My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2020-01-13 Joint
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2020
>
AgdaPkt 2020-01-13 Joint
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2020 12:12:51 PM
Creation date
1/10/2020 8:49:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
1/13/2020
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
790
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
7.A. - Page 80 of 285 <br />2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study <br />is diminished in multifamily buildings. Ducts are already assumed to be within conditioned space and therefore <br />only one of the duct measures found to be cost-effective in single family homes can be applied. <br />Figure 6 presents a comparison of Total EDRs for the multifamily cases and Figure 7 presents the EDR Margin <br />results. Each graph compares the mixed fuel and all -electric cases as well as the various packages. Cost-effective <br />efficiency packages were found for all mixed fuel cases. The Target EDR Margins for the mixed fuel Efficiency <br />Package are 0.5 for Climate Zones 3, 5 and 7, between 1.0 and 2.5 for Climate Zones 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 through 12 and <br />16, and between 3.0 and 4.0 in Climate Zones 13 through 15. For the all -electric case, no cost-effective non - <br />preempted efficiency packages were found in Climate Zone 3. The Target EDR Margins are between 0.5 and 2.5 <br />for Climate Zones 2, 4 through 10 and 12, and between 3.0 and 4.0 in Climate Zones 1, 11, and 13 through 16. <br />For the mixed fuel case, the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package results in an EDR Margin of between 8.5 and 11.5 <br />across all climate zones. Most of these packages were not found to be cost-effective based on utility bill savings <br />alone, but they all are cost-effective based on TDV energy savings. For the all -electric case, the Efficiency & PV <br />Package resulted in EDR Margins of 10.5 to 17.5 for most climates; adding a battery system increased the EDR <br />Margin by an additional 10 to 15 points. Climate zones 1 and 16, which have high heating loads, have much <br />higher EDR Margins for the Efficiency & PV package (19.5-22.5). The Standard Design PV, which is what is <br />applied in the Efficiency Package, is not sized to offset any of the heating load. When the PV system is sized to <br />offset 90% of the total electricity use, the increase is substantial as a result. In Climate Zone 15 the Standard <br />Design PV system is already sized to cover the cooling electricity load, which represents 30% of whole building <br />electricity use. Therefore, increasing the PV size to offset 90% of the electric load in this climate only results in <br />adding approximately 240 Watts of PV capacity per apartment and subsequently a much smaller impact on the <br />EDR than in other climate zones. Because of the limitations on oversizing PV systems to offset natural gas use it <br />is not feasible to achieve comparable EDR Margins for the mixed fuel case as in the all -electric case. <br />Additional results details can be found in Appendix E — Multifamily Detailed Results with summaries of measures <br />included in each of the packages in Appendix F — Multifamily Measure Summary. A summary of results by <br />climate zone is presented in Appendix G — Results by Climate Zone. <br />27 © 2019-08-01 <br />332 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.