Laserfiche WebLink
7.A. - Page 263 of 285 <br />6.7.3 Cost Effectiveness Results -Small Hotel <br />2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study <br />Figure 70 through Figure 77 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Small Hotel packages. Notable findings for each package include: <br />♦ Mixed -Fuel + 3 kW PV: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for all climate zones for both the On -Bill and TDV approaches. <br />♦ Mixed -Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: The packages are less cost effective as compared to the previous minimal PV only package and <br />not cost effective for LADWP and SMUD service area. The addition of battery reduces the cost effectiveness of packages. <br />♦ Mixed -Fuel + PV only: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for the On -Bill approach for all climate zones except for LADWP <br />territory. Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for the TDV approach for all climate zones. <br />♦ Mixed -Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces On -Bill B/C ratios. Packages are not cost effective for LADWP territory, <br />SMUD territory as well as for climate zones 6,8,9 under PG&E service area. <br />♦ All -Electric + 3 kW PV: All packages are cost effective using the On -Bill approach. All packages are cost effective using the TDV approach <br />but do not achieve positive energy cost savings. <br />♦ All -Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: Similar to minimal PV only package, all packages are cost effective using the On -Bill approach. All <br />packages are cost effective using the TDV approach but do not achieve positive energy cost savings. <br />♦ <br />All -Electric + PV only: All packages are cost effective for both On -Bill and TDV approaches. Packages achieve on -bill savings for all climate <br />zones. <br />♦ All -Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces On -Bill B/C ratios but is still cost effective for all climate zones. <br />2019-07-25 <br />515 <br />