Laserfiche WebLink
7.A. - Page 233 of 285 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study <br />Figure 43. Small Hotel Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness <br />CZ <br />Utility <br />EE <br />Mixed Fuel <br />EE + PV + B <br />HE <br />Fed Code <br />All Electric <br />EE EE + PV + B <br />HE <br />CZ01 <br />PG&E <br />9% <br />95/. <br />2% <br />-28% <br />1% <br />1% <br />-24% <br />CZ02 <br />PG&E <br />7% <br />7% <br />3% <br />-12% <br />4% <br />4% <br />-11% <br />CZ03 <br />PG&E <br />10% <br />10% <br />2% <br />-14% <br />6% <br />6% <br />-14% <br />CZ04 <br />PG&E <br />6% <br />6% <br />2% <br />-13% <br />0.2% <br />0.2% <br />-13% <br />CZ04-2 <br />CPAU <br />6% <br />6% <br />2% <br />-13% <br />0.2% <br />0.2% <br />-13% <br />CZ05 <br />PG&E <br />9% <br />9% <br />2% <br />-15% <br />5% <br />5% <br />-15% <br />CZ05-2 <br />SCG <br />9% <br />9% <br />2% <br />NA <br />NA <br />NA <br />NA <br />CZ06 <br />SCE <br />8% <br />8% <br />2% <br />-5% <br />7% <br />7% <br />-15% <br />CZ06-2 <br />LADWP <br />8% <br />8% <br />2% <br />-5% <br />7% <br />7% <br />-15% <br />CZ07 <br />SDG&E <br />8% <br />8% <br />2% <br />-7% <br />7% <br />7% <br />-7% <br />CZ08 <br />SCE <br />7% <br />7% <br />2% <br />-6% <br />3% <br />3% <br />-6% <br />CZ08-2 <br />LADWP <br />7% <br />7% <br />2% <br />-6% <br />3% <br />3% <br />-6% <br />CZ09 <br />SCE <br />6% <br />6% <br />3% <br />-6% <br />2% <br />2% <br />-4% <br />CZ09-2 <br />LADWP <br />6% <br />6% <br />3% <br />-6% <br />2% <br />2% <br />-4% <br />CZ10 <br />SDG&E <br />5% <br />5% <br />4% <br />-8% <br />2% <br />2% <br />-5% <br />CZ10-2 <br />SCE <br />5% <br />5% <br />4% <br />-8% <br />2% <br />2% <br />-5% <br />CZ11 <br />PG&E <br />4% <br />4% <br />4% <br />-10% <br />1% <br />1% <br />-7% <br />CZ12 <br />PG&E <br />5% <br />5% <br />4% <br />-10% <br />2% <br />2% <br />-9% <br />CZ12-2 <br />SMUD <br />5% <br />5% <br />4% <br />-10% <br />2% <br />2% <br />-9% <br />CZ13 <br />PG&E <br />4% <br />4% <br />3% <br />-10% <br />0.3% <br />0.3% <br />-7% <br />CZ14 <br />SDG&E <br />4% <br />4% <br />4% <br />-11% <br />0.1% <br />0.1% <br />-7% <br />CZ14-2 <br />SCE <br />4% <br />4% <br />4% <br />-11% <br />0.1% <br />0.1% <br />-7% <br />CZ15 <br />SCE <br />3% <br />3% <br />5% <br />-4% <br />2% <br />2% <br />0.04% <br />CZ16 <br />PG&E <br />6% <br />6% <br />3% <br />-50% <br />-14% <br />-14% <br />-39% <br />CZ16-2 <br />LADWP <br />6% <br />6% <br />3% <br />-50% <br />-14% <br />-14% <br />-39% <br />5.2 Conclusions and Further Considerations <br />Findings are specific to the scenarios analyzed under this specific methodology, and largely pertain to <br />office, retail, and hotel -type occupancies. Nonresidential buildings constitute a wide variety of occupancy <br />profiles and process loads, making findings challenging to generalize across multiple building types. <br />Findings indicate the following overall conclusions: <br />1. This study assumed that electrifying space heating and service water heating could eliminate <br />natural gas infrastructure alone, because these were the only gas end -uses included the <br />prototypes. Avoiding the installation of natural gas infrastructure results in significant cost savings <br />and is a primary factor toward cost-effective outcomes in all -electric designs, even with necessary <br />increases in electrical capacity. <br />2. There is ample opportunity for cost effective energy efficiency improvements, as demonstrated <br />by the compliance margins achieved in many of the efficiency -only and efficiency + PV packages. <br />Though much of the energy savings are attributable to lighting measures, efficiency measures <br />selected for these prototypes are confined to the building systems that can be modeled. There i5 <br />58 <br />2019-07-25 <br />BV <br />