AgdaPkt 2020-01-13 Joint - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 244 of 285 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 6.7 PV -only and PV+Battery-only Cost Effectiveness Results Details The Reach Code Tea evaluated cost effectiveness of installing a PV system and battery storage in six different measure combinations over a 2019 code -compliant baseline for all climate zones. The baseline for all nonresidential buildings is a mixed -fuel design. All mixed fuel models are compliant with 2019 Title24, whereas all electric models can show negative compliance. The compliance margin is the same as that of their respective federal minimum design and is not affected by addition of solar PV or battery. These scenarios evaluate the cost effectiveness of PV and/or battery measure individually. The climate zones where all -electric design is not compliant will have the flexibility to ramp up the efficiency of appliance or add another measure to be code compliant, as per package 1B and 3B in main body of the report. The large negative lifecycle costs in all electric packages are due to lower all -electric HVAC system costs and avoided natural gas infrastructure costs. This is commonly applied across all climate zones and packages over any additional costs for PV and battery. 6.7.1 Cost Effectiveness Results — Medium Office Figure 54 through Figure 61 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Office packages. Notable findings for each package include: ♦ Mixed -Fuel + 3 kW PV Only: All packages are cost effective using the On -Bill and TDV approaches. ♦ Mixed -Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: The packages are mostly cost effective on a TDV basis except in CZ1. As compared to the 3 kW PV only package, battery reduces cost effectiveness. This package is not cost effective for LADWP and SMUD territories using an On -Bill approach. ♦ Mixed -Fuel + PV only: The packages are less cost effective as compared to 3 kW PV packages in most climate zones. In areas served by LADWP, the B/C ratio is narrowly less than 1 and not cost effective. ♦ Mixed -Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: The packages are cost effective in all climate zones except for in the areas served by LADWP. On -Bill and TDV B/C ratios are slightly lower compared to the PV only package. ♦ All -Electric + 3 kW PV: Packages are on -bill cost effective in ten of sixteen climate zones. Climate zones 1,2,4,12, and 16 were not found to be cost-effective from an on -bill perspective. These zones are within PG&E's service area. Packages are cost effective using TDV in all climate zones except CZ16. ♦ All -Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: Packages are slightly more cost effective than the previous minimal PV only package. Packages are on -bill cost effective in most climate zones except for 1,2 and 16 from an on -bill perspective. These zones are within PG&E's service area. Packages are cost effective using TDV in all climate zones except CZ16. ♦ All -Electric + PV only: All packages are cost effective and achieve savings using the On -Bill and TDV approaches. 69 2019-07-25 M