($1,098,622) $148,698 $249,244 >1 >1 $1,247,320 $1,347,866CZ04-2 CPAU 14,459 11927 64.4 ($1,098,622) $286,573 $249,244 >1 >1 $1,385,195 $1,347,866CZ05 PG&E 24,292 11960 67.6 ($1,098,675) $53,719 $244,514 >1 >1 $1,152,394 $1,343,189CZ06 SCE 47,762 8912 57.2 ($1,098,816) $165,763 $267,221 >1 >1 $1,264,579 $1,366,037CZ06-2 LA 61,252 8188 57.1 ($1,097,164) $138,060 $283,797 >1 >1 $1,235,223 $1,380,960CZ07 SDG&E 55,588 8353 56.2 ($1,095,134) $138,718 $286,483 >1 >1 $1,233,852 $1,381,618CZ08 SCE 55,588 8353 56.2 ($1,095,134) $165,932 $286,483 >1 >1 $1,261,066 $1,381,618CZ08-2 LA 54,162 8402 56.1 ($1,096,932) $149,615 $269,453 >1 >1 $1,246,548 $1,366,386CZ09 SCE 54,162 8402 56.1 ($1,096,932) $171,168 $269,453 >1 >1 $1,268,101 $1,366,386CZ09-2 LA 49,832 8418 54.1 ($1,093,934) $120,627 $250,720 >1 >1 $1,214,561 $1,344,654CZ10 SDG&E 49,832 8418 54.1 ($1,093,934) $136,144 $250,720 >1 >1 $1,230,078 $1,344,654CZ10-2 SCE 25,148 10252 57.3 ($1,094,743) $160,744 $233,842 >1 >1 $1,255,487 $1,328,585CZ11 PG&E 26,813 10403 59.2 ($1,096,183) $10,314 $247,504 >1 >1 $1,106,497 $1,343,686CZ12 PG&E 27,217 10403 59.3 ($1,096,183) $206,749 $248,790 >1 >1 $1,302,931 $1,344,973CZ12-2 SMUD 26,027 10029 56.5 ($1,094,555) $164,506 $229,300 >1 >1 $1,259,061 $1,323,856CZ13 PG&E 41,123 10056 59.7 ($1,094,914) $25,707 $276,947 >1 >1 $1,120,621 $1,371,860CZ14 SDG&E 41,123 10056 59.7 ($1,094,914) $119,382 $276,947 >1 >1 $1,214,296 $1,371,860CZ14-2 SCE 82,697 5579 45.5 ($1,093,034) $209,837 $277,287 >1 >1 $1,302,871 $1,370,321CZ15 SCE -77,815 17599 71.1 ($1,099,310) ($193,758) $65,850 5.7 >1 $905,552 $1,165,160CZ16 PG&E -77,815 17599 71.1 ($1,099,310) $175,872 $65,850 >1 >1 $1,275,182 $1,165,160CZ16-2 LA -55,323 16917 75.7 ($1,095,542) ($238,351) $118,605 4.6 >1 $857,191 $1,214,147 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 90 2019-07-15

6.8The Reach Code Team started with a potential list of energy efficiency measures proposed for 2022 Title 24 codes and standards enhancementmeasures, as well as measures from the 2018 International Green Construction Code, which is based on ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2017. The teamalso developed new measures based on their experience. This original list was over 100 measures long. The measures were filtered based onapplicability to the prototypes in this study, ability to model in simulation software, previously demonstrated energy savings potential, and marketreadiness. The list of 28 measures below represent the list of efficiency measures that meet these criteria and were investigated to some degree.The column to the far right indicates whether the measure was ultimately included in analysis or not.

Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include?Water Heating Drain water Heat Recovery Add drain water heat recovery in hotel prototype Requires calculations outside of modeling software. YEnvelope High performance fenestration Improved fenestration SHGC (reduce to 0.22). YEnvelope High SHGC for cold climates Raise prescriptive fenestration SHGC (to 0.45) in cold climates where additional heat is beneficial. YEnvelope Allowable fenestration by orientation Limit amount of fenestration as a function of orientation YEnvelope High Thermal Mass Buildings Increase building thermal mass. Thermal mass slows thechange in internal temperature of buildings with respectto the outdoor temperature, allowing the peak coolingload during summer to be pushed to the evening,resulting in lower overall cooling loads.

Initial energy modeling results showed marginalcooling savings, negative heating savings. N Envelope Opaque Insulation Increases the insulation requirement for opaque envelopes (i.e., roof and above-grade wall). Initial energy modeling results showed marginal energy savings at significant costs which would not meet c/e criteria. NEnvelope Triple pane windows U-factor of 0.20 for all windows Initial energy modeling results showed only marginalenergy savings and, in some cases, increased energyuse.

N
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 91 2019-07-15
Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include?Envelope Duct Leakage Testing Expand duct leakage testing requirements basedon ASHRAE Standard 215-2018: Method of Test toDetermine Leakage of Operating HVAC Air DistributionSystems (ANSI Approved).

More research needs to be done on current ductleakage and how it can be addressed. N Envelope Fenestration area Reduce maximum allowable fenestration area to 30%.

Instead of this measure, analyzed measure whichlooked at limiting fenestration based on wallorientation.

N
Envelope Skinny triple pane windows U-factor of 0.20 for all windows, with no changes to existing framing or building structure. Market not ready. No commercially-available products for commercial buildings. NEnvelope Permanent projections Detailed prescriptive requirements for shading based onASHRAE 189. PF >0.50 for first story and >0.25 for otherfloors. Many exceptions. Corresponding SHGC multipliersto be used.

Title 24 already allows owner to trade off SHGC withpermanent projections. Also, adding requirements forpermanent projections would raise concerns.

N
Envelope Reduced infiltration Reduce infiltration rates by improving building sealing.

Infiltration rates are a fixed ACM input and cannot bechanged. A workaround attempt would not beprecise, and the practicality of implementation bydevelopers is low given the modeling capabilities andthe fact that in-field verification is challenging.Benefits would predominantly be for air quality ratherthan energy.

N
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 92 2019-07-15
Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include?HVAC Heat recovery ventilation For the hotel, recover and transfer heat from exhausted air to ventilation air.

For small hotels, the ventilation requirement could bemet by various approaches, and the most commonones are:a. Exhaust only system, and ventilation is met byinfiltration or window operation.b. Through a Z-duct that connects the zone ACunit’s intake to an outside air intake louver.c. Centralized ventilation system (DOAS)The prototype developed for the small hotel is usingType 2 above. The major consideration is thatcurrently, HRV + PTACs cannot be modeled at eachguest room, only at the rooftop system. Option 1would require the same type of HRV implementationas Option 2. Option 3 may be pursuable, but wouldrequire a significant redesign of the system, withquestionable impacts. Previous studies have foundheat recovery as cost effective in California only inbuildings with high loads or high air exchange rates,given the relatively mild climate.

N
HVAC Require Economizers in Smaller Capacity Systems Lower the capacity trigger for air economizers. Previous studies have shown cost effectiveness for systems as low as 3 tons. YHVAC Reduce VAV minimum flow limit Current T24 and 90.1 requirements limit VAV minimumflow rates to no more than 20% of maximum flow.Proposal based on ASHRAE Guideline 36 which includessequences that remove technical barriers that previouslyexisted. Also, most new DDC controllers are now capableof lower limits. The new limit may be as low as therequired ventilation rate. A non-energy benefit of thismeasure is a reduction in over-cooling, thus improvingcomfort.

Y
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 93 2019-07-15
Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include?HVAC Building Automation System (BAS) improvements With adoption of ASHRAE Guideline 36 (GDL-36), there isnow a national consensus standard for the description ofhigh-performance sequences of operation. This measurewill update BAS control requirements to improveusability and enforcement and to increase energyefficiency. BAS control requirement language will beimproved either by adoption of similar language to GDL- 36, or reference to GDL-36. Specific T24 BAS controltopics that will be addressed include at a minimum: DCV,demand-based reset of SAT, demand-based reset of SP,dual-maximum zone sequences, and zone groups forscheduling.

In order to realize any savings in the difference, wewould need a very detailed energy model with space- by-space load/occupant diversity, etc. We would alsoneed more modeling capability than is currentlyavailable in CBECC-Com.

N
HVAC Fault Detection Devices (FDD)
Expand FDD requirements to a wider range of AHU faultsbeyond the economizer. Fault requirements will be basedon NIST field research, which has consequently beenintegrated into ASHRAE Guideline 36 Best in ClassSequences of Operations. Costs are solely to develop thesequences, which is likely minimal, and much of thehardware required for economizer FDD is also used todetect other faults.

Market not ready. N
HVAC Small circulator pumps ECM, trim to flow rate Circulator pumps for industry and commercial.

Hot water pump energy use is small already (<1%building electricity usage) so not much savingspotential. More savings for CHW pumps. Modelinglimitations as well.

N
HVAC High Performance Ducts to Reduce Static Pressure Revise requirements for duct sizing to reduce static pressure. Preliminary energy modeling results showed only marginal energy savings compared to measure cost. NHVAC Parallel fan-powered boxes Use of parallel fan-powered boxes Unable to model PFPB with variable speed fans in modeling software. NLighting Daylight Dimming Plus OFF Automatic daylight dimming controls requirements include the OFF step. YLighting Occupant Sensing in Open Plan Offices Take the PAF without allowing for increased design wattage YLighting Institutional tuning Take the PAF without allowing for increased design wattage Y 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 94 2019-07-15
Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include?Lighting Reduced Interior Lighting Power Density Reduced interior LPD values. YLighting Shift from general to task illumination Low levels of general illumination with task and accentlighting added to locations where higher light levels arerequired. The shift from general to task illuminationmeasure is based on the assumption that proper lightingof a desk surface with high efficacy lighting can allow forthe significant reduction of ambient general lighting.

This is a tough measure to require as the LPDsdecrease. N Lighting Future-proof lighting controls
Fill any holes in the current code that could lead to thesituations where TLEDS or LED fixtures that are notdimmable or upgradable in the future, or any other issueswith code that make it hard to transition to ALCS/IoTlighting in the future Major lighting controls already covered in othermeasures being considered N Lighting Integrated control of lighting and HVAC systems Formalize the definition of "lighting and HVAC controlintegration" by defining the level of data sharing requiredbetween systems and the mechanism needed to sharesuch data. The highest savings potential would likely begenerated from VAV HVAC systems by closing thedamper in unoccupied zones based on the occupancysensor information from the lighting systems.

Not market ready enough. N
Other NR Plug Load Controls
Energy savings opportunities for plug loads, which mayinclude: energy efficient equipment, equipment powermanagement, occupancy sensor control, and occupantawareness programs. The proposal could be extendingcontrolled receptacles requirements in Section 130.5(d)to more occupancy types. It would also consider circuit- level controls.

Office equipment now all have their own standbypower modes that use very little power, making plugload controls very difficult to be cost-effective.

N
Title 24, Parts 6 and 11
Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances
2019 Cost-effectiveness Study:

Low-Rise Residential
Addendum –
Cost Effectiveness Study of Santa Monica
Proposed Ordinance Requiring
Photovoltaic (PV) Systems on Residential
Additions
Prepared for:

Kelly Cunningham
Codes and Standards Program
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Prepared by:

Frontier Energy, Inc.

Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Last Modified: August 28, 2019

LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study – Santa Monica PV for Additions Contents
1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................2 2 Methodology and Assumptions..........................................................................................................................2 3 Results & Discussion...........................................................................................................................................3 4 References..........................................................................................................................................................4 List
Table 1: Summary of Cost Effectiveness Results........................................................................................................3 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study - Santa Monica PV for Additions 2 2019-08-28
1 Introduction
This addendum presents results from analysis conducted in response to a request from the City of Santa Monica to evaluate the cost effectiveness of requiring the installation of solar photovoltaic systems for major residential additions. The City has defined major additions to include any building whenever an additional story is added, and any building where more than a cumulative of fifty percent of the existing floor area is added. The proposed requirements for major additions are as follows:

Install a PV system with minimum capacity equal to:
o Single-family detached & duplexes: 1.5 watts (W) per square foot (sq ft) of the addition o All other occupancies: 2 W per sq ft of the addition’s footprint The requirements of this section shall be waived or reduced, by the minimum extent necessary, where:

Production of electric energy from solar panels is technically infeasible due to lack of available and feasible unshaded areas,
If the PV system size required is less than 1,200 W, or All-electric building systems
This analysis builds upon the results of the 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019) conducted for the California Statewide Codes and Standards Program and last modified August 1, 2019, which evaluated compliance packages across all sixteen California climate zones.
2 This analysis evaluated three scenarios, described below:

1. 2,100 square feet (sq ft) 1-story Single Family (SF) prototype with an 800 sq ft second story addition.

PV sized to 1.5 watts per sq ft (W/sq ft) of addition area

2. 2,700 sq ft 2-story SF prototype with a 1,350 sq ft 2-story addition.

PV sized to 1.5 W/sq ft of addition area

3. 6,960 sq ft 8-unit 2-story Multifamily (MF) prototype with a 3,480 sq ft 4-unit 1-story addition.

PV sized to 2W/sq ft of addition footprint area.

All three scenarios assume natural gas is provided and used to serve space and water heating, cooking and clothes drying end uses.

SCE's TOU-D-4-9 rate was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness.

Single family PV costs applied in the statewide study reflect systems 2.5 kilowatt (kW) and greater. Smaller systems, such as the proposed minimum 1.2 kW system, likely will be more expensive on a per kW basis due to fixed costs for the PV installation. Data from LBNL’s Tracking the Sun (Barbose et al., 2018) show an average 25% increase in cost for a 1.2kW system relative to a 3kW system for new construction installations in 2016 and 2017.1 Data for existing home installations showed an increase in cost of about 20% for smaller sized systems.

For the purpose of this study, single family PV costs were assumed to be 25% higher than those applied in the statewide study. Assumptions for the solar investment tax credit, overhead and profit, inverter replacement, and maintenance costs are the same as in the statewide report. 1 While the Tracking the Sun report contains 2018 data, the public data files do not include data more recent than 2017.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study - Santa Monica PV for Additions 3 2019-08-28
Single family PV system costs from the statewide report were used for the multifamily additions assumptions since the proposed system for the example case evaluated (approximately 7 kW) is more similar to a large single family system than a larger non-residential system.

All other applicable assumptions from the residential new construction analysis were applied.

Refer to the 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019) for further details. Key components of the methodology are repeated below.

Cost-effectiveness
This analysis uses two different metrics to assess cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures as compared to the 2019 prescriptive Title 24 requirements. The main difference between the methodologies is the way they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use.

Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the “societal value or cost” of energy use including long-term projected costs such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs such as projected costs for carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season.

Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods (Horii et al, 2014). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6.

The Reach Code Team also recommends adding an exemption for homes with existing PV systems that meet or exceed the size requirements determined by the proposed code.

Climate Zone 6
SCE/SoCalGas®
Annual
Gross
kWh
Annual
Net kWh
(GrossPV
Product
ion)
Annual
therms
PV
Size
(kW)
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions
(pounds/sq ft CFA) NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
NPV of Lifetime
Savings
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
SF 2100+800 sq ft
2nd story addition 4,187 2,293 270 1.20 1.57 0.14 $5,783 $5,935 $7,611 1.03 1.32 SF 2700+1350 sq ft
2-story addition 5,052 1,855 377 2.02 1.45 0.18 $9,758 $10,792 $12,570 1.11 1.29 MF 6960+3480 sq ft
1-story addition 32,840 21,851 1,363 6.96 2.65 0.24 $27,507 $33,799 $45,261 1.23 1.65 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study - Santa Monica PV for Additions 4 2019-08-28
4 References
Barbose, Galen and Darghouth, Naim. 2018. Tracking the Sun. Installed Price Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States – 2018 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September 2018. https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/tracking_the_sun_2018_edition_final_0.pdf Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2019. 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction.

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 27, 2022

Santa Monica City Council
September 27, 2022