AgdaPkt 2020-01-13 Joint - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 200 of 285 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study ♦ 113 — 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 Us 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. ♦ 36 — 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 Us 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. 25 0 2019-07-25 452