AgdaPkt 2020-01-13 Joint - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 199 of 285 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 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 113, 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: 24 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. RE 2019-07-25 451