HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc - Thoma (2019 California Building Code for New Co) 8/12/2019tf,h
E L E C T R I C
August 9, 2019
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Mayor Hannon, Vice Mayor Pease, Councilmember Christianson, Councilmember Gomez,
Councilmember Stuart, and Sustainability Manager Chris Read
Re: City of San Luis Obispo Proposed Local Amendments to the 2019 California Building Code for New
Construction - Response to Solicitation of Public Comment
Dear Mayor Harmon, Vice Mayor Pease, Councilmember Christianson, Councilmember Gomez,
Councilmember Stewart, and Mr. Read:
We recently acquired the proposed DRAFT City of SLO Ordinance language entitled "City c) ) San Luis
Obispo Proposed Local Amendments to the 2019 Calfbrnia Building Code,fbr New Construction ", dated
July 2019, and we appreciate the opportunity to share our cornments with you. As Electrical Engineers
and Electrical Contractors who design and build electrical systems, in the City of San Luis Obispo, we
believe we are uniquely qualified to provide feedback to you regarding the potential implications of this
draft proposal.
Thoma Electric, Inc. is a regional Electrical Engineering and Contracting firm with offices in San Luis
Obispo. We have been perfon-ning electrical work in this community since 1952 and are deeply invested
in creating a sustainable future. We employ over 120 employees that do electrical work in multiple
capacities, not only in our own community but also other areas of the state. Our core business is
designing and installing electrical systems including power distribution systems, communications
systems, solar systems, battery storage systems, emergency power systems for hospitals, health care, data
communications systems, police and fire stations, and many other applications. We, like you, are
concerned about the future world we leave for our children. Through our current efforts in electrical
design, we strive to balance our design solutions through means and methods which are required by code,
those which are sustainable and practical, and those which are cost effective for our clients. We support
the direction that the California Energy Code is going and have adopted and implemented those design
features in our everyday building design practices. We are especially proud of those projects for which
our collective design teams have achieved LEED accreditation,
We would like to start by saying that we share your commitment to environmental stewardship and
applaud the City's efforts to take a leadership role in making our community more sustainable. We
believe the City's intent behind the: proposed Ordinance is honorable and noble. We support the concepts
outlined in this Ordinance and their efforts to increase renewable energy production and consumption at
the local level. However, we have some concerns about the document as written, and how it will be
implemented to effectively achieve the goals that we all desire these codes to accomplish.
3562 Empleo, Ste. C — A 0. Box 1167
San Luis Obispo, California 93406
(805)543-3850 FAX (805)543-3829
E-mail- bthoma
(�Ltlas maeJ�eccoff!
Thoma Electric, Inc. Comments to,
Proposed City of SLC) CBC Amendments
In preparing a document for a building code, it is critical to provide: clarity of implementation in order to
avoid code misinterpretations or misapplications in design and in the field. We have observed that
ambiguity in code language lead to conflicts, misunderstandings and mis-applied intent through all phases
of a building project's lifecycle. If it is the City's goal to implement these changes for all construction
projects going forward, the code intent must be clear and understandable during a project's design phase
so that it can be applied with ease to all building types, During both design and construction timeframes,
clear intent on design will reduce confusion for Architects, Engineers, Owners, City Planners, City
Officials as well as Inspectors in the field who will be asked to understand and enforce these important
code regulations. We have read the DRAFT' document and have a number of concerns, suggestions, edits,
and questions that we believe need to be clarified and/or reconsidered for use in this Ordinance before it
becomes law.
Some of our concerns are general in nature, some are specific. Forgive us if we do not understand some
of the language of the proposed ordinance, but if we, as so called "experts in our field", cannot understand
portions of this Ordinance, then we believe additional. work needs to be done to clarify some of the
objectives outlined therein. At this time, we believe the Ordinance as written has consequences for the
possibility of mis-interpretations by building officials, planning department staff, developers, contractors,
owners, end users, etc. and ultimately will not achieve the reach that it intends. It is critical to make this
ordinance readable, understandable, practical, affordable, and most importantly implementable as
mentioned at the outset of our letter.
Please refer to the below list of comments/questions that we have concerns with both specific and
overarching questions that need to be addressed for actual implementation. The list, for your convenience
is organized in a similar format to the Ordinance itself-,
1. Comments regarding Proposed Global Amendments
0 100.1(b) — Question on Free-standing Accessory Dwelling Unit: Is this, definition consistent with
other SLC) City/County definitions of "Free-standing Accessory Dwelling Unit"?
2. Comments regarding Proposed Nonresidential Amendments
• 140.0(b) — Proposed changes noted here indicate that building additions (and new equipment installed
to serve additions) are required to comply with the new language of this ordinance. Section 141.0 of
the existing CBC addresses additions, alterations and repairs to existing facilities. Which section
shall govern, and if 140.0(b) shall govern, then please farther define the term "additions" since these
two code sections will then be in conflict. For example, is a tenant improvement or renovation
considered an "addition"? Another example is the code Exception for healthcare facilities, under
141.0, does this exception still apply if additions are considered under 140.0(b) under the proposed
language?
• 140.0(b)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and 140.0(b)(3) indicate that a receptacle shall be provided for each
device in question -- if the circuit is reserved for future use, does a receptacle device need to be
provided?
• 140.0(b)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and 140.0(b)(3) arguably will result in wasted material, labor, and
infrastructure thereby increasing the carbon footprint of the total installed project for devices which
may never be used, or potentially need to be re-sized/replaced if/when electrical appliances are
installed.
Page 2
Thoma Electric, Inc. Comments to
Proposed City of SI..,O C13C.A.mendments
• 140.0(b)(2)(A) and (B) do not require a reserved 2 -pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel,
but (C) and 140.0(b)(3) do call for reserved 2 -pole circuit breaker. This language appears
inconsistently applied,
• 140.0(b)(2)(A) Per section (i) a dedicated receptacle shall be "connected to the electric panel" is
interpreted that the conductors will be physically connected to the circuit breaker in the electrical
panel, thus, considered to be "in -use". Per section (ii) "both ends of unused conductor shall be
labeled" which conflicts with section (i) which implies unused conductor exist and shall be
connected, please clarify which conductor is unused in this scenario. These comments apply to
multiple sections throughout the amendment.
• 140.0(b)(2)(c) - Question on placement of receptacle for Cooktop/Range: Does "Accessible with no,
obstructions" include the wall area behind the appliance? Connections to this appliance typically are
provided BEHIND the appliance (for aesthetic reasons in a kitchen), is that placement considered to
be "obstructed" according to this code modification?
• 140.0(b)(2) does not address other kitchen appliances (for example, in a commercial kitchen) such
as griddle, broiler, fryer, warming ovens, commercial dishwashers, etc. Literal interpretation of
amendments require only water heaters, clothes dryers, cooktop-range, ovens, please clarify.
• 140.2(a)(4) and (5) — Meeting this restrictive requirement might not allow the designer to meet the
IES recommended lighting levels, especially without allowing CEC defined Power Adjustment Factor
credits. As this 10% additional requirement is then tied permanently to Title -24 allowable lighting
power density, we believe this requirement will become increasingly unrealistic since the CEC has
continued to decrease the allowances at each code iteration.
• 140.2(b)(5) and (6) — same question/comments as above for 140.2(a)(4) and (5).
3. Comments regarding Proposed Residential Amendments
• 150.0(h)(5)(B) Per section (i) a dedicated receptacle shall be "connected to the electric panel" is
interpreted that the conductors will be physically connected to the circuit breaker in the electrical
panel, thus considered to be "in -use". Per section (ii) "both ends of unused conductor shall be
labeled" which conflicts with section (i) which implies unused conductor exist and shall be
connected, please clarify which conductor is unused in this scenario. These comments apply to
multiple sections in the entire amendment.
• 150,0(h)(5)(C) — What is the application for this section, please clarify when this is applicable (this
scenario seems to have un -reconcilable electric billing problems, i.e. --- who pays for a common heat -
pump)? This is especially confusing considering the exception proposed.
• 150.0(n)(I)(A) — It is advised that the 120V, 20A circuit not be removed in gas applications, as this is
required for the electric igniter. The proposed change to provide 240V, 30A electrical circuit should
be additional to the 120V circuit where required. We suggest you revert this section of the proposed
code to the existing 2019 Title -24 language for clarity and consistency, as our interpretation is that the
existing 2019 code achieves the same goals as the proposed new language.
• 150.0(s) -- same comments from 140.0 regarding implementation details and language to describe
implementation details (see Section 2 cornments above).
• 150.1(b)(I)(B)(ii), Exception -2 (b) — If there exist multiple 80 sq -ft contiguous areas on a roof/eave
shall solar be installed on all available areas of 80 sq -ft contiguous, regardless of whether they are
contiguous to each -other, or whether a smaller defined PV area is sufficient to offset electric usage?
• 150�. 1 (c)(I 6)(D) -- offset of 100% of estimated site electricity load is an ambiguous requirement.
Designers for electrical systems need practical design targets or best practice design requirements.
The concern here is that electrical systems will be overdesigned/overbuilt for future loads that may
never materialize, thereby incurring significant additional cost and increased carbon footprint of
Page 3
Thoma Electric, Inc. Comments to
Proposed City of SLO CBC Amendments
project (material usage, delivery, manufacturing, etc.). Furthermore, physical space to offset 100% of,
electric load by PV generation may not be feasible on a given property,
150,. 1 (c)(I 5)(E) and 150. 1 (c)(I 6)(E) — mandate for battery storage inside dwelling units is a inajor
concern from a space planning, space -conditioning, etc. We suggest the Fire Marshall review this
requirement.
150.1 (c)(1 6)(E) For mixed -fuel, multi -family buildings, how will battery storage and solar metering
be implemented for multi -meter, multi -unit implementations? This is a significant cost, space,
logistics, lifecycle -cost, and administrative (billing), time -of -use metering, etc. issue. In addition, this,
section does not indicate that the energy storage needs to be provided to offset the energy
consumption of each dwelling unit, only that it be provided. Please clarify the intention.
150, 1 (c)(I 6)(D) -- Proposed Ordinance language requires that PV system be sized to offset 100% of
estimated site electricity load conflicts with 150.1(c)(14) which is prescriptive for solar array size
based on dwelling units, conditioned floor area, and applicable adjustment factors, and furthermore
the 2019 Energy Code has six different exceptions to further clarify what size PV array shall be
installed. Which code section shall govern in the City of SLO? Please consider modifying Section
150. 1. (c)(1 4) instead of providing new guidelines under 150. 1 (c)(1 6)(D).
o Additionally, SLO, City's recently implemented (May 7, 2019) Municipal Code Section
17.72.040 requires up to 50% of parking spaces to be EV capable — meaning project electrical
capacity and distribution must be planned and budgeted upon installation. Therefore, if
1.501 1 (c)(I 6)(D) indicates that PV shall offset 100% of estimated site electricity load (compared
to the language used in existing code Section 150.1(c)(14)), the added burden of future EV
chargers may increase size of the PV array to 200 to 300 percent of what they may have been
otherwise, which may result in significant costs passed to tenants or homeowners.
General comments regarding the goals of the City Ordinance:
1) This Ordinance seems to be written as more of a dis-incentive to move forward with mixed -fuel
buildings, not incentives to move forward with all -electric buildings. Could the amendments,
proposed be written in such a way to incentivize projects rather than dis-incentivize?
2) Will City Staff such as inspectors, plan -checkers, building officials, etc. be supported by training,
open -forums, etc. so that consistent application of these additional regulations may be applied?
3) Requirements for additional circuit breaker spaces and additional electrical loads will (by electrical
calculations) push size of electrical service significantly higher to each dwelling unit in residential
and multi -family residential applications. In our opinion, a panelboard size could double as a result.
4) In consideration of the proposed amendments generally, is this Ordinance going to require that the
electrical service equipment be fully capable of carrying all loads, future and current? For example,
where a gas water heater is installed shall the corresponding electrical load, under this Ordinance, be
accounted for so that it may be added at ANY point in the future? Will the Ordinance allow demand
factors to be applied to future electrical loads to prevent new/existing; electrical services from being
pushed significantly higher? This will require more copper, larger meters, larger transformers, larger
conduits, larger service equipment, potentially larger electric utility fees/services, etc. to
accommodate loads that may never be installed. Once installed, service equipment must be replaced
to "'upgrade" for added load.
5) Has PG&E been contacted and consulted regarding additional utility power distribution capacity
requirements? Will there be physical space on-site (in the downtown area especially) where larger
transformers will be necessary to account for the additional future electrical loads?
6) Is the Ordinance going to guarantee that the Utility company will allow connection of self -generation
equipment (especially at such scale) to their utility grid? Power electronics inverters (such as those
on PV arrays and battery storage) connected to Utility grids should be Utility approved, but even so
Page 4
Thoma Electric, Inc. Comments to
Proposed City of SLO CBC Amendments
may have unintended power quality consequences. Has PG&E been consulted regarding implications
of this Ordinance on utility grid power quality? This is an important technical issue in our industry.
7) The Ordinance generally refers to 240V appliances, however, larger residential and most commercial
electrical services are 208V. The document should be clear that appliances should be install ed/rated
according to nominal serving voltage,
8) Has a cost analysis been provided for installed PV + On-site Storage with respect to production and
disposal environmental impact of these systems?' Since battery storage systems are not required (they
are optional) per the 21119 Energy Code, the CA Energy Commission has not factored environmental
or lifecycle costs of production/disposal of the battery storage systems into approximated lifecycle
cost analysis. Has the City's consultant advising mandatory installation of these systems, provided
this cost/benefit analysis and overall environmental impact of production, transport, storage, disposal,
and replacement of these systems? Please refer to the following link for an FAQ by the CA Energy
Commission (specifically, questions 2 and 3) that discusses lifecycle costs of battery storage systems:
gawji(la-ds,/clocLii�iic�
iis,/'I'Ill(2
,24 019 Standards dctailed
9sta i
J
f
,9) Has the Ordinance considered fire code and fire rated. room requirements, sprinkler requirements,
ventilation and outdoor air -changes, off -gassing, etc. from battery charging (or future battery charging
if/when installed).
10) Has this Ordinance been fully vetted by the Fire Department and Fire Chief? We would like to
recommend that the City have The Fire Marshall review the proposed Ordinance language, with the
size of battery storage systems in mind.
11) Health care facilities (also governed by OSHPD), dispatch centers,, fire departments, police facilities
are required to install emergency generator systems for backup power. Legally these required
emergency generator systems shall have an on-site fuel source in order to be compliant with other
codes, including the life safety code. Will there be exceptions to this Ordinance for these types of
facilities to be allowed to use gas, diesel, or natural gas as emergency backup? Some of these
facilities require on-site 96 -hours of fuel.
12) For residential, mixed residential, and commercial applications, if no natural gas or propane options
are provided during new construction, choices for installation of optional standby generators will be
limited to gasoline (which is potentially more dangerous and not viable on large generator systems) or
diesel fueled. These types of fuel have significant maintenance and emissions impacts.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, it is our hope that you will thoughtfully consider our comments about the Ordinance as
written. The comments listed above represent a body of work generated by many hours of review by our
entire electrical engineering staff. As we stated at the outset of our letter, our goals in leaving the world a
better place are a shared set of goals with the City of San Luis Obispo. We are fully in support of the
City's intentions through this Ordinance to promote local generation and consumption of energy. We
believe the task in front of us with this Ordinance is to eliminate possible misinterpretations and
ambiguity in the code amendments as proposed while considering the economic and safety impacts of the
proposed changes.
We offer our expertise in any future opportunity for a dialog with the City, we would be happy to
participate and provide additional expertise as necessary. Perhaps, before rolling out these changes City
wide, the City of San Luis Obispo could consider using the proposed Ordinance language for application
to the existing City Hall and adjacent offices as a Case Study. In this Case Study, the drafters of this
Ordinance may observe the unintended consequences and challenges that might need to be addressed,
along with the costs associated with implementation.
Page 5
Thoma Electric, Inc, Comments to
Proposed City of SL O CBC Amendments
We have thoughtfully considered the draft Ordinance with our entire engineering division and would like
to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to share our comments. With the time our office had to
prepare this letter, we may have missed some concerns, but hopefully you will see that we have
thoughtfully considered the document. With the best interest of the citizens of San Luis Obispo in mind,
we urge you proceed thoughtfully and consider the potential unintended consequences of this Ordinance
as written. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
William Thoma, P.E.
President / CEO
Thoma Electric, Inc.
Page 6