HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019 Nonresidential Cost Effectiveness Study
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.
Copyright 2019, Southern California Edison Company. All rights reserved, except that this document
may be used, copied, and distributed without modification.
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.
Table of 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
List of Figures
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 mixed-
fuel 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
Figure 1. Measure Category and Package Overview
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/cgi-
bin/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 Methodology and Assumptions
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 Building Prototypes
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.
Figure 2. Prototype Characteristics Summary
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 Cost Effectiveness
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
Figure 3. Utility Tariffs used based on Climate Zone
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 (GN-
10)
6,8-10,14,15 SCE / Southern California Gas Company TOU-GS-1/TOU-GS-
2/TOU-GS-3
G-10 (GN-
10)
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 effectiveness is 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 Measure Description and Cost
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 Energy Efficiency Measures
This section describes all the energy efficiency measures considered for this analysis to develop a non-
preempted, cost-effective efficiency measure package. The Reach Code Team assessed the cost-
effectiveness 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 and SWH
♦ 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 capacity ≥ 33,000 Btu/hr and ≤ 54,000 Btu/hr, 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
Figure 4. Energy Efficiency Measures - Specification and Cost
Measure Baseline T24 Requirement
Measure Applicability
● Included in Packages 1A, 1B, 3A, 3C
─ Not applicable
Incremental Cost Sources & Notes
Med
Office
Med
Retail
Small Hotel
Guest
rooms
Comm
Spaces
Envelope
Modify SHGC Fenestration SHGC of 0.25 ● ● ● ●
$1.60 /ft2 window
for SHGC
decreases, $0/ft2
for SHGC increases
Costs from one manufacturer.
Fenestration as a Function
of Orientation
Limit on total window area and
west-facing window area as a
function of wall area.
● ─ ─ ─ $0
No additional cost associated
with the measure which is a
design consideration not an
equipment cost.
HVAC and SHW
Drain Water Heat Recovery No heat recovery required ─ ─ ● ─ $841 /unit
Assume 1 heat recovery unit
for every 3 guestrooms. Costs
from three manufacturers.
VAV Box Minimum Flow 20 percent of maximum
(design) airflow ● ─ ─ ● $0
No additional cost associated
with the measure which is a
design consideration not an
equipment cost.
Economizers on Small
Capacity Systems
Economizers required for units
> 54,000 Btu/hr ─ ● ─ ─ $2,857 /unit
Costs from one manufacturer’s
representative and one
mechanical contractor.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
4 2019-07-15
Measure Baseline T24 Requirement
Measure Applicability
● Included in Packages 1A, 1B, 3A, 3C
─ Not applicable
Incremental Cost Sources & Notes
Med
Office
Med
Retail
Small Hotel
Guest
rooms
Comm
Spaces
Solar Thermal Hot Water
For central heat pump water
heaters, there is no prescriptive
baseline requirement.
─ ─
●
(electric
only)
─ $33/therm-yr
Installed costs reported in the
California Solar Initiative
Thermal Program Database,
2015-present.8 Costs include
tank and were only available
for gas backup systems. Costs
are reduced by 19 percent per
federal income tax credit
average through 2022.
Lighting
Interior Lighting Reduced
LPD
Per Area Category Method,
varies by Primary Function
Area. Office area 0.60 – 0.70
W/ft2 depending on area of
space. Hotel function area 0.85
W/ft2. Retail Merchandise Sales
1.00 W/ft2
● ● ─ ● $0
Industry report on LED pricing
analysis shows that costs are
not correlated with efficacy.9
8 http://www.csithermalstats.org/download.html
9 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
● Included in Packages 1A, 1B, 3A, 3C
─ Not applicable
Incremental Cost Sources & Notes
Med
Office
Med
Retail
Small Hotel
Guest
rooms
Comm
Spaces
Institutional Tuning
No requirement, but Power
Adjustment Factor (PAF) credit
of 0.10 available for luminaires
in non-daylit areas and 0.05 for
luminaires in daylit areas 10
● ● ─ ● $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 Open
Plan Offices
No requirement, but PAF credit
of 0.30 available. ● ─ ─ ─
$189 /sensor; $74
/powered relay;
$108 /secondary
relay
2 workstations per sensor;
1 fixture per workstation;
4 workstations per master
relay;
120 ft2/workstation in open
office area, which is 53% of
total floor area of the medium
office
10 Power Adjustment Factors allow designers to tradeoff increased lighting power densities for more efficient designs. In this study, PAF-related measures
assume 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 Solar Photovoltaics and Battery 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 Solar Photovoltaics
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/ft2 covering 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.
Figure 5. Medium Office – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 135 kW Array
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
Figure 6. Medium Retail – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 110 kW Array
Figure 7. Small Hotel – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 80 kW Array
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
Figure 8. Medium Office Upfront PV Costs
Unit Cost Cost Useful Life (yrs.) Source
Solar PV System $2.30 / Wdc $310,500 30 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) Q1 2016 13
Inverter Replacement $0.15 / Wdc $20,250 10 E3 Rooftop Solar PV System Report 14 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 Storage
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-only and PV+Battery Packages
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 All Electric 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 HVAC and Water Heating
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
Figure 9. All-Electric HVAC and Water Heating Characteristics Summary.
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 All-
Electric
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 All-
Electric
Electric 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 all-
electric 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.
Figure 10. Medium Office HVAC System Costs
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
control requirements in section 140.4(m), units with cooling capacity ≥ 65,000 Btu/h 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
Figure 11. Medium Retail HVAC System Costs
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
Figure 12. Small Hotel HVAC and Water Heating System Costs
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 Infrastructure Impacts
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.
Figure 13. Medium Office Electrical Infrastructure Costs for All-Electric Design
A - 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
Figure 14. Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Prototypes
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 Preempted High Efficiency Appliances
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.
Figure 15. High Efficiency Appliance Assumptions
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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 Results
The Reach Code Team evaluated cost effectiveness of the following measure packages over a 2019 mixed-
fuel 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.
Figure 16. Package Summary
Package
Fuel Type Energy
Efficiency
Measures
PV & Battery
(PV + B)
High Efficiency
Appliances
(HE) Mixed 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 Code-
Minimum 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 all-
electric 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 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Office
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
Figure 17. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE
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 + EE
CZ01 PG&E 34,421 -808 4.5 18% $66,649 $125,902 $71,307 1.9 1.1 $59,253 $4,658
CZ02 PG&E 40,985 -505 8.1 17% $66,649 $163,655 $99,181 2.5 1.5 $97,005 $32,532
CZ03 PG&E 36,266 -463 7.0 20% $66,649 $141,897 $84,051 2.1 1.3 $75,248 $17,401
CZ04 PG&E 40,590 -547 7.7 14% $66,649 $162,139 $95,410 2.4 1.4 $95,489 $28,761
CZ04-2 CPAU 40,590 -547 7.7 14% $66,649 $85,537 $95,410 1.3 1.4 $18,887 $28,761
CZ05 PG&E 38,888 -499 7.4 18% $66,649 $154,044 $91,115 2.3 1.4 $87,395 $24,465
CZ05-2 SCG 38,888 -499 7.4 18% $66,649 $156,315 $91,115 2.3 1.4 $89,665 $24,465
CZ06 SCE 39,579 -305 8.7 20% $66,649 $86,390 $100,469 1.3 1.5 $19,741 $33,820
CZ06-2 LADWP 39,579 -305 8.7 20% $66,649 $51,828 $100,469 0.8 1.5 ($14,821) $33,820
CZ07 SDG&E 41,817 -6 11.3 20% $66,649 $204,394 $112,497 3.1 1.7 $137,745 $45,848
CZ08 SCE 41,637 -60 10.8 18% $66,649 $89,783 $113,786 1.3 1.7 $23,134 $47,137
CZ08-2 LADWP 41,637 -60 10.8 18% $66,649 $54,876 $113,786 0.8 1.7 ($11,773) $47,137
CZ09 SCE 42,539 -210 10.1 16% $66,649 $95,636 $115,647 1.4 1.7 $28,987 $48,998
CZ09-2 LADWP 42,539 -210 10.1 16% $66,649 $58,168 $115,647 0.9 1.7 ($8,481) $48,998
CZ10 SDG&E 41,857 -216 9.8 17% $66,649 $210,303 $108,726 3.2 1.6 $143,654 $42,077
CZ10-2 SCE 41,857 -216 9.8 17% $66,649 $92,736 $108,726 1.4 1.6 $26,087 $42,077
CZ11 PG&E 42,523 -390 9.1 13% $66,649 $166,951 $104,001 2.5 1.6 $100,301 $37,352
CZ12 PG&E 41,521 -466 8.4 14% $66,649 $161,594 $100,135 2.4 1.5 $94,945 $33,486
CZ12-2 SMUD 41,521 -466 8.4 14% $66,649 $71,734 $100,135 1.1 1.5 $5,085 $33,486
CZ13 PG&E 42,898 -434 9.0 13% $66,649 $169,107 $99,992 2.5 1.5 $102,457 $33,343
CZ14 SDG&E 42,224 -441 8.6 14% $66,649 $211,529 $106,913 3.2 1.6 $144,880 $40,264
CZ14-2 SCE 42,224 -441 8.6 14% $66,649 $95,809 $106,913 1.4 1.6 $29,160 $40,264
CZ15 SCE 45,723 -147 11.2 12% $66,649 $102,714 $118,034 1.5 1.8 $36,065 $51,384
CZ16 PG&E 37,758 -736 5.8 14% $66,649 $145,947 $79,755 2.2 1.2 $79,297 $13,106
CZ16-2 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
Figure 18. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B
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 + Battery
CZ01 PG&E 211,225 -808 39.9 18% $397,405 $645,010 $454,284 1.6 1.1 $247,605 $56,879
CZ02 PG&E 255,787 -505 50.6 17% $397,405 $819,307 $573,033 2.1 1.4 $421,902 $175,628
CZ03 PG&E 245,421 -463 48.8 20% $397,405 $777,156 $536,330 2.0 1.3 $379,751 $138,925
CZ04 PG&E 267,612 -547 52.7 14% $397,405 $836,221 $597,471 2.1 1.5 $438,816 $200,066
CZ04-2 CPAU 267,612 -547 52.7 14% $397,405 $621,879 $597,471 1.6 1.5 $224,474 $200,066
CZ05 PG&E 264,581 -499 52.5 18% $397,405 $897,216 $578,856 2.3 1.5 $499,811 $181,451
CZ05-2 SCG 264,581 -499 52.5 18% $397,405 $899,487 $578,856 2.3 1.5 $502,082 $181,451
CZ06 SCE 257,474 -305 52.1 20% $397,405 $484,229 $594,416 1.2 1.5 $86,824 $197,011
CZ06-2 LA 257,474 -305 52.1 20% $397,405 $282,360 $594,416 0.7 1.5 ($115,045) $197,011
CZ07 SDG&E 264,530 -6 55.7 20% $397,405 $817,528 $610,548 2.1 1.5 $420,123 $213,143
CZ08 SCE 258,348 -60 54.0 18% $397,405 $479,073 $625,249 1.2 1.6 $81,668 $227,844
CZ08-2 LA 258,348 -60 54.0 18% $397,405 $275,704 $625,249 0.7 1.6 ($121,701) $227,844
CZ09 SCE 262,085 -210 54.3 16% $397,405 $480,241 $622,528 1.2 1.6 $82,836 $225,123
CZ09-2 LA 262,085 -210 54.3 16% $397,405 $282,209 $622,528 0.7 1.6 ($115,196) $225,123
CZ10 SDG&E 258,548 -216 53.4 17% $397,405 $839,931 $595,323 2.1 1.5 $442,526 $197,918
CZ10-2 SCE 258,548 -216 53.4 17% $397,405 $485,523 $595,323 1.2 1.5 $88,118 $197,918
CZ11 PG&E 253,623 -390 50.9 13% $397,405 $826,076 $585,682 2.1 1.5 $428,671 $188,277
CZ12 PG&E 252,868 -466 50.3 14% $397,405 $802,715 $582,866 2.0 1.5 $405,310 $185,461
CZ12-2 SMUD 252,868 -466 50.3 14% $397,405 $415,597 $582,866 1.0 1.5 $18,192 $185,461
CZ13 PG&E 250,915 -434 50.4 13% $397,405 $806,401 $573,606 2.0 1.4 $408,996 $176,201
CZ14 SDG&E 283,684 -441 56.4 14% $397,405 $874,753 $676,271 2.2 1.7 $477,348 $278,866
CZ14-2 SCE 283,684 -441 56.4 14% $397,405 $493,888 $676,271 1.2 1.7 $96,483 $278,866
CZ15 SCE 274,771 -147 56.0 12% $397,405 $476,327 $640,379 1.2 1.6 $78,922 $242,974
CZ16 PG&E 266,490 -736 51.8 14% $397,405 $842,205 $575,563 2.1 1.4 $444,800 $178,158
CZ16-2 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
Figure 19. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE
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 + HE
CZ01 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
Figure 20. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum
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 Minimum
CZ01 PG&E -53,657 4967 10.1 -15% ($87,253) ($98,237) ($58,420) 0.9 1.5 ($10,984) $28,833
CZ02 PG&E -49,684 3868 5.0 -7% ($73,695) ($101,605) ($41,429) 0.7 1.8 ($27,910) $32,266
CZ03 PG&E -35,886 3142 5.6 -7% ($82,330) ($57,345) ($29,592) 1.4 2.8 $24,986 $52,738
CZ04 PG&E -48,829 3759 4.7 -6% ($69,012) ($90,527) ($40,570) 0.8 1.7 ($21,515) $28,443
CZ04-2 CPAU -48,829 3759 4.7 -6% ($69,012) ($19,995) ($40,570) 3.5 1.7 $49,018 $28,443
CZ05 PG&E -40,531 3240 4.5 -8% ($84,503) ($63,663) ($39,997) 1.3 2.1 $20,840 $44,506
CZ06 SCE -26,174 2117 3.1 -4% ($76,153) $24,908 ($20,571) >1 3.7 $101,061 $55,581
CZ06-2 LADWP -26,174 2117 3.1 -4% ($76,153) $26,366 ($20,571) >1 3.7 $102,518 $55,581
CZ07 SDG&E -12,902 950 0.9 -2% ($70,325) $46,879 ($11,407) >1 6.2 $117,204 $58,918
CZ08 SCE -15,680 1219 1.5 -2% ($68,774) $17,859 ($12,648) >1 5.4 $86,633 $56,125
CZ08-2 LADWP -15,680 1219 1.5 -2% ($68,774) $18,603 ($12,648) >1 5.4 $87,376 $56,125
CZ09 SCE -19,767 1605 2.4 -2% ($63,102) $20,920 ($14,462) >1 4.4 $84,022 $48,640
CZ09-2 LADWP -19,767 1605 2.4 -2% ($63,102) $21,929 ($14,462) >1 4.4 $85,030 $48,640
CZ10 SDG&E -27,414 2053 2.2 -4% ($47,902) $38,918 ($23,339) >1 2.1 $86,820 $24,562
CZ10-2 SCE -27,414 2053 2.2 -4% ($47,902) $20,765 ($23,339) >1 2.1 $68,666 $24,562
CZ11 PG&E -40,156 3062 3.6 -4% ($63,987) ($72,791) ($32,837) 0.9 1.9 ($8,804) $31,150
CZ12 PG&E -43,411 3327 4.1 -5% ($68,343) ($85,856) ($35,463) 0.8 1.9 ($17,512) $32,880
CZ12-2 SMUD -43,411 3327 4.1 -5% ($68,343) ($5,109) ($35,463) 13.4 1.9 $63,234 $32,880
CZ13 PG&E -39,649 3063 3.8 -4% ($62,726) ($70,705) ($32,408) 0.9 1.9 ($7,980) $30,318
CZ14 SDG&E -44,322 3266 3.4 -5% ($65,156) $6,043 ($38,422) >1 1.7 $71,199 $26,735
CZ14-2 SCE -44,322 3266 3.4 -5% ($65,156) $4,798 ($38,422) >1 1.7 $69,954 $26,735
CZ15 SCE -19,917 1537 1.8 -2% ($36,176) $12,822 ($15,464) >1 2.3 $48,998 $20,711
CZ16 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 from
Figure 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) (see
section 3.3.2.2).
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
23 2019-07-15
Figure 21. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3A – All-Electric + EE
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 + EE
CZ01 PG&E -19,115 4967 19.4 7% ($20,604) $20,630 $28,112 >1 >1 $41,234 $48,716
CZ02 PG&E -11,811 3868 15.2 10% ($7,046) $39,260 $58,563 >1 >1 $46,306 $65,609
CZ03 PG&E 2,530 3142 16.2 16% ($15,681) $85,241 $68,682 >1 >1 $100,922 $84,363
CZ04 PG&E -10,839 3759 14.8 9% ($2,363) $59,432 $58,420 >1 >1 $61,795 $60,783
CZ04-2 CPAU -10,839 3759 14.8 9% ($2,363) $70,680 $58,420 >1 >1 $73,043 $60,783
CZ05 PG&E -2,316 3240 14.6 12% ($17,854) $85,380 $58,802 >1 >1 $103,234 $76,656
CZ06 SCE 15,399 2117 14.3 18% ($9,503) $114,962 $89,921 >1 >1 $124,466 $99,425
CZ06-2 LADWP 15,399 2117 14.3 18% ($9,503) $82,389 $89,921 >1 >1 $91,893 $99,425
CZ07 SDG&E 33,318 950 13.8 20% ($3,676) $256,704 $111,399 >1 >1 $260,380 $115,076
CZ08 SCE 30,231 1219 14.2 18% ($2,124) $110,144 $111,781 >1 >1 $112,268 $113,906
CZ08-2 LADWP 30,231 1219 14.2 18% ($2,124) $76,069 $111,781 >1 >1 $78,194 $113,906
CZ09 SCE 24,283 1605 14.3 15% $3,547 $119,824 $108,249 33.8 30.5 $116,277 $104,702
CZ09-2 LADWP 24,283 1605 14.3 15% $3,547 $83,549 $108,249 23.6 30.5 $80,001 $104,702
CZ10 SDG&E 12,344 2053 12.6 13% $18,748 $230,553 $82,905 12.3 4.4 $211,806 $64,158
CZ10-2 SCE 12,344 2053 12.6 13% $18,748 $105,898 $82,905 5.6 4.4 $87,150 $64,158
CZ11 PG&E 929 3062 14.5 10% $2,662 $85,988 $75,030 32.3 28.2 $83,326 $72,368
CZ12 PG&E -3,419 3327 14.8 10% ($1,694) $68,866 $69,589 >1 >1 $70,560 $71,283
CZ12-2 SMUD -3,419 3327 14.8 10% ($1,694) $71,761 $69,589 >1 >1 $73,455 $71,283
CZ13 PG&E 1,398 3063 14.8 9% $3,923 $89,799 $71,307 22.9 18.2 $85,875 $67,384
CZ14 SDG&E -5,469 3266 13.5 9% $1,493 $206,840 $69,016 138.6 46.2 $205,347 $67,523
CZ14-2 SCE -5,469 3266 13.5 9% $1,493 $94,143 $69,016 63.1 46.2 $92,650 $67,523
CZ15 SCE 25,375 1537 13.7 10% $30,474 $114,909 $104,335 3.8 3.4 $84,435 $73,862
CZ16 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
Figure 22. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B
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 + B
CZ01 PG&E 157,733 4967 54.9 7% $310,152 $518,421 $410,946 1.7 1.3 $208,269 $100,794
CZ02 PG&E 203,026 3868 57.8 10% $323,710 $692,336 $532,273 2.1 1.6 $368,626 $208,563
CZ03 PG&E 211,706 3142 58.0 16% $315,075 $708,235 $520,866 2.2 1.7 $393,160 $205,791
CZ04 PG&E 216,204 3759 59.9 9% $328,393 $741,382 $560,576 2.3 1.7 $412,989 $232,183
CZ04-2 CPAU 216,204 3759 59.9 9% $328,393 $607,074 $560,576 1.8 1.7 $278,681 $232,183
CZ05 PG&E 223,399 3240 59.8 12% $312,902 $799,992 $546,592 2.6 1.7 $487,090 $233,690
CZ06 SCE 233,299 2117 57.7 18% $321,252 $509,969 $583,963 1.6 1.8 $188,716 $262,711
CZ06-2 LA 233,299 2117 57.7 18% $321,252 $311,931 $583,963 1.0 1.8 ($9,322) $262,711
CZ07 SDG&E 256,034 950 58.3 20% $327,079 $870,156 $609,498 2.7 1.9 $543,076 $282,419
CZ08 SCE 246,944 1219 57.4 18% $328,631 $499,506 $623,292 1.5 1.9 $170,874 $294,661
CZ08-2 LA 246,944 1219 57.4 18% $328,631 $296,991 $623,292 0.9 1.9 ($31,640) $294,661
CZ09 SCE 243,838 1605 58.5 15% $334,303 $504,498 $615,178 1.5 1.8 $170,195 $280,875
CZ09-2 LA 243,838 1605 58.5 15% $334,303 $307,626 $615,178 0.9 1.8 ($26,677) $280,875
CZ10 SDG&E 229,044 2053 56.2 13% $349,503 $851,810 $569,549 2.4 1.6 $502,306 $220,046
CZ10-2 SCE 229,044 2053 56.2 13% $349,503 $491,383 $569,549 1.4 1.6 $141,880 $220,046
CZ11 PG&E 212,047 3062 56.4 10% $333,418 $743,403 $556,758 2.2 1.7 $409,985 $223,340
CZ12 PG&E 207,955 3327 56.7 10% $329,062 $713,054 $552,415 2.2 1.7 $383,993 $223,353
CZ12-2 SMUD 207,955 3327 56.7 10% $329,062 $414,371 $552,415 1.3 1.7 $85,310 $223,353
CZ13 PG&E 209,431 3063 56.3 9% $334,679 $728,822 $544,969 2.2 1.6 $394,143 $210,289
CZ14 SDG&E 236,002 3266 61.3 9% $332,249 $865,181 $638,517 2.6 1.9 $532,933 $306,269
CZ14-2 SCE 236,002 3266 61.3 9% $332,249 $488,163 $638,517 1.5 1.9 $155,914 $306,269
CZ15 SCE 254,426 1537 58.5 10% $361,229 $487,715 $626,728 1.4 1.7 $126,486 $265,499
CZ16 PG&E 162,915 6185 58.6 -15% $333,309 $580,353 $406,746 1.7 1.2 $247,044 $73,437
CZ16-2 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
Figure 23. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3C – All-Electric + HE
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 + HE
CZ01 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) $13,108
CZ04 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 $10,890
CZ06 SCE -22,805 2117 4.0 -2% ($30,237) $39,812 ($9,594) >1 3.2 $70,050 $20,644
CZ06-2 LADWP -22,805 2117 4.0 -2% ($30,237) $35,414 ($9,594) >1 3.2 $65,651 $20,644
CZ07 SDG&E -7,646 950 2.5 1% ($22,564) $86,159 $6,062 >1 >1 $108,722 $28,625
CZ08 SCE -9,761 1219 3.2 1% ($18,443) $37,375 $8,305 >1 >1 $55,818 $26,748
CZ08-2 LADWP -9,761 1219 3.2 1% ($18,443) $29,973 $8,305 >1 >1 $48,416 $26,748
CZ09 SCE -12,211 1605 4.5 2% ($10,282) $46,335 $13,364 >1 >1 $56,617 $23,646
CZ09-2 LADWP -12,211 1605 4.5 2% ($10,282) $37,030 $13,364 >1 >1 $47,313 $23,646
CZ10 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) $5,512
CZ12 PG&E -36,926 3327 6.0 -1% ($15,443) ($48,955) ($9,546) 0.3 1.6 ($33,511) $5,898
CZ12-2 SMUD -36,926 3327 6.0 -1% ($15,443) $9,916 ($9,546) >1 1.6 $25,359 $5,898
CZ13 PG&E -31,253 3063 6.3 0% ($7,257) ($27,782) ($3,055) 0.3 2.4 ($20,525) $4,202
CZ14 SDG&E -36,402 3266 5.7 -1% ($10,651) $61,605 ($9,832) >1 1.1 $72,256 $819
CZ14-2 SCE -36,402 3266 5.7 -1% ($10,651) $30,625 ($9,832) >1 1.1 $41,276 $819
CZ15 SCE -4,775 1537 6.0 3% $28,927 $52,955 $32,790 1.8 1.1 $24,028 $3,863
CZ16 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 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail
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
Figure 24. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE
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 + EE
CZ01 PG&E 15,210 1209 11.10 18% $2,712 $68,358 $60,189 25.2 22.2 $65,646 $57,478
CZ02 PG&E 18,885 613 8.73 13% $5,569 $76,260 $59,135 13.7 10.6 $70,691 $53,566
CZ03 PG&E 18,772 462 7.87 16% $5,569 $66,813 $57,135 12.0 10.3 $61,244 $51,566
CZ04 PG&E 19,100 439 7.84 14% $5,569 $75,989 $58,036 13.6 10.4 $70,420 $52,467
CZ04-2 CPAU 19,100 439 7.84 14% $5,569 $51,556 $58,036 9.3 10.4 $45,987 $52,467
CZ05 PG&E 17,955 415 7.41 16% $5,569 $63,182 $55,003 11.3 9.9 $57,613 $49,435
CZ05-2 SCG 17,955 415 7.41 16% $5,569 $61,810 $55,003 11.1 9.9 $56,241 $49,435
CZ06 SCE 12,375 347 5.54 10% $2,712 $31,990 $41,401 11.8 15.3 $29,278 $38,689
CZ06-2 LADWP 12,375 347 5.54 10% $2,712 $21,667 $41,401 8.0 15.3 $18,956 $38,689
CZ07 SDG&E 17,170 136 5.65 13% $5,569 $73,479 $49,883 13.2 9.0 $67,910 $44,314
CZ08 SCE 12,284 283 5.15 10% $2,712 $30,130 $41,115 11.1 15.2 $27,419 $38,403
CZ08-2 LADWP 12,284 283 5.15 10% $2,712 $20,243 $41,115 7.5 15.2 $17,531 $38,403
CZ09 SCE 13,473 302 5.51 10% $5,569 $32,663 $46,126 5.9 8.3 $27,094 $40,557
CZ09-2 LADWP 13,473 302 5.51 10% $5,569 $22,435 $46,126 4.0 8.3 $16,866 $40,557
CZ10 SDG&E 19,873 267 6.99 12% $5,569 $83,319 $58,322 15.0 10.5 $77,751 $52,753
CZ10-2 SCE 19,873 267 6.99 12% $5,569 $39,917 $58,322 7.2 10.5 $34,348 $52,753
CZ11 PG&E 21,120 578 9.14 13% $5,569 $86,663 $67,485 15.6 12.1 $81,095 $61,916
CZ12 PG&E 20,370 562 8.85 13% $5,569 $81,028 $64,409 14.6 11.6 $75,459 $58,840
CZ12-2 SMUD 20,370 562 8.85 13% $5,569 $44,991 $64,409 8.1 11.6 $39,422 $58,840
CZ13 PG&E 22,115 620 9.98 15% $2,712 $109,484 $83,109 40.4 30.6 $106,772 $80,398
CZ14 SDG&E 25,579 406 9.38 13% $2,712 $116,354 $80,055 42.9 29.5 $113,643 $77,343
CZ14-2 SCE 26,327 383 9.42 13% $2,712 $57,290 $83,065 21.1 30.6 $54,578 $80,354
CZ15 SCE 26,433 169 8.35 12% $2,712 $57,152 $79,506 21.1 29.3 $54,440 $76,794
CZ16 PG&E 15,975 752 8.72 13% $2,712 $72,427 $55,025 26.7 20.3 $69,715 $52,314
CZ16-2 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
Figure 25. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B
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 + Battery
CZ01 PG&E 158,584 1209 40.79 18% $277,383 $509,092 $383,683 1.8 1.4 $231,709 $106,300
CZ02 PG&E 189,400 613 43.75 13% $280,240 $590,043 $465,474 2.1 1.7 $309,803 $185,234
CZ03 PG&E 191,016 462 43.52 16% $280,240 $578,465 $452,795 2.1 1.6 $298,224 $172,554
CZ04 PG&E 195,014 439 44.14 14% $280,240 $605,369 $480,989 2.2 1.7 $325,129 $200,748
CZ04-2 CPAU 195,014 439 44.14 14% $280,240 $451,933 $480,989 1.6 1.7 $171,693 $200,748
CZ05 PG&E 196,654 415 44.30 16% $280,240 $589,771 $464,749 2.1 1.7 $309,530 $184,509
CZ05-2 SCG 196,654 415 44.30 16% $280,240 $588,407 $464,749 2.1 1.7 $308,167 $184,509
CZ06 SCE 185,903 347 41.61 10% $277,383 $322,495 $456,596 1.2 1.6 $45,111 $179,213
CZ06-2 LA 185,903 347 41.61 10% $277,383 $191,428 $456,596 0.7 1.6 ($85,955) $179,213
CZ07 SDG&E 197,650 136 43.24 13% $280,240 $496,786 $477,582 1.8 1.7 $216,545 $197,342
CZ08 SCE 187,869 283 41.48 10% $277,383 $326,810 $478,132 1.2 1.7 $49,427 $200,749
CZ08-2 LA 187,869 283 41.48 10% $277,383 $190,379 $478,132 0.7 1.7 ($87,004) $200,749
CZ09 SCE 191,399 302 42.32 10% $280,240 $334,869 $472,770 1.2 1.7 $54,629 $192,530
CZ09-2 LA 191,399 302 42.32 10% $280,240 $201,759 $472,770 0.7 1.7 ($78,481) $192,530
CZ10 SDG&E 200,033 267 44.01 12% $280,240 $547,741 $472,880 2.0 1.7 $267,501 $192,640
CZ10-2 SCE 200,033 267 44.01 12% $280,240 $340,822 $472,880 1.2 1.7 $60,582 $192,640
CZ11 PG&E 192,846 578 44.07 13% $280,240 $582,969 $490,855 2.1 1.8 $302,728 $210,615
CZ12 PG&E 191,720 562 43.70 13% $280,240 $586,836 $485,076 2.1 1.7 $306,596 $204,836
CZ12-2 SMUD 191,720 562 43.70 13% $280,240 $319,513 $485,076 1.1 1.7 $39,273 $204,836
CZ13 PG&E 195,031 620 45.19 15% $277,383 $605,608 $486,285 2.2 1.8 $328,225 $208,901
CZ14 SDG&E 217,183 406 47.86 13% $277,383 $559,148 $534,915 2.0 1.9 $281,765 $257,532
CZ14-2 SCE 217,927 383 47.91 14% $277,383 $354,757 $538,058 1.3 1.9 $77,373 $260,674
CZ15 SCE 208,662 169 44.51 12% $277,383 $338,772 $496,107 1.2 1.8 $61,389 $218,724
CZ16 PG&E 210,242 752 48.76 13% $277,383 $608,779 $490,262 2.2 1.8 $331,395 $212,879
CZ16-2 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
Figure 26. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE
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 + HE
CZ01 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 $4,273
CZ03 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 $1,874
CZ04-2 CPAU 1,862 159 1.46 3% $9,004 $7,821 $10,878 0.9 1.2 ($1,182) $1,874
CZ05 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 $2,484
CZ06-2 LADWP 2,648 90 1.24 3% $8,943 $7,329 $11,427 0.8 1.3 ($1,614) $2,484
CZ07 SDG&E 2,376 49 0.95 2% $9,194 $20,103 $9,779 2.2 1.1 $10,909 $585
CZ08 SCE 2,822 72 1.20 3% $9,645 $11,989 $12,877 1.2 1.3 $2,344 $3,233
CZ08-2 LADWP 2,822 72 1.20 3% $9,645 $7,427 $12,877 0.8 1.3 ($2,218) $3,233
CZ09 SCE 4,206 88 1.73 4% $10,446 $16,856 $18,745 1.6 1.8 $6,410 $8,299
CZ09-2 LADWP 4,206 88 1.73 4% $10,446 $10,604 $18,745 1.0 1.8 $158 $8,299
CZ10 SDG&E 4,226 119 1.88 4% $9,514 $36,412 $19,008 3.8 2.0 $26,898 $9,494
CZ10-2 SCE 4,226 119 1.88 4% $9,514 $17,094 $19,008 1.8 2.0 $7,580 $9,494
CZ11 PG&E 4,188 225 2.56 4% $10,479 $31,872 $22,393 3.0 2.1 $21,392 $11,913
CZ12 PG&E 3,675 214 2.34 4% $10,409 $29,653 $20,525 2.8 2.0 $19,243 $10,115
CZ12-2 SMUD 3,675 214 2.34 4% $10,409 $12,823 $20,525 1.2 2.0 $2,414 $10,115
CZ13 PG&E 4,818 180 2.46 4% $9,809 $34,149 $23,623 3.5 2.4 $24,340 $13,814
CZ14 SDG&E 6,439 153 2.71 4% $12,103 $44,705 $26,348 3.7 2.2 $32,601 $14,245
CZ14-2 SCE 6,439 153 2.71 4% $12,103 $22,032 $26,348 1.8 2.2 $9,929 $14,245
CZ15 SCE 8,802 48 2.76 5% $12,534 $25,706 $31,402 2.1 2.5 $13,171 $18,868
CZ16 PG&E 2,316 390 2.97 3% $11,999 $22,663 $13,888 1.9 1.2 $10,665 $1,890
CZ16-2 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
Figure 27. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum
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 Minimum
CZ01 PG&E -29,155 3893 13.85 -4.1% ($23,048) ($8,333) ($13,910) 2.8 1.7 $14,715 $9,138
CZ02 PG&E -21,786 2448 7.49 -1.0% ($27,464) ($16,476) ($4,483) 1.7 6.1 $10,987 $22,981
CZ03 PG&E -14,583 1868 6.26 -0.4% ($24,111) $263 ($1,450) >1 16.6 $24,374 $22,661
CZ04 PG&E -14,186 1706 5.30 -0.1% ($22,896) ($8,753) ($220) 2.6 104.2 $14,143 $22,676
CZ04-2 CPAU -14,186 1706 5.30 -0.1% ($22,896) $12,493 ($220) >1 104.2 $35,389 $22,676
CZ05 PG&E -14,334 1746 5.47 -1.2% ($25,507) ($1,567) ($4,197) 16.3 6.1 $23,940 $21,309
CZ06 SCE -7,527 1002 3.32 0.5% ($21,762) $18,590 $1,868 >1 >1 $40,351 $23,630
CZ06-2 LADWP -7,527 1002 3.32 0.5% ($21,762) $19,309 $1,868 >1 >1 $41,071 $23,630
CZ07 SDG&E -3,812 522 1.76 0.3% ($23,762) $54,345 $1,318 >1 >1 $78,107 $25,080
CZ08 SCE -5,805 793 2.70 0.4% ($26,922) $16,735 $1,846 >1 >1 $43,658 $28,768
CZ08-2 LADWP -5,805 793 2.70 0.4% ($26,922) $17,130 $1,846 >1 >1 $44,052 $28,768
CZ09 SCE -7,241 970 3.32 0.4% ($32,113) $18,582 $1,978 >1 >1 $50,695 $34,091
CZ09-2 LADWP -7,241 970 3.32 0.4% ($32,113) $19,089 $1,978 >1 >1 $51,202 $34,091
CZ10 SDG&E -10,336 1262 3.99 0.1% ($27,272) $54,453 $505 >1 >1 $81,724 $27,777
CZ10-2 SCE -10,336 1262 3.99 0.1% ($27,272) $20,996 $505 >1 >1 $48,268 $27,777
CZ11 PG&E -19,251 2415 7.95 0.5% ($32,202) ($7,951) $2,615 4.1 >1 $24,251 $34,817
CZ12 PG&E -19,471 2309 7.28 -0.1% ($32,504) ($14,153) ($461) 2.3 70.4 $18,351 $32,042
CZ12-2 SMUD -19,471 2309 7.28 -0.1% ($32,504) $12,939 ($461) >1 70.4 $45,443 $32,042
CZ13 PG&E -16,819 1983 6.15 -0.4% ($28,158) ($10,575) ($2,022) 2.7 13.9 $17,582 $26,136
CZ14 SDG&E -13,208 1672 5.44 0.7% ($26,656) $41,117 $4,461 >1 >1 $67,772 $31,117
CZ14-2 SCE -13,208 1672 5.44 0.7% ($26,656) $18,467 $4,461 >1 >1 $45,123 $31,117
CZ15 SCE -2,463 518 2.14 0.9% ($29,544) $16,796 $5,823 >1 >1 $46,339 $35,367
CZ16 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 infrastructure
incremental cost savings of $28,027 (see section 3.3.2.2).
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
31 2019-07-15
Figure 28. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3A – All-Electric + EE
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 + EE
CZ01 PG&E -5,478 3893 20.64 15% ($20,336) $63,593 $51,224 >1 >1 $83,929 $71,560
CZ02 PG&E 2,843 2448 14.58 13% ($21,895) $74,997 $56,893 >1 >1 $96,892 $78,788
CZ03 PG&E 7,791 1868 12.73 16% ($18,542) $68,968 $56,586 >1 >1 $87,511 $75,128
CZ04 PG&E 8,572 1706 11.89 14% ($17,327) $81,957 $57,904 >1 >1 $99,284 $75,231
CZ04-2 CPAU 8,572 1706 11.89 14% ($17,327) $63,082 $57,904 >1 >1 $80,408 $75,231
CZ05 PG&E 6,973 1746 11.68 15% ($19,938) $63,677 $51,949 >1 >1 $83,615 $71,887
CZ06 SCE 7,431 1002 7.72 11% ($19,050) $47,072 $42,610 >1 >1 $66,122 $61,660
CZ06-2 LADWP 7,431 1002 7.72 11% ($19,050) $37,078 $42,610 >1 >1 $56,128 $61,660
CZ07 SDG&E 14,350 522 6.98 13% ($18,193) $127,461 $50,828 >1 >1 $145,654 $69,021
CZ08 SCE 8,524 793 6.90 10% ($24,210) $43,679 $42,258 >1 >1 $67,890 $66,468
CZ08-2 LADWP 8,524 793 6.90 10% ($24,210) $34,038 $42,258 >1 >1 $58,248 $66,468
CZ09 SCE 8,403 970 7.81 10% ($26,545) $47,819 $47,356 >1 >1 $74,364 $73,901
CZ09-2 LADWP 8,403 970 7.81 10% ($26,545) $37,934 $47,356 >1 >1 $64,478 $73,901
CZ10 SDG&E 11,737 1262 10.23 12% ($21,703) $137,436 $58,761 >1 >1 $159,139 $80,464
CZ10-2 SCE 11,737 1262 10.23 12% ($21,703) $58,257 $58,761 >1 >1 $79,959 $80,464
CZ11 PG&E 5,892 2415 15.13 12% ($26,633) $85,256 $65,859 >1 >1 $111,889 $92,492
CZ12 PG&E 5,548 2309 14.46 12% ($26,935) $80,631 $63,903 >1 >1 $107,566 $90,838
CZ12-2 SMUD 5,548 2309 14.46 12% ($26,935) $59,311 $63,903 >1 >1 $86,246 $90,838
CZ13 PG&E 10,184 1983 14.15 14% ($25,446) $110,105 $80,604 >1 >1 $135,551 $106,050
CZ14 SDG&E 16,583 1672 13.83 15% ($23,944) $171,200 $88,471 >1 >1 $195,145 $112,415
CZ14-2 SCE 16,583 1672 13.83 15% ($23,944) $656,178 $159,604 >1 >1 $680,122 $183,548
CZ15 SCE 23,642 518 9.44 12% ($26,832) $65,573 $76,781 >1 >1 $92,404 $103,612
CZ16 PG&E -18,232 4304 19.80 3% ($23,059) $38,796 $14,152 >1 >1 $61,855 $37,211
CZ16-2 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
Figure 29. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B
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 + B
CZ01 PG&E 137,956 3893 50.51 15% $254,335 $510,831 $374,432 2.0 1.5 $256,496 $120,097
CZ02 PG&E 173,387 2448 49.87 13% $252,777 $590,112 $463,431 2.3 1.8 $337,336 $210,654
CZ03 PG&E 180,055 1868 48.55 16% $256,129 $585,861 $452,399 2.3 1.8 $329,732 $196,270
CZ04 PG&E 184,499 1706 48.38 14% $257,345 $608,814 $481,011 2.4 1.9 $351,470 $223,666
CZ04-2 CPAU 184,499 1706 48.38 14% $257,345 $465,690 $481,011 1.8 1.9 $208,345 $223,666
CZ05 PG&E 185,690 1746 48.84 15% $254,734 $600,933 $461,804 2.4 1.8 $346,199 $207,071
CZ06 SCE 180,968 1002 43.91 11% $255,621 $335,909 $457,959 1.3 1.8 $80,288 $202,337
CZ06-2 LADWP 180,968 1002 43.91 11% $255,621 $206,021 $457,959 0.8 1.8 ($49,601) $202,337
CZ07 SDG&E 194,837 522 44.67 13% $256,478 $550,714 $478,637 2.1 1.9 $294,236 $222,159
CZ08 SCE 184,120 793 43.32 10% $250,461 $340,301 $479,406 1.4 1.9 $89,840 $228,945
CZ08-2 LADWP 184,120 793 43.32 10% $250,461 $203,813 $479,406 0.8 1.9 ($46,648) $228,945
CZ09 SCE 186,346 970 44.77 10% $248,127 $349,524 $474,176 1.4 1.9 $101,397 $226,049
CZ09-2 LADWP 186,346 970 44.77 10% $248,127 $216,654 $474,176 0.9 1.9 ($31,473) $226,049
CZ10 SDG&E 191,923 1262 47.46 12% $252,969 $593,514 $473,605 2.3 1.9 $340,545 $220,636
CZ10-2 SCE 191,923 1262 47.46 12% $252,969 $356,958 $473,605 1.4 1.9 $103,989 $220,636
CZ11 PG&E 177,639 2415 50.26 12% $248,039 $585,689 $489,317 2.4 2.0 $337,650 $241,278
CZ12 PG&E 176,919 2309 49.46 12% $247,736 $591,104 $484,702 2.4 2.0 $343,368 $236,966
CZ12-2 SMUD 176,919 2309 49.46 12% $247,736 $335,286 $484,702 1.4 2.0 $87,550 $236,966
CZ13 PG&E 183,129 1983 49.48 14% $249,226 $608,560 $483,670 2.4 1.9 $359,334 $234,444
CZ14 SDG&E 208,183 1672 52.54 15% $250,727 $593,232 $544,079 2.4 2.2 $342,505 $293,351
CZ14-2 SCE 264,589 1672 80.97 15% $250,727 $656,178 $580,403 2.6 2.3 $405,450 $329,676
CZ15 SCE 205,869 518 45.67 12% $247,840 $347,125 $493,339 1.4 2.0 $99,285 $245,499
CZ16 PG&E 176,114 4304 60.13 3% $251,612 $567,822 $446,795 2.3 1.8 $316,210 $195,183
CZ16-2 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
Figure 30. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3C – All-Electric + HE
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 + HE
CZ01 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 $15,463
CZ03 PG&E -11,703 1868 7.15 2% ($2,213) $9,159 $6,944 >1 >1 $11,372 $9,157
CZ04 PG&E -10,675 1706 6.37 3% ($316) $14,317 $11,383 >1 >1 $14,633 $11,700
CZ04-2 CPAU -10,675 1706 6.37 3% ($316) $20,599 $11,383 >1 >1 $20,915 $11,700
CZ05 PG&E -11,969 1746 6.19 1% ($2,298) $5,592 $1,824 >1 >1 $7,890 $4,122
CZ06 SCE -3,919 1002 4.35 3% $1,418 $29,751 $13,734 21.0 9.7 $28,333 $12,316
CZ06-2 LADWP -3,919 1002 4.35 3% $1,418 $25,891 $13,734 18.3 9.7 $24,473 $12,316
CZ07 SDG&E -955 522 2.59 3% ($710) $74,518 $11,229 >1 >1 $75,227 $11,939
CZ08 SCE -2,224 793 3.74 4% ($3,719) $28,067 $15,075 >1 >1 $31,785 $18,793
CZ08-2 LADWP -2,224 793 3.74 4% ($3,719) $23,848 $15,075 >1 >1 $27,566 $18,793
CZ09 SCE -2,089 970 4.84 4% ($8,268) $34,648 $21,162 >1 >1 $42,916 $29,430
CZ09-2 LADWP -2,089 970 4.84 4% ($8,268) $28,837 $21,162 >1 >1 $37,105 $29,430
CZ10 SDG&E -4,868 1262 5.58 4% ($5,222) $91,136 $20,041 >1 >1 $96,358 $25,263
CZ10-2 SCE -4,868 1262 5.58 4% ($5,222) $37,200 $20,041 >1 >1 $42,422 $25,263
CZ11 PG&E -12,651 2415 9.95 5% ($8,217) $29,015 $26,172 >1 >1 $37,232 $34,389
CZ12 PG&E -13,479 2309 9.10 4% ($9,239) $20,839 $21,228 >1 >1 $30,078 $30,466
CZ12-2 SMUD -13,479 2309 9.10 4% ($9,239) $26,507 $21,228 >1 >1 $35,746 $30,466
CZ13 PG&E -9,935 1983 8.23 4% ($4,975) $30,123 $24,063 >1 >1 $35,097 $29,037
CZ14 SDG&E -5,407 1672 7.71 5% $121 $88,669 $31,029 732.5 256.3 $88,547 $30,908
CZ14-2 SCE -5,407 1672 7.71 5% $121 $40,709 $31,029 336.3 256.3 $40,588 $30,908
CZ15 SCE 6,782 518 4.77 6% ($2,508) $42,238 $37,379 >1 >1 $44,745 $39,887
CZ16 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 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel
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 cost-
effective 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
Figure 31. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE
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 + EE
CZ01 PG&E 3,855 1288 5.65 9% $20,971 $34,339 $36,874 1.6 1.8 $13,368 $15,903
CZ02 PG&E 3,802 976 3.91 7% $20,971 $26,312 $29,353 1.3 1.4 $5,341 $8,381
CZ03 PG&E 4,153 1046 4.48 10% $20,971 $31,172 $35,915 1.5 1.7 $10,201 $14,944
CZ04 PG&E 5,007 395 0.85 6% $21,824 $24,449 $24,270 1.1 1.1 $2,625 $2,446
CZ04-2 CPAU 4,916 422 0.98 6% $21,824 $18,713 $24,306 0.9 1.1 ($3,111) $2,483
CZ05 PG&E 3,530 1018 4.13 9% $20,971 $28,782 $34,448 1.4 1.6 $7,810 $13,477
CZ05-2 SCG 3,530 1018 4.13 9% $20,971 $23,028 $34,448 1.1 1.6 $2,057 $13,477
CZ06 SCE 5,137 418 1.16 8% $21,824 $16,001 $26,934 0.7 1.2 ($5,823) $5,110
CZ06-2 LADWP 5,137 418 1.16 8% $21,824 $11,706 $26,934 0.5 1.2 ($10,118) $5,110
CZ07 SDG&E 5,352 424 1.31 8% $21,824 $26,699 $27,975 1.2 1.3 $4,876 $6,152
CZ08 SCE 5,151 419 1.21 7% $21,824 $15,931 $23,576 0.7 1.1 ($5,893) $1,752
CZ08-2 LADWP 5,151 419 1.21 7% $21,824 $11,643 $23,576 0.5 1.1 ($10,180) $1,752
CZ09 SCE 5,229 406 1.16 6% $21,824 $15,837 $22,365 0.7 1.0 ($5,987) $541
CZ09-2 LADWP 5,229 406 1.16 6% $21,824 $11,632 $22,365 0.5 1.0 ($10,192) $541
CZ10 SDG&E 4,607 342 0.92 5% $21,824 $25,506 $22,219 1.2 1.0 $3,683 $396
CZ10-2 SCE 4,607 342 0.92 5% $21,824 $13,868 $22,219 0.6 1.0 ($7,956) $396
CZ11 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 $9,898
CZ16-2 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
Figure 32. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B
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 + B
CZ01 PG&E 107,694 1288 28.73 9% $228,341 $366,509 $295,731 1.6 1.3 $138,168 $67,390
CZ02 PG&E 130,144 976 31.14 7% $228,341 $359,248 $336,575 1.6 1.5 $130,907 $108,233
CZ03 PG&E 129,107 1046 31.57 10% $228,341 $430,737 $335,758 1.9 1.5 $202,396 $107,416
CZ04 PG&E 132,648 395 28.46 6% $229,194 $355,406 $338,455 1.6 1.5 $126,212 $109,262
CZ04-2 CPAU 132,556 422 28.59 6% $229,194 $322,698 $338,492 1.4 1.5 $93,504 $109,298
CZ05 PG&E 136,318 1018 32.73 9% $228,341 $452,611 $352,342 2.0 1.5 $224,269 $124,001
CZ05-2 SCG 136,318 1018 32.73 9% $228,341 $446,858 $352,342 2.0 1.5 $218,516 $124,001
CZ06 SCE 131,051 418 28.47 8% $229,194 $217,728 $336,843 0.9 1.5 ($11,466) $107,649
CZ06-2 LADWP 131,051 418 28.47 8% $229,194 $131,052 $336,843 0.6 1.5 ($98,142) $107,649
CZ07 SDG&E 136,359 424 29.63 8% $229,194 $306,088 $345,378 1.3 1.5 $76,894 $116,184
CZ08 SCE 132,539 419 28.85 7% $229,194 $227,297 $353,013 1.0 1.5 ($1,897) $123,819
CZ08-2 LADWP 132,539 419 28.85 7% $229,194 $134,739 $353,013 0.6 1.5 ($94,455) $123,819
CZ09 SCE 131,422 406 28.82 6% $229,194 $230,791 $343,665 1.0 1.5 $1,597 $114,471
CZ09-2 LADWP 131,422 406 28.82 6% $229,194 $136,024 $343,665 0.6 1.5 ($93,170) $114,471
CZ10 SDG&E 134,146 342 29.05 5% $229,194 $339,612 $342,574 1.5 1.5 $110,418 $113,380
CZ10-2 SCE 134,146 342 29.05 5% $229,194 $226,244 $342,574 1.0 1.5 ($2,949) $113,380
CZ11 PG&E 128,916 325 27.62 4% $229,194 $352,831 $337,208 1.5 1.5 $123,637 $108,014
CZ12 PG&E 131,226 327 28.04 5% $229,194 $425,029 $338,026 1.9 1.5 $195,835 $108,832
CZ12-2 SMUD 131,226 327 28.04 5% $229,194 $213,176 $338,026 0.9 1.5 ($16,018) $108,832
CZ13 PG&E 127,258 310 27.33 4% $229,194 $351,244 $324,217 1.5 1.4 $122,050 $95,023
CZ14 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 $151,970
CZ15 SCE 137,180 278 29.12 3% $229,194 $225,054 $348,320 1.0 1.5 ($4,140) $119,127
CZ16 PG&E 141,478 1197 34.60 6% $228,341 $377,465 $357,241 1.7 1.6 $149,124 $128,899
CZ16-2 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
Figure 33. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE
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 + HE
CZ01 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 $10,655
CZ16 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
Figure 34. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum
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 Minimum
CZ01 PG&E -159,802 16917 53.92 -28% ($1,296,784) ($582,762) ($115,161) 2.2 11.3 $714,022 $1,181,623
CZ02 PG&E -118,739 12677 40.00 -12% ($1,297,757) ($245,434) ($51,620) 5.3 25.1 $1,052,322 $1,246,137
CZ03 PG&E -110,595 12322 40.48 -14% ($1,300,029) ($326,633) ($51,166) 4.0 25.4 $973,396 $1,248,863
CZ04 PG&E -113,404 11927 36.59 -13% ($1,299,864) ($225,307) ($53,134) 5.8 24.5 $1,074,556 $1,246,730
CZ04-2 CPAU -113,404 11927 36.59 -13% ($1,299,864) ($17,768) ($53,134) 73.2 24.5 $1,282,096 $1,246,730
CZ05 PG&E -108,605 11960 38.34 -15% ($1,299,917) ($350,585) ($54,685) 3.7 23.8 $949,332 $1,245,232
CZ06 SCE -78,293 8912 29.36 -5% ($1,300,058) ($61,534) ($28,043) 21.1 46.4 $1,238,524 $1,272,015
CZ06-2 LA -78,293 8912 29.36 -5% ($1,300,058) $43,200 ($28,043) >1 46.4 $1,343,258 $1,272,015
CZ07 SDG&E -69,819 8188 28.04 -7% ($1,298,406) ($137,638) ($23,199) 9.4 56.0 $1,160,768 $1,275,207
CZ08 SCE -71,914 8353 28.21 -6% ($1,296,376) ($53,524) ($22,820) 24.2 56.8 $1,242,852 $1,273,556
CZ08-2 LA -71,914 8353 28.21 -6% ($1,296,376) $42,841 ($22,820) >1 56.8 $1,339,217 $1,273,556
CZ09 SCE -72,262 8402 28.38 -6% ($1,298,174) ($44,979) ($21,950) 28.9 59.1 $1,253,196 $1,276,224
CZ09-2 LA -72,262 8402 28.38 -6% ($1,298,174) $46,679 ($21,950) >1 59.1 $1,344,853 $1,276,224
CZ10 SDG&E -80,062 8418 26.22 -8% ($1,295,176) ($172,513) ($36,179) 7.5 35.8 $1,122,663 $1,258,997
CZ10-2 SCE -80,062 8418 26.22 -8% ($1,295,176) ($63,974) ($36,179) 20.2 35.8 $1,231,202 $1,258,997
CZ11 PG&E -99,484 10252 30.99 -10% ($1,295,985) ($186,037) ($49,387) 7.0 26.2 $1,109,948 $1,246,598
CZ12 PG&E -99,472 10403 32.08 -10% ($1,297,425) ($340,801) ($45,565) 3.8 28.5 $956,624 $1,251,860
CZ12-2 SMUD -99,067 10403 32.21 -10% ($1,297,425) $5,794 ($44,354) >1 29.3 $1,303,219 $1,253,071
CZ13 PG&E -96,829 10029 30.60 -10% ($1,295,797) ($184,332) ($50,333) 7.0 25.7 $1,111,465 $1,245,464
CZ14 SDG&E -101,398 10056 29.68 -11% ($1,296,156) ($325,928) ($56,578) 4.0 22.9 $970,228 $1,239,578
CZ14-2 SCE -101,398 10056 29.68 -11% ($1,296,156) ($121,662) ($56,578) 10.7 22.9 $1,174,494 $1,239,578
CZ15 SCE -49,853 5579 18.07 -4% ($1,294,276) $209 ($21,420) >1 60.4 $1,294,485 $1,272,856
CZ16 PG&E -216,708 17599 41.89 -50% ($1,300,552) ($645,705) ($239,178) 2.0 5.4 $654,847 $1,061,374
CZ16-2 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 infrastructure
incremental 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
Figure 35. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3A – All-Electric + EE
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 + EE
CZ01 PG&E -113,259 16917 62.38 1.3% ($1,251,544) ($200,367) $5,460 6.2 >1 $1,051,177 $1,257,005
CZ02 PG&E -90,033 12677 45.46 4% ($1,265,064) ($108,075) $15,685 11.7 >1 $1,156,989 $1,280,749
CZ03 PG&E -83,892 12322 45.93 6% ($1,267,509) ($198,234) $20,729 6.4 >1 $1,069,274 $1,288,237
CZ04 PG&E -91,197 11927 40.36 0.2% ($1,263,932) ($112,892) $703 11.2 >1 $1,151,041 $1,264,635
CZ04-2 CPAU -90,981 11927 40.42 0.2% ($1,263,932) $32,557 $918 >1 >1 $1,296,489 $1,264,850
CZ05 PG&E -82,491 11960 43.62 5% ($1,267,355) ($221,492) $18,488 5.7 >1 $1,045,863 $1,285,843
CZ06 SCE -61,523 8912 32.45 7% ($1,267,916) ($33,475) $15,142 37.9 >1 $1,234,441 $1,283,057
CZ06-2 LADWP -61,523 8912 32.45 7% ($1,267,916) $57,215 $15,142 >1 >1 $1,325,130 $1,283,057
CZ07 SDG&E -53,308 8188 31.22 7% ($1,266,354) ($81,338) $22,516 15.6 >1 $1,185,015 $1,288,870
CZ08 SCE -55,452 8353 31.33 3% ($1,264,408) ($23,893) $9,391 52.9 >1 $1,240,515 $1,273,800
CZ08-2 LADWP -55,452 8353 31.33 3% ($1,264,408) $57,058 $9,391 >1 >1 $1,321,466 $1,273,800
CZ09 SCE -55,887 8402 31.40 2% ($1,266,302) ($19,887) $9,110 63.7 >1 $1,246,415 $1,275,412
CZ09-2 LADWP -55,887 8402 31.40 2% ($1,266,302) $60,441 $9,110 >1 >1 $1,326,743 $1,275,412
CZ10 SDG&E -60,239 8418 29.96 2% ($1,256,002) ($126,072) $7,365 10.0 >1 $1,129,930 $1,263,367
CZ10-2 SCE -60,239 8418 29.96 2% ($1,256,002) ($33,061) $7,365 38.0 >1 $1,222,940 $1,263,367
CZ11 PG&E -77,307 10252 35.12 1% ($1,256,149) ($80,187) $3,114 15.7 >1 $1,175,962 $1,259,263
CZ12 PG&E -75,098 10403 36.73 2% ($1,256,824) ($234,275) $9,048 5.4 >1 $1,022,550 $1,265,872
CZ12-2 SMUD -75,098 10403 36.73 2% ($1,256,824) $54,941 $9,048 >1 >1 $1,311,765 $1,265,872
CZ13 PG&E -75,052 10029 34.72 0.3% ($1,256,109) ($79,378) $1,260 15.8 >1 $1,176,731 $1,257,369
CZ14 SDG&E -76,375 10056 34.28 0.1% ($1,255,704) ($170,975) $543 7.3 >1 $1,084,729 $1,256,247
CZ14-2 SCE -76,375 10056 34.28 0.1% ($1,255,704) ($34,418) $543 36.5 >1 $1,221,286 $1,256,247
CZ15 SCE -33,722 5579 21.43 2% ($1,257,835) $26,030 $12,262 >1 >1 $1,283,864 $1,270,097
CZ16 PG&E -139,676 17599 55.25 -14% ($1,255,364) ($197,174) ($66,650) 6.4 18.8 $1,058,190 $1,188,714
CZ16-2 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
Figure 36. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B
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 3B: All-Electric + EE + PV + B
CZ01 PG&E -8,900 16917 87.15 1% ($1,044,174) $90,964 $324,376 >1 >1 $1,135,139 $1,368,551
CZ02 PG&E 36,491 12677 73.03 4% ($1,057,694) $242,514 $313,711 >1 >1 $1,300,208 $1,371,405
CZ03 PG&E 41,239 12322 73.43 6% ($1,060,139) $155,868 $308,385 >1 >1 $1,216,007 $1,368,524
CZ04 PG&E 36,628 11927 69.70 0.2% ($1,056,562) $240,799 $308,682 >1 >1 $1,297,361 $1,365,244
CZ04-2 CPAU 36,844 11927 69.76 0.2% ($1,056,562) $336,813 $418,836 >1 >1 $1,393,375 $1,475,398
CZ05 PG&E 36,365 11960 73.11 5% ($1,059,985) $119,173 $317,952 >1 >1 $1,179,158 $1,377,937
CZ06 SCE 64,476 8912 60.47 7% ($1,060,545) $156,327 $311,730 >1 >1 $1,216,872 $1,372,275
CZ06-2 LADWP 64,476 8912 60.47 7% ($1,060,545) $180,648 $311,730 >1 >1 $1,241,193 $1,372,275
CZ07 SDG&E 77,715 8188 60.45 7% ($1,058,983) $197,711 $330,458 >1 >1 $1,256,694 $1,389,441
CZ08 SCE 71,990 8353 59.49 3% ($1,057,038) $165,393 $320,814 >1 >1 $1,222,432 $1,377,852
CZ08-2 LADWP 71,990 8353 60.24 3% ($1,057,038) $180,367 $443,809 >1 >1 $1,237,405 $1,500,847
CZ09 SCE 70,465 8402 59.29 2% ($1,058,932) $175,602 $301,459 >1 >1 $1,234,534 $1,360,391
CZ09-2 LADWP 70,465 8402 59.29 2% ($1,058,932) $183,220 $301,459 >1 >1 $1,242,152 $1,360,391
CZ10 SDG&E 69,581 8418 58.04 2% ($1,048,632) $161,513 $294,530 >1 >1 $1,210,145 $1,343,162
CZ10-2 SCE 69,581 8418 58.04 2% ($1,048,632) $164,837 $294,530 >1 >1 $1,213,469 $1,343,162
CZ11 PG&E 47,260 10252 61.57 1% ($1,048,779) $253,717 $286,797 >1 >1 $1,302,496 $1,335,576
CZ12 PG&E 51,115 10403 64.07 2% ($1,049,454) $104,523 $305,446 >1 >1 $1,153,977 $1,354,900
CZ12-2 SMUD 51,115 10403 64.99 2% ($1,049,454) $253,197 $430,977 >1 >1 $1,302,651 $1,480,431
CZ13 PG&E 47,757 10029 60.77 0.3% ($1,048,739) $251,663 $281,877 >1 >1 $1,300,402 $1,330,616
CZ14 SDG&E 66,084 10056 64.54 0.1% ($1,048,334) $148,510 $334,938 >1 >1 $1,196,844 $1,383,272
CZ14-2 SCE 66,084 10056 64.54 0.1% ($1,048,334) $185,018 $334,938 >1 >1 $1,233,352 $1,383,272
CZ15 SCE 98,755 5579 49.04 2.1% ($1,050,465) $233,308 $311,121 >1 >1 $1,283,772 $1,361,585
CZ16 PG&E -873 17599 84.99 -14% ($1,047,994) $191,994 $240,724 >1 >1 $1,239,987 $1,288,718
CZ16-2 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
Figure 37. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3C – All-Electric + HE
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 + HE
CZ01 PG&E -154,840 16917 56.24 -24% ($1,281,338) ($606,619) ($101,272) 2.1 12.7 $674,719 $1,180,066
CZ02 PG&E -118,284 12677 41.18 -11% ($1,283,243) ($395,641) ($44,505) 3.2 28.8 $887,602 $1,238,738
CZ03 PG&E -113,413 12322 40.80 -14% ($1,288,782) ($522,458) ($51,582) 2.5 25.0 $766,324 $1,237,200
CZ04 PG&E -115,928 11927 37.09 -13% ($1,287,878) ($383,177) ($53,285) 3.4 24.2 $904,701 $1,234,593
CZ04-2 CPAU -115,928 11927 37.09 -13% ($1,287,878) ($24,170) ($53,285) 53.3 24.2 $1,263,708 $1,234,593
CZ05 PG&E -111,075 11960 38.75 -15% ($1,288,242) ($530,740) ($56,124) 2.4 23.0 $757,502 $1,232,119
CZ06 SCE -83,000 8912 29.41 -15% ($1,288,695) ($154,625) ($32,244) 8.3 40.0 $1,134,069 $1,256,451
CZ06-2 LADWP -83,000 8912 29.41 -15% ($1,288,695) ($17,626) ($32,244) 73.1 40.0 $1,271,068 $1,256,451
CZ07 SDG&E -73,823 8188 28.32 -7% ($1,285,759) ($268,207) ($24,069) 4.8 53.4 $1,017,552 $1,261,690
CZ08 SCE -75,573 8353 28.56 -6% ($1,281,241) ($157,393) ($21,912) 8.1 58.5 $1,123,848 $1,259,329
CZ08-2 LADWP -75,573 8353 28.56 -6% ($1,281,241) ($18,502) ($21,912) 69.2 58.5 $1,262,739 $1,259,329
CZ09 SCE -74,790 8402 29.04 -4% ($1,285,139) ($138,746) ($16,992) 9.3 75.6 $1,146,393 $1,268,147
CZ09-2 LADWP -74,790 8402 29.04 -4% ($1,285,139) ($6,344) ($16,992) 202.6 75.6 $1,278,794 $1,268,147
CZ10 SDG&E -80,248 8418 27.57 -5% ($1,278,097) ($235,479) ($24,107) 5.4 53.0 $1,042,617 $1,253,990
CZ10-2 SCE -80,248 8418 27.57 -5% ($1,278,097) ($123,371) ($24,107) 10.4 53.0 $1,154,726 $1,253,990
CZ11 PG&E -98,041 10252 32.73 -7% ($1,279,528) ($278,242) ($35,158) 4.6 36.4 $1,001,286 $1,244,370
CZ12 PG&E -100,080 10403 33.24 -9% ($1,282,834) ($480,347) ($38,715) 2.7 33.1 $802,487 $1,244,119
CZ12-2 SMUD -100,080 10403 33.24 -9% ($1,282,834) ($23,362) ($38,715) 54.9 33.1 $1,259,472 $1,244,119
CZ13 PG&E -94,607 10029 32.47 -7% ($1,279,301) ($276,944) $244,552 4.6 >1 $1,002,357 $1,523,853
CZ14 SDG&E -97,959 10056 31.91 -7% ($1,279,893) ($302,123) ($37,769) 4.2 33.9 $977,770 $1,242,124
CZ14-2 SCE -97,959 10056 31.91 -7% ($1,279,893) ($129,082) ($37,769) 9.9 33.9 $1,150,811 $1,242,124
CZ15 SCE -45,226 5579 20.17 0.04% ($1,276,847) ($6,533) $227 195.4 >1 $1,270,314 $1,277,074
CZ16 PG&E -198,840 17599 47.73 -39% ($1,288,450) ($605,601) ($185,438) 2.1 6.9 $682,848 $1,103,011
CZ16-2 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 Cost Effectiveness Results – PV-only and 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 all-
electric 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 mixed-
fuel 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 all-
electric buildings with PV.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
45 2019-07-15
Figure 38. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office - PV and Battery
PV
Battery
Utility On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
CZ01 PG&E 2.8 1.5 1.7 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.2 0.9 1.6 0.9 1.6 2.5 2.0 2.1 1.7
CZ02 PG&E 3.7 1.9 2.1 1.1 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.4 0.8 2.2 0.9 2.6 3.2 2.4 2.7 2.1
CZ03 PG&E 3.7 1.8 2.2 1.0 2.1 1.5 1.9 1.4 1.9 3.9 2.0 4.0 3.4 2.5 2.9 2.2
CZ04 PG&E 3.6 2.0 2.1 1.2 2.3 1.6 2.1 1.5 0.9 2.1 1.1 2.7 3.3 2.5 2.9 2.2
CZ04-2 CPAU 2.1 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 7.7 2.1 9.8 2.7 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.2
CZ05 PG&E 4.2 1.9 2.4 1.1 2.5 1.6 2.3 1.5 1.8 2.7 1.9 2.7 4.0 2.7 3.4 2.3
CZ05-2 SCG 4.2 1.9 2.4 1.1 2.5 1.6 2.3 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.0 9.4 2.6
CZ06 SCE 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.5 >1 7.2 >1 8.2 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.3
CZ06-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.6 0.7 1.5 >1 7.2 >1 8.2 1.5 2.7 1.3 2.3
CZ07 SDG&E 3.2 2.0 1.9 1.2 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.7 2.7 3.2 2.3
CZ08 SCE 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.2 2.7 1.9 2.4
CZ08-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.7 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.3 2.7 1.1 2.4
CZ09 SCE 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.2 2.6 1.9 2.3
CZ09-2 LA 1.1 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.7 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.3 2.6 1.2 2.3
CZ10 SDG&E 3.8 1.9 2.2 1.1 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.5 >1 3.3 >1 6.3 3.3 2.3 2.9 2.0
CZ10-2 SCE 2.1 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.5 >1 3.3 >1 6.3 2.0 2.3 1.8 2.0
CZ11 PG&E 3.6 1.9 2.1 1.1 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 2.6 1.5 3.6 3.2 2.4 2.8 2.1
CZ12 PG&E 3.5 1.9 2.1 1.1 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.5 0.9 2.5 1.2 3.2 3.1 2.4 2.7 2.1
CZ12-2 SMUD 1.4 1.9 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.04 1.5 >1 2.5 >1 3.2 1.9 2.4 1.6 2.1
CZ13 PG&E 3.5 1.8 2.0 1.1 2.2 1.5 2.0 1.4 1.1 2.5 1.5 3.6 3.1 2.3 2.7 2.0
CZ14 SDG&E 3.4 2.3 2.0 1.3 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.7 >1 2.3 >1 3.1 3.6 2.8 3.2 2.5
CZ14-2 SCE 1.9 2.3 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.2 1.7 >1 2.3 >1 3.1 2.2 2.8 1.9 2.5
CZ15 SCE 1.8 2.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.6 >1 7.5 >1 >1 1.8 2.4 1.6 2.1
CZ16 PG&E 3.9 2.0 2.3 1.1 2.3 1.6 2.1 1.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 2.5 1.8 2.2 1.6
CZ16-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.7 1.5 >1 0.4 >1 0.6 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.6
CZ
135kW
0 05kWh 50kWh
3kW
0
135kW
0
3kW
5kWh
135kW
50kWh
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
3kW 135kW3kW
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
46 2019-07-15
Figure 39. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail - PV and Battery
PV
Battery
Utility On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
CZ01 PG&E 2.3 1.5 1.3 0.9 1.8 1.3 1.6 1.2 >1 3.0 >1 2.7 2.5 1.6 2.2 1.5
CZ02 PG&E 3.2 1.8 1.9 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.1 2.3 1.9
CZ03 PG&E 2.7 1.8 1.6 1.1 2.2 1.5 2.0 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.0 2.1 2.6 1.9
CZ04 PG&E 3.3 1.9 1.9 1.1 2.0 1.6 1.9 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.1 2.5 2.0
CZ04-2 CPAU 2.1 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.0
CZ05 PG&E 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.1 2.3 1.6 2.0 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.2 2.1 2.7 2.0
CZ05-2 SCG 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.1 2.3 1.6 2.0 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.7 1.9 3.2 1.6
CZ06 SCE 2.0 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.2 1.5 2.0
CZ06-2 LA 1.3 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.6 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.01 2.2 0.9 2.0
CZ07 SDG&E 4.0 2.0 2.4 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.1
CZ08 SCE 2.1 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.4 1.5 2.1
CZ08-2 LA 1.3 2.0 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.6 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.01 2.4 0.9 2.1
CZ09 SCE 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.8 2.4 1.6 2.1
CZ09-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.7 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.1 2.4 0.99 2.1
CZ10 SDG&E 3.8 2.0 2.2 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.0
CZ10-2 SCE 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.8 2.3 1.6 2.0
CZ11 PG&E 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.1
CZ12 PG&E 3.0 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.1
CZ12-2 SMUD 1.5 1.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.997 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.3 1.4 2.1
CZ13 PG&E 3.0 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.2 2.4 1.9
CZ14 SDG&E 3.5 2.2 2.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.2
CZ14-2 SCE 1.8 2.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.1 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.6 1.5 2.2
CZ15 SCE 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.02 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.4 1.5 2.1
CZ16 PG&E 3.7 2.0 2.1 1.2 2.1 1.7 1.9 1.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 2.7 2.0 2.3 1.8
CZ16-2 LA 1.3 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.6 1.6 >1 0.5 >1 0.4 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.8
3kW 90 kW3kW
0 05kWh 50kWh
CZ
Mixed Fuel
0 05kWh 50kWh
3kW 90 kW3kW 90 kW
All-Electric
90 kW
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
47 2019-07-15
Figure 40. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel - PV and Battery
PV
Battery
Utility On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
CZ01 PG&E 2.3 1.5 1.3 0.9 1.9 1.2 1.6 1.1 2.3 >1 2.3 >1 4.8 >1 4.7 >1
CZ02 PG&E 2.3 1.9 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.4 5.6 >1 5.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ03 PG&E 2.7 1.8 1.6 1.05 2.3 1.5 1.9 1.4 4.2 >1 4.2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ04 PG&E 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 6.2 >1 6.2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ04-2 CPAU 2.1 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ05 PG&E 2.9 1.9 1.7 1.1 2.4 1.6 2.0 1.5 3.9 >1 3.9 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ05-2 SCG 2.9 1.9 1.7 1.1 2.4 1.6 2.0 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ06 SCE 1.8 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ06-2 LA 1.1 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.6 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ07 SDG&E 2.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ08 SCE 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.0 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ08-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.6 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ09 SCE 1.9 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.6 0.997 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ09-2 LA 1.1 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.6 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ10 SDG&E 2.9 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4 8.2 >1 8.2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ10-2 SCE 1.7 1.9 0.99 1.1 1.2 1.6 0.99 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ11 PG&E 2.6 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 7.6 >1 7.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ12 PG&E 2.7 1.9 1.6 1.1 2.3 1.6 1.9 1.4 4.0 >1 4.0 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ12-2 SMUD 1.4 1.9 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.95 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ13 PG&E 2.6 1.8 1.5 1.1 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.4 7.7 >1 7.7 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ14 SDG&E 3.0 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.6 4.2 >1 4.2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ14-2 SCE 1.8 2.2 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.1 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ15 SCE 1.7 2.0 1.002 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.003 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1
CZ16 PG&E 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.5 2.1 5.7 2.1 5.6 5.8 >1 5.8 >1
CZ16-2 LA 1.02 2.0 0.6 1.2 0.6 1.6 0.6 1.5 >1 5.7 >1 5.6 >1 >1 >1 >1
5kWh 50kWh 0
CZ
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
3kW 80kW3kW 80kW 3kW 80kW3kW 80kW
05kWh 50kWh00
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
48 2019-07-15
5 Summary, Conclusions, and Further Considerations
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
Figure 41. Medium Office Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness
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
Figure 42. Medium Retail Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness
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 43. Small Hotel Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness
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 Conclusions and Further Considerations
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 mixed-
fuel 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 Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 44. The map in Figure 44 along with a zip-
code search directory is available at:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html
Figure 44. Map of California Climate Zones
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
54 2019-07-15
6.2 Lighting Efficiency 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.
Figure 45. Impact of Lighting Measures on Proposed LPDs 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 Water Heat Recovery Measure Analysis
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 all-
electric 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 Utility Rate Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the IOU and POU rates depicted in Figure 46 to determine the On-Bill savings
for each prototype.
Figure 46. Utility Tariffs Analyzed Based on Climate Zone – Detailed View
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 Mixed Fuel Baseline Energy Figures
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.
Figure 47. Medium Office – Mixed Fuel Baseline
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
Figure 48. Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel Baseline
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
Figure 49. Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel Baseline
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 Hotel TDV Cost Effectiveness with Propane Baseline
The Reach Codes Team further analyzed TDV cost effectiveness of the all-electric packages with a mixed-
fuel 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.
Figure 50. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 2 All-
Electric Federal Code Minimum
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
Figure 51. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3A (All-
Electric + EE)
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
Figure 52. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3B (All-
Electric + EE + PV)
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
Figure 53. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3C (All
Electric + HE)
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-only and PV+Battery-only Cost Effectiveness Results Details
The Reach Code Tea evaluated cost effectiveness of installing a PV system and battery storage in six different measure combinations over a 2019
code-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 the
same as that of their respective federal minimum design and is not affected by addition of solar PV or battery. These scenarios evaluate the cost
effectiveness of PV and/or battery measure individually. The climate zones where all-electric design is not compliant will have the flexibility to
ramp 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 large
negative lifecycle costs in all electric packages are due to lower all-electric HVAC system costs and avoided natural gas infrastructure costs. This is
commonly applied across all climate zones and packages over any additional costs for PV and battery.
6.7.1 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Office
Figure 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 PV
only package, battery reduces cost effectiveness. This package is not cost effective for LADWP and SMUD territories using an On-Bill
approach.
♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV only: The packages are less cost effective as compared to 3 kW PV packages in most climate zones. In areas served by
LADWP, 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-Bill
and 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 to
be cost-effective 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 + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: Packages are slightly more cost effective than the previous minimal PV only package. Packages are
on-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 and
TDV 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
Figure 54. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office - Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV
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 PV
CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $5,566 $15,743 $8,448 2.8 1.5 $10,177 $2,882
CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $5,566 $20,372 $10,500 3.7 1.9 $14,806 $4,934
CZ03 PG&E 4,660 0 0.9 $5,566 $20,603 $9,975 3.7 1.8 $15,037 $4,409
CZ04 PG&E 5,056 0 1.0 $5,566 $20,235 $11,073 3.6 2.0 $14,669 $5,507
CZ04-2 CPAU 5,056 0 1.0 $5,566 $11,945 $11,073 2.1 2.0 $6,379 $5,507
CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $5,566 $23,159 $10,834 4.2 1.9 $17,593 $5,268
CZ06 SCE 4,853 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,968 $10,930 2.0 2.0 $5,402 $5,364
CZ06-2 LADWP 4,853 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,575 $10,930 1.2 2.0 $1,009 $5,364
CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $5,566 $17,904 $11,025 3.2 2.0 $12,338 $5,459
CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,768 $11,359 1.9 2.0 $5,202 $5,793
CZ08-2 LADWP 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,503 $11,359 1.2 2.0 $937 $5,793
CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 1.0 $5,566 $10,622 $11,216 1.9 2.0 $5,056 $5,650
CZ09-2 LADWP 4,889 0 1.0 $5,566 $6,217 $11,216 1.1 2.0 $651 $5,650
CZ10 SDG&E 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $21,280 $10,787 3.8 1.9 $15,714 $5,221
CZ10-2 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $11,598 $10,787 2.1 1.9 $6,032 $5,221
CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $5,566 $19,869 $10,644 3.6 1.9 $14,303 $5,078
CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.9 $5,566 $19,643 $10,644 3.5 1.9 $14,077 $5,078
CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.9 $5,566 $8,005 $10,644 1.4 1.9 $2,439 $5,078
CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $5,566 $19,231 $10,262 3.5 1.8 $13,665 $4,696
CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.0 $5,566 $18,789 $12,600 3.4 2.3 $13,223 $7,034
CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.0 $5,566 $10,512 $12,600 1.9 2.3 $4,946 $7,034
CZ15 SCE 5,099 0 1.0 $5,566 $10,109 $11,550 1.8 2.1 $4,543 $5,984
CZ16 PG&E 5,096 0 1.0 $5,566 $21,836 $10,882 3.9 2.0 $16,270 $5,316
CZ16-2 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
Figure 55. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh 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 Battery
CZ01 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 $980
CZ03 PG&E 4,660 0 0.9 $9,520 $20,603 $9,975 2.2 1.0 $11,083 $455
CZ04 PG&E 5,056 0 1.0 $9,520 $20,235 $11,073 2.1 1.2 $10,714 $1,553
CZ04-2 CPAU 5,056 0 1.0 $9,520 $11,945 $11,073 1.3 1.2 $2,425 $1,553
CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $9,520 $23,159 $10,834 2.4 1.1 $13,639 $1,314
CZ06 SCE 4,853 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,968 $10,930 1.2 1.1 $1,448 $1,410
CZ06-2 LADWP 4,853 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,575 $10,930 0.7 1.1 ($2,945) $1,410
CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $9,520 $17,904 $11,025 1.9 1.2 $8,384 $1,505
CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,768 $11,359 1.1 1.2 $1,248 $1,839
CZ08-2 LADWP 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,503 $11,359 0.7 1.2 ($3,017) $1,839
CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 1.0 $9,520 $10,622 $11,216 1.1 1.2 $1,102 $1,696
CZ09-2 LADWP 4,889 0 1.0 $9,520 $6,217 $11,216 0.7 1.2 ($3,303) $1,696
CZ10 SDG&E 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $21,280 $10,787 2.2 1.1 $11,760 $1,267
CZ10-2 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $11,598 $10,787 1.2 1.1 $2,078 $1,267
CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $9,520 $19,869 $10,644 2.1 1.1 $10,349 $1,123
CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.9 $9,520 $19,643 $10,644 2.1 1.1 $10,123 $1,123
CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.9 $9,520 $8,005 $10,644 0.8 1.1 ($1,515) $1,123
CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $9,520 $19,231 $10,262 2.0 1.1 $9,711 $742
CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.0 $9,520 $18,789 $12,600 2.0 1.3 $9,269 $3,080
CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.0 $9,520 $10,512 $12,600 1.1 1.3 $992 $3,080
CZ15 SCE 5,099 0 1.0 $9,520 $10,109 $11,550 1.1 1.2 $589 $2,030
CZ16 PG&E 5,096 0 1.0 $9,520 $21,836 $10,882 2.3 1.1 $12,316 $1,362
CZ16-2 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
Figure 56. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV
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
CZ01 PG&E 177,340 0 34.3 $302,856 $526,352 $380,399 1.7 1.3 $223,497 $77,544
CZ02 PG&E 215,311 0 41.5 $302,856 $666,050 $471,705 2.2 1.6 $363,194 $168,849
CZ03 PG&E 209,717 0 40.7 $302,856 $645,010 $449,797 2.1 1.5 $342,154 $146,942
CZ04 PG&E 227,535 0 44.0 $302,856 $686,434 $497,431 2.3 1.6 $383,578 $194,575
CZ04-2 CPAU 227,535 0 44.0 $302,856 $537,521 $497,431 1.8 1.6 $234,665 $194,575
CZ05 PG&E 226,195 0 44.1 $302,856 $753,230 $486,596 2.5 1.6 $450,374 $183,741
CZ06 SCE 218,387 0 42.3 $302,856 $401,645 $492,515 1.3 1.6 $98,789 $189,659
CZ06-2 LADWP 218,387 0 42.3 $302,856 $233,909 $492,515 0.8 1.6 ($68,947) $189,659
CZ07 SDG&E 223,185 0 43.3 $302,856 $623,078 $496,667 2.1 1.6 $320,223 $193,811
CZ08 SCE 217,171 0 42.0 $302,856 $389,435 $510,270 1.3 1.7 $86,579 $207,414
CZ08-2 LADWP 217,171 0 42.0 $302,856 $222,066 $510,270 0.7 1.7 ($80,790) $207,414
CZ09 SCE 220,010 0 43.2 $302,856 $387,977 $505,783 1.3 1.7 $85,122 $202,928
CZ09-2 LADWP 220,010 0 43.2 $302,856 $226,516 $505,783 0.7 1.7 ($76,340) $202,928
CZ10 SDG&E 217,148 0 42.5 $302,856 $632,726 $485,451 2.1 1.6 $329,870 $182,595
CZ10-2 SCE 217,148 0 42.5 $302,856 $394,884 $485,451 1.3 1.6 $92,028 $182,595
CZ11 PG&E 211,556 0 40.9 $302,856 $671,691 $478,912 2.2 1.6 $368,835 $176,056
CZ12 PG&E 211,824 0 40.9 $302,856 $653,242 $478,101 2.2 1.6 $350,386 $175,245
CZ12-2 SMUD 211,824 0 40.9 $302,856 $345,255 $478,101 1.1 1.6 $42,399 $175,245
CZ13 PG&E 208,465 0 40.5 $302,856 $651,952 $462,732 2.2 1.5 $349,096 $159,876
CZ14 SDG&E 241,965 0 46.7 $302,856 $659,487 $566,351 2.2 1.9 $356,632 $263,496
CZ14-2 SCE 241,965 0 46.7 $302,856 $401,712 $566,351 1.3 1.9 $98,856 $263,496
CZ15 SCE 229,456 0 43.9 $302,856 $378,095 $520,102 1.2 1.7 $75,239 $217,246
CZ16 PG&E 229,317 0 44.8 $302,856 $707,095 $489,508 2.3 1.6 $404,239 $186,652
CZ16-2 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
Figure 57. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + 50 kWh 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 + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery
CZ01 PG&E 176,903 0 35.3 $330,756 $525,948 $381,450 1.6 1.2 $195,192 $50,694
CZ02 PG&E 214,861 0 42.6 $330,756 $665,864 $472,898 2.0 1.4 $335,108 $142,142
CZ03 PG&E 209,255 0 41.8 $330,756 $644,170 $451,611 1.9 1.4 $313,414 $120,855
CZ04 PG&E 227,076 0 45.0 $330,756 $685,605 $502,108 2.1 1.5 $354,849 $171,352
CZ04-2 CPAU 227,076 0 45.0 $330,756 $536,463 $502,108 1.6 1.5 $205,707 $171,352
CZ05 PG&E 225,752 0 45.1 $330,756 $753,558 $487,742 2.3 1.5 $422,803 $156,986
CZ06 SCE 217,939 0 43.4 $330,756 $401,356 $494,042 1.2 1.5 $70,601 $163,286
CZ06-2 LADWP 217,939 0 43.4 $330,756 $233,673 $494,042 0.7 1.5 ($97,083) $163,286
CZ07 SDG&E 222,746 0 44.4 $330,756 $628,383 $498,147 1.9 1.5 $297,627 $167,391
CZ08 SCE 216,724 0 43.1 $330,756 $389,184 $511,511 1.2 1.5 $58,428 $180,755
CZ08-2 LADWP 216,724 0 43.1 $330,756 $221,839 $511,511 0.7 1.5 ($108,917) $180,755
CZ09 SCE 219,563 0 44.2 $330,756 $387,728 $506,929 1.2 1.5 $56,972 $176,173
CZ09-2 LADWP 219,563 0 44.2 $330,756 $226,303 $506,929 0.7 1.5 ($104,453) $176,173
CZ10 SDG&E 216,700 0 43.5 $330,756 $638,040 $486,644 1.9 1.5 $307,284 $155,888
CZ10-2 SCE 216,700 0 43.5 $330,756 $394,633 $486,644 1.2 1.5 $63,877 $155,888
CZ11 PG&E 211,129 0 41.9 $330,756 $670,932 $481,298 2.0 1.5 $340,177 $150,543
CZ12 PG&E 211,386 0 41.9 $330,756 $652,465 $482,826 2.0 1.5 $321,709 $152,070
CZ12-2 SMUD 211,386 0 41.9 $330,756 $344,668 $482,826 1.0 1.5 $13,913 $152,070
CZ13 PG&E 208,045 0 41.5 $330,756 $651,191 $473,280 2.0 1.4 $320,435 $142,524
CZ14 SDG&E 241,502 0 47.7 $330,756 $672,601 $569,454 2.0 1.7 $341,846 $238,698
CZ14-2 SCE 241,502 0 47.7 $330,756 $401,450 $569,454 1.2 1.7 $70,694 $238,698
CZ15 SCE 229,062 0 44.8 $330,756 $377,827 $521,963 1.1 1.6 $47,071 $191,208
CZ16 PG&E 228,825 0 45.9 $330,756 $706,201 $496,190 2.1 1.5 $375,445 $165,434
CZ16-2 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
Figure 58. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office– All-Electric + 3kW PV
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 PV
CZ01 PG&E -49,716 4967 10.9 ($80,523) ($84,765) ($49,972) 0.9 1.6 ($4,242) $30,551
CZ02 PG&E -44,899 3868 6.0 ($66,965) ($83,115) ($30,928) 0.8 2.2 ($16,150) $36,037
CZ03 PG&E -31,226 3142 6.5 ($75,600) ($39,441) ($19,617) 1.9 3.9 $36,159 $55,983
CZ04 PG&E -43,772 3759 5.7 ($62,282) ($70,999) ($29,496) 0.9 2.1 ($8,717) $32,786
CZ04-2 CPAU -43,772 3759 5.7 ($62,282) ($8,050) ($29,496) 7.7 2.1 $54,232 $32,786
CZ05 PG&E -35,504 3240 5.5 ($77,773) ($42,559) ($29,162) 1.8 2.7 $35,214 $48,611
CZ06 SCE -21,321 2117 4.0 ($69,422) $35,862 ($9,641) >1 7.2 $105,284 $59,781
CZ06-2 LADWP -21,321 2117 4.0 ($69,422) $32,936 ($9,641) >1 7.2 $102,358 $59,781
CZ07 SDG&E -7,943 950 1.9 ($63,595) $64,781 ($382) >1 166.6 $128,376 $63,214
CZ08 SCE -10,854 1219 2.5 ($62,043) $28,651 ($1,289) >1 48.1 $90,694 $60,755
CZ08-2 LADWP -10,854 1219 2.5 ($62,043) $25,122 ($1,289) >1 48.1 $87,165 $60,755
CZ09 SCE -14,878 1605 3.3 ($56,372) $31,542 ($3,246) >1 17.4 $87,913 $53,126
CZ09-2 LADWP -14,878 1605 3.3 ($56,372) $28,145 ($3,246) >1 17.4 $84,517 $53,126
CZ10 SDG&E -22,588 2053 3.1 ($41,171) $59,752 ($12,553) >1 3.3 $100,924 $28,619
CZ10-2 SCE -22,588 2053 3.1 ($41,171) $32,039 ($12,553) >1 3.3 $73,211 $28,619
CZ11 PG&E -35,455 3062 4.5 ($57,257) ($53,776) ($22,194) 1.1 2.6 $3,481 $35,063
CZ12 PG&E -38,704 3327 5.0 ($61,613) ($66,808) ($24,819) 0.9 2.5 ($5,195) $36,794
CZ12-2 SMUD -38,704 3327 5.0 ($61,613) $2,897 ($24,819) >1 2.5 $64,510 $36,794
CZ13 PG&E -35,016 3063 4.7 ($55,996) ($52,159) ($22,146) 1.1 2.5 $3,836 $33,849
CZ14 SDG&E -38,945 3266 4.5 ($58,426) $24,867 ($25,821) >1 2.3 $83,293 $32,605
CZ14-2 SCE -38,945 3266 4.5 ($58,426) $15,338 ($25,821) >1 2.3 $73,764 $32,605
CZ15 SCE -14,818 1537 2.8 ($29,445) $22,852 ($3,914) >1 7.5 $52,298 $25,532
CZ16 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
Figure 59. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh 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 Battery
CZ01 PG&E -49,716 4967 10.9 ($78,897) ($84,765) ($49,972) 0.9 1.6 ($5,868) $28,925
CZ02 PG&E -44,899 3868 6.0 ($78,897) ($83,115) ($30,928) 0.9 2.6 ($4,218) $47,969
CZ03 PG&E -31,226 3142 6.5 ($78,897) ($39,441) ($19,617) 2.0 4.0 $39,456 $59,280
CZ04 PG&E -43,772 3759 5.7 ($78,897) ($70,999) ($29,496) 1.1 2.7 $7,898 $49,400
CZ04-2 CPAU -43,772 3759 5.7 ($78,897) ($8,050) ($29,496) 9.8 2.7 $70,847 $49,400
CZ05 PG&E -35,504 3240 5.5 ($78,897) ($42,559) ($29,162) 1.9 2.7 $36,338 $49,735
CZ06 SCE -21,321 2117 4.0 ($78,897) $35,862 ($9,641) >1 8.2 $114,759 $69,256
CZ06-2 LADWP -21,321 2117 4.0 ($78,897) $32,936 ($9,641) >1 8.2 $111,833 $69,256
CZ07 SDG&E -7,943 950 1.9 ($78,897) $64,781 ($382) >1 206.6 $143,678 $78,515
CZ08 SCE -10,854 1219 2.5 ($78,897) $28,651 ($1,289) >1 61.2 $107,548 $77,608
CZ08-2 LADWP -10,854 1219 2.5 ($78,897) $25,122 ($1,289) >1 61.2 $104,019 $77,608
CZ09 SCE -14,878 1605 3.3 ($78,897) $31,542 ($3,246) >1 24.3 $110,439 $75,651
CZ09-2 LADWP -14,878 1605 3.3 ($78,897) $28,145 ($3,246) >1 24.3 $107,042 $75,651
CZ10 SDG&E -22,588 2053 3.1 ($78,897) $59,752 ($12,553) >1 6.3 $138,649 $66,344
CZ10-2 SCE -22,588 2053 3.1 ($78,897) $32,039 ($12,553) >1 6.3 $110,936 $66,344
CZ11 PG&E -35,455 3062 4.5 ($78,897) ($53,776) ($22,194) 1.5 3.6 $25,121 $56,703
CZ12 PG&E -38,704 3327 5.0 ($78,897) ($66,808) ($24,819) 1.2 3.2 $12,089 $54,078
CZ12-2 SMUD -38,704 3327 5.0 ($78,897) $2,897 ($24,819) >1 3.2 $81,794 $54,078
CZ13 PG&E -35,016 3063 4.7 ($78,897) ($52,159) ($22,146) 1.5 3.6 $26,738 $56,751
CZ14 SDG&E -38,945 3266 4.5 ($78,897) $24,867 ($25,821) >1 3.1 $103,764 $53,076
CZ14-2 SCE -38,945 3266 4.5 ($78,897) $15,338 ($25,821) >1 3.1 $94,235 $53,076
CZ15 SCE -14,818 1537 2.8 ($78,897) $22,852 ($3,914) >1 20.2 $101,749 $74,983
CZ16 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
Figure 60. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 135kW PV
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
CZ01 PG&E 123,683 4967 44.5 $163,217 $405,731 $321,979 2.5 2.0 $242,514 $158,762
CZ02 PG&E 165,627 3868 46.6 $176,775 $562,528 $430,276 3.2 2.4 $385,753 $253,501
CZ03 PG&E 173,831 3142 46.3 $168,140 $575,864 $420,205 3.4 2.5 $407,725 $252,066
CZ04 PG&E 178,706 3759 48.7 $181,458 $601,431 $456,861 3.3 2.5 $419,973 $275,403
CZ04-2 CPAU 178,706 3759 48.7 $181,458 $517,526 $456,861 2.9 2.5 $336,069 $275,403
CZ05 PG&E 185,664 3240 48.6 $165,967 $664,842 $446,600 4.0 2.7 $498,875 $280,633
CZ06 SCE 192,214 2117 45.3 $174,317 $423,657 $471,944 2.4 2.7 $249,340 $297,626
CZ06-2 LADWP 192,214 2117 45.3 $174,317 $259,270 $471,944 1.5 2.7 $84,953 $297,626
CZ07 SDG&E 210,282 950 44.3 $180,145 $669,979 $485,260 3.7 2.7 $489,834 $305,115
CZ08 SCE 201,491 1219 43.5 $181,696 $407,277 $497,622 2.2 2.7 $225,580 $315,925
CZ08-2 LADWP 201,491 1219 43.5 $181,696 $240,657 $497,622 1.3 2.7 $58,960 $315,925
CZ09 SCE 200,242 1605 45.6 $187,368 $408,922 $491,322 2.2 2.6 $221,554 $303,953
CZ09-2 LADWP 200,242 1605 45.6 $187,368 $248,452 $491,322 1.3 2.6 $61,084 $303,953
CZ10 SDG&E 189,734 2053 44.7 $202,568 $667,551 $462,111 3.3 2.3 $464,982 $259,543
CZ10-2 SCE 189,734 2053 44.7 $202,568 $412,659 $462,111 2.0 2.3 $210,091 $259,543
CZ11 PG&E 171,399 3062 44.5 $186,483 $597,807 $446,074 3.2 2.4 $411,324 $259,592
CZ12 PG&E 168,413 3327 45.0 $182,127 $571,758 $442,638 3.1 2.4 $389,632 $260,511
CZ12-2 SMUD 168,413 3327 45.0 $182,127 $343,602 $442,638 1.9 2.4 $161,475 $260,511
CZ13 PG&E 168,817 3063 44.3 $187,744 $581,964 $430,324 3.1 2.3 $394,220 $242,580
CZ14 SDG&E 197,643 3266 50.1 $185,314 $667,762 $527,930 3.6 2.8 $482,449 $342,616
CZ14-2 SCE 197,643 3266 50.1 $185,314 $408,424 $527,930 2.2 2.8 $223,110 $342,616
CZ15 SCE 209,539 1537 45.7 $214,294 $390,267 $504,638 1.8 2.4 $175,972 $290,343
CZ16 PG&E 135,255 6185 50.4 $186,374 $470,199 $338,637 2.5 1.8 $283,825 $152,263
CZ16-2 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
Figure 61. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 135kW PV + 50 kWh 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 Battery
CZ01 PG&E 123,280 4967 45.4 $191,117 $404,994 $323,077 2.1 1.7 $213,877 $131,960
CZ02 PG&E 165,200 3868 47.7 $204,675 $561,747 $431,469 2.7 2.1 $357,072 $226,795
CZ03 PG&E 173,384 3142 47.4 $196,040 $575,043 $422,019 2.9 2.2 $379,003 $225,979
CZ04 PG&E 178,259 3759 49.8 $209,358 $600,621 $461,634 2.9 2.2 $391,263 $252,276
CZ04-2 CPAU 178,259 3759 49.8 $209,358 $516,495 $461,634 2.5 2.2 $307,137 $252,276
CZ05 PG&E 185,229 3240 49.7 $193,867 $664,046 $447,793 3.4 2.3 $470,179 $253,926
CZ06 SCE 191,767 2117 46.5 $202,217 $423,369 $473,519 2.1 2.3 $221,152 $271,301
CZ06-2 LADWP 191,767 2117 46.5 $202,217 $259,033 $473,519 1.3 2.3 $56,816 $271,301
CZ07 SDG&E 209,848 950 45.4 $208,045 $675,307 $486,787 3.2 2.3 $467,262 $278,743
CZ08 SCE 201,047 1219 44.7 $209,596 $407,027 $498,910 1.9 2.4 $197,430 $289,314
CZ08-2 LADWP 201,047 1219 44.7 $209,596 $240,432 $498,910 1.1 2.4 $30,835 $289,314
CZ09 SCE 199,802 1605 46.6 $215,268 $408,676 $492,515 1.9 2.3 $193,408 $277,246
CZ09-2 LADWP 199,802 1605 46.6 $215,268 $248,242 $492,515 1.2 2.3 $32,974 $277,246
CZ10 SDG&E 189,293 2053 45.7 $230,468 $672,867 $463,352 2.9 2.0 $442,399 $232,884
CZ10-2 SCE 189,293 2053 45.7 $230,468 $412,412 $463,352 1.8 2.0 $181,944 $232,884
CZ11 PG&E 170,987 3062 45.5 $214,383 $597,062 $448,509 2.8 2.1 $382,680 $234,126
CZ12 PG&E 167,995 3327 46.0 $210,027 $571,002 $447,411 2.7 2.1 $360,975 $237,384
CZ12-2 SMUD 167,995 3327 46.0 $210,027 $343,043 $447,411 1.6 2.1 $133,017 $237,384
CZ13 PG&E 168,408 3063 45.3 $215,644 $581,225 $440,920 2.7 2.0 $365,580 $225,275
CZ14 SDG&E 197,188 3266 51.2 $213,214 $680,893 $531,080 3.2 2.5 $467,679 $317,866
CZ14-2 SCE 197,188 3266 51.2 $213,214 $408,166 $531,080 1.9 2.5 $194,952 $317,866
CZ15 SCE 209,148 1537 46.6 $242,194 $390,000 $506,499 1.6 2.1 $147,806 $264,305
CZ16 PG&E 134,809 6185 51.4 $214,274 $469,378 $341,978 2.2 1.6 $255,105 $127,704
CZ16-2 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 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail
Figure 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 cost
effective 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 zones
except for LADWP territory (CZs 6, 8, 9 and 16). Packages achieve positive savings and are cost effective using the TDV approach for all
climate 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 except
for 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&E
service.
♦ 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 and
TDV 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 approaches
♦ All-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
Figure 62. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 3kW PV
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 PV
CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.76 $5,566 $12,616 $8,460 2.3 1.5 $7,050 $2,894
CZ02 PG&E 4,685 0 0.91 $5,566 $17,635 $10,262 3.2 1.8 $12,069 $4,696
CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.92 $5,566 $15,146 $10,152 2.7 1.8 $9,580 $4,586
CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 0.94 $5,566 $18,519 $10,614 3.3 1.9 $12,953 $5,048
CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 0.94 $5,566 $11,507 $10,614 2.1 1.9 $5,941 $5,048
CZ05 PG&E 4,910 0 0.95 $5,566 $15,641 $10,548 2.8 1.9 $10,075 $4,982
CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.93 $5,566 $11,374 $10,724 2.0 1.9 $5,808 $5,158
CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.93 $5,566 $7,069 $10,724 1.3 1.9 $1,503 $5,158
CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 0.96 $5,566 $22,452 $11,031 4.0 2.0 $16,886 $5,465
CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.93 $5,566 $11,838 $11,339 2.1 2.0 $6,272 $5,773
CZ08-2 LA 4,826 0 0.93 $5,566 $7,342 $11,339 1.3 2.0 $1,776 $5,773
CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 0.96 $5,566 $11,187 $11,229 2.0 2.0 $5,621 $5,663
CZ09-2 LA 4,889 0 0.96 $5,566 $6,728 $11,229 1.2 2.0 $1,162 $5,663
CZ10 SDG&E 4,948 0 0.97 $5,566 $20,999 $10,987 3.8 2.0 $15,433 $5,421
CZ10-2 SCE 4,948 0 0.97 $5,566 $11,384 $10,987 2.0 2.0 $5,818 $5,421
CZ11 PG&E 4,718 0 0.91 $5,566 $15,381 $10,680 2.8 1.9 $9,815 $5,114
CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.91 $5,566 $16,442 $10,614 3.0 1.9 $10,876 $5,048
CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.91 $5,566 $8,247 $10,614 1.5 1.9 $2,681 $5,048
CZ13 PG&E 4,750 0 0.92 $5,566 $16,638 $10,592 3.0 1.9 $11,072 $5,026
CZ14 SDG&E 5,258 0 1.01 $5,566 $19,576 $12,218 3.5 2.2 $14,010 $6,652
CZ14-2 SCE 5,258 0 1.01 $5,566 $10,227 $12,218 1.8 2.2 $4,661 $6,652
CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 0.96 $5,566 $10,476 $11,339 1.9 2.0 $4,910 $5,773
CZ16 PG&E 5,336 0 1.04 $5,566 $20,418 $11,361 3.7 2.0 $14,852 $5,795
CZ16-2 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
Figure 63. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh 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 Battery
CZ01 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 $742
CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.92 $9,520 $15,146 $10,152 1.6 1.1 $5,626 $632
CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 0.94 $9,520 $18,519 $10,614 1.9 1.1 $8,999 $1,094
CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 0.94 $9,520 $11,507 $10,614 1.2 1.1 $1,987 $1,094
CZ05 PG&E 4,910 0 0.95 $9,520 $15,641 $10,548 1.6 1.1 $6,120 $1,028
CZ05-2 SCG 4,910 0 0.95 $9,520 $15,641 $10,548 1.6 1.1 $6,120 $1,028
CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.93 $9,520 $11,374 $10,724 1.2 1.1 $1,854 $1,204
CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.93 $9,520 $7,069 $10,724 0.7 1.1 ($2,452) $1,204
CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 0.96 $9,520 $22,452 $11,031 2.4 1.2 $12,932 $1,511
CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.93 $9,520 $11,838 $11,339 1.2 1.2 $2,317 $1,819
CZ08-2 LA 4,826 0 0.93 $9,520 $7,342 $11,339 0.8 1.2 ($2,178) $1,819
CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 0.96 $9,520 $11,187 $11,229 1.2 1.2 $1,667 $1,709
CZ09-2 LA 4,889 0 0.96 $9,520 $6,728 $11,229 0.7 1.2 ($2,792) $1,709
CZ10 SDG&E 4,948 0 0.97 $9,520 $20,999 $10,987 2.2 1.2 $11,479 $1,467
CZ10-2 SCE 4,948 0 0.97 $9,520 $11,384 $10,987 1.2 1.2 $1,863 $1,467
CZ11 PG&E 4,718 0 0.91 $9,520 $15,381 $10,680 1.6 1.1 $5,861 $1,160
CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.91 $9,520 $16,442 $10,614 1.7 1.1 $6,922 $1,094
CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.91 $9,520 $8,247 $10,614 0.9 1.1 ($1,273) $1,094
CZ13 PG&E 4,750 0 0.92 $9,520 $16,638 $10,592 1.7 1.1 $7,117 $1,072
CZ14 SDG&E 5,258 0 1.01 $9,520 $19,576 $12,218 2.1 1.3 $10,056 $2,698
CZ14-2 SCE 5,258 0 1.01 $9,520 $10,227 $12,218 1.1 1.3 $707 $2,698
CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 0.96 $9,520 $10,476 $11,339 1.1 1.2 $956 $1,819
CZ16 PG&E 5,336 0 1.04 $9,520 $20,418 $11,361 2.1 1.2 $10,898 $1,841
CZ16-2 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
Figure 64. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 110kW PV
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
CZ01 PG&E 144,499 0 27.97 $201,904 $454,462 $309,935 2.3 1.5 $252,558 $108,031
CZ02 PG&E 171,790 0 33.31 $201,904 $477,584 $376,300 2.4 1.9 $275,681 $174,396
CZ03 PG&E 173,534 0 33.55 $201,904 $538,530 $372,146 2.7 1.8 $336,626 $170,243
CZ04 PG&E 177,229 0 34.42 $201,904 $489,934 $389,067 2.4 1.9 $288,030 $187,163
CZ04-2 CPAU 177,229 0 34.42 $201,904 $418,173 $389,067 2.1 1.9 $216,269 $187,163
CZ05 PG&E 180,044 0 34.84 $201,904 $556,787 $386,958 2.8 1.9 $354,883 $185,054
CZ06 SCE 174,855 0 33.92 $201,904 $288,188 $393,198 1.4 1.9 $86,284 $191,295
CZ06-2 LA 174,855 0 33.92 $201,904 $165,538 $393,198 0.8 1.9 ($36,366) $191,295
CZ07 SDG&E 181,854 0 35.32 $201,904 $373,974 $404,713 1.9 2.0 $172,070 $202,809
CZ08 SCE 176,954 0 34.23 $201,904 $284,481 $415,789 1.4 2.1 $82,577 $213,885
CZ08-2 LA 176,954 0 34.23 $201,904 $161,366 $415,789 0.8 2.1 ($40,538) $213,885
CZ09 SCE 179,267 0 35.18 $201,904 $289,050 $412,097 1.4 2.0 $87,146 $210,193
CZ09-2 LA 179,267 0 35.18 $201,904 $168,822 $412,097 0.8 2.0 ($33,082) $210,193
CZ10 SDG&E 181,443 0 35.41 $201,904 $410,310 $402,999 2.0 2.0 $208,406 $201,095
CZ10-2 SCE 181,443 0 35.41 $201,904 $291,236 $402,999 1.4 2.0 $89,332 $201,095
CZ11 PG&E 172,983 0 33.46 $201,904 $464,776 $391,550 2.3 1.9 $262,872 $189,646
CZ12 PG&E 172,597 0 33.33 $201,904 $467,870 $389,573 2.3 1.9 $265,966 $187,669
CZ12-2 SMUD 172,597 0 33.33 $201,904 $267,086 $389,573 1.3 1.9 $65,182 $187,669
CZ13 PG&E 174,151 0 33.81 $201,904 $478,857 $387,968 2.4 1.9 $276,953 $186,065
CZ14 SDG&E 192,789 0 36.97 $201,904 $396,181 $448,268 2.0 2.2 $194,277 $246,364
CZ14-2 SCE 192,789 0 36.97 $201,904 $288,782 $448,268 1.4 2.2 $86,878 $246,364
CZ15 SCE 183,214 0 35.12 $201,904 $277,867 $415,789 1.4 2.1 $75,963 $213,885
CZ16 PG&E 195,665 0 37.97 $201,904 $522,352 $416,558 2.6 2.1 $320,448 $214,654
CZ16-2 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
Figure 65. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 110 kW PV + 50 kWh 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 Battery
CZ01 PG&E 143,423 0 29.48 $229,804 $452,119 $324,373 2.0 1.4 $222,315 $94,569
CZ02 PG&E 170,542 0 35.14 $229,804 $486,704 $398,363 2.1 1.7 $256,900 $168,559
CZ03 PG&E 172,266 0 35.66 $229,804 $535,974 $395,374 2.3 1.7 $306,170 $165,570
CZ04 PG&E 175,940 0 36.32 $229,804 $525,788 $422,579 2.3 1.8 $295,984 $192,775
CZ04-2 CPAU 175,940 0 36.32 $229,804 $416,019 $422,579 1.8 1.8 $186,216 $192,775
CZ05 PG&E 178,728 0 36.91 $229,804 $554,968 $409,086 2.4 1.8 $325,164 $179,283
CZ06 SCE 173,567 0 35.99 $229,804 $290,599 $412,690 1.3 1.8 $60,795 $182,886
CZ06-2 LA 173,567 0 35.99 $229,804 $169,786 $412,690 0.7 1.8 ($60,018) $182,886
CZ07 SDG&E 180,508 0 37.61 $229,804 $425,793 $427,040 1.9 1.9 $195,989 $197,236
CZ08 SCE 175,616 0 36.29 $229,804 $296,318 $434,687 1.3 1.9 $66,514 $204,883
CZ08-2 LA 175,616 0 36.29 $229,804 $170,489 $434,687 0.7 1.9 ($59,315) $204,883
CZ09 SCE 177,966 0 36.74 $229,804 $300,540 $421,195 1.3 1.8 $70,736 $191,391
CZ09-2 LA 177,966 0 36.74 $229,804 $178,852 $421,195 0.8 1.8 ($50,952) $191,391
CZ10 SDG&E 180,248 0 36.91 $229,804 $459,486 $410,537 2.0 1.8 $229,683 $180,733
CZ10-2 SCE 180,248 0 36.91 $229,804 $301,219 $410,537 1.3 1.8 $71,415 $180,733
CZ11 PG&E 171,779 0 34.85 $229,804 $490,245 $417,679 2.1 1.8 $260,442 $187,875
CZ12 PG&E 171,392 0 34.77 $229,804 $497,363 $417,371 2.2 1.8 $267,559 $187,567
CZ12-2 SMUD 171,392 0 34.77 $229,804 $273,783 $417,371 1.2 1.8 $43,979 $187,567
CZ13 PG&E 173,052 0 34.97 $229,804 $488,196 $397,791 2.1 1.7 $258,392 $167,987
CZ14 SDG&E 191,703 0 38.31 $229,804 $420,241 $452,641 1.8 2.0 $190,437 $222,837
CZ14-2 SCE 191,703 0 38.31 $229,804 $294,010 $452,641 1.3 2.0 $64,206 $222,837
CZ15 SCE 182,299 0 36.01 $229,804 $279,036 $416,382 1.2 1.8 $49,232 $186,578
CZ16 PG&E 194,293 0 40.00 $229,804 $535,137 $432,951 2.3 1.9 $305,333 $203,147
CZ16-2 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
Figure 66. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 3kW PV
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 PV
CZ01 PG&E -25,214 3893 14.61 ($16,318) $4,288 ($5,450) >1 3.0 $20,606 $10,868
CZ02 PG&E -17,101 2448 8.40 ($20,734) $859 $5,779 >1 >1 $21,593 $26,513
CZ03 PG&E -9,851 1868 7.18 ($17,381) $15,418 $8,702 >1 >1 $32,799 $26,083
CZ04 PG&E -9,353 1706 6.24 ($16,166) $9,110 $10,394 >1 >1 $25,276 $26,560
CZ04-2 CPAU -9,353 1706 6.24 ($16,166) $24,000 $10,394 >1 >1 $40,166 $26,560
CZ05 PG&E -9,423 1746 6.42 ($18,776) $14,076 $6,351 >1 >1 $32,852 $25,127
CZ06 SCE -2,759 1002 4.24 ($15,032) $29,710 $12,592 >1 >1 $44,741 $27,623
CZ06-2 LA -2,759 1002 4.24 ($15,032) $26,292 $12,592 >1 >1 $41,324 $27,623
CZ07 SDG&E 1,148 522 2.72 ($17,032) $76,810 $12,350 >1 >1 $93,842 $29,382
CZ08 SCE -979 793 3.64 ($20,192) $28,576 $13,185 >1 >1 $48,768 $33,377
CZ08-2 LA -979 793 3.64 ($20,192) $24,475 $13,185 >1 >1 $44,667 $33,377
CZ09 SCE -2,352 970 4.28 ($25,383) $29,776 $13,207 >1 >1 $55,159 $38,590
CZ09-2 LA -2,352 970 4.28 ($25,383) $25,823 $13,207 >1 >1 $51,207 $38,590
CZ10 SDG&E -5,388 1262 4.95 ($20,541) $75,458 $11,493 >1 >1 $95,999 $32,034
CZ10-2 SCE -5,388 1262 4.95 ($20,541) $32,394 $11,493 >1 >1 $52,936 $32,034
CZ11 PG&E -14,533 2415 8.86 ($25,471) $7,618 $13,295 >1 >1 $33,090 $38,766
CZ12 PG&E -14,764 2309 8.19 ($25,774) $2,210 $10,152 >1 >1 $27,984 $35,926
CZ12-2 SMUD -14,764 2309 8.19 ($25,774) $21,215 $10,152 >1 >1 $46,988 $35,926
CZ13 PG&E -12,069 1983 7.08 ($21,428) $5,647 $8,570 >1 >1 $27,075 $29,998
CZ14 SDG&E -7,950 1672 6.45 ($19,926) $60,412 $16,679 >1 >1 $80,338 $36,605
CZ14-2 SCE -7,950 1672 6.45 ($19,926) $28,631 $16,679 >1 >1 $48,557 $36,605
CZ15 SCE 2,534 518 3.10 ($22,813) $27,271 $17,162 >1 >1 $50,084 $39,976
CZ16 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
Figure 67. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh 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 Battery
CZ01 PG&E -25,214 3893 14.61 ($14,692) $4,288 ($5,450) >1 2.7 $18,980 $9,242
CZ02 PG&E -17,101 2448 8.40 ($14,692) $859 $5,779 >1 >1 $15,551 $20,472
CZ03 PG&E -9,851 1868 7.18 ($14,692) $15,418 $8,702 >1 >1 $30,110 $23,394
CZ04 PG&E -9,353 1706 6.24 ($14,692) $9,110 $10,394 >1 >1 $23,802 $25,086
CZ04-2 CPAU -9,353 1706 6.24 ($14,692) $24,000 $10,394 >1 >1 $38,693 $25,086
CZ05 PG&E -9,423 1746 6.42 ($14,692) $14,076 $6,351 >1 >1 $28,768 $21,043
CZ06 SCE -2,759 1002 4.24 ($14,692) $29,710 $12,592 >1 >1 $44,402 $27,284
CZ06-2 LA -2,759 1002 4.24 ($14,692) $26,292 $12,592 >1 >1 $40,984 $27,284
CZ07 SDG&E 1,148 522 2.72 ($14,692) $76,810 $12,350 >1 >1 $91,502 $27,042
CZ08 SCE -979 793 3.64 ($14,692) $28,576 $13,185 >1 >1 $43,268 $27,877
CZ08-2 LA -979 793 3.64 ($14,692) $24,475 $13,185 >1 >1 $39,167 $27,877
CZ09 SCE -2,352 970 4.28 ($14,692) $29,776 $13,207 >1 >1 $44,468 $27,899
CZ09-2 LA -2,352 970 4.28 ($14,692) $25,823 $13,207 >1 >1 $40,516 $27,899
CZ10 SDG&E -5,388 1262 4.95 ($14,692) $75,458 $11,493 >1 >1 $90,150 $26,185
CZ10-2 SCE -5,388 1262 4.95 ($14,692) $32,394 $11,493 >1 >1 $47,086 $26,185
CZ11 PG&E -14,533 2415 8.86 ($14,692) $7,618 $13,295 >1 >1 $22,310 $27,987
CZ12 PG&E -14,764 2309 8.19 ($14,692) $2,210 $10,152 >1 >1 $16,902 $24,845
CZ12-2 SMUD -14,764 2309 8.19 ($14,692) $21,215 $10,152 >1 >1 $35,907 $24,845
CZ13 PG&E -12,069 1983 7.08 ($14,692) $5,647 $8,570 >1 >1 $20,339 $23,262
CZ14 SDG&E -7,950 1672 6.45 ($14,692) $60,412 $16,679 >1 >1 $75,104 $31,371
CZ14-2 SCE -7,950 1672 6.45 ($14,692) $28,631 $16,679 >1 >1 $43,323 $31,371
CZ15 SCE 2,534 518 3.10 ($14,692) $27,271 $17,162 >1 >1 $41,963 $31,855
CZ16 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
Figure 68. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 110kW PV
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 PV
CZ01 PG&E 115,344 3893 41.82 $143,932 $454,277 $296,025 3.2 2.1 $310,345 $152,093
CZ02 PG&E 150,004 2448 40.80 $139,516 $470,236 $371,817 3.4 2.7 $330,720 $232,301
CZ03 PG&E 158,951 1868 39.82 $142,869 $544,095 $370,696 3.8 2.6 $401,226 $227,827
CZ04 PG&E 163,043 1706 39.73 $144,084 $488,619 $388,847 3.4 2.7 $344,534 $244,763
CZ04-2 CPAU 163,043 1706 39.73 $144,084 $432,905 $388,847 3.0 2.7 $288,821 $244,763
CZ05 PG&E 165,711 1746 40.30 $141,473 $565,525 $382,760 4.0 2.7 $424,051 $241,287
CZ06 SCE 167,328 1002 37.24 $145,218 $306,670 $395,066 2.1 2.7 $161,452 $249,848
CZ06-2 LA 167,328 1002 37.24 $145,218 $184,797 $395,066 1.3 2.7 $39,579 $249,848
CZ07 SDG&E 178,042 522 37.07 $143,218 $428,332 $406,032 3.0 2.8 $285,114 $262,814
CZ08 SCE 171,149 793 36.94 $140,058 $301,219 $417,635 2.2 3.0 $161,161 $277,577
CZ08-2 LA 171,149 793 36.94 $140,058 $178,419 $417,635 1.3 3.0 $38,361 $277,577
CZ09 SCE 172,027 970 38.50 $134,867 $307,640 $414,075 2.3 3.1 $172,773 $279,208
CZ09-2 LA 172,027 970 38.50 $134,867 $187,813 $414,075 1.4 3.1 $52,946 $279,208
CZ10 SDG&E 171,107 1262 39.40 $139,708 $463,692 $403,505 3.3 2.9 $323,984 $263,796
CZ10-2 SCE 171,107 1262 39.40 $139,708 $311,464 $403,505 2.2 2.9 $171,755 $263,796
CZ11 PG&E 153,732 2415 41.41 $134,778 $467,356 $394,165 3.5 2.9 $332,578 $259,387
CZ12 PG&E 153,126 2309 40.61 $134,476 $467,106 $389,111 3.5 2.9 $332,630 $254,635
CZ12-2 SMUD 153,126 2309 40.61 $134,476 $283,343 $389,111 2.1 2.9 $148,867 $254,635
CZ13 PG&E 157,332 1983 39.97 $138,822 $477,831 $385,947 3.4 2.8 $339,008 $247,124
CZ14 SDG&E 179,582 1672 42.42 $140,324 $437,575 $452,729 3.1 3.2 $297,251 $312,405
CZ14-2 SCE 179,582 1672 42.42 $140,324 $309,064 $452,729 2.2 3.2 $168,740 $312,405
CZ15 SCE 180,751 518 37.26 $137,436 $294,877 $421,612 2.1 3.1 $157,440 $284,176
CZ16 PG&E 154,248 4304 51.20 $141,209 $473,892 $364,016 3.4 2.6 $332,682 $222,807
CZ16-2 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
Figure 69. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 110kW PV + 50 kWh 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 Battery
CZ01 PG&E 114,356 3893 43.52 $171,832 $451,043 $310,265 2.6 1.8 $279,211 $138,433
CZ02 PG&E 148,793 2448 42.89 $167,416 $475,081 $394,099 2.8 2.4 $307,664 $226,683
CZ03 PG&E 157,707 1868 42.12 $170,769 $541,418 $394,034 3.2 2.3 $370,649 $223,265
CZ04 PG&E 161,769 1706 41.82 $171,984 $523,603 $422,535 3.0 2.5 $351,618 $250,551
CZ04-2 CPAU 161,769 1706 41.82 $171,984 $430,567 $422,535 2.5 2.5 $258,582 $250,551
CZ05 PG&E 164,408 1746 42.68 $169,373 $561,966 $405,087 3.3 2.4 $392,592 $235,714
CZ06 SCE 166,052 1002 39.48 $173,118 $306,697 $414,756 1.8 2.4 $133,579 $241,638
CZ06-2 LA 166,052 1002 39.48 $173,118 $187,941 $414,756 1.1 2.4 $14,823 $241,638
CZ07 SDG&E 176,705 522 39.47 $171,118 $479,038 $428,490 2.8 2.5 $307,920 $257,372
CZ08 SCE 169,825 793 39.14 $167,958 $312,602 $436,709 1.9 2.6 $144,645 $268,751
CZ08-2 LA 169,825 793 39.14 $167,958 $187,142 $436,709 1.1 2.6 $19,185 $268,751
CZ09 SCE 170,747 970 40.23 $162,767 $318,113 $423,370 2.0 2.6 $155,346 $260,604
CZ09-2 LA 170,747 970 40.23 $162,767 $197,006 $423,370 1.2 2.6 $34,240 $260,604
CZ10 SDG&E 169,935 1262 41.08 $167,608 $503,504 $411,284 3.0 2.5 $335,896 $243,675
CZ10-2 SCE 169,935 1262 41.08 $167,608 $317,927 $411,284 1.9 2.5 $150,319 $243,675
CZ11 PG&E 152,559 2415 42.99 $162,678 $491,775 $420,667 3.0 2.6 $329,096 $257,989
CZ12 PG&E 151,956 2309 42.21 $162,376 $494,703 $417,063 3.0 2.6 $332,327 $254,687
CZ12-2 SMUD 151,956 2309 42.21 $162,376 $288,950 $417,063 1.8 2.6 $126,573 $254,687
CZ13 PG&E 156,271 1983 41.25 $166,722 $485,422 $395,770 2.9 2.4 $318,699 $229,047
CZ14 SDG&E 178,505 1672 43.94 $168,224 $452,456 $457,387 2.7 2.7 $284,232 $289,163
CZ14-2 SCE 178,505 1672 43.94 $168,224 $311,520 $457,387 1.9 2.7 $143,296 $289,163
CZ15 SCE 179,840 518 38.23 $165,336 $296,004 $422,293 1.8 2.6 $130,668 $256,957
CZ16 PG&E 152,965 4304 53.53 $169,109 $483,205 $378,299 2.9 2.2 $314,096 $209,190
CZ16-2 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
6.7.3 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel
Figure 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 and
not 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 LADWP
territory. 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 approach
but 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. All
packages 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 climate
zones.
♦ 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
Figure 70. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV
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 PV
CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $5,566 $12,616 $8,326 2.3 1.5 $7,050 $2,760
CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $5,566 $12,639 $10,332 2.3 1.9 $7,073 $4,766
CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.9 $5,566 $15,146 $9,991 2.7 1.8 $9,580 $4,425
CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 1.0 $5,566 $13,266 $10,445 2.4 1.9 $7,700 $4,879
CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 1.0 $5,566 $11,507 $10,445 2.1 1.9 $5,941 $4,879
CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $5,566 $16,048 $10,634 2.9 1.9 $10,482 $5,068
CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,276 $10,559 1.8 1.9 $4,710 $4,993
CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,307 $10,559 1.1 1.9 $741 $4,993
CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $5,566 $14,576 $10,861 2.6 2.0 $9,010 $5,295
CZ08 SCE 4,824 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,837 $11,202 1.9 2.0 $5,271 $5,636
CZ08-2 LA 4,824 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,505 $11,202 1.2 2.0 $939 $5,636
CZ09 SCE 4,779 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,298 $10,824 1.9 1.9 $4,732 $5,258
CZ09-2 LA 4,779 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,201 $10,824 1.1 1.9 $635 $5,258
CZ10 SDG&E 4,905 0 1.0 $5,566 $16,302 $10,710 2.9 1.9 $10,736 $5,144
CZ10-2 SCE 4,905 0 1.0 $5,566 $9,468 $10,710 1.7 1.9 $3,902 $5,144
CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $5,566 $14,193 $10,483 2.6 1.9 $8,627 $4,917
CZ12 PG&E 4,770 0 0.9 $5,566 $15,262 $10,596 2.7 1.9 $9,696 $5,030
CZ12-2 SMUD 4,770 0 0.9 $5,566 $7,848 $10,596 1.4 1.9 $2,282 $5,030
CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $5,566 $14,674 $10,105 2.6 1.8 $9,108 $4,539
CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.1 $5,566 $16,615 $12,375 3.0 2.2 $11,049 $6,809
CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.1 $5,566 $10,021 $12,375 1.8 2.2 $4,455 $6,809
CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 1.0 $5,566 $9,542 $11,164 1.7 2.0 $3,976 $5,598
CZ16 PG&E 5,240 0 1.0 $5,566 $14,961 $10,975 2.7 2.0 $9,395 $5,409
CZ16-2 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
Figure 71. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh 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 Battery
CZ01 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 $811
CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.9 $9,520 $15,146 $9,991 1.6 1.0 $5,626 $471
CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 1.0 $9,520 $13,266 $10,445 1.4 1.1 $3,746 $925
CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 1.0 $9,520 $11,507 $10,445 1.2 1.1 $1,987 $925
CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $9,520 $16,048 $10,634 1.7 1.1 $6,528 $1,114
CZ05-2 SCG 5,027 0 1.0 $9,520 $16,048 $10,634 1.7 1.1 $6,528 $1,114
CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,276 $10,559 1.1 1.1 $756 $1,039
CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,307 $10,559 0.7 1.1 ($3,213) $1,039
CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $9,520 $14,576 $10,861 1.5 1.1 $5,056 $1,341
CZ08 SCE 4,824 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,837 $11,202 1.1 1.2 $1,317 $1,682
CZ08-2 LA 4,824 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,505 $11,202 0.7 1.2 ($3,015) $1,682
CZ09 SCE 4,779 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,298 $10,824 1.1 1.1 $778 $1,303
CZ09-2 LA 4,779 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,201 $10,824 0.7 1.1 ($3,319) $1,303
CZ10 SDG&E 4,905 0 1.0 $9,520 $16,302 $10,710 1.7 1.1 $6,782 $1,190
CZ10-2 SCE 4,905 0 1.0 $9,520 $9,468 $10,710 0.99 1.1 ($52) $1,190
CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $9,520 $14,193 $10,483 1.5 1.1 $4,673 $963
CZ12 PG&E 4,770 0 0.9 $9,520 $15,262 $10,596 1.6 1.1 $5,742 $1,076
CZ12-2 SMUD 4,770 0 0.9 $9,520 $7,848 $10,596 0.8 1.1 ($1,672) $1,076
CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $9,520 $14,674 $10,105 1.5 1.1 $5,154 $584
CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.1 $9,520 $16,615 $12,375 1.7 1.3 $7,095 $2,855
CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.1 $9,520 $10,021 $12,375 1.1 1.3 $501 $2,855
CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 1.0 $9,520 $9,542 $11,164 1.0 1.2 $22 $1,644
CZ16 PG&E 5,240 0 1.0 $9,520 $14,961 $10,975 1.6 1.2 $5,441 $1,455
CZ16-2 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
Figure 72. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel - Mixed Fuel +80kW PV
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
CZ01 PG&E 105,090 0 20.6 $179,470 $336,440 $221,883 1.9 1.2 $156,970 $42,413
CZ02 PG&E 127,592 0 25.0 $179,470 $320,009 $275,130 1.8 1.5 $140,539 $95,660
CZ03 PG&E 126,206 0 24.8 $179,470 $403,900 $266,426 2.3 1.5 $224,430 $86,956
CZ04 PG&E 128,894 0 25.4 $179,470 $322,782 $278,536 1.8 1.6 $143,312 $99,066
CZ04-2 CPAU 128,894 0 25.4 $179,470 $306,862 $278,536 1.7 1.6 $127,392 $99,066
CZ05 PG&E 134,041 0 26.5 $179,470 $427,935 $283,834 2.4 1.6 $248,465 $104,364
CZ06 SCE 127,168 0 25.0 $179,470 $200,425 $281,488 1.1 1.6 $20,955 $102,018
CZ06-2 LA 127,168 0 25.0 $179,470 $119,357 $281,488 0.7 1.6 ($60,113) $102,018
CZ07 SDG&E 132,258 0 26.1 $179,470 $247,646 $289,700 1.4 1.6 $68,176 $110,230
CZ08 SCE 128,641 0 25.3 $179,470 $207,993 $298,594 1.2 1.7 $28,523 $119,124
CZ08-2 LA 128,641 0 25.3 $179,470 $122,591 $298,594 0.7 1.7 ($56,879) $119,124
CZ09 SCE 127,447 0 25.3 $179,470 $211,567 $288,830 1.2 1.6 $32,096 $109,360
CZ09-2 LA 127,447 0 25.3 $179,470 $123,486 $288,830 0.7 1.6 ($55,984) $109,360
CZ10 SDG&E 130,792 0 25.8 $179,470 $274,832 $285,386 1.5 1.6 $95,361 $105,916
CZ10-2 SCE 130,792 0 25.8 $179,470 $206,865 $285,386 1.2 1.6 $27,395 $105,916
CZ11 PG&E 125,366 0 24.6 $179,470 $316,781 $279,331 1.8 1.6 $137,311 $99,861
CZ12 PG&E 127,203 0 25.0 $179,470 $406,977 $282,358 2.3 1.6 $227,507 $102,888
CZ12-2 SMUD 127,203 0 25.0 $179,470 $198,254 $282,358 1.1 1.6 $18,784 $102,888
CZ13 PG&E 123,535 0 24.4 $179,470 $317,261 $269,908 1.8 1.5 $137,791 $90,437
CZ14 SDG&E 143,387 0 28.1 $179,470 $309,521 $330,345 1.7 1.8 $130,051 $150,875
CZ14-2 SCE 143,387 0 28.1 $179,470 $225,083 $330,345 1.3 1.8 $45,612 $150,875
CZ15 SCE 133,246 0 25.9 $179,470 $207,277 $297,648 1.2 1.7 $27,807 $118,177
CZ16 PG&E 139,738 0 27.3 $179,470 $341,724 $292,728 1.9 1.6 $162,254 $113,258
CZ16-2 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
Figure 73. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV + 50 kWh 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 Battery
CZ01 PG&E 104,026 0 23.2 $207,370 $332,596 $237,740 1.6 1.1 $125,226 $30,370
CZ02 PG&E 126,332 0 28.1 $207,370 $336,179 $296,058 1.6 1.4 $128,809 $88,688
CZ03 PG&E 124,934 0 28.0 $207,370 $399,220 $289,360 1.9 1.4 $191,850 $81,990
CZ04 PG&E 127,602 0 28.5 $207,370 $332,161 $308,887 1.6 1.5 $124,790 $101,517
CZ04-2 CPAU 127,602 0 28.5 $207,370 $303,828 $308,887 1.5 1.5 $96,458 $101,517
CZ05 PG&E 132,725 0 29.8 $207,370 $423,129 $303,627 2.0 1.5 $215,758 $96,257
CZ06 SCE 125,880 0 28.4 $207,370 $193,814 $297,950 0.9 1.4 ($13,556) $90,580
CZ06-2 LA 125,880 0 28.4 $207,370 $123,083 $297,950 0.6 1.4 ($84,287) $90,580
CZ07 SDG&E 130,940 0 29.5 $207,370 $274,313 $309,682 1.3 1.5 $66,943 $102,312
CZ08 SCE 127,332 0 28.5 $207,370 $199,786 $312,899 1.0 1.5 ($7,584) $105,529
CZ08-2 LA 127,332 0 28.5 $207,370 $124,651 $312,899 0.6 1.5 ($82,719) $105,529
CZ09 SCE 126,232 0 28.2 $207,370 $206,706 $292,804 1.0 1.4 ($664) $85,433
CZ09-2 LA 126,232 0 28.2 $207,370 $126,710 $292,804 0.6 1.4 ($80,660) $85,433
CZ10 SDG&E 129,683 0 28.4 $207,370 $292,202 $287,278 1.4 1.4 $84,832 $79,908
CZ10-2 SCE 129,683 0 28.4 $207,370 $206,171 $287,278 1.0 1.4 ($1,199) $79,908
CZ11 PG&E 124,337 0 26.9 $207,370 $315,330 $283,683 1.5 1.4 $107,960 $76,313
CZ12 PG&E 126,013 0 27.8 $207,370 $403,127 $297,118 1.9 1.4 $195,757 $89,748
CZ12-2 SMUD 126,013 0 27.8 $207,370 $198,007 $297,118 1.0 1.4 ($9,363) $89,748
CZ13 PG&E 122,591 0 26.5 $207,370 $315,541 $280,996 1.5 1.4 $108,171 $73,626
CZ14 SDG&E 142,257 0 30.7 $207,370 $317,565 $334,697 1.5 1.6 $110,195 $127,327
CZ14-2 SCE 142,257 0 30.7 $207,370 $224,195 $334,697 1.1 1.6 $16,824 $127,327
CZ15 SCE 132,418 0 27.8 $207,370 $208,044 $299,199 1.0 1.4 $674 $91,829
CZ16 PG&E 138,402 0 30.7 $207,370 $358,582 $315,699 1.7 1.5 $151,212 $108,329
CZ16-2 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
Figure 74. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 3kW PV
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 PV
CZ01 PG&E -155,861 16917 54.7 ($1,265,139) ($568,892) ($106,835) 2.2 11.8 $696,246 $1,158,304
CZ02 PG&E -113,954 12677 40.9 ($1,266,111) ($229,433) ($41,288) 5.5 30.7 $1,036,679 $1,224,823
CZ03 PG&E -105,862 12322 41.4 ($1,268,383) ($309,874) ($41,175) 4.1 30.8 $958,510 $1,227,208
CZ04 PG&E -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,268,218) ($208,239) ($42,689) 6.1 29.7 $1,059,980 $1,225,530
CZ04-2 CPAU -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,268,218) ($6,261) ($42,689) 202.6 29.7 $1,261,958 $1,225,530
CZ05 PG&E -103,579 11960 39.3 ($1,268,272) ($332,879) ($44,051) 3.8 28.8 $935,393 $1,224,221
CZ06 SCE -73,524 8912 30.3 ($1,268,413) $48,898 ($17,484) >1 72.5 $1,317,311 $1,250,929
CZ06-2 LA -64,859 8188 29.0 ($1,266,760) ($120,842) ($12,337) 10.5 102.7 $1,145,918 $1,254,423
CZ07 SDG&E -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,264,731) ($43,964) ($11,618) 28.8 108.9 $1,220,767 $1,253,113
CZ08 SCE -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,264,731) $48,736 ($11,618) >1 108.9 $1,313,467 $1,253,113
CZ08-2 LA -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,266,529) ($35,547) ($11,126) 35.6 113.8 $1,230,982 $1,255,403
CZ09 SCE -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,266,529) $52,410 ($11,126) >1 113.8 $1,318,939 $1,255,403
CZ09-2 LA -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,263,531) ($156,973) ($25,469) 8.0 49.6 $1,106,558 $1,238,061
CZ10 SDG&E -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,263,531) ($54,711) ($25,469) 23.1 49.6 $1,208,820 $1,238,061
CZ10-2 SCE -94,783 10252 31.9 ($1,264,340) ($169,847) ($38,904) 7.4 32.5 $1,094,493 $1,225,436
CZ11 PG&E -94,702 10403 33.0 ($1,265,779) ($324,908) ($34,968) 3.9 36.2 $940,872 $1,230,811
CZ12 PG&E -94,297 10403 33.1 ($1,265,779) $13,603 ($33,757) >1 37.5 $1,279,382 $1,232,022
CZ12-2 SMUD -92,196 10029 31.5 ($1,264,152) ($168,358) ($40,229) 7.5 31.4 $1,095,794 $1,223,923
CZ13 PG&E -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,264,510) ($308,542) ($44,202) 4.1 28.6 $955,969 $1,220,308
CZ14 SDG&E -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,264,510) ($110,730) ($44,202) 11.4 28.6 $1,153,780 $1,220,308
CZ14-2 SCE -44,856 5579 19.0 ($1,262,631) $8,996 ($10,256) >1 123.1 $1,271,627 $1,252,375
CZ15 SCE -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,268,907) ($625,671) ($228,203) 2.0 5.6 $643,236 $1,040,704
CZ16 PG&E -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,268,907) $37,142 ($228,203) >1 5.6 $1,306,049 $1,040,704
CZ16-2 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
Figure 75. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh 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 Battery
CZ01 PG&E -155,861 16917 54.7 ($1,288,428) ($568,892) ($106,835) 2.3 12.1 $719,536 $1,181,593
CZ02 PG&E -113,954 12677 40.9 ($1,288,428) ($229,433) ($41,288) 5.6 31.2 $1,058,996 $1,247,140
CZ03 PG&E -105,862 12322 41.4 ($1,288,428) ($309,874) ($41,175) 4.2 31.3 $978,554 $1,247,253
CZ04 PG&E -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,288,428) ($208,239) ($42,689) 6.2 30.2 $1,080,190 $1,245,740
CZ04-2 CPAU -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,288,428) ($6,261) ($42,689) 205.8 30.2 $1,282,167 $1,245,740
CZ05 PG&E -103,579 11960 39.3 ($1,288,428) ($332,879) ($44,051) 3.9 29.2 $955,549 $1,244,377
CZ06 SCE -73,524 8912 30.3 ($1,288,428) ($52,341) ($17,484) 24.6 73.7 $1,236,087 $1,270,944
CZ06-2 LA -73,524 8912 30.3 ($1,288,428) $48,898 ($17,484) >1 73.7 $1,337,326 $1,270,944
CZ07 SDG&E -64,859 8188 29.0 ($1,288,428) ($120,842) ($12,337) 10.7 104.4 $1,167,586 $1,276,091
CZ08 SCE -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,288,428) ($43,964) ($11,618) 29.3 110.9 $1,244,464 $1,276,810
CZ08-2 LA -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,288,428) $48,736 ($11,618) >1 110.9 $1,337,164 $1,276,810
CZ09 SCE -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,288,428) ($35,547) ($11,126) 36.2 115.8 $1,252,881 $1,277,302
CZ09-2 LA -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,288,428) $52,410 ($11,126) >1 115.8 $1,340,838 $1,277,302
CZ10 SDG&E -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,288,428) ($156,973) ($25,469) 8.2 50.6 $1,131,455 $1,262,959
CZ10-2 SCE -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,288,428) ($54,711) ($25,469) 23.5 50.6 $1,233,718 $1,262,959
CZ11 PG&E -94,783 10252 31.9 ($1,288,428) ($169,847) ($38,904) 7.6 33.1 $1,118,582 $1,249,524
CZ12 PG&E -94,702 10403 33.0 ($1,288,428) ($324,908) ($34,968) 4.0 36.8 $963,520 $1,253,460
CZ12-2 SMUD -94,297 10403 33.1 ($1,288,428) $13,603 ($33,757) >1 38.2 $1,302,031 $1,254,671
CZ13 PG&E -92,196 10029 31.5 ($1,288,428) ($168,358) ($40,229) 7.7 32.0 $1,120,071 $1,248,199
CZ14 SDG&E -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,288,428) ($308,542) ($44,202) 4.2 29.1 $979,887 $1,244,226
CZ14-2 SCE -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,288,428) ($110,730) ($44,202) 11.6 29.1 $1,177,698 $1,244,226
CZ15 SCE -44,856 5579 19.0 ($1,288,428) $8,996 ($10,256) >1 125.6 $1,297,425 $1,278,172
CZ16 PG&E -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,288,428) ($625,671) ($228,203) 2.1 5.6 $662,757 $1,060,225
CZ16-2 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
Figure 76. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 80kW PV
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
CZ01 PG&E -54,712 16917 74.6 ($1,123,442) ($240,170) $106,722 4.7 >1 $883,272 $1,230,164
CZ02 PG&E 8,853 12677 65.0 ($1,124,415) $128,649 $223,510 >1 >1 $1,253,063 $1,347,925
CZ03 PG&E 15,612 12322 65.3 ($1,126,687) $44,532 $215,260 >1 >1 $1,171,219 $1,341,947
CZ04 PG&E 15,490 11927 62.0 ($1,126,522) $145,778 $225,402 >1 >1 $1,272,300 $1,351,924
CZ04-2 CPAU 15,490 11927 62.0 ($1,126,522) $289,094 $225,402 >1 >1 $1,415,616 $1,351,924
CZ05 PG&E 25,436 11960 64.8 ($1,126,575) $56,019 $229,149 >1 >1 $1,182,594 $1,355,724
CZ06 SCE 48,875 8912 54.4 ($1,126,716) $163,343 $253,445 >1 >1 $1,290,060 $1,380,161
CZ06-2 LA 62,439 8188 54.1 ($1,125,064) $115,822 $266,502 >1 >1 $1,240,886 $1,391,565
CZ07 SDG&E 56,727 8353 53.5 ($1,123,034) $147,987 $275,773 >1 >1 $1,271,022 $1,398,808
CZ08 SCE 56,727 8353 53.5 ($1,123,034) $163,971 $275,773 >1 >1 $1,287,005 $1,398,808
CZ08-2 LA 55,185 8402 53.7 ($1,124,832) $155,101 $266,880 >1 >1 $1,279,933 $1,391,712
CZ09 SCE 55,185 8402 53.7 ($1,124,832) $169,010 $266,880 >1 >1 $1,293,843 $1,391,712
CZ09-2 LA 50,731 8418 52.0 ($1,121,834) $113,936 $249,207 >1 >1 $1,235,770 $1,371,041
CZ10 SDG&E 50,731 8418 52.0 ($1,121,834) $138,265 $249,207 >1 >1 $1,260,099 $1,371,041
CZ10-2 SCE 25,882 10252 55.6 ($1,122,643) $162,626 $229,944 >1 >1 $1,285,269 $1,352,587
CZ11 PG&E 27,731 10403 57.1 ($1,124,083) $12,954 $236,794 >1 >1 $1,137,037 $1,360,876
CZ12 PG&E 28,136 10403 57.2 ($1,124,083) $206,756 $238,005 >1 >1 $1,330,839 $1,362,087
CZ12-2 SMUD 26,706 10029 55.0 ($1,122,455) $165,991 $219,574 >1 >1 $1,288,446 $1,342,030
CZ13 PG&E 41,989 10056 57.8 ($1,122,814) $22,333 $273,768 >1 >1 $1,145,147 $1,396,582
CZ14 SDG&E 41,989 10056 57.8 ($1,122,814) $120,943 $273,768 >1 >1 $1,243,757 $1,396,582
CZ14-2 SCE 83,393 5579 44.0 ($1,120,934) $210,511 $276,228 >1 >1 $1,331,445 $1,397,162
CZ15 SCE -76,971 17599 69.2 ($1,127,210) ($199,308) $53,550 5.7 >1 $927,902 $1,180,760
CZ16 PG&E -76,971 17599 69.2 ($1,127,210) $172,787 $53,550 >1 >1 $1,299,997 $1,180,760
CZ16-2 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
Figure 77. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 80kW PV + 50 kWh 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 Battery
CZ01 PG&E -55,323 16917 75.7 ($1,095,542) ($238,351) $118,605 4.6 >1 $857,191 $1,214,147
CZ02 PG&E 7,849 12677 67.4 ($1,096,515) $129,794 $239,632 >1 >1 $1,226,309 $1,336,146
CZ03 PG&E 14,594 12322 67.7 ($1,098,787) $43,166 $235,280 >1 >1 $1,141,953 $1,334,067
CZ04 PG&E 14,459 11927 64.4 ($1,098,622) $148,698 $249,244 >1 >1 $1,247,320 $1,347,866
CZ04-2 CPAU 14,459 11927 64.4 ($1,098,622) $286,573 $249,244 >1 >1 $1,385,195 $1,347,866
CZ05 PG&E 24,292 11960 67.6 ($1,098,675) $53,719 $244,514 >1 >1 $1,152,394 $1,343,189
CZ06 SCE 47,762 8912 57.2 ($1,098,816) $165,763 $267,221 >1 >1 $1,264,579 $1,366,037
CZ06-2 LA 61,252 8188 57.1 ($1,097,164) $138,060 $283,797 >1 >1 $1,235,223 $1,380,960
CZ07 SDG&E 55,588 8353 56.2 ($1,095,134) $138,718 $286,483 >1 >1 $1,233,852 $1,381,618
CZ08 SCE 55,588 8353 56.2 ($1,095,134) $165,932 $286,483 >1 >1 $1,261,066 $1,381,618
CZ08-2 LA 54,162 8402 56.1 ($1,096,932) $149,615 $269,453 >1 >1 $1,246,548 $1,366,386
CZ09 SCE 54,162 8402 56.1 ($1,096,932) $171,168 $269,453 >1 >1 $1,268,101 $1,366,386
CZ09-2 LA 49,832 8418 54.1 ($1,093,934) $120,627 $250,720 >1 >1 $1,214,561 $1,344,654
CZ10 SDG&E 49,832 8418 54.1 ($1,093,934) $136,144 $250,720 >1 >1 $1,230,078 $1,344,654
CZ10-2 SCE 25,148 10252 57.3 ($1,094,743) $160,744 $233,842 >1 >1 $1,255,487 $1,328,585
CZ11 PG&E 26,813 10403 59.2 ($1,096,183) $10,314 $247,504 >1 >1 $1,106,497 $1,343,686
CZ12 PG&E 27,217 10403 59.3 ($1,096,183) $206,749 $248,790 >1 >1 $1,302,931 $1,344,973
CZ12-2 SMUD 26,027 10029 56.5 ($1,094,555) $164,506 $229,300 >1 >1 $1,259,061 $1,323,856
CZ13 PG&E 41,123 10056 59.7 ($1,094,914) $25,707 $276,947 >1 >1 $1,120,621 $1,371,860
CZ14 SDG&E 41,123 10056 59.7 ($1,094,914) $119,382 $276,947 >1 >1 $1,214,296 $1,371,860
CZ14-2 SCE 82,697 5579 45.5 ($1,093,034) $209,837 $277,287 >1 >1 $1,302,871 $1,370,321
CZ15 SCE -77,815 17599 71.1 ($1,099,310) ($193,758) $65,850 5.7 >1 $905,552 $1,165,160
CZ16 PG&E -77,815 17599 71.1 ($1,099,310) $175,872 $65,850 >1 >1 $1,275,182 $1,165,160
CZ16-2 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
6.8 List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored
The Reach Code Team started with a potential list of energy efficiency measures proposed for 2022 Title 24 codes and standards enhancement
measures, as well as measures from the 2018 International Green Construction Code, which is based on ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2017. The team
also developed new measures based on their experience. This original list was over 100 measures long. The measures were filtered based on
applicability to the prototypes in this study, ability to model in simulation software, previously demonstrated energy savings potential, and market
readiness. 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.
Figure 78. List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored
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. Y
Envelope High performance fenestration Improved fenestration SHGC (reduce to 0.22). Y
Envelope High SHGC for cold climates Raise prescriptive fenestration SHGC (to 0.45) in cold
climates where additional heat is beneficial. Y
Envelope Allowable fenestration by
orientation Limit amount of fenestration as a function of orientation Y
Envelope High Thermal Mass Buildings
Increase building thermal mass. Thermal mass slows the
change in internal temperature of buildings with respect
to the outdoor temperature, allowing the peak cooling
load during summer to be pushed to the evening,
resulting in lower overall cooling loads.
Initial energy modeling results showed marginal
cooling 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.
N
Envelope Triple pane windows U-factor of 0.20 for all windows
Initial energy modeling results showed only marginal
energy savings and, in some cases, increased energy
use.
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 based
on ASHRAE Standard 215-2018: Method of Test to
Determine Leakage of Operating HVAC Air Distribution
Systems (ANSI Approved).
More research needs to be done on current duct
leakage and how it can be addressed. N
Envelope Fenestration area Reduce maximum allowable fenestration area to 30%.
Instead of this measure, analyzed measure which
looked at limiting fenestration based on wall
orientation.
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. N
Envelope Permanent projections
Detailed prescriptive requirements for shading based on
ASHRAE 189. PF >0.50 for first story and >0.25 for other
floors. Many exceptions. Corresponding SHGC multipliers
to be used.
Title 24 already allows owner to trade off SHGC with
permanent projections. Also, adding requirements for
permanent projections would raise concerns.
N
Envelope Reduced infiltration Reduce infiltration rates by improving building sealing.
Infiltration rates are a fixed ACM input and cannot be
changed. A workaround attempt would not be
precise, and the practicality of implementation by
developers is low given the modeling capabilities and
the fact that in-field verification is challenging.
Benefits would predominantly be for air quality rather
than 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 be
met by various approaches, and the most common
ones are:
a. Exhaust only system, and ventilation is met by
infiltration or window operation.
b. Through a Z-duct that connects the zone AC
unit’s intake to an outside air intake louver.
c. Centralized ventilation system (DOAS)
The prototype developed for the small hotel is using
Type 2 above. The major consideration is that
currently, HRV + PTACs cannot be modeled at each
guest room, only at the rooftop system. Option 1
would require the same type of HRV implementation
as Option 2. Option 3 may be pursuable, but would
require a significant redesign of the system, with
questionable impacts. Previous studies have found
heat recovery as cost effective in California only in
buildings 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.
Y
HVAC Reduce VAV minimum flow limit
Current T24 and 90.1 requirements limit VAV minimum
flow rates to no more than 20% of maximum flow.
Proposal based on ASHRAE Guideline 36 which includes
sequences that remove technical barriers that previously
existed. Also, most new DDC controllers are now capable
of lower limits. The new limit may be as low as the
required ventilation rate. A non-energy benefit of this
measure is a reduction in over-cooling, thus improving
comfort.
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 is
now a national consensus standard for the description of
high-performance sequences of operation. This measure
will update BAS control requirements to improve
usability and enforcement and to increase energy
efficiency. BAS control requirement language will be
improved either by adoption of similar language to GDL-
36, or reference to GDL-36. Specific T24 BAS control
topics 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 for
scheduling.
In order to realize any savings in the difference, we
would need a very detailed energy model with space-
by-space load/occupant diversity, etc. We would also
need more modeling capability than is currently
available in CBECC-Com.
N
HVAC Fault Detection Devices (FDD)
Expand FDD requirements to a wider range of AHU faults
beyond the economizer. Fault requirements will be based
on NIST field research, which has consequently been
integrated into ASHRAE Guideline 36 Best in Class
Sequences of Operations. Costs are solely to develop the
sequences, which is likely minimal, and much of the
hardware required for economizer FDD is also used to
detect 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 savings
potential. More savings for CHW pumps. Modeling
limitations 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. N
HVAC Parallel fan-powered boxes Use of parallel fan-powered boxes Unable to model PFPB with variable speed fans in
modeling software. N
Lighting Daylight Dimming Plus OFF Automatic daylight dimming controls requirements
include the OFF step. Y
Lighting Occupant Sensing in Open Plan
Offices
Take the PAF without allowing for increased design
wattage Y
Lighting 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. Y
Lighting Shift from general to task
illumination
Low levels of general illumination with task and accent
lighting added to locations where higher light levels are
required. The shift from general to task illumination
measure is based on the assumption that proper lighting
of a desk surface with high efficacy lighting can allow for
the significant reduction of ambient general lighting.
This is a tough measure to require as the LPDs
decrease. N
Lighting Future-proof lighting controls
Fill any holes in the current code that could lead to the
situations where TLEDS or LED fixtures that are not
dimmable or upgradable in the future, or any other issues
with code that make it hard to transition to ALCS/IoT
lighting in the future
Major lighting controls already covered in other
measures being considered N
Lighting Integrated control of lighting and
HVAC systems
Formalize the definition of "lighting and HVAC control
integration" by defining the level of data sharing required
between systems and the mechanism needed to share
such data. The highest savings potential would likely be
generated from VAV HVAC systems by closing the
damper in unoccupied zones based on the occupancy
sensor information from the lighting systems.
Not market ready enough. N
Other NR Plug Load Controls
Energy savings opportunities for plug loads, which may
include: energy efficient equipment, equipment power
management, occupancy sensor control, and occupant
awareness programs. The proposal could be extending
controlled 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 standby
power modes that use very little power, making plug
load controls very difficult to be cost-effective.
N