|
7.A. - Page 240 of 285 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
<br />Figure 49. Small Hotel - Mixed Fuel Baseline
<br />Climate
<br />Zone
<br />Utility
<br />Electricity
<br />Consumption
<br />(kWh)
<br />Natural Gas
<br />Consumption
<br />(Therms)
<br />Electricity
<br />Cost
<br />Natural
<br />Gas Cost
<br />Compliance
<br />TDV
<br />GHG
<br />Emissions
<br />(lbs)
<br />Small Hotel Mixed Fuel Baseline
<br />CZ01
<br />PG&E
<br />177,734
<br />16,936
<br />40,778
<br />20,465
<br />110
<br />340,491
<br />CZ02
<br />PG&E
<br />189,319
<br />12,696
<br />53,396
<br />15,664
<br />110
<br />293,056
<br />CZ03
<br />PG&E
<br />183,772
<br />12,341
<br />42,325
<br />15,210
<br />98
<br />284,217
<br />CZ04
<br />PG&E
<br />187,482
<br />11,945
<br />52,118
<br />14,806
<br />106
<br />281,851
<br />CZ04-2
<br />CPAU
<br />187,482
<br />11,945
<br />32,176
<br />14,806
<br />106
<br />281,851
<br />CZ05
<br />PG&E
<br />187,150
<br />11,979
<br />43,182
<br />14,733
<br />98
<br />281,183
<br />CZ05-2
<br />SCG
<br />187,150
<br />11,979
<br />43,182
<br />10,869
<br />98
<br />281,183
<br />CZ06
<br />SCE
<br />191,764
<br />8,931
<br />28,036
<br />8,437
<br />98
<br />244,664
<br />CZ06-2
<br />LA
<br />191,764
<br />8,931
<br />16,636
<br />8,437
<br />98
<br />244,664
<br />CZ07
<br />SDG&E
<br />189,174
<br />8,207
<br />58,203
<br />10,752
<br />90
<br />233,884
<br />CZ08
<br />SCE
<br />190,503
<br />8,372
<br />27,823
<br />7,991
<br />94
<br />236,544
<br />CZ08-2
<br />LA
<br />190,503
<br />8,372
<br />16,555
<br />7,991
<br />94
<br />236,544
<br />CZ09
<br />SCE
<br />198,204
<br />8,421
<br />30,262
<br />8,030
<br />103
<br />242,296
<br />CZ09-2
<br />LA
<br />198,204
<br />8,421
<br />17,951
<br />8,030
<br />103
<br />242,296
<br />CZ10
<br />SDG&E
<br />215,364
<br />8,437
<br />71,713
<br />10,926
<br />122
<br />255,622
<br />CZ10-2
<br />SCE
<br />215,364
<br />8,437
<br />33,736
<br />8,043
<br />122
<br />255,622
<br />CZ11
<br />PG&E
<br />219,852
<br />10,271
<br />63,724
<br />12,882
<br />131
<br />282,232
<br />CZ12
<br />PG&E
<br />199,499
<br />10,422
<br />46,245
<br />13,022
<br />115
<br />270,262
<br />CZ12-2
<br />SMUD
<br />199,499
<br />10,422
<br />26,872
<br />13,022
<br />115
<br />270,262
<br />CZ13
<br />PG&E
<br />226,925
<br />10,048
<br />65,559
<br />12,629
<br />132
<br />284,007
<br />CZ14
<br />SDG&E
<br />226,104
<br />10,075
<br />73,621
<br />12,167
<br />134
<br />283,287
<br />CZ14-2
<br />SCE
<br />226,104
<br />10,075
<br />35,187
<br />9,350
<br />134
<br />283,287
<br />CZ15
<br />SCE
<br />280,595
<br />5,598
<br />42,852
<br />5,777
<br />152
<br />260,378
<br />CZ16
<br />PG&E
<br />191,231
<br />17,618
<br />51,644
<br />21,581
<br />127
<br />358,590
<br />CZ16-2
<br />LA
<br />1 191,231
<br />17,618
<br />1 16,029
<br />1 21,581
<br />127
<br />1 358,590
<br />6.6 Hotel TDV Cost Effectiveness with Propane Baseline
<br />The Reach Codes Team further analyzed TDV cost effectiveness of the all -electric packages with a mixed -
<br />fuel design baseline using propane instead of natural gas. Results for each package are shown in Figure
<br />50. through Figure 53. below.
<br />All electric models compared to a propane baseline have positive compliance margins in all climate zones
<br />when compared to results using a natural gas baseline. Compliance margin improvement is roughly 30
<br />percent, which also leads to improved cost effectiveness for the all -electric packages. These outcomes are
<br />likely due to the TDV penalty associated with propane when compared to natural gas.
<br />65
<br />0
<br />2019-07-25
<br />492
<br />
|