AgdaPkt 2020-01-13 Joint - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 95 of 285 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study mixed fuel cases and $15,100 for the all -electric cases. The incremental costs for each multifamily apartment are approximately 30-40% lower. See Table 8 and Table 11 for a summary of package costs by case. Table 18 and Table 19 summarize the maximum Target EDR Margins determined to be cost effective for each package for single family and multifamily, respectively. Cases labeled as "n/a" in the tables indicate where no cost-effective package was identified under either On -Bill or TDV methodology. This analysis also looked at the GHG emissions impacts of the various packages. An all -electric design reduces GHG emissions 40-50% in most cases relative to a comparable mixed fuel design. There is significant interest throughout California on electrification of new buildings. The Reach Code Team assembled data on the cost differences between a code compliant mixed fuel building and a code compliant all - electric building. Based on lifetime equipment cost savings (the difference in first cost for equipment and infrastructure combined with incremental replacement costs) of $5,349 for an all -electric single family home this analysis found that from a customer on -bill perspective, the all -electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climates Zones 6 through 9, 10 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15, and cost-effective in all climate zones except 1 and 16 based on TDV. For multifamily buildings, based on a cost savings of $2,337 per apartment, the code compliant option is cost-effective in Climates Zones 6 through 9, 10 & 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15, and cost-effective based on TDV. Adding efficiency and PV to the code compliant all -electric buildings increases the cost-effectiveness in all climate zones. The Efficiency & PV Package is cost-effective when compared to a mixed fuel code compliant building in all climate zones for both single family and multifamily buildings based on both the On -Bill and TDV methodologies. The Efficiency & PV package adds PV to offset 90% of the electricity use of the home. While this results in higher installed costs, the reduced lifetime utility costs are larger ($0 to $6,000 lifetime incremental equipment costs in many climates for single family homes and an associated $4,500 to $13,500 lifetime utility cost savings across the same cases), resulting in positive B/C ratios for all cases. The Reach Code Team also evaluated a neutral cost electrification scenario where the cost savings for the all - electric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On -Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings and positive on -bill B/C ratio in all cases except Climate Zones 1 and 16 for single family, and Climate Zone 1 for low-rise multifamily. Increasing the PV sizes in those climates by approximately 30% resulted in positive on -bill B/C ratios, while still not resulting in oversizing of PV systems. Other studies have shown that cost-effectiveness of electrification increases with high efficiency space conditioning and water heating equipment in the all -electric home. This was not directly evaluated in this analysis but based on the favorable cost-effectiveness results of the Equipment, Preempted package for the individual mixed fuel and all -electric upgrades it's expected that applying similar packages to the electrification analysis would result in increased cost-effectiveness. The Reach Code Team found there can be substantial variability in first costs, particularly related to natural gas infrastructure. Costs are project -dependent and will be impacted by such factors as site characteristics, distance to the nearest gas main, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of homes per development among other things. While the best cost data available to the Reach Code Team was applied in this analysis, individual projects may experience different costs, either higher or lower than the estimates presented here. 42 © 2019-08-01 347