AgdaPkt 2020-01-13 Joint - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 234 of 285 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study likely further opportunity for energy savings through measures that cannot be currently demonstrated in compliance software, such as high-performance control sequences or variable speed parallel fan powered boxes. High efficiency appliances triggering federal preemption do not achieve as high compliance margins as the other efficiency measures analyzed in this study. Cost effectiveness appears to be dependent on the system type and building type. Nonetheless, specifying high efficiency equipment will always be a key feature in integrated design. 4. Regarding the Small Hotel prototype: The Small Hotel presents a challenging prototype to cost-effectively exceed the state's energy performance budget without efficiency measures. The Reach Code Team is uncertain of the precision of the results due to the inability to directly model either drain water heat recovery or a central heat pump water heater with a recirculation loop. b. Hotel results may be applicable to high-rise (4 or more stories) multifamily buildings. Both hotel and multifamily buildings have the same or similar mandatory and prescriptive compliance options for hot water systems, lighting, and envelope. Furthermore, the Alternate Calculation Method Reference Manual specifies the same baseline HVAC system for both building types. c. Hotel compliance margins were the lowest among the three building types analyzed, and thus the most conservative performance thresholds applicable to other nonresidential buildings not analyzed in this study. As stated previously, the varying occupancy and energy profiles of nonresidential buildings makes challenging to directly apply these results across all buildings. 5. Many all -electric and solar PV packages demonstrated greater GHG reductions than their mixed - fuel counterparts, contrary to TDV-based performance, suggesting a misalignment among the TDV metric and California's long-term GHG-reduction goals. The Energy Commission has indicated that they are aware of this issue and are seeking to address it. 6. Changes to the Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Reference Manual can drastically impact results. Two examples include: When performance modeling residential buildings, the Standard Design is 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. If nonresidential buildings were treated in the same way, all -electric cost effectiveness using the TDV approach would improve. The baseline mixed -fuel system for a hotel includes a furnace in each guest room, which carries substantial plumbing costs and labor costs for assembly. A change in the baseline system would lead to different base case costs and different cost effectiveness outcomes. 7. All -electric federal code -minimum packages appear to be cost effective, largely due to avoided natural gas infrastructure, but in most cases do not comply with the Energy Commission's minimum performance budget (as described in item 7a above). For most cases it appears that adding cost-effective efficiency measures achieves compliance. All -electric nonresidential projects can leverage the initial cost savings of avoiding natural gas infrastructure by adding energy efficiency measures that would not be cost effective independently. 59 RE 2019-07-25 211