AgdaPkt 2020-01-13 Joint - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 74 of 285 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 3.2 Single Family Results Table 8 through Table 10 contain cost effectiveness findings for the single family packages. Table 8 summarizes the package costs for all of the mixed fuel and all -electric efficiency, PV and battery packages. The mixed fuel results are evaluated and presented relative to a mixed fuel code compliant basecase while the all -electric results are relative to an all -electric code compliant basecase. Table 9 and Table 10 present the B/C ratios for all the single family packages according to both the On -Bill and TDV methodologies for the mixed fuel and the all -electric cases, respectively. Results are cost-effective based on TDV for all cases except for Climate Zone 7 where no cost-effective combination of non -preempted efficiency measures was found that met the minimum 0.5 EDR Margin threshold. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as ">1" refer to instances where there are incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with the upgrade and benefits are realized immediately. Figure 3 presents a comparison of Total EDRs for single family buildings and Figure 4 presents the EDR Margin results. Each graph compares the mixed fuel and all -electric cases as well as the various packages. The EDR Margin for the Efficiency Package for most climates is between 1.0 and 5.5 for mixed fuel cases and slightly higher, between 1.5 and 6.5, for the all -electric design. No cost-effective mixed fuel or all -electric non - preempted Efficiency package was found Climate Zone 7. For the mixed fuel case, the Efficiency & PWBattery Package increased the EDR Margin to values between 7.0 and 10.5. Because of the limitations on oversizing PV systems to offset natural gas use it is not feasible to achieve higher EDR Margins by increasing PV system capacity. For the all -electric case, the Efficiency & PV Package resulted in EDR Margins of 11.0 to 19.0 for most climates; adding a battery system increased the EDR Margin by an additional 7 to 13 points. Climate zones 1 and 16, which have high heating loads, have much higher EDR Margins for the Efficiency & PV package (26.5-31.0). The Standard Design PV, which is what is applied in the all -electric Efficiency Package, is not sized to offset any of the heating load. When the PV system is sized to offset 90% of the total electricity use, the increase is substantial as a result. In contrast, in Climate Zone 15 the Standard Design PV system is already sized to cover the cooling electricity load, which represents 40% of whole building electricity use. Therefore, increasing the PV size to offset 90% of the electric load in this climate only results in adding approximately 120 Watts of PV capacity and subsequently a negligible impact on the EDR. Additional results details can be found in Appendix C — Single Family Detailed Results with summaries of measures included in each of the packages in Appendix D — Single Family Measure Summary. A summary of results by climate zone is presented in Appendix G — Results by Climate Zone. 21 2019-08-01 326