Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01182022 - Complete Minutes PktCALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD BOARD CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1025 ESCOBAR STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 DIANE BURGIS, CHAIR, 3RD DISTRICT FEDERAL D. GLOVER, VICE CHAIR, 5TH DISTRICT JOHN GIOIA , 1ST DISTRICT CANDACE ANDERSEN, 2ND DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF , 4TH DISTRICT MONICA NINO, CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, (925) 655-2075 PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES. A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR. To slow the spread of COVID-19, the Health Officer’s Shelter Order of September 14, 2020, prevents public gatherings (Health Officer Order). In lieu of a public gathering, the Board of Supervisors meeting will be accessible via television and live-streaming to all members of the public as permitted by the Governor’s Executive Order N29-20. Board meetings are televised live on Comcast Cable 27, ATT/U-Verse Channel 99, and WAVE Channel 32, and can be seen live online at www.contracosta.ca.gov. PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA MAY CALL IN DURING THE MEETING BY DIALING 888-251-2949 FOLLOWED BY THE ACCESS CODE 1672589#. To indicate you wish to speak on an agenda item, please push "#2" on your phone. All tele phone callers will be limited to two (2) minutes apiece. The Board Chair may reduce the amount of time allotted per tele phone caller at the beginning of each item or public comment period depending on the number of calls and the business of the day. Your patience is appreciated. A lunch break or closed session may be called at the discretion of the Board Chair. Staff reports related to open session items on the agenda are also accessible on line at www.contracosta.ca.gov. AGENDA January 18, 2022            9:00 A.M. Convene, call to order and opening ceremonies. Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1)) Contra Costa County v. James T. Robson III, Trustee, et al.; Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C20-007051. Cynthia Slezak v. County of Contra Costa, et al.; Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C17-024542. Diane Wilson, et al. v. Town of Danville, et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:21-cv-02440 TSH3. Mary Elizabeth Knox, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-01449-JCS4. Gustave Kramer v. Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County and County of Contra Costa, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. MSN18-2076 5. Inspirational Thought- "Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase." ~Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor; Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor; Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Staff Present:Monica Nino, County Administrator Mary Ann McNett Mason, County Counsel  Supervisor Andersen recused herself from consideration on the case of Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C20-00705 Cynthia Slezak v. County of Contra Costa, et al. There were no announcements from Closed Session.   CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.83 on the following agenda) – Items are subject to removal from Consent Calendar by request of any Supervisor or on request for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered with the Discussion Items.   PRESENTATIONS (5 Minutes Each)   PRESENTATION recognizing January 2022 as Positive Parenting Awareness Month. (Supervisor Mitchoff)   PRESENTATION recognizing January 2022 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month. (Supervisor Mitchoff)     PRESENTATION by the Assistance League Of Diablo Valley on their 50th Anniversary of the TeleCare Program. (Supervisor Mitchoff)   DISCUSSION ITEMS   D.1 HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-06, which would extend Urgency Ordinance No. 2021-43 (approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 2021) imposing a moratorium on the establishment or expansion of fulfillment centers, parcel hubs, and parcel sorting facilities in the North Richmond area. (Francisco Avila, Department of Conservation and Development)       The following people spoke in favor of the ordinance: Jan; Floy Andrews, Kathy.   D.2 HEARING to consider adopting Ordinance No. 2022-02, adopting and amending the 2019 California Energy Code to require all newly constructed residential buildings, hotels, offices, and retail buildings be constructed as all-electric buildings. (Demian Hardman, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speakers: Doug Chan, Builders; Rob, Danville; Denise, 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations; Lisa Jackson, 350 Contra Costa; Juan Pablo Galvàn, Save Mt. Diablo; Carol, Rossmoor Community; Floy Andrews; Fred; No name given, Vote for Change; Mariella, Community Development Director, MCE; Jackie Garcia Mann, Climate Reality and Interfaith Climate Action Network; Ryan, Sustainable Contra Costa; Melissa Yu, Sierra Club; Casimir Karbo. The following people provided written commentary (attached): Gary Farber, 350 Contra Costa; Adrian Byram, Sustainable Rossmoor; Andy Ferguson; Sue Bock, San Ramon Valley Climate coalition; Zoe Siegel, Greenbelt Alliance; Lisa Chang, Alamo; Ryan Buckley, Sustainable Contra Costa; Sheila Tarbet, Elders Climate Action; Laura Feinstein, PhD; Amanda Millstein, MD; Jan Warren, Interfaith Climate Action Network of CCC; Marcia Liberson, Walnut Creek; Cynthia Mahoney, Contra Costa Citizens Climate Lobby; Denice A. Dennis, 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations; Ogie Strogatz, 350 Contra Costa; Marti Roach, 350 Contra Costa; Karen Leung, Contra Costa; Brenden Millstein; Maria Gastelumendi, Environmental Task Force of City of Lafayette; Nancy Hu, Climate Reality Project, Environmental Task Force of Lafayette.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover NO: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen D.3 ACCEPT update on COVID-19; and PROVIDE direction to staff. (Anna Roth, Health Services Director)      Speakers: No name given; Casimir Karbo; Debbie Toth, Choice in Aging; Natalie. ACCEPTED the oral report.   D.4 CONSIDER adopting the Proposed 2022 State and Federal Legislative Programs for Contra Costa County. (Lara DeLaney, County Administrator's Office)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.5 INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2022-04, amending the Election Campaign Ordinance to revise the limits on individual campaign contributions to supervisorial and non-supervisorial candidates; WAIVE reading; FIX February 1, 2022, for adoption. (Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 6 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    There were no items removed from consent for discussion.   D. 7 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)    Marianna Moore, congratulated Supervisor Mitchoff and thanked Supervisor Burgis for her thoughtful comments, and notes she will work this year on improving communication with the Board; Debbie Toth, Choice in Aging, is very pleased by the master plan for aging locally as well as to increase the safety net for our elders and also for all the benefits that will come from Measure X funding.   D. 8 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   11:00 A.M.   Contra Costa County 44th Annual Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Commemoration and Humanitarian of the Year Awards Virtual Ceremony   ADJOURN in memory Clifford Dochterman Moraga resident, past President of the International Rotary and Donald Huntington Brentwood resident   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2022/4514 to prohibit stopping, standing, or parking at all times except for those vehicles of individuals with disabilities (blue curb) on a portion of Winslow Street (Road No. 2295AD), as recommended by the Public Works Director, Crockett area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 2 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a construction contract with Coral Construction Company in the amount of $1,117,777 for the Crockett Area Guardrail Upgrades Project, Crockett area. (52% Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program, 48% Local Road Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Engineering Services   C. 3 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/19 approving the seventh extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD91-07553, for a project being developed by Alamo Land Investors, LLC and Alamo 37, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Alamo area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Special Districts & County Airports   C. 4 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Urban Mobility, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, for the negotiation of a long-term lease of approximately 0.86-acre of land on the northwest side and approximately 11-acres of land on the northeast side of the Buchanan Field Airport. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 5 DENY claims filed by CA Insurance Co., as subrogee of Aaron Smith, DeMaria Gipson, Mercury Insurance, as subrogee of Peter Fogarty, Dustin Rober Scudder, Aaron and Holli Smith, State Farm, a subrogee of Rodolfo L. Angelito, Subro Claims Insurance Obo Geico Insurance, a subrogee of Christina Given, and Scott Talley.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen (RECUSE) C. 6 APPROVE clarification of Board action of November 2, 2021 regarding claimant Arnulfo Ramirez to reflect the correct name of the property owner/payee as Paper Tree Garden LLC and AUTHORIZE payment to Paper Tree Garden LLC from the Liability Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for resolution of a claim of property damage. (100% Liability Internal Service Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Statutory Actions   C. 7 ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for December 2021.      AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Honors & Proclamations   C. 8 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/27 recognizing Assistance League of Diablo Valley’s TeleCare Program and its 50 years of service to our community, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 9 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/28 proclaiming January 2022 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month in Contra Costa County, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 10 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/30 proclaiming January 2022 as Positive Parenting Month, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff.      AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Ordinances   C. 11 INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2022-05 amending the County Ordinance Code to exclude from the merit system the new classification of Chief of Administrative Services - Exempt, update section heading, and reorganize existing section, WAIVE READING and FIX February 1, 2022, for adoption, as recommended by the Human Resources Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appointments & Resignations   C. 12 APPOINT Michael Bruno as the Sterling Aviation representative on the Aviation Advisory Committee for a term ending February 28, 2022, as recommended by the Contra Costa County Airports Business Association.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 13 ACCEPT the resignation of Richard Bell, DECLARE a vacancy in the District 1 seat on the Family & Children's Trust Committee for a term ending September 30, 2023, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 14 ACCEPT the resignation of Silvia Ledezma, DECLARE a vacancy in the District 1 seat on the Arts & Culture Commission for a term ending June 30, 2025, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 15 APPOINT in lieu of election Coleman Foley and Thomas E. Baldocchi, Jr. to the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2065 for terms of four years, as recommended by the County Administrator.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 16 ACCEPT the resignation of Joan D'Onofrio, DECLARE a vacancy in the At-Large 3 seat on the Arts & Culture Commission for a term ending June 30, 2025, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the County Administrator.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appropriation Adjustments   C. 17 Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau (0589): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5025 authorizing additional revenue from the California Department of Social Services in the amount of $3,475,050 in the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau (0589) for an increase in the Maximum Reimbursable Amounts in FY 21-22 for the California Alternative Payment Program and the California Alternative Payment Program Stage II. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 18 Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau (0589): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5026 authorizing additional revenue from the California Department of Social Services in the amount of $182,566 in the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau (0589) for an increase in the Maximum Reimbursable Amount to the Child Care and Development Program. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 19 County Counsel (0030): APPROVE Appropriation Adjustment No.05027 transferring $154,693.00 in revenues to the County Counsel's Office (0030), for fiscal year 2021-22 specialized legal services for Health Services.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Personnel Actions   C. 20 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25872 to add one Deputy County Counsel - Advanced - Exempt (unrepresented) position in the Office of the County Counsel. (100% Health Services Department)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 21 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25877 to reallocate the salary of the Director of Airports (unrepresented) classification in the Public Works Department – Airports Division. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 22 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25870 to add one Assistant Chief Information Officer-Exempt position and appoint the incumbent in position no. 17614 to this position; cancel one Chief Information Security Officer-Exempt position and abolish the class; and reallocate the salary of the Assistant Chief Information Officer-Exempt on the salary schedule in the Department of Information Technology. (100% User Departments)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 23 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25871 to add one Chief of Administrative Services - Exempt position and cancel one Administrative Services Officer (unpresented) position in the Department of Information Technology. (100% User Departments)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 24 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25879 to add 73 represented positions to permanently staff the Inpatient Psychiatric Services unit at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in the Health Services Department. (Cost neutral)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services: APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 25 ADOPT Resolution Nos. 2022/11 and 2022/34, approving and authorizing the Health Services Director, or designee, to apply for and accept two loans, in an amount not to exceed $20,000,000 for each loan, from the State of California’s No Place Like Home Program as a joint applicant with development sponsors to fund a portion of two affordable permanent supportive housing projects for persons with mental illness or who are homeless. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 26 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute the Continued Funding Application with the California Department of Social Services for General Child Care and Development Program, CalWORKs Stage 2, and California Alternative Payment Program for Fiscal Year 2022-23. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 27 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer, or designee, to execute a contract with Delta Diablo to pay the County an amount not to exceed $140,000 to provide information technology services for the period of November 17, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% Delta Diablo Sanitation District)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 28 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to apply for and accept California State Library grant funding in the amount not to exceed $20,000 to meet the operational and services expenses required by Project Second Chance, the Contra Costa County Library adult literacy program, to provide English as a Second Language services for the period January 1 to June 30, 2022. (63% County match, Library Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 29 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with the City and County of San Francisco, in an amount not to exceed $634,686 as part of the 2021 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Urban Area Security Initiative Grant for homeland security related projects for the period November 1, 2021 through the end of the grant funding. (100% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 30 AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise for bids for the 2022 Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) Services Contract(s) for maintenance and emergency repairs to County UPS units at various County facilities, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 31 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Wellsky Corporation in an amount not to exceed $1,815,883 to provide a hosted software system for Wellsky’s blood bank and care management systems for the period January 18, 2022 through January 10, 2027. (100% COVID-19 Enhancing Learning Capacity Supplemental)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 32 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation contract with A Better Way, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $700,000 to provide mental health services to children ages birth to twenty-one and their families in Contra Costa County for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a six-month automatic extension in an amount not to exceed $350,000 through December 31, 2022 . (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Employment and Human Services Department)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 33 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation contract with Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. (dba Familias Unidas), in an amount not to exceed $431,158 to provide community based mental health services for children and their families in West Contra Costa County for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $215,579. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)         AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation contract with Fred Finch Youth Center, in an amount not to exceed $1,439,194 to provide school and community-based mental health and therapeutic behaviroal services to adolescent children for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $709,597. (49% Federal Medi-Cal, 49% Mental Health Realignment, 2% Mt. Diablo Unified School District)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 35 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Lincoln, in an amount not to exceed $1,612,202 to provide mental health services and multi-dimensional family therapy for seriously emotionally disturbed adolescents and their families for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $806,101. (34% Federal Medi-Cal, 32% Mental Health Services Act Uninsured, 26% Mental Health Services Act, 8% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 36 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Mountain Valley Child and Family Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,852,100 to provide mental health services, case management and Therapeutic Behavioral Services for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed youth and dependents for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $926,050. (50% Mental Health Realignment, 50% Federal Medi-Cal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau, in an amount not to exceed $3,846,000 to provide mental health services, wraparound services, and outpatient treatment to children in West County for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $1,923,000. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 38 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation contract with La Clinica de La Raza, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $297,644 to provide Mental Health Services Act Prevention and Early Intervention program services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $148,822. (100% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Covelo Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $450,000 to provide temporary medical staffing and recruitment services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 40 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with The Sun Healthcare and Surgery Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $538,000 to provide podiatry services to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Center patients for the period October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 41 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with American Medical Response West, effective October 1, 2021, to decrease the payment limit by $116,231 to a new payment limit of $117,585 and extend the termination date from August 31, 2022 to September 30, 2022 for the Choosing Change Program, an overdose prevention program, which allows emergency responders to provide opioid overdose medication and education services to patients and bystanders. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 42 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Wanyi He, LAC, in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to provide acupuncture services to Contra Costa Health Plan members and County recipients for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with DJR Healthcare Consulting, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $307,464 to provide consultation and technical assistance to the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Center for Behavioral Solutions, in an amount not to exceed $675,000 to provide applied behavioral analysis services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $95,000 to provide adult residential care and mental health services for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. (100% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Hobbs Investments, Inc. (dba Am-Tran), effective October 1, 2021, to increase the payment limit by $85,000 to a new payment limit of $460,000 to provide additional courier services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, with no change to the term February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Animate Consulting LLC (dba Animate Behavior, LLC), in an amount not to exceed $900,000, to provide applied behavior analysis services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period December 1, 2021 through November 30, 2024. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Traditions Psychology Group, Inc (dba Traditions Behavioral Health), in an amount not to exceed $18,000,000 to provide physician management and psychiatric staffing for the Inpatient Psychiatric Crisis Stabilization Unit at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, the County’s Main Detention Facility and mental health clinics for the period December 1, 2021 through November 30, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Specialty Laboratories, Inc. (dba Quest Diagnostic Nichols Institute), to include additional outside laboratory testing services with no change to the payment limit of $7,000,000 or term January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay City Boiler and Engineering Company Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $750,000 to provide on-call boiler maintenance and repair services at various County buildings, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Fehr & Peers to extend the term from February 28, 2022 through June 30, 2022, for continued transportation planning services in preparation of the County’s first Active Transportation Plan, with no change to the payment limit of $300,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 52 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Charles Kopp Inc. (dba Continental Electric), in an amount not to exceed $2,250,000 to provide on-call electrical maintenance and repair services at various County sites and facilities, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Serramonte Pulmonary Asthma Sleep Clinic, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000 to provide pulmonary and sleep study services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period December 1, 2021 through November 30, 2024. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to provide on-call electrical maintenance and repair services at various County sites and facilities, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 55 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with St Francis Electric, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $2,250,000 to provide on-call electrical maintenance and repair services at various County sites and facilities, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Social Service Staffing & Recruiting, Inc., effective February 1, 2022 to increase the payment limit by $100,000 to a new payment limit of $500,000 to provide additional qualified temporary social worker services for clients of Children and Family Services, with no change to term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (60% Federal, 34% State, and 6% County)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 57 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay Medic Transportation Inc., in an amount not to exceed $375,000 for non-emergency medical transportation services for Contra Costa Health Plan Medi-Cal members for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Vickie Lee Scharr, in an amount not to exceed $260,000 to provide consultation, technical support and planning services to the West Contra Costa Health Care District for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. (100% West Contra Costa Healthcare District)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation contract with Well Health, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $578,094 for patient engagement software license for the period May 1, 2021 through May 19, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 60 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Semon Bader, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to provide orthopedic services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 61 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Randell Lee Wilferd Jr. (dba Randy’s Mobile Mechanical Service), in an amount not to exceed $310,000 to provide consultation, vehicle inspections, repairs and maintenance to the Public Health Division’s Mobile Satellite Health Center vehicles for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 62 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Signature Parking, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $420,849 to provide parking management services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)         AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 63 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Vasanta Venkat Giri, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $376,320 to provide telepsychiatry services to children for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 64 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with InfoImage of California, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $330,000 to provide patient billing services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 65 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Jiva Health, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000 to provide endocrine, diabetes, and allergy specialty services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 66 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Youth Homes Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $2,205,290 to provide residential treatment and therapeutic behavioral services for emotionally disturbed children for the period January 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $2,205,290. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 67 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Kunwardeep Sohal, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $1,800,000 to provide gastroenterology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 68 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with America West Transportation, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $150,000 to a new payment limit of $675,000 for additional non-emergency medical transportation services for CCHP Medi-Cal members requiring additional physical assistance in accordance with the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal initiative with no change in the term April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2024. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 69 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Native American Health Center, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $257,753 to provide Mental Health Services Act Prevention and Early Intervention program services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $128,876. (100% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 70 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with People Who Care Children Association, in an amount not to exceed $236,689 to provide Mental Health Services Act Prevention and Early Intervention services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $118,344. (100% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 71 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Contra Costa Interfaith Transitional Housing, Inc. (dba Hope Solutions), in an amount not to exceed $397,041 to provide an on-site, on-demand and culturally appropriate Prevention and Early Intervention program to help formerly homeless families for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $198,520. (100% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 72 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., to include State data exchange requirements and revise the Delegation Agreement and reporting requirements for Contra Costa Health Plan Medi-Cal members, with no change in the payment limit of $600,000,000 or the automatic biennial renewal term. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 73 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Silicon Valley Fire, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $600,000 to provide fire suppression certification and repair services at various County facilities, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 74 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Diablo Boiler & Steam Inc., in an amount not to exceed $750,000 to provide on-call boiler maintenance and repair services at various County buildings, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other Actions   C. 75 ACCEPT the canvass of votes for the December 14, 2021 Elections for County Service Areas P-6, Zone 3008 (San Pablo unincorporated area) and Zone 3114 (El Sobrante unincorporated area), as recommended by the Clerk-Recorder. (Tax proceeds accrue to County Service Areas)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 76 AUTHORIZE relief of cash shortage in the Health Services Department - Alcohol & Other Drug Services Division in the amount of $362.90, as recommended by the County Administrator. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 77 DECLARE as surplus and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to dispose of fully depreciated vehicles and equipment no longer needed for public use, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 78 AUTHORIZE initiation of a General Plan Amendment process to consider changing the General Plan land use designation from Agricultural Lands to Single-Family Residential Low-Density for a portion of a 23.9-acre parcel located at the intersection of Camino Pablo and Sanders Ranch Road in the Moraga area, Assessor's Parcel No. 258-290-029, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (County File #GP21-0004) (100% Applicant fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 79 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, to pay up to $113,868 to Tri Delta Transit for emergency transportation services provided to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center for the period June 14, 2020 through July 3, 2021. (100% American Rescue Plan Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 80 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order amendment with Metropolitan Van & Storage Inc., to increase the payment limit by $425,000 to a new payment limit of $624,000 for additional staging, storage, and delivery of emergency medical supplies and setup and demobilization services for community COVID-19 vaccination and testing sites for the period August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2023. (100% American Rescue Plan Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 81 ACCEPT Office of the Sheriff report, in accordance with Penal Code Section 4025(e), on accounting of all Inmate Welfare Fund receipts and disbursements for Fiscal Year 2020/2021, as recommended by the Sheriff-Coroner. (No fiscal impact)         AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 82 ADOPT the FY 2022/23 Recommended Budget development schedule, as recommended by the County Administrator.      AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency   C. 83 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/24 approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the Successor (to the Contra Costa Redevelopment) Agency for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover   GENERAL INFORMATION The Board meets in all its capacities pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 24-2.402, including as the Housing Authority and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. Persons who wish to address the Board should complete the form provided for that purpose and furnish a copy of any written statement to the Clerk. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the Clerk of the Board to a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 1025 Escobar Street, First Floor, Martinez, CA 94553, during normal business hours. All matters listed under CONSENT ITEMS are considered by the Board to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Board or a member of the public prior to the time the Board votes on the motion to adopt. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARINGS will be heard when the Chair calls for comments from those persons who are in support thereof or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the Board. Comments on matters listed on the agenda or otherwise within the purview of the Board of Supervisors can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Board of Supervisors, 1025 Escobar Street, First Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 or to clerkoftheboard@cob.cccounty.us . The County will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Board meetings who contact the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours before the meeting, at (925) 655-2000. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk, First Floor. Copies of recordings of all or portions of a Board meeting may be purchased from the Clerk of the Board. Please telephone the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 655-2000, to make the necessary arrangements. Forms are available to anyone desiring to submit an inspirational thought nomination for inclusion on the Board Agenda. Forms may be obtained at the Office of the County Administrator or Office of the Clerk of the Board, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez, California. Subscribe to receive to the weekly Board Agenda by calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 655-2000 or using the County's on line subscription feature at the County’s Internet Web Page, where agendas and supporting information may also be viewed: www.contracosta.ca.gov STANDING COMMITTEES The Airport Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Diane Burgis) meets quarterly on the second Wednesday of the month at 11:00 a.m. at the Director of Airports Office, 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord. The Family and Human Services Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Candace Andersen) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Finance Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the first Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets quarterly on the first Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m.. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Diane Burgis) meets on the second Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Legislation Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Diane Burgis) meets on the second Monday of the month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Street, Martinez. The Public Protection Committee (Supervisors Andersen and Federal D. Glover) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Sustainability Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets on the fourth Monday of every other month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the second Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. Airports Committee March 9, 2022 11:00 a.m.See above Family & Human Services Committee February 28, 2022 9:00 a.m.See above Finance Committee February 7, 2022 9:00 a.m. See above Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee TBD TBD See above Internal Operations Committee February 14, 2022 10:30 a.m. See above Legislation Committee February 14, 2022 1:00 p.m. See above Public Protection Committee January 24, 2022 10:30 a.m. See above Sustainability Committee March 28, 2022 1:00 p.m.See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee February 14, 2022 9:00 a.m. See above AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings. Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees AICP American Institute of Certified Planners AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOD Alcohol and Other Drugs ARRA American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BayRICS Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications System BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BGO Better Government Ordinance BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCCPFD (ConFire) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCRMC Contra Costa Regional Medical Center CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIO Chief Information Officer COLA Cost of living adjustment ConFire (CCCFPD) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CPA Certified Public Accountant CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission dba doing business as DSRIP Delivery System Reform Incentive Program EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District ECCFPD East Contra Costa Fire Protection District EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee EMS Emergency Medical Services EPSDT Early State Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (Mental Health) et al. et alii (and others) FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency F&HS Family and Human Services Committee First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission (Proposition 10) FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development HHS (State Dept of ) Health and Human Services HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIV Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HR Human Resources HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IHSS In-Home Supportive Services Inc. Incorporated IOC Internal Operations Committee ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LLC Limited Liability Company LLP Limited Liability Partnership Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1 LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse MAC Municipal Advisory Council MBE Minority Business Enterprise M.D. Medical Doctor M.F.T. Marriage and Family Therapist MIS Management Information System MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OB-GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology O.D. Doctor of Optometry OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center OPEB Other Post Employment Benefits OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PARS Public Agencies Retirement Services PEPRA Public Employees Pension Reform Act Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology RDA Redevelopment Agency RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposal RFQ Request For Qualifications RN Registered Nurse SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SEIU Service Employees International Union SUASI Super Urban Area Security Initiative SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TRE or TTE Trustee TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee UASI Urban Area Security Initiative VA Department of Veterans Affairs vs. versus (against) WAN Wide Area Network WBE Women Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on Ordinance No. 2022-06, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2022-06, an urgency interim ordinance extending, through December 3, 2022, a moratorium on establishment or expansion of fulfillment centers, parcel hubs, and parcel sorting facilities in the North Richmond area. 3. DETERMINE that adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-06 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 4. DIRECT staff to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk-Recorder. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: On December 14, 2021, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2021-43, an urgency interim ordinance that established a moratorium on the establishment or expansion of fulfillment centers, parcel hubs and parcel sorting facilities (collectively and individually, "Heavy Distribution") in the unincorporated North Richmond area. This urgency ordinance, Ordinance No. 2022-06, extends the temporary moratorium on Heavy Distribution uses to December 3, 2022, while the County continues developing reasonable regulations to mitigate the impacts for such uses. This issue stems from rapid expansion of e-commerce in recent years and need for local fulfillment centers and operations. The North Richmond area particularly has seen a proliferation of these types of uses. As a result, the North Richmond area faces increased truck traffic and the following related adverse impacts: increased safety risk to smaller vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists; increased damage to streets; traffic congestion and reduced levels of service on streets and at intersections; and increased emissions and air quality impacts. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Francisco Avila, (925) 655-2866 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.1 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Consider Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-06 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Staff has identified additional concerns that the cumulative impacts caused by the increase in Heavy Distribution in the North Richmond Area have not been sufficiently considered and analyzed given that Heavy Distribution often operates on a 24-hour basis and may cause deteriorating air quality, health, noise, vibration, and other disruptions to peace and quiet that may impact surrounding sensitive uses, such as schools and residences. The North Richmond community has been designated by the California Air Resources Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as one of only 15 communities in California to be part of State Assembly Bill (AB) 617's Community Air Protection Program. Under current County regulations, Heavy Distribution is consistent with the existing General Plan industrial land use designations in the North Richmond Area, and is permitted within the North Richmond P-1 district. DCD staff is considering a zoning text amendment to the North Richmond P-1 district to address the individual and cumulative impacts of Heavy Distribution through appropriate locational criteria and traffic and air quality impact mitigation requirements. Extending this temporary moratorium on Heavy Distribution uses will allow staff an opportunity to consider a zoning text amendment to the North Richmond P-1 District that takes into account these issues. A threat to the public health, safety, and welfare would result if Heavy Distribution type land-use entitlements or building permits are accepted and approved under the existing North Richmond P-1 District. The failure to extend this temporary moratorium may result in significant irreversible impacts to businesses, residents, and other sensitive uses in the North Richmond Area that may not be adequately analyzed or mitigated. CEQA COMPLIANCE Adoption of the proposed urgency interim ordinance is exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the ordinance will not have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed ordinance would extend a temporary moratorium on the establishment or expansion of a land use activity that might otherwise affect the environment. See CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The failure to extend the moratorium may result in significant irreversible impacts to businesses, residents, and other sensitive uses in the North Richmond Area from new or expanded Heavy Distribution land uses. CLERK'S ADDENDUM The following people spoke in favor of the ordinance: Jan; Floy Andrews, Kathy. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2022-06 Report to Board Exhibit A- Map MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance No. 2022-06 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-06 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-06 URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON HEAVY DISTRIBUTION LAND USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTH RICHMOND AREA The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. A. The purpose of this urgency ordinance is to extend a temporary moratorium on the establishment or expansion of fulfillment centers, parcel hubs, and parcel sorting facilities in the North Richmond Area while the County considers developing reasonable regulations to address the individual and cumulative impacts caused by those uses. B. The area of North Richmond is the area located within the boundaries of the North Richmond P-1 (Planned Unit) District adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 12, 1994 (the “North Richmond Area”). The North Richmond P-1 District encompasses the entire North Richmond community. C. The North Richmond Area is designated in the County General Plan primarily for heavy industrial and light industrial land uses, but also includes areas designated for residential and public space land uses. Existing industrial land uses in the North Richmond Area consist of floricultural growing operations, distribution operations, recycling and auto dismantling operations, a resource recovery facility, and a water reclamation facility. D. The North Richmond Area also includes an elementary school, single- and multi-family dwellings, parks and recreation, open space, and an urban farm outdoor education center for at-risk youth. Many of these uses are adjacent to or located near the industrial land uses in the North Richmond Area. E. Due to the recent and rapid expansion of e-commerce in recent years and need for local fulfillment centers and operations, the North Richmond Area has seen a significant increase in fulfillment centers, parcel hubs, and parcel sorting facilities (collectively and individually, “Heavy Distribution”). A “fulfillment center” is a facility where the primary purpose is storage and distribution of e-commerce products to consumers or end- users, either directly or through a parcel hub. A “parcel hub” is a last mile facility or similar facility where the primary purpose is the processing or redistribution of parcels or products, primarily by moving a shipment from one mode of transport to a vehicle with a rated capacity of less than 10,000 pounds, for delivery directly to consumers or end-users. A “parcel sorting facility” is a facility where the primary purpose is the sorting or redistribution of parcels or products from a fulfillment center to a parcel hub. F. With this increase in Heavy Distribution, residents and businesses within the North Richmond Area face increased truck traffic and the following related adverse impacts: increased safety risk to smaller vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists; increased damage to streets; traffic congestion and reduced levels of service on streets and at intersections; and increased emissions and air quality impacts. ORDINANCE NO. 2022-06 2 G. The Board of Supervisors has additional concerns that the cumulative impacts caused by the increase in Heavy Distribution in the North Richmond Area have not been sufficiently considered and analyzed given that Heavy Distribution often operates on a 24-hour basis and may cause deteriorating air quality, health, noise, vibration, and other disruptions to peace and quiet that may impact surrounding sensitive uses, such as schools and residences. As with current industrial uses located in the North Richmond Area, new or expanded Heavy Distribution uses may be located adjacent to or near sensitive uses, such as schools and residences. H. The North Richmond community has been designated by the California Air Resources Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as one of only 15 communities in California to be part of State Assembly Bill (AB) 617’s Community Air Protection Program. The purpose of this program is to reduce emissions exposure in California’s communities that are most impacted by air pollution. A community steering committee has been established to guide the development of a Community Emissions Reduction Program to improve air quality in North Richmond, Richmond, and San Pablo. The current proliferation of Heavy Distribution uses in the North Richmond Area without appropriate evaluation is inconsistent with AB617’s goal of reducing harmful particulate matter emissions in the State’s most heavily impacted communities. I. The Board of Supervisors has determined that Heavy Distribution has potentially detrimental impacts upon the North Richmond community that are not addressed by the County’s current General Plan and zoning regulations. Under these current regulations, Heavy Distribution is consistent with the existing General Plan industrial land use designations in the North Richmond Area and is permitted within the North Richmond P- 1 District. There is a need to study and develop policies to address various individual and cumulative impacts associated with Heavy Distribution. Specifically, there is a need for additional locational criteria and traffic and air quality impact mitigation requirements to protect businesses, residents, and other sensitive uses in the North Richmond Area. J. The Department of Conservation and Development is considering a zoning text amendment to the North Richmond P-1 District to address the individual and cumulative impacts of Heavy Distribution. K. On December 14, 2021, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2021-43, an urgency interim ordinance that established a moratorium on Heavy Distribution land use development in the North Richmond Area. L. This ordinance, extending the moratorium, is necessary to proceed with an orderly planning process that takes into account consideration of the zoning text amendment for the North Richmond P-1 District. A threat to the public health, safety, and welfare would result if Heavy Distribution land use entitlements or building permits are accepted and approved under the existing North Richmond P-1 District. If Heavy Distribution land uses are allowed in the North Richmond Area under the existing North Richmond P-1 District, they could conflict with and defeat the purpose of the contemplated zoning text amendment. The failure to extend the moratorium during the stated period may result in significant irreversible impacts to businesses, residents, and other sensitive uses in the North Richmond Area that would not be adequately analyzed or mitigated. ORDINANCE NO. 2022-06 3 SECTION II. EXTENSION. The existing moratorium established by Ordinance No. 2021-43 is extended for 10 months and 15 days, through December 3, 2022. SECTION III. PROHIBITION. The existing moratorium on certain development in the North Richmond Area is extended as follows: (a) While this interim ordinance is in effect, no new Heavy Distribution land use shall be established and no existing Heavy Distribution land use shall be expanded within the North Richmond Area, except as otherwise provided in Section IV. No applications for a land use entitlement or building permit for Heavy Distribution shall be accepted or processed, and no land use entitlement or building permit for Heavy Distribution shall be approved or issued, for any parcel or portion of a parcel located within the North Richmond Area. (b) This moratorium applies to the North Richmond Area, which is the area located within the boundaries of the North Richmond P-1 District, as shown on Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated by reference. SECTION IV. EXEMPTIONS. The prohibition set forth in Section III does not apply to any application for a land use entitlement or building permit for Heavy Distribution that has been deemed complete by the Department of Conservation and Development as of December 14, 2021. SECTION V. REPORTS. In accordance with subdivision (d) of Government Code section 65858, ten days before the expiration of this ordinance and any extension of it, the Department of Conservation and Development shall file with the Clerk of this Board a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of this urgency interim ordinance. SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or to be otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other ordinance provisions or clauses or applications thereof that can be implemented without the invalid provision or clause or application, and to this end the provisions and clauses of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION VII. DECLARATION OF URGENCY. This interim ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public safety, health, and welfare of the County, and it shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The facts constituting the urgency of this interim ordinance’s adoption are set forth in Section I. SECTION VIII. EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This ordinance becomes effective immediately upon passage by four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and shall continue in effect for a period of 10 months and 15 days, through December 3, 2022, pursuant to Government Code section 65858. ORDINANCE NO. 2022-06 4 SECTION IX. PUBLICATION. Within 15 days of passage, this ordinance shall be published once with the names of the supervisors voting for and against it in the East Bay Times, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED ON ___________________ by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: MONICA NINO ____________________________ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair and County Administrator By: ________________________ [SEAL] Deputy KCK: H:\Client Matters\2022\DCD\Ordinance No. 2022-06 North Richmond Urgency Ordinance re Heavy Distribution EXT.doc REPORT ON URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 2022-06 PROHIBITING ESTABLISHMENT OR EXPANSION OF FULFILLMENT CENTERS, PARCEL HUBS AND SORTING FACILITIES IN NORTH RICHMOND January 10, 2022 Pursuant to Government Code, §65858 (d), the following report describes the measures taken to alleviate the condition that led to the adoption of an urgency interim ordinance (Ordinance No. 2021-43) prohibiting the establishment or expansion of fulfillment centers, parcel hubs and parcel sorting facilities in the unincorporated North Richmond area of Contra Costa County. On December 14, 2021, the Board of Supervisors adopted Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 2021- 43 prohibiting the establishment or expansion of fulfillment centers, parcel hubs and parcel sorting facilities in unincorporated North Richmond area of Contra Costa County, in order to prevent impacts to public health, safety and welfare that may have resulted from the proliferation of such uses. Unless the Board of Supervisors authorizes an extension, the interim ordinance is set to expire on February 3, 2022. Additional time is needed for the Department of Conservation and Development and other County agencies, to research, analyze and prepare a permanent ordinance addressing the individual and cumulative impacts associated with Heavy Distribution facilities in the unincorporated North Richmond area of the County. At this point, the additional measures taken to alleviate the conditions that led the Board to adopt the Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 2021-43 include: • Coordination of an inter-departmental staff meeting identifying and discussing potential issues and concerns relating to the prohibition of Heavy Distribution uses in the unincorporated North Richmond area if the County; • Coordination of meetings with property owners to discuss which type of uses would be appropriate in place of Heavy Distribution uses; • Prepared for adoption by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors an extension of the urgency interim ordinance extending Ordinance No. 2021-43 an additional ten months and 15 days to December 3, 2022, for adoption by the Board on January 18, 2022. _________________________, January 10, 2022 Francisco Avila, Principal Planner Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Francisco Avila SAN PABLO RICH- MOND RICHMOND North Richmond RICHMOND RICHMOND Chesley AveGertrude Ave Fred Jackson WayBrookside Dr Pittsburg Ave Goodrick AveParr Blvd Market Ave Richmond ParkwaySan PabloBay CastroCreek P-1, -XP-1 P-1 P-1P-1 Moratorium Area Parcels Incorporated City 0 0.5 10.25 MilesMap created 12/8/2021 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Exhibit A Ordinance No. 2021-43, North Richmond Area Zoning Districts P-1 -X (Railroad Corridor Combining District)P-1 (Planned Unit) RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on Ordinance No. 2022-02, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2022-02, adopting and amending the 2019 California Energy Code with changes, additions, and deletions, requiring that all newly constructed residential buildings, hotels, offices, and retail buildings be constructed as all-electric buildings without natural gas infrastructure. 3. ADOPT the attached findings and cost effectiveness studies in support of the County’s changes, additions and deletions to the 2019 California Energy Code. 4. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development, to submit a certified copy of Ordinance No. 2022-02, and adopted findings and cost effectiveness studies and this Board Order to the California Energy Commission, the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and the California Building Standards Commission. 5. FIND that adoptions of the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308. 6. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk and pay any required fee for the filing. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: On August 3, 2021, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to develop an ordinance amending the County building code to require all newly constructed residential buildings, hotels, offices, and retail buildings to be constructed as all-electric buildings without natural gas infrastructure. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Contact: Demian Hardman-Saldana, 925-655-2816 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D.2 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING to Consider Adopting Ordinance No. 2022-02 Pertaining to All-Electric Buildings BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On December 14, 2021, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) introduced Ordinance No. 2022-02, waived its reading, and fixed a hearing date of January 18, 2022, to consider adopting and amending the 2019 California Energy Code to require that all newly constructed residential buildings, hotels, offices, and retail buildings be constructed as all-electric buildings without natural gas infrastructure. Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 18941.5 authorize a local agency to modify the 2019 California Energy Code and establish more restrictive building standards if the local agency finds that the changes and modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, topographical, or environmental conditions. California Public Resources Code section 25402.1(h)(2) further authorizes a local agency to modify the California Energy Code if the local agency finds that the proposed standards are cost-effective and the California Energy Commission (CEC) determines that the proposed standards will require the diminution of energy consumption levels permitted by the 2019 California Energy Code. The proposed Ordinance No. 2022-02 would amend the 2019 California Energy Code due to local climatic, geographical, topographical, and environmental conditions. The attached findings describe the local conditions that make the more restrictive standards reasonably necessary. The attached findings also include the required findings related to energy savings and cost-effectiveness based on several cost-effectiveness studies prepared as part of the Statewide Reach Codes Program. The referenced cost-effectiveness studies are also attached. The proposed substantive changes to the 2019 California Energy Code are described below: Modifications to the 2019 California Energy Code Requires a newly constructed building that is any of the following building types to be an all-electric building: -Residential (including single-family and multi-family buildings); -Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit; -Hotel; -Office; -Retail. An all-electric building is defined to mean a building that has no natural gas or propane plumbing installed within the building, and that uses electricity as the sole source of energy for its space heating (including heating of all indoor and outdoor spaces of the building), water heating (including heating of indoor and outdoor pools and spas), cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances. An all-electric building may utilize solar thermal pool heating. The proposed ordinance would exempt development projects from the all-electric building requirement if the development project has obtained an approved vesting tentative map, development agreement, or other vested right pursuant to applicable law, prior to the operative date of the ordinance. The exemption recognizes existing projects that have obtained vested rights based on entitlements issued before the all-electric building requirements become operative. The proposed ordinance would not prohibit the use of emergency backup power sources, such as generators, that may be fossil-fuel operated. The ordinance would also not preclude anyone from installing natural gas for any existing buildings, including other allowed ancillary uses to existing buildings, such as pools, spas, or other similar outdoor equipment. California Energy Commission Modification to the California Energy Code, and the associated findings, must be submitted to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for review and approval before the modifications take effect. If adopted by the Board, staff will transmit the adopted ordinance and findings to the CEC. Staff is informed that the CEC review and approval process may take approximately 30-60 days. Ordinance Effective and Operative Dates If adopted by the Board, the ordinance will be effective upon approval by the California Energy Commission or 30 days after adoption, whichever is later. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance with an operative date of June 1, 2022, to provide the building industry and other stakeholders additional notice and lead time prior to enforcement of the new all-electric building requirements. That is, staff recommends that a building permit issued before June 1, 2022, for a newly constructed residential building, hotel, office, or retail building would not require the building to be an all-electric building. Additionally, a building permit issued after June 1, 2022 would not require a newly constructed residential building, hotel, office, or retail building to be all-electric if the building is part of a development project that has obtained an approved vesting tentative map, development agreement, or other vested right pursuant to applicable law, prior to June 1, 2022. Outreach Efforts and Public Input Public outreach related to development of this ordinance occurred through the Board of Supervisors Sustainability Committee. The Sustainability Commission also advised the Board to include building electrification commitments in the County’s Climate Emergency Resolution adopted by the Board on September 22, 2020. The building electrification ordinance issue was first discussed at the Sustainability Committee meeting on September 23, 2019, and at subsequent meetings on February 3, 2020, and May 24, 2021. The Sustainability Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors authorize staff to develop an ordinance amending the County building code to prohibit the use of natural gas and use electricity as the sole source of power for all newly constructed residential buildings, hotels, offices, and retail buildings. On August 3, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved the Sustainability Committee recommendation and directed staff to prepare the proposed ordinance. The public has had the opportunity to provide input at each of these meetings. Most public comments have indicated overall support for a building electrification ordinance. At the direction of the Sustainability Committee, County staff also met with staff from the Building Industry Association (BIA) and East Bay Leadership Council (EBLC) to solicit feedback on the Committee’s recommendation to the Board. The main concern raised by the BIA was to ensure that the building industry be given sufficient time to adapt to the building code changes so new projects in the pipeline would not require a redesign. The BIA also previously submitted a letter to the Board, which included, among other things, concerns of grid reliability, refuting whether all-electric homes are truly cost-effective, and a request that there not be localized codes. The BIA letter and the issues raised therein were discussed at the Board meeting on August 3, 2021. On December 13, 2021, the California Pool and Spa Association (CPSA) submitted a letter to the BOS requesting an exemption from the proposed ordinance for swimming pools, spas, and other ancillary equipment for outdoor use, such as fire pits, fireplaces, decorative fire features, pizza ovens, barbecues, outdoor ranges, and outdoor space heating. The CPSA letter stated, among other things, that other alternatives that are not natural gas are either not practically available or severely disappointing in quality. Their major point being that a natural gas pool heating system can heat a pool or spa much faster to their optimal temperature, as compared to an electric heat pump system. The CPSA letter also states that the electric pool heating systems may be more costly for homeowners because of the potential need to increase the size of a building’s electrical service when adding an electric pool heating system. The letter also raises the concern that eliminating or phasing out the use of natural gas would undermine the swimming pool and hot tub business and have an economic impact on the State. Other concerns raised include not being able to use natural gas for other outdoor features, such as fire pits, fireplaces, decorative fire features, pizza ovens, barbeques, outdoor ranges, and outdoor space heating. The letter received by the CPSA was discussed at the BOS meeting when the proposed ordinance was introduced on December 14, 2021. Staff has reviewed the concerns raised by the CPSA. Electric and solar thermal alternatives to the appliances mentioned in the letter do exist and in fact electric heating is the most common approach for standalone hot tubs. However, as staff stated at the prior hearing, eliminating the use of natural gas would require other equipment that would take substantially longer than a gas system to heat cold water in a pool or inground spa. Regarding CPSA’s argument that an electric pool heating system may increase cost to homeowners by requiring an increase in the size of the home’s electrical service, this may apply when adding a pool with an electric heating system to an existing home if it requires the homeowner to upsize the electrical service for the home. However, the proposed ordinance only applies to pools installed for new homes. The added cost of designing the electrical system of a new home to accommodate the needs of a pool heating system is not significant as the added electrical load resulting from a pool heating system will not result in a substantial increase in the cost of the overall electrical system for the home. A more comprehensive method for comparing the costs of various pool heating systems is to compare the life-cycle cost of these systems, which includes both the initial cost of installation and the ongoing operating cost of such systems over their useful life. Staff is not aware of any such studies that have examined this issue. The closest approximation staff has found is a cost effectiveness study done on behalf of the City of Santa Monica that found, generally, electric pool heating systems have a marginally higher initial cost of installation, but a marginally lower cost of ongoing operation. Overall, the analysis was inconclusive as to which type of system has a lower overall cost to homeowners. On January 6, 2022, 350 Contra Costa submitted a letter with a comment wanting to ensure enforcement of the ordinance for the applicable commercial uses and requested that the last sentence in the definition of an all-electric building in the proposed ordinance be modified. The letter from 350 Contra Costa with their comments and suggested ordinance language changes are attached. Clean Energy Policy and Electricity Reliability The proposed ordinance would require all new residential buildings and many new commercial buildings within the County’s jurisdictions to be constructed with electricity as the sole source of power. As such, it is important to consider whether the supply of electricity within the County is stable and reliable, and whether it will be adequate to serve the needs of all-electric buildings. To address climate change, State policy is shifting away from fossil fuels as a source of power and towards greater use of renewable energy. As this transition proceeds, it raises questions as to whether there is enough electricity generated from renewable sources to meet the needs of Californians. In addition to the question of electricity supply, there is also the related question of whether the State’s electrical grid infrastructure is adequate to distribute electricity to where it is needed across the State. While County staff are not involved in managing the State’s energy supply or grid infrastructure, staff has researched these areas and found that multiple State agencies are deeply involved in planning for the State’s future energy needs. While County staff cannot assure these efforts will be successful, staff have confirmed that tremendous resources and attention are being applied at the State level to address these concerns. Electricity procurement and management of the electrical grid are administered by utility companies and other energy providers, such as community choice energy programs. These processes are heavily regulated by State agencies, which are in turn guided by State law. County staff have examined these regulatory processes and concluded that State agencies have robust planning processes in place to forecast energy demand and to ensure that utilities procure sufficient electricity to meet the energy needs of Californians. This planning process includes a gradual transition to 100 percent renewable energy over the next 25 years. The planning efforts conducted by State agencies also include forecasting the infrastructure investments that will be needed to ensure the reliability of the electricity grid. State legislation enacted the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018, Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), which establishes a target for renewable and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of retail sales and electricity procured to serve all State agencies by 2045. The bill also increases the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 60 percent of retail sales by the end of 2030 and requires all State agencies to incorporate these targets into their relevant planning. SB 100 calls upon the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Energy Commission (CEC), and California Air Resources Board (CARB) to use programs under existing statues to achieve this policy and issue a joint policy report to the Legislature by January 1, 2021, and every four years thereafter. The first joint policy report was released in March 2021 with the intent of being the first step in an iterative and ongoing effort to assess barriers and opportunities to implementing the 100 percent clean electricity policy. To address system reliability of the grid, the joint agencies plan to evaluate resource portfolios that were developed as part of the joint policy report issued in March 2021. The first step outlined in the report specific to system reliability includes an evaluation of the resource portfolios in all hours of the year and to highlight potential supply shortfalls in meeting the projected energy demand. The second step portfolios in all hours of the year and to highlight potential supply shortfalls in meeting the projected energy demand. The second step included in their analysis will be to evaluate the revised resource portfolio with a set of probabilistic production cost model runs. This model will analyze reliability over a wide range of conditions to explore probabilistic variables, such as loads, renewable energy and hydro availability, and power plant outages to determine the likelihood of power outages due to insufficient capacity from the energy resource mix. The report further specifies that a loss of load probability that exceeds, or is significantly under, an acceptable limit will result in additional resource portfolio adjustments that would restart the process to the initial first step included in the analysis. The report states that this reliability analysis could be completed as part of the 2025 SB 100 Report or possibly through existing State efforts. In addition to the requirements of SB 100, there is a very rigorous longstanding process for resource planning that involves multiple state agencies to forecast and procure enough renewable and carbon free electricity to meet the State’s energy needs. This includes the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), CEC, and CPUC. CAISO was created by the California Legislature and is responsible for managing the flow of electricity throughout the State. CAISO has an annual long-term Transmission Planning Process completed every 15 months that uses other tools to ensure the grid has adequate supply, or in rare cases a strategy for working through undersupply situations. The CEC adopts an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years that includes an assessment of major energy trends and issues facing California’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors, including energy reliability. The IEPR provides policy recommendations on these issues. The CEC’s 2019 IEPR included an analysis of building electrification and grid reliability. The CEC leads the State’s research on all-electric buildings, in collaboration with the CAISO, CARB, and the CPUC. The 2019 IEPR identifies numerous reports produced over several years on the importance of adding firm electricity capacity and long duration energy storage. The CPUC has a biennial process through the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Proceeding that requires load-serving entities (LSEs) such as MCE (the County’s Community Choice Aggregator) and investor-owned utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to detail the procured and planned resources in their portfolio to ensure that the State has a safe, reliable, and cost-effective electricity supply. The CPUC’s IRP Proceeding(s) also serve as the umbrella venue for considering comprehensive issues in the portion of the California electricity sector under the purview of the Commission (the CPUC does not regulate municipal utilities). The IRP proceeding was the successor to multiple long-term procurement planning (LTPP) proceedings, and continues to require investor-owned utilities (IOUs) such as PG&E and community choice aggregators such as MCE to submit procurement plans to project their resource needs for their bundled customers, and their action plans for meeting those needs over a ten-year horizon. This process requires PG&E and MCE to include contingency planning regarding resource planning and load forecasting, including a secured energy capacity equal to 115% of its expected peak load for each month of the year. As specified in MCE’s 2022 Operation Integrated Resource Plan (OIRP), MCE must also demonstrate that it has procured capacity in specific transmission-constrained areas equal to its assigned share of CAISO’s need for each month of the year In addition, MCE and PG&E is required to address short-term system reliability beyond the existing baseline resources required by the CPUC. Furthermore, PG&E and MCE are required to procure even more incremental capacity to meet mid-term reliability procurement requirements. In September 2021, the CEC also released its Midterm Reliability Analysis report, which provides an analysis conducted by CEC staff to inform decisions about the future resource procurement to support energy reliability for calendar years 2023 – 2026. The report was prepared for the CPUC to consider as part of the IRP as the CPUC decides whether to adopt the next plan. The report finds that the ordered resource procurement for 2023 through 2026 appears to be sufficient, indicating system reliability. The report also concludes that the reliance on zero-emitting resources does not appear to diminish reliability compared to procuring thermal resources. The report acknowledges that the CEC demand forecast is being further enhanced to capture the frequency and dispersion of extreme climate impacts. Additionally, the study acknowledges that it did not include resource retirements beyond those assumed in the CPUC's mid-term reliability decision and that additional retirements would increase the likelihood of system reliability challenges. Another issue of concern related to grid reliability is the occurrence of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events. The State continues to work with utilities to reduce the need for PSPS events. However, such events will likely occur again in the future, subject to weather conditions. Property owners can mitigate their risk of losing power during PSPS events by installing a source of backup power, such as a generator or battery storage. In summary, California’s energy system is in the middle of a major transition away from fossil fuels and towards sources of renewable energy. This transition raises valid questions and concerns about the stability of electricity supply for County residents. While the proposed ordinance will not significantly change the overall demand for electricity within the State, requiring newly constructed buildings be all-electric will increase the dependency of these buildings – and their occupants – on the State’s system for procuring and distributing electricity. Staff have researched this topic and concluded that multiple State agencies are engaged in a comprehensive planning process to implement this transition over the next 25 years. While the outcome of the process cannot be known at this time, considerable State resources are being applied to make it successful. This will be an ongoing challenge of statewide concern for decades to come. MCE’s Planning to Support Greater Building Electrification Staff have also analyzed issues of electricity supply and stability at the local level. Most residents of the unincorporated area and most residents of nearly all of the cities within the County receive their electricity from MCE. MCE is California’s first community choice energy provider and currently serves 36 local jurisdictions across the counties of Contra Costa, Marin, Napa and Solano. The County joined MCE in 2017 with the goal of increasing the amount of energy provided within the County that comes from renewable sources. MCE was established over 10 years ago and has been able to consistently procure electricity from renewable sources to a degree that exceeds State policy requirements while maintaining stable prices for consumers relative to other Bay Area utilities and energy providers. MCE is also taking steps locally to address conditions that impact grid reliability. On December 22, 2021, MCE submitted a letter that summarizes its 2022 Operational Integrated Resource Plan (OIRP). The OIRP included, among other things, electrification trends, grid reliability needs, and capacity requirements. MCE’s OIRP also stated that MCE met the State’s 60% renewables goal back in 2017 and is expected to reach 85% renewable energy by 2029. Additionally, to mitigate the impact of electricity outages, PSPS events, and improve grid reliability MCE allocated $6 million in 2019 for a resiliency fund that impact of electricity outages, PSPS events, and improve grid reliability MCE allocated $6 million in 2019 for a resiliency fund that prioritizes customers and populations that are disproportionately affected by grid outages. MCE’s letter also outlines ten key procurement process activities which incorporate factors such as electrification trends and load forecasts. The referenced letter from MCE is attached with web links to MCE’s 2022 OIRP and the State’s IEPR. In conclusion, staff does not perceive any near-term threats to the ability of County residents to obtain electricity from local energy providers. The State faces longer term challenges as it attempts to manage the transition to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2045. More investment in renewable energy generation and distribution infrastructure will be needed. The proposed ordinance will have negligible impact on this process. All County residents will be dependent on State agencies to successfully navigate this transition and ensure a stable energy system for California, but this dependency will be particularly acute for those who occupy all-electric buildings. In addition to efforts by State agencies, the County’s local electricity provider, MCE supports building electrification and is taking steps to improve energy reliability. County residents and building owners can mitigate energy reliability risk by installing battery storage or other sources of back-up electrical power. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) For the purposes of compliance with CEQA, adoption of the ordinance is the project. Based on the record before the County, staff has determined that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment). Section 15308 covers Class 8 categorical exemptions, which consist of actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. For the purpose of protecting the environment, the proposed ordinance eliminates the construction of natural gas infrastructure for all newly constructed residential buildings, hotels, offices. The regulatory standards contained in the proposed ordinance are more stringent than those set forth in the State Building Standards Code, and as a result there are no reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts or possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the proposed ordinance is not approved, the County would not implement one of the actions specified in its Climate Emergency Resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 22, 2020. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Doug Chan, Builders; Rob, Danville; Denise, 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations; Lisa Jackson, 350 Contra Costa; Juan Pablo Galvàn, Save Mt. Diablo; Carol, Rossmoor Community; Floy Andrews; Fred; No name given, Vote for Change; Mariella, Community Development Director, MCE; Jackie Garcia Mann, Climate Reality and Interfaith Climate Action Network; Ryan, Sustainable Contra Costa; Melissa Yu, Sierra Club; Casimir Karbo. The following people provided written commentary (attached): Gary Farber, 350 Contra Costa; Adrian Byram, Sustainable Rossmoor; Andy Ferguson; Sue Bock, San Ramon Valley Climate coalition; Zoe Siegel, Greenbelt Alliance; Lisa Chang, Alamo; Ryan Buckley, Sustainable Contra Costa; Sheila Tarbet, Elders Climate Action; Laura Feinstein, PhD; Amanda Millstein, MD; Jan Warren, Interfaith Climate Action Network of CCC; Marcia Liberson, Walnut Creek; Cynthia Mahoney, Contra Costa Citizens Climate Lobby; Denice A. Dennis, 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations; Ogie Strogatz, 350 Contra Costa; Marti Roach, 350 Contra Costa; Karen Leung, Contra Costa; Brenden Millstein; Maria Gastelumendi, Environmental Task Force of City of Lafayette; Nancy Hu, Climate Reality Project, Environmental Task Force of Lafayette. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2022-02 Findings Energy Reach Code Adoption Cost Effectiveness Studies MCE Letter 350 Contra Costa Letter MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance No. 2022-02 Correspondence Received ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02 ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE TO REQUIRE CERTAIN NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS TO BE ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDINGS The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance adopts and amends the 2019 California Energy Code to require all newly constructed residential buildings, hotels, offices, and retail buildings to be constructed as all-electric buildings without natural gas infrastructure. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 17922, 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5, Public Resources Code section 25402.1(h)(2), and Government Code sections 50020 through 50022.10. SECTION II. Section 74-2.002 (Adoption) of Division 74 (Building Code) of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 74-2.002 Adoption. (a)The building code of this county is the 2019 California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2), the 2019 California Residential Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5), the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), the 2019 California Existing Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 10), and the 2019 Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this division and Division 72. (b)The 2019 California Building Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in Chapter 74-4 and Division 72, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth in this division. (c)The 2019 California Residential Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in Chapter 74-4 and Division 72, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth in this division. (d)The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in Chapter 74-4 and Division 72, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth in this division. ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02 1 (e)The 2019 California Existing Building Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in Chapter 74-4 and Division 72, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth in this division. (f)The 2019 California Energy Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in Chapter 74-4 and Division 72, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth in this division. (g)At least one copy of this building code is now on file with the building inspection division, and the other requirements of Government Code section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with. (h)As of the effective date of the ordinance from which this division is derived, the provisions of the building code are controlling and enforceable within the county. (Ords. 2022-02 § 2, 2019-31 § 2, 2016-22 § 2, 2013-24 § 2, 2011-03 § 2, 2007-54 §3, 2002-31 § 3, 99-17 § 5, 99-1, 90-100 § 5, 87-55 § 4, 80-14 § 5, 74-30.) SECTION III. Section 74.4.010 (Amendments to CEnC) is added to Chapter 74-4 (Modifications) of Division 74 (Building Code) of the County Ordinance Code, to read: 74-4.010 Amendments to CEnC. The 2019 California Energy Code ("CEnC") is amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and Division 72. Section numbers used below are those of the 2019 California Energy Code. (a)Section 100.0(e)(2)(A) of CEnC Subchapter 1 (All Occupancies - General Provisions) is amended to read: A. All newly constructed buildings. i.Sections 110.0 through 110.12 apply to all newly constructed buildings within the scope of Section 100.0(a). In addition, newly constructed buildings shall meet the requirements of Subsection B, C, D, or E, as applicable. ii.A newly constructed building that is any of the following building types shall be an all-electric building: a.Residential. b.Detached accessory dwelling unit. c.Hotel. ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02 2 d.Office. e.Retail. Exception to Section 100.0(e)(2)(A)(ii): Development projects that have obtained vested rights before the effective date of this subsection (ii) or June 1, 2022, whichever is later, pursuant to a development agreement in accordance with Government Code section 65866, a vesting tentative map in accordance with Government Code section 66998.1, or other applicable law, are exempt for the requirements of Section 100.0(e)(2)(A)(ii). (b)Section 100.1(b) (Definitions) of CEnC Subchapter 1 (All Occupancies - General Provisions) is amended by adding the following definition: ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDING means a building that has no natural gas or propane plumbing installed within the building, and that uses electricity as the sole source of energy for its space heating (including heating of all indoor and outdoor spaces of the building), water heating (including heating of indoor and outdoor pools and spas), cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances. An all-electric building may utilize solar thermal pool heating. (Ord. 2022-02 § 3.) SECTION IV. VALIDITY. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors declares that if any section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this ordinance or of the 2019 California Energy Code as adopted and amended herein is declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors that it would have passed all other portions or provisions of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom any portion or provision as may be declared invalid. SECTION V. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective, but not operative, upon approval by the California Energy Commission or 30 days after passage, whichever is later. This ordinance will become operative on the effective date of this ordinance or June 1, 2022, whichever is later. Within 15 days of passage, this ordinance shall be published once in the East Bay Times, a newspaper published in this County. \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02 3 PASSED on ___________________________, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: MONICA NINO, _____________________________ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair and County Administrator By: ______________________[SEAL] Deputy KCK: H:\Client Matters\2021\DCD\Ordinance No. 2022-02 All-Electric Buildings.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02 4 FINDINGS FOR ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE TO REQUIRE CERTAIN NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS TO BE ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDINGS The California Building Standards Commission has adopted and published the 2019 Building Standards Code, which became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Building Standards Code is composed of the 2019 California Building, Residential, Green Building Standards, Energy, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Existing Building Codes. These codes are enforced in Contra Costa County by the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. Although these codes apply statewide, Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 18941.5 authorize a local jurisdiction to modify or change these codes to establish more restrictive building standards if the jurisdiction finds that the modifications and changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Additionally, Public Resources Code section 25402.1(h)(2) authorizes a local jurisdiction to modify or change the California Energy Code to establish more restrictive building standards if the jurisdiction determines that the standards are cost- effective and the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission finds that the standards will require the diminution of energy consumption levels. Ordinance No. 2022-02 adopts the 2019 California Energy Code and amends it to address local conditions by requiring that all newly constructed residential buildings, hotels, offices, and retail buildings be constructed as all-electric buildings without natural gas infrastructure. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17958.7, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors finds that the more restrictive standards contained in Ordinance No. 2022-02 are reasonably necessary because of the local climatic, geological, and topographic conditions that are described below. I. Local Conditions A. Climatic The burning of fossil fuels to heat structures and water, for use in cooking and clothes drying appliances, and for other uses is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and consequently climate change. “Combustion of natural gas and petroleum products for heating and cooking needs emits carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Emissions from natural gas consumption represent 80 percent of direct fossil fuel CO2 emissions from the residential and commercial sectors in 2019.”1 “Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid‐20th century to the human expansion of the ‘greenhouse effect’ warming that results 1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, as of November 18, 2021, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#commercial-and-residential. FINDINGS FOR ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02 2 when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.”2 Nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and methane are gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect.3 The County’s Climate Action Plan (2015) states that the County is likely to experience more extreme heat events, reduced air quality, changes in sea level, less predictable water supply, and increases in storm severity and frequency of flood events. Requiring all-electric construction without gas infrastructure will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas produced in Contra Costa County and will contribute to reducing the overall and local impact of climate change and associated risks. B. Geological Contra Costa County is located in Seismic Design Categories D and E, which designates the County at very high risk for earthquakes. Buildings and other structures in these zones can experience major seismic damage. Contra Costa County is near numerous earthquake faults including the San Andreas Fault, and all or portions of the Hayward, Calaveras, Concord, Antioch, Mt. Diablo, and other lesser faults. A 4.1 earthquake with its epicenter in Concord occurred in 1958, and a 5.4 earthquake with its epicenter also in Concord occurred in 1955. The Concord and Antioch faults have a potential for a Richter 6 earthquake and the Hayward and Calaveras faults have the potential for a Richter 7 earthquake. Minor tremblers from seismic activity are not uncommon in the area. A study released in 2015 by the Working Group of California Earthquake Probabilities predicts that for the San Francisco region, the 30-year likelihood of one or more earthquake of 6.7 or larger magnitude is 72%. The purpose of this Working Group is to develop statewide, time-dependent Earthquake Rupture Forecasts for California that use best available science, and are endorsed by the United States Geological Survey, the Southern California Earthquake Center, and the California Geological Survey. Scientists, therefore, believe that an earthquake of a magnitude 6.7 or larger is now slightly more than twice as likely to occur as to not occur in, approximately, the next 30 years. The elimination of natural gas infrastructure in new buildings would reduce the hazards associated with gas leaks during seismic events. C. Topographic Highly combustible dry grass, weeds, and brush are common in the hilly and open space areas in the County for 6 to 8 months of each year. Many of these areas are adjacent to developed locations. And many of these areas frequently experience wildland fires, which threaten nearby buildings, particularly those with wood roofs, or sidings. This condition can be found throughout Contra Costa County, especially in those developed and developing areas of the County. Earthquake gas fires due to gas line ruptures can ignite grasslands and stress resources to combat fires. The elimination of natural gas infrastructure in new buildings would reduce fire hazards of buildings constructed near highly combustible dry land areas. 2 NASA, Causes of Climate Change, as of November 18, 2021, https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/. 3 Id. FINDINGS FOR ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02 3 II. Necessity of More Restrictive Standards Because of the conditions described above, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors finds that there are local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions unique to Contra Costa County that require imposing all-electric building requirements for newly constructed residential buildings, detached accessory dwelling units, hotels, offices, and retail buildings as set forth in Ordinance No. 2022-02. III. California Energy Code Pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 25402.1(h)(2), the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors finds that the modifications made to the California Energy Code in this ordinance are cost-effective for newly constructed residential buildings, including detached accessory dwelling units, and newly constructed hotels, offices and retail buildings. This finding of cost-effectiveness is based on the following cost-effectiveness studies prepared as part of the Statewide Reach Codes Program: • Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction Last modified August 1, 2019 • 2019 Mid-Rise New Construction Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study Last modified June 22, 2020 • 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: 2020 Analysis of High-Rise Residential New Construction Last modified February 22, 2021 • 2020 Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Last modified March 12, 2021 • 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Last modified July 25, 2019 • 2020 Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Large Office Last modified October 13, 2021 Contra Costa County is located in climate zones 3 and 12. The cost-effectiveness studies conclude that specific modifications to the 2019 California Energy Code—including all-electric building requirements for newly constructed residential buildings, detached accessory dwelling units, hotels, offices, and retail buildings— are cost-effective for climate zones 3 and 12. The Board of Supervisors also finds, pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 25402.1(h)(2), that the modifications made to the California Energy Code in this ordinance will require diminution of energy consumption levels compared to those permitted by the 2019 California Energy Code. These findings of cost-effectiveness and energy savings will be filed with the California Energy Commission before Ordinance No. 2022-02 takes effect. Margin? Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction Prepared for: Kelly Cunningham Codes and Standards Program Pacific Gas and Electric Company Prepared by: Frontier Energy, Inc. Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC Last Modified: August 01, 2019 LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 2019, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademark s or copyrights. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Table of Contents Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Methodology and Assumptions.............................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Building Prototypes ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Measure Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 3 2.2.1 Federal Preemption ................................................................................................................ 4 2.2.2 Energy Design Rating .............................................................................................................. 4 2.2.3 Energy Efficiency Measures .................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Package Development .................................................................................................................... 8 2.3.1 Solar Photovoltaics (PV) ......................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 Energy Storage (Batteries) ...................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Incremental Costs ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Cost-effectiveness ........................................................................................................................ 13 2.5.1 On-Bill Customer Lifecycle Cost ............................................................................................ 13 2.5.2 TDV Lifecycle Cost ................................................................................................................. 15 2.6 Electrification Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 15 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................... 18 3 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 18 3.1 PV and Battery System Sizing ....................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Single Family Results .................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.1 GHG Emission Reductions .................................................................................................... 26 3.3 Multifamily Results ....................................................................................................................... 26 3.3.1 GHG Emission Reductions .................................................................................................... 32 3.4 Electrification Results ................................................................................................................... 32 3.4.1 Single Family ......................................................................................................................... 33 3.4.2 Multifamily ........................................................................................................................... 33 4 Conclusions & Summary ....................................................................................................................... 41 5 References ............................................................................................................................................ 44 Appendix A – California Climate Zone Map .................................................................................................. 46 Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details................................................................................................................. 47 Appendix C – Single Family Detailed Results ................................................................................................ 57 Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary ........................................................................................... 61 Appendix E – Multifamily Detailed Results .................................................................................................. 68 Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary .............................................................................................. 72 Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone ......................................................................................................... 79 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study List of Tables Table 1: Prototype Characteristics .............................................................................................................................2 Table 2: Characteristics of the Mixed Fuel vs All-Electric Prototype ..........................................................................3 Table 3: Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures .....................................................9 Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 10 Table 5: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone .................................................................................... 14 Table 6: Incremental Costs – All-Electric Code Compliant Home Compared to a Mixed Fuel Code Compliant Home ................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 7: PV & Battery Sizing Details by Package Type ............................................................................................. 20 Table 8: Single Family Package Lifetime Incremental Costs .................................................................................... 22 Table 9: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case 1,2 .......................................... 23 Table 10: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2 ......................................... 24 Table 11: Multifamily Package Incremental Costs per Dwelling Unit ..................................................................... 28 Table 12: Multifamily Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case1,2 ........................................... 29 Table 13: Multifamily Package Cost-effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2 ............................................ 30 Table 14: Single Family Electrification Results ....................................................................................................... 34 Table 15: Comparison of Single Family On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV ............................. 36 Table 16: Multifamily Electrification Results (Per Dwelling Unit) .......................................................................... 38 Table 17: Comparison of Multifamily On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV (Per Dwelling Unit) 39 Table 18: Summary of Single Family Target EDR Margins ....................................................................................... 43 Table 19: Summary of Multifamily Target EDR Margins ......................................................................................... 43 Table 20: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .............................................................................................. 48 Table 21: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .................................................................................................. 51 Table 22: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ......................................................................................... 53 Table 23: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................ 54 Table 24: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions ........................................................................................ 56 Table 25: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ................................................ 57 Table 26: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results .......................... 58 Table 27: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ................................................ 59 Table 28: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ..................... 60 Table 29: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary ............................. 61 Table 30: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary .................. 62 Table 31: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ..................................... 63 Table 32: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary .............................. 64 Table 33: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary .................. 65 Table 34: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary ................................................... 66 Table 35: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ...................................... 67 Table 36: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results .................................................. 68 Table 37: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ............................ 69 Table 38: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ................................................... 70 Table 39: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ....................... 71 Table 40: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary ................................ 72 Table 41: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary .................... 73 Table 42: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ....................................... 74 Table 43: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary ................................. 75 Table 44: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary ..................... 76 Table 45: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary ...................................................... 77 Table 46: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ........................................ 78 Table 47: Single Family Climate Zone 1 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 80 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Table 48: Multifamily Climate Zone 1 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 81 Table 49: Single Family Climate Zone 2 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 82 Table 50: Multifamily Climate Zone 2 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 83 Table 51: Single Family Climate Zone 3 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 84 Table 52: Multifamily Climate Zone 3 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 85 Table 53: Single Family Climate Zone 4 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 86 Table 54: Multifamily Climate Zone 4 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 87 Table 55: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary ............................................................................ 88 Table 56: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ............................................... 89 Table 57: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary ............................................................ 90 Table 58: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ............................... 91 Table 59: Single Family Climate Zone 6 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 92 Table 60: Multifamily Climate Zone 6 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 93 Table 61: Single Family Climate Zone 7 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 94 Table 62: Multifamily Climate Zone 7 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 95 Table 63: Single Family Climate Zone 8 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 96 Table 64: Multifamily Climate Zone 8 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 97 Table 65: Single Family Climate Zone 9 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 98 Table 66: Multifamily Climate Zone 9 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 99 Table 67: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ........................................................... 100 Table 68: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) .............................. 101 Table 69: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary......................................................................... 102 Table 70: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ............................................ 103 Table 71: Single Family Climate Zone 11 Results Summary .................................................................................. 104 Table 72: Multifamily Climate Zone 11 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ..................................................... 105 Table 73: Single Family Climate Zone 12 Results Summary .................................................................................. 106 Table 74: Multifamily Climate Zone 12 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ..................................................... 107 Table 75: Single Family Climate Zone 13 Results Summary .................................................................................. 108 Table 76: Multifamily Climate Zone 13 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ..................................................... 109 Table 77: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ........................................................... 110 Table 78: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) .............................. 111 Table 79: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary......................................................................... 112 Table 80: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ............................................ 113 Table 81: Single Family Climate Zone 15 Results Summary .................................................................................. 114 Table 82: Multifamily Climate Zone 15 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ..................................................... 115 Table 83: Single Family Climate Zone 16 Results Summary .................................................................................. 116 Table 84: Multifamily Climate Zone 16 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ..................................................... 117 List of Figures Figure 1: Graphical description of EDR scores (courtesy of Energy Code Ace) ..........................................................5 Figure 2: B/C ratio comparison for PV and battery sizing ....................................................................................... 20 Figure 3: Single family Total EDR comparison ......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 4: Single family EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages) ........................................... 25 Figure 5: Single family greenhouse gas emissions comparison............................................................................... 26 Figure 6: Multifamily Total EDR comparison ........................................................................................................... 31 Figure 7: Multifamily EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages) ........................................... 31 Figure 8: Multifamily greenhouse gas emissions comparison ................................................................................ 32 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Figure 9: B/C ratio results for a single family all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ........................................................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 10: B/C ratio results for the single family Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 11: B/C ratio results for the single family neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 12: B/C ratio results for a multifamily all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 13: B/C ratio results for the multifamily Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 14: B/C ratio results for the multifamily neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 15: Map of California Climate Zones (courtesy of the California Energy Commission) ............................... 46 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Acronyms 2020 PV$ Present value costs in 2020 ACH50 Air Changes per Hour at 50 pascals pressure differential ACM Alternative Calculation Method AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency B/C Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio BEopt Building Energy Optimization Tool BSC Building Standards Commission CAHP California Advanced Homes Program CBECC-Res Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating compliance with the California Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards CFI California Flexible Installation CFM Cubic Feet per Minute CMFNH California Multifamily New Homes CO2 Carbon Dioxide CPC California Plumbing Code CZ California Climate Zone DHW Domestic Hot Water DOE Department of Energy DWHR Drain Water Heat Recovery EDR Energy Design Rating EER Energy Efficiency Ratio EF Energy Factor GHG Greenhouse Gas HERS Rater Home Energy Rating System Rater HPA High Performance Attic HPWH Heat Pump Water Heater HSPF Heating Seasonal Performance Factor HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IECC International Energy Conservation Code IOU Investor Owned Utility kBtu kilo-British thermal unit kWh Kilowatt Hour LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study LCC Lifecycle Cost LLAHU Low Leakage Air Handler Unit VLLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space MF Multifamily NAECA National Appliance Energy Conservation Act NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NEM Net Energy Metering NPV Net Present Value NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PV Photovoltaic SCE Southern California Edison SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio SF Single Family CASE Codes and Standards Enhancement TDV Time Dependent Valuation Therm Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 Title 24, Part 6 TOU Time-Of-Use UEF Uniform Energy Factor ZNE Zero-net Energy 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1 2019-08-01 1 Introduction The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (Energy Commission, 2018b) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies, the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances, or reach codes, that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2020, for new single family and low-rise (one- to three-story) multifamily residential construction. The analysis includes evaluation of both mixed fuel and all- electric homes, documenting that the performance requirements can be met by either type of building design. Compliance package options and cost-effectiveness analysis in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs) are presented (see Appendix A – California Climate Zone Map for a graphical depiction of Climate Zone locations). All proposed package options include a combination of efficiency measures and on-site renewable energy. 2 Methodology and Assumptions This analysis uses two different metrics to assess cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures. The main difference between the methodologies is the manner in which they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use. • Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based Lifecycle Cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration accounting for discount rate and energy cost inflation. • Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the “societal value or cost” of energy use including long-term projected costs such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs such as projected costs for carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods (Horii et al., 2014). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6. 2.1 Building Prototypes The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. At the time that this report was written, there are two single family prototypes and one low-rise multifamily prototype. All three are used in this analysis in development of the above-code packages. Table 1 describes the basic characteristics of each prototype. Additional details on the prototypes can be found in the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manual (Energy Commission, 2018a). The prototypes have equal geometry on all walls, windows and roof to be orientation neutral. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 2 2019-08-01 Table 1: Prototype Characteristics Characteristic Single Family One-Story Single Family Two-Story Multifamily Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 ft2 6,960 ft2: (4) 780 ft2 & (4) 960 ft2 units Num. of Stories 1 2 2 Num. of Bedrooms 3 3 (4) 1-bed & (4) 2-bed units Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 15% Source: 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual (California Energy Commission, 2018a). The Energy Commission’s protocol for single family prototypes is to weight the simulated energy impacts by a factor that represents the distribution of single-story and two-story homes being built statewide, assuming 45 percent single-story and 55 percent two-story. Simulation results in this study are characterized according to this ratio, which is approximately equivalent to a 2,430-square foot (ft2) house.1 The methodology used in the analyses for each of the prototypical building types begins with a design that precisely meets the minimum 2019 prescriptive requirements (zero compliance margin). Table 150.1-A in the 2019 Standards (Energy Commission, 2018b) lists the prescriptive measures that determine the baseline design in each climate zone. Other features are consistent with the Standard Design in the ACM Reference Manual (Energy Commission, 2019), and are designed to meet, but not exceed, the minimum requirements. Each prototype building has the following features: • Slab-on-grade foundation. • Vented attic. • High performance attic in climate zones where prescriptively required (CZ 4, 8-16) with insulation installed at the ceiling and below the roof deck per Option B. (Refer to Table 150.1-A in the 2019 Standards.) • Ductwork located in the attic for single family and within conditioned space for multifamily. Both mixed fuel and all-electric prototypes are evaluated in this study. While in past code cycles an all-electric home was compared to a home with gas for certain end-uses, the 2019 code includes separate prescriptive and performance paths for mixed-fuel and all-electric homes. The fuel specific characteristics of the mixed fuel and all-electric prototypes are defined according to the 2019 ACM Reference Manual and described in Table 2.2 1 2,430 ft2 = (45% x 2,100 ft2) + (55% x 2,700 ft2) 2 Standards Section 150.1(c)8.A.iv.a specifies that compact hot water distribution design and a drain water heat recovery system or extra PV capacity are required when a heat pump water heater is installed prescriptively. The efficiency of the distribution and the drain water heat recovery systems as well as the location of the water heater applied in this analysis are based on the Standard Design assumptions in CBECC-Res which result in a zero-compliance margin for the 2019 basecase model. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 3 2019-08-01 Table 2: Characteristics of the Mixed Fuel vs All-Electric Prototype Characteristic Mixed Fuel All-Electric Space Heating/Cooling1 Gas furnace 80 AFUE Split A/C 14 SEER, 11.7 EER Split heat pump 8.2 HSPF, 14 SEER, 11.7 EER Water Heater1,2, 3, 4 Gas tankless UEF = 0.81 50gal HPWH UEF = 2.0 SF: located in the garage MF CZ 2,4,6-16: located in living space MF CZ 1,3,5: located in exterior closet Hot Water Distribution Code minimum. All hot water lines insulated Basic compact distribution credit, (CZ 6-8,15) Expanded compact distribution credit, compactness factor = 0.6 (CZ 1-5,9-14,16) Drain Water Heat Recovery Efficiency None CZ 1: unequal flow to shower = 42% CZ 16: equal flow to shower & water heater = 65% None in other CZs Cooking Gas Electric Clothes Drying Gas Electric 1Equipment efficiencies are equal to minimum federal appliance efficiency standards. 2The multifamily prototype is evaluated with individual water heaters. HPWHs located in the living space do not have ducting for either inlet or exhaust air; CBECC-Res does not have the capability to model ducted HPWHs. 3UEF = uniform energy factor. HPWH = heat pump water heater. SF = single family. MF = multifamily. 4CBECC-Res applies a 50gal water heater when specifying a storage water heater. Hot water draws differ between the prototypes based on number of bedrooms. 2.2 Measure Analysis The California Building Energy Code Compliance simulation tool, CBECC-RES 2019.1.0, was used to evaluate energy impacts using the 2019 Title 24 prescriptive standards as the benchmark, and the 2019 TDV values. TDV is the energy metric used by the Energy Commission since the 2005 Title 24 energy code to evaluate compliance with the Title 24 standards. Using the 2019 baseline as the starting point, prospective energy efficiency measures were identified and modeled in each of the prototypes to determine the projected energy (Therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. A large set of parametric runs were conducted to evaluate various options and develop packages of measures that exceed minimum code performance. The analysis utilizes a parametric tool based on Micropas3 to automate and manage the generation of CBECC-Res input files. This allows for quick evaluation of various efficiency measures across multiple climate zones and prototypes and improves quality control. The batch process functionality of CBECC-Res is utilized to simulate large groups of input files at once. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly data output from CBECC-Res and electricity and natural gas tariffs for each of the investor owned utilities (IOUs). 3 Developed by Ken Nittler of Enercomp, Inc. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 4 2019-08-01 The Reach Codes Team selected packages and measures based on cost-effectiveness as well as decades of experience with residential architects, builders, and engineers along with general knowledge of the relative acceptance of many measures. 2.2.1 Federal Preemption The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting policies that mandate higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency equipment. While this study is limited by federal preemption, in practice builders may use any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance goals, including high efficiency appliances. Often, these measures are the simplest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance. 2.2.2 Energy Design Rating The 2019 Title 24 code introduces California’s Energy Design Rating (EDR) as the primary metric to demonstrate compliance with the energy code. EDR is still based on TDV but it uses a building that is compliant with the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as the reference building. The reference building has an EDR score of 100 while a zero-net energy (ZNE) home has an EDR score of zero (Energy Commission, 2018d). See Figure 1 for a graphical representation of this. While the Reference Building is used to determine the rating, the Proposed Design is still compared to the Standard Design based on the prescriptive baseline assumptions to determine compliance. The EDR is calculated by CBECC-Res and has two components: 1. An “Efficiency EDR” which represents the building’s energy use without solar generation.4 2. A “Total EDR” that represents the final energy use of the building based on the combined impact of efficiency measures, PV generation and demand flexibility. For a building to comply, two criteria are required: (1) the proposed Efficiency EDR must be equal to or less than the Efficiency EDR of the Standard Design, and (2) the proposed Total EDR must be equal to or less than the Total EDR of the Standard Design. Single family prototypes used in this analysis that are minimally compliant with the 2019 Title 24 code achieve a Total EDR between 20 and 35 in most climates. This concept, consistent with California’s “loading order” which prioritizes energy efficiency ahead of renewable generation, requires projects meet a minimum Efficiency EDR before PV is credited but allows for PV to be traded off with additional efficiency when meeting the Total EDR. A project may improve on building efficiency beyond the minimum required and subsequently reduce the PV generation capacity required to achieve the required Total EDR but may not increase the size of the PV system and trade this off with a reduction of efficiency measures. Figure 1 graphically summarizes how both Efficiency EDR and PV / demand flexibility EDR are used to calculate the Total EDR used in the 2019 code and in this analysis. 4 While there is no compliance credit for solar PV as there is under the 2016 Standards, the credit for installing electric storage battery systems that meet minimum qualifications can be applied to the Efficiency EDR. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 5 2019-08-01 Figure 1: Graphical description of EDR scores (courtesy of Energy Code Ace5) Results from this analysis are presented as EDR Margin, a reduction in the EDR score relative to the Standard Design. EDR Margin is a better metric to use than absolute EDR in the context of a reach code because absolute values vary, based on the home design and characteristics such as size and orientation. This approach aligns with how compliance is determined for the 2019 Title 24 code, as well as utility incentive programs, such as the California Advanced Homes Program (CAHP) & California Multifamily New Homes (CMFNH), which require minimum performance criteria based on an EDR Margin for low-rise residential projects. The EDR Margin is calculated according to Equation 1 for the two efficiency packages and Equation 2 for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages (see Section 2.3). Equation 1 𝐵𝐵𝑅 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑙𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚=𝑅𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑬𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚 𝐵𝐵𝑅−𝑃𝑟𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑬𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚 𝐵𝐵𝑅 Equation 2 𝐵𝐵𝑅 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑙𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚 & 𝑷𝑽=𝑅𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑻𝒍𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝐵𝐵𝑅−𝑃𝑟𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑻𝒍𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝐵𝐵𝑅 2.2.3 Energy Efficiency Measures Following are descriptions of each of the efficiency measures evaluated under this analysis. Because not all of the measures described below were found to be cost-effective and cost-effectiveness varied by climate zone, not all measures are included in all packages and some of the measures listed are not included in any final package. For a list of measures included in each efficiency package by climate zone, see Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary and Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary. Reduced Infiltration (ACH50): Reduce infiltration in single family homes from the default infiltration assumption of five (5) air changes per hour at 50 Pascals (ACH50)6 by 40 to 60 percent to either 3 ACH50 or 2 ACH50. HERS 5 https://energycodeace.com/ 6 Whole house leakage tested at a pressure difference of 50 Pascals between indoors and outdoors. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 6 2019-08-01 rater field verification and diagnostic testing of building air leakage according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.8 (Energy Commission, 2018c). This measure was not applied to multifamily homes because CBECC-Res does not allow reduced infiltration credit for multifamily buildings. Improved Fenestration: Reduce window U-factor to 0.24. The prescriptive U-factor is 0.30 in all climates. In climate zones 1, 3, 5, and 16 where heating loads dominate, an increase in solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) from the default assumption of 0.35 to 0.50 was evaluated in addition to the reduction in U-factor. Cool Roof: Install a roofing product that’s rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council to have an aged solar reflectance (ASR) equal to or greater than 0.25. Steep-sloped roofs were assumed in all cases. Title 24 specifies a prescriptive ASR of 0.20 for Climate Zones 10 through 15 and assumes 0.10 in other climate zones. Exterior Wall Insulation: Decrease wall U-factor in 2x6 walls to 0.043 from the prescriptive requirement of 0.048 by increasing exterior insulation from one-inch R-5 to 1-1/2 inch R-7.5. This was evaluated for single family buildings only in all climate zones except 6 and 7 where the prescriptive requirement is higher (U-factor of 0.065) and improving beyond the prescriptive value has little impact. High Performance Attics (HPA): HPA with R-38 ceiling insulation and R-30 insulation under the roof deck. In climates where HPA is already required prescriptively this measure requires an incremental increase in roof insulation from R-19 or R-13 to R-30. In climates where HPA is not currently required (Climate Zones 1 through 3, and 5 through 7), this measure adds roof insulation to an uninsulated roof as well as increasing ceiling insulation from R-30 to R-38 in Climate Zones 3, 5, 6 and 7. Slab Insulation: Install R-10 perimeter slab insulation at a depth of 16-inches. For climate zone 16, where slab insulation is required, prescriptively this measure increases that insulation from R-7 to R-10. Duct Location (Ducts in Conditioned Space): Move the ductwork and equipment from the attic to inside the conditioned space in one of the three following ways. 1. Locate ductwork in conditioned space. The air handler may remain in the attic provided that 12 linear feet or less of duct is located outside the conditioned space including the air handler and plenum. Meet the requirements of 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.2. (Energy Commission, 2018c) 2. All ductwork and equipment located entirely in conditioned space meeting the requirements of 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.3. (Energy Commission, 2018c) 3. All ductwork and equipment located entirely in conditioned space with ducts tested to have less than or equal to 25 cfm leakage to outside. Meet the requirements of Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space (VLLDCS) in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.3.8. (Energy Commission, 2018c) Option 1 and 2 above apply to single family only since the basecase for multifamily assumes ducts are within conditioned space. Option 3 applies to both single family and multifamily cases. Reduced Distribution System (Duct) Leakage: Reduce duct leakage from 5% to 2% and install a low leakage air handler unit (LLAHU). This is only applicable to single family homes since the basecase for multifamily assumes ducts are within conditioned space and additional duct leakage credit is not available. Low Pressure Drop Ducts: Upgrade the duct distribution system to reduce external static pressure and meet a maximum fan efficacy of 0.35 Watts per cfm for gas furnaces and 0.45 Watts per cfm for heat pumps operating at full speed. This may involve upsizing ductwork, reducing the total effective length of ducts, and/or selecting low pressure drop components such as filters. Fan watt draw must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.3 (Energy Commission, 2018c). New federal regulations that went into effect July 3, 2019 require higher fan efficiency for gas furnaces than for heat pumps and air handlers, which is why the recommended specification is different for mixed fuel and all-electric homes. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 7 2019-08-01 HERS Verification of Hot Water Pipe Insulation: The California Plumbing Code (CPC) requires pipe insulation on all hot water lines. This measure provides credit for HERS rater verification of pipe insulation requirements according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.6.3. (Energy Commission, 2018c) Compact Hot Water Distribution: Two credits for compact hot water distribution were evaluated. 1. Basic Credit: Design the hot water distribution system to meet minimum requirements for the basic compact hot water distribution credit according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA4.4.6 (Energy Commission, 2018c). In many single family homes this may require moving the water heater from an exterior to an interior garage wall. Multifamily homes with individual water heaters are expected to easily meet this credit with little or no alteration to plumbing design. CBECC-Res software assumes a 30% reduction in distribution losses for the basic credit. 2. Expanded Credit: Design the hot water distribution system to meet minimum requirements for the expanded compact hot water distribution credit according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.6.5 (Energy Commission, 2018c). In addition to requiring HERS verification that the minimum requirements for the basic compact distribution credit are met, this credit also imposes limitations on pipe location, maximum pipe diameter, and recirculation system controls allowed. Drain Water Heat Recovery (DWHR): For multifamily buildings add DWHR that serves the showers in an unequal flow configuration (pre-heated water is piped directly to the shower) with 50% efficiency. This upgrade assumes all apartments are served by a DWHR with one unit serving each apartment individually. For a slab-on-grade building this requires a horizontal unit for the first-floor apartments. Federally Preempted Measures: The following additional measures were evaluated. Because these measures require upgrading appliances that are federally regulated to high efficiency models, they cannot be used to show cost-effectiveness in a local ordinance. The measures and packages are presented here to show that there are several options for builders to meet the performance targets. Heating and cooling capacities are autosized by CBECC-Res in all cases. High Efficiency Furnace: For the mixed-fuel prototypes, upgrade natural gas furnace to one of two condensing furnace options with an efficiency of 92% or 96% AFUE. High Efficiency Air Conditioner: For the mixed-fuel prototypes, upgrade the air conditioner to either single-stage SEER 16 / EER 13 or two-stage SEER 18 / EER 14 equipment. High Efficiency Heat Pump: For the all-electric prototypes, upgrade the heat pump to either single-stage SEER 16 / EER 13 / HSPF 9 or two-stage SEER 18 / EER 14 / HSPF 10 equipment. High Efficiency Tankless Water Heater: For the mixed-fuel prototype, upgrade tankless water heater to a condensing unit with a rated Uniform Energy Factor (UEF) of 0.96. High Efficiency Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH): For the all-electric prototypes, upgrade the federal minimum heat pump water heater to a HPWH that meets the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)7 Tier 3 rating. The evaluated NEEA water heater is an 80gal unit and is applied to all three building prototypes. Using the same 7 Based on operational challenges experienced in the past, NEEA established rating test criteria to ensure newly installed HPWHs perform adequately, especially in colder climates. The NEEA rating requires an Energy Factor equal to the ENERGY STAR performance level and includes requirements regarding noise and prioritizing heat pump use over supplemental electric resistance heating. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 8 2019-08-01 water heater provides consistency in performance across all the equipment upgrade cases, even though hot water draws differ across the prototypes. 2.3 Package Development Three to four packages were evaluated for each prototype and climate zone, as described below. 1) Efficiency – Non-Preempted: This package uses only efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal preemption issues including envelope, and water heating and duct distribution efficiency measures. 2) Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted: This package shows an alternative design that applies HVAC and water heating equipment that are more efficient than federal standards. The Reach Code Team considers this more reflective of how builders meet above code requirements in practice. 3) Efficiency & PV: Using the Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package as a starting point8, PV capacity is added to offset most of the estimated electricity use. This only applies to the all-electric case, since for the mixed fuel cases, 100% of the projected electricity use is already being offset as required by 2019 Title 24, Part 6. 4) Efficiency & PV/Battery: Using the Efficiency & PV Package as a starting point, PV capacity is added as well as a battery system. 2.3.1 Solar Photovoltaics (PV) Installation of on-site PV is required in the 2019 residential code. The PV sizing methodology in each package was developed to offset annual building electricity use and avoid oversizing which would violate net energy metering (NEM) rules.9 In all cases, PV is evaluated in CBECC-Res according to the California Flexible Installation (CFI) assumptions. The Reach Code Team used two options within the CBECC-Res software for sizing the PV system, described below. Analysis was conducted to determine the most appropriate sizing method for each package which is described in the results. • Standard Design PV – the same PV capacity as is required for the Standard Design case10 • Specify PV System Scaling – a PV system sized to offset a specified percentage of the estimated electricity use of the Proposed Design case 2.3.2 Energy Storage (Batteries) A battery system was evaluated in CBECC-Res with control type set to “Time of Use” and with default efficiencies of 95% for both charging and discharging. The “Time of Use” option assumes batteries are charged anytime PV generation is greater than the house load but controls when the battery storage system discharges. During the summer months (July – September) the battery begins to discharge at the beginning of the peak period at a maximum rate until fully discharged. During discharge the battery first serves the house load but will 8 In cases where there was no cost-effective Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package, the most cost-effective efficiency measures for that climate zone were also included in the Efficiency & PV Package in order to provide a combination of both efficiency and PV beyond code minimum. 9 NEM rules apply to the IOU territories only. 10 The Standard Design PV system is sized to offset the electricity use of the building loads which are typically electric in a mixed fuel home, which includes all loads except space heating, water heating, clothes drying, and cooking. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 9 2019-08-01 discharge to the electric grid if there is excess energy available. During other months the battery discharges whenever the PV system does not cover the entire house load and does not discharge to the electric grid. This control option is considered to be most reflective of the current products on the market. This control option requires an input for the “First Hour of the Summer Peak” and the Statewide CASE Team applied the default hour in CBECC-Res which differs by climate zone (either a 6pm or 7pm start). The Self Utilization Credit was taken when the battery system was modeled. 2.4 Incremental Costs Table 4 below summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for measures evaluated in this study. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measures relative to the base case.11 Replacement costs are applied to HVAC and DHW equipment, PV inverters, and battery systems over the 30-year evaluation period. There is no assumed maintenance on the envelope, HVAC, or DHW measures since there should not be any additional maintenance cost for a more efficient version of the same system type as the baseline. Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. When costs were obtained from a source that didn’t already include builder overhead and profit, a markup of ten percent was added. All costs are provided as present value in 2020 (2020 PV$). Costs due to variations in furnace, air conditioner, and heat pump capacity by climate zone were not accounted for in the analysis. Equipment lifetimes applied in this analysis for the water heating and space conditioning measures are summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures Measure Lifetime Gas Furnace 20 Air Conditioner 20 Heat Pump 15 Gas Tankless Water Heater 20 Heat Pump Water Heater 15 Source: City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost- effectiveness Analysis Draft (TRC, 2018) which is based on the Database of Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER).12 11 Interest costs due to financing are not included in the incremental costs presented in the Table 4 but are accounted for in the lifetime cost analysis. All first costs are assumed to be financed in a mortgage, see Section 2.5 for details. 12 http://www.deeresources.com 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 10 2019-08-01 Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions Measure Performance Level Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Source & Notes Single Family Multifamily (Per Dwelling Unit) Non-Preempted Measures Reduced Infiltration 3.0 vs 5.0 ACH50 $391 n/a NREL’s BEopt cost database ($0.115/ft2 for 3 ACH50 & $0.207/ft2 for 2 ACH50) + $100 HERS rater verification. 2.0 vs 5.0 ACH50 $613 n/a Window U- factor 0.24 vs 0.30 $2,261 $607 $4.23/ft2 window area based on analysis conducted for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 cycles (Statewide CASE Team, 2018). Window SHGC 0.50 vs 0.35 $0 $0 Data from CASE Report along with direct feedback from Statewide CASE Team that higher SHGC does not necessarily have any incremental cost (Statewide CASE Team, 2017d). Applies to CZ 1,3,5,16. Cool Roof - Aged Solar Reflectance 0.25 vs 0.20 $237 $58 Costs based on 2016 Cost-effectiveness Study for Cool Roofs reach code analysis for 0.28 solar reflectance product. (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2017b). 0.20 vs 0.10 $0 $0 Exterior Wall Insulation R-7.5 vs R-5 $818 n/a Based on increasing exterior insulation from 1” R-5 to 1.5” R-7.5 in a 2x6 wall (Statewide CASE Team, 2017c). Applies to single family only in all climates except CZ 6, 7. Under-Deck Roof Insulation (HPA) R-13 vs R-0 $1,338 $334 Costs for R-13 ($0.64/ft2), R-19 ($0.78/ft2) and R-30 ($1.61/ft2) based on data presented in the 2019 HPA CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2017b) along with data collected directly from builders during the 2019 CASE process. The R-30 costs include additional labor costs for cabling. Costs for R-38 from NREL’s BEopt cost database. R-19 vs R-13 $282 $70 R-30 vs R-19 $1,831 $457 R-38 vs R-30 $585 $146 Attic Floor Insulation R-38 vs R-30 $584 $146 NREL’s BEopt cost database: $0.34/ft2 ceiling area Slab Edge Insulation R-10 vs R-0 $553 $121 $4/linear foot of slab perimeter based on internet research. Assumes 16in depth. R-10 vs R-7 $157 $21 $1.58/linear foot of slab perimeter based on NREL’s BEopt cost database. This applies to CZ 16 only where R-7 slab edge insulation is required prescriptively. Assumes 16in depth. Duct Location <12 feet in attic $358 n/a Costs based on a 2015 report on the Evaluation of Ducts in Conditioned Space for New California Homes (Davis Energy Group, 2015). HERS verification cost of $100 for the Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space credit. Ducts in Conditioned Space $658 n/a Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space $768 $110 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 11 2019-08-01 Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions Measure Performance Level Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Source & Notes Single Family Multifamily (Per Dwelling Unit) Distribution System Leakage 2% vs 5% $96 n/a 1-hour labor. Labor rate of $96 per hour is from 2019 RSMeans for sheet metal workers and includes an average City Cost Index for labor for California cities & 10% for overhead and profit. Applies to single family only since ducts are assumed to be in cond itioned space for multifamily Low Leakage Air Handler $0 n/a Negligible cost based on review of available products. There are more than 6,000 Energy Commission certified units and the list includes many furnace and heat pump air handler product lines from the major manufacturers, including minimum efficiency, low cost product lines. Low Pressure Drop Ducts (Fan W/cfm) 0.35 vs 0.45 $96 $48 Costs assume one-hour labor for single family and half-hour per multifamily apartment. Labor rate of $96 per hour is from 2019 RSMeans for sheet metal workers and includes an average City Cost Index for labor for California cities. 0.45 vs 0.58 $96 $48 Hot Water Pipe Insulation HERS verified $110 $83 Cost for HERS verification only, based on feedback from HERS raters. $100 per single family home and $75 per multifamily unit before markup. Compact Hot Water Distribution Basic credit $150 $0 For single family add 20-feet venting at $12/ft to locate water heater on interior garage wall, less 20-feet savings for less PEX and pipe insulation at $4.88/ft. Costs from online retailers. Many multifamily buildings are expected to meet this credit without any changes to distribution design. Expanded credit n/a $83 Cost for HERS verification only. $75 per multifamily unit before markup. This was only evaluated for multifamily buildings. Drain Water Heat Recovery 50% efficiency n/a $690 Cost from the 2019 DWHR CASE Report assuming a 2-inch DWHR unit. The CASE Report multifamily costs were based on one unit serving 4 dwelling units with a central water heater. Since individual water heaters serve each dwelling unit in this analysis, the Reach Code Team used single family costs from the CASE Report. Costs in the CASE Report were based on a 46.1% efficient unit, a DWHR device that meets the 50% efficiency assumed in this analysis may cost a little more. (Statewide CASE Team, 2017a). Federally Pre-empted Measures Furnace AFUE 92% vs 80% $139 $139 Equipment costs from online retailers for 40-kBtu/h unit. Cost saving for 6-feet of venting at $26/foot due to lower cost venting requirements for condensing (PVC) vs non-condensing (stainless) furnaces. Replacement at year 20 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. Value at year 30 based on remaining useful life is included. 96% vs 80% $244 $244 Air Conditioner SEER/EER 16/13 vs 14/11.7 $111 $111 Costs from online retailers for 2-ton unit. Replacement at year 20 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. Value at year 30 based on remaining useful life is included. 18/14 vs 14/11.7 $1,148 $1,148 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 12 2019-08-01 Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions Measure Performance Level Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Source & Notes Single Family Multifamily (Per Dwelling Unit) Heat Pump SEER/EER /HSPF 16/13/9 vs 14/11.7/8.2 $411 $411 Costs from online retailers for 2-ton unit. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. 18/14/10 vs 14/11.7/8.2 $1,511 $1,511 Tankless Water Heater Energy Factor 0.96 vs 0.81 $203 $203 Equipment costs from online retailers for 40-kBtu/h unit. Cost saving for 6-feet of venting at $26/foot due to lower cost venting requirements for condensing (PVC) vs non-condensing (stainless) furnaces. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. HPWH NEEA Tier 3 vs 2.0 EF $294 $294 Equipment costs from online retailers. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. PV + Battery PV System System size varies $3.72/W-DC $3.17/W-DC First costs are from LBNL’s Tracking the Sun 2018 costs (Barbose et al., 2018) and represent costs for the first half of 2018 of $3.50/W-DC for residential system and $2.90/W-DC for non- residential system ≤500 kW-DC. These costs were reduced by 16% for the solar investment tax credit, which is the average credit over years 2020-2022. Inverter replacement cost of $0.14/W-DC present value includes replacements at year 11 at $0.15/W-DC (nominal) and at year 21 at $0.12/W-DC (nominal) per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017). System maintenance costs of $0.31/W-DC present value assume $0.02/W-DC (nominal) annually per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017). 10% overhead and profit added to all costs Battery System size varies by building type $656/kWh $656/kWh $633/kWh first cost based on the PV Plus Battery Study report (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2018) as the average cost of the three systems that were analyzed. This cost was reduced by 16% for the solar investment tax credit, which is the average credit over years 2020-2022. Replacement cost at year 15 of $100/kWh based on target price reductions (Penn, 2018). 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 13 2019-08-01 2.5 Cost-effectiveness Cost-effectiveness was evaluated for all sixteen climate zones and is presented based on both TDV energy, using the Energy Commission’s LCC methodology, and an On-Bill approach using residential customer utility rates. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the value of the energy impact associated with energy efficiency measures over the life of the measures (30 years) as compared to the prescriptive Title 24 requirements. Results are presented as a lifecycle benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio, a net present value (NPV) metric which represents the cost-effectiveness of a measure over a 30-year lifetime taking into account discounting of future savings and costs and financing of incremental first costs. A value of one indicates the NPV of the savings over the life of the measure is equivalent to the NPV of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The B/C ratio is calculated according to Equation 3. Equation 3 𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑟−𝑟𝑙−𝐵𝑙𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙=𝑀𝑃𝑉 𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑀𝑃𝑉 𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑎 𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑟 In most cases the benefit is represented by annual utility savings or TDV savings and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. However, in some cases a measure may have incremental cost savings but with increased energy related costs. In this case, the benefit is the lower first cost and the cost is the increase in utility bills. The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 4. Equation 4 𝑵𝑷𝑽 𝒍𝒆 𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒓𝒓/𝒂𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒓=∑𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒍𝒓𝒓/𝒂𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒓𝒓∗(𝟏+𝒓)𝒓𝒍 𝒓=𝟏 Where: • n = analysis term • r = discount rate The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies. • Analysis term of 30-years • Real discount rate of 3 percent • Inflation rate of 2 percent • First incremental costs are financed into a 30-year mortgage • Mortgage interest rate of 4.5 percent • Average tax rate of 20 percent (to account for tax savings due to loan interest deductions) 2.5.1 On-Bill Customer Lifecycle Cost Residential utility rates were used to calculate utility costs for all cases and determine On-Bill customer cost- effectiveness for the proposed packages. The Reach Codes Team obtained the recommended utility rates from each IOU based on the assumption that the reach codes go into effect January of 2020. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and gas output from CBECC-Res and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 5. Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details includes the utility rate schedules used for this study. The applicable residential time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases.13 Annual electricity production in excess of annual electricity consumption is credited to the utility account at the applicable wholesale rate based on the approved 13 Under NEM rulings by the CPUC (D-16-01-144, 1/28/16), all new PV customers shall be in an approved TOU rate structure. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=3800 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 14 2019-08-01 NEM2 tariffs for that utility. Minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges have been applied. Future change to the NEM tariffs are likely; however, there is a lot of uncertainty about what those changes will be and if they will become effective during the 2019 code cycle (2020-2022). The net surplus compensation rates for each utility are as follows:14 • PG&E: $0.0287 / kWh • SCE: $0.0301 / kWh • SDG&E: $0.0355 / kWh Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone according to Two SCE tariff options were evaluated: TOU-D-4-9 and TOU-D-PRIME. The TOU-D-PRIME rate is only available to customers with heat pumps for either space or water heating, a battery storage system, or an electric vehicle and therefore was only evaluated for the all-electric cases and the Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. The rate which resulted in the lowest annual cost to the customer was used for this analysis, which was TOU-D-4-9 in all cases with the exception of the single family all-electric cases in Climate Zone 14. Table 5. Climate Zones 10 and 14 are evaluated with both SCE/SoCalGas and SDG&E tariffs since each utility has customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates. Two SCE tariff options were evaluated: TOU-D-4-9 and TOU-D-PRIME. The TOU-D-PRIME rate is only available to customers with heat pumps for either space or water heating, a battery storage system, or an electric vehicle and therefore was only evaluated for the all-electric cases and the Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. The rate which resulted in the lowest annual cost to the customer was used for this analysis, which was TOU-D-4-9 in all cases with the exception of the single family all-electric cases in Climate Zone 14. Table 5: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone Climate Zones Electric / Gas Utility Electricity (Time-of-use) Natural Gas 1-5, 11-13, 16 PG&E E-TOU, Option B G1 5 PG&E / SoCalGas E-TOU, Option B GR 6, 8-10, 14, 15 SCE / SoCal Gas TOU-D-4-9 or TOU-D-PRIME GR 7, 10, 14 SDG&E TOU-DR1 GR Source: Utility websites, See Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details for details on the tariffs applied. Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California study (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). Escalation of natural gas rates between 2019 and 2022 is based on the currently filed General Rate Cases (GRCs) for PG&E, SoCalGas and SDG&E. From 2023 through 2025, gas rates are assumed to escalate at 4% per year above inflation, which reflects historical rate increases between 2013 and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2019 through 2025 is assumed to be 2% per year above inflation, based on electric utility estimates. After 2025, escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are assumed to drop to a more conservative 1% escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories beginning in 2026 through 2050. See Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details for additional details. 14 Net surplus compensation rates based on 1-year average February 2018 – January 2019. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 15 2019-08-01 2.5.2 TDV Lifecycle Cost Cost-effectiveness was also assessed using the Energy Commission’s TDV LCC methodology. TDV is a normalized monetary format developed and used by the Energy Commission for comparing electricity and natural gas savings, and it considers the cost of electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and year. The 2019 TDV values are based on long term discounted costs of 30 years for all residential measures. The CBECC-Res simulation software outputs are in terms of TDV kBTUs. The present value of the energy cost savings in dollars is calculated by multiplying the TDV kBTU savings by a net present value (NPV) factor, also developed by the Energy Commission. The NPV factor is $0.173/TDV kBtu for residential buildings. Like the customer B/C ratio, a TDV B/C ratio value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The ratio is calculated according to Equation 5. Equation 5 𝑅𝐵𝑉 𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑟−𝑟𝑙−𝐵𝑙𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙=𝑅𝐵𝑉 𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑦 𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟 ∗ 𝑀𝑃𝑉 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑟 𝑀𝑃𝑉 𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑎 𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑟 2.6 Electrification Evaluation In addition to evaluating upgrades to mixed fuel and all-electric buildings independently that do not result in fuel switching, the Reach Code Team also analyzed the impact on construction costs, utility costs, and TDV when a builder specifies and installs electric appliances instead of the gas appliances typically found in a mixed fuel building. This analysis compared the code compliant mixed fuel prototype, which uses gas for space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying, with the code compliant all-electric prototype. It also compared the all-electric Efficiency & PV Package with the code compliance mixed fuel prototype. In these cases, the relative costs between natural gas and electric appliances, differences between in-house electricity and gas infrastructure and the associated infrastructure costs for providing gas to the building were also included. A variety of sources were reviewed when determining incremental costs. The sources are listed below. • SMUD All-Electric Homes Electrification Case Study (EPRI, 2016) • City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018) • Building Electrification Market Assessment (E3, 2019) • Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings (Hopkins et al., 2018) • Analysis of the Role of Gas for a Low-Carbon California Future (Navigant, 2008) • Rulemaking No. 15-03-010 An Order Instituting Rulemaking to Identify Disadvantaged Communities in the San Joaquin Valley and Analyze Economically Feasible Options to Increase Access to Affordable Energy in Those Disadvantages Communities (California Public Utilities Commission, 2016) • 2010-2012 WO017 Ex Ante Measure Cost Study: Final Report (Itron, 2014) • Natural gas infrastructure costs provided by utility staff through the Reach Code subprogram • Costs obtained from builders, contractors and developers Incremental costs are presented in Table 6. Values in parentheses represent a lower cost or cost reduction in the electric option relative to mixed fuel. The costs from the available sources varied widely, making it difficult to develop narrow cost estimates for each component. For certain components data is provided with a low to high range as well as what were determined to be typical costs and ultimately applied in this analysis. Two sets of typical costs are presented, one which is applied in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology and another applied in the TDV methodology. Details of these differences are explained in the discussion of site gas infrastructure costs in the following pages. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 16 2019-08-01 Table 6: Incremental Costs – All-Electric Code Compliant Home Compared to a Mixed Fuel Code Compliant Home Measure Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Multifamily1 (Per Dwelling Unit) Single Family1 Low High Typical (On-Bill) Typical (TDV) Low High Typical (On-Bill) Typical (TDV) Heat Pump vs Gas Furnace/Split AC ($2,770) $620 ($221) Same as Single Family Heat Pump Water Heater vs Gas Tankless ($1,120) $1,120 $0 Electric vs Gas Clothes Dryer2 ($428) $820 $0 Electric vs Gas Cooking2 $0 $1,800 $0 Electric Service Upgrade $200 $800 $600 $150 $600 $600 In-House Gas Infrastructure ($1,670) ($550) ($800) ($600) ($150) ($600) Site Gas Infrastructure ($25,000) ($900) ($5,750) ($11,836) ($16,250) ($310) ($3,140) ($6,463) Total First Cost ($30,788) $3,710 ($6,171) ($12,257) ($20,918) $4,500 ($3,361) ($6,684) Present Value of Equipment Replacement Cost $1,266 $1,266 Lifetime Cost Including Replacement & Financing of First Cost ($5,349) ($11,872) ($2,337) ($5,899) 1Low and high costs represent the potential range of costs and typical represents the costs used in this analysis and determined to be most representative of the conditions described in this report. Two sets of typical costs are presented, one which is applied in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology and another applied in the TDV methodology. 2Typical costs assume electric resistance technology. The high range represents higher end induction cooktops and heat pump clothes dryers. Lower cost induction cooktops are available. Typical incremental costs for switching from a mixed fuel design to an all-electric design are based on the following assumptions: Appliances: The Reach Code Team determined that the typical first installed cost for electric appliances is very similar to that for natural gas appliances. This was based on information provided by HVAC contractors, plumbers and builders as well as a review of other studies. After review of various sources, the Reach Code Team concluded that the cost difference between gas and electric resistance options for clothes dryers and stoves is negligible and that the lifetimes of the two technologies are also similar. HVAC: Typical HVAC incremental costs were based on the City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018) which assumes approximately $200 first cost savings for the heat pump relative to the gas furnace and air conditioner. Table 6 also includes the present value of the incremental replacement costs for the heat pump based on a 15-year lifetime and a 20-year lifetime for the gas furnace in the mixed fuel home. DHW: Typical costs for the water heating system were based on equivalent installed first costs for the HPWH and tankless gas water heater. This accounts for slightly higher equipment cost but lower installation labor due to the elimination of the gas flue. Incremental replacement costs for the HPWH are based on a 15-year lifetime and a 20-year lifetime for the tankless water heater. For multifamily, less data was available and therefore a range of low and high costs is not provided. The typical first cost for multifamily similarly is expected to be close to the same for the mixed fuel and all- electric designs. However, there are additional considerations with multifamily such as greater complexity for venting of natural gas appliances as well as for locating the HPWH within the conditioned space (all climates except Climate Zones 1, 3, and 5, see Table 2) that may impact the total costs. Electric service upgrade: The study assumes an incremental cost to run 220V service to each appliance of $200 per appliance for single family homes and $150 per appliance per multifamily apartment based on cost estimates from builders and contractors. The Reach Code Team reviewed production builder utility plans for 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 17 2019-08-01 mixed-fuel homes and consulted with contractors to estimate which electricity and/or natural gas services are usually provided to the dryer and oven. Typical practice varied, with some builders providing both gas and electric service to both appliances, others providing both services to only one of the appliances, and some only providing gas. For this study, the Reach Code Team determined that for single family homes the typical cost is best qualified by the practice of providing 220V service and gas to either the dryer and the oven and only gas service to the other. For multifamily buildings it’s assumed that only gas is provided to the dryer and oven in the mixed fuel home. It is assumed that no upgrades to the electrical panel are required and that a 200 Amp panel is typically installed for both mixed fuel and all-electric new construction homes. There are no incremental electrical site infrastructure requirements. In-house gas infrastructure (from meter to appliances): Installation cost to run a gas line from the meter to the appliance location is $200 per appliance for single family and $150 per appliance per multifamily apartment based on cost estimates from builders and contractors. The cost estimate includes providing gas to the water heater, furnace, dryer and cooktop. Site gas infrastructure: The cost-effective analysis components with the highest degree of variability are the costs for on-site gas infrastructure. These costs can be project dependent and may be significantly impacted by such factors as utility territory, site characteristics, distance to the nearest gas main and main location, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of dwelling units per development. All gas utilities participating in this study were solicited for cost information. The typical infrastructure costs for single family homes presented in Table 6 are based on cost data provided by PG&E and reflect those for a new subdivision in an undeveloped area requiring the installation of natural gas infrastructure, including a main line. Infrastructure costs for infill development can also be highly variable and may be higher than in an undeveloped area. The additional costs associated with disruption of existing roads, sidewalks, and other structures can be significant. Total typical costs in Table 6 assume $10,000 for extension of a gas main, $1,686 for a service lateral, and $150 for the meter. Utility Gas Main Extensions rules15 specify that the developer has the option to only pay 50% of the total cost for a main extension after subtraction of allowances for installation of gas appliances. This 50% refund and the appliance allowance deductions are accounted for in the site gas infrastructure costs under the On-Bill cost- effectiveness methodology. The net costs to the utility after partial reimbursement from the developer are included in utility ratebase and recovered via rates to all customers. The total cost of $5,750 presented in Table 6 reflects a 50% refund on the $10,000 extension and appliance deductions of $1,086 for a furnace, water heater, cooktop, and dryer. Under the On-Bill methodology this analysis assumes this developer option will remain available through 2022 and that the cost savings are passed along to the customer. The 50% refund and appliance deductions were not applied to the site gas infrastructure costs under the TDV cost-effectiveness methodology based on input received from the Energy Commission and agreement from the Reach Code technical advisory team that the approach is appropriate. TDV cost savings impacts extend beyond the customer and account for societal impacts of energy use. Accounting for the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades was determined to be justified when evaluating under the TDV methodology. 15 PG&E Rule 15: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_RULES_15.pdf SoCalGas Rule 20: https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/20.pdf SDG&E Rule 15: http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-RULES_GRULE15.pdf 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 18 2019-08-01 Less information was available for the costs associated with gas infrastructure for low-rise multifamily development. The typical cost in Table 6 for the On-Bill methodology is based on TRC’s City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018). These costs, provided by the City of Palo Alto, are approximately $25,100 for an 8-unit new construction building and reflect connection to an existing main for infill development. Specific costs include plan review, connection charges, meter and manifold, plumbing distribution, and street cut fees. While these costs are specifically based on infill development and from one municipal utility, the estimates are less than those provided by PG&E reflecting the average cost differences charged to the developer between single family and multifamily in an undeveloped area (after accounting for deductions per the Gas Main Extensions rule). To convert costs charged to the developer to account for the full infrastructure upgrade cost (costs applied in the TDV methodology analysis), a factor of 2.0616 was calculated based on the single family analysis. This same factor was applied to the multifamily cost of $3,140 to arrive at $6,463 (see Table 6). 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Equivalent CO2 emission savings were calculated based on outputs from the CBECC-Res simulation software. Electricity emissions vary by region and by hour of the year. CBECC-Res applies two distinct hourly profiles, one for Climate Zones 1 through 5 and 11 through 13 and another for Climate Zones 6 through 10 and 14 through 16. For natural gas a fixed factor of 0.005307 metric tons/therm is used. To compare the mixed fuel and all- electric cases side-by-side, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are presented as CO2-equivalent emissions per square foot of conditioned floor area. 3 Results The primary objective of the evaluation is to identify cost-effective, non-preempted performance targets for both single family and low-rise multifamily prototypes, under both mixed fuel and all-electric cases, to support the design of local ordinances requiring new low-rise residential buildings to exceed the minimum state requirements. The packages presented are representative examples of designs and measures that can be used to meet the requirements. In practice, a builder can use any combination of non-preempted or preempted compliant measures to meet the requirements. This analysis covered all sixteen climate zones and evaluated two efficiency packages, including a non- preempted package and a preempted package that includes upgrades to federally regulated equipment, an Efficiency & PV Package for the all-electric scenario only, and an Efficiency & PV/Battery Package. For the efficiency-only packages, measures were refined to ensure that the non-preempted package was cost-effective based on one of the two metrics applied in this study, TDV or On-Bill. The preempted equipment package, which the Reach Code Team considers to be a package of upgrades most reflective of what builders commonly apply to exceed code requirements, was designed to be cost-effective based on the On-Bill cost-effectiveness approach. Results are presented as EDR Margin instead of compliance margin. EDR is the metric used to determine code compliance in the 2019 cycle. Target EDR Margin is based on taking the calculated EDR Margin for the case and rounding down to the next half of a whole number. Target EDR Margin for the Efficiency Package are defined based on the lower of the EDR Margin of the non-preempted package and the equipment, preempted package. For example, if for a particular case the cost-effective non-preempted package has an EDR Margin of 3 and the preempted package an EDR Margin of 4, the Target EDR Margin is set at 3. 16 This factor includes the elimination of the 50% refund for the main extension and adding back in the appliance allowance deductions. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 19 2019-08-01 For a package to qualify, a minimum EDR Margin of 0.5 was required. This is to say that a package that only achieved an EDR Margin of 0.4, for example, was not considered. An EDR Margin less than 0.5 generally corresponds to a compliance margin lower than 5% and was considered too small to ensure repeatable results. In certain cases, the Reach Code Team did not identify a cost-effective package that achieved the minimum EDR Margin of 0.5. Although some of the efficiency measures evaluated were not cost-effective and were eliminated, the following measures are included in at least one package: • Reduced infiltration • Improved fenestration • Improved cool roofs • High performance attics • Slab insulation • Reduced duct leakage • Verified low leakage ducts in conditioned space • Low pressure-drop distribution system • Compact hot water distribution system, basic and expanded • High efficiency furnace, air conditioner & heat pump (preempted) • High efficiency tankless water heater & heat pump water heater (preempted) 3.1 PV and Battery System Sizing The approach to determining the size of the PV and battery systems varied based on each package and the source fuel. Table 7 describes the PV and battery sizing approaches applied to each of the four packages. For the Efficiency Non-preempted and Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted packages a different method was applied to each the two fuel scenarios. In all mixed fuel cases, the PV was sized to offset 100% of the estimated electrical load and any electricity savings from efficiency measures were traded off with a smaller PV system. Not downsizing the PV system after adding efficiency measures runs the risk of producing more electricity than is consumed, reducing cost-effectiveness and violating NEM rules. While the impact of this in most cases is minor, analysis confirmed that cost-effectiveness improved when reducing the system size to offset 100% of the electricity usage as opposed to keeping the PV system the same size as the Standard Design. In the all-electric Efficiency cases, the PV system size was left to match the Standard Design (Std Design PV), and the inclusion of energy efficiency measures was not traded off with a reduced capacity PV system. Because the PV system is sized to meet the electricity load of a mixed fuel home, it is cost-effective to keep the PV system the same size and offset a greater percentage of the electrical load. For the Efficiency & PV case on the all-electric home, the Reach Code Team evaluated PV system sizing to offset 100%, 90% and 80% of the total calculated electricity use. Of these three, sizing to 90% proved to be the most cost-effective based on customer utility bills. This is a result of the impact of the annual minimum bill which is around $120 across all the utilities. The “sweet spot” is a PV system that reduces electricity bills just enough to match the annual minimum bill; increasing the PV size beyond this adds first cost but does not result in utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 20 2019-08-01 Table 7: PV & Battery Sizing Details by Package Type Package Mixed Fuel All-Electric Efficiency (Envelope & Equipment) PV Scaled @ 100% electricity Std Design PV Efficiency & PV n/a PV Scaled @ 90% Efficiency & PV/Battery PV Scaled @ 100% electricity 5kWh / SF home 2.75kWh/ MF apt PV Scaled @ 100% 5kWh / SF home 2.75kWh/ MF apt A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate battery and PV capacity for the Efficiency & PV/Battery Packages using the 1-story 2,100 square foot prototype in Climate Zone 12. Results are shown in Figure 2. The current version of CBECC-Res requires a minimum battery size of 5 kWh to qualify for the self- utilization credit. CBECC-Res allows for PV oversizing up to 160% of the building’s estimated electricity load when battery storage systems are installed; however, the Reach Code Team considered this high, potentially problematic from a grid perspective, and likely not acceptable to the utilities or customers. The Reach Code Team compared cost-effectiveness of 5kWh and 7.5kWh battery systems as well as of PV systems sized to offset 90%, 100%, or 120% of the estimated electrical load. Results show that from an on-bill perspective a smaller battery size is more cost-effective. The sensitivity analysis also showed that increasing the PV capacity from 90% to 120% of the electricity use reduced cost- effectiveness. From the TDV perspective there was little difference in results across all the scenarios, with the larger battery size being marginally more cost-effective. Based on these results, the Reach Code Team applied to the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package a 5kWh battery system for single family homes with PV sized to offset 100% of the electricity load. Even though PV scaled to 90% was the most cost-effective, sizing was increased to 100% to evaluate greater generation beyond the Efficiency & PV Package and to achieve zero net electricity. These results also show that in isolation, the inclusion of a battery system reduces cost-effectiveness compared to the same size PV system without batteries. For multifamily buildings the battery capacity was scaled to reflect the average ratio of battery size to PV system capacity (kWh/kW) for the single family Efficiency & PV Package. This resulted in a 22kWh battery for the multifamily building, or 2.75kWh per apartment. Figure 2: B/C ratio comparison for PV and battery sizing On-Bill = 1.9 (TDV = 1.84) On-Bill = 1.49 (TDV = 1.9) On-Bill = 1.37 (TDV = 1.88) On-Bill = 1.35 (TDV = 1.91) On-Bill = 1.23 (TDV = 1.9) On-Bill = 1.14 (TDV = 1.87) On-Bill = 1.04 (TDV = 1.88) 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 21 2019-08-01 3.2 Single Family Results Table 8 through Table 10 contain cost effectiveness findings for the single family packages. Table 8 summarizes the package costs for all of the mixed fuel and all-electric efficiency, PV and battery packages. The mixed fuel results are evaluated and presented relative to a mixed fuel code compliant basecase while the all-electric results are relative to an all-electric code compliant basecase. Table 9 and Table 10 present the B/C ratios for all the single family packages according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies for the mixed fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively. Results are cost-effective based on TDV for all cases except for Climate Zone 7 where no cost-effective combination of non-preempted efficiency measures was found that met the minimum 0.5 EDR Margin threshold. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as “>1” refer to instances where there are incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with the upgrade and benefits are realized immediately. Figure 3 presents a comparison of Total EDRs for single family buildings and Figure 4 presents the EDR Margin results. Each graph compares the mixed fuel and all-electric cases as well as the various packages. The EDR Margin for the Efficiency Package for most climates is between 1.0 and 5.5 for mixed fuel cases and slightly higher, between 1.5 and 6.5, for the all-electric design. No cost-effective mixed fuel or all-electric non- preempted Efficiency package was found Climate Zone 7. For the mixed fuel case, the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package increased the EDR Margin to values between 7.0 and 10.5. Because of the limitations on oversizing PV systems to offset natural gas use it is not feasible to achieve higher EDR Margins by increasing PV system capacity. For the all-electric case, the Efficiency & PV Package resulted in EDR Margins of 11.0 to 19.0 for most climates; adding a battery system increased the EDR Margin by an additional 7 to 13 points. Climate zones 1 and 16, which have high heating loads, have much higher EDR Margins for the Efficiency & PV package (26.5-31.0). The Standard Design PV, which is what is applied in the all-electric Efficiency Package, is not sized to offset any of the heating load. When the PV system is sized to offset 90% of the total electricity use, the increase is substantial as a result. In contrast, in Climate Zone 15 the Standard Design PV system is already sized to cover the cooling electricity load, which represents 40% of whole building electricity use. Therefore, increasing the PV size to offset 90% of the electric load in this climate only results in adding approximately 120 Watts of PV capacity and subsequently a negligible impact on the EDR. Additional results details can be found in Appendix C – Single Family Detailed Results with summaries of measures included in each of the packages in Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary. A summary of results by climate zone is presented in Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 22 2019-08-01 Table 8: Single Family Package Lifetime Incremental Costs Climate Zone Mixed Fuel All-Electric Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery CZ01 +$1,355 +$1,280 +$5,311 +$7,642 +$2,108 +$18,192 +$24,770 CZ02 +$1,504 +$724 +$5,393 +$3,943 +$2,108 +$12,106 +$18,132 CZ03 +$1,552 +$1,448 +$5,438 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,517 +$14,380 CZ04 +$1,556 +$758 +$5,434 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,786 +$14,664 CZ05 +$1,571 +$772 +$5,433 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,307 +$14,047 CZ06 +$1,003 +$581 +$4,889 +$926 +$846 +$6,341 +$12,036 CZ07 n/a +$606 +$4,028 n/a +$846 +$4,436 +$9,936 CZ08 +$581 +$586 +$4,466 +$926 +$412 +$5,373 +$11,016 CZ09 +$912 +$574 +$4,785 +$1,180 +$846 +$5,778 +$11,454 CZ10 +$1,648 +$593 +$5,522 +$1,773 +$949 +$6,405 +$12,129 CZ11 +$3,143 +$1,222 +$7,026 +$3,735 +$2,108 +$10,827 +$17,077 CZ12 +$1,679 +$654 +$5,568 +$3,735 +$2,108 +$11,520 +$17,586 CZ13 +$3,060 +$611 +$6,954 +$4,154 +$2,108 +$10,532 +$16,806 CZ14 +$1,662 +$799 +$5,526 +$4,154 +$2,108 +$10,459 +$16,394 CZ15 +$2,179 -($936) +$6,043 +$4,612 +$2,108 +$5,085 +$11,382 CZ16 +$3,542 +$2,441 +$7,399 +$5,731 +$2,108 +$16,582 +$22,838 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 23 2019-08-01 Table 9: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case 1,2 CZ Utility Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target Efficiency EDR Margin Target Total EDR Margin Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 5.3 3.4 2.8 6.9 4.9 4.1 5.0 10.6 0.9 1.6 10.5 02 PG&E 3.3 1.6 1.7 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.0 10.1 0.5 1.6 10.0 03 PG&E 3.0 1.3 1.3 4.1 1.9 2.0 2.5 10.0 0.4 1.4 10.0 04 PG&E 2.5 0.9 1.2 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.5 10.1 0.3 1.5 10.0 05 PG&E 2.7 1.1 1.2 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.5 9.4 0.4 1.3 9.0 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 2.7 0.9 1.2 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.5 9.4 0.3 1.3 9.0 06 SCE/SoCalGas 2.0 0.7 1.2 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.5 9.8 0.8 1.3 9.5 07 SDG&E 0.0 - - 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.0 9.2 0.1 1.3 9.0 08 SCE/SoCalGas 1.3 0.6 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.0 8.4 0.9 1.3 8.0 09 SCE/SoCalGas 2.6 0.7 2.0 2.9 1.8 3.7 2.5 8.8 1.0 1.5 8.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas 3.2 0.6 1.3 3.2 2.0 3.8 3.0 9.6 1.0 1.5 9.5 10 SDG&E 3.2 0.8 1.3 3.2 2.6 3.8 3.0 9.6 0.6 1.5 9.5 11 PG&E 4.3 0.8 1.2 5.1 2.5 3.7 4.0 9.2 0.4 1.5 9.0 12 PG&E 3.5 1.2 1.8 3.4 3.3 4.6 3.0 9.6 0.4 1.7 9.5 13 PG&E 4.6 0.8 1.3 5.8 5.3 8.4 4.5 9.7 0.4 1.6 9.5 14 SCE/SoCalGas 5.0 1.6 2.5 5.8 4.0 6.1 4.5 9.0 1.3 1.7 9.0 14 SDG&E 5.0 1.9 2.5 5.8 4.9 6.1 4.5 9.0 1.2 1.7 9.0 15 SCE/SoCalGas 4.8 1.0 1.6 5.0 >1 >1 4.5 7.1 1.1 1.5 7.0 16 PG&E 5.4 1.6 1.5 6.2 2.2 2.2 5.0 10.5 0.9 1.4 10.5 1“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 24 2019-08-01 Table 10: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2 CZ Utility Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target Efficiency EDR Margin Target Total EDR Margin Target Total EDR Margin Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 15.2 1.8 1.7 6.9 2.9 2.7 6.5 31.4 1.8 1.5 31.0 41.2 1.4 1.4 41.0 02 PG&E 4.9 1.2 1.1 5.1 2.3 2.1 4.5 19.4 1.8 1.4 19.0 30.1 1.4 1.4 30.0 03 PG&E 4.7 2.6 2.4 4.4 1.8 1.6 4.0 18.5 2.2 1.7 18.0 29.3 1.5 1.6 29.0 04 PG&E 3.4 1.9 1.8 3.9 1.5 1.5 3.0 17.2 2.1 1.6 17.0 28.6 1.5 1.6 28.5 05 PG&E 4.4 2.6 2.3 4.4 1.9 1.7 4.0 18.2 2.3 1.8 18.0 28.7 1.6 1.6 28.5 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 4.4 2.6 2.3 4.4 1.9 1.7 4.0 18.2 2.3 1.8 18.0 28.7 1.6 1.6 28.5 06 SCE/SoCalGas 2.0 1.3 1.4 2.9 2.2 2.3 2.0 14.3 1.2 1.5 14.0 26.1 1.2 1.4 26.0 07 SDG&E 0.0 - - 2.2 1.6 1.7 0.0 11.3 1.9 1.5 11.0 24.2 1.3 1.5 24.0 08 SCE/SoCalGas 1.6 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.8 3.0 1.5 10.9 1.0 1.5 10.5 21.6 1.1 1.4 21.5 09 SCE/SoCalGas 2.8 0.8 2.0 3.3 2.1 3.2 2.5 11.5 1.1 1.6 11.5 21.3 1.1 1.5 21.0 10 SCE/SoCalGas 3.1 0.9 1.5 3.4 2.3 3.2 3.0 11.1 1.1 1.5 11.0 21.2 1.1 1.5 21.0 10 SDG&E 3.1 1.1 1.5 3.4 2.6 3.2 3.0 11.1 1.7 1.5 11.0 21.2 1.4 1.5 21.0 11 PG&E 4.6 1.2 1.5 5.9 3.0 3.3 4.5 14.2 1.8 1.6 14.0 23.2 1.5 1.6 23.0 12 PG&E 3.8 0.8 1.1 5.1 2.0 2.5 3.5 15.7 1.7 1.4 15.5 25.4 1.3 1.5 25.0 13 PG&E 5.1 1.1 1.4 6.0 2.9 3.3 5.0 13.4 1.7 1.5 13.0 22.5 1.4 1.5 22.0 14 SCE/SoCalGas 5.6 1.0 1.5 6.0 2.3 3.1 5.5 15.5 1.2 1.6 15.5 23.9 1.4 1.6 23.5 14 SDG&E 5.6 1.3 1.5 6.0 2.9 3.1 5.5 15.5 1.8 1.6 15.5 23.9 1.7 1.6 23.5 15 SCE/SoCalGas 5.6 1.1 1.6 7.3 3.3 4.5 5.5 6.2 1.1 1.6 6.0 13.5 1.2 1.5 13.0 16 PG&E 9.7 1.7 1.7 4.9 2.4 2.3 4.5 27.0 2.1 1.6 26.5 35.4 1.7 1.5 35.0 1“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 25 2019-08-01 Figure 3: Single family Total EDR comparison Figure 4: Single family EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages) 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 26 2019-08-01 3.2.1 GHG Emission Reductions Figure 5 compares annual GHG emissions for both mixed fuel and all-electric single family 2019 code compliant cases with Efficiency, Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. GHG emissions vary by climate but are consistently higher in mixed fuel cases than all-electric. Standard Design mixed fuel emissions range from 1.3 (CZ 7) to 3.3 (CZ 16) lbs CO2e/square foot of floor area, where all-electric Standard Design emissions range from 0.7 to 1.7 lbs CO2e/ ft2. Adding efficiency, PV and batteries to the mixed fuel code compliant prototype reduces GHG emissions by 20% on average to between 1.0 and 1.8 lbs CO2e/ft2, with the exception of Climate Zones 1 and 16. Adding efficiency, PV and batteries to the all-electric code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 65% on average to 0.8 lbs CO2e/ft2 or less. None of the cases completely eliminate GHG emissions. Because of the time value of emissions calculation for electricity in CBECC-Res, there is always some amount of GHG impacts with using electricity from the grid. Figure 5: Single family greenhouse gas emissions comparison 3.3 Multifamily Results Table 11 through Table 13 contain cost effectiveness findings for the multifamily packages. Table 11 summarizes the package costs for all the mixed fuel and all-electric efficiency, PV and battery packages. Table 12 and Table 13 present the B/C ratios for all the packages according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies for the mixed fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively. All the packages are cost-effective based on TDV except Climate Zone 3 for the all-electric cases where no cost-effective combination of non- preempted efficiency measures was found that met the minimum 0.5 EDR Margin threshold. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as “>1” refer to instances where there are incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with this upgrade and benefits are realized immediately. It is generally more challenging to achieve equivalent savings targets cost-effectively for the multifamily cases than for the single family cases. With less exterior surface area per floor area the impact of envelope measures 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 27 2019-08-01 is diminished in multifamily buildings. Ducts are already assumed to be within conditioned space and therefore only one of the duct measures found to be cost-effective in single family homes can be applied. Figure 6 presents a comparison of Total EDRs for the multifamily cases and Figure 7 presents the EDR Margin results. Each graph compares the mixed fuel and all-electric cases as well as the various packages. Cost-effective efficiency packages were found for all mixed fuel cases. The Target EDR Margins for the mixed fuel Efficiency Package are 0.5 for Climate Zones 3, 5 and 7, between 1.0 and 2.5 for Climate Zones 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 through 12 and 16, and between 3.0 and 4.0 in Climate Zones 13 through 15. For the all-electric case, no cost-effective non- preempted efficiency packages were found in Climate Zone 3. The Target EDR Margins are between 0.5 and 2.5 for Climate Zones 2, 4 through 10 and 12, and between 3.0 and 4.0 in Climate Zones 1, 11, and 13 through 16. For the mixed fuel case, the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package results in an EDR Margin of between 8.5 and 11.5 across all climate zones. Most of these packages were not found to be cost-effective based on utility bill savings alone, but they all are cost-effective based on TDV energy savings. For the all-electric case, the Efficiency & PV Package resulted in EDR Margins of 10.5 to 17.5 for most climates; adding a battery system increased the EDR Margin by an additional 10 to 15 points. Climate zones 1 and 16, which have high heating loads, have much higher EDR Margins for the Efficiency & PV package (19.5-22.5). The Standard Design PV, which is what is applied in the Efficiency Package, is not sized to offset any of the heating load. When the PV system is sized to offset 90% of the total electricity use, the increase is substantial as a result. In Climate Zone 15 the Standard Design PV system is already sized to cover the cooling electricity load, which represents 30% of whole building electricity use. Therefore, increasing the PV size to offset 90% of the electric load in this climate only results in adding approximately 240 Watts of PV capacity per apartment and subsequently a much smaller impact on the EDR than in other climate zones. Because of the limitations on oversizing PV systems to offset natural gas use it is not feasible to achieve comparable EDR Margins for the mixed fuel case as in the all-electric case. Additional results details can be found in Appendix E – Multifamily Detailed Results with summaries of measures included in each of the packages in Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary. A summary of results by climate zone is presented in Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 28 2019-08-01 Table 11: Multifamily Package Incremental Costs per Dwelling Unit Climate Zone Mixed Fuel All-Electric Non- Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV/Battery Non- Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery CZ01 +$960 +$507 +$3,094 +$949 +$795 +$5,538 +$8,919 CZ02 +$309 +$497 +$2,413 +$361 +$795 +$3,711 +$6,833 CZ03 +$175 +$403 +$2,279 n/a +$795 +$3,272 +$6,344 CZ04 +$329 +$351 +$2,429 +$361 +$795 +$3,158 +$6,201 CZ05 +$180 +$358 +$2,273 +$247 +$795 +$3,293 +$6,314 CZ06 +$190 +$213 +$2,294 +$231 +$361 +$2,580 +$5,590 CZ07 +$90 +$366 +$2,188 +$202 +$361 +$2,261 +$5,203 CZ08 +$250 +$213 +$2,353 +$231 +$361 +$2,240 +$5,249 CZ09 +$136 +$274 +$2,234 +$231 +$361 +$2,232 +$5,236 CZ10 +$278 +$250 +$2,376 +$361 +$361 +$2,371 +$5,395 CZ11 +$850 +$317 +$2,950 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,601 +$6,759 CZ12 +$291 +$434 +$2,394 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,835 +$6,943 CZ13 +$831 +$290 +$2,936 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,462 +$6,650 CZ14 +$874 +$347 +$2,957 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,356 +$6,380 CZ15 +$510 -($157) +$2,604 +$1,011 +$1,954 +$1,826 +$5,020 CZ16 +$937 +$453 +$3,028 +$843 +$795 +$4,423 +$7,533 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 29 2019-08-01 Table 12: Multifamily Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case1,2 CZ Utility Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target Efficiency EDR Margin Target Total EDR Margin Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 3.4 1.1 1.2 2.3 1.3 1.4 2.0 11.5 0.4 1.2 11.5 02 PG&E 1.8 1.0 1.7 2.3 1.1 1.5 1.5 10.9 0.2 1.6 10.5 03 PG&E 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.2 0.5 10.3 0.1 1.4 10.0 04 PG&E 1.3 0.8 1.2 1.9 1.1 1.7 1.0 11.2 0.2 1.6 11.0 05 PG&E 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.5 9.9 0.2 1.4 9.5 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.3 0.5 9.9 0.1 1.4 9.5 06 SCE/SoCalGas 1.3 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.0 10.7 0.6 1.4 10.5 07 SDG&E 0.9 0.7 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.4 0.5 11.0 0.0 1.4 11.0 08 SCE/SoCalGas 1.5 0.7 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.0 9.9 0.7 1.3 9.5 09 SCE/SoCalGas 1.8 1.5 3.3 2.8 1.7 2.9 1.5 9.7 0.9 1.5 9.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas 1.7 0.8 1.7 2.9 2.0 3.3 1.5 10.4 1.0 1.6 10.0 10 SDG&E 1.7 1.1 1.7 2.9 2.6 3.3 1.5 10.4 0.2 1.6 10.0 11 PG&E 2.9 0.7 1.2 3.2 1.8 3.3 2.5 10.5 0.4 1.6 10.5 12 PG&E 1.9 1.1 2.2 2.8 1.2 2.2 1.5 10.3 0.3 1.7 10.0 13 PG&E 3.1 0.6 1.3 3.4 2.0 3.8 3.0 10.7 0.4 1.6 10.5 14 SCE/SoCalGas 3.1 0.7 1.2 3.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 9.6 1.1 1.4 9.5 14 SDG&E 3.1 0.9 1.2 3.3 2.5 3.0 3.0 9.6 0.5 1.4 9.5 15 SCE/SoCalGas 4.2 1.4 2.3 4.4 >1 >1 4.0 8.8 1.3 1.7 8.5 16 PG&E 2.4 1.1 1.2 2.9 1.8 2.1 2.0 9.9 0.5 1.3 9.5 1“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 30 2019-08-01 Table 13: Multifamily Package Cost-effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2 CZ Utility Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Target Efficiency EDR Margin Total EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Target Total EDR Margin Total EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Target Total EDR Margin 01 PG&E 3.6 1.6 1.4 3.3 2.4 2.3 3.0 22.5 2.0 1.5 22.5 34.5 1.3 1.4 34.5 02 PG&E 1.9 1.7 2.1 3.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 17.5 2.4 1.8 17.5 30.9 1.4 1.7 30.5 03 PG&E 0.0 - - 2.7 1.7 1.6 0.0 16.1 2.4 1.7 16.0 29.5 1.3 1.6 29.5 04 PG&E 1.4 1.4 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 15.0 2.4 1.8 15.0 28.9 1.3 1.8 28.5 05 PG&E 0.6 1.1 0.9 3.6 2.1 2.0 0.5 17.1 2.5 1.8 17.0 30.3 1.4 1.7 30.0 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 0.6 1.1 0.9 3.6 2.1 2.0 0.5 17.1 2.5 1.8 17.0 30.3 1.4 1.7 30.0 06 SCE/SoCalGas 1.0 0.7 1.3 2.2 1.6 1.9 1.0 13.8 1.2 1.7 13.5 27.5 1.2 1.6 27.5 07 SDG&E 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.9 1.6 1.7 0.5 12.8 2.1 1.8 12.5 27.1 1.2 1.6 27.0 08 SCE/SoCalGas 1.2 0.9 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.0 11.6 1.3 1.8 11.5 24.2 1.2 1.6 24.0 09 SCE/SoCalGas 1.6 1.3 2.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 11.3 1.3 1.9 11.0 23.3 1.3 1.7 23.0 10 SCE/SoCalGas 1.8 1.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.5 10.8 1.3 1.8 10.5 23.3 1.3 1.7 23.0 10 SDG&E 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.5 10.8 2.1 1.8 10.5 23.3 1.4 1.7 23.0 11 PG&E 3.5 1.4 1.6 3.9 2.0 2.3 3.5 13.4 2.2 1.8 13.0 25.3 1.4 1.8 25.0 12 PG&E 2.6 0.9 1.1 2.9 1.6 1.6 2.5 14.4 2.1 1.6 14.0 26.6 1.3 1.7 26.5 13 PG&E 3.3 1.3 1.6 3.8 2.0 2.3 3.0 12.2 2.1 1.7 12.0 23.9 1.4 1.7 23.5 14 SCE/SoCalGas 3.7 1.2 1.6 3.8 1.6 2.2 3.5 14.0 1.4 1.9 14.0 24.8 1.4 1.8 24.5 14 SDG&E 3.7 1.5 1.6 3.8 2.0 2.2 3.5 14.0 2.2 1.9 14.0 24.8 1.7 1.8 24.5 15 SCE/SoCalGas 4.4 1.5 2.3 6.4 1.2 1.7 4.0 7.1 1.4 2.1 7.0 16.9 1.3 1.8 16.5 16 PG&E 4.1 2.1 2.1 3.2 1.6 1.7 3.0 19.6 2.6 1.9 19.5 29.9 1.6 1.7 29.5 1“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 31 2019-08-01 Figure 6: Multifamily Total EDR comparison Figure 7: Multifamily EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages) 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 32 2019-08-01 3.3.1 GHG Emission Reductions Figure 8 compares annual GHG emissions for both mixed fuel and all-electric multifamily 2019 code compliant cases with Efficiency, Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. GHG emissions vary by climate but are consistently higher in mixed fuel cases than all-electric. Standard design mixed fuel emissions range from 2.0 to 3.0 lbs CO2e/square foot of floor area, where all-electric standard design emissions range from 1.2 to 1.7 lbs CO2e/ ft2. Adding PV, batteries and efficiency to the mixed fuel code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 17% on average to between 1.7 and 2.2 lbs CO2e/ft2, except Climate Zone 16. Adding PV, batteries and efficiency to the all-electric code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 64% on average to 0.6 lbs CO2e/ft2 or less with the exception of Climate Zones 14, 15 and 16. As in the single family case, none of the cases completely eliminate GHG emissions because of the time value of emissions calculation for electricity in CBECC-Res. Figure 8: Multifamily greenhouse gas emissions comparison 3.4 Electrification Results Cost-effectiveness results comparing mixed fuel and all-electric cases are summarized below. The tables show average annual utility bill impacts and lifetime utility bill impacts, which account for fuel escalation for electricity and natural gas (see Section 2.5), lifetime equipment cost savings, and both On-Bill and TDV cost-effectiveness (B/C ratio). Positive utility bill values indicate lower utility costs for the all-electric home relative to the mixed fuel case while negative values in red and parenthesis indicate higher utility costs for the all-electric case. Lifetime equipment cost savings include savings due to eliminating natural gas infrastructure and replacement costs for appliances based on equipment life. Positive values for the lifetime equipment cost savings indicate lower installed costs for the all-electric and negative values indicate higher costs. B/C ratios 1.0 or greater indicate positive cost-effectiveness. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as “>1” refer to instances where there was incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with this upgrade and benefits are realized immediately. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 33 2019-08-01 Three scenarios were evaluated: 1. 2019 Code Compliant: Compares a 2019 code compliant all-electric home with a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. 2. Efficiency & PV Package: Compares an all-electric home with efficiency and PV sized to 90% of the annual electricity use to a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. The first cost savings in the code compliant all-electric house is invested in above code efficiency and PV reflective of the Efficiency & PV packages described above. 3. Neutral Cost Package: Compares an all-electric home with PV beyond code minimum with a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. The PV system for the all-electric case is sized to result in a zero lifetime incremental cost relative to a mixed fuel home. 3.4.1 Single Family Table 14, Table 15, Figure 9, Figure 10, and Figure 11 present results of cost-effectiveness analysis for electrification of single family buildings, according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. Based on typical cost assumptions arrived at for this analysis, the lifetime equipment costs for the single family code compliant all-electric option are approximately $5,350 less than the mixed fuel code compliant option. Cost savings are entirely due to the elimination of gas infrastructure, which was assumed to be a savings of $5,750. When evaluating cost-effectiveness based on TDV, the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction are not applied and therefore the cost savings are twice as much. Under the Efficiency & PV Package and the On-Bill analysis, the incremental cost of the efficiency and PV is typically more than the cost savings seen in the code compliant case, which results in a net cost increase in most climate zones for the all-electric case. In climates with small heating loads (7 and 15) there continues to be an incremental cost savings for the all-electric home. With the TDV analysis, there is still an incremental cost savings in all climates except 1 and 16 for single family. Utility impacts differ by climate zone and utility, but utility costs for the code compliant all-electric option are typically higher than for the compliant mixed fuel design. There are utility cost savings across all climates zones and building types for the all-electric Efficiency & PV Package, resulting in a more cost-effective option. The all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective based on the On-Bill approach for single family homes in Climate Zones 6 through 9, 10 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15. The code compliant option is cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 1 and 16. If the same costs used for the On-Bill approach are also used for the TDV approach (incorporating the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction), the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climate Zones 6 through 10. The Efficiency & PV all-electric option is cost-effective in all climate zones based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. In many cases it is cost-effective immediately with lower equipment and utility costs. The last set of results in Table 14 shows the neutral cost case where the cost savings for the all-electric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings in all cases except Climate Zones 1, 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 16. For these three cases the Reach Code Team evaluated how much additional PV would be required to result in a cost-effective package. These results are presented in Table 15 and show that an additional 1.6kW in Climate Zone 1 results in a B/C ratio of 1.1. For Climate Zone 14 and 16 adding 0.25kW and 1.2kW, respectively, results in a B/C ratio of 1.2. Neutral cost cases are cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 16. 3.4.2 Multifamily Multifamily results are found in Table 16, Table 17, Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14. Lifetime costs for the multifamily code compliant all-electric option are approximately $2,300 less than the mixed fuel code compliant option, entirely due to the elimination of gas infrastructure. When evaluating cost-effectiveness based on TDV, 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 34 2019-08-01 the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction are not applied and therefore the cost savings are approximately 2.5 times higher. With the Efficiency & PV Package and the On-Bill analysis, due to the added cost of the efficiency and PV there is a net cost increase for the all-electric case in all climate zones for except 7, 8, 9, and 15. With the TDV analysis, there is still an incremental cost savings in all climates. Like the single family results, utility costs are typically higher for the code compliant all-electric option but lower than the code compliant mixed fuel option with the Efficiency & PV Package. The all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective based on the On-Bill approach for multifamily in Climate Zones 6 through 9, 10 and 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15. Based on the TDV methodology, the code compliant option for multifamily is cost-effective for all climate zones. If the same costs used for the On-Bill approach are also used for the TDV approach (incorporating the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction), the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climate Zones 8 and 9. Like the single family cases, the Efficiency & PV all-electric option is cost-effective in all climate zones based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. The last set of results in Table 16 show the neutral cost case where the cost savings for the all-electric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings in all cases except Climate Zone 1. For this case the Reach Code Team evaluated how much additional PV would be required to result in a cost-effective package. These results are presented in Table 17 and show that an additional 0.3kW per apartment results in a B/C ratio of 1.1. Neutral cost cases are cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 16. Table 14: Single Family Electrification Results On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness CZ Utility Average Annual Utility Bill Savings Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV Electricity Natural Gas Net Utility Savings Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio2 TDV Cost Savings Equipment Cost Savings TDV B/C Ratio 2019 Code Compliant Home 01 PG&E -($1,194) +$712 -($482) -($14,464) +$5,349 0.4 -($13,081) +$11,872 0.9 02 PG&E -($825) +$486 -($340) -($10,194) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,456) +$11,872 1.6 03 PG&E -($717) +$391 -($326) -($9,779) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,766) +$11,872 1.5 04 PG&E -($710) +$387 -($322) -($9,671) +$5,349 0.6 -($7,447) +$11,872 1.6 05 PG&E -($738) +$367 -($371) -($11,128) +$5,349 0.5 -($8,969) +$11,872 1.3 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($738) +$370 -($368) -($11,034) +$5,349 0.5 -($8,969) +$11,872 1.3 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($439) +$289 -($149) -($4,476) +$5,349 1.2 -($4,826) +$11,872 2.5 07 SDG&E -($414) +$243 -($171) -($5,134) +$5,349 1.0 -($4,678) +$11,872 2.5 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($347) +$249 -($97) -($2,921) +$5,349 1.8 -($3,971) +$11,872 3.0 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($377) +$271 -($107) -($3,199) +$5,349 1.7 -($4,089) +$11,872 2.9 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($403) +$280 -($123) -($3,684) +$5,349 1.5 -($4,458) +$11,872 2.7 10 SDG&E -($496) +$297 -($198) -($5,950) +$5,349 0.9 -($4,458) +$11,872 2.7 11 PG&E -($810) +$447 -($364) -($10,917) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,024) +$11,872 1.7 12 PG&E -($740) +$456 -($284) -($8,533) +$5,349 0.6 -($6,281) +$11,872 1.9 13 PG&E -($742) +$413 -($329) -($9,870) +$5,349 0.5 -($6,480) +$11,872 1.8 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($661) +$413 -($248) -($7,454) +$5,349 0.7 -($7,126) +$11,872 1.7 14 SDG&E -($765) +$469 -($296) -($8,868) +$5,349 0.6 -($7,126) +$11,872 1.7 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($297) +$194 -($103) -($3,090) +$5,349 1.7 -($5,364) +$11,872 2.2 16 PG&E -($1,287) +$712 -($575) -($17,250) +$5,349 0.3 -($17,391) +$11,872 0.7 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 35 2019-08-01 On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness CZ Utility Average Annual Utility Bill Savings Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV Electricity Natural Gas Net Utility Savings Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio2 TDV Cost Savings Equipment Cost Savings TDV B/C Ratio Efficiency & PV Package 01 PG&E -($99) +$712 +$613 +$18,398 -($12,844) 1.4 +$13,364 -($6,321) 2.1 02 PG&E -($89) +$486 +$397 +$11,910 -($6,758) 1.8 +$9,307 -($234) 39.7 03 PG&E -($87) +$391 +$304 +$9,119 -($3,169) 2.9 +$6,516 +$3,355 >1 04 PG&E -($85) +$387 +$302 +$9,074 -($3,438) 2.6 +$6,804 +$3,086 >1 05 PG&E -($98) +$367 +$268 +$8,054 -($2,959) 2.7 +$5,625 +$3,564 >1 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($98) +$370 +$272 +$8,148 -($2,959) 2.8 +$5,625 +$3,564 >1 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($188) +$289 +$102 +$3,049 -($992) 3.1 +$4,585 +$5,531 >1 07 SDG&E -($137) +$243 +$106 +$3,174 +$912 >1 +$2,176 +$7,436 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($160) +$249 +$89 +$2,664 -($25) 107.9 +$3,965 +$6,499 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($169) +$271 +$102 +$3,067 -($429) 7.1 +$5,368 +$6,094 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($173) +$280 +$107 +$3,216 -($1,057) 3.0 +$5,165 +$5,466 >1 10 SDG&E -($137) +$297 +$160 +$4,805 -($1,057) 4.5 +$5,165 +$5,466 >1 11 PG&E -($147) +$447 +$300 +$8,988 -($5,478) 1.6 +$9,776 +$1,045 >1 12 PG&E -($92) +$456 +$364 +$10,918 -($6,172) 1.8 +$9,913 +$352 >1 13 PG&E -($144) +$413 +$269 +$8,077 -($5,184) 1.6 +$8,960 +$1,339 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($241) +$413 +$172 +$5,164 -($5,111) 1.0 +$9,850 +$1,412 >1 14 SDG&E -($139) +$469 +$330 +$9,910 -($5,111) 1.9 +$9,850 +$1,412 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($107) +$194 +$87 +$2,603 +$264 >1 +$2,598 +$6,787 >1 16 PG&E -($130) +$712 +$582 +$17,457 -($11,234) 1.6 +$9,536 -($4,710) 2.0 Neutral Cost Package 01 PG&E -($869) +$712 -($157) -($4,704) +$0 0 -($6,033) +$6,549 1.1 02 PG&E -($445) +$486 +$40 +$1,213 +$0 >1 +$868 +$6,505 >1 03 PG&E -($335) +$391 +$56 +$1,671 +$0 >1 +$483 +$6,520 >1 04 PG&E -($321) +$387 +$66 +$1,984 +$0 >1 +$1,062 +$6,521 >1 05 PG&E -($335) +$367 +$31 +$938 +$0 >1 -($163) +$6,519 40.1 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($335) +$370 +$34 +$1,031 +$0 >1 -($163) +$6,519 40.1 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($227) +$289 +$63 +$1,886 +$0 >1 +$3,258 +$6,499 >1 07 SDG&E -($72) +$243 +$171 +$5,132 +$0 >1 +$3,741 +$6,519 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($144) +$249 +$105 +$3,162 +$0 >1 +$4,252 +$6,515 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($170) +$271 +$100 +$3,014 +$0 >1 +$4,271 +$6,513 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($199) +$280 +$81 +$2,440 +$0 >1 +$3,629 +$6,494 >1 10 SDG&E -($155) +$297 +$143 +$4,287 +$0 >1 +$3,629 +$6,494 >1 11 PG&E -($426) +$447 +$21 +$630 +$0 >1 +$1,623 +$6,504 >1 12 PG&E -($362) +$456 +$94 +$2,828 +$0 >1 +$2,196 +$6,525 >1 13 PG&E -($370) +$413 +$43 +$1,280 +$0 >1 +$1,677 +$6,509 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($416) +$413 -($4) -($107) +$0 0 +$2,198 +$6,520 >1 14 SDG&E -($391) +$469 +$79 +$2,356 +$0 >1 +$2,198 +$6,520 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($98) +$194 +$97 +$2,900 +$0 >1 +$2,456 +$6,483 >1 16 PG&E -($878) +$712 -($166) -($4,969) +$0 0 -($8,805) +$6,529 0.7 1Red values in parentheses indicate an increase in utility bill costs or an incremental first cost for the all-electric home. 2“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 36 2019-08-01 Table 15: Comparison of Single Family On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV CZ Utility Neutral Cost Min. Cost Effectiveness PV Capacity (kW) Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio PV Capacity (kW) Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 4.7 -($4,704) +$0 0 6.3 +$6,898 -($6,372) 1.1 14 SCE/SoCalGas 4.5 -($107) +$0 0 4.8 +$1,238 -($1,000) 1.2 16 PG&E 4.1 -($4,969) +$0 0 5.3 +$5,883 -($4,753) 1.2 Figure 9: B/C ratio results for a single family all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 37 2019-08-01 Figure 10: B/C ratio results for the single family Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home Figure 11: B/C ratio results for the single family neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 38 2019-08-01 Table 16: Multifamily Electrification Results (Per Dwelling Unit) On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness CZ Utility Average Annual Utility Bill Savings Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV Electricity Natural Gas Net Utility Savings Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio2 TDV Cost Savings Equipment Cost Savings TDV B/C Ratio 2019 Code Compliant Home 01 PG&E -($396) +$193 -($203) -($6,079) +$2,337 0.4 -($5,838) +$5,899 1.0 02 PG&E -($310) +$162 -($148) -($4,450) +$2,337 0.5 -($4,144) +$5,899 1.4 03 PG&E -($277) +$142 -($135) -($4,041) +$2,337 0.6 -($4,035) +$5,899 1.5 04 PG&E -($264) +$144 -($120) -($3,595) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,329) +$5,899 1.8 05 PG&E -($297) +$140 -($157) -($4,703) +$2,337 0.5 -($4,604) +$5,899 1.3 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($297) +$178 -($119) -($3,573) +$2,337 0.7 -($4,604) +$5,899 1.3 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($191) +$161 -($30) -($902) +$2,337 2.6 -($2,477) +$5,899 2.4 07 SDG&E -($206) +$136 -($70) -($2,094) +$2,337 1.1 -($2,390) +$5,899 2.5 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($169) +$157 -($12) -($349) +$2,337 6.7 -($2,211) +$5,899 2.7 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($177) +$159 -($18) -($533) +$2,337 4.4 -($2,315) +$5,899 2.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($183) +$159 -($23) -($697) +$2,337 3.4 -($2,495) +$5,899 2.4 10 SDG&E -($245) +$139 -($106) -($3,192) +$2,337 0.7 -($2,495) +$5,899 2.4 11 PG&E -($291) +$153 -($138) -($4,149) +$2,337 0.6 -($4,420) +$5,899 1.3 12 PG&E -($277) +$155 -($122) -($3,665) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,557) +$5,899 1.7 13 PG&E -($270) +$146 -($124) -($3,707) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,821) +$5,899 1.5 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($255) +$187 -($69) -($2,062) +$2,337 1.1 -($3,976) +$5,899 1.5 14 SDG&E -($328) +$175 -($154) -($4,607) +$2,337 0.5 -($3,976) +$5,899 1.5 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($154) +$142 -($12) -($367) +$2,337 6.4 -($2,509) +$5,899 2.4 16 PG&E -($404) +$224 -($180) -($5,411) +$2,337 0.4 -($5,719) +$5,899 1.0 Efficiency & PV Package 01 PG&E -($19) +$193 +$174 +$5,230 -($3,202) 1.6 +$2,467 +$361 >1 02 PG&E -($10) +$162 +$152 +$4,549 -($1,375) 3.3 +$2,605 +$2,187 >1 03 PG&E -($12) +$142 +$130 +$3,910 -($936) 4.2 +$1,632 +$2,626 >1 04 PG&E -($8) +$144 +$136 +$4,080 -($822) 5.0 +$2,381 +$2,740 >1 05 PG&E -($19) +$140 +$121 +$3,635 -($956) 3.8 +$1,403 +$2,606 >1 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($19) +$178 +$159 +$4,765 -($956) 5.0 +$1,403 +$2,606 >1 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($84) +$161 +$77 +$2,309 -($243) 9.5 +$1,940 +$3,319 >1 07 SDG&E -($49) +$136 +$87 +$2,611 +$75 >1 +$1,583 +$3,638 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($74) +$157 +$83 +$2,480 +$96 >1 +$1,772 +$3,658 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($76) +$159 +$82 +$2,469 +$104 >1 +$1,939 +$3,667 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($79) +$159 +$80 +$2,411 -($34) 70.9 +$1,737 +$3,528 >1 10 SDG&E -($77) +$139 +$61 +$1,842 -($34) 54.2 +$1,737 +$3,528 >1 11 PG&E -($25) +$153 +$128 +$3,834 -($1,264) 3.0 +$2,080 +$2,298 >1 12 PG&E -($11) +$155 +$144 +$4,316 -($1,498) 2.9 +$2,759 +$2,064 >1 13 PG&E -($26) +$146 +$121 +$3,625 -($1,125) 3.2 +$2,083 +$2,437 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($99) +$187 +$87 +$2,616 -($1,019) 2.6 +$2,422 +$2,543 >1 14 SDG&E -($86) +$175 +$88 +$2,647 -($1,019) 2.6 +$2,422 +$2,543 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($67) +$142 +$75 +$2,247 +$511 >1 +$1,276 +$4,073 >1 16 PG&E -($24) +$224 +$200 +$5,992 -($2,087) 2.9 +$2,629 +$1,476 >1 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 39 2019-08-01 On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness CZ Utility Average Annual Utility Bill Savings Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV Electricity Natural Gas Net Utility Savings Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio2 TDV Cost Savings Equipment Cost Savings TDV B/C Ratio Neutral Cost Package 01 PG&E -($228) +$193 -($35) -($1,057) +$0 0 -($2,267) +$3,564 1.6 02 PG&E -($115) +$162 +$47 +$1,399 +$0 >1 +$59 +$3,563 >1 03 PG&E -($81) +$142 +$61 +$1,843 +$0 >1 +$138 +$3,562 >1 04 PG&E -($64) +$144 +$80 +$2,402 +$0 >1 +$983 +$3,563 >1 05 PG&E -($90) +$140 +$50 +$1,490 +$0 >1 -($152) +$3,564 23.4 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($90) +$178 +$87 +$2,620 +$0 >1 -($152) +$3,564 23.4 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($90) +$161 +$71 +$2,144 +$0 >1 +$1,612 +$3,562 >1 07 SDG&E -($32) +$136 +$105 +$3,135 +$0 >1 +$1,886 +$3,560 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($67) +$157 +$90 +$2,705 +$0 >1 +$1,955 +$3,564 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($71) +$159 +$87 +$2,623 +$0 >1 +$1,924 +$3,561 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($78) +$159 +$81 +$2,431 +$0 >1 +$1,588 +$3,561 >1 10 SDG&E -($71) +$139 +$68 +$2,033 +$0 >1 +$1,588 +$3,561 >1 11 PG&E -($93) +$153 +$59 +$1,783 +$0 >1 -($48) +$3,562 74.0 12 PG&E -($82) +$155 +$73 +$2,184 +$0 >1 +$739 +$3,564 >1 13 PG&E -($79) +$146 +$68 +$2,034 +$0 >1 +$310 +$3,560 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($141) +$187 +$45 +$1,359 +$0 >1 +$747 +$3,562 >1 14 SDG&E -($137) +$175 +$38 +$1,131 +$0 >1 +$747 +$3,562 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($50) +$142 +$92 +$2,771 +$0 >1 +$1,738 +$3,560 >1 16 PG&E -($194) +$224 +$30 +$900 +$0 >1 -($1,382) +$3,564 2.6 1Red values in parentheses indicate an increase in utility bill costs or an incremental first cost for the all-electric home. 2“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. Table 17: Comparison of Multifamily On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV (Per Dwelling Unit) CZ Utility Neutral Cost Min. Cost Effectiveness PV Capacity (kW) Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio PV Capacity (kW) Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 2.7 -($1,057) +$0 0 3.0 +$1,198 -($1,052) 1.1 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 40 2019-08-01 Figure 12: B/C ratio results for a multifamily all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home Figure 13: B/C ratio results for the multifamily Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 41 2019-08-01 Figure 14: B/C ratio results for the multifamily neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home 4 Conclusions & Summary This report evaluated the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of “above code” performance specifications through the application of efficiency measures, PV, and electric battery storage in all 16 California climate zones. The analysis found cost-effective packages across the state for both single family and low-rise multifamily buildings. For the building types and climate zones where cost-effective packages were identified, the results of this analysis can be used by local jurisdictions to support the adoption of reach codes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated according to two metrics: On-Bill customer lifecycle benefit-to-cost and TDV lifecycle benefit-to-cost. While all the above code targets presented are based on packages that are cost-effective under at least one of these metrics, they are not all cost-effective under both metrics. Generally, the test for being cost-effective under the TDV methodology is less challenging than under the On-Bill methodology. Therefore, all packages presented are cost-effective based on TDV, and may or may not be cost-effective based on the On-Bill method. It is up to each jurisdiction to determine what metric is most appropriate for their application. A summary of results by climate zone are presented in Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone. Above code targets are presented as Target EDR Margin, which have been defined for each scenario where a cost-effective package was identified. Target EDR Margins represent the maximum “reach” values that meet the requirements. Jurisdictions may adopt less stringent requirements. For the Efficiency Package the Target EDR Margin was defined based on the lower EDR Margin of the Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package and the Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package. For example, if the cost-effective Non-Preempted package has an EDR Margin of 3 and the Preempted package an EDR Margin of 4, the Target EDR Margin is set at 3. The average incremental cost for the single family Efficiency packages is ~$1,750. The Efficiency & PV Package average incremental cost is $9,180 and for the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package it is approximately $5,600 for the 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 42 2019-08-01 mixed fuel cases and $15,100 for the all-electric cases. The incremental costs for each multifamily apartment are approximately 30-40% lower. See Table 8 and Table 11 for a summary of package costs by case. Table 18 and Table 19 summarize the maximum Target EDR Margins determined to be cost effective for each package for single family and multifamily, respectively. Cases labeled as “n/a” in the tables indicate where no cost-effective package was identified under either On-Bill or TDV methodology. This analysis also looked at the GHG emissions impacts of the various packages. An all-electric design reduces GHG emissions 40-50% in most cases relative to a comparable mixed fuel design. There is significant interest throughout California on electrification of new buildings. The Reach Code Team assembled data on the cost differences between a code compliant mixed fuel building and a code compliant all- electric building. Based on lifetime equipment cost savings (the difference in first cost for equipment and infrastructure combined with incremental replacement costs) of $5,349 for an all-electric single family home this analysis found that from a customer on-bill perspective, the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climates Zones 6 through 9, 10 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15, and cost-effective in all climate zones except 1 and 16 based on TDV. For multifamily buildings, based on a cost savings of $2,337 per apartment, the code compliant option is cost-effective in Climates Zones 6 through 9, 10 & 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15, and cost-effective based on TDV. Adding efficiency and PV to the code compliant all-electric buildings increases the cost-effectiveness in all climate zones. The Efficiency & PV Package is cost-effective when compared to a mixed fuel code compliant building in all climate zones for both single family and multifamily buildings based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. The Efficiency & PV package adds PV to offset 90% of the electricity use of the home. While this results in higher installed costs, the reduced lifetime utility costs are larger ($0 to $6,000 lifetime incremental equipment costs in many climates for single family homes and an associated $4,500 to $13,500 lifetime utility cost savings across the same cases), resulting in positive B/C ratios for all cases. The Reach Code Team also evaluated a neutral cost electrification scenario where the cost savings for the all- electric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings and positive on-bill B/C ratio in all cases except Climate Zones 1 and 16 for single family, and Climate Zone 1 for low-rise multifamily. Increasing the PV sizes in those climates by approximately 30% resulted in positive on-bill B/C ratios, while still not resulting in oversizing of PV systems. Other studies have shown that cost-effectiveness of electrification increases with high efficiency space conditioning and water heating equipment in the all-electric home. This was not directly evaluated in this analysis but based on the favorable cost-effectiveness results of the Equipment, Preempted package for the individual mixed fuel and all-electric upgrades it’s expected that applying similar packages to the electrification analysis would result in increased cost-effectiveness. The Reach Code Team found there can be substantial variability in first costs, particularly related to natural gas infrastructure. Costs are project-dependent and will be impacted by such factors as site characteristics, distance to the nearest gas main, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of homes per development among other things. While the best cost data available to the Reach Code Team was applied in this analysis, individual projects may experience different costs, either higher or lower than the estimates presented here. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 43 2019-08-01 Table 18: Summary of Single Family Target EDR Margins Climate Zone Mixed Fuel All-Electric Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery 01 5.0 10.5 6.5 31.0 41.0 02 3.0 10.0 4.5 19.0 30.0 03 2.5 10.0 4.0 18.0 29.0 04 2.5 10.0 3.0 17.0 28.5 05 2.5 9.0 4.0 18.0 28.5 06 1.5 9.5 2.0 14.0 26.0 07 n/a 9.0 n/a 11.0 24.0 08 1.0 8.0 1.5 10.5 21.5 09 2.5 8.5 2.5 11.5 21.0 10 3.0 9.5 3.0 11.0 21.0 11 4.0 9.0 4.5 14.0 23.0 12 3.0 9.5 3.5 15.5 25.0 13 4.5 9.5 5.0 13.0 22.0 14 4.5 9.0 5.5 15.5 23.5 15 4.5 7.0 5.5 6.0 13.0 16 5.0 10.5 4.5 26.5 35.0 Table 19: Summary of Multifamily Target EDR Margins Climate Zone Mixed Fuel All-Electric Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery 01 2.0 11.5 3.0 22.5 34.5 02 1.5 10.5 1.5 17.5 30.5 03 0.5 10.0 n/a 16.0 29.5 04 1.0 11.0 1.0 15.0 28.5 05 0.5 9.5 0.5 17.0 30.0 06 1.0 10.5 1.0 13.5 27.5 07 0.5 11.0 0.5 12.5 27.0 08 1.0 9.5 1.0 11.5 24.0 09 1.5 9.5 1.5 11.0 23.0 10 1.5 10.0 1.5 10.5 23.0 11 2.5 10.5 3.5 13.0 25.0 12 1.5 10.0 2.5 14.0 26.5 13 3.0 10.5 3.0 12.0 23.5 14 3.0 9.5 3.5 14.0 24.5 15 4.0 8.5 4.0 7.0 16.5 16 2.0 9.5 3.0 19.5 29.5 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 44 2019-08-01 5 References California Energy Commission. 2017. Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. 2018a. 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual. CEC-400-2018- 023-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC- 400-2018-023/CEC-400-2018-023-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018b. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400-2018-020-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-020/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018c. 2019 Reference Appendices. CEC-400-2018-021-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-021/CEC-400-2018- 021-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018d. 2019 Residential Compliance Manual. CEC-400-2018-017-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-017/CEC-400- 2018-017-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2019. 2019 Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. CEC- 400-2019-005-CMF. May 2019. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-005/CEC-400-2019-005-CMF.pdf California Public Utilities Commission. 2016. Rulemaking No. 15-03-010 An Order Instituting Rulemaking to Identify Disadvantaged Communities in the San Joaquin Valley and Analyze Economically Feasible Options to Increase Access to Affordable Energy in Those Disadvantages Communities. Proposed Decision of Commissioner Guzman Aceves. April 07, 2017. http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M183/K389/183389022.PDF Davis Energy Group. 2015. Evaluation of Ducts in Conditioned Space for New California Homes. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. March 2015. https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/evaluation-ducts-conditioned- space-new-california-homes Energy & Environmental Economics. 2019. Residential Building Electrification in California. April 2019. https://www.ethree.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf EPRI. 2016. SMUD All-Electric Homes Electrification Case Study: Summary for the Three-Prong Test Discussion. Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. September. 2016. Presentation to Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Horii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis. 2014. “Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-07- 09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents/ Itron. 2014. 2010-2012 WO017 Ex Ante Measure Cost Study: Final Report. Itron. May 2014. Presented to California Public Utilities Commission. Barbose, Galen and Darghouth, Naim. 2018. Tracking the Sun. Installed Price Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States – 2018 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September 2018. https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/tracking_the_sun_2018_edition_final_0.pdf Navigant. 2018. Analysis of the Role of Gas for a Low-Carbon California Future. July 24, 2018. Prepared for Southern California Gas Company. https://www.socalgas.com/1443741887279/SoCalGas_Renewable_Gas_Final-Report.pdf 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 45 2019-08-01 Penn, Ivan. 2018. Cheaper Battery Is Unveiled as a Step to a Carbon-Free Grid. The New York Times. September 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/business/energy-environment/zinc-battery-solar-power.html. Accessed January 29, 2019. Statewide CASE Team. 2017a. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Drain Water Heat Recovery – Final Report. July 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE- Report_DWHR_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017b. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative High Performance Attics – Final Report. September 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE- Report_HPA_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017c. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative High Performance Walls – Final Report. September 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE- Report_HPW_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017d. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Residential High Performance Windows & Doors – Final Report. August 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-Report_Res-Windows-and-Doors_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2018. Energy Savings Potential and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High Efficiency Windows in California. Prepared by Frontier Energy. May 2018. https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/energy- savings-potential-and-cost-effectiveness-analysis-high-efficiency-windows-california Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2016. CALGreen Cost-Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Davis Energy Group. November 2016. http://localenergycodes.com/download/50/file_path/fieldList/2016%20RNC%20Tiers%201-2%20Cost- Eff%20Report Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2017a. CALGreen All-Electric Cost-Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Davis Energy Group. October 2017. http://localenergycodes.com/download/276/file_path/fieldList/2016%20RNC%20All-Electric%20Cost- Eff%20Report Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2017b. 2016 Title 24 Residential Reach Code Recommendations: Cost- effectiveness Analysis for All California Climate Zones. Prepared for Southern California Edison. Prepared by TRC Energy Services. August 2017. http://localenergycodes.com/download/283/file_path/fieldList/2016%20RNC%20Reach%20Code%20Tier%203 %20Cost-Eff%20Report Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2018. PV + Battery Storage Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by EnergySoft. July, 2018. http://localenergycodes.com/download/430/file_path/fieldList/PV%20Plus%20Battery%20Storage%20Report Hopkins, Asa, Takahashi, Kenji, Glick, Devi, Whited, Melissa. 2018. Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings. Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. October 2018. http://www.synapse- energy.com/sites/default/files/Decarbonization-Heating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf TRC. 2018. City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis Draft. September 2018. https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66742 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 46 2019-08-01 Appendix A – California Climate Zone Map Figure 15: Map of California Climate Zones (courtesy of the California Energy Commission17) 17 https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 47 2019-08-01 Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details PG&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 48 SCE ............................................................................................................................................................... 51 SoCalGas ....................................................................................................................................................... 53 SDG&E ........................................................................................................................................................... 54 Escalation Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 56 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 48 2019-08-01 PG&E The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 20 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 20: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ01 V CZ02 X CZ03 T CZ04 X CZ05 T CZ11 R CZ12 S CZ13 R CZ16 Y The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending January 2019 according to the rates shown below. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 49 2019-08-01 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 50 2019-08-01 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 51 2019-08-01 SCE The following pages provide details on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 21 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 21: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ06 6 CZ08 8 CZ09 9 CZ10 10 CZ14 14 CZ15 15 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 52 2019-08-01 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 53 2019-08-01 SoCalGas Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 22 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 22: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ05 2 CZ06 1 CZ08 1 CZ09 1 CZ10 1 CZ14 2 CZ15 1 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 54 2019-08-01 SDG&E Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 23 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 23: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ07 Coastal CZ10 Inland CZ14 Mountain 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 55 2019-08-01 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 56 2019-08-01 Escalation Assumptions The average annual escalation rates in the following table were used in this study and are from E3’s 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). These rates are applied to the 2019 rate schedules over a thirty-year period beginning in 2020. SDG&E was not covered in the E3 study. The Reach Code Team reviewed SDG&E’s GRC filing and applied the same approach that E3 applied for PG&E and SoCalGas to arrive at average escalation rates between 2020 and 2022. Table 24: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Statewide Electric Residential Average Rate (%/year, real) Natural Gas Residential Core Rate (%/yr escalation, real) PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E 2020 2.0% 1.48% 6.37% 5.00% 2021 2.0% 5.69% 4.12% 3.14% 2022 2.0% 1.11% 4.12% 2.94% 2023 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2024 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2025 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2026 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2027 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2028 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2029 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2030 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2031 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2032 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2033 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2034 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2035 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2036 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2037 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2038 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2039 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2040 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2041 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2042 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2043 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2044 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2045 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2046 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2047 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2048 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2049 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 57 2019-08-01 Appendix C – Single Family Detailed Results Table 25: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted CZ Utility Total EDR Efficiency EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 1 PG&E 32.5 54.2 23 3.0 3.3 27.9 49.0 5.3 18.8% 2.5 3.2 3.4 2.8 26.0 47.3 6.9 25.1% 2.3 3.2 4.9 4.1 2 PG&E 25.0 46.0 12 2.2 2.8 22.0 42.7 3.3 16.3% 1.9 2.8 1.6 1.7 21.8 42.6 3.3 16.4% 1.9 2.8 3.8 3.6 3 PG&E 23.9 46.9 10 1.9 2.7 21.3 43.9 3.0 16.7% 1.6 2.7 1.3 1.3 20.1 42.8 4.1 22.8% 1.5 2.7 1.9 2.0 4 PG&E 23.1 44.9 8 1.9 2.7 20.8 42.4 2.5 13.9% 1.7 2.7 0.9 1.2 20.5 42.2 2.7 14.9% 1.6 2.7 2.4 2.7 5 PG&E 22.2 44.4 10 1.8 2.6 19.7 41.7 2.7 16.7% 1.6 2.5 1.1 1.2 19.7 41.7 2.6 16.2% 1.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 5 PG&E/SoCalGas 22.2 44.4 10 1.8 2.6 19.7 41.7 2.7 16.7% 1.6 2.5 0.9 1.2 19.7 41.7 2.6 16.2% 1.5 2.5 2.0 2.5 6 SCE/SoCalGas 23.3 49.9 10 1.6 2.7 21.5 47.8 2.0 12.1% 1.5 2.7 0.7 1.2 21.5 47.9 2.0 11.8% 1.4 2.7 1.6 2.0 7 SDG&E 20.3 49.1 5 1.3 2.6 20.3 49.1 0.0 0.0% 1.3 2.6 - - 18.8 47.6 1.5 12.4% 1.2 2.6 1.5 1.4 8 SCE/SoCalGas 21.3 46.9 10 1.4 2.9 20.1 45.6 1.3 7.7% 1.3 2.9 0.6 1.4 19.7 45.3 1.6 9.4% 1.3 2.9 1.3 1.8 9 SCE/SoCalGas 24.5 47.7 13 1.5 2.9 22.3 45.1 2.6 11.7% 1.5 2.9 0.7 2.0 21.9 44.8 2.9 13.4% 1.4 2.9 1.8 3.7 10 SCE/SoCalGas 24.2 46.3 10 1.6 3.0 21.7 43.1 3.2 14.3% 1.5 3.0 0.6 1.3 21.5 43.1 3.2 14.6% 1.4 3.0 2.0 3.8 10 SDG&E 24.2 46.3 10 1.6 3.0 21.7 43.1 3.2 14.3% 1.5 3.0 0.8 1.3 21.5 43.1 3.2 14.6% 1.4 3.0 2.6 3.8 11 PG&E 24.6 44.9 11 2.1 3.6 21.3 40.6 4.3 16.4% 1.9 3.4 0.8 1.2 20.7 39.9 5.1 19.2% 1.8 3.4 2.5 3.7 12 PG&E 25.5 44.8 12 2.1 3.0 22.5 41.3 3.5 14.9% 1.9 2.9 1.2 1.8 22.5 41.4 3.4 14.4% 1.9 3.0 3.3 4.6 13 PG&E 25.7 46.5 11 2.0 3.8 22.2 41.9 4.6 16.9% 1.8 3.6 0.8 1.3 21.2 40.7 5.8 21.4% 1.7 3.6 5.3 8.4 14 SCE/SoCalGas 25.3 46.3 15 2.3 3.2 21.5 41.3 5.0 18.5% 2.1 3.0 1.6 2.5 20.8 40.4 5.8 21.7% 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.1 14 SDG&E 25.3 46.3 15 2.3 3.2 21.5 41.3 5.0 18.5% 2.1 3.0 1.9 2.5 20.8 40.4 5.8 21.7% 2.0 3.0 4.9 6.1 15 SCE/SoCalGas 22.4 49.1 11 1.7 5.4 19.7 44.3 4.8 14.8% 1.6 5.0 1.0 1.6 19.5 44.1 5.0 15.4% 1.5 5.0 >1 >1 16 PG&E 30.4 48.9 22 3.3 2.7 25.0 43.5 5.4 20.6% 2.6 2.7 1.6 1.5 24.8 42.7 6.2 23.5% 2.7 2.6 2.2 2.2 “>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 58 2019-08-01 Table 26: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results CZ Utility BASECASE Efficiency & PV/Battery Total EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW Total EDR Total EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 1 PG&E 32.5 23 3.0 3.3 21.9 10.6 31.8% 2.4 3.3 0.9 1.6 2 PG&E 25.0 12 2.2 2.8 14.9 10.1 27.3% 1.8 2.9 0.5 1.6 3 PG&E 23.9 10 1.9 2.7 13.9 10.0 27.7% 1.5 2.8 0.4 1.4 4 PG&E 23.1 8 1.9 2.7 13.0 10.1 24.9% 1.5 2.8 0.3 1.5 5 PG&E 22.2 10 1.8 2.6 12.8 9.4 29.7% 1.4 2.6 0.4 1.3 5 PG&E/SoCalGas 22.2 10 1.8 2.6 12.8 9.4 29.7% 1.4 2.6 0.3 1.3 6 SCE/SoCalGas 23.3 10 1.6 2.7 13.6 9.8 20.1% 1.2 2.8 0.8 1.3 7 SDG&E 20.3 5 1.3 2.6 11.1 9.2 9.0% 1.0 2.7 0.1 1.3 8 SCE/SoCalGas 21.3 10 1.4 2.9 12.9 8.4 23.7% 1.1 3.0 0.9 1.3 9 SCE/SoCalGas 24.5 13 1.5 2.9 15.7 8.8 24.7% 1.2 3.0 1.0 1.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas 24.2 10 1.6 3.0 14.6 9.6 27.3% 1.3 3.1 1.0 1.5 10 SDG&E 24.2 10 1.6 3.0 14.6 9.6 27.3% 1.3 3.1 0.6 1.5 11 PG&E 24.6 11 2.1 3.6 15.4 9.2 29.4% 1.8 3.5 0.4 1.5 12 PG&E 25.5 12 2.1 3.0 15.9 9.6 28.9% 1.8 3.0 0.4 1.7 13 PG&E 25.7 11 2.0 3.8 16.1 9.7 28.9% 1.7 3.7 0.4 1.6 14 SCE/SoCalGas 25.3 15 2.3 3.2 16.3 9.0 30.1% 1.8 3.1 1.3 1.7 14 SDG&E 25.3 15 2.3 3.2 16.3 9.0 30.1% 1.8 3.1 1.2 1.7 15 SCE/SoCalGas 22.4 11 1.7 5.4 15.3 7.1 25.1% 1.4 5.1 1.1 1.5 16 PG&E 30.4 22 3.3 2.7 19.9 10.5 32.6% 2.4 2.8 0.9 1.4 “>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 59 2019-08-01 Table 27: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results CZ Utility BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Total EDR Efficiency EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 1 PG&E 46.8 68.2 36 1.5 3.3 31.8 53.0 15.2 40.2% 1.0 3.3 1.8 1.7 39.9 61.3 6.9 18.3% 1.3 3.3 2.9 2.7 2 PG&E 32.8 53.7 16 1.1 2.8 27.9 48.7 4.9 20.5% 0.9 2.8 1.2 1.1 27.7 48.5 5.1 21.2% 0.9 2.8 2.3 2.1 3 PG&E 33.1 55.6 14 1.0 2.7 28.5 50.9 4.7 20.6% 0.8 2.7 2.6 2.4 28.7 51.2 4.4 19.6% 0.9 2.7 1.8 1.6 4 PG&E 31.3 52.8 12 1.0 2.7 27.9 49.4 3.4 15.5% 0.9 2.7 1.9 1.8 27.4 48.9 3.9 17.6% 0.9 2.7 1.5 1.5 5 PG&E 32.5 54.2 16 1.0 2.6 28.1 49.9 4.4 19.7% 0.9 2.6 2.6 2.3 28.0 49.8 4.4 20.3% 0.9 2.6 1.9 1.7 5 PG&E/SoCalGas 32.5 54.2 16 1.0 2.6 28.1 49.9 4.4 19.7% 0.9 2.6 2.6 2.3 28.0 49.8 4.4 20.3% 0.9 2.6 1.9 1.7 6 SCE/SoCalGas 29.7 55.8 12 0.9 2.7 27.7 53.8 2.0 10.9% 0.8 2.7 1.3 1.4 26.8 53.0 2.9 16.0% 0.8 2.7 2.2 2.3 7 SDG&E 27.1 55.3 7 0.7 2.6 27.1 55.3 0.0 0.0% 0.7 2.6 - - 24.8 53.0 2.2 16.9% 0.7 2.6 1.6 1.7 8 SCE/SoCalGas 26.1 51.5 10 0.8 2.9 24.5 49.9 1.6 8.9% 0.8 2.9 0.6 1.2 24.4 49.7 1.8 9.7% 0.8 2.9 2.8 3.0 9 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 51.9 13 0.9 2.9 26.0 49.1 2.8 12.5% 0.8 2.9 0.8 2.0 25.5 48.6 3.3 14.7% 0.8 2.9 2.1 3.2 10 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 50.7 11 0.9 3.0 25.7 47.6 3.1 14.0% 0.9 3.0 0.9 1.5 25.3 47.2 3.4 15.5% 0.8 3.0 2.3 3.2 10 SDG&E 28.8 50.7 11 0.9 3.0 25.7 47.6 3.1 14.0% 0.9 3.0 1.1 1.5 25.3 47.2 3.4 15.5% 0.8 3.0 2.6 3.2 11 PG&E 30.0 50.2 12 1.1 3.6 25.4 45.6 4.6 16.2% 1.0 3.6 1.2 1.5 24.1 44.3 5.9 20.8% 0.9 3.6 3.0 3.3 12 PG&E 30.9 50.1 13 1.0 3.0 27.1 46.3 3.8 15.3% 0.9 3.0 0.8 1.1 25.8 45.0 5.1 20.4% 0.9 3.0 2.0 2.5 13 PG&E 30.7 51.5 13 1.1 3.8 25.7 46.4 5.1 17.4% 0.9 3.8 1.1 1.4 24.7 45.4 6.0 20.9% 0.9 3.8 2.9 3.3 14 SCE/SoCalGas 31.3 52.2 16 1.4 3.2 25.7 46.6 5.6 18.9% 1.2 3.2 1.0 1.5 25.3 46.2 6.0 20.5% 1.2 3.2 2.3 3.1 14 SDG&E 31.3 52.2 16 1.4 3.2 25.7 46.6 5.6 18.9% 1.2 3.2 1.3 1.5 25.3 46.2 6.0 20.5% 1.2 3.2 2.9 3.1 15 SCE/SoCalGas 26.2 52.8 8 1.3 5.4 20.6 47.2 5.6 16.8% 1.1 5.4 1.1 1.6 18.9 45.5 7.3 21.8% 1.0 5.4 3.3 4.5 16 PG&E 46.5 64.6 39 1.7 2.7 36.8 54.9 9.7 25.2% 1.4 2.7 1.7 1.7 41.6 59.7 4.9 12.7% 1.6 2.7 2.4 2.3 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 60 2019-08-01 Table 28: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results CZ Utility BASECASE Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery Total EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW Total EDR Total EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Total EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 1 PG&E 46.8 36 1.5 3.3 15.4 31.4 40.2% 0.5 6.0 1.8 1.5 5.6 41.2 51.9% 0.3 6.76 1.4 1.4 2 PG&E 32.8 16 1.1 2.8 13.4 19.4 20.5% 0.5 4.9 1.8 1.4 2.7 30.1 31.5% 0.3 5.51 1.4 1.4 3 PG&E 33.1 14 1.0 2.7 14.6 18.5 20.6% 0.5 4.5 2.2 1.7 3.7 29.3 31.6% 0.2 5.10 1.5 1.6 4 PG&E 31.3 12 1.0 2.7 14.1 17.2 15.5% 0.5 4.5 2.1 1.6 2.8 28.6 26.5% 0.2 5.15 1.5 1.6 5 PG&E 32.5 16 1.0 2.6 14.3 18.2 19.7% 0.5 4.3 2.3 1.8 3.8 28.7 32.7% 0.2 4.84 1.6 1.6 5 PG&E/SoCalGas 32.5 16 1.0 2.6 14.3 18.2 19.7% 0.5 4.3 2.3 1.8 3.8 28.7 32.7% 0.2 4.84 1.6 1.6 6 SCE/SoCalGas 29.7 12 0.9 2.7 15.5 14.3 10.9% 0.6 4.1 1.2 1.5 3.6 26.1 18.9% 0.3 4.68 1.2 1.4 7 SDG&E 27.1 7 0.7 2.6 15.8 11.3 0.7% 0.6 3.7 1.9 1.5 2.9 24.2 6.7% 0.3 4.21 1.3 1.5 8 SCE/SoCalGas 26.1 10 0.8 2.9 15.1 10.9 8.9% 0.6 4.0 1.0 1.5 4.5 21.6 24.9% 0.3 4.54 1.1 1.4 9 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 13 0.9 2.9 17.3 11.5 12.5% 0.7 4.1 1.1 1.6 7.6 21.3 25.5% 0.4 4.66 1.1 1.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 11 0.9 3.0 17.7 11.1 14.0% 0.7 4.2 1.1 1.5 7.6 21.2 27.0% 0.4 4.78 1.1 1.5 10 SDG&E 28.8 11 0.9 3.0 17.7 11.1 14.0% 0.7 4.2 1.7 1.5 7.6 21.2 27.0% 0.4 4.78 1.4 1.5 11 PG&E 30.0 12 1.1 3.6 15.8 14.2 16.2% 0.6 5.4 1.8 1.6 6.8 23.2 29.2% 0.4 6.11 1.5 1.6 12 PG&E 30.9 13 1.0 3.0 15.2 15.7 15.3% 0.5 5.0 1.7 1.4 5.6 25.4 29.3% 0.3 5.62 1.3 1.5 13 PG&E 30.7 13 1.1 3.8 17.3 13.4 17.4% 0.6 5.4 1.7 1.5 8.2 22.5 29.4% 0.4 6.14 1.4 1.5 14 SCE/SoCalGas 31.3 16 1.4 3.2 15.8 15.5 18.9% 0.9 4.8 1.2 1.6 7.4 23.9 30.9% 0.6 5.39 1.4 1.6 14 SDG&E 31.3 16 1.4 3.2 15.8 15.5 18.9% 0.9 4.8 1.8 1.6 7.4 23.9 30.9% 0.6 5.39 1.7 1.6 15 SCE/SoCalGas 26.2 8 1.3 5.4 20.0 6.2 16.8% 1.1 5.5 1.1 1.6 12.7 13.5 27.0% 0.8 6.25 1.2 1.5 16 PG&E 46.5 39 1.7 2.7 19.6 27.0 25.2% 0.9 5.5 2.1 1.6 11.1 35.4 34.3% 0.6 6.17 1.7 1.5 “>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 61 2019-08-01 Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary Table 29: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 62 2019-08-01 Table 30: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary LLAHU - Low Leakage Air Handling Unit VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 63 2019-08-01 Table 31: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 64 2019-08-01 Table 32: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 65 2019-08-01 Table 33: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary LLAHU - Low Leakage Air Handling Unit VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 66 2019-08-01 Table 34: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 67 2019-08-01 Table 35: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 68 2019-08-01 Appendix E – Multifamily Detailed Results Table 36: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results Climate Zone Utility BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Total EDR Efficiency EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 28.6 60.7 23 2.7 15.9 25.1 57.3 3.4 19.3% 2.3 16.0 1.1 1.2 26.4 58.4 2.3 12.2% 2.5 15.9 1.3 1.4 02 PG&E 25.7 56.5 12 2.4 13.9 24.2 54.7 1.8 9.9% 2.3 13.8 1.0 1.7 23.6 54.2 2.3 12.5% 2.2 13.9 1.1 1.5 03 PG&E 24.7 57.8 10 2.1 13.5 24.0 57.2 0.6 4.7% 2.1 13.5 1.0 1.1 23.1 56.2 1.6 11.2% 1.9 13.4 1.1 1.2 04 PG&E 25.5 56.8 8 2.2 13.6 24.3 55.5 1.3 7.7% 2.1 13.5 0.8 1.2 23.8 54.9 1.9 10.9% 2.0 13.5 1.1 1.7 05 PG&E 24.2 57.4 10 2.1 12.6 23.7 56.9 0.5 4.4% 2.0 12.6 1.0 1.0 22.7 55.9 1.5 10.9% 1.9 12.6 1.2 1.3 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 24.2 57.4 10 2.1 12.6 23.7 56.9 0.5 4.4% 2.0 12.6 0.8 1.0 22.7 55.9 1.5 10.9% 1.9 12.6 1.1 1.3 06 SCE/SoCalGas 26.8 63.2 10 2.2 13.9 25.8 61.9 1.3 7.0% 2.1 13.8 0.6 1.5 25.5 61.9 1.3 7.4% 2.0 13.9 1.4 1.7 07 SDG&E 26.8 64.5 5 2.1 13.2 26.1 63.6 0.9 5.3% 2.1 13.1 0.7 2.2 25.0 62.5 2.0 12.2% 2.0 13.2 1.1 1.4 08 SCE/SoCalGas 25.7 61.8 10 2.2 14.6 24.6 60.3 1.5 7.4% 2.1 14.5 0.7 1.4 24.6 60.7 1.1 5.7% 2.0 14.6 1.4 1.7 09 SCE/SoCalGas 26.4 59.7 13 2.2 14.7 25.0 57.9 1.8 8.2% 2.2 14.4 1.5 3.3 24.1 56.9 2.8 12.9% 2.1 14.4 1.7 2.9 10 SCE/SoCalGas 27.0 58.7 10 2.3 15.1 25.7 57.0 1.7 7.7% 2.2 14.9 0.8 1.7 24.7 55.8 2.9 13.0% 2.1 14.8 2.0 3.3 10 SDG&E 27.0 58.7 10 2.3 15.1 25.7 57.0 1.7 7.7% 2.2 14.9 1.1 1.7 24.7 55.8 2.9 13.0% 2.1 14.8 2.6 3.3 11 PG&E 24.5 54.5 11 2.4 16.6 22.3 51.6 2.9 11.9% 2.2 16.3 0.7 1.2 22.2 51.3 3.2 13.2% 2.2 16.1 1.8 3.3 12 PG&E 25.9 55.3 12 2.3 14.9 24.3 53.4 1.9 8.8% 2.2 14.8 1.1 2.2 23.5 52.5 2.8 12.8% 2.1 14.7 1.2 2.2 13 PG&E 26.1 55.9 11 2.3 17.5 23.7 52.8 3.1 12.1% 2.1 17.1 0.6 1.3 23.7 52.5 3.4 13.2% 2.1 16.9 2.0 3.8 14 SCE/SoCalGas 25.6 55.9 15 2.8 14.6 23.1 52.8 3.1 12.8% 2.5 14.3 0.7 1.2 23.2 52.6 3.3 13.3% 2.5 14.2 2.0 3.0 14 SDG&E 25.6 55.9 15 2.8 14.6 23.1 52.8 3.1 12.8% 2.5 14.3 0.9 1.2 23.2 52.6 3.3 13.3% 2.5 14.2 2.5 3.0 15 SCE/SoCalGas 25.0 59.2 11 2.5 21.6 22.7 55.0 4.2 12.9% 2.4 20.4 1.4 2.3 22.6 54.8 4.4 13.5% 2.3 20.4 >1 >1 16 PG&E 29.4 57.3 22 3.5 13.4 26.6 54.9 2.4 11.3% 3.0 13.7 1.1 1.2 26.9 54.4 2.9 13.1% 3.1 13.2 1.8 2.1 “>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 69 2019-08-01 Table 37: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results CZ Utility BASECASE Efficiency & PV/Battery Total EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building Total EDR Total EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 28.6 23 2.7 15.9 17.1 11.5 29.3% 2.1 16.5 0.4 1.2 02 PG&E 25.7 12 2.4 13.9 14.8 10.9 16.9% 2.1 14.2 0.2 1.6 03 PG&E 24.7 10 2.1 13.5 14.4 10.3 10.7% 1.9 13.9 0.1 1.4 04 PG&E 25.5 8 2.2 13.6 14.3 11.2 15.7% 1.9 13.9 0.2 1.6 05 PG&E 24.2 10 2.1 12.6 14.3 9.9 9.4% 1.8 13.1 0.2 1.4 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 24.2 10 2.1 12.6 14.3 9.9 9.4% 1.8 13.1 0.1 1.4 06 SCE/SoCalGas 26.8 10 2.2 13.9 16.1 10.7 10.0% 1.8 14.2 0.6 1.4 07 SDG&E 26.8 5 2.1 13.2 15.8 11.0 7.3% 1.7 13.6 0.0 1.4 08 SCE/SoCalGas 25.7 10 2.2 14.6 15.8 9.9 13.4% 1.8 14.9 0.7 1.3 09 SCE/SoCalGas 26.4 13 2.2 14.7 16.7 9.7 15.2% 1.8 14.9 0.9 1.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas 27.0 10 2.3 15.1 16.6 10.4 13.7% 1.9 15.3 1.0 1.6 10 SDG&E 27.0 10 2.3 15.1 16.6 10.4 13.7% 1.9 15.3 0.2 1.6 11 PG&E 24.5 11 2.4 16.6 14.0 10.5 19.9% 2.0 16.7 0.4 1.6 12 PG&E 25.9 12 2.3 14.9 15.6 10.3 17.8% 2.0 15.2 0.3 1.7 13 PG&E 26.1 11 2.3 17.5 15.4 10.7 20.1% 2.0 17.5 0.4 1.6 14 SCE/SoCalGas 25.6 15 2.8 14.6 16.0 9.6 20.8% 2.2 14.7 1.1 1.4 14 SDG&E 25.6 15 2.8 14.6 16.0 9.6 20.8% 2.2 14.7 0.5 1.4 15 SCE/SoCalGas 25.0 11 2.5 21.6 16.2 8.8 18.9% 2.1 20.9 1.3 1.7 16 PG&E 29.4 22 3.5 13.4 19.5 9.9 19.3% 2.7 14.1 0.5 1.3 “inf” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 70 2019-08-01 Table 38: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results CZ Utility BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Total EDR Efficiency EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 41.1 70.6 36 1.6 15.9 37.5 67.0 3.6 14.6% 1.5 15.9 1.6 1.4 37.1 67.3 3.3 18.4% 1.4 15.9 2.4 2.3 02 PG&E 34.3 63.4 16 1.4 13.9 32.4 61.5 1.9 9.1% 1.3 13.9 1.7 2.1 31.1 60.2 3.2 15.1% 1.3 13.9 1.6 1.6 03 PG&E 33.5 64.2 14 1.3 13.5 33.5 64.2 0.0 0.0% 1.3 13.5 - - 30.4 61.5 2.7 19.5% 1.1 13.5 1.7 1.6 04 PG&E 32.0 61.4 12 1.3 13.6 30.5 60.0 1.4 8.0% 1.2 13.6 1.4 1.5 29.7 59.2 2.2 12.2% 1.2 13.6 1.2 1.1 05 PG&E 34.7 65.4 16 1.3 12.6 34.1 64.8 0.6 3.4% 1.3 12.6 1.1 0.9 30.6 61.8 3.6 23.5% 1.2 12.6 2.1 2.0 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 34.7 65.4 16 1.3 12.6 34.1 64.8 0.6 3.4% 1.3 12.6 1.1 0.9 30.6 61.8 3.6 23.5% 1.2 12.6 2.1 2.0 06 SCE/SoCalGas 31.9 65.9 12 1.3 13.9 30.9 64.9 1.0 5.9% 1.3 13.9 0.7 1.3 29.8 63.7 2.2 13.0% 1.2 13.9 1.6 1.9 07 SDG&E 31.7 66.6 7 1.2 13.2 31.1 66.0 0.6 4.6% 1.2 13.2 0.6 1.0 29.7 64.7 1.9 13.6% 1.1 13.2 1.6 1.7 08 SCE/SoCalGas 29.8 63.6 10 1.3 14.6 28.6 62.4 1.2 6.5% 1.2 14.6 0.9 1.7 27.9 61.7 1.9 10.3% 1.2 14.6 1.6 1.8 09 SCE/SoCalGas 30.4 61.9 13 1.3 14.7 28.7 60.3 1.6 8.1% 1.3 14.7 1.3 2.7 28.8 60.4 1.5 7.4% 1.2 14.7 1.6 1.6 10 SCE/SoCalGas 31.2 61.3 11 1.4 15.1 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.7% 1.3 15.1 1.2 2.0 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.6% 1.3 15.1 1.7 2.0 10 SDG&E 31.2 61.3 11 1.4 15.1 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.7% 1.3 15.1 1.5 2.0 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.6% 1.3 15.1 2.0 2.0 11 PG&E 31.9 60.6 12 1.4 16.6 28.5 57.1 3.5 13.1% 1.3 16.6 1.4 1.6 28.1 56.7 3.9 14.4% 1.3 16.6 2.0 2.3 12 PG&E 32.0 59.9 13 1.3 14.9 29.4 57.3 2.6 11.4% 1.2 14.9 0.9 1.1 29.0 57.0 2.9 13.0% 1.2 14.9 1.6 1.6 13 PG&E 32.1 60.5 13 1.4 17.5 28.8 57.2 3.3 12.6% 1.2 17.5 1.3 1.6 28.3 56.7 3.8 14.3% 1.2 17.5 2.0 2.3 14 SCE/SoCalGas 32.5 61.6 16 1.7 14.6 28.9 57.9 3.7 13.8% 1.6 14.6 1.2 1.6 28.7 57.8 3.8 14.3% 1.6 14.6 1.6 2.2 14 SDG&E 32.5 61.6 16 1.7 14.6 28.9 57.9 3.7 13.8% 1.6 14.6 1.5 1.6 28.7 57.8 3.8 14.3% 1.6 14.6 2.0 2.2 15 SCE/SoCalGas 28.2 61.0 8 1.8 21.6 23.9 56.6 4.4 14.2% 1.6 21.6 1.5 2.3 21.9 54.6 6.4 20.6% 1.5 21.6 1.2 1.7 16 PG&E 40.2 66.6 39 1.9 13.4 36.2 62.5 4.1 15.0% 1.7 13.4 2.1 2.1 37.1 63.4 3.2 11.4% 1.7 13.4 1.6 1.7 “>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 71 2019-08-01 Table 39: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results Climate Zone Utility BASECASE Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery Total EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building Total EDR Total EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Total EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 41.1 36 1.6 15.9 18.6 22.5 14.6% 0.8 26.9 2.0 1.5 6.6 34.5 24.6% 0.4 30.3 1.3 1.4 02 PG&E 34.3 16 1.4 13.9 16.8 17.5 9.1% 0.7 21.9 2.4 1.8 3.4 30.9 16.1% 0.3 24.8 1.4 1.7 03 PG&E 33.5 14 1.3 13.5 17.4 16.1 2.6% 0.7 20.8 2.4 1.7 4.0 29.5 8.6% 0.3 23.6 1.3 1.6 04 PG&E 32.0 12 1.3 13.6 17.0 15.0 8.0% 0.7 20.2 2.4 1.8 3.1 28.9 16.0% 0.3 22.9 1.30 1.77 05 PG&E 34.7 16 1.3 12.6 17.6 17.1 3.4% 0.7 19.9 2.5 1.8 4.4 30.3 8.4% 0.3 22.5 1.4 1.7 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 34.7 16 1.3 12.6 17.6 17.1 3.4% 0.7 19.9 2.5 1.8 4.4 30.3 8.4% 0.3 22.5 1.4 1.7 06 SCE/SoCalGas 31.9 12 1.3 13.9 18.1 13.8 5.9% 1.0 19.5 1.2 1.7 4.4 27.5 8.9% 0.5 22.1 1.2 1.6 07 SDG&E 31.7 7 1.2 13.2 18.9 12.8 4.6% 0.9 18.1 2.1 1.8 4.6 27.1 6.6% 0.5 20.5 1.2 1.6 08 SCE/SoCalGas 29.8 10 1.3 14.6 18.2 11.6 6.5% 1.0 19.4 1.3 1.8 5.6 24.2 12.5% 0.5 22.0 1.2 1.6 09 SCE/SoCalGas 30.4 13 1.3 14.7 19.1 11.3 8.1% 1.0 19.4 1.3 1.9 7.1 23.3 15.1% 0.6 22.0 1.3 1.7 10 SCE/SoCalGas 31.2 11 1.4 15.1 20.4 10.8 8.7% 1.1 19.9 1.3 1.8 7.9 23.3 14.7% 0.6 22.5 1.3 1.7 10 SDG&E 31.2 11 1.4 15.1 20.4 10.8 8.7% 1.1 19.9 2.1 1.8 7.9 23.3 14.7% 0.6 22.5 1.4 1.7 11 PG&E 31.9 12 1.4 16.6 18.5 13.4 13.1% 0.8 22.8 2.2 1.8 6.6 25.3 21.1% 0.4 25.8 1.4 1.8 12 PG&E 32.0 13 1.3 14.9 17.6 14.4 11.4% 0.7 21.7 2.1 1.6 5.4 26.6 20.4% 0.4 24.5 1.3 1.7 13 PG&E 32.1 13 1.4 17.5 19.9 12.2 12.6% 0.8 23.3 2.1 1.7 8.2 23.9 20.6% 0.4 26.4 1.4 1.7 14 SCE/SoCalGas 32.5 16 1.7 14.6 18.5 14.0 13.8% 1.3 20.2 1.4 1.9 7.7 24.8 21.8% 0.8 22.8 1.4 1.8 14 SDG&E 32.5 16 1.7 14.6 18.5 14.0 13.8% 1.3 20.2 2.2 1.9 7.7 24.8 21.8% 0.8 22.8 1.7 1.8 15 SCE/SoCalGas 28.2 8 1.8 21.6 21.1 7.1 14.2% 1.5 23.6 1.4 2.1 11.3 16.9 20.2% 1.1 26.6 1.3 1.8 16 PG&E 40.2 39 1.9 13.4 20.6 19.6 15.0% 1.2 22.0 2.6 1.9 10.3 29.9 23.0% 0.8 24.8 1.6 1.7 “>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 72 2019-08-01 Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary Table 40: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 73 2019-08-01 Table 41: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 74 2019-08-01 Table 42: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 75 2019-08-01 Table 43: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 76 2019-08-01 Table 44: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 77 2019-08-01 Table 45: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 78 2019-08-01 Table 46: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 79 2019-08-01 Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone Climate Zone 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 80 Climate Zone 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 82 Climate Zone 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 84 Climate Zone 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 86 Climate Zone 5 PG&E .................................................................................................................................. 88 Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas .................................................................................................................. 90 Climate Zone 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 92 Climate Zone 7 ............................................................................................................................................ 94 Climate Zone 8 ............................................................................................................................................ 96 Climate Zone 9 ............................................................................................................................................ 98 Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas ................................................................................................................. 100 Climate Zone 10 SDGE............................................................................................................................... 102 Climate Zone 11 ........................................................................................................................................ 104 Climate Zone 12 ........................................................................................................................................ 106 Climate Zone 13 ........................................................................................................................................ 108 Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas ................................................................................................................. 110 Climate Zone 14 SDGE............................................................................................................................... 112 Climate Zone 15 ........................................................................................................................................ 114 Climate Zone 16 ........................................................................................................................................ 116 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 80 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 1 Table 47: Single Family Climate Zone 1 Results Summary Climate Zone 1 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 581 n/a n/a 3.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 480 5.0 (0.08) 2.51 0.49 $1,355 3.38 2.82 Efficiency-Equipment 0 440 6.5 (0.07) 2.32 0.68 $1,280 4.92 4.10 Efficiency & PV/Battery (28) 480 10.5 0.04 2.40 0.60 $5,311 0.87 1.61 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 7,079 0 n/a n/a 1.51 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 4,461 0 15.0 0.00 1.01 0.50 $7,642 1.79 1.66 Efficiency-Equipment 5,933 0 6.5 0.00 1.29 0.22 $2,108 2.94 2.74 Efficiency & PV 889 0 31.0 2.67 0.52 1.00 $18,192 1.81 1.45 Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 0 41.0 3.45 0.28 1.23 $24,770 1.45 1.40 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 7,079 0 0.0 0.00 1.51 1.49 ($5,349) 0.37 0.91 Efficiency & PV 889 0 31.0 2.67 0.52 2.48 $12,844 1.43 2.11 Neutral Cost 5,270 0 8.0 1.35 1.26 1.74 $0 0.00 1.09 Min Cost Effectiveness 3,106 0 18.0 2.97 0.95 2.04 ($6,372) 1.08 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 81 2019-08-01 Table 48: Multifamily Climate Zone 1 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 1 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 180 n/a n/a 2.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 147 3.0 0.00 2.31 0.44 $960 1.10 1.18 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 159 2.0 (0.01) 2.48 0.27 $507 1.29 1.41 Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 147 11.5 0.07 2.13 0.61 $3,094 0.35 1.21 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,624 0 n/a n/a 1.62 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,328 0 3.5 0.00 1.46 0.15 $949 1.55 1.40 Efficiency-Equipment 2,278 0 3.0 0.00 1.41 0.20 $795 2.39 2.26 Efficiency & PV 499 0 22.5 1.37 0.75 0.86 $5,538 2.04 1.50 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 34.5 1.80 0.38 1.24 $8,919 1.33 1.43 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,624 0 0.0 0.00 1.62 1.13 ($2,337) 0.38 1.01 Efficiency & PV 62 0 22.5 1.37 0.75 2.00 $3,202 1.63 >1 Neutral Cost 1,693 0 9.5 0.70 1.25 1.50 $0 0.00 1.57 Min Cost Effectiveness 1,273 0 14.0 1.01 1.09 1.66 ($1,052) 1.14 3.76 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 82 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 2 Table 49: Single Family Climate Zone 2 Results Summary Climate Zone 2 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 421 n/a n/a 2.23 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 360 3.0 (0.04) 1.94 0.30 $1,504 1.63 1.66 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 352 3.0 (0.03) 1.90 0.33 $724 3.77 3.63 Efficiency & PV/Battery (22) 360 10.0 0.06 1.82 0.41 $5,393 0.47 1.56 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 5,014 0 n/a n/a 1.11 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 4,079 0 4.5 0.00 0.94 0.18 $3,943 1.21 1.07 Efficiency-Equipment 4,122 0 5.0 0.00 0.94 0.17 $2,108 2.25 2.10 Efficiency & PV 847 0 19.0 2.07 0.49 0.63 $12,106 1.83 1.38 Efficiency & PV/Battery (15) 0 30.0 2.71 0.26 0.86 $18,132 1.37 1.43 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 5,014 0 0.0 0.00 1.11 1.12 ($5,349) 0.52 1.59 Efficiency & PV 847 0 19.0 2.07 0.49 1.75 $6,758 1.76 39.70 Neutral Cost 2,891 0 9.5 1.36 0.82 1.41 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 83 2019-08-01 Table 50: Multifamily Climate Zone 2 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 2 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 150 n/a n/a 2.37 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 142 1.5 (0.02) 2.25 0.12 $309 0.97 1.75 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 134 2.0 (0.01) 2.15 0.22 $497 1.08 1.49 Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 142 10.5 0.04 2.07 0.30 $2,413 0.17 1.60 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,151 0 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,038 0 1.5 0.00 1.32 0.06 $361 1.73 2.05 Efficiency-Equipment 1,928 0 3.0 0.00 1.25 0.13 $795 1.56 1.56 Efficiency & PV 476 0 17.5 1.00 0.72 0.67 $3,711 2.42 1.82 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 30.5 1.36 0.35 1.04 $6,833 1.38 1.74 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,151 0 0.0 0.00 1.38 0.99 ($2,337) 0.53 1.42 Efficiency & PV 60 0 17.5 1.00 0.72 1.65 $1,375 3.31 >1 Neutral Cost 1,063 0 10.5 0.70 0.96 1.41 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 84 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 3 Table 51: Single Family Climate Zone 3 Results Summary Climate Zone 3 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 348 n/a n/a 1.88 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 296 2.5 (0.03) 1.63 0.26 $1,552 1.28 1.31 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 273 4.0 (0.03) 1.52 0.37 $1,448 1.91 1.97 Efficiency & PV/Battery (20) 296 10.0 0.07 1.50 0.38 $5,438 0.38 1.38 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,355 0 n/a n/a 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,584 0 4.5 0.00 0.85 0.15 $1,519 2.60 2.36 Efficiency-Equipment 3,670 0 4.0 0.00 0.86 0.14 $2,108 1.76 1.62 Efficiency & PV 790 0 18.0 1.77 0.46 0.54 $8,517 2.22 1.68 Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 0 29.0 2.37 0.23 0.76 $14,380 1.50 1.58 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,355 0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.89 ($5,349) 0.55 1.53 Efficiency & PV 790 0 18.0 1.77 0.46 1.43 $3,169 2.88 >1 Neutral Cost 2,217 0 10.5 1.35 0.70 1.18 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 85 2019-08-01 Table 52: Multifamily Climate Zone 3 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 3 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 133 n/a n/a 2.13 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 127 0.5 (0.00) 2.06 0.07 $175 1.00 1.11 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 119 1.5 (0.00) 1.94 0.19 $403 1.11 1.23 Efficiency & PV/Battery (10) 127 10.0 0.05 1.86 0.27 $2,279 0.11 1.41 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,944 0 n/a n/a 1.27 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,944 0 0.0 0.00 1.27 0.00 $0 - - Efficiency-Equipment 1,698 0 2.5 0.00 1.13 0.14 $795 1.73 1.58 Efficiency & PV 457 0 16.0 0.92 0.69 0.58 $3,272 2.43 1.73 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 29.5 1.26 0.33 0.94 $6,344 1.32 1.64 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,944 0 0.0 0.00 1.27 0.86 ($2,337) 0.58 1.46 Efficiency & PV 57 0 16.0 0.92 0.69 1.43 $936 4.18 >1 Neutral Cost 845 0 11.5 0.70 0.85 1.28 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 86 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 4 Table 53: Single Family Climate Zone 4 Results Summary Climate Zone 4 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 347 n/a n/a 1.88 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 306 2.5 (0.03) 1.68 0.20 $1,556 0.93 1.15 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 294 2.5 (0.02) 1.62 0.26 $758 2.39 2.67 Efficiency & PV/Battery (18) 306 10.0 0.07 1.55 0.33 $5,434 0.30 1.48 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,342 0 n/a n/a 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,775 0 3.0 0.00 0.89 0.11 $1,519 1.92 1.84 Efficiency-Equipment 3,747 0 3.5 0.00 0.88 0.12 $2,108 1.52 1.52 Efficiency & PV 814 0 17.0 1.84 0.48 0.52 $8,786 2.13 1.62 Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 0 28.5 2.44 0.25 0.75 $14,664 1.46 1.61 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,342 0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.88 ($5,349) 0.55 1.59 Efficiency & PV 814 0 17.0 1.84 0.48 1.40 $3,438 2.64 >1 Neutral Cost 2,166 0 10.0 1.35 0.70 1.18 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 87 2019-08-01 Table 54: Multifamily Climate Zone 4 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 4 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 134 n/a n/a 2.16 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 127 1.0 (0.01) 2.06 0.10 $329 0.75 1.24 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 123 1.5 (0.01) 2.01 0.15 $351 1.06 1.74 Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 127 11.0 0.04 1.87 0.29 $2,429 0.17 1.60 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,887 0 n/a n/a 1.25 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,794 0 1.0 0.00 1.21 0.05 $361 1.38 1.54 Efficiency-Equipment 1,712 0 2.0 0.00 1.15 0.10 $795 1.23 1.09 Efficiency & PV 453 0 15.0 0.83 0.69 0.57 $3,158 2.43 1.81 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 28.5 1.17 0.32 0.93 $6,201 1.30 1.77 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,887 0 0.0 0.00 1.25 0.90 ($2,337) 0.65 1.77 Efficiency & PV 57 0 15.0 0.83 0.69 1.47 $822 4.96 >1 Neutral Cost 767 0 11.0 0.70 0.82 1.33 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 88 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 5 PG&E Table 55: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary Climate Zone 5 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 331 n/a n/a 1.79 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 281 2.5 (0.03) 1.55 0.24 $1,571 1.10 1.22 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 279 2.5 (0.02) 1.54 0.25 $772 2.29 2.48 Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 281 9.0 0.07 1.43 0.36 $5,433 0.37 1.32 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,452 0 n/a n/a 1.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,687 0 4.0 0.00 0.86 0.15 $1,519 2.58 2.31 Efficiency-Equipment 3,737 0 4.0 0.00 0.87 0.14 $2,108 1.85 1.70 Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 0.55 $8,307 2.31 1.76 Efficiency & PV/Battery (8) 0 28.5 2.29 0.24 0.78 $14,047 1.59 1.63 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,452 0 0.0 0.00 1.01 0.78 ($5,349) 0.48 1.32 Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 1.33 $2,959 2.72 >1 Neutral Cost 2,172 0 11.0 1.35 0.70 1.10 $0 >1 40.07 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 89 2019-08-01 Table 56: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 5 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel1 Code Compliant 0 131 n/a n/a 2.10 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 0.5 (0.00) 2.03 0.07 $180 0.99 1.03 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 117 1.5 (0.00) 1.92 0.19 $358 1.24 1.34 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 126 9.5 0.05 1.84 0.26 $2,273 0.15 1.38 All-Electric2 Code Compliant 2,044 0 n/a n/a 1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,990 0 0.5 0.00 1.30 0.03 $247 1.09 0.86 Efficiency-Equipment 1,738 0 3.5 0.00 1.15 0.17 $795 2.15 2.03 Efficiency & PV 465 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 0.62 $3,293 2.53 1.82 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 30.0 1.24 0.34 0.98 $6,314 1.44 1.69 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3 Code Compliant 2,044 0 0.0 0.00 1.32 0.78 ($2,337) 0.50 1.28 Efficiency & PV 58 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 1.40 $956 3.80 >1 Neutral Cost 874 0 12.5 0.70 0.87 1.23 $0 >1 23.44 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 90 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Table 57: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On- Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 331 n/a n/a 1.79 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 281 2.5 (0.03) 1.55 0.24 $1,571 0.92 1.22 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 279 2.5 (0.02) 1.54 0.25 $772 1.98 2.48 Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 281 9.0 0.07 1.43 0.36 $5,433 0.31 1.32 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,452 0 n/a n/a 1.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,687 0 4.0 0.00 0.86 0.15 $1,519 2.58 2.31 Efficiency-Equipment 3,737 0 4.0 0.00 0.87 0.14 $2,108 1.85 1.70 Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 0.55 $8,307 2.31 1.76 Efficiency & PV/Battery (8) 0 28.5 2.29 0.24 0.78 $14,047 1.59 1.63 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,452 0 0.0 0.00 1.01 0.78 ($5,349) 0.48 1.32 Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 1.33 $2,959 2.75 >1 Neutral Cost 2,172 0 11.0 1.35 0.70 1.10 $0 >1 40.07 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 91 2019-08-01 Table 58: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 131 n/a n/a 2.10 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 0.5 (0.00) 2.03 0.07 $180 0.85 1.03 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 117 1.5 (0.00) 1.92 0.19 $358 1.09 1.34 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 126 9.5 0.05 1.84 0.26 $2,273 0.14 1.38 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,044 0 n/a n/a 1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,990 0 0.5 0.00 1.30 0.03 $247 1.09 0.86 Efficiency-Equipment 1,738 0 3.5 0.00 1.15 0.17 $795 2.15 2.03 Efficiency & PV 465 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 0.62 $3,293 2.53 1.82 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 30.0 1.24 0.34 0.98 $6,314 1.44 1.69 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,044 0 0.0 0.00 1.32 0.78 ($2,337) 0.65 1.28 Efficiency & PV 58 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 1.40 $956 4.98 >1 Neutral Cost 874 0 12.5 0.70 0.87 1.23 $0 >1 23.44 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 92 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 6 Table 59: Single Family Climate Zone 6 Results Summary Climate Zone 6 SCE/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 249 n/a n/a 1.57 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 229 2.0 (0.02) 1.47 0.10 $1,003 0.66 1.15 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 218 1.5 (0.01) 1.41 0.15 $581 1.58 2.04 Efficiency & PV/Battery (13) 229 9.5 0.08 1.22 0.34 $4,889 0.84 1.27 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 3,099 0 n/a n/a 0.87 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,885 0 2.0 0.00 0.83 0.05 $926 1.31 1.41 Efficiency-Equipment 2,746 0 2.5 0.00 0.80 0.08 $846 2.20 2.29 Efficiency & PV 722 0 14.0 1.37 0.63 0.24 $6,341 1.19 1.48 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 26.0 1.93 0.33 0.55 $12,036 1.15 1.43 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 3,099 0 0.0 0.00 0.87 0.69 ($5,349) 1.19 2.46 Efficiency & PV 722 0 14.0 1.37 0.63 0.93 $992 3.07 >1 Neutral Cost 959 0 12.0 1.36 0.67 0.89 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 93 2019-08-01 Table 60: Multifamily Climate Zone 6 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 6 SCE/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 114 n/a n/a 2.17 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 112 1.0 (0.01) 2.14 0.03 $190 0.65 1.49 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 103 1.0 (0.00) 2.03 0.15 $213 1.43 1.74 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 112 10.5 0.04 1.76 0.41 $2,294 0.56 1.35 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,558 0 n/a n/a 1.28 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,531 0 1.0 0.00 1.26 0.02 $231 0.65 1.34 Efficiency-Equipment 1,430 0 2.0 0.00 1.20 0.08 $361 1.62 1.91 Efficiency & PV 427 0 13.5 0.70 0.97 0.31 $2,580 1.24 1.71 Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 27.5 1.02 0.49 0.79 $5,590 1.22 1.58 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,558 0 0.0 0.00 1.28 0.90 ($2,337) 2.59 2.38 Efficiency & PV 53 0 13.5 0.70 0.97 1.20 $243 9.50 >1 Neutral Cost 459 0 12.5 0.70 0.99 1.18 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 94 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 7 Table 61: Single Family Climate Zone 7 Results Summary Climate Zone 7 SDG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 196 n/a n/a 1.30 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 196 0.0 0.00 1.30 0.00 $0 - - Efficiency-Equipment 0 171 1.5 (0.00) 1.18 0.12 $606 1.50 1.40 Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 189 9.0 0.10 1.04 0.26 $4,028 0.06 1.32 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,479 0 n/a n/a 0.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,479 0 0.0 0.00 0.75 0.00 $0 - - Efficiency-Equipment 2,222 0 2.0 0.00 0.69 0.06 $846 1.60 1.65 Efficiency & PV 674 0 11.0 1.10 0.58 0.17 $4,436 1.87 1.55 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 24.0 1.61 0.29 0.46 $9,936 1.25 1.47 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,479 0 0.0 0.00 0.75 0.55 ($5,349) 1.04 2.54 Efficiency & PV 674 0 11.0 1.10 0.58 0.72 ($912) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 267 0 13.5 1.35 0.55 0.75 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 95 2019-08-01 Table 62: Multifamily Climate Zone 7 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 7 SDG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 110 n/a n/a 2.11 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 108 0.5 (0.01) 2.08 0.03 $90 0.73 2.24 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 99 2.0 (0.00) 1.96 0.15 $366 1.07 1.41 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 108 11.0 0.05 1.71 0.40 $2,188 0.03 1.40 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,434 0 n/a n/a 1.21 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,416 0 0.5 0.00 1.20 0.01 $202 0.60 1.02 Efficiency-Equipment 1,319 0 1.5 0.00 1.14 0.07 $361 1.59 1.71 Efficiency & PV 412 0 12.5 0.61 0.94 0.27 $2,261 2.08 1.76 Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 27.0 0.92 0.47 0.74 $5,203 1.19 1.62 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,434 0 0.0 0.00 1.21 0.90 ($2,337) 1.12 2.47 Efficiency & PV 51 0 12.5 0.61 0.94 1.17 ($75) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 294 0 13.5 0.70 0.91 1.20 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 96 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 8 Table 63: Single Family Climate Zone 8 Results Summary Climate Zone 8 SCE/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 206 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 198 1.0 (0.02) 1.34 0.05 $581 0.57 1.41 Efficiency-Equipment 0 181 1.5 (0.01) 1.27 0.12 $586 1.30 1.82 Efficiency & PV/Battery (13) 198 8.0 0.08 1.11 0.27 $4,466 0.90 1.31 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,576 0 n/a n/a 0.80 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,483 0 1.5 0.00 0.78 0.02 $926 0.57 1.22 Efficiency-Equipment 2,352 0 1.5 0.00 0.75 0.05 $412 2.82 3.03 Efficiency & PV 703 0 10.5 1.13 0.62 0.18 $5,373 1.00 1.48 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 21.5 1.67 0.32 0.48 $11,016 1.09 1.42 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,576 0 0.0 0.00 0.80 0.58 ($5,349) 1.83 2.99 Efficiency & PV 703 0 10.5 1.13 0.62 0.77 $25 107.93 >1 Neutral Cost 439 0 11.0 1.36 0.60 0.78 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 97 2019-08-01 Table 64: Multifamily Climate Zone 8 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 8 SCE/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 109 n/a n/a 2.18 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 106 1.5 (0.02) 2.13 0.05 $250 0.70 1.36 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 99 1.0 (0.00) 2.04 0.14 $213 1.37 1.67 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 106 9.5 0.03 1.77 0.41 $2,353 0.74 1.32 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,409 0 n/a n/a 1.26 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,373 0 1.0 0.00 1.24 0.02 $231 0.87 1.72 Efficiency-Equipment 1,276 0 1.5 0.00 1.18 0.08 $361 1.63 1.75 Efficiency & PV 426 0 11.5 0.60 0.99 0.27 $2,240 1.26 1.78 Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 24.0 0.92 0.53 0.73 $5,249 1.24 1.59 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,409 0 0.0 0.00 1.26 0.91 ($2,337) 6.69 2.67 Efficiency & PV 53 0 11.5 0.60 0.99 1.18 ($96) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 309 0 12.0 0.70 0.98 1.20 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 98 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 9 Table 65: Single Family Climate Zone 9 Results Summary Climate Zone 9 SCE/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 229 n/a n/a 1.53 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 216 2.5 (0.04) 1.46 0.07 $912 0.69 1.97 Efficiency-Equipment 0 201 2.5 (0.04) 1.38 0.15 $574 1.80 3.66 Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 216 8.5 0.05 1.23 0.30 $4,785 0.99 1.48 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,801 0 n/a n/a 0.87 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,645 0 2.5 0.00 0.84 0.04 $1,180 0.78 1.96 Efficiency-Equipment 2,460 0 3.0 0.00 0.80 0.07 $846 2.11 3.22 Efficiency & PV 745 0 11.5 1.16 0.66 0.21 $5,778 1.08 1.64 Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 0 21.0 1.72 0.37 0.50 $11,454 1.11 1.53 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,801 0 0.0 0.00 0.87 0.66 ($5,349) 1.67 2.90 Efficiency & PV 745 0 11.5 1.16 0.66 0.87 $429 7.15 >1 Neutral Cost 594 0 10.0 1.36 0.67 0.86 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 99 2019-08-01 Table 66: Multifamily Climate Zone 9 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 9 SCE/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 111 n/a n/a 2.24 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 109 1.5 (0.03) 2.19 0.05 $136 1.46 3.35 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 101 2.5 (0.03) 2.08 0.16 $274 1.66 2.87 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 109 9.5 0.03 1.84 0.40 $2,234 0.90 1.49 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,468 0 n/a n/a 1.33 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,414 0 1.5 0.00 1.30 0.03 $231 1.29 2.70 Efficiency-Equipment 1,334 0 1.5 0.00 1.25 0.08 $361 1.63 1.58 Efficiency & PV 441 0 11.0 0.60 1.04 0.29 $2,232 1.34 1.91 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 23.0 0.92 0.58 0.75 $5,236 1.28 1.67 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,468 0 0.0 0.00 1.33 0.91 ($2,337) 4.38 2.55 Efficiency & PV 55 0 11.0 0.60 1.04 1.20 ($104) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 331 0 11.0 0.70 1.03 1.21 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 100 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Table 67: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 239 n/a n/a 1.61 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 217 3.0 (0.07) 1.48 0.13 $1,648 0.63 1.33 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 209 3.0 (0.06) 1.45 0.16 $593 2.05 3.84 Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 217 9.5 0.03 1.25 0.36 $5,522 1.00 1.48 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,981 0 n/a n/a 0.94 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,673 0 3.0 0.00 0.88 0.07 $1,773 0.92 1.52 Efficiency-Equipment 2,563 0 3.0 0.00 0.85 0.10 $949 2.27 3.19 Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.24 $6,405 1.08 1.50 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 21.0 1.74 0.41 0.53 $12,129 1.11 1.51 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,981 0 0.0 0.00 0.94 0.67 ($5,349) 1.45 2.66 Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.91 $1,057 3.04 >1 Neutral Cost 770 0 9.0 1.36 0.74 0.87 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 101 2019-08-01 Table 68: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 112 n/a n/a 2.29 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 108 1.5 (0.02) 2.23 0.06 $278 0.81 1.69 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 102 2.5 (0.04) 2.13 0.16 $250 1.96 3.27 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 108 10.0 0.03 1.88 0.41 $2,376 0.98 1.57 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,507 0 n/a n/a 1.39 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,425 0 1.5 0.00 1.34 0.05 $361 1.16 2.00 Efficiency-Equipment 1,369 0 1.5 0.00 1.31 0.08 $361 1.71 1.98 Efficiency & PV 450 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 0.30 $2,371 1.31 1.79 Efficiency & PV/Battery (4) 0 23.0 0.93 0.63 0.76 $5,395 1.27 1.69 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,507 0 0.0 0.00 1.39 0.90 ($2,337) 3.35 2.36 Efficiency & PV 56 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 1.20 $34 70.89 >1 Neutral Cost 372 0 10.5 0.70 1.10 1.19 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 102 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 10 SDGE Table 69: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary Climate Zone 10 SDG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 239 n/a n/a 1.61 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 217 3.0 (0.07) 1.48 0.13 $1,648 0.80 1.33 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 209 3.0 (0.06) 1.45 0.16 $593 2.64 3.84 Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 217 9.5 0.03 1.25 0.36 $5,522 0.58 1.48 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,981 0 n/a n/a 0.94 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,673 0 3.0 0.00 0.88 0.07 $1,773 1.08 1.52 Efficiency-Equipment 2,563 0 3.0 0.00 0.85 0.10 $949 2.62 3.19 Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.24 $6,405 1.68 1.50 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 21.0 1.74 0.41 0.53 $12,129 1.42 1.51 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,981 0 0.0 0.00 0.94 0.67 ($5,349) 0.90 2.66 Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.91 $1,057 4.55 >1 Neutral Cost 770 0 9.0 1.36 0.74 0.87 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 103 2019-08-01 Table 70: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 10 SDG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 112 n/a n/a 2.29 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 108 1.5 (0.02) 2.23 0.06 $278 1.09 1.69 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 102 2.5 (0.04) 2.13 0.16 $250 2.60 3.27 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 108 10.0 0.03 1.88 0.41 $2,376 0.23 1.57 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,507 0 n/a n/a 1.39 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,425 0 1.5 0.00 1.34 0.05 $361 1.53 2.00 Efficiency-Equipment 1,369 0 1.5 0.00 1.31 0.08 $361 2.05 1.98 Efficiency & PV 450 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 0.30 $2,371 2.12 1.79 Efficiency & PV/Battery (4) 0 23.0 0.93 0.63 0.76 $5,395 1.44 1.69 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,507 0 0.0 0.00 1.39 0.90 ($2,337) 0.73 2.36 Efficiency & PV 56 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 1.20 $34 54.15 >1 Neutral Cost 372 0 10.5 0.70 1.10 1.19 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 104 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 11 Table 71: Single Family Climate Zone 11 Results Summary Climate Zone 11 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 378 n/a n/a 2.14 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 333 4.0 (0.19) 1.90 0.24 $3,143 0.78 1.20 Efficiency-Equipment 0 320 5.0 (0.21) 1.83 0.31 $1,222 2.50 3.68 Efficiency & PV/Battery (18) 333 9.0 (0.09) 1.78 0.36 $7,026 0.36 1.51 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,585 0 n/a n/a 1.15 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,815 0 4.5 0.00 0.99 0.16 $3,735 1.24 1.47 Efficiency-Equipment 3,533 0 5.5 0.00 0.93 0.22 $2,108 2.97 3.33 Efficiency & PV 957 0 14.0 1.79 0.60 0.55 $10,827 1.84 1.55 Efficiency & PV/Battery (13) 0 23.0 2.49 0.36 0.79 $17,077 1.49 1.61 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,585 0 0.0 0.00 1.15 0.99 ($5,349) 0.49 1.69 Efficiency & PV 957 0 14.0 1.79 0.60 1.54 $5,478 1.64 >1 Neutral Cost 2,429 0 7.0 1.36 0.85 1.29 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 105 2019-08-01 Table 72: Multifamily Climate Zone 11 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 11 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 141 n/a n/a 2.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 127 2.5 (0.05) 2.18 0.20 $850 0.65 1.17 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 126 3.0 (0.06) 2.16 0.22 $317 1.84 3.29 Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 127 10.5 0.01 2.00 0.38 $2,950 0.39 1.60 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,974 0 n/a n/a 1.42 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,732 0 3.5 0.00 1.29 0.13 $1,011 1.40 1.64 Efficiency-Equipment 1,707 0 3.5 0.00 1.26 0.16 $795 2.02 2.33 Efficiency & PV 504 0 13.0 0.77 0.81 0.61 $3,601 2.22 1.81 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 25.0 1.14 0.45 0.98 $6,759 1.42 1.81 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,974 0 0.0 0.00 1.42 0.96 ($2,337) 0.56 1.33 Efficiency & PV 63 0 13.0 0.77 0.81 1.56 $1,264 3.03 >1 Neutral Cost 866 0 9.0 0.70 0.99 1.38 $0 >1 73.96 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 106 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 12 Table 73: Single Family Climate Zone 12 Results Summary Climate Zone 12 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 390 n/a n/a 2.11 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 344 3.5 (0.06) 1.88 0.23 $1,679 1.18 1.83 Efficiency-Equipment 0 338 3.0 (0.05) 1.85 0.26 $654 3.31 4.65 Efficiency & PV/Battery (23) 344 9.5 0.04 1.76 0.35 $5,568 0.43 1.72 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,492 0 n/a n/a 1.05 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,958 0 3.5 0.00 0.94 0.10 $3,735 0.78 1.06 Efficiency-Equipment 3,721 0 5.0 0.00 0.90 0.15 $2,108 2.00 2.51 Efficiency & PV 867 0 15.5 1.97 0.51 0.53 $11,520 1.69 1.41 Efficiency & PV/Battery (15) 0 25.0 2.62 0.29 0.76 $17,586 1.29 1.48 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,492 0 0.0 0.00 1.05 1.07 ($5,349) 0.63 1.89 Efficiency & PV 867 0 15.5 1.97 0.51 1.60 $6,172 1.77 >1 Neutral Cost 2,374 0 8.0 1.35 0.76 1.36 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 107 2019-08-01 Table 74: Multifamily Climate Zone 12 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 12 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 143 n/a n/a 2.33 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 135 1.5 (0.02) 2.21 0.12 $291 1.10 2.22 Efficiency-Equipment 0 128 2.5 (0.03) 2.12 0.21 $434 1.25 2.22 Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 135 10.0 0.03 2.03 0.30 $2,394 0.30 1.75 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,963 0 n/a n/a 1.34 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,792 0 2.5 0.00 1.24 0.09 $1,011 0.91 1.12 Efficiency-Equipment 1,744 0 2.5 0.00 1.21 0.13 $795 1.56 1.63 Efficiency & PV 472 0 14.0 0.84 0.73 0.60 $3,835 2.08 1.65 Efficiency & PV/Battery (8) 0 26.5 1.20 0.38 0.96 $6,943 1.26 1.68 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,963 0 0.0 0.00 1.34 1.00 ($2,337) 0.64 1.66 Efficiency & PV 59 0 14.0 0.84 0.73 1.60 $1,498 2.88 >1 Neutral Cost 872 0 9.5 0.70 0.92 1.42 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 108 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 13 Table 75: Single Family Climate Zone 13 Results Summary Climate Zone 13 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 352 n/a n/a 2.02 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 311 4.5 (0.21) 1.80 0.22 $3,060 0.76 1.28 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 292 5.5 (0.24) 1.70 0.32 $611 5.26 8.40 Efficiency & PV/Battery (19) 311 9.5 (0.11) 1.69 0.33 $6,954 0.36 1.56 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,180 0 n/a n/a 1.08 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,428 0 5.0 0.00 0.92 0.15 $4,154 1.12 1.40 Efficiency-Equipment 3,177 0 6.0 0.00 0.87 0.21 $2,108 2.88 3.30 Efficiency & PV 934 0 13.0 1.61 0.57 0.50 $10,532 1.70 1.47 Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 0 22.0 2.32 0.35 0.73 $16,806 1.40 1.54 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,180 0 0.0 0.00 1.08 0.94 ($5,349) 0.54 1.83 Efficiency & PV 934 0 13.0 1.61 0.57 1.44 $5,184 1.56 >1 Neutral Cost 2,092 0 7.0 1.36 0.79 1.23 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 109 2019-08-01 Table 76: Multifamily Climate Zone 13 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 13 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 135 n/a n/a 2.30 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 123 3.0 (0.05) 2.12 0.18 $831 0.63 1.27 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 121 3.0 (0.07) 2.10 0.21 $290 1.95 3.75 Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 123 10.5 0.00 1.95 0.35 $2,936 0.38 1.64 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,849 0 n/a n/a 1.36 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,629 0 3.0 0.00 1.24 0.12 $1,011 1.31 1.56 Efficiency-Equipment 1,590 0 3.5 0.00 1.21 0.16 $795 1.98 2.28 Efficiency & PV 501 0 12.0 0.73 0.80 0.56 $3,462 2.12 1.71 Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 23.5 1.11 0.44 0.92 $6,650 1.35 1.74 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,849 0 0.0 0.00 1.36 0.94 ($2,337) 0.63 1.54 Efficiency & PV 63 0 12.0 0.73 0.80 1.50 $1,125 3.22 >1 Neutral Cost 773 0 8.5 0.70 0.94 1.36 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 110 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Table 77: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 371 n/a n/a 2.35 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 319 4.5 (0.17) 2.06 0.29 $1,662 1.57 2.46 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 305 5.5 (0.19) 1.98 0.36 $799 3.95 6.14 Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 319 9.0 (0.08) 1.83 0.52 $5,526 1.31 1.74 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,725 0 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,819 0 5.5 0.00 1.19 0.19 $4,154 0.95 1.46 Efficiency-Equipment 3,676 0 6.0 0.00 1.16 0.22 $2,108 2.29 3.13 Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 0.45 $10,459 1.21 1.62 Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 23.5 2.21 0.63 0.75 $16,394 1.35 1.59 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,725 0 0.0 0.00 1.38 0.97 ($5,349) 0.72 1.67 Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 1.42 $5,111 1.01 >1 Neutral Cost 2,299 0 8.5 1.35 1.15 1.19 $0 0.00 >1 Min Cost Effectiveness 1,853 0 10.0 1.61 1.12 1.23 ($1,000) 1.24 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 111 2019-08-01 Table 78: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 141 n/a n/a 2.76 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 3.0 (0.04) 2.53 0.23 $874 0.73 1.21 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 126 3.0 (0.05) 2.52 0.23 $347 1.96 2.99 Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 126 9.5 0.01 2.18 0.58 $2,957 1.09 1.39 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,022 0 n/a n/a 1.73 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,759 0 3.5 0.00 1.58 0.15 $1,011 1.24 1.65 Efficiency-Equipment 1,748 0 3.5 0.00 1.56 0.16 $795 1.59 2.20 Efficiency & PV 504 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 0.47 $3,356 1.39 1.91 Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 24.5 1.03 0.79 0.94 $6,380 1.36 1.77 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,022 0 0.0 0.00 1.73 1.03 ($2,337) 1.13 1.48 Efficiency & PV 63 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 1.50 $1,019 2.57 >1 Neutral Cost 772 0 10.0 0.70 1.41 1.35 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 112 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 14 SDGE Table 79: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary Climate Zone 14 SDG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 371 n/a n/a 2.35 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 319 4.5 (0.17) 2.06 0.29 $1,662 1.92 2.46 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 305 5.5 (0.19) 1.98 0.36 $799 4.88 6.14 Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 319 9.0 (0.08) 1.83 0.52 $5,526 1.23 1.74 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,725 0 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,819 0 5.5 0.00 1.19 0.19 $4,154 1.30 1.46 Efficiency-Equipment 3,676 0 6.0 0.00 1.16 0.22 $2,108 2.92 3.13 Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 0.45 $10,459 1.80 1.62 Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 23.5 2.21 0.63 0.75 $16,394 1.67 1.59 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,725 0 0.0 0.00 1.38 0.97 ($5,349) 0.60 1.67 Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 1.42 $5,111 1.94 >1 Neutral Cost 2,299 0 8.5 1.35 1.15 1.19 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 113 2019-08-01 Table 80: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 14 SDG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 141 n/a n/a 2.76 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 3.0 (0.04) 2.53 0.23 $874 0.93 1.21 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 126 3.0 (0.05) 2.52 0.23 $347 2.48 2.99 Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 126 9.5 0.01 2.18 0.58 $2,957 0.51 1.39 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,022 0 n/a n/a 1.73 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,759 0 3.5 0.00 1.58 0.15 $1,011 1.47 1.65 Efficiency-Equipment 1,748 0 3.5 0.00 1.56 0.16 $795 2.00 2.20 Efficiency & PV 504 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 0.47 $3,356 2.16 1.91 Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 24.5 1.03 0.79 0.94 $6,380 1.69 1.77 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,022 0 0.0 0.00 1.73 1.03 ($2,337) 0.51 1.48 Efficiency & PV 63 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 1.50 $1,019 2.60 >1 Neutral Cost 772 0 10.0 0.70 1.41 1.35 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 114 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 15 Table 81: Single Family Climate Zone 15 Results Summary Climate Zone 15 SCE/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 149 n/a n/a 1.69 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 141 4.5 (0.43) 1.56 0.13 $2,179 1.00 1.58 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 132 4.5 (0.45) 1.51 0.18 ($936) >1 >1 Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 141 7.0 (0.34) 1.38 0.32 $6,043 1.15 1.51 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,149 0 n/a n/a 1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,230 0 5.5 0.00 1.12 0.20 $4,612 1.12 1.58 Efficiency-Equipment 866 0 7.0 0.00 1.04 0.28 $2,108 3.30 4.47 Efficiency & PV 1,030 0 6.0 0.12 1.10 0.22 $5,085 1.12 1.57 Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 13.0 0.83 0.84 0.48 $11,382 1.16 1.54 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,149 0 0.0 0.00 1.32 0.37 ($5,349) 1.73 2.21 Efficiency & PV 1,030 0 6.0 0.12 1.10 0.59 ($264) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 23 0 6.0 1.36 1.13 0.57 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 115 2019-08-01 Table 82: Multifamily Climate Zone 15 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 15 SCE/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 93 n/a n/a 2.53 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 92 4.0 (0.15) 2.42 0.11 $510 1.35 2.28 Efficiency-Equipment 0 86 4.0 (0.16) 2.33 0.20 ($157) >1 >1 Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 92 8.5 (0.10) 2.13 0.40 $2,604 1.29 1.70 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,243 0 n/a n/a 1.78 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 954 0 4.0 0.00 1.61 0.17 $1,011 1.50 2.28 Efficiency-Equipment 764 0 6.0 0.00 1.50 0.29 $1,954 1.24 1.72 Efficiency & PV 548 0 7.0 0.24 1.50 0.28 $1,826 1.43 2.07 Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 0 16.5 0.62 1.08 0.70 $5,020 1.34 1.80 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,243 0 0.0 0.00 1.78 0.75 ($2,337) 6.36 2.35 Efficiency & PV 68 0 7.0 0.24 1.50 1.03 ($511) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 78 0 7.5 0.70 1.48 1.05 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 116 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 16 Table 83: Single Family Climate Zone 16 Results Summary Climate Zone 16 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 605 n/a n/a 3.31 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 454 5.0 0.01 2.59 0.72 $3,542 1.62 1.46 Efficiency-Equipment 0 474 6.0 (0.08) 2.66 0.65 $2,441 2.19 2.20 Efficiency & PV/Battery (18) 454 10.5 0.10 2.36 0.95 $7,399 0.87 1.37 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 7,694 0 n/a n/a 1.73 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 5,696 0 9.5 0.00 1.38 0.35 $5,731 1.72 1.69 Efficiency-Equipment 6,760 0 4.5 0.00 1.55 0.18 $2,108 2.36 2.32 Efficiency & PV 1,032 0 26.5 2.75 0.94 0.79 $16,582 2.09 1.62 Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 0 35.0 3.45 0.64 1.09 $22,838 1.71 1.55 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 7,694 0 0.0 0.00 1.73 1.58 ($5,349) 0.31 0.68 Efficiency & PV 1,032 0 26.5 2.75 0.94 2.37 $11,234 1.55 2.02 Neutral Cost 5,398 0 8.5 1.35 1.51 1.80 $0 0.00 0.74 Min Cost Effectiveness 3,358 0 16.0 2.56 1.32 1.99 ($4,753) 1.24 1.40 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 117 2019-08-01 Table 84: Multifamily Climate Zone 16 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 16 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 206 n/a n/a 3.45 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 172 2.0 0.03 3.02 0.44 $937 1.11 1.19 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 183 2.5 (0.02) 3.12 0.33 $453 1.76 2.15 Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 172 9.5 0.08 2.65 0.80 $3,028 0.47 1.28 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,699 0 n/a n/a 1.86 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,329 0 4.0 0.00 1.70 0.16 $843 2.08 2.05 Efficiency-Equipment 2,470 0 3.0 0.00 1.74 0.13 $795 1.59 1.70 Efficiency & PV 518 0 19.5 1.07 1.23 0.63 $4,423 2.58 1.89 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 29.5 1.42 0.75 1.11 $7,533 1.65 1.69 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,699 0 0.0 0.00 1.86 1.59 ($2,337) 0.43 1.03 Efficiency & PV 65 0 19.5 1.07 1.23 2.22 $2,087 2.87 >1 Neutral Cost 1,518 0 10.0 0.70 1.56 1.90 $0 >1 2.58 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. Prepared by: TRC, P2S Engineers Prepared for: Christopher Kuch, Codes and Standards Program, Southern California Edison Company Last modified: 2021/03/12 2020 REACH CODE COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Legal Notice This report was prepared by Southern California Edison Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 2021, Southern California Edison Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither SCE nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights. Acronym List B/C – Benefit-to-Cost Ratio CBECC - California Building Energy Code Compliance CBSC - California Building Standards Commission CEC - California Energy Commission CZ – Climate Zone GHG - Greenhouse Gas IOU – Investor-Owned Utility POU – Publicly Owned Utility PG&E – Pacific Gas & Electric (utility) SCE – Southern California Edison (utility) SCG – Southern California Gas (utility) SDG&E – San Diego Gas & Electric (utility) CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities SMUD – Sacramento Municipal Utility District LADWP – Los Angeles Department of Water and Power kWh – Kilowatt Hour NPV – Net Present Value PV - Solar Photovoltaic TDV - Time Dependent Valuation Title 24 – California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Summary of Revisions Date Description Reference (page or section) 3/12/2021 Original Release NA Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Methodology and Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Reach Codes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1.1 Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.3 Metrics .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1.4 Utility Rates ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................................. 4 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs ............................................................................................................ 5 3.3 Measure Definitions and Costs ............................................................................................................................................. 6 3.3.1 All-Electric ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.3.2 Efficiency and Solar PV ................................................................................................................................................ 7 3.4 Measure Packages ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 4 Results ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.1 All-Electric Prescriptive Minimum Results ........................................................................................................................... 11 4.2 All Electric Plus Efficiency and PV Results ......................................................................................................................... 13 5 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 15 6 References ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 7 Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................. 18 7.1 Map of California Climate Zones ......................................................................................................................................... 18 7.2 Mixed Fuel Baseline Energy Figures .................................................................................................................................. 19 7.3 All-Electric Energy Efficiency Only Results ......................................................................................................................... 20 7.4 Utility Rate Schedules ......................................................................................................................................................... 23 7.4.1 Pacific Gas & Electric .................................................................................................................................................. 23 7.4.2 Southern California Edison ......................................................................................................................................... 27 7.4.3 Southern California Gas .............................................................................................................................................. 29 7.4.4 San Diego Gas & Electric............................................................................................................................................ 30 7.4.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities .............................................................................................................................................. 32 7.4.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) ................................................................................................. 34 7.4.7 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Electric Only)..................................................................................... 36 7.4.8 Fuel Escalation Rates ................................................................................................................................................. 36 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................ 3 Table 2. Detached ADU Baseline Mixed-fuel Prototype Characteristics ............................................................................................... 6 Table 3. New Construction Detached ADU Construction Costs, All CZs .............................................................................................. 7 Table 4. Measures for Detached ADU .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Table 5. Solar PV Measure Cost Breakdown ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 6. Heat Pump Water Heater Location, All-Electric Prescriptive Baseline .................................................................................... 9 Table 7. Cost-Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Prescriptive Minimum, 2019 TDV .......................................................................... 11 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Table 8. Cost-Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Prescriptive Minimum, 2022 TDV .......................................................................... 12 Table 9. Cost-Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV, 2019 TDV ....................................................... 13 Table 10. Cost-Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV, 2022 TDV Results ........................................ 14 Table 11. Detached ADU Summary of EDR Margin and Cost-Effectiveness...................................................................................... 16 Table 12. Detached ADU Mixed Fuel Baseline ................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 13. Cost-Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Energy Efficiency Without PV, 2019 TDV ............................................................ 21 Table 14. Cost-Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Energy Efficiency Without PV, 2022 TDV ............................................................ 22 Table 15. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 37 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of California climate zones. .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 1 Introduction localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 1 Introduction The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (CEC, 2019) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (the Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2020, for newly constructed detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Reach Code Team. The Reach Code Team published a residential new construction report in 2019 that documented the cost-effectiveness of energy measure packages of single family and low-rise multifamily prototypes (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019). Based on stakeholder requests, this report extends that analysis to Residential Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Measures include energy efficiency, electrification, solar photovoltaics (PV), and battery storage. The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment (E-CFR, 2020). Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. High efficiency appliances are often the easiest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance. While federal preemption limits reach code mandatory requirements for covered appliances, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 2 Methodology and Assumptions localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 2 Methodology and Assumptions The Reach Codes Team analyzed one prototype design to represent a detached ADU building using the cost- effectiveness methodology detailed in this section below. The general methodology is consistent with analyses of other prototypes, whereas some specifics such as utility rate selection are customized for the residential detached ADU prototype. 2.1 Reach Codes This section describes the approach to calculating cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection. 2.1.1 Benefits This analysis used both on-bill and time dependent valuation (TDV) of energy-based approaches to evaluate cost- effectiveness. Both on-bill and TDV require estimating and quantifying the energy savings and costs associated with energy measures. The primary difference between on-bill and TDV is how energy is valued: • On-Bill: Customer-based lifecycle cost approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration for the detached ADU accounting for a three percent discount rate and energy cost inflation per Appendix 7.4 . • TDV: TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time dependent value of energy including long-term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon emissions and grid transmission impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods. The Reach Code Team performed energy simulations using the most recent software available for 2019 Title 24 code compliance analysis, CBECC-Res 2019.1.3. The Team also used CBECC-Res 2022.0.1 RV for testing the impacts of updated weather files and 2022 TDV multipliers on cost-effectiveness. 2022 weather files have more cooling loads and less heating loads, and 2022 TDV multipliers increased significantly for fossil-fuel sources to reflect CO2 price forecasts and emissions abatement, while comparatively reducing for electricity to reflect increased renewable generation penetration (California Energy Commission, 2019). 2.1.2 Costs The Reach Code Team assessed the incremental costs and savings of the energy packages over the lifecycle of 30 years. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2019 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices. The Reach Code Team obtained measure costs from manufacturer distributors, contractors, literature review, and online sources such as Home Depot and RS Means. Taxes and contractor markups were added as appropriate. Maintenance and replacement costs are included. 2.1.3 Metrics Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics. • NPV: The Reach Code Team uses net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs) as the cost-effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost effective. Negative net savings represent net costs to the consumer. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are even more negative (i.e., construction and maintenance cost savings). Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 3 Methodology and Assumptions localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 • B/C Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 30 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criteria for cost-effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. Improving the energy performance of a building often requires an initial investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual on-bill utility or TDV savings, and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. However, some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). In cases where both construction costs and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the benefit while the increased energy costs are the cost. In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective immediately (i.e., upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost-effectiveness is represented by “>1”. Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values. 2.1.4 Utility Rates In coordination with the CA IOU rate team, and the publicly available information for several Publicly-Owned-Utilities (POUs), the Reach Code Team determined appropriate utility rates for each climate zone and package. The utility tariffs, summarized in Table 1, were determined based on the annual load profile of the prototype and the corresponding package, the most prevalent rate in each territory, and information assuring that the rates were not getting phased out. TRC assumed that the ADU would have a separate electric and gas meter. A time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases. For cases with PV generation, the approved NEM tariffs were applied along with minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges. For the PV cases annual electric production was always less than annual electricity consumption; and therefore, no credits for surplus generation were necessary. For a more detailed breakdown of the rates selected refer to Appendix 7.2 - Utility Rate Schedules. Table 1. Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone Climate Zones Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Natural Gas IOUs 1-5,11-13,16 PG&E E-TOU Option C G-1 6, 8-10, 14, 15 SCE / Southern California Gas Company TOU-D Option 4-9 GM 7, 10, 14 San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) TOU-DR-1 GM POUs 4 City of Palo Alto (CPAU) E-1 G-1 12 Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) / PG&E R TOD Option 5-8 G-1 6, 8, 9 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) / SCG R-1 GM (GM-E) 16 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) / PG&E R-1 G-1 Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). Escalation of natural gas rates between 2020 and 2022 is based on the currently Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 4 Methodology and Assumptions localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 filed General Rate Cases for PG&E, SoCalGas and SDG&E. From 2023 through 2025, gas rates are assumed to escalate at four percent per year above inflation, which reflects historical rate increases between 2013 and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2020 through 2025 is assumed to be four percent per year above inflation, based on electric utility estimates. After 2025, escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are assumed to drop to a more conservative one percent escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories beginning in 2026 through 2050. See Appendix 7.4 - Utility Rate Schedules for additional details. 2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The analysis uses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates built-in to CBECC-Res. There are 8760 hourly multipliers accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard projections. Natural gas fugitive emissions, which are shown to be substantial, are not included. There are two strings of multipliers—one for Northern California climate zones, and another for Southern California climate zones.1. 1 CBECC-Res multipliers are the same for CZs 1-5 and 11-13 (presumed to be Northern California), while there is another set of multipliers for CZs 6-10 and 14-16 (assumed to be Southern California). Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 5 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs This section describes the prototype and the scope of analysis drawing from previous 2019 Reach Code research where necessary. A customized detached ADU prototype was built to reflect California construction. TRC designed the baseline prototype to be mixed fuel and have total EDR margins as close to zero as possible to reflect a prescriptively compliant new construction building in each climate zone. ADUs are additional dwelling units typically built on the property of an existing single-family parcel. ADUs are defined as new construction in the energy code when they are ground-up developments, do not convert an existing space to livable space, and are not attached to the primary dwelling. The Reach Code Team leveraged prior research and performed interviews to help define the detached ADU baseline and measure packages, primarily to include infrastructural costs. 3.1 Prior Reach Code Research In 2019, the Statewide CA IOU Reach Codes Team analyzed the cost-effectiveness of residential new construction projects for mixed-fuel plus efficiency, all-electric plus efficiency, and demand flexibility packages (Statewide Reach Codes Team 2019a). Using this analysis, several cities and counties in California adopted local energy code amendments encouraging or requiring that low-rise residential new construction to be all-electric. However, many jurisdictions exempted ADUs from these requirements due to uncertainties around how infrastructural and operational costs may be different between mixed-fuel and all-electric detached ADUs, and to avoid potentially stifling ADU development. Because the mixed-fuel packages plus efficiency ADUs are not subject to jurisdictional exemptions, this study focuses on a new construction all-electric detached ADU and discerns how infrastructural costs and operational costs may impact the cost-effectiveness compared to a mixed-fuel baseline. 3.2 Prototype Characteristics To determine a typical set of ADU characteristics, the Reach Code team contacted over twenty ADU builders and city staff members from regions representing Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles area, and the San Diego area. Ultimately, four builders with construction experience with multiple projects and two city staff members with experience reviewing and approving ADU project plans were interviewed. Respondents indicated that there are not particular determinants for siting and sizing detached ADUs other than the site conditions—maximizing available space is the key consideration. Responses varied greatly on detached ADU size, as client preference, location, and avoidance of impact fees were expressed as considerations. Sizes can range from roughly 300 ft2 for a studio to over 1200 ft2 for a two-bedroom unit. The Reach Code team selected an average size of 750 ft2 as a typical size for a detached ADU. 750 ft2 also relates to a threshold for state regulation over which impact fees and discretionary approval would be applied. Some other findings include: • Setback requirements follow the four-foot setback requirements of state Assembly Bill 881. Mechanical equipment may not reside in the setbacks, however, interviewees indicated that there is always one side of the ADU that isn’t against a setback. Mechanical equipment can usually be placed along those sides and be hidden by a shed or fence. • Mechanical equipment footprints may be too big to include inside an ADU with limited floor area, so clients tend to want to locate the mechanical equipment outside. This is reflected in the all-electric Package 2 (see Section 3.4). • Some cities have noise ordinances that limit maximum decibels at the property line, which may pose issues for exterior heat pump water heaters or heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment. These maximum noise requirements range from 50-66 decibels (dBs), and exterior heat pump equipment commonly ranges between 45-60 decibels at the equipment. Interviewees did not express significant concerns about Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 6 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 noise ordinances because manufacturers can provide sound blankets to reduce the decibel rating by five or more decibels, or developers can locate equipment in an insulated shed to reduce noise. • When adding a detached ADU the primary dwelling’s electrical panel and service connection nearly always needs to be upgraded at least to a 125-amp panel, and at least a 200-amp panel where solar PV is being installed. A 225-amp panel is also common. Electrical upgrades cost roughly $3500, for most common existing panel sizes or upgraded panel sizes. • The distance between the detached ADU and primary dwelling can range widely due to lot size and location of meter and other infrastructure, from as little as five feet to over 100 feet. Based on respondent feedback, the Reach Code Team used an average distance of 50 feet as the length for both the natural gas and electrical line extensions for costing purposes. • Cities do not impose a differing fee structure between all-electric or mixed-fuel ADU design. Fees range from $4,000 - $6,000 including inspections. Table 2 summarizes the ADU prototype characteristics, based on prescriptive Title 24 new construction requirements. Table 2. Detached ADU Baseline Mixed-fuel Prototype Characteristics Conditioned floor area (ft2) 750 Number of stories 1 Distance from primary dwelling (ft) 50 Wall U-factor 0.048 (CZ 1-5, 8-16), 0.065 (CZ 6,7) Roof Assembly Option B in Table 150.1-A of Title 24 2019 Window-to-floor area ratio 20% Solar PV size Each climate zone sized as ‘Specific PV System Scaling’ = 1 offsetting 100% of electricity load 3.3 Measure Definitions and Costs ADU measures fall into two categories: those associated with building all-electric, and those associated with general efficiency and demand flexibility. 3.3.1 All-Electric For HVAC and water heating appliance-related costs, the Reach Code Team primarily leveraged measure definitions and costs from the 2019 Residential New Construction Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study. For HVAC system, air- conditioning is included in both baseline and proposed models. For in-house and site infrastructure the Reach Code Team developed new data based on interviews and RS Means. The Reach Code Team found that a new detached ADU would require that the building owner upgrade the service connection to the lot in both the mixed-fuel ADU design and the all-electric design. The most common size for this upgrade is 225A, which would not represent an incremental cost from the mixed-fuel project to the all-electric project. Feeder wiring to the ADU and the ADU subpanel will need to be slightly upgraded for the all-electric design. Electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure upgrades are excluded from this analysis as ADUs are not required to have dedicated parking – however, a 225-amp panel is likely to be sufficient for some EV infrastructure for a majority of existing homes. The total cost for the all-electric measures is summarized in Table 3. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 7 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Table 3. New Construction Detached ADU Construction Costs, All CZs Mixed- Fuel Cost All-Electric Measure All-Electric Cost All-Electric Incremental Cost Source Appliances: Space heater, water heater, clothes dryer, range. ($221) Residential New Construction Report (2019) Table 6 In-house gas plumbing $540 In-house electrical upgrades for branch circuits $600 $60 RSMeans Site gas service extension $1,998 No site gas service $0 ($1998) Interviews, RSMeans Site electrical service connection upgrade 225A $3,500 Site electrical service connection upgrade 225A $3,500 $0 100A Feeder to ADU with breaker $933 125A feeder to ADU $1,206 $273 100A ADU subpanel $733 125A ADU subpanel $946 $213 Outdoor closet n/a Heat pump water heater closet* $650 $650 Total (HPWH outside closet) $7,704 $6,901 ($1,024) Total (HPWH in conditioned space) $7,704 $6,251 ($1,674) * Additional cost for outdoor closet is required only for climate zones where heat pump water heater is located ‘Outside’. 3.3.2 Efficiency and Solar PV The Reach Code team used the efficiency measures and costs developed in the 2019 Residential New Construction report (2019). The measures are summarized below by climate zone, including measure costs, in Table 4. Table 4. Measures for Detached ADU Measure Name Applicable Climate Zones Incremental Cost Description Cost for ADU Prototype Verified low leakage ducts in conditioned space (including HERS* verification) All $0.31/ft2 of floor area + $110 HERS test $343 Low pressure drop ducts - 2% vs 5% All $96/hr labor for installation $96 Reduced infiltration: 3ACH50 vs 5ACH50 13, 14, 16 $0.115/ft2 + $100 HERS test $186 Exterior wall insulation: R-7.5 vs R-5 (U-0.043) 15 $0.36/ft2 of floor area $272 High performance attics: R-38 attic floor + R-30 Under Deck 1, 11-16 $0.34/ft2 attic floor + $1.61/ft2 roof $1,563 Cool roof - 0.25 vs 0.20 9-15 $0.09/ft2 of roof $73 Improved fenestration 1, 2, 16 $4.23/ft2 of window $381 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 8 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Measure Name Applicable Climate Zones Incremental Cost Description Cost for ADU Prototype Slab edge insulation: R-10 vs R-0 1-5, 10-15 $4/linear foot $339 Solar PV to offset 90% of the annual electricity use** All $3.99/Wdc $800-$6,200 depending on climate zone Total Costs $4,500 - $10,253 depending on climate zone. *HERS = Home Energy Rating System **Incremental cost for added PV over and above the prescriptive PV size in baseline models. The cost for solar PV is derived from an LBNL study (Barbose, 2019) and Rooftop Solar PV System Measure Study (California Energy Commission, 2017), summarized in Table 5. Solar PV prices have been discounted to reflect the federal solar investment tax credit, by an average of 26% over 2021 and 2022. Table 5. Solar PV Measure Cost Breakdown Unit Cost, $2020 Present Value Useful Life (yrs.) Source Solar PV System $3.70 / Wdc 30 LBNL Study Inverter Replacement, year 11 $0.15 / Wdc 10 E3 Rooftop Solar PV System Report (CEC 2017)2 Inverter Replacement, year 21 $0.12 / Wdc 10 Annual Maintenance Costs $0.02 / Wdc 1 Total $3.99 / Wdc 3.4 Measure Packages The Reach Code Team examined the two electrification packages against a baseline mixed-fuel prescriptive package: • Detached ADU Baseline Package: Mixed-fuel prescriptively built, including gas utility extension from primarily dwelling to detached ADU. • All-Electric Prescriptive Minimum: All-electric prescriptively built, including heat pump water heater location per Residential Alternate Calculation Method (ACM), shown in Table 6. Includes electric utility extension upgrade from the primary dwelling to the detached ADU and avoided cost of gas utility extension. This package has the same PV size as mixed-fuel prescriptive baseline model, offsetting 100 percent of annual electricity demand. • All-Electric Energy Efficiency + PV: All-electric prescriptively built as above, except water heater location is outside in exterior closet in all climate zones except Climate Zones 14, 15, and 16, plus energy efficiency measures, and additional solar PV (offsetting 90 percent of kWh load) to improve cost-effectiveness based on prior reach code research. 2 Available at: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 9 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Table 6. Heat Pump Water Heater Location, All-Electric Prescriptive Baseline Source: California Energy Commission, Residential ACM The Reach Code Team analyzed some additional measure packages: • 2022 TDV: Both electrification packages, ‘Prescriptive Minimum’ and ‘Energy Efficiency + PV’ are analyzed against the mixed-fuel baseline package using 2022 TDV multipliers and weather files in CBECC-Res 2022 software. • Efficiency-Only: The All-Electric Energy Efficiency + PV package is analyzed using CBECC-Res 2019 without solar PV measure to evaluate the impact of efficiency measures alone, in the case that solar PV cannot be installed due to shading. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 10 Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 4 Results Results are presented as per the prototype-specific Measure Packages described in Section 3. There are several overarching factors to keep in mind when reviewing the results include: • What constitutes a ‘benefit’ or a ‘cost’ varies with the scenarios because both energy savings, and incremental construction costs may be negative depending on the package. Typically, utility bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’ while incremental construction costs are treated as ‘costs.’ In cases where both construction costs are negative and utility bill savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the utility bill negative savings are the ‘cost.’ • All-electric packages will have lower GHG emissions than mixed-fuel packages in all cases, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers. • Since January 2020, compliance of low-rise residential building is analyzed using Energy Design Rating (EDR). This rating scales from 1 to 100 with 100 being the performance equivalent of a 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). This study uses ‘Total EDR Margin’ as a compliance metric that accounts for all compliant loads along with renewable energy and battery storage. ‘Total EDR Margin’ of 0 represents a prescriptively compliant building that exactly matches the minimum energy budget prescribed by the 2019 T24 code. • To receive the Energy Commission’s approval, local reach codes that amend the energy code must both be cost effective compared to the mixed-fuel baseline package and exceed the energy performance budget using ‘Total EDR Margin’ metric (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) compared to the standard model in the compliance software. To emphasize these two important factors, the figures in this Section highlight in green the modeling results that have a positive compliance margin and/or are cost effective. This will allow readers to identify whether a scenario is fully or partially supportive of a reach code, and the opportunities/challenges that the scenario presents. Conversely, Section 5 only highlights results that have both a positive compliance margin and are cost effective, to allow readers to identify reach code-ready scenarios. • When performance modeling residential buildings of three stories or less (such as the Detached ADU), 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. • As mentioned in Section 2.1.4, the Reach Code Team coordinated with utilities to select tariffs for each prototype given the annual energy demand profile and the most prevalent rates in each utility territory. The Reach Code Team did not compare a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost-effectiveness although utility rate changes or updates can affect on-bill cost-effectiveness results. • As a point of comparison, mixed-fuel baseline energy figures are provided in Appendix 7.2. • The cost-effectiveness results for 2022 analysis differs from 2019 mainly in $TDV savings, but also differs slightly in energy consumption which translates in minor difference in on-bill energy savings. The Reach Code Team has not reported the software outputs for 2022 EDR margins as the 2022 Title 24 Part 6 code is still being developed. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 11 Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 4.1 All-Electric Prescriptive Minimum Results Table 7 shows results of the ADU all-electric prescriptive minimum compared to a mixed-fuel baseline using 2019 TDV, with heat pump water heater location as per Residential ACM manual (reference Table 6). With federal-minimum efficiencies for mechanical equipment, the all-electric prescriptive pathway is not cost effective in any climate zone using IOU rates with 2019 TDV. However, with relatively lower electric prices and higher gas prices of POUs, the package is on-bill cost effective in some climate zones. Table 7. Cost-Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Prescriptive Minimum, 2019 TDV CZ Utility Annual Elec Savings (kWh) Annual Gas Savings (therms) Annual GHG Reductions (mtons) Total EDR Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings Lifecycle $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) CZ01 PG&E (3,600) 259 0.1 0.00 ($1,024) ($7,213) ($6,951) 0.1 0.1 ($6,190) ($5,927) CZ02 PG&E (2,646) 198 0.3 0.00 ($1,674) ($3,753) ($3,897) 0.4 0.4 ($2,079) ($2,223) CZ03 PG&E (2,397) 174 0.3 0.00 ($1,024) ($3,518) ($4,366) 0.3 0.2 ($2,495) ($3,342) CZ04 PG&E (2,263) 170 0.3 0.00 ($1,674) ($2,996) ($2,765) 0.6 0.6 ($1,322) ($1,092) CZ04-2 CPAU (2,263) 170 0.3 0.00 ($1,674) $1,389 ($2,765) >1 0.6 $3,062 ($1,092) CZ05 PG&E (2,524) 170 0.2 0.00 ($1,024) ($4,969) ($4,883) 0.2 0.2 ($3,945) ($3,860) CZ05-2 SCG (2,524) 170 0.2 0.00 ($1,024) ($4,842) ($4,883) 0.2 0.2 ($3,818) ($3,860) CZ06 SCE (1,853) 136 0.3 0.00 ($1,024) ($2,943) ($3,154) 0.3 0.3 ($1,920) ($2,131) CZ06-2 LA (1,853) 136 0.3 0.00 ($1,024) $1,357 ($3,154) >1 0.3 $2,381 ($2,131) CZ07 SDG&E (1,604) 121 0.3 0.00 ($1,024) ($3,993) ($3,035) 0.3 0.3 ($2,970) ($2,012) CZ08 SCE (1,594) 122 0.4 0.00 ($1,674) ($2,282) ($2,279) 0.7 0.7 ($609) ($605) CZ08-2 LA (1,594) 122 0.4 0.00 ($1,674) $1,477 ($2,279) >1 0.7 $3,151 ($605) CZ09 SCE (1,669) 128 0.6 0.00 ($1,674) ($2,403) ($2,476) 0.7 0.7 ($729) ($803) CZ09-2 LA (1,669) 128 0.6 0.00 ($1,674) $1,509 ($2,476) >1 0.7 $3,183 ($803) CZ10 SDG&E (1,714) 130 0.5 0.00 ($1,674) ($5,035) ($2,544) 0.3 0.7 ($3,362) ($871) CZ10-2 SCE (1,714) 130 0.5 0.00 ($1,674) ($2,549) ($2,544) 0.7 0.7 ($876) ($871) CZ11 PG&E (2,333) 177 0.4 0.00 ($1,674) ($3,533) ($3,676) 0.5 0.5 ($1,859) ($2,003) CZ12 PG&E (2,319) 182 0.5 0.00 ($1,674) ($2,695) ($3,257) 0.6 0.5 ($1,022) ($1,584) CZ12-2 SMUD (2,319) 182 0.5 0.00 ($1,674) $627 ($3,257) >1 0.5 $2,301 ($1,584) CZ13 PG&E (2,158) 167 0.3 0.00 ($1,674) ($2,683) ($3,334) 0.6 0.5 ($1,009) ($1,661) CZ14 SDG&E (2,388) 175 0.7 0.00 ($1,674) ($7,894) ($3,378) 0.2 0.5 ($6,220) ($1,705) CZ14-2 SCE (2,388) 175 0.7 0.00 ($1,674) ($4,476) ($3,378) 0.4 0.5 ($2,803) ($1,705) CZ15 SCE (1,330) 99 (0.2) 0.00 ($1,674) ($1,766) ($2,398) 0.9 0.7 ($92) ($724) CZ16 PG&E (3,439) 274 (0.3) 0.00 ($1,674) ($5,558) ($6,187) 0.3 0.3 ($3,885) ($4,514) CZ16-2 LA (3,439) 274 (0.3) 0.00 ($1,674) $2,821 ($6,187) >1 0.3 $4,495 ($4,514) Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 12 Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 As shown in Table 8 below, the all-electric prescriptive minimum detached ADU is cost effective on TDV basis in all climate zones except 1 and 16 when using 2022 TDV and weather files, in contrast with results using 2019 TDV. Table 8. Cost-Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Prescriptive Minimum, 2022 TDV CZ Utility Annual Elec Savings (kWh) Annual Gas Savings (therms) Annual GHG Reductions (mtons) Total EDR Margin Upfront Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings Lifecycle $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) CZ01 PG&E (3,353) 242 0.7 0.00 ($1,024) ($6,533) ($1,656) 0.2 0.6 ($5,509) ($632) CZ02 PG&E (2,445) 180 0.7 0.00 ($1,674) ($3,617) $219 0.5 >1 ($1,944) $1,893 CZ03 PG&E (2,111) 153 0.6 0.00 ($1,024) ($3,192) ($7) 0.3 137.2 ($2,168) $1,016 CZ04 PG&E (1,880) 142 0.6 0.00 ($1,674) ($2,437) ($167) 0.7 10.0 ($763) $1,507 CZ04-2 CPAU (1,880) 142 0.6 0.00 ($1,674) $2,513 ($167) >1 10.0 $4,186 $1,507 CZ05 PG&E (2,113) 145 0.6 0.00 ($1,024) ($3,904) ($811) 0.3 1.3 ($2,880) $212 CZ05-2 SCG (2,113) 145 0.6 0.00 ($1,024) ($3,564) ($811) 0.3 1.3 ($2,541) $212 CZ06 SCE (1,623) 121 0.4 0.00 ($1,024) ($2,545) $62 0.4 >1 ($1,521) $1,086 CZ06-2 LA (1,623) 121 0.4 0.00 ($1,024) $1,381 $62 >1 >1 $2,405 $1,086 CZ07 SDG&E (1,563) 117 0.4 0.00 ($1,024) ($4,231) $98 0.2 >1 ($3,207) $1,122 CZ08 SCE (1,426) 114 0.4 0.00 ($1,674) ($1,738) $606 1.0 >1 ($64) $2,279 CZ08-2 LA (1,426) 114 0.4 0.00 ($1,674) $1,598 $606 >1 >1 $3,271 $2,279 CZ09 SCE (1,517) 119 0.4 0.00 ($1,674) ($1,986) $239 0.8 >1 ($312) $1,912 CZ09-2 LA (1,517) 119 0.4 0.00 ($1,674) $1,556 $239 >1 >1 $3,229 $1,912 CZ10 SDG&E (1,631) 125 0.4 0.00 ($1,674) ($4,978) $537 0.3 >1 ($3,304) $2,210 CZ10-2 SCE (1,631) 125 0.4 0.00 ($1,674) ($2,363) $537 0.7 >1 ($689) $2,210 CZ11 PG&E (2,155) 163 0.7 0.00 ($1,674) ($3,472) $192 0.5 >1 ($1,798) $1,865 CZ12 PG&E (2,108) 163 0.7 0.00 ($1,674) ($2,788) $244 0.6 >1 ($1,114) $1,917 CZ12-2 SMUD (2,108) 163 0.7 0.00 ($1,674) $464 $244 >1 >1 $2,138 $1,917 CZ13 PG&E (1,887) 143 0.7 0.00 ($1,674) ($2,765) ($93) 0.6 18.0 ($1,092) $1,581 CZ14 SDG&E (2,187) 158 0.4 0.00 ($1,674) ($7,311) ($321) 0.2 5.2 ($5,638) $1,353 CZ14-2 SCE (2,187) 158 0.4 0.00 ($1,674) ($4,058) ($321) 0.4 5.2 ($2,385) $1,353 CZ15 SCE (1,286) 97 0.5 0.00 ($1,674) ($1,636) ($112) 1.0 15.0 $38 $1,562 CZ16 PG&E (3,137) 249 0.5 0.00 ($1,674) ($4,873) ($2,248) 0.3 0.7 ($3,200) ($575) CZ16-2 LA (3,137) 249 0.5 0.00 ($1,674) $2,502 ($2,248) >1 0.7 $4,175 ($575) Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 13 Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 4.2 All Electric Plus Efficiency and PV Results Table 9 shows results of the all-electric prescriptive minimum using 2019 TDV with 1) heat pump water heater location is outside in exterior closet in all climate zones except Climate Zones 14, 15, and 16, 2) energy efficiency measures, and 3) additional solar PV capacity. The all-electric detached ADU is cost effective using either the on-bill or TDV approach in several climate zones. Also, similar to the package above, it is always on-bill cost effective using POU rates. Table 9. Cost-Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV, 2019 TDV CZ Utility Annual Elec Savings (kWh) Annual Gas Savings (therms) Annual GHG Reduction s (mtons) Total EDR Margin Upfront Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings Lifecycle $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) CZ01 PG&E (524) 259 0.8 29.30 $5,794 $4,323 $4,123 0.7 0.7 ($1,472) ($1,671) CZ02 PG&E (497) 198 0.8 18.70 $3,207 $2,159 $3,333 0.7 1.0 ($1,048) $126 CZ03 PG&E (459) 174 0.8 19.00 $2,363 $2,331 $2,348 1.0 1.0 ($32) ($15) CZ04 PG&E (465) 170 0.7 16.10 $2,314 $1,934 $2,635 0.8 1.1 ($380) $320 CZ04-2 CPAU (465) 170 0.7 16.10 $2,314 $5,434 $2,635 2.3 1.1 $3,120 $320 CZ05 PG&E (472) 170 0.7 20.00 $2,339 $2,538 $2,206 1.1 0.9 $199 ($133) CZ05-2 SCG (472) 170 0.7 20.00 $2,339 $2,664 $2,206 1.1 0.9 $326 ($133) CZ06 SCE (427) 136 0.6 16.10 $1,512 $1,836 $1,898 1.2 1.3 $324 $386 CZ06-2 LA (427) 136 0.6 16.10 $1,512 $4,487 $1,898 3.0 1.3 $2,975 $386 CZ07 SDG&E (404) 121 0.6 14.00 $1,170 $2,843 $1,134 2.4 1.0 $1,672 ($36) CZ08 SCE (421) 122 0.6 12.20 $1,244 $1,503 $1,618 1.2 1.3 $260 $375 CZ08-2 LA (421) 122 0.6 12.20 $1,244 $4,058 $1,618 3.3 1.3 $2,814 $375 CZ09 SCE (439) 128 0.8 12.90 $1,317 $1,641 $2,170 1.2 1.6 $324 $853 CZ09-2 LA (439) 128 0.8 12.90 $1,317 $4,227 $2,170 3.2 1.6 $2,910 $853 CZ10 SDG&E (449) 130 0.8 12.20 $1,680 $2,168 $2,065 1.3 1.2 $488 $385 CZ10-2 SCE (449) 130 0.8 12.20 $1,680 $1,632 $2,065 1.0 1.2 ($49) $385 CZ11 PG&E (535) 177 0.9 15.00 $3,975 $1,994 $3,433 0.5 0.9 ($1,980) ($542) CZ12 PG&E (494) 182 0.9 15.60 $4,121 $1,508 $3,510 0.4 0.9 ($2,613) ($611) CZ12-2 SMUD (494) 182 0.9 15.60 $4,121 $4,685 $3,510 1.1 0.9 $564 ($611) CZ13 PG&E (525) 167 0.7 13.30 $3,991 $1,917 $3,109 0.5 0.8 ($2,074) ($881) CZ14 SDG&E (515) 175 1.1 15.90 $3,316 $3,257 $3,874 1.0 1.2 ($59) $558 CZ14-2 SCE (515) 175 1.1 15.90 $3,316 $2,363 $3,874 0.7 1.2 ($953) $558 CZ15 SCE (544) 99 0.2 7.40 $1,744 $1,630 $1,534 0.9 0.9 ($115) ($210) CZ16 PG&E (547) 274 0.4 23.10 $4,091 $3,785 $3,801 0.9 0.9 ($306) ($290) CZ16-2 LA (547) 274 0.4 23.10 $4,091 $9,042 $3,801 2.2 0.9 $4,951 ($290) Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 14 Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Table 10 shows that All-Electric detached ADUs are TDV cost effective in all climate zones using 2022 TDV when including efficiency measures and additional solar PV. Note that the EDR margins have been removed since the 2022 Title 24 Part 6 code has not yet completed rulemaking at the time of the draft, but preliminary results indicate that all EDR margins will be positive. Table 10. Cost-Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV, 2022 TDV Results CZ Utility Annual Elec Savings (kWh) Annual Gas Savings (therms) Annual GHG Reductions (mtons) Total EDR Margin Upfront Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings Lifecycle $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) CZ01 PG&E (512) 242 0.3 >0 $5,648 $3,588 $7,903 0.6 1.4 ($2,060) $2,255 CZ02 PG&E (479) 180 0.4 >0 $3,012 $1,936 $6,490 0.6 2.2 ($1,076) $3,478 CZ03 PG&E (441) 153 0.3 >0 $2,070 $2,119 $5,235 1.0 2.5 $49 $3,165 CZ04 PG&E (444) 142 0.4 >0 $1,875 $1,780 $4,473 0.9 2.4 ($95) $2,597 CZ04-2 CPAU (444) 142 0.4 >0 $1,875 $5,210 $4,473 2.8 2.4 $3,335 $2,597 CZ05 PG&E (443) 145 0.4 >0 $1,949 $2,121 $4,416 1.1 2.3 $173 $2,468 CZ05-2 SCG (443) 145 0.4 >0 $1,949 $2,461 $4,416 1.3 2.3 $513 $2,468 CZ06 SCE (413) 121 0.3 >0 $1,049 $1,550 $4,256 1.5 4.1 $501 $3,208 CZ06-2 LA (413) 121 0.3 >0 $1,049 $4,067 $4,256 3.9 4.1 $3,018 $3,208 CZ07 SDG&E (409) 117 0.3 >0 $1,073 $2,480 $3,899 2.3 3.6 $1,407 $2,826 CZ08 SCE (431) 114 0.3 >0 $975 $1,458 $4,086 1.5 4.2 $483 $3,110 CZ08-2 LA (431) 114 0.3 >0 $975 $3,825 $4,086 3.9 4.2 $2,850 $3,110 CZ09 SCE (434) 119 0.3 >0 $1,049 $1,608 $4,002 1.5 3.8 $560 $2,954 CZ09-2 LA (434) 119 0.3 >0 $1,049 $3,960 $4,002 3.8 3.8 $2,912 $2,954 CZ10 SDG&E (457) 125 0.3 >0 $1,485 $1,760 $4,404 1.2 3.0 $274 $2,919 CZ10-2 SCE (457) 125 0.3 >0 $1,485 $1,525 $4,404 1.0 3.0 $40 $2,919 CZ11 PG&E (524) 163 0.4 >0 $3,853 $1,517 $5,752 0.4 1.5 ($2,336) $1,899 CZ12 PG&E (481) 163 0.4 >0 $3,829 $1,293 $5,448 0.3 1.4 ($2,535) $1,619 CZ12-2 SMUD (481) 163 0.4 >0 $3,829 $4,066 $5,448 1.1 1.4 $237 $1,619 CZ13 PG&E (514) 143 0.4 >0 $3,503 $2,400 $4,852 0.7 1.4 ($1,103) $1,349 CZ14 SDG&E (496) 158 0.3 >0 $2,731 $2,772 $5,873 1.0 2.2 $41 $3,142 CZ14-2 SCE (496) 158 0.3 >0 $2,731 $2,090 $5,873 0.8 2.2 ($641) $3,142 CZ15 SCE (539) 97 0.5 >0 $1,549 $1,608 $3,383 1.0 2.2 $58 $1,834 CZ16 PG&E (526) 249 0.3 >0 $3,871 $3,173 $6,689 0.8 1.7 ($698) $2,818 CZ16-2 LA (526) 249 0.8 >0 $3,871 $8,099 $6,689 2.1 1.7 $4,227 $2,818 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 15 Summary localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 5 Summary The Reach Codes Team developed packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with solar PV generation, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes Team coordinated assumptions with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results. Table 11 summarizes results for each prototype and depicts the compliance margins achieved for each climate zone and package. Because local reach codes must both exceed the Energy Commission performance budget (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) and be cost-effective, the Reach Code Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary for potential reach code policies: • Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches. • Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach. • Cells not highlighted either depict a negative compliance margin or a package that was not cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach. The Reach Code Team found that all-electric detached ADUs can have positive compliance margins and are cost effective in all climate zones through either the utility bill or TDV metrics when compared to a mixed fuel baseline. This is true for either prescriptive minimum or efficiency + PV packages. To promote decarbonization, local jurisdictions may choose to include new construction detached ADUs in all-electric requirements. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 16 Summary localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Table 11. Detached ADU Summary of EDR Margin and Cost-Effectiveness CZ Utility All Electric, 2019 EDR All Electric, 2022 EDR Code Minimum EE+PV Code Minimum EE+PV CZ01 PG&E 0.0 29.3 0.0 >0 CZ02 PG&E 0.0 18.7 0.0 >0 CZ03 PG&E 0.0 19.0 0.0 >0 CZ04 PG&E 0.0 16.1 0.0 >0 CZ04-2 CPAU 0.0 16.1 0.0 >0 CZ05 PG&E 0.0 20.0 0.0 >0 CZ05-2 SCG 0.0 20.0 0.0 >0 CZ06 SCE 0.0 16.1 0.0 >0 CZ06-2 LADWP 0.0 16.1 0.0 >0 CZ07 SDG&E 0.0 14.0 0.0 >0 CZ08 SCE 0.0 12.2 0.0 >0 CZ08-2 LADWP 0.0 12.2 0.0 >0 CZ09 SCE 0.0 12.9 0.0 >0 CZ09-2 LADWP 0.0 12.9 0.0 >0 CZ10 SDG&E 0.0 12.2 0.0 >0 CZ10-2 SCE 0.0 12.2 0.0 >0 CZ11 PG&E 0.0 15.0 0.0 >0 CZ12 PG&E 0.0 15.6 0.0 >0 CZ12-2 SMUD 0.0 15.6 0.0 >0 CZ13 PG&E 0.0 13.3 0.0 >0 CZ14 SDG&E 0.0 15.9 0.0 >0 CZ14-2 SCE 0.0 15.9 0.0 >0 CZ15 SCE 0.0 7.4 0.0 >0 CZ16 PG&E 0.0 23.1 0.0 >0 CZ16-2 LADWP 0.0 23.1 0.0 >0 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 17 References localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 6 References Barbose, G. a. (2019, October). Tracking the Sun. Pricing and Design Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States 2019 Edition. Retrieved from https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/tracking_the_sun_2019_report.pdf California Energy Commission. (2017). Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. (2019). Retrieved from https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2022standards/prerulemaking/documents/2019-10-17_workshop/2019- 10-17_presentations.php E3. (2020). E3 Rooftop Solar PV System Report. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 E-CFR. (2020). https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197. Retrieved from Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2018). National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Q1 2018. Retrieved from https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72399.pdf Self Generation Incentive Program. (2020). Retrieved from http://localenergycodes.com/download/430/file_path/fieldList/PV%20Plus%20Battery%20Storage%20Repor t Statewide Reach Code Team. (2019, August). 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach%20Codes Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 18 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 7 Appendices 7.1 Map of California Climate Zones Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 1. The map in Figure 1 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 1. Map of California climate zones. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 19 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 7.2 Mixed Fuel Baseline Energy Figures Table 12 show the annual electricity and natural gas consumption and on-bill cost, total EDR margin, and GHG emissions for each prototype under the mixed-fuel design baseline. The non-zero EDR margins are largely a result of compliance software complexities, and they are not expected to significantly impact the proposed case results or nature of recommendations. The annual kWh usage is 0 since code requires that PV offset 100 percent of kWh usage. Table 12. Detached ADU Mixed Fuel Baseline CZ Utility Annual Electricity Consumption (kWh) Annual Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) Annual Electricity Cost Annual Natural Gas Cost Total Annual Utility Cost Annual GHG Emissions (mtons) CZ01 PG&E 0 259 $194 $358 $552 1.0 CZ02 PG&E 0 198 $194 $269 $463 0.9 CZ03 PG&E 0 174 $189 $237 $425 0.9 CZ04 PG&E 0 170 $185 $231 $416 0.8 CZ04-2 CPAU 0 170 $131 $297 $429 0.8 CZ05 PG&E 0 170 $167 $232 $399 0.8 CZ05-2 SCG 0 170 $167 $237 $404 0.8 CZ06 SCE 0 136 $156 $202 $358 0.8 CZ06-2 LA 0 136 $124 $202 $326 0.8 CZ07 SDG&E 0 121 $160 $200 $359 0.8 CZ08 SCE 0 122 $161 $187 $348 0.9 CZ08-2 LA 0 122 $124 $187 $311 0.9 CZ09 SCE 0 128 $172 $193 $366 1.1 CZ09-2 LA 0 128 $125 $193 $318 1.1 CZ10 SDG&E 0 130 $166 $215 $381 1.0 CZ10-2 SCE 0 130 $183 $195 $379 1.0 CZ11 PG&E 0 177 $205 $244 $450 1.0 CZ12 PG&E 0 182 $197 $250 $447 1.0 CZ12-2 SMUD 0 182 $293 $250 $542 1.0 CZ13 PG&E 0 167 $224 $231 $454 0.9 CZ14 SDG&E 0 175 $178 $290 $468 1.4 CZ14-2 SCE 0 175 $212 $243 $455 1.4 CZ15 SCE 0 99 $333 $163 $496 0.5 CZ16 PG&E 0 274 $181 $379 $560 0.6 CZ16-2 LA 0 274 $123 $379 $502 0.6 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 20 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 7.3 All-Electric Energy Efficiency Only Results Table 13 and Table 14 show the cost-effectiveness results for the all-electric energy efficiency package without PV compared to the mixed-fuel baseline without PV, in scenarios where PV cannot be installed. Without PV, the efficiency packages selected are cost effective under 2022 TDV in most Climate Zones. It is likely that a different set of efficiency measures can improve cost effectiveness, given that the all-electric prescriptive minimum is TDV cost-effective (reference Table 8), though optimization of efficiency measure packages have not been examined in this study. Note that the 2022 EDR margins have been removed since the 2022 Title 24 Part 6 code has not yet completed rulemaking at the time of the draft, but preliminary results indicate that all EDR margins will be positive. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 21 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Table 13. Cost-Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Energy Efficiency Without PV, 2019 TDV CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Total EDR Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) CZ01 PG&E (2,760) 259 0.8 9.30 $1,698 ($7,485) ($3,679) -4.4 -2.2 ($9,183) ($5,377) CZ02 PG&E (2,492) 198 0.6 1.00 $135 ($7,004) ($3,739) -51.9 -27.7 ($7,139) ($3,874) CZ03 PG&E (2,151) 174 0.5 2.80 ($246) ($6,522) ($3,578) 0.0 0.1 ($6,276) ($3,332) CZ04 PG&E (2,171) 170 0.5 0.30 ($246) ($6,890) ($3,428) 0.0 0.1 ($6,644) ($3,182) CZ04-2 CPAU (2,171) 170 0.5 0.30 ($246) ($3,483) ($3,428) 0.1 0.1 ($3,237) ($3,182) CZ05 PG&E (2,284) 170 0.5 2.70 ($246) ($7,393) ($4,140) 0.0 0.1 ($7,147) ($3,894) CZ05-2 SCG (2,284) 170 0.5 2.70 ($246) ($7,266) ($4,140) 0.0 0.1 ($7,021) ($3,894) CZ06 SCE (1,790) 136 0.4 1.70 ($585) ($3,428) ($2,823) 0.2 0.2 ($2,843) ($2,238) CZ06-2 LA (1,790) 136 0.4 1.70 ($585) $1,475 ($2,823) >1 0.2 $2,060 ($2,238) CZ07 SDG&E (1,592) 121 0.4 0.70 ($585) ($5,304) ($3,042) 0.1 0.2 ($4,719) ($2,457) CZ08 SCE (1,622) 122 0.4 0 ($585) ($2,987) ($2,644) 0.2 0.2 ($2,402) ($2,059) CZ08-2 LA (1,622) 122 0.4 0 ($585) $1,405 ($2,644) >1 0.2 $1,990 ($2,059) CZ09 SCE (1,685) 128 0.4 1.50 ($512) ($2,763) ($2,198) 0.2 0.2 ($2,251) ($1,686) CZ09-2 LA (1,685) 128 0.4 1.50 ($512) $1,481 ($2,198) >1 0.2 $1,993 ($1,686) CZ10 SDG&E (1,714) 130 0.4 1.60 ($173) ($6,070) ($2,211) 0.0 0.1 ($5,897) ($2,038) CZ10-2 SCE (1,714) 130 0.4 1.60 ($173) ($2,821) ($2,211) 0.1 0.1 ($2,649) ($2,038) CZ11 PG&E (2,255) 177 0.5 2.60 $1,390 ($5,976) ($2,879) -4.3 -2.1 ($7,366) ($4,270) CZ12 PG&E (2,282) 182 0.5 1.20 $1,390 ($6,151) ($3,012) -4.4 -2.2 ($7,541) ($4,403) CZ12-2 SMUD (2,282) 182 0.5 1.20 $1,390 $730 ($3,012) 0.5 -2.2 ($661) ($4,403) CZ13 PG&E (2,084) 167 0.5 2.40 $1,577 ($5,407) ($2,465) -3.4 -1.6 ($6,983) ($4,041) CZ14 SDG&E (2,066) 175 0.6 4.50 $927 ($5,783) ($1,635) -6.2 -1.8 ($6,710) ($2,562) CZ14-2 SCE (2,066) 175 0.6 4.50 $927 ($3,804) ($1,635) -4.1 -1.8 ($4,731) ($2,562) CZ15 SCE (949) 99 0.4 4.80 $1,013 ($413) ($10) -0.4 0.0 ($1,426) ($1,023) CZ16 PG&E (2,872) 274 0.9 5.10 $799 ($6,367) ($4,021) -8.0 -5.0 ($7,166) ($4,820) CZ16-2 LA (2,872) 274 0.9 5.10 $799 $3,889 ($4,021) 4.9 -5.0 $3,090 ($4,820) Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 22 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Table 14. Cost-Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Energy Efficiency Without PV, 2022 TDV CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Total EDR Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) CZ01 PG&E (2,629) 242 0.7 >0 $1,698 ($7,361) $1,769 -4.3 1.0 ($9,059) $71 CZ02 PG&E (2,279) 180 0.5 >0 $135 ($6,500) $1,060 -48.2 7.9 ($6,635) $925 CZ03 PG&E (1,958) 153 0.4 >0 ($246) ($6,269) $764 0.0 >1 ($6,023) $1,009 CZ04 PG&E (1,852) 142 0.4 >0 ($246) ($6,124) $57 0.0 >1 ($5,879) $303 CZ04-2 CPAU (1,852) 142 0.4 >0 ($246) ($3,703) $57 0.1 >1 ($3,457) $303 CZ05 PG&E (1,984) 145 0.4 >0 ($246) ($6,680) ($167) 0.0 1.5 ($6,434) $78 CZ05-2 SCG (1,984) 145 0.4 >0 ($246) ($6,340) ($167) 0.0 1.5 ($6,095) $78 CZ06 SCE (1,585) 121 0.4 >0 ($585) ($2,706) $615 0.2 >1 ($2,121) $1,200 CZ06-2 LA (1,585) 121 0.4 >0 ($585) $1,466 $615 >1 >1 $2,051 $1,200 CZ07 SDG&E (1,520) 117 0.4 >0 ($585) ($5,017) $528 0.1 >1 ($4,432) $1,113 CZ08 SCE (1,499) 114 0.3 >0 ($585) ($2,627) $493 0.2 >1 ($2,042) $1,078 CZ08-2 LA (1,499) 114 0.3 >0 ($585) $1,456 $493 >1 >1 $2,041 $1,078 CZ09 SCE (1,545) 119 0.3 >0 ($512) ($2,351) $421 0.2 >1 ($1,839) $933 CZ09-2 LA (1,545) 119 0.3 >0 ($512) $1,511 $421 >1 >1 $2,023 $933 CZ10 SDG&E (1,641) 125 0.4 >0 ($173) ($5,824) $674 0.0 >1 ($5,651) $847 CZ10-2 SCE (1,641) 125 0.4 >0 ($173) ($2,814) $674 0.1 >1 ($2,641) $847 CZ11 PG&E (2,087) 163 0.4 >0 $1,390 ($5,602) $1,063 -4.0 0.8 ($6,993) ($328) CZ12 PG&E (2,094) 163 0.4 >0 $1,390 ($5,856) $634 -4.2 0.5 ($7,246) ($757) CZ12-2 SMUD (2,094) 163 0.4 >0 $1,390 $500 $634 0.4 0.5 ($890) ($757) CZ13 PG&E (1,786) 143 0.4 >0 $1,577 ($4,659) $995 -3.0 0.6 ($6,236) ($582) CZ14 SDG&E (1,887) 158 0.5 >0 $927 ($5,466) $1,460 -5.9 1.6 ($6,393) $534 CZ14-2 SCE (1,887) 158 0.5 >0 $927 ($3,266) $1,460 -3.5 1.6 ($4,193) $534 CZ15 SCE (917) 97 0.3 >0 $1,013 ($361) $2,200 -0.4 2.2 ($1,374) $1,187 CZ16 PG&E (2,642) 249 0.8 >0 $799 ($6,054) $354 -7.6 0.4 ($6,853) ($445) CZ16-2 LA (2,642) 249 0.8 >0 $799 $3,419 $354 4.3 0.4 $2,620 ($445) Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 23 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 7.4 Utility Rate Schedules The Reach Codes Team used the CA IOU and POU rate tariffs detailed below to determine the On-Bill savings for each package. 7.4.1 Pacific Gas & Electric Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 24 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 25 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 26 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 27 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 7.4.2 Southern California Edison Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 28 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 29 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 7.4.3 Southern California Gas Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 30 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 7.4.4 San Diego Gas & Electric Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 31 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 32 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 7.4.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 33 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 34 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 The ‘Commodity and Volumetric Rates’ are selected for the latest available month of December 2020.3 7.4.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) 3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30399 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 35 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 36 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 7.4.7 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Electric Only) 7.4.8 Fuel Escalation Rates Escalation of natural gas rates between 2020 and 2022 is based on the currently filed General Rate Cases for PG&E, SoCalGas, and SDG&E. From 2023 through 2025, gas rates are assumed to escalate at 4 percent per year above inflation, which reflects historical rate increases between 2013 and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2020 through 2025 is assumed to be 2 percent per year above inflation, based on electric utility estimates. After 2025, escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are assumed to drop to a more conservative 1 percent escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories beginning in 2026 through 2050. Table 15 below demonstrate the escalation rates used for residential (detached ADU) buildings. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 37 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Table 15. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Statewide Electric Residential Average Rate (%/year, real) Natural Gas Residential Core Rate (%/yr escalation, real) PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E 2020 2.0% 1.48% 6.37% 5.00% 2021 2.0% 5.69% 4.12% 3.14% 2022 2.0% 1.11% 4.12% 2.94% 2023 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2024 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2025 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2026 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2027 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2028 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2029 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2030 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2031 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2032 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2033 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2034 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2035 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2036 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2037 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2038 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2039 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2040 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2041 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2042 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2043 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2044 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2045 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2046 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2047 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2048 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2049 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Source: Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019, Reach Code Team Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 38 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-03-12 Get In Touch The adoption of reach codes can differentiate jurisdictions as efficiency leaders and help accelerate the adoption of new equipment, technologies, code compliance, and energy savings strategies. As part of the Statewide Codes & Standards Program, the Reach Codes Subprogram is a resource available to any local jurisdiction located throughout the state of California. Our experts develop robust toolkits as well as provide specific technical assistance to local jurisdictions (cities and counties) considering adopting energy reach codes. These include cost-effectiveness research and analysis, model ordinance language and other code development and implementation tools, and specific technical assistance throughout the code adoption process. If you are interested in finding out more about local energy reach codes, the Reach Codes Team stands ready to assist jurisdictions at any stage of a reach code project. Visit LocalEnergyCodes.com to access our resources and sign up for newsletters Contact info@localenergycodes.com for no-charge assistance from expert Reach Code advisors Follow us on Twitter Margin? Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances 2019 Mid-Rise New Construction Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study Prepared for: Kelly Cunningham Codes and Standards Program Pacific Gas and Electric Company Prepared by: Frontier Energy, Inc. Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC EnergySoft Last Modified: June 22, 2020 1 LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 2019, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study i Table of Contents Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Methodology and Assumptions............................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Building Prototypes ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Measure Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.2.1 Federal Preemption ................................................................................................................ 3 2.2.2 Energy Efficiency Measures .................................................................................................... 3 2.2.3 All Electric Measures .............................................................................................................. 4 2.2.4 Renewable Energy .................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Package Development ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Incremental Costs ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.4.1 Energy Efficiency Measure Costs ............................................................................................ 6 2.4.2 All Electric Measure Costs ...................................................................................................... 8 2.4.3 Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs ............................................................................................ 9 2.5 Cost-effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 10 2.5.1 On-Bill Customer Lifecycle Cost ............................................................................................ 11 2.5.2 TDV Lifecycle Cost ................................................................................................................. 12 2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 12 3 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Mid-Rise Multifamily Results ......................................................................................................... 13 Efficiency Only: ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Efficiency + PV: ..................................................................................................................................... 14 4 Conclusions & Summary ........................................................................................................................ 20 5 References ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Appendix A – California Climate Zone Map ................................................................................................... 24 Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details.................................................................................................................. 25 Appendix C – PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo ...................................................................................... 47 Appendix D – Detailed Results Mixed-Fuel ................................................................................................... 50 Appendix E – Detailed Results All-Electric ..................................................................................................... 53 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study ii List of Tables Table 1: Prototype Characteristics .............................................................................................................................2 Table 2: Incremental Cost Assumptions .....................................................................................................................7 Table 3: Costs for Gas versus Electric Water Heating Equipment over 30-Year Period of Analysis ...........................8 Table 4: Solar Thermal Detailed Costs over 30-Year Period of Analysis ....................................................................9 Table 5: Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Building .................................................................9 Table 6: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone .................................................................................... 12 Table 7: Mixed-Fuel Package Results: Efficiency Only (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT) .................................... 15 Table 8: Mixed-Fuel Package Results: PV + Efficiency 0.3 kWDC per Apartment (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 9: All-Electric Package Results: Efficiency Only (SAVINGS/COSTS PER APARTMENT) ................................... 17 Table 10: All-Electric Package Results: PV + Efficiency 0.1 kWDC per Apartment (SAVINGS/COSTS PER APARTMENT) ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 11: Mixed-Fuel Measure Package Summary ................................................................................................. 19 Table 12: All-Electric Measure Package Summary .................................................................................................. 19 Table 13: Mid-Rise Multifamily Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost-Effectiveness ..................................... 21 Table 14: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .............................................................................................. 26 Table 15: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/Therm) ........................................................................................................ 26 Table 16: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .................................................................................................. 32 Table 17: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ......................................................................................... 35 Table 18: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/Therm) .................................................................................................. 35 Table 19: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................ 38 Table 20: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/Therm) ...................................................................................................... 41 Table 22: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions ........................................................................................ 46 Table 23: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency Only Package Results (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1 .................................. 50 Table 24: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency + PV Package Results (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1 ................................. 51 Table 25: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency + PV Package Results , cont. (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1 ....................... 52 List of Figures Figure 1: 5-story mid-rise multifamily prototype depiction. ......................................................................................2 Figure 2: Prescriptive central heat pump water heater system schematic................................................................5 Figure 3: Map of California climate zones. (Source, California Energy Commission) ............................................. 24 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study iii Acronyms 2020 PV$ Present value costs in 2020 ACM Alternative Calculation Method B/C Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio BSC Building Standards Commission CBECC-Com Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating compliance with the California Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards CFI California Flexible Installation CFM Cubic Feet per Minute CPC California Plumbing Code CZ California Climate Zone DHW Domestic Hot Water DOE Department of Energy DWHR Drain Water Heat Recovery EDR Energy Design Rating EER Energy Efficiency Ratio EF Energy Factor EPS Expanded Polystyrene HERS Rater Home Energy Rating System Rater HPWH Heat Pump Water Heater HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IOU Investor Owned Utility kBtu kilo-British thermal unit kWh Kilowatt Hour kWDC Kilowatt Direct Current. Nominal rated power of a photovoltaic system LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LCC Lifecycle Cost MF Multifamily NAECA National Appliance Energy Conservation Act NEM Net Energy Metering NPV Net Present Value PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PV Photovoltaic SCE Southern California Edison 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study iv SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric SF Solar Fraction SHGC Solar Heat Gain Coefficient SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District CASE Codes and Standards Enhancement TDV Time Dependent Valuation Therm Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 Title 24, Part 6 TOU Time-Of-Use UEF Uniform Energy Factor W Watts 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 1 2020-06-22 1 Introduction The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (California Energy Commission, 2018b) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies, the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances, or reach codes, that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2020, for new mid-rise (four- to seven-story) multifamily residential construction. The analysis includes evaluation of both mixed-fuel and all-electric residential construction, documenting that the performance requirements can be met by either type of building design. Compliance package options and cost-effectiveness analysis in all 16 California climate zones (CZs) are presented (see Appendix A – California Climate Zone Map for a graphical depiction of Climate Zone locations). 2 Methodology and Assumptions This analysis uses two different metrics to assess cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures. The main difference between the methodologies is the manner in which they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use: • Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based Lifecycle Cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration accounting for discount rate and energy cost inflation. • Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the “societal value or cost” of energy use including long-term projected costs, such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs, such as projected costs for carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods (Horii et al., 2014). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6. 2.1 Building Prototypes The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. The CEC recently developed new prototype designs for multifamily buildings to more closely reflect typical designs for new multifamily buildings across the state. The new prototypes include two low-rise residential designs, a mid-rise, and a high-rise design. At the time that this report was written, there was one mid-rise multifamily prototype, which is used in this analysis in development of the above-code packages (TRC, 2019). The midrise prototype is a 6-story building with one below-grade parking level, ground floor commercial space, and four stories of residential space. Table 1 describes the basic characteristics of the mid-rise prototype and Figure 1 shows a depiction of the building. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2 2020-06-22 Table 1: Prototype Characteristics Characteristic Multifamily 5-Story Mid-Rise Conditioned Floor Area 113,100 ft2 Total: 33,660 ft2 Nonresidential & 79,440 ft2 Residential Number of Stories 6 Stories Total: 1 Story Parking Garage (below grade) 1 Story of Nonresidential Space 4 Stories of Residential Space Number of Dwelling Units / Bedrooms (8) studios, (40) 1-bed units, (32) 2-bed units, & (8) 3-bed units Foundation Concrete podium with underground parking Wall Assembly Wood frame over a first-floor concrete podium Roof Assembly Flat roof Window-to-Wall Area Ratio 22.5% HVAC System Ducted split heat pumps at each apartment Domestic Hot Water System Gas central boiler with solar thermal sized to meet the prescriptive requirements by climate zone Source: TRC 2019 Source: TRC 2019 Figure 1: 5-story mid-rise multifamily prototype depiction. The methodology used in the analyses for the prototypical building type begins with a design that meets the minimum 2019 Title 24 prescriptive requirements (zero compliance margin). Table 140.3-B and 140.3-C in the 2019 Title 24 (California Energy Commission, 2018a) lists the prescriptive measures that determine the baseline design in each climate zone for the nonresidential and high-rise residential spaces, respectively. Other features are consistent with the Standard Design in the Nonresidential ACM Reference Manual (California Energy Commission, 2019a) with one exception. The apartments use split system heat pumps instead of a split furnace 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 3 2020-06-22 and air conditioner that is prescribed in Table 2 of the Nonresidential ACM Reference Manual. This modeling choice was made to better reflect current market data, which shows heat pumps to be the most common system type and a very low prevalence of gas furnaces for multifamily buildings four stories and greater. This is based on a report completed by TRC (TRC, 2019) and validated by analysis of CA HERS Registry Data by SCE that showed 47% of low-rise multifamily new construction in the 2013 and 2016 code cycles had electric space heating. The analysis also assumed electric cooking in the apartment units to reflect current market data. Laundry was not addressed in this study. The building prototype assumes central laundry facilities and no laundry in the units. 2.2 Measure Analysis EnergyPro 8.1, which uses the California Building Energy Code Compliance simulation tool, CBECC-Com 2019.1.2, as the simulation engine, was used to evaluate energy impacts using the 2019 Title 24 prescriptive standards as the benchmark, and the 2019 TDV values. CBECC-Com was used for this analysis to evaluate the mid-rise building for code compliance under the 2019 non-residential standards. TDV is the energy metric used by the Energy Commission since the 2005 Title 24 energy code to evaluate compliance with the Title 24 Standards. Using the 2019 baseline as the starting point, prospective energy efficiency measures were identified and modeled to determine the projected site energy (Therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly data output from CBECC-Com, and electricity and natural gas tariffs for each of the investor owned utilities (IOUs). This analysis focused on the residential apartments only. A prior study and report demonstrated the cost- effectiveness of above code packages for nonresidential buildings (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a). The Statewide Reach Code Team selected measures for evaluation based on the residential and nonresidential 2019 reach code analysis ((Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a), (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019b)) as well as experience with and outreach to architects, builders, and engineers along with general knowledge of the relative acceptance of many measures. Efficiency measure packages found to be cost-effective in the nonresidential building reach code analysis were applied to the nonresidential spaces for evaluating performance relative to compliance, but the incremental costs and energy impacts of these measures on the nonresidential spaces were not included in this analysis. Refer to the nonresidential reach code study for more details (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a). 2.2.1 Federal Preemption The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting policies that mandate higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency equipment. While this study is limited by federal preemption, in practice builders may use any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance goals, including high efficiency appliances. Often, these measures are the simplest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance. 2.2.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Following are descriptions of each of the efficiency measures evaluated for the residential spaces under this analysis. Because not all of the measures described below were found to be cost-effective, and cost- effectiveness varied by climate zone, not all measures are included in all packages and some of the measures listed are not included in any final package. Improved Fenestration – Lower U-factor: Reduce window U-factor to 0.25 Btu/hr-ft2-°F. The prescriptive maximum U-factor is 0.36 in all climates. This measure is applied to all windows on floors two through five. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 4 2020-06-22 Improved Fenestration – Lower SHGC: Reduce window solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) to 0.22. The prescriptive maximum SHGC is 0.25 for fixed windows in all climates. The Statewide Reach Code Team evaluated increased SHGC in heating dominated climates (Climate Zone 1, 3, 5, and 16) but results were better with a lower SHGC. This measure is applied to all windows on floors two through five. Exterior Wall Insulation: Add one inch of R-4 exterior continuous insulation. To meet the prescriptive wall requirements, it’s assumed that exterior wall insulation is used in the basecase, therefore this measure adds additional R-value to existing exterior insulation. This measure is applied to all walls on floors two through five. HERS Verification of Hot Water Pipe Insulation: The California Plumbing Code (CPC) requires pipe insulation on all hot water lines. This measure provides credit for HERS Rater verification of pipe insulation requirements according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.6.3. (California Energy Commission, 2018b). Low Pressure Drop Ducts: Upgrade the duct distribution system to reduce external static pressure and meet a maximum fan efficacy of 0.25 watts per cfm operating at full speed. This may involve upsizing ductwork, reducing the total effective length of ducts, and/or selecting low pressure drop components, such as filters. This measure is applied to the ducted split heat pumps serving the apartments. Solar Thermal: Prescriptively, central water heating systems require a solar thermal system with a 20% solar fraction in Climates Zones 1 through 9 and 35% solar fraction in Climate Zones 10 through 16. This measure upgrades the prescriptive solar thermal system to meet a 50% solar fraction in all climates, assuming there is available roof space for the additional collectors. Drain Water Heat Recovery: Add drain water heat recovery with a 50% effectiveness to serve all the apartments. The assumption is for an unequal flow design where the output of the heat exchanger feeds only the cold water inlets to the apartment showers, not the water heater cold water makeup. Efficiency measures were applied to the nonresidential spaces based on the 2019 Nonresidential Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a). 2.2.3 All Electric Measures This analysis assumes that the basecase prototype model uses individual heat pumps for space heating and all electric appliances in the apartments. Therefore, the domestic hot water system is the only equipment serving the apartment spaces to electrify in the all-electric design . The Statewide Reach Code Team evaluated two configurations for electric heat pump water heaters (HPWHs) described below. Clustered Heat Pump Water Heater: This clustered design uses residential integrated storage HPWHs to serve more than one apartment; 4 to 5 bedrooms on average for a total of 32 HPWHs in the 88-unit building. The water heaters are located in interior closets throughout the building and designed for short plumbing runs without using a hot water recirculation loop. A minimum efficiency 2.0 UEF HPWH was used for this analysis (to avoid federal preemption). This approach has been selectively used in multifamily projects because of its reliance on lower cost small capacity HPWH products. Since it uses residential equipment with each HPWH serving fewer than 8 apartments the CBECC-Com compliance software had the capability to evaluate this design strategy, even before central HPWH recirculation options were incorporated into the software. The clustered strategy is not a prescriptive option but is allowed in the performance path if the water heater serves no more than 8 units and has no recirculation control. The standard design assumes solar thermal, so the proposed design is penalized in compliance for no solar thermal and made up with other efficiency measures. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 5 2020-06-22 Prescriptive Central Heat Pump Water Heater: Per Section 150.1(c)8C of the 2019 Standards, the Energy Commission made an executive determination outlining requirements of a prescriptive approach for central heat pump water heating systems in December 2019 (California Energy Commission, 2019b). Key aspects of the prescriptive approach are described below: • The system must be configured with a design similar to what is presented in the schematic in Figure 2 of the executive determination document. • HPWH must be single-pass split system with the compressor located outdoors and be able to operate down to -20°F. In CBECC-Com 2019.1.2, the current version at the time of writing this report, the software only has the capability of modeling Sanden HPWHs. • The system must include either a solar thermal water heating system that meets the current prescriptive requirements or 0.1 kWDC of photovoltaic system capacity per apartment/dwelling unit. For this configuration the Statewide Reach Code Team evaluated costs for a central HPWH system using Sanden compressors that met these prescriptive requirements. Based on the system sizing requirements, 15 Sanden units and 1,200 gallons of primary storage capacity are required for the 88-unit building. At the time that cost- effectiveness was initially compared for the two HPWH configurations, the latest CBECC-Com software with the ability to model central HPWH systems was not yet available. To estimate the energy use for the central configuration, the water heating energy use for the clustered configuration was used. It is expected that the energy use of the central system will be higher than the clustered approach primarily as a result of recirculation pump energy and losses. Figure 2: Prescriptive central heat pump water heater system schematic. All-electric measures were applied to the nonresidential spaces based on the 2019 Nonresidential Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a). 2.2.4 Renewable Energy Solar Photovoltaic (PV): There is no existing requirement for PV in the 2019 Title 24 nonresidential code for high-rise residential buildings (four or more stories). The PV sizing methodology was developed to offset a portion of annual residential electricity use and avoid oversizing which would violate net energy metering (NEM) 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 6 2020-06-22 rules. In all cases, PV is evaluated using the PV simulations within CBECC-Com using a Standard module type, 180 degree azimuth, and 22 degree .tilt. The analysis evaluated PV system capacities equal to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 1 kWDC per apartment. The PV system offsets approximately XX4%, XX8%, XX13%, and 42%, of the apartment electricity usage, respectively. Assuming 15 Watts per square foot for a typical commercial PV system, 1 kWDC per apartment, or 88 kWDC total, would take up about 25% of the total roof area. 2.3 Package Development Four packages were evaluated for each climate zone, as described below. 1) Efficiency – Mixed-fuel: This package applies efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal preemption including envelope, water heating distribution, and duct distribution efficiency measures. 2) Efficiency – All Electric: This package applies efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal preemption in addition to converting any natural gas appliances to electric appliances. For the residential spaces, only water heating is converted from natural gas to electric. 3) Efficiency & PV – Mixed-fuel: Beginning with the Efficiency Package , PV was added to offset a portion of the apartment estimated electricity use. 4) Efficiency & PV – All Electric: Beginning with the Efficiency Package, PV was added to offset a portion of the apartment estimated electricity use. 2.4 Incremental Costs 2.4.1 Energy Efficiency Measure Costs Table 22 summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for measures evaluated in this study relative to the residential parts of the building. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measures relative to the base case. Replacement costs are applied to PV inverters and battery systems over the 30-year evaluation period. There is no assumed maintenance on the envelope, HVAC, or DHW measures. Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. When costs were obtained from a source that did not already include builder overhead and profit, a markup of 10% was added. All costs are provided as present value in 2020 (2020 PV$). Costs due to variations in furnace, air conditioner, and heat pump capacity by climate zone were not accounted for in the analysis. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 7 2020-06-22 Table 2: Incremental Cost Assumptions Measure Performance Level Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Source & Notes Non-Preempted Measures Window U- factor 0.25 vs 0.36 $28,301 $6.95/ft2 window area based on analysis conducted for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 code cycles (Statewide CASE Team, 2018). Window SHGC 0.22 vs 0.25 $0 Data from CASE Report along with direct feedback from Statewide CASE Team that higher SHGC does not necessarily have any incremental cost impact (Statewide CASE Team, 2017b). Exterior Wall Insulation Add 1-inch $14,058 $0.86/ft2 based on adding 1” of exterior insulation on a wall with some level of existing exterior insulation. Costs are averaged from two sources ((Statewide CASE Team, 2014), (Statewide CASE Team, 2017a)) and for expanded polystyrene (EPS) and polyisocyanurate products with a 10% mark-up added to account for cost increases over time. HERS Verified Pipe Insulation HERS verified pipe insulation vs no verification $7,260 $83 per apartment for a HERS Rater to conduct verification of pipe insulation based on feedback from HERS Raters. Low Pressure Drop Ducts 0.25 W/cfm vs 0.35 W/cfm $12,654 $144 per apartment. Costs assume 1.5 hourshrs labor per multifamily apartment. Labor rate of $96 per hour is from 2019 RSMeans for sheet metal workers and includes an average City Cost Index for labor for California cities. Solar Thermal 50% solar fraction vs prescriptive 20%-35% $79,560 Costs based on 2022 multifamily solar thermal measure CASE proposal (Statewide CASE Team, 2020) and include first cost of $70,727 and $8,834 present value for replacement/maintenance costs. Drain Water Heat Recovery 50% effectiveness, flows to shower $16,984 Costs from 2019 DWHR CASE Report which assumes 1 heat exchanger per 4 units (Statewide CASE Team, 2017c). Costs do not include additional cost of water meters at each apartment (per SB7), which would add approx. $175 per dwelling unit. Renewable Energy (PV) PV System System size varies $3.17/WDC First costs are from LBNL’s Tracking the Sun 2018 costs (Barbose et al., 2018) and represent costs for the first half of 2018 of $2.90/WDC for nonresidential systems ≤500 kWDC. These costs were reduced by 16% for the solar investment tax credit, which is the average credit over years 2020-2022. Inverter replacement cost of $0.14/WDC present value includes replacements at year 11 at $0.15/WDC (nominal) and at year 21 at $0.12/WDC (nominal) per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017). System maintenance costs of $0.31/WDC present value assumes additional $0.02/WDC (nominal) annually per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017). 10% overhead and profit added to all costs. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 8 2020-06-22 2.4.2 All Electric Measure Costs The Statewide Reach Code Team reached out to stakeholders to collect project cost information for central gas boilers and both clustered and central HPWH designs. Project data sources included Association for Energy Affordability (AEA), Redwood Energy, Mithun, Ecotope, and the All-Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway 2022 Draft CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020). Costs are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Costs for Gas versus Electric Water Heating Equipment over 30-Year Period of Analysis Central Gas Boiler (CZs 1-9) Central Gas Boiler (CZs 10-16) Clustered HPWH Central HPWH System Quantity/Description 1 boiler recirc 32 units 80 gal. each no recirc 15 units .1,200-gal total recirc Total Equipment Cost $98,733 $126,778 $213,364 Solar Thermal (20% SF) 110,096 (35% SF) $131,817 - - Solar PV - - - $23,580 (8.8 kWDC) Total First Cost $202,920 $224,641 $126,778 $236,944 Maintenance/Replacement Cost (NPV) $69,283 $69,283 $81,374 $120,683 Total Cost (NPV) $272,203 $293,924 $208,152 $357,627 Incremental Cost CZ 1-9 (NPV) ($64,051) $85,424 Incremental Cost CZ 10-16 (NPV) ($85,772) $63,703 Typical costs for the water heating systems are based on the following assumptions: Central Gas Boiler: Based on the average of total estimated project costs from contractors for four multi-family projects ranging from 32 to 340 apartments and cost estimates for mid-rise and high-rise buildings from the All- Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway 2022 Draft CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020). The cost per dwelling unit ranged from $547 to $2,089 and the average cost applied in this analysis was $1,122 per dwelling unit. Costs include installation of gas piping from the building meter to the water heater. Water heater lifetime is assumed to be 15 years and the net present value replacement cost at year 15 is $63,373. Clustered HPWH: Based on costs from one project with RHEEM HPWHs used in a clustered design. Costs include water heater interior closet, electrical outlets, and increased breaker size and sub feed. Water heater based on 2.0 UEF 80-gallon appliance with 32 total HPWHs serving the building (1 per 4 to 5 bedrooms). Water heater lifetime is assumed to be 15 years and the net present value replacement cost at year 15 is $81,374. This design assumes 8 water heater closets per floor, at approximately 15 square feet per closet. While this has an impact on leasable floor area, the design impacts have been found to be minimal when addressed early in design. Central HPWH: Based on average total installed project costs from four multi-family projects with Sanden HPWHs ranging from 4 to 16 Sanden units per project. The cost per Sanden HPWH ranged from $13,094 to $15,766 and the average cost applied in this analysis was $14,224 per HPWH. Based on the prescriptive system sizing requirements, 15 Sanden units are required for the 88-unit building, resulting in a total first cost of $213,364. Water heater lifetime is assumed to be 15 years. Because Sanden HPWHS are an emerging technology in the United States, it is expected that over time their costs will decrease and for replacement at year 15 the costs are assumed to have decreased by 15%. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 9 2020-06-22 Solar Thermal: Based on system costs provided in the All-Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway 2022 Draft CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020). First costs reflect the material, labor, and markup costs presented in the Draft CASE Report for the mid-rise prototype. Replacement and maintenance costs assume replacement of the solar thermal tank at year 15 at $6,110 and glycol replacement of $1,300 each time at years 9, 18, and 27. The cost of the remaining useful life of the glycol at year 30 is deducted from the final cost. The Draft CASE Report included costs for replacing the solar collectors at year 20. Collectors can have longer lifetimes up to 30 years if well maintained, therefore this analysis does not assume any replacement of the collectors over the 30 year analysis period. Table 4: Solar Thermal Detailed Costs over 30-Year Period of Analysis Solar Fraction 20% 35% Materials $33,975 $48,975 Labor $47,740 $49,776 Markup 27.5% 27.5% First Cost $104,187 $125,908 Replacement/Maintenance (PV) $5,910 $5,910 Total PV Cost $110,096 $131,817 2.4.3 Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs This analysis assumes that in an all-electric new construction project, natural gas would not be supplied to the building. Eliminating natural gas to the building would save costs associated with connecting a service line from the street main to the building, piping distribution within the building, and monthly meter connection charges from the utility. Incremental costs for natural gas infrastructure in the mixed-fuel building are presented in Table 5. Cost data for the plan review and service extension was estimated on a per building basis and then apportioned to the residential and nonresidential portions of the buildings based on annual gas consumption. For the basecase prototype building 49% to 93% of estimated building annual gas use is attributed to the residential water heating system across all climate zones. A statewide average of 80% was calculated and applied to the costs in Table 5 based on housing starts provided by the California Energy Commission for the 2019 Title 24 code development process. The meter costs were based on the service provided to the residential and nonresidential portion of the building separately. Following the table are descriptions of assumptions for each of the cost components. Costs for gas piping from the meter to the gas boilers are included in the central gas boiler costs above. Gas piping distribution costs were typically included in total project costs and could not be broken out in all cases. Table 5: Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Building Item Total NonResidential Portion Residential Portion Natural Gas Plan Review $2,316 $452 $1,864 Service Extension1 $4,600 $898 $3,702 Meter $7,200 $3,600 $3,600 Total First Cost $14,116 $4,950 $9,166 1Service extension costs include 50% reduction assuming portion of the costs are passed on to gas customers. Natural Gas Plan Review: Total costs are based on TRC’s 2019 reach code analysis for Palo Alto (TRC, 2019) and then split between the residential and nonresidential spaces in the building proportionately according to annual gas consumption with 80% of the annual load is attributed to residential units on a statewide basis. Service Extension: Service extension costs to the building were taken from PG&E memo dated December 5, 2019, to Energy Commission staff, include costs for trenching, and assume non-residential new construction within a developed area (see Appendix C – PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo, PG&E, 2019). The total cost of 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 10 2020-06-22 $9,200 from the memo is reduced by 50% to account for the portion of the costs paid for by all customers due to application of Utility Gas Main Extensions rules1. The resultant cost is apportioned between the residential and nonresidential spaces in the building based on annual gas consumption of residential and nonresidential uses, with 80% of the annual load natural gas use attributed to residential units on a statewide basis. Meter: Cost per meter provided by PG&E for commercial meters. Assume one meter for nonresidential boilers serving space heating and service water heating, and another for residential boilers serving domestic hot water. 2.5 Cost-effectiveness Cost-effectiveness was evaluated for all 16 California climate zones and is presented based on both TDV energy, using the Energy Commission’s LCC methodology, and an On-Bill approach using residential customer utility rates. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the value of the energy impact associated with energy efficiency measures over the life of the measures (30 years) as compared to the prescriptive Title 24 requirements. Cost-effectiveness is presented using both lifecycle net present value (NPV) savings and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics, which represent the cost-effectiveness of a measure over a 30-year lifetime taking into account discounting of future savings and costs. • Net Present Value (NPV) Savings: NPV benefits minus NPV costs is reported as a cost effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost effective. Negative savings represent net costs. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are more negative (i.e., material and maintenance cost savings). • Benefit-to-Cost (B/C) Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 30 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criteria for cost effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. A value of one indicates the NPV of the savings over the life of the measure is equivalent to the NPV of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The B/C ratio is calculated according to Equation 1. Equation 1 𝐵𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑟−𝑟𝑙−𝐵𝑙𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙=𝑁𝑃𝑉 𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑁𝑃𝑉 𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑟 Improving the efficiency of a project often requires an initial incremental investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual “On-Bill” utility or TDV savings, and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. However, some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). In cases where both construction costs and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the increased energy costs are the ‘cost.’ In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective immediately (i.e. upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost-effectiveness is represented by “>1”. Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values. 1 PG&E Rule 15: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_RULES_15.pdf SoCalGas Rule 20: https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/20.pdf SDG&E Rule 15: http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-RULES_GRULE15.pdf 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 11 2020-06-22 The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 2. Equation 2 𝑷𝑽 𝒍𝒆 𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒓𝒓/𝒂𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒓=∑𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒍𝒓𝒓/𝒂𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒓𝒓∗(𝟏+𝒓)𝒓𝒍 𝒓=𝟏 Where: • n = analysis term • r = real discount rate • t = year at which cost/benefit is incurred The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies. • Analysis term of 30 years • Real discount rate of 3% (does not include inflation) 2.5.1 On-Bill Customer Lifecycle Cost Residential utility rates were used to calculate utility costs for all cases and determine On-Bill customer cost- effectiveness for the proposed packages. Utility costs of the nonresidential spaces were not evaluated in this study, only apartment and water heating energy use. The Statewide Reach Code Team obtained the recommended utility rates from each IOU based on the assumption that the reach codes go into effect in 2020. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and gas output from CBECC-Com, and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 6. Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details includes details on the utility rate schedules used for this study. The applicable residential time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases. For cases with PV generation, the approved NEM2 tariffs were applied along with minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges. For the PV cases annual electric production was always less than annual electricity consumption; and therefore, no credits for surplus generation were necessary. Future changes to the NEM tariffs are likely; however, there is a lot of uncertainty about what those changes will be and if they will become effective during the 2019 Title 24 code cycle (2020-2022). Based on guidance from the IOUs, the residential electric TOU tariffs that apply to individually metered residential apartments were also used to calculate electricity costs for the central water heating systems. Where baseline allowances are included in the tariffs (SCE TOU-D and SDG&E TOU-DR1) the allowances were applied on a per unit basis for all-electric service. Based on guidance from the IOUs, master metered multifamily service gas tariffs were used to calculate gas costs for the central water heating systems. The baseline quantities were applied on a per unit basis, as is defined in the schedules, and when available water heating only baseline values were used. Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone according to Table 6. Climate Zones 10 and 14 are evaluated with both SCE/SoCalGas and SDG&E tariffs since each utility has customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates. Two municipal utility rates were also evaluated, Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) in Climate Zone 12 and City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) in Climate Zone 4. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 12 2020-06-22 Table 6: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone Climate Zones Electric/Gas Utility Electricity (Apartment Use) Electricity (Central Water Heating) Natural Gas (Central Water Heating)1 1-5, 11-13, 16 PG&E E-TOU-C E-TOU-C PG&E GM 5 PG&E/SoCalGas SoCalGas GM-E 6, 8-10, 14,15 SCE/SoCalGas TOU-D (Option 4-9) TOU-D (Option 4-9) 7, 10, 14 SDG&E TOU-DR1 TOU-DR1 SDG&E GM 12 SMUD/PG&E R-TOD (RT02) GSN-T PG&E GM 4 CPAU E-1 E-2 G-2 1 These rates are allowed assuming no gas is used in the apartments. Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). Escalation of natural gas rates between 2019 and 2022 is based on the currently filed General Rate Cases (GRCs) for PG&E, SoCalGas and SDG&E. From 2023 through 2025, gas rates are assumed to escalate at 4% per year above inflation, which reflects historical rate increases between 2013 and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2019 through 2025 is assumed to be 2% per year above inflation, based on electric utility estimates. After 2025, escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are assumed to drop to a more conservative 1% escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories beginning in 2026 through 2050. See Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details for additional details. 2.5.2 TDV Lifecycle Cost Cost-effectiveness was also assessed using the Energy Commission’s TDV LCC methodology. TDV is a normalized monetary format developed and used by the Energy Commission for comparing electricity and natural gas savings, and it considers the cost of electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and year. The 2019 TDV values are based on long term discounted costs of 30 years for all residential measures. The CBECC-Com simulation software results are expressed in terms of TDV kBtus. The present value of the energy cost savings in dollars is calculated by multiplying the TDV kBtu savings by a net present value (NPV) factor, also developed by the Energy Commission. The 30-year NPV factor is $0.154/TDV kBtu for nonresidential projects under 2019 Title 24. Like the customer B/C ratio, a TDV B/C ratio value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The ratio is calculated according to Equation 3. Equation 3 𝑇𝐵𝑉 𝐵𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑟−𝑟𝑙−𝐵𝑙𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙=𝑇𝐵𝑉 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑦 𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝑁𝑃𝑉 𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑟 𝑁𝑃𝑉 𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑟 2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Equivalent CO2 emission savings were calculated based on estimates from Zero Code reports available in CBECC- Com simulation software.2 Electricity emissions vary by region and by hour of the year, accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard 2 More information at: : https://zero-code.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ZERO-Code-TSD-California.pdf 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 13 2020-06-22 projections. Two distinct hourly profiles, one for Climate Zones 1 through 5 and 11 through 13 and another for Climate Zones 6 through 10 and 14 through 16. For natural gas a fixed factor of 0.005307 metric tons/therm is used. To compare the mixed fuel and all-electric cases side-by-side, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are presented as CO2-equivalent emissions per dwelling unit. 3 Results The primary objective of the evaluation is to identify cost-effective, non-preempted performance targets for mid-rise multifamily buildings, under both mixed-fuel and all-electric cases, to support the design of local ordinances requiring new mid-rise residential buildings to exceed the minimum state requirements. The packages presented are representative examples of designs and measures that can be used to meet the requirements. In practice, a builder can use any combination of non-preempted or preempted compliant measures to meet the requirements. This analysis evaluated a package of efficiency measures applied to a mixed-fuel design and a similar package for an all-electric design. Each design was evaluated using the predominant utility rates in all 16 California climate zones. Solar PV was also added to the efficiency packages and a sensitivity analysis was conducted at various PV system capacities to optimize cost-effectiveness. Although some of the efficiency measures evaluated were not cost-effective and were eliminated, the following measures are included in at least one package: • Improved fenestration • Wall insulation • Low pressure-drop distribution system • HERS verified pipe insulation The following measures were evaluated but were found to not be cost-effective and were not included in any of the packages. • Solar thermal system with higher solar fraction than prescriptive requirements • Drain water heat recovery Cost-effectiveness results for the all-electric case are based upon the clustered HPWH approach only. Lower first costs with the clustered approach resulted in better cost-effectiveness than the central HPWH design. 3.1 Mid-Rise Multifamily Results Table 7 and Table 9 present results for the mixed-fuel and all-electric packages, respectively. Each table shows cost-effectiveness results for Efficiency Only packages and Efficiency + PV packages (with a 17.6 kWDC PV system sized based on 0.2 kWDC per apartment). Both mixed-fuel and all-electric results are relative to the mixed-fuel 2019 Title 24 prescriptive baseline. B/C ratios for all packages are presented according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies for the mixed-fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively. Detailed results are presented in Appendix D – Detailed Results Mixed-Fuel and Appendix E – Detailed Results All-Electric. Efficiency Only: Compliance margins for the Mixed-Fuel Efficiency Only cases range from 5% to 8%, which meets the CALGreen Tier 1 energy performance requirement for high-rise residential buildings. Mixed-Fuel Efficiency Only cases are cost-effective based on TDV in all climate zones except for 1 and 16. The cases are cost-effective from an On-Bill perspective in all climate zones except 1. The All-Electric Efficiency Only package does not meet minimum code requirements in Climate Zones 1 and 16. Compliance margins for all other climate zones range from 1% to 5%. All-Electric Efficiency Only cases are cost- 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 14 2020-06-22 effective in all climate zones based on TDV. Cost-effectiveness from an On-Bill perspective is favorable in all climate zones except 1, 16, and 5 in SCG territory. Efficiency + PV: Several PV system size options were evaluated for the Efficiency + PV packages. Of the PV system sizes evaluated, 0.2 kWDC per apartment represents the smallest system that resulted in B/C ratios greater than one based on both metrics in all climate zones for the mixed-fuel scenario. Adding a 0.1 kWDC per apartment in the all-electric cases, resulted in B/C ratios greater than one in all climate zones. Table 11 and Table 12 describe the efficiency measures included in the mixed-fuel and all-electric packages, respectively. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 15 2020-06-22 Table 7: Mixed-Fuel Package Results: Efficiency Only (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT) 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1. Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Comp. Margin Total Gas Savings (therms) Total Electric Savings (kWh) GHG Reductions (lb. CO2) Savings (2020 PV$) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio1 NPV Utility Cost Savings TDV Savings On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV CZ01 PGE PGE 5.8% 0 26 18 $133 $105 $304 0.44 0.35 ($171) ($199) CZ02 PGE PGE 5.9% 0 47 29 $391 $285 $144 2.72 1.98 $248 $141 CZ03 PGE PGE 6.7% 0 44 27 $345 $226 $144 2.40 1.57 $202 $82 CZ04 PGE PGE 6.6% 0 61 37 $465 $331 $144 3.24 2.31 $321 $188 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 6.6% 0 61 37 $248 $331 $144 1.73 2.31 $104 $188 CZ05 PGE PGE 6.7% 0 42 24 $320 $206 $144 2.22 1.43 $176 $62 CZ05-2 PGE SCG 6.7% 0 42 24 $320 $206 $144 2.22 1.43 $176 $62 CZ06 SCE SCG 7.1% 0 74 42 $424 $351 $144 2.95 2.44 $280 $207 CZ07 SDGE SDGE 7.6% 0 81 48 $593 $374 $144 4.13 2.60 $449 $230 CZ08 SCE SCG 7.0% 0 84 50 $484 $420 $144 3.37 2.92 $341 $276 CZ09 SCE SCG 6.5% 0 83 51 $468 $441 $144 3.26 3.06 $324 $297 CZ10 SCE SCG 6.5% 0 82 50 $410 $427 $144 2.85 2.97 $266 $283 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 6.5% 0 82 50 $599 $427 $144 4.16 2.97 $455 $283 CZ11 PGE PGE 6.8% 0 104 70 $637 $635 $625 1.02 1.02 $11 $10 CZ12 PGE PGE 6.8% 0 93 60 $572 $568 $304 1.88 1.87 $268 $265 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 6.8% 0 93 71 $319 $568 $304 1.05 1.87 $15 $265 CZ13 PGE PGE 7.3% 0 132 89 $798 $779 $625 1.28 1.25 $173 $154 CZ14 SCE SCG 6.0% 0 80 49 $407 $449 $304 1.34 1.48 $103 $145 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 6.0% 0 80 49 $576 $449 $304 1.90 1.48 $273 $145 CZ15 SCE SCG 6.8% 0 145 93 $719 $802 $625 1.15 1.28 $94 $177 CZ16 PGE PGE 7.4% 0 117 76 $646 $563 $625 1.03 0.90 $21 ($62) 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 16 2020-06-22 Table 8: Mixed-Fuel Package Results: PV + Efficiency 0.2 kWDC per Apartment (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT) 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1. Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Comp. Margin Total Gas Savings (therms) Total Electric Savings (kWh) GHG Reductions (lb. CO2) Savings (2020 PV$) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio1 NPV Utility Cost Savings TDV Savings On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV CZ01 PGE PGE 5.8% 0 291 131 $1,637 $1,090 $937 1.75 1.16 $701 $153 CZ02 PGE PGE 5.9% 0 360 163 $2,431 $1,469 $777 3.13 1.89 $1,655 $692 CZ03 PGE PGE 6.7% 0 359 161 $2,400 $1,397 $777 3.09 1.80 $1,624 $620 CZ04 PGE PGE 6.6% 0 385 176 $2,579 $1,562 $777 3.32 2.01 $1,802 $785 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 6.6% 0 61 176 $1,335 $1,562 $777 1.72 2.01 $558 $785 CZ05 PGE PGE 6.7% 0 379 168 $2,480 $1,461 $777 3.19 1.88 $1,704 $685 CZ05-2 PGE SCG 6.7% 0 379 168 $2,480 $1,461 $777 3.19 1.88 $1,704 $685 CZ06 SCE SCG 7.1% 0 392 178 $1,987 $1,587 $777 2.56 2.04 $1,210 $810 CZ07 SDGE SDGE 7.6% 0 411 189 $2,770 $1,647 $777 3.57 2.12 $1,993 $870 CZ08 SCE SCG 7.0% 0 402 186 $2,059 $1,708 $777 2.65 2.20 $1,282 $931 CZ09 SCE SCG 6.5% 0 410 192 $1,876 $1,742 $777 2.41 2.24 $1,099 $965 CZ10 SCE SCG 6.5% 0 409 190 $1,797 $1,681 $777 2.31 2.16 $1,020 $904 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 6.5% 0 409 190 $2,646 $1,681 $777 3.41 2.16 $1,869 $904 CZ11 PGE PGE 6.8% 0 422 206 $2,438 $1,877 $1,258 1.94 1.49 $1,180 $619 CZ12 PGE PGE 6.8% 0 406 193 $2,352 $1,794 $937 2.51 1.91 $1,415 $857 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 6.8% 0 406 193 $1,226 $1,794 $937 1.31 1.91 $289 $857 CZ13 PGE PGE 7.3% 0 441 221 $2,548 $1,965 $1,258 2.03 1.56 $1,290 $707 CZ14 SCE SCG 6.0% 0 439 201 $1,923 $1,901 $937 2.05 2.03 $987 $964 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 6.0% 0 439 201 $2,819 $1,901 $937 3.01 2.03 $1,882 $964 CZ15 SCE SCG 6.8% 0 478 234 $2,128 $2,110 $1,258 1.69 1.68 $870 $852 CZ16 PGE PGE 7.4% 0 457 222 $2,567 $1,818 $1,258 2.04 1.44 $1,309 $560 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 17 2020-06-22 Table 9: All-Electric Package Results: Efficiency Only (SAVINGS/COSTS PER APARTMENT) 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1. 2 “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Comp. Margin Total Gas Savings (therms) Total Electric Savings (kWh) GHG Reductions (lb. CO2) Savings (2020 PV$) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio1,2 NPV Utility Cost Savings TDV Savings On- Bill TDV On-Bill TDV CZ01 PGE PGE -0.4% 125 -873 1040 -$674 $199 -$446 0.7 >1 ($228) $645 CZ02 PGE PGE 1.6% 114 -762 971 -$238 $528 -$606 2.5 >1 $368 $1,134 CZ03 PGE PGE 1.1% 115 -767 975 -$287 $390 -$606 2.1 >1 $319 $996 CZ04 PGE PGE 3.4% 111 -714 952 -$102 $625 -$606 6.0 >1 $504 $1,231 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 3.4% 111 -714 952 $345 $625 -$606 >1 >1 $951 $1,231 CZ05 PGE PGE 1.3% 117 -788 991 -$350 $391 -$606 1.7 >1 $255 $996 CZ05-2 PGE SCG 1.3% 117 -788 991 -$827 $391 -$606 0.7 >1 ($221) $996 CZ06 SCE SCG 3.7% 107 -670 933 $153 $612 -$606 >1 >1 $759 $1,218 CZ07 SDGE SDGE 4.8% 106 -653 930 -$58 $665 -$606 10.4 >1 $547 $1,271 CZ08 SCE SCG 3.9% 104 -633 912 $227 $693 -$606 >1 >1 $833 $1,298 CZ09 SCE SCG 3.8% 104 -633 912 $212 $739 -$606 >1 >1 $817 $1,345 CZ10 SCE SCG 1.8% 90 -626 743 -$214 $396 -$853 4.0 >1 $639 $1,249 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 1.8% 90 -626 743 -$478 $396 -$853 1.8 >1 $375 $1,249 CZ11 PGE PGE 2.0% 91 -619 769 -$241 $430 -$371 1.5 >1 $130 $802 CZ12 PGE PGE 1.4% 94 -662 773 -$414 $288 -$693 1.7 >1 $279 $980 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 1.4% 94 -662 773 $1,060 $288 -$693 >1 >1 $1,753 $980 CZ13 PGE PGE 2.6% 90 -579 777 -$62 $505 -$371 6.0 >1 $309 $876 CZ14 SCE SCG 1.1% 92 -653 759 -$258 $305 -$693 2.7 >1 $435 $998 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 1.1% 92 -653 759 -$532 $305 -$693 1.3 >1 $161 $998 CZ15 SCE SCG 4.4% 74 -409 679 $332 $832 -$371 >1 >1 $704 $1,203 CZ16 PGE PGE -5.8% 108 -777 895 -$621 $127 -$371 0.6 >1 ($250) $498 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 18 2020-06-22 Table 10: All-Electric Package Results: PV + Efficiency 0.1 kWDC per Apartment (SAVINGS/COSTS PER APARTMENT) 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1. 2 “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Comp. Margin Total Gas Savings (therms) Total Electric Savings (kWh) GHG Reductions (lb. CO2) Savings (2020 PV$) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio1,2 NPV Utility Cost Savings TDV Savings On- Bill TDV On- Bill TDV CZ01 PGE PGE -0.4% 125 -741 1,097 $78 $692 -$129 >1 >1 $208 $821 CZ02 PGE PGE 1.6% 114 -606 1,038 $782 $1,120 -$289 >1 >1 $1,071 $1,409 CZ03 PGE PGE 1.1% 115 -609 1,042 $741 $975 -$289 >1 >1 $1,030 $1,264 CZ04 PGE PGE 3.4% 111 -552 1,021 $955 $1,240 -$289 >1 >1 $1,244 $1,529 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 3.4% 111 -714 1,021 $904 $1,240 -$289 >1 >1 $1,194 $1,529 CZ05 PGE PGE 1.3% 117 -619 1,063 $730 $1,018 -$289 >1 >1 $1,019 $1,307 CZ05-2 PGE SCG 1.3% 117 -619 1,063 $254 $1,018 -$289 >1 >1 $543 $1,307 CZ06 SCE SCG 3.7% 107 -512 1,001 $935 $1,231 -$289 >1 >1 $1,224 $1,520 CZ07 SDGE SDGE 4.8% 106 -488 1,000 $1,049 $1,302 -$289 >1 >1 $1,339 $1,591 CZ08 SCE SCG 3.9% 104 -474 981 $1,014 $1,337 -$289 >1 >1 $1,304 $1,626 CZ09 SCE SCG 3.8% 104 -469 983 $924 $1,390 -$289 >1 >1 $1,213 $1,679 CZ10 SCE SCG 1.8% 90 -463 813 $480 $1,023 -$536 >1 >1 $1,016 $1,559 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 1.8% 90 -463 813 $546 $1,023 -$536 >1 >1 $1,082 $1,559 CZ11 PGE PGE 2.0% 91 -460 837 $660 $1,052 -$55 >1 >1 $714 $1,106 CZ12 PGE PGE 1.4% 94 -505 839 $476 $900 -$376 >1 >1 $852 $1,276 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 1.4% 94 -505 839 $1,513 $900 -$376 >1 >1 $1,890 $1,276 CZ13 PGE PGE 2.6% 90 -424 843 $813 $1,098 -$55 >1 >1 $867 $1,153 CZ14 SCE SCG 1.1% 92 -473 835 $500 $1,031 -$376 >1 >1 $877 $1,407 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 1.1% 92 -473 835 $589 $1,031 -$376 >1 >1 $965 $1,407 CZ15 SCE SCG 4.4% 74 -242 750 $1,037 $1,485 -$55 >1 >1 $1,091 $1,540 CZ16 PGE PGE -5.8% 108 -608 969 $339 $754 -$55 >1 >1 $394 $809 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 19 2020-06-22 Table 11: Mixed-Fuel Measure Package Summary Climate Zone Compliance Margin MEASURE SPECIFICATION Window U-value Window SHGC Add Wall Ins. Fan Watt Draw HERS Pipe Ins. CZ01 5.8% + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No CZ02 5.9% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No CZ03 6.7% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No CZ04 6.6% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No CZ05 6.7% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No CZ06 7.1% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No CZ07 7.6% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No CZ08 7.0% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No CZ09 6.5% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No CZ10 6.5% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm No CZ11 6.8% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No CZ12 7.3% 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No CZ13 7.3% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No CZ14 6.8% 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No CZ15 6.8% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No CZ16 7.4% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm No Table 12: All-Electric Measure Package Summary Climate Zone MEASURE SPECIFICATION Compliance Margin Window U-value Window SHGC Add Wall Ins. Fan Watt Draw HERS Pipe Ins. CZ01 -0.4% + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ02 1.6% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ03 1.1% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ04 3.4% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ05 1.3% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ06 3.7% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ07 4.8% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ08 3.9% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ09 3.8% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ10 1.8% 0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ11 2.0% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ12 2.0% 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ13 2.6% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ14 2.0% 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ15 4.4% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes CZ16 -5.8% 0.25 0.22 + 1" 0.25 W/cfm Yes 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 20 2020-06-22 4 Conclusions & Summary This report evaluated the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of “above code” performance specifications for newly constructed mid-rise multifamily buildings. The analysis included application of efficiency measures, electric appliances, and PV in all 16 California climate zones, and found cost-effective packages across the state. For the building designs and climate zones where cost-effective packages were identified, the results of this analysis can be used by local jurisdictions to support the adoption of reach codes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated according to two metrics: On-Bill customer lifecycle benefit-to-cost ratio and TDV lifecycle benefit-to-cost ratio. For mixed-fuel buildings, this analysis demonstrates that there are cost-effective Efficiency Only packages that achieve a minimum 5% compliance margin in most climate zones. The exception is Climate Zone 1 where the package was not cost-effective based on either the TDV or the On-Bill methodology. In all other cases the package is cost-effective for at least one of the metrics. When 0.1 kWDC per apartment is included, all climate zones are cost-effective based on at least one of the metrics. The addition of 0.1 kWDC per apartment, or 8.8 kWDC total for the building, results in an incremental cost for the PV system of $27,855. When 0.2 kWDC per apartment is included, all climate zones are cost-effective based on both metrics. The addition of 0.2 kWDC per apartment, or 17.6 kWDC for the building, results in an incremental cost for the PV system of $55,711. This study evaluated electrification of residential loads in new mid-rise multifamily buildings. Based on typical construction across California, the basecase condition incorporated all electric appliances within the apartment spaces. As a result, only central water heating was converted from natural gas to electric as part of this analysis. For all-electric buildings, this analysis demonstrates that there are cost-effective All-Electric Efficiency Only packages that meet minimum Title 24 code compliance in all climate zones except 1 and 16. The package is cost- effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones. It is cost-effective based on the On-Bill methodology in Climate Zones 2 through 15, except for Climate Zones 5 in SCG territory. When 0.1 kWDC per apartment is included, all climate zones are cost-effective based on both metrics. The addition of 0.1 kWDC per apartment, or 8.8 kWDC for the building, results in an incremental cost for the PV system of $27,855. Additional considerations • This study found that electrification of central domestic hot water loads, in combination with efficiency measures, can result in a benefit to the consumer through lower utility bills under certain electricity and gas tariff scenarios (Climate Zones 6, 8, 9, 15, 4 in CPAU territory, and 12 in SMUD territory territory). The all-electric results demonstrate a trend with On-Bill cost-effectiveness across the different electric utilities. Net Present Value in SCE and SDG&E territories, as well as SMUD and CPAU territories, are typically higher than the cases in PG&E territory. This indicates that rate design can play an important role in encouraging or discouraging electrification. • This study did not evaluate federally preempted high efficiency appliances. Specifying high efficiency equipment is a viable approach to meeting Title 24 code compliance and local ordinance requirements and is commonly used by project teams. Other studies have found that efficiency packages and electrification packages that employ high efficiency equipment can be quite cost-effective ((Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019b), (Energy & Environmental Economics. 2019)). • If PV capacity is added to both the mixed-fuel and all-electric efficiency packages, all cases are cost- effective based on at least one of the two evaluated metrics. In some cases, cost-effectiveness improves, and in other cases it decreases relative to the case with efficiency and/or electrification measures only. The cost-effectiveness of adding PV up to 1 kW per apartment, as an independent measure, results in On-Bill benefit-to-cost ratios between 2.3 and 3.1 for PGE territory, 2.1 to 2.3 for SCE territory, and 3.2 to 3.5 for SDG&E territory. The TDV B/C ratio for PV alone is approximately 2.0 for most climate zones 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 21 2020-06-22 for all service territories. Adding PV in addition to the efficiency packages improves cost-effectiveness where the B/C ratios for the efficiency measures alone are lower than the B/C ratios for PV alone, and vice versa where they are higher. Annual basecase electricity costs and annual utility savings from PV are lower in SCE territory than in PG&E and SDG&E territories. This is due to lower off-peak cost and a bigger difference in peak versus off-peak rate for the TOU-D SCE electricity rate tariff. Most PV production occurs during off-peak times (4 pm to 9 pm peak period). Table 13 summarizes compliance margin and cost-effectiveness results for the mixed-fuel and all-electric cases. Compliance margin is reported in the cells and cost-effectiveness is indicated by the color of the cell according to the following: • Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On- Bill and TDV approaches. • Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach but not both. • Cells not highlighted either depict a negative compliance margin (red text) or a package that was not cost-effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach. For more detail on the results, please refer to Section 3.1 Mid-Rise Multifamily Results, Appendix D – Detailed Results Mixed-Fuel and Appendix E – Detailed Results All-Electric. Table 13: Mid-Rise Multifamily Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost-Effectiveness Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Mixed-Fuel All-Electric No PV 0.1 kWDC /Apt 0.2 kWDC /Apt 0.3 kWDC /Apt No PV 0.1 kWDC /Apt 0.2 kWDC /Apt 0.3 kWDC /Apt CZ01 PGE PGE 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% -0.4% -0.4% -0.4% -0.4% CZ02 PGE PGE 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% CZ03 PGE PGE 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% CZ04 PGE PGE 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% CZ05 PGE PGE 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% CZ05-2 PGE SCG 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% CZ06 SCE SCG 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% CZ07 SDGE SDGE 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% CZ08 SCE SCG 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% CZ09 SCE SCG 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% CZ10 SCE SCG 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% CZ11 PGE PGE 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% CZ12 PGE PGE 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% CZ13 PGE PGE 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% CZ14 SCE SCG 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% CZ15 SCE SCG 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% CZ16 PGE PGE 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% -5.8% -5.8% -5.8% -5.8% 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 22 2020-06-22 5 References California Energy Commission. 2017. Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. 2018a. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400-2018-020-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-020/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018b. 2019 Reference Appendices. CEC-400-2018-021-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-021/CEC-400-2018- 021-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2019a. 2019 Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. CEC-400-2019-006-CMF. May 2019. California Energy Commission. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-006/CEC-400-2019-006-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2019b. Executive Director Determination Pursuant to Section 150.1(c)8C for Central Heat Pump Water Heating System. December 26, 2019. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=231318&DocumentContentId=63067 Energy & Environmental Economics. 2019. Residential Building Electrification in California. April 2019. https://www.ethree.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf Horii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis. 2014. “Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-07- 09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents/ Barbose, Galen and Darghouth, Naim. 2018. Tracking the Sun. Installed Price Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States – 2018 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September 2018. https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/tracking_the_sun_2018_edition_final_0.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2014. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Nonresidential Opaque Envelope. December 2014. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2016-T24-CASE- Report-NR-Opaque-Envelope-Dec2014-V3.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017a. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative High Performance Walls – Final Report. September 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE- Report_HPW_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017b. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Residential High Performance Windows & Doors – Final Report. August 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-Report_Res-Windows-and-Doors_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017c. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Drain Water Heat Recovery – Final Report. July 2017. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE- Report_DWHR_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2018. Energy Savings Potential and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High Efficiency Windows in California. Prepared by Frontier Energy. May 2018. https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/energy- savings-potential-and-cost-effectiveness-analysis-high-efficiency-windows-california Statewide CASE Team. 2020. All-Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway Draft CASE Report. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2022-T24-Draft-CASE-Report_MF-All-Electric.pdf 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 23 2020-06-22 Statewide Reach Code Team. 2019a. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Southern California Edison. Prepared by TRC. July 25, 2019. https://localenergycodes.com/download/801/file_path/fieldList/2019%20NR%20NC%20Cost%20Effectiveness% 20Study-2019-07-25.pdf Statewide Reach Code Te am. 2019b. 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy. August 1, 2019. https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach%20Codes TRC. 2018. City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis Draft. September 2018. https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66742 TRC. 2019. Multifamily Prototypes. June 7, 2019. Submitted to Southern California Edison. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SCE- MFModeling_MultifamilyPrototypesReport_2019-06-07_clean.pdf 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 24 2020-06-22 Appendix A – California Climate Zone Map Figure 3: Map of California climate zones. (Source, California Energy Commission3) 3 https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 25 2020-06-22 Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details PG&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 SCE ............................................................................................................................................................... 32 SoCalGas ....................................................................................................................................................... 35 SDG&E ........................................................................................................................................................... 38 SMUD............................................................................................................................................................. 42 Escalation Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 44 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 26 2020-06-22 PG&E The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 14 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 14: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ01 V CZ02 X CZ03 T CZ04 X CZ05 T CZ11 R CZ12 S CZ13 R CZ16 Y The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending April 2020 according to the rates shown in Table 15. Rates are based on historical data provided by PG&E.4 Table 15: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/Therm) Month Procurement Charge Transportation Charge Total Charge Baseline Excess Baseline Excess Jan 2020 $0.45813 $0.99712 $1.59540 $1.45525 $2.05353 Feb 2020 $0.44791 $0.99712 $1.59540 $1.44503 $2.04331 Mar 2020 $0.35346 $1.13126 $1.64861 $1.48472 $2.00207 Apr 2020 $0.23856 $1.13126 $1.64861 $1.36982 $1.88717 May 2019 $0.21791 $0.99933 $1.59892 $1.21724 $1.81683 June 2019 $0.20648 $0.99933 $1.59892 $1.20581 $1.80540 July 2019 $0.28462 $0.99933 $1.59892 $1.28395 $1.88354 Aug 2019 $0.30094 $0.96652 $1.54643 $1.26746 $1.84737 Sept 2019 $0.25651 $0.96652 $1.54643 $1.22303 $1.80294 Oct 2019 $0.27403 $0.98932 $1.58292 $1.26335 $1.85695 Nov 2019 $0.33311 $0.96729 $1.54767 $1.30040 $1.88078 Dec 2019 $0.401787/ $0.96729 $1.54767 $1.36907 $1.94945 4The PG&E procurement and transportation charges were obtained from the following site: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/GRF.SHTML#RESGAS 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 27 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 28 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 29 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 30 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 31 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 32 2020-06-22 SCE The following pages provide details on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 16 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 16: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ06 6 CZ08 8 CZ09 9 CZ10 10 CZ14 14 CZ15 15 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 33 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 34 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 35 2020-06-22 SoCalGas Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 17 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 17: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ05 2 CZ06 1 CZ08 1 CZ09 1 CZ10 1 CZ14 2 CZ15 1 The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending April 2020 according to the rates shown in Table 18. Historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges5. To estimate total costs by month, the baseline and excess transmission charges were assumed to be relatively consistence and applied for the entire year based on April 2020 costs. Table 18: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/Therm) Month Procurement Charge Transmission Charge Total Charge Baseline Excess Baseline Excess Jan 2020 $0.34730 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.16472 $1.51916 Feb 2020 $0.28008 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.09750 $1.45194 Mar 2020 $0.22108 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.03850 $1.39294 Apr 2020 $0.20307 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.02049 $1.37493 May 2019 $0.23790 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.05532 $1.40976 June 2019 $0.24822 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.06564 $1.42008 July 2019 $0.28475 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.10217 $1.45661 Aug 2019 $0.27223 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.08965 $1.44409 Sept 2019 $0.26162 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.07904 $1.43348 Oct 2019 $0.30091 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.11833 $1.47277 Nov 2019 $0.27563 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.09305 $1.44749 Dec 2019 $0.38067 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.19809 $1.55253 5 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site: https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/energy-market-services/gas-prices 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 36 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 37 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 38 2020-06-22 SDG&E Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 19 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. All-Electric baseline allowances were applied. Table 19: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ07 Coastal CZ10 Inland CZ14 Mountain 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 39 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 40 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 41 2020-06-22 The SDG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending April 2020 according to the rates shown in Table 20. Historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges6. To estimate total costs by month, the baseline and excess transmission charges were assumed to be relatively consistence and applied for the entire year based on April 2020 costs. Table 20: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/Therm) Month Procurement Charge Transmission Charge Total Charge Baseline Excess Baseline Excess Jan 2020 $0.34761 $1.36166 $1.59166 $1.70927 $1.93927 Feb 2020 $0.28035 $1.36166 $1.59166 $1.64201 $1.87201 Mar 2020 $0.22130 $1.36166 $1.59166 $1.58296 $1.81296 Apr 2020 $0.20327 $1.35946 $1.59125 $1.56273 $1.79452 May 2019 $0.23804 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.30153 $1.49057 June 2019 $0.24838 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.31187 $1.50091 July 2019 $0.28491 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.34840 $1.53744 Aug 2019 $0.27239 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.33588 $1.52492 Sept 2019 $0.26178 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.32527 $1.51431 Oct 2019 $0.30109 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.36458 $1.55362 Nov 2019 $0.27580 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.33929 $1.52833 Dec 2019 $0.38090 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.44439 $1.63343 6 The SDG&E procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following sets of documents: http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-SCHEDS_GM_2020.pdf http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-SCHEDS_GM_2019.pdf 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 42 2020-06-22 SMUD Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study. RTOD Rate Schedule 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 43 2020-06-22 GSN_T Rate Schedule: 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 44 2020-06-22 CPAU Following are the CPAU electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. E1 Rate Schedule: E2 Rate Schedule: 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 45 2020-06-22 G-2 Rate Schedule: G2 Monthly Per Therm Rates: Effective Date Commodity Rate Cap and Trade Compliance Charge Transportation Charge Carbon Offset Charge G2 Total Volumetric Rate 1/1/20 $0.3289 0.033 0.09941 0.040 1.11151 2/1/20 0.2466 0.033 0.09941 0.040 1.02921 3/1/20 0.2416 0.033 0.09891 0.040 1.02371 4/1/20 0.2066 0.033 0.09891 0.040 0.98871 5/1/20 0.2258 0.033 0.09891 0.040 1.00791 6/1/20 0.2279 0.033 0.09891 0.040 1.01001 7/1/19 0.2471 0.033 0.11757 0.040 1.04787 j8/1/19 0.2507 0.033 0.10066 0.040 1.03456 9/1/19 0.2461 0.033 0.10066 0.040 1.02996 10/1/19 0.2811 0.033 0.10288 0.040 1.06718 11/1/19 0.2923 0.033 0.10288 0.040 1.07838 12/1/19 0.3781 0.033 0.10288 0.040 1.16418 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 46 2020-06-22 Escalation Assumptions The average annual escalation rates in the following table were used in this study and are from E3’s 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). These rates are applied to the 2019 rate schedules over a 30-year period beginning in 2020. SDG&E was not covered in the E3 study. The Statewide Reach Code Team reviewed SDG&E’s GRC filing and applied the same approach that E3 applied for PG&E and SoCalGas to arrive at average escalation rates between 2020 and 2022. The statewide electricity escalation rates were also applied to the analysis for SMUD and CPAU. PG&E gas escalation rates were applied to CPAU as the best available estimate since CPAU uses PG&E gas infrastructure. Table 21: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Statewide Electric Residential Average Rate (%/year, real) Natural Gas Residential Core Rate (%/yr escalation, real) PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E 2020 2.0% 1.48% 6.37% 5.00% 2021 2.0% 5.69% 4.12% 3.14% 2022 2.0% 1.11% 4.12% 2.94% 2023 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2024 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2025 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2026 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2027 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2028 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2029 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2030 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2031 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2032 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2033 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2034 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2035 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2036 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2037 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2038 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2039 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2040 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2041 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2042 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2043 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2044 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2045 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2046 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2047 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2048 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2049 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 47 2020-06-22 Appendix C – PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 48 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 49 2020-06-22 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 50 2020-06-22 Appendix D – Detailed Results Mixed-Fuel Table 22: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency Only Package Results (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1 Apartments Central Water Heating Total Savings (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio1 Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Gas Savings (therms) Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings Gas Savings (therms) Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings Year 1 Utility Cost Savings On-Bill Utility Cost Savings TDV Cost Savings Total Inc. Cost ($) On- Bill TDV CZ01 PGE PGE 0.0 26 $6 0.0 0 $0 $6 $133 $105 $304 0.44 0.35 CZ02 PGE PGE 0.0 47 $17 0.0 0 $0 $17 $391 $285 $144 2.72 1.98 CZ03 PGE PGE 0.0 44 $15 0.0 0 $0 $15 $345 $226 $144 2.40 1.57 CZ04 PGE PGE 0.0 61 $20 0.0 0 $0 $20 $465 $331 $144 3.24 2.31 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 0.0 61 $10 0.0 0 $0 $10 $248 $331 $144 1.73 2.31 CZ05 PGE PGE 0.0 42 $14 0.0 0 $0 $14 $320 $206 $144 2.22 1.43 CZ05-2 PGE SCG 0.0 42 $14 0.0 0 $0 $14 $320 $206 $144 2.22 1.43 CZ06 SCE SCG 0.0 74 $18 0.0 0 $0 $18 $424 $351 $144 2.95 2.44 CZ07 SDGE SDGE 0.0 81 $25 0.0 0 $0 $25 $593 $374 $144 4.13 2.60 CZ08 SCE SCG 0.0 84 $20 0.0 0 $0 $20 $484 $420 $144 3.37 2.92 CZ09 SCE SCG 0.0 83 $20 0.0 0 $0 $20 $468 $441 $144 3.26 3.06 CZ10 SCE SCG 0.0 82 $17 0.0 0 $0 $17 $410 $427 $144 2.85 2.97 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 0.0 82 $25 0.0 0 $0 $25 $599 $427 $144 4.16 2.97 CZ11 PGE PGE 0.0 104 $27 0.0 0 $0 $27 $637 $635 $625 1.02 1.02 CZ12 PGE PGE 0.0 93 $24 0.0 0 $0 $24 $572 $568 $304 1.88 1.87 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 0.0 93 $13 0.0 0 $0 $13 $319 $568 $304 1.05 1.87 CZ13 PGE PGE 0.0 132 $34 0.0 0 $0 $34 $798 $779 $625 1.28 1.25 CZ14 SCE SCG 0.0 80 $17 0.0 0 $0 $17 $407 $449 $304 1.34 1.48 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 0.0 80 $24 0.0 0 $0 $24 $576 $449 $304 1.90 1.48 CZ15 SCE SCG 0.0 145 $30 0.0 0 $0 $30 $719 $802 $625 1.15 1.28 CZ16 PGE PGE 0.0 117 $27 0.0 0 $0 $27 $646 $563 $625 1.03 0.90 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 51 2020-06-22 Table 23: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency + PV Package Results (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1 0.1 kWDC per Apartment 0.2 kWDC per Apartment Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility On-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$) TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$) Total Inc. Cost On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio On-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$) TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$) Total Inc. Cost On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio CZ01 PGE PGE $885 $597 $620 1.43 0.96 $1,637 $1,090 $937 1.75 1.16 CZ02 PGE PGE $1,411 $877 $460 3.07 1.91 $2,431 $1,469 $777 3.13 1.89 CZ03 PGE PGE $1,373 $812 $460 2.98 1.76 $2,400 $1,397 $777 3.09 1.80 CZ04 PGE PGE $1,522 $947 $460 3.31 2.06 $2,579 $1,562 $777 3.32 2.01 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU $807 $947 $460 1.75 2.06 $1,335 $1,562 $777 1.72 2.01 CZ05 PGE PGE $1,400 $834 $460 3.04 1.81 $2,480 $1,461 $777 3.19 1.88 CZ05-2 PGE SCG $1,400 $834 $460 3.04 1.81 $2,480 $1,461 $777 3.19 1.88 CZ06 SCE SCG $1,206 $969 $460 2.62 2.11 $1,987 $1,587 $777 2.56 2.04 CZ07 SDGE SDGE $1,701 $1,010 $460 3.69 2.19 $2,770 $1,647 $777 3.57 2.12 CZ08 SCE SCG $1,272 $1,064 $460 2.76 2.31 $2,059 $1,708 $777 2.65 2.20 CZ09 SCE SCG $1,181 $1,091 $460 2.57 2.37 $1,876 $1,742 $777 2.41 2.24 CZ10 SCE SCG $1,104 $1,054 $460 2.40 2.29 $1,797 $1,681 $777 2.31 2.16 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE $1,622 $1,054 $460 3.52 2.29 $2,646 $1,681 $777 3.41 2.16 CZ11 PGE PGE $1,537 $1,256 $942 1.63 1.33 $2,438 $1,877 $1,258 1.94 1.49 CZ12 PGE PGE $1,462 $1,181 $620 2.36 1.90 $2,352 $1,794 $937 2.51 1.91 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE $772 $1,181 $620 1.25 1.90 $1,226 $1,794 $937 1.31 1.91 CZ13 PGE PGE $1,673 $1,372 $942 1.78 1.46 $2,548 $1,965 $1,258 2.03 1.56 CZ14 SCE SCG $1,165 $1,175 $620 1.88 1.89 $1,923 $1,901 $937 2.05 2.03 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE $1,697 $1,175 $620 2.74 1.89 $2,819 $1,901 $937 3.01 2.03 CZ15 SCE SCG $1,423 $1,456 $942 1.51 1.55 $2,128 $2,110 $1,258 1.69 1.68 CZ16 PGE PGE $1,606 $1,191 $942 1.71 1.26 $2,567 $1,818 $1,258 2.04 1.44 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 52 2020-06-22 Table 24: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency + PV Package Results, cont. (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1 0.3 kWDC per Apartment 1 kWDC per Apartment Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility On-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$) TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$) Total Inc. Cost On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio On-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$) TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$) Total Inc. Cost On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio CZ01 PGE PGE $2,389 $1,582 $1,253 1.91 1.26 $7,466 $5,029 $3,469 2.15 1.45 CZ02 PGE PGE $3,452 $2,061 $1,093 3.16 1.88 $9,590 $6,203 $3,309 2.90 1.87 CZ03 PGE PGE $3,428 $1,982 $1,093 3.14 1.81 $9,687 $6,079 $3,309 2.93 1.84 CZ04 PGE PGE $3,635 $2,177 $1,093 3.32 1.99 $9,992 $6,483 $3,309 3.02 1.96 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU $1,863 $2,177 $1,093 1.70 1.99 $5,184 $6,483 $3,309 1.57 1.96 CZ05 PGE PGE $3,561 $2,089 $1,093 3.26 1.91 $10,109 $6,482 $3,309 3.05 1.96 CZ05-2 PGE SCG $3,561 $2,089 $1,093 3.26 1.91 $10,109 $6,482 $3,309 3.05 1.96 CZ06 SCE SCG $2,769 $2,206 $1,093 2.53 2.02 $7,593 $6,534 $3,309 2.29 1.97 CZ07 SDGE SDGE $3,805 $2,283 $1,093 3.48 2.09 $10,818 $6,739 $3,309 3.27 2.04 CZ08 SCE SCG $2,838 $2,352 $1,093 2.60 2.15 $7,543 $6,861 $3,309 2.28 2.07 CZ09 SCE SCG $2,570 $2,393 $1,093 2.35 2.19 $7,285 $6,948 $3,309 2.20 2.10 CZ10 SCE SCG $2,490 $2,308 $1,093 2.28 2.11 $7,197 $6,697 $3,309 2.17 2.02 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE $3,670 $2,308 $1,093 3.36 2.11 $10,636 $6,697 $3,309 3.21 2.02 CZ11 PGE PGE $3,338 $2,498 $1,575 2.12 1.59 $9,480 $6,846 $3,791 2.50 1.81 CZ12 PGE PGE $3,242 $2,406 $1,253 2.59 1.92 $9,299 $6,694 $3,469 2.68 1.93 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE $1,680 $2,406 $1,253 1.34 1.92 $4,855 $6,694 $3,469 1.40 1.93 CZ13 PGE PGE $3,423 $2,558 $1,575 2.17 1.62 $9,402 $6,709 $3,791 2.48 1.77 CZ14 SCE SCG $2,682 $2,626 $1,253 2.14 2.10 $7,820 $7,707 $3,469 2.25 2.22 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE $3,940 $2,626 $1,253 3.14 2.10 $11,557 $7,707 $3,469 3.33 2.22 CZ15 SCE SCG $2,832 $2,764 $1,575 1.80 1.76 $7,676 $7,342 $3,791 2.03 1.94 CZ16 PGE PGE $3,527 $2,445 $1,575 2.24 1.55 $10,032 $6,836 $3,791 2.65 1.80 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 53 2020-06-22 Appendix E – Detailed Results All-Electric Table 25: All-Electric Efficiency Only Package Results (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1,2 Apartments Central Water Heating Total Savings (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Gas Savings (therms) Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings Gas Savings (therms) Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings Year 1 Utility Cost Savings On-Bill Utility Cost Savings TDV Cost Savings Total Inc. Cost ($) On- Bill TDV CZ01 PGE PGE 0.0 26 $6 124.6 -899 -$46 -$40 -$674 $199 -$446 0.7 >1 CZ02 PGE PGE 0.0 48 $17 114.3 -810 -$38 -$21 -$238 $528 -$606 2.5 >1 CZ03 PGE PGE 0.0 44 $15 114.9 -811 -$38 -$23 -$287 $390 -$606 2.1 >1 CZ04 PGE PGE 0.0 62 $20 110.7 -775 -$35 -$15 -$102 $625 -$606 6.0 >1 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 0.0 62 $11 110.7 -775 -$5 $5 $345 $625 -$606 >1 >1 CZ05 PGE PGE 0.0 42 $14 117.3 -830 -$40 -$26 -$350 $391 -$606 1.7 >1 CZ05-2 PGE SCG 0.0 42 $14 117.3 -830 -$66 -$53 -$827 $391 -$606 0.7 >1 CZ06 SCE SCG 0.0 74 $18 107.0 -744 -$28 -$10 $153 $612 -$606 >1 >1 CZ07 SDGE SDGE 0.0 81 $25 105.9 -734 -$43 -$18 -$58 $665 -$606 10.4 >1 CZ08 SCE SCG 0.0 84 $20 103.6 -717 -$27 -$6 $227 $693 -$606 >1 >1 CZ09 SCE SCG 0.0 83 $20 103.5 -716 -$27 -$7 $212 $739 -$606 >1 >1 CZ10 SCE SCG 0.0 83 $17 90.0 -709 -$40 -$23 -$214 $396 -$853 4.0 >1 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 0.0 83 $25 90.0 -709 -$59 -$34 -$478 $396 -$853 1.8 >1 CZ11 PGE PGE 0.0 104 $27 91.1 -723 -$46 -$19 -$241 $430 -$371 1.5 >1 CZ12 PGE PGE 0.0 93 $24 93.9 -755 -$51 -$27 -$414 $288 -$693 1.7 >1 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 0.0 93 $13 93.9 -755 $22 $36 $1,060 $288 -$693 >1 >1 CZ13 PGE PGE 0.0 132 $34 89.6 -711 -$45 -$11 -$62 $505 -$371 6.0 >1 CZ14 SCE SCG 0.0 80 $17 92.2 -733 -$42 -$25 -$258 $305 -$693 2.7 >1 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 0.0 80 $24 92.2 -733 -$61 -$36 -$532 $305 -$693 1.3 >1 CZ15 SCE SCG 0.0 145 $30 73.8 -554 -$28 $3 $332 $832 -$371 >1 >1 CZ16 PGE PGE 0.0 119 $28 107.8 -896 -$64 -$37 -$621 $127 -$371 0.6 >1 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1. 2 “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 54 2020-06-22 Table 26: Table 19: All-Electric Efficiency + PV Package Results (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1,2 0.1 kWDC per Apartment 0.2 kWDC per Apartment Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility On-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$) TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$) Total Inc. Cost On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio On-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$) TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$) Total Inc. Cost On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio CZ01 PGE PGE $78 $692 -$129 >1 >1 $830 $1,184 $187 4.44 6.33 CZ02 PGE PGE $782 $1,120 -$289 >1 >1 $1,802 $1,712 $27 65.85 62.55 CZ03 PGE PGE $741 $975 -$289 >1 >1 $1,768 $1,560 $27 64.62 57.02 CZ04 PGE PGE $955 $1,240 -$289 >1 >1 $2,012 $1,855 $27 73.51 67.79 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU $904 $1,240 -$289 >1 >1 $1,432 $1,855 $27 52.33 67.79 CZ05 PGE PGE $730 $1,018 -$289 >1 >1 $1,810 $1,646 $27 66.14 60.14 CZ05-2 PGE SCG $254 $1,018 -$289 >1 >1 $1,334 $1,646 $27 48.74 60.14 CZ06 SCE SCG $935 $1,231 -$289 >1 >1 $1,716 $1,849 $27 62.71 67.56 CZ07 SDGE SDGE $1,049 $1,302 -$289 >1 >1 $2,118 $1,938 $27 77.41 70.82 CZ08 SCE SCG $1,014 $1,337 -$289 >1 >1 $1,802 $1,981 $27 65.83 72.37 CZ09 SCE SCG $924 $1,390 -$289 >1 >1 $1,619 $2,040 $27 59.16 74.56 CZ10 SCE SCG $480 $1,023 -$536 >1 >1 $1,173 $1,650 -$219 >1 >1 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE $546 $1,023 -$536 >1 >1 $1,570 $1,650 -$219 >1 >1 CZ11 PGE PGE $660 $1,052 -$55 >1 >1 $1,560 $1,673 $262 5.96 6.39 CZ12 PGE PGE $476 $900 -$376 >1 >1 $1,366 $1,513 -$60 >1 >1 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE $1,513 $900 -$376 >1 >1 $1,967 $1,513 -$60 >1 >1 CZ13 PGE PGE $813 $1,098 -$55 >1 >1 $1,687 $1,691 $262 6.44 6.46 CZ14 SCE SCG $500 $1,031 -$376 >1 >1 $1,259 $1,757 -$60 >1 >1 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE $589 $1,031 -$376 >1 >1 $1,710 $1,757 -$60 >1 >1 CZ15 SCE SCG $1,037 $1,485 -$55 >1 >1 $1,741 $2,139 $262 6.65 8.17 CZ16 PGE PGE $339 $754 -$55 >1 >1 $1,299 $1,381 $262 4.96 5.27 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1. 2 “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.0 2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 55 2020-06-22 Table 27: All-Electric Package Results with PV, cont. (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT) 1,2 0.3 kWDC per Apartment 1.0 kWDC per Apartment Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility On-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$) TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$) Total Inc. Cost On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio On-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$) TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$) Total Inc. Cost On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio CZ01 PGE PGE $1,582 $1,676 $504 3.14 3.33 $6,660 $5,123 $2,719 2.45 1.88 CZ02 PGE PGE $2,822 $2,304 $344 8.21 6.70 $8,960 $6,446 $2,560 3.50 2.52 CZ03 PGE PGE $2,796 $2,146 $344 8.13 6.24 $9,055 $6,242 $2,560 3.54 2.44 CZ04 PGE PGE $3,069 $2,470 $344 8.92 7.18 $9,425 $6,777 $2,560 3.68 2.65 CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU $1,960 $2,470 $344 5.70 7.18 $5,281 $6,777 $2,560 2.06 2.65 CZ05 PGE PGE $2,890 $2,274 $344 8.40 6.61 $9,439 $6,667 $2,560 3.69 2.60 CZ05-2 PGE SCG $2,414 $2,274 $344 7.02 6.61 $8,962 $6,667 $2,560 3.50 2.60 CZ06 SCE SCG $2,498 $2,467 $344 7.26 7.17 $7,322 $6,796 $2,560 2.86 2.65 CZ07 SDGE SDGE $3,154 $2,575 $344 9.17 7.49 $10,166 $7,030 $2,560 3.97 2.75 CZ08 SCE SCG $2,581 $2,625 $344 7.51 7.63 $7,286 $7,133 $2,560 2.85 2.79 CZ09 SCE SCG $2,314 $2,691 $344 6.73 7.83 $7,028 $7,247 $2,560 2.75 2.83 CZ10 SCE SCG $1,866 $2,277 $97 19.22 23.46 $6,573 $6,666 $2,313 2.84 2.88 CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE $2,594 $2,277 $97 26.72 23.46 $9,560 $6,666 $2,313 4.13 2.88 CZ11 PGE PGE $2,461 $2,294 $578 4.25 3.97 $8,602 $6,641 $2,794 3.08 2.38 CZ12 PGE PGE $2,256 $2,125 $257 8.78 8.28 $8,313 $6,413 $2,473 3.36 2.59 CZ12-2 SMUD PGE $2,421 $2,125 $257 9.43 8.28 $5,596 $6,413 $2,473 2.26 2.59 CZ13 PGE PGE $2,562 $2,284 $578 4.43 3.95 $8,541 $6,435 $2,794 3.06 2.30 CZ14 SCE SCG $2,017 $2,482 $257 7.85 9.67 $7,155 $7,563 $2,473 2.89 3.06 CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE $2,831 $2,482 $257 11.02 9.67 $10,448 $7,563 $2,473 4.23 3.06 CZ15 SCE SCG $2,445 $2,793 $578 4.23 4.83 $7,289 $7,371 $2,794 2.61 2.64 CZ16 PGE PGE $2,260 $2,009 $578 3.91 3.47 $8,764 $6,399 $2,794 3.14 2.29 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1. 2 “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.0 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: 2020 Analysis of High-Rise Residential New Construction Prepared by: Frontier Energy, Inc. Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC EnergySoft Prepared for: Kelly Cunningham Codes and Standards Program Pacific Gas and Electric Company Last Modified: 2021-02-22 LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 2020, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights. Acronym List 2020 PV$ Present Value costs in 2020 dollars ACM Alternative Calculation Method B/C Benefit-to-Cost as in Benefit-to-Cost ratio BSC Building Standards Commission CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11) CASE Codes and Standards Enhancement CBECC-Com California Building Energy Code Compliance software program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating compliance with the Non- Residential California Building Energy Efficiency Standards cfm Cubic Feet per Minute CPAU City of Palo Alto Utilities CPC California Plumbing Code CZ California Climate Zone DOAS Dedicated Outdoor Air System ERV/HRV Energy- or Heat-Recovery Ventilation EPS Expanded Polystyrene ft2 Square foot GHG Greenhouse Gas GRC General Rate Case HERS Rater Home Energy Rating System Rater HPWH Heat Pump Water Heater HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IOU Investor-Owned Utility kBtu kilo-British thermal unit kWh kilowatt-hour kWDC Direct Current kilowatt. Nominal rated power of a photovoltaic system LCC Lifecycle Cost NEM Net Energy Metering NPV Net Present Value PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PV Photovoltaic SCE Southern California Edison SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric SHGC Solar Heat Gain Coefficient SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District TDV Time Dependent Valuation therm Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 TOU Time-Of-Use UEF Uniform Energy Factor W Watt WDC Watt Direct Current. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronym List .............................................................................................................................................................3 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................7 2 Methodology and Assumptions ......................................................................................................................8 2.1 Building Prototypes .....................................................................................................................................8 2.2 Measure Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Federal Preemption ......................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Energy Efficiency Measures ............................................................................................................ 11 2.2.3 Equipment Fuel Substitution Measures – Water Heating ................................................................ 11 2.2.4 Renewable Energy .......................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.5 Nonresidential and Common Area Spaces ..................................................................................... 13 2.3 Package Development............................................................................................................................. 13 2.4 Measure Cost .......................................................................................................................................... 13 2.4.1 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Measures .................................................................................. 13 2.4.2 Equipment Fuel Substitution Measures – Water Heating ................................................................ 15 2.4.3 Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs ..................................................................................................... 16 2.5 Cost Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................... 17 2.5.1 On-Bill Customer LCC ..................................................................................................................... 18 2.5.2 TDV LCC.......................................................................................................................................... 19 2.6 GHG Emissions Reductions .................................................................................................................... 20 3 Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 21 4 Conclusions and Summary .......................................................................................................................... 27 4.1 Additional conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 29 5 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 6 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................... 32 6.1 Appendix A – Map of California Climate Zones ....................................................................................... 32 6.2 Appendix B – Utility Rate Schedules ....................................................................................................... 33 6.3 Appendix C – PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo ............................................................................... 51 6.4 Appendix D – Detailed Results - Mixed Fuel ........................................................................................... 54 6.5 Appendix E – Detailed Results - All-Electric ............................................................................................ 56 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: PROTOTYPE CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................................................9 TABLE 2: INCREMENTAL COST DETAILS ....................................................................................................................... 14 TABLE 3: GAS AND ELECTRIC WATER HEATING EQUIPMENT PRESENT VALUE (2020$) COSTS OVER 30-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 TABLE 4: SOLAR THERMAL DETAILED COSTS OVER 30-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS ...................................................... 16 TABLE 5: NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE COST SAVINGS FOR ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDING .............................................. 16 TABLE 6: IOU TARIFFS APPLIED BASED ON CLIMATE ZONE .......................................................................................... 19 TABLE 7: MEASURE PACKAGE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 21 TABLE 8: MIXED-FUEL PACKAGE RESULTS: EFFICIENCY ONLY (SAVINGS/COST PER DWELLING UNIT)A .......................... 23 TABLE 9: ALL-ELECTRIC PACKAGE RESULTS: CENTRAL RECIRCULATING VS CLUSTERED HPWH APPROACH WITH EFFICIENCY (SAVINGS/COST PER DWELLING UNIT)A, B .......................................................................................... 24 TABLE 10: ALL-ELECTRIC CENTRAL RECIRCULATING HPWH RESULTS: WITH AND WITHOUT PV (SAVINGS/COST PER DWELLING UNIT)A, B ............................................................................................................................................ 25 TABLE 11: ALL-ELECTRIC CLUSTERED HPWH RESULTS: WITH AND WITHOUT PV (SAVINGS/COST PER DWELLING UNIT)A, B ......................................................................................................................................................................... 26 TABLE 12: HIGH-RISE MULTIFAMILY SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE MARGIN AND COST EFFECTIVENESS ............................ 28 TABLE 13: PG&E BASELINE TERRITORY BY CLIMATE ZONE ......................................................................................... 33 TABLE 14: PG&E MONTHLY GAS RATE ($/THERM) ...................................................................................................... 33 TABLE 15: SCE BASELINE TERRITORY BY CLIMATE ZONE ............................................................................................ 38 TABLE 16: SOCALGAS BASELINE TERRITORY BY CLIMATE ZONE .................................................................................. 40 TABLE 17: SOCALGAS MONTHLY GAS RATE ($/THERM) .............................................................................................. 40 TABLE 18: SDG&E BASELINE TERRITORY BY CLIMATE ZONE ....................................................................................... 43 TABLE 19: SDG&E MONTHLY GAS RATE ($/THERM) ................................................................................................... 43 TABLE 20: CPAU MONTHLY GAS RATE ($/THERM) ...................................................................................................... 49 TABLE 21: REAL UTILITY RATE ESCALATION RATE ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................ 50 TABLE 22: MIXED-FUEL EFFICIENCY ONLY PACKAGE RESULTS (SAVINGS/COST PER DWELLING UNIT)A ......................... 54 TABLE 23: MIXED-FUEL EFFICIENCY + 0.1 KWDC PV PER DWELLING UNIT RESULTS (SAVINGS/COST PER DWELLING UNIT)A ............................................................................................................................................................... 55 TABLE 24: ALL-ELECTRIC CENTRAL RECIRCULATING HPWH EFFICIENCY PACKAGE RESULTS (SAVINGS/COST PER DWELLING UNIT)A, B ............................................................................................................................................ 56 TABLE 25: ALL-ELECTRIC CENTRAL RECIRCULATING HPWH + 0.1 KWDC PV PER DWELLING UNIT RESULTS (SAVINGS/COST PER DWELLING UNIT)A, B ............................................................................................................ 57 TABLE 26: ALL-ELECTRIC CENTRAL RECIRCULATING HPWH + 0.2 KWDC PV PER DWELLING UNIT RESULTS (SAVINGS/COST PER DWELLING UNIT)A, B ............................................................................................................ 58 TABLE 27: ALL-ELECTRIC CLUSTERED HPWH EFFICIENCY ONLY PACKAGE RESULTS (SAVINGS/COST PER DWELLING UNIT)A, B ............................................................................................................................................................. 59 TABLE 28: ALL-ELECTRIC CLUSTERED HPWH + 0.1 KWDC PV PER DWELLING UNIT RESULTS (SAVINGS/COST PER DWELLING UNIT)A, B ............................................................................................................................................ 59 TABLE 29: ALL-ELECTRIC CLUSTERED HPWH + 0.2 KWDC PV PER DWELLING UNIT RESULTS (SAVINGS/COST PER DWELLING UNIT)A, B ............................................................................................................................................ 61 List of Figures FIGURE 1: TEN-STORY HIGH-RISE MULTIFAMILY PROTOTYPE DEPICTION. ..........................................................................9 FIGURE 2: PRESCRIPTIVE CENTRAL HPWH SYSTEM SCHEMATIC. ................................................................................. 12 FIGURE 3: MAP OF CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ZONES. ......................................................................................................... 32 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 7 1 Introduction The California Codes and Standards Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation. This cost-effectiveness study was sponsored by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting ordinances may contact the program for support through its website, LocalEnergyCodes.com. The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, or Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (California Energy Commission, 2018a) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and result in buildings consuming less energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, 2019 Title 24, effective January 1, 2020. Local jurisdictions in California may consider adopting local energy ordinances to achieve energy savings beyond what will be accomplished by enforcing building efficiency requirements that apply statewide. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Statewide Reach Codes Team. The focus of this study is on new high-rise (eight stories and higher) multifamily residential construction. The analysis evaluates both mixed-fuel and all-electric residential construction, documenting performance requirements that can be met by either type of building design. Compliance package options and cost- effectiveness analysis in all 16 California climate zones (CZs) are presented (see Appendix A – Map of California Climate Zones for a graphical depiction of climate zone locations). This analysis complements the analysis conducted for mid-rise multifamily residential construction in June 2020 (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2020). High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 8 2 Methodology and Assumptions This analysis uses two different metrics to assess cost effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures. The main difference between the methodologies is the way they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use: • Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based Lifecycle Cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer On-Bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration accounting for discount rate and energy cost inflation. • Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the “societal value or cost” of energy use including long-term projected costs, such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs, such as projected costs for carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (natural gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods (Horii et al., 2014). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24. Both 2019 and 2022 TDV multipliers are evaluated and documented in this analysis. The general approach applied in this analysis is to evaluate performance and determine cost effectiveness of various packages of energy measures in high-rise multifamily dwelling units. The California Building Energy Code Compliance – Commercial (CBECC-Com) 2019.1.3 and 2022 beta compliance simulation tools were used to evaluate energy savings for all measures. 2022 weather files were used to evaluate site energy use and TDV cost effectiveness along with the 2022 TDV. 2.1 Building Prototypes The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. The Energy Commission recently developed new prototype designs for multifamily buildings to more closely reflect typical designs for new multifamily buildings across the state. The new prototypes include two low-rise residential designs, a mid-rise, and a high-rise design. This analysis uses the new high-rise multifamily prototype (TRC, 2019), which is a variation of the previous ten-story high-rise prototype used in prior code cycles. The high-rise prototype is a ten-story building with two below-grade parking levels, ground floor commercial space, and nine stories of residential space. Table 1 describes the basic characteristics of the high-rise prototype and Figure 1 shows a depiction of the building. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 9 Table 1: Prototype Characteristics Multifamily 10-Story High-Rise Conditioned Floor Area 125,400 Square Foot (ft2) Total: 24,960 ft2 Nonresidentiala & 100,440 ft2 Residential Number of Stories 12 Stories Total: 2-Story Parking Garage (below grade) 1 Story of Nonresidential Space 9 Stories of Residential Space Number of Dwelling Units/Bedrooms (18) Studios, (54) 1-Bed Units, & (45) 2-Bed Units Foundation Concrete Podium with Underground Parking Wall Assembly Steel Frame Roof Assembly Flat Roof Window-to-Wall Area Ratio 40% HVAC System Ducted split system heat pumps at each dwelling unit. Dedicated outdoor air system for dwelling unit ventilation. Domestic Hot Water System Gas central boiler with solar thermal sized to meet the prescriptive requirements by climate zone. a. includes ground floor commercial space, corridors and common areas. Source: TRC, 2019. Figure 1: Ten-story high-rise multifamily prototype depiction. Source: TRC, 2019. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 10 The methodology used in the analyses for the prototypical building type begins with a design that meets the minimum 2019 Title 24 prescriptive requirements (zero compliance margin). Table 140.3-B and 140.3-C in the 2019 Title 24 (California Energy Commission, 2018a) list the prescriptive measures that determine the baseline design in each climate zone for the nonresidential and high-rise residential spaces, respectively. Other features are consistent with the Standard Design in the Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Reference Manual (California Energy Commission, 2019a) with two exceptions: 1. The dwelling units use split system heat pumps instead of a split furnace and air conditioner that is prescribed in Table 2 of the Nonresidential ACM Reference Manual. This modeling choice was made to better reflect current market data, which shows heat pumps to be the most common system type and a very low prevalence of gas furnaces for multifamily buildings four stories and greater (TRC, 2019). In most climate zones the difference between a heat pump or gas furnace is nearly compliance neutral. 2. A dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) is used for ventilation serving the dwelling units. This is based on anecdotal information that this practice is more common than individual ventilation systems in high-rise buildings. It also provides variability across the mid- and high-rise analysis, which is important so that this analysis provides more realistic solutions for the high-rise multifamily building type. The selection of a DOAS does not match the Standard Design, which applies individual balanced fans for ventilation at all residential spaces, and results in a small compliance penalty.1 The analysis also assumed electric resistance cooking in the dwelling unit units to reflect the current market based on anecdotal information. Laundry was not addressed in this study. The building prototype assumes central laundry facilities and no laundry in the units. 2.2 Measure Analysis EnergyPro software, using CBECC-Com as the simulation engine, was used to evaluate energy impacts and code compliance applying the 2019 Title 24 prescriptive standards as the benchmark. TDV is the energy metric used by Title 24 since 2005 to evaluate compliance. Although both the 2019 and 2022 compliance software were used for evaluation, the 2019 software was used for reporting compliance margins and the 2022 software, with the 2022 weather, was used for reporting site energy and utility bill impacts. Using the 2019 baseline as the starting point, prospective energy efficiency measures were identified and modeled to determine the projected site energy (therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly data output from CBECC-Com, and electricity and natural gas tariffs for each of the IOUs. The Statewide Reach Codes Team selected measures for evaluation based on prior residential and nonresidential 2019 reach code analysis ((Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019a), (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019b), (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2020)) as well as experience with and outreach to architects, builders, and engineers and general knowledge of the relative acceptance of many measures. This analysis focuses on the residential dwelling units only. A prior study and report demonstrated the cost effectiveness of above code packages for nonresidential buildings (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019a). 2.2.1 Federal Preemption The United States Department of Energy sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1975, including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting policies that mandate higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require (federal preemption), the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency equipment. While this 1 The compliance penalty is not reflected in the results in this analysis since the baseline and proposed designs both include a DOAS. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 11 study is limited by federal preemption, in practice builders may use any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance goals, including high efficiency appliances. Often, these measures are the simplest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance. 2.2.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Following are descriptions of each of the efficiency measures evaluated for the residential spaces under this analysis. Because not all of the measures described below were found to be cost-effective, and cost effectiveness varied by climate zone, not all measures are included in all packages and some of the measures listed are not included in any final package. Improved Fenestration – Lower U-factor: Reduce window U-factor to 0.25 Btu/hour-ft2-°F. The prescriptive maximum U-factor is 0.36 in all climates. This measure applies to all windows on floors two through ten. Improved Fenestration – Lower SHGC: Reduce window solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) to 0.22. The prescriptive maximum SHGC is 0.25 for fixed windows in all climates. The Statewide Reach Codes Team evaluated increased SHGC in heating dominated climates (Climate Zones 1, 3, 5, and 16) but results were better with a lower SHGC. This measure applies to all windows on floors two through ten. Exterior Wall Insulation: Additional R-4 exterior continuous insulation on exterior walls. To meet the prescriptive wall requirements, it is assumed that exterior wall insulation is used in the base case, therefore this measure adds the additional R-value to existing exterior insulation. This measure applies to all walls on floors two through ten. HERS Verification of Hot Water Pipe Insulation: The California Plumbing Code (CPC) requires pipe insulation on all hot water lines. This measure provides credit for HERS Rater verification of pipe insulation requirements according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.6.3. (California Energy Commission, 2018b). Low Pressure Drop Ducts: Upgrade the duct distribution system to reduce external static pressure and meet a maximum fan efficacy of 0.25 watts (W) per cubic feet per minute (cfm) operating at full speed. This may involve upsizing ductwork, reducing the total effective length of ducts, and/or selecting low pressure drop components, such as filters. This measure is applied to the ducted split system heat pumps serving the dwelling units. Energy- or Heat- Recovery Ventilation: An energy- or heat-recovery ventilation (ERV/HRV) system installed on the central DOAS with 67 percent sensible recovery effectiveness and 1.0 W/cfm fan efficacy (total including both supply and return fans). The DOAS in the base case model also has a 1.0 W/cfm fan efficacy, so there is no fan efficacy credit or penalty evaluated for this measure. Solar Thermal: Prescriptively, central water heating systems require a solar thermal system with a 20 percent solar fraction in Climates Zones 1 through 9 and 35 percent solar fraction in Climate Zones 10 through 16. This measure upgrades the prescriptive solar thermal system to meet a 50 percent solar fraction in all climates, assuming there is available roof space for the additional collectors. 2.2.3 Equipment Fuel Substitution Measures – Water Heating Since the base case prototype model assumes individual heat pumps for space heating and all-electric appliances in the dwelling units, the central domestic hot water system is the only equipment serving the dwelling unit spaces to electrify in the all-electric design. The Statewide Reach Codes Team evaluated two configurations for electric heat pump water heaters (HPWHs) described below. New functionality was added to CBECC-Com 2019.1.3 with the ability to model central HPWH systems. There are two primary system types: “Small, Integrated, Packaged System” and “Large Single Pass Primary”. The former allows for modeling 40- to 85-gallon residential HPWHs including Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance rated units and is how the clustered approach referred to in this analysis is modeled. The latter models large central HPWHs and covers various product models over six manufacturers (at the time of writing this report). CBECC-Com 2019.1.3 also provides a “Solar Thermal Flexibility Credit” to allow for projects with electric central water heating to use a photovoltaic (PV) system to offset the energy use of the solar thermal system in the Standard Design base case. Under these conditions, PV’s impact on compliance margin is limited to the value of the solar thermal credit. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 12 Central HPWH with Recirculation: Per Section 150.1(c)8C of 2019 Title 24, the Energy Commission made an executive determination outlining requirements of a prescriptive approach for central heat pump water heating systems in December 2019 (California Energy Commission, 2019b). Key aspects of the prescriptive approach are described below: • The system must be configured with a design similar to what is presented in the schematic in Figure 2, copied from the executive determination document. • HPWH must be a single-pass split system with the compressor located outdoors and be able to operate down to -20°F. • The system must include either a solar thermal water heating system that meets the current prescriptive requirements or 0.1 direct current kilowatt (kWDC) of PV system capacity per dwelling unit/dwelling unit. Figure 2: Prescriptive central HPWH system schematic. Source: Energy Commission (California Energy Commission, 2019b). For this configuration, the Statewide Reach Codes Team evaluated a central recirculating HPWH system using Sanden compressors that meet the prescriptive requirements. Based on the system sizing requirements, 19 Sanden units and 1,520 gallons of primary storage capacity are required for the 117-dwelling unit building. The system is modeled with the tanks located indoors in a conditioned zone and source air provided from outdoors with the Sanden units likely located on rooftops. The rooftop space required for the heat pump units and the prescriptive PV system (0.1 kWDC per dwelling unit) will be similar or less than that required for the prescriptive solar thermal water heating system. The recirculation system is demand controlled meeting the requirements of the 2019 Reference Appendices RA4.4.13. Clustered HPWH: This clustered design uses residential integrated storage HPWHs to serve more than one dwelling unit; four to five bedrooms on average for a total of 38 HPWHs in the 117- dwelling unit, 162-bed building. The water heaters are located in conditioned interior closets throughout the building and designed for short plumbing runs without using a hot water recirculation loop. A minimum efficiency 2.0 uniform energy factor (UEF) HPWH was used for this analysis (to avoid federal preemption). This approach has been selectively used in multifamily projects because of its reliance on lower cost, small capacity HPWH products. The clustered strategy is not a prescriptive option but is allowed in the performance path if the water heater serves no more than eight units. Since each water heater serves multiple dwelling units, the Standard Design includes a solar thermal water heating system and the project is penalized in compliance if a solar thermal or PV system is not included. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 13 2.2.4 Renewable Energy PV: There is no existing requirement for PV in the 2019 Title 24 nonresidential code for high-rise residential buildings (four or more stories). The PV sizing methodology was developed to offset a portion of annual residential electricity use and avoid oversizing which would violate net energy metering (NEM) rules. In all cases, PV is evaluated with the PV simulations within CBECC-Com using a standard module type, 180-degree azimuth, and 22-degree tilt. The analysis evaluated a PV system capacity equal to 0.1 and 0.2 kWDC per dwelling unit. Assuming 15 W per ft2 this requires 780 to 1,560 ft2 of the 12,540 ft2 rooftop. The benefit of the PV was applied to the dwelling units assuming virtual NEM. 2.2.5 Nonresidential and Common Area Spaces Efficiency measure packages and electric equipment (for the all-electric analysis) found to be cost-effective in the nonresidential building reach code analysis were applied to the nonresidential spaces for evaluating performance relative to compliance, but the incremental costs and energy impacts of these measures on the nonresidential spaces were not included in this analysis. Refer to the nonresidential reach code study for more details (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019a). 2.3 Package Development Three types of measure packages were evaluated for each climate zone to identify cost-effective combinations, as described below. 1. Efficiency Packages: These packages combine efficiency measures that do not trigger federal preemption including envelope, water heating distribution, and duct distribution efficiency measures. 2. Fuel Substitution: In addition to applying the efficiency measures these packages also use electric appliances in place of natural gas appliances. For the residential spaces, only water heating is converted from using natural gas to electricity. a. For water heating both a central design with recirculation and a clustered design are evaluated. 3. Efficiency and PV Packages (with or without fuel substitution): In addition to applying efficiency measures these packages have a PV system to offset a portion of dwelling unit estimated electricity use. 2.4 Measure Cost Measure costs were obtained from various sources, including prior reach code studies, past Title 24 Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) work (developed by the Statewide CASE Team), local contractors, internet searches, past projects, and technical reports. 2.4.1 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Measures Table 2 summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for the residential measures evaluated in this study. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measures relative to the base case. Replacement costs are applied to PV inverters and water heating equipment over the 30-year evaluation period. There is no assumed incremental maintenance on the envelope, HVAC, or water heating measures. Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. When costs were obtained from a source that did not already include builder overhead and profit, a markup of ten percent was added. All costs are provided as present value in 2020 (2020 PV$). Costs due to variations in heat pump capacity by climate zone were not accounted for in the analysis. While the efficiency measures will reduce required cooling and heating capacities, in most cases they will not be reduced enough to drop to the next nominal capacity system. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 14 Table 2: Incremental Cost Details Measure Performance Level Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Source & Notes Non-Preempted Measures Window U-factor 0.25 vs 0.36 $27,342 $6.95/ft2 window area based on analysis conducted for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 code cycles (Statewide CASE Team, 2018). Window SHGC 0.22 vs 0.25 $0 Data from CASE Report along with direct feedback from Statewide CASE Team that higher SHGC does not necessarily have any incremental cost impact (Statewide CASE Team, 2017b). Exterior Wall Insulation Add 1 inch $8,497 $0.86/ft2 based on adding 1 inch of exterior insulation on exterior walls with some level of existing exterior insulation. Costs are averaged from two sources ((Statewide CASE Team, 2014), (Statewide CASE Team, 2017a)) and for both expanded polystyrene (EPS) and polyisocyanurate products with a 10% mark-up added to account for cost increases since the time of the report. HERS Verified Pipe Insulation HERS verified pipe insulation vs no verification $13,275 $83 per dwelling unit for a HERS Rater to conduct verification of pipe insulation based on feedback from HERS Raters. Low Pressure Drop Duct Design 0.25 W/cfm vs 0.35 W/cfm $16,824 $144 per dwelling unit. Costs assume 1.5 hours labor per multifamily dwelling unit. Labor rate of $96 per hour is from 2019 RSMeans for sheet metal workers and includes an average City Cost Index for labor for California cities. ERV/HRV (on central DOAS) 67% sensible recovery effectiveness $110,331 Based on costs from the Multifamily Indoor Air Quality 2022 CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020b). Solar Thermal System 50% solar fraction vs prescriptive 20%-35% $59,452 - $84,932 Costs based on 2022 multifamily solar thermal measure CASE proposal (Statewide CASE Team, 2020a) and include first cost of $70,727 and $8,834 present value for replacement/maintenance costs. Renewable Energy (PV) PV System 0.1 and 0.2 kWDC per dwelling unit $3.17/WDC First costs are from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Tracking the Sun 2018 costs (Barbose et al., 2018) and represent costs for the first half of 2018 of $2.90/WDC for nonresidential systems ≤ 500 kWDC. These costs were reduced by 16% for the solar investment tax credit, which is the average credit over years 2020-2022. Inverter replacement cost of $0.14/WDC present value includes replacements at year 11 at $0.15/WDC (nominal) and at year 21 at $0.12/WDC (nominal) per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017). System maintenance costs of $0.31/WDC present value assumes additional $0.02/WDC (nominal) annually per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017). 10% overhead and profit added to all costs. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 15 2.4.2 Equipment Fuel Substitution Measures – Water Heating The Statewide Reach Codes Team reached out to stakeholders to collect project cost information for central gas boilers and central recirculating and clustered HPWH designs. Project data sources included Association for Energy Affordability, Redwood Energy, Mithun, Ecotope, and the All-Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway 2022 CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020a). Costs are presented in Table 3 and do not include PV system costs. The cases were evaluated with and without PV even though PV or solar thermal is prescriptively required as part of the electric central water heating prescriptive approach. Table 3: Gas and Electric Water Heating Equipment Present Value (2020$) Costs over 30-Year Period of Analysis Central Gas Boiler (CZs 1-9) Central Gas Boiler (CZs 10-16) Central Recirculating HPWH Clustered HPWH System Quantity/Description 1 boiler recirculation 19 units, 1,547-gallon total 38 units, 80-gallon each Total Equipment Cost $131,270 $270,261 $153,409 Solar Thermal System (20% solar fraction) $122,216 (35% solar fraction) $147,696 - - Total First Cost $253,486 $278,966 $270,261 $153,409 Maintenance/Replacement Cost (PV) $90,167 $90,167 $147,450 $98,467 Total Cost (NPV) $343,653 $369,133 $417,710 $251,876 Incremental Cost CZ 1-9 (PV) - - $74,057 ($91,777) Incremental Cost CZ 10-16 (PV) - - $48,577 ($117,257) Source: Statewide CASE Team, 2020a. Typical costs for the water heating systems are based on the following assumptions: Central Gas Boiler: Based on the average of total estimated project costs from contractors for four multi-family projects ranging from 32 to 340 dwelling units and cost estimates for mid- and high-rise buildings from the All- Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway 2022 CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020a). The cost per dwelling unit ranged from $547 to $2,089 and the average cost applied in this analysis was $1,122 per dwelling unit. Costs include installation of gas piping from the building meter to the water heater. Water heater lifetime is assumed to be 15 years and the net present value (NPV) replacement cost at year 15 is $84,257. Central Recirculating HPWH: Based on average total installed project costs from four multi-family projects with Sanden HPWHs ranging from four to 16 Sanden units per project. The cost per Sanden HPWH ranged from $13,094 to $15,766 and the average cost applied in this analysis was $14,224 per HPWH. Based on the prescriptive system sizing requirements, 19 Sanden units are required for the 117-dwelling unit building, resulting in a total first cost of $270,261. Water heater lifetime is assumed to be 15 years. Because Sanden HPWHs are an emerging technology in the United States, it is expected that over time their costs will decrease and for replacement at year 15 the costs are assumed to have decreased by 15 percent. Clustered HPWH: Based on costs from one project with RHEEM HPWHs used in a clustered design. Costs include water heater interior closet, electrical outlets, and increased breaker size and sub feed. Water heater based on 2.0 UEF 80-gallon appliance with 38 total HPWHs serving the building (one per four to five bedrooms). Water heater lifetime is assumed to be 15 years and the NPV replacement cost at year 15 is $98,467. While this has an impact on leasable floor area, the design impacts have been found to be minimal when addressed early in design and is equivalent to less than one percent of the residential floor area. This design assumes eight water heater closets per floor, at approximately 15 ft2 per closet. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 16 Solar Thermal: Based on system costs provided in the All-Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway 2022 CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020a). First costs for materials for the 35 percent solar fraction case and the markup percentage reflect that presented in the CASE Report for the high-rise prototype. The labor costs and 20 percent solar fraction case costs are estimated based on detailed costs in the CASE Report. Replacement and maintenance costs assume replacement of the solar thermal tank at year 15 at $6,110 and glycol replacement of $1,300 each time at years 9, 18, and 27. The cost of the remaining useful life of the glycol at year 30 is deducted from the final cost. The CASE Report included costs for replacing the solar collectors at year 20. Collectors can have longer lifetimes up to 30 years if well maintained, therefore this analysis does not assume any replacement of the collectors over the 30-year analysis period. See Table 4 for details. Table 4: Solar Thermal Detailed Costs over 30-Year Period of Analysis Solar Fraction 20% 35% Materials $39,854 $57,450 Labor $56,001 $58,390 Markup 27.5% 27.5% First Cost $122,216 $147,696 Replacement/Maintenance (2020 $PV) $5,910 $5,910 Total Cost (2020 $PV) $128,126 $153,605 Source: Statewide CASE Team, 2020a. 2.4.3 Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs This analysis assumes that in an all-electric new construction project, natural gas would not be supplied to the building. Eliminating natural gas to the building would save costs associated with connecting a service line from the street main to the building, piping distribution within the building, and monthly meter customer charges from the utility. Incremental costs for natural gas infrastructure in the mixed-fuel building are presented in Table 5. Cost data for the plan review and service extension was estimated on a per building basis and then apportioned to the residential and nonresidential portions of the buildings based on annual gas consumption. For the base case prototype building 49 to 82 percent of estimated building annual gas use is attributed to the residential water heating system across all climate zones. A statewide average of 75 percent was calculated and applied to the costs in Table 5 based on housing starts provided by the Energy Commission for the 2019 Title 24 code development process. The meter costs were based on the service provided to the residential and nonresidential portion of the building separately. Following the table are descriptions of assumptions for each of the cost components. Costs for gas piping from the meter to the gas boilers are included in the central gas boiler costs above. Gas piping distribution costs were typically included in total project costs and could not be broken out in all cases. Table 5: Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Building Item Source Total Nonresidential Portion Residential Portion Natural Gas Plan Review (TRC, 2018) $2,316 $588 $1,728 Service Extensiona (PG&E, 2019) $4,600 $1,169 $3,431 Meter (PG&E, 2019) $7,200 $3,600 $3,600 Total First Cost $14,116 $5,357 $8,759 a Service extension costs include 50 percent reduction assuming portion of the costs are passed on to gas customers. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 17 Natural Gas Plan Review: Total costs are based on TRC’s 2019 reach code analysis for Palo Alto (TRC, 2018) and then split between the residential and nonresidential spaces in the building proportionately according to annual gas consumption with 75 percent of the annual load is attributed to residential units on a statewide basis. Service Extension: Service extension costs to the building were taken from a PG&E memo dated December 5, 2019 to Energy Commission staff. They include costs for trenching and assume nonresidential new construction within a developed area (see Appendix C – PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo). The total cost of $9,200 from the memo is reduced by 50 percent to account for the portion of the costs paid for by all customers due to application of Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 2. The resultant cost is apportioned between the residential and nonresidential spaces in the building based on annual gas consumption of residential and nonresidential uses, with 75 percent of the annual natural gas use attributed to residential units on a statewide basis. Meter: Cost per meter provided by PG&E for commercial meters (see Appendix C – PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo). Assume one meter for nonresidential boilers serving space heating and service water heating, and another for residential boilers serving domestic hot water. 2.5 Cost Effectiveness Cost effectiveness was evaluated for all climate zones and is presented based on both TDV energy, using the Energy Commission’s LCC methodology, and an On-Bill approach using residential customer utility rates. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the value of the energy impact associated with energy efficiency measures over the life of the measures (30 years) as compared to the prescriptive Title 24 requirements. Additional analysis included evaluating the measures using both the 2019 and proposed 2022 TDV multipliers. The proposed 2022 weather files were also used to calculate site energy use and evaluate On-Bill energy performance. The 2022 weather files were updated in 2019 and are considered to better represent conditions now and in the future. They tend to increase cooling and reduce space heating energy use, based on recent warming trends throughout the state. Cost effectiveness is presented using both lifecycle NPV savings and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics, which represent the cost effectiveness of a measure over a 30-year lifetime taking into account discounting of future savings and costs. • NPV Savings: PV benefits minus PV costs is reported as a cost-effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost-effective. Negative savings represent net costs. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost-effective if the costs to implement the measure are more negative (i.e., material and maintenance cost savings). • B/C Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 30 years (PV benefits divided by PV costs). The criterion for cost effectiveness is a B/C ratio greater than one. A value of one indicates the NPV of the savings over the life of the measure is equivalent to the NPV of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The B/C ratio is calculated according to Equation 1. Equation 1 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵−𝐵𝐵𝑡𝑡−𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑡𝑡=𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑡𝑡𝐵𝐵 𝑙𝑙𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑙𝑙𝐵𝐵 𝑏𝑏𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑡𝑡𝐵𝐵 𝑙𝑙𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑙𝑙𝐵𝐵 𝑐𝑐𝑡𝑡𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵 2 PG&E Rule 15: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_RULES_15.pdf SoCalGas Rule 20: https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/20.pdf SDG&E Rule 15: http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-RULES_GRULE15.pdf High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 18 Improving the efficiency of a project often requires an initial incremental investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual On-Bill utility or TDV savings, and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. However, some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). In cases where both construction costs and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the increased energy costs are the ‘cost.’ In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective immediately (i.e. upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost effectiveness is represented by “>1”. Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values. The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 2. Equation 2 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑡𝑡𝐵𝐵 𝑙𝑙𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑙𝑙𝐵𝐵 𝑐𝑐𝑡𝑡𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵 𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑏𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵=�(𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐𝑡𝑡𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵 𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑏𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵)𝑡𝑡(1 +𝑜𝑜)𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛 𝑡𝑡=0 Where: • n = analysis term • r = discount rate • t = year at which cost/benefit is incurred The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies. • Analysis term of 30-years • Real discount rate of three percent (does not include inflation) 2.5.1 On-Bill Customer LCC Residential utility rates were used to calculate utility costs for all cases and determine O n-Bill customer cost effectiveness for the proposed packages. Utility costs of the nonresidential spaces were not evaluated in this study, only dwelling unit and water heating energy use. The Statewide Reach Codes Team obtained the recommended utility rates from the representative utility based on the assumption that the reach codes go into effect in 2020. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and gas output from CBECC-Com and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 6. Appendix B – Utility Rate Schedules includes details on the utility rate schedules used for this study. The applicable residential time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases. For cases with PV generation, the approved NEM2 tariffs were applied along with minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges. For the PV cases annual electric production was always less than annual electricity consumption; and therefore, no credits for surplus generation were necessary. Future changes to the NEM tariffs are likely; however, there is a lot of uncertainty about what those changes will be and when they will become effective. There are no master metered multifamily service electric tariffs available from the IOUs. Based on guidance from the IOUs, the residential electric TOU tariffs that apply to individually metered residential dwelling units were also used to calculate electricity costs for the central water heating systems. Baseline allowances included in the electric tariff were applied on a per unit basis for all-electric service. Based on guidance from the IOUs, master metered multifamily service gas tariffs were used to calculate gas costs for the central water heating systems. The baseline quantities were applied on a per unit basis, as is defined in the schedules, and when available water heating only baseline values were used. Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone according to Table 6. Climate Zones 10 and 14 are evaluated with both SCE/SoCalGas and SDG&E tariffs since each utility has customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates. Two municipal utility rates were also evaluated, Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) in Climate Zone 12 and City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) in Climate Zone 4. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 19 Table 6: IOU Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone Climate Zone Electric/Gas Utility Electricity (Dwelling Unit Use) Electricity (Central Water Heating) Natural Gas (Central Water Heating)a 1-5, 11-13, 16 PG&E E-TOU-C E-TOU-C PG&E GM 5 PG&E/SoCalGas SoCalGas GM-E 6, 8-10, 14,15 SCE/SoCalGas TOU-D (Option 4-9) TOU-D (Option 4-9) 7, 10, 14 SDG&E TOU-DR1 TOU-DR1 SDG&E GM 12 SMUD/PG&E R-TOD (RT02) GSN-T PG&E GM 4 CPAU E-1 E-2 G-2 a These rates are allowed assuming no gas is used in the dwelling units. Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). Escalation of natural gas rates between 2019 and 2022 is based on the currently filed GRCs for PG&E, SoCalGas, and SDG&E. Consistent with the E3 study, gas rates are assumed to escalate at four percent per year above inflation from 2023 through 2025, which reflects historical rate increases between 2013 and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2019 through 2025 is assumed to be two percent per year above inflation, based on electric utility estimates. After 2025 escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are assumed to drop to a more conservative one percent escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories beginning in 2026 through 2050. See Appendix B – Utility Rate Schedules for additional details. 2.5.2 TDV LCC Cost effectiveness was also assessed using the Energy Commission’s TDV LCC methodology. TDV is a normalized monetary format developed and used by the Energy Commission for comparing electricity and natural gas savings, and it considers the cost of electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and year. Two versions of TDV were evaluated in this study: the 2019 TDV values used under current 2019 Title 24 for compliance and the 2022 TDV values recently developed and approved by the Energy Commission for the upcoming 2022 Title 24 cycle which will become effective January 1, 2023. The Energy Commission adopted the TDV methodology to more accurately reflect the variations in the value of energy used (or saved) based on the mix of generation resources and demand on the grid at any given time, as well as impacts on retail energy costs. The 2022 TDV values reflect changes in the generation mix as well as the shift in the peak demand time from mid-afternoon toward early evenings. The TDV values are based on long term discounted costs of 30 years for all residential measures. The CBECC- Com simulation software results are expressed in terms of TDV kBtu. The present value of the energy cost savings in dollars is calculated by multiplying the TDV kBtu savings by a NPV factor, also developed by the Energy Commission. The 30-year NPV factor is $0.154/TDV kBtu for nonresidential projects under both the 2019 and 2022 Title 24. Like the customer B/C ratio, a TDV B/C ratio value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The ratio is calculated according to Equation 3. Equation 3 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵−𝐵𝐵𝑡𝑡−𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑡𝑡=𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑜𝑜𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑒𝑒𝐶𝐶 ∗ 𝑁𝑁𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝐵𝐵𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑡𝑡𝐵𝐵 𝑙𝑙𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑙𝑙𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝐵𝐵𝑙𝑙𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐𝑡𝑡𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 20 2.5.2.1 2019 and 2022 TDV Differences There were key changes to the 2022 TDV methodology as compared to the 2019 TDV. Major updates include the following and are further described in the final 2022 TDV methodology report (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2020). • Updated weather files to reflect historical data from recent years. • New load profiles representing building and transportation electrification and renewable generation. • Addition of internalized cost streams to account for carbon emissions. • Shaped retail rate adjustment partially scaled to hourly marginal cost of service. • Addition of non-combustion emissions from methane and refrigerant leakage. The impact of these key changes for electricity TDV are lower values during the mid-day that correspond with an abundance of solar production and a shift of the peak TDV to later in the day as a result of increasing levels of rooftop PV systems. However, the overall magnitude of the electricity 2022 TDV does not increase significantly relative to 2019 TDV. For natural gas TDV there is a large increase in magnitude with the 2022 TDV roughly 40 percent higher than in 2019. This is driven by the new retail rate forecast, increased fixed costs for maintaining the distribution system, and the new carbon cost component. The updated 2022 weather files represent an updated dataset based on historical weather sampled from recent years (1998-2017) to reflect the impacts of climate change. Cooling loads increase significantly, particularly for the mild climate zones where cooling energy use was previously low. Heating loads decrease on average 30 percent across all climate zones. The weather files used for the 2019 code cycle had not been updated since the 2013 code cycle and represented data only up until 2009. The Energy Commission and the Statewide Reach Codes Team contend that the updated 2022 weather files better reflect changing climate conditions in California. Therefore, the 2022 files are used for all the analysis reported in this study. 2.6 GHG Emissions Reductions Equivalent CO2 emission reductions were calculated based on estimates from Zero Code reports available in CBECC-Com simulation software.3 Electricity emissions vary by region and by hour of the year, accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard projections. Hourly profiles reflect Climate Zones 1 through 5 and 11 through 13 as a single region and Climate Zones 6 through 10 and 14 through 16 as another. For natural gas, a fixed factor of 11.7 pounds (lb) per therm is used. To compare the mixed-fuel and all-electric cases side-by-side, GHG emissions are presented as CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emissions per dwelling unit. 3 More information at: https://zero-code.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ZERO-Code-TSD-California.pdf High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 21 3 Results The primary objective of this evaluation is to identify cost-effective, non-preempted performance targets for high- rise multifamily buildings, under both mixed-fuel and all-electric cases, to support the design of local ordinances requiring new high-rise residential buildings to exceed the minimum state requirements. The packages presented are representative examples of designs and measures that can be used to meet the requirements. In practice, a builder can use any combination of non-preempted or preempted compliant measures to meet the requirements. This analysis evaluated a package of efficiency measures applied to a mixed-fuel design and a similar package for an all-electric design. Each design was evaluated using the predominant utility rates in all climate zones. PV was also added to the efficiency packages. The following measures are included in at least one package: • Lower SHGC fenestration • Wall insulation • Low pressure-drop HVAC distribution system • HERS verified pipe insulation The following measures were evaluated but were found to not be cost-effective in any of the climate zones and were not included in any of the packages: • Solar thermal system with higher solar fraction than prescriptive requirements • ERV/HRV System • Lower U-factor fenestration Table 7 describes the efficiency measures included in the mixed-fuel and all-electric packages. Table 7: Measure Package Summary Climate Zone MEASURE SPECIFICATION Window SHGC Add Exterior Wall Insulation (inch) Fan Watt Draw (W/cfm) HERS Pipe Insulation 1 + 1 0.25 No 2 0.22 0.25 No 3 0.22 + 1 (all-electric only) 0.25 Yes (all-electric only) 4 0.22 0.25 No 5 0.22 + 1 (all-electric only) 0.25 Yes (all-electric only) 6 0.22 0.25 No 7 0.22 0.25 No 8 0.22 0.25 No 9 0.22 0.25 No 10 0.22 0.25 No 11 0.22 + 1 0.25 No 12 0.22 + 1 0.25 No 13 0.22 + 1 0.25 No 14 0.22 + 1 0.25 No 15 0.22 + 1 0.25 No 16 0.22 + 1 0.25 No High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 22 Table 8 presents results for the mixed-fuel packages and Table 9 through Table 11 present results for the all- electric packages. Both mixed-fuel and all-electric results are relative to the mixed-fuel 2019 Title 24 prescriptive baseline model with in-unit heat pumps for heating and cooling and central gas water heating. B/C ratios for all packages are calculated according to the On-Bill, 2019 TDV, and 2022 TDV methodologies. The all-electric results are presented both without PV and with a PV system sized based on 0.1 and 0.2 kWDC per dwelling unit. The mixed-fuel package was also evaluated with 0.1 kWDC per dwelling unit and results are presented in Appendix D – Detailed Results - Mixed Fuel. Appendix E – Detailed Results - All-Electric provides detailed results for the all-electric packages. Compliance margins for the mixed-fuel efficiency packages range from six to eight percent (except in Climate Zone 1), which meets the Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) Tier 1 energy performance requirement for high-rise residential buildings (minimum five percent compliance margin). The packages are cost-effective based on all metrics in Climate Zones 2 through 16. The all-electric efficiency packages with central recirculating HPWH equipment meet minimum Title 24 requirements in all climate zones except 1 and 16, with compliance margins ranging from 0.1 to 4.7 percent. The all-electric packages result in natural gas savings and an increase in electricity use. The central recirculating case is not cost-effective On-Bill with higher lifecycle utility costs except in SMUD territory but is cost-effective based on 2022 TDV in all climates. The clustered HPWH case only meets minimum Title 24 requirements in Climate Zones 4, 6 through 9, and 15. Even though the clustered HPWH is cost-effective in almost all climate zones, it is not code compliant in many and may not be used to support a local reach code in those zones. The package is cost-effective On-Bill everywhere except Climate Zones 1, 3, 5, and 16. The clustered approach has lower installed costs compared to the mixed fuel baseline but results in higher utility costs in all Climate Zones except 8, 9, 15, 4 (in CPAU territory), and 12 (in SMUD territory). The clustered HPWH case is cost-effective based on TDV in all climates. The all-electric packages become cost-effective On-Bill when either 0.1 or 0.2 kWDC of PV per dwelling unit is installed, except with the central HPWH with recirculation design in Climate Zone 1. The all-electric packages in Climate Zones 1 and 16 are not code compliant with PV and may not be used to support a local reach code in those climate zones. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 23 Table 8: Mixed-Fuel Package Results: Efficiency Only (Savings/Cost Per Dwelling Unit)a a Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1 or negative values. Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Comp. Margin Total Gas Savings (therm) Total Electric Savings (kWh) Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV 1 PGE PGE 4.5% 0 39 $199 $216 0.9 ($17) 0.6 ($83) 0.8 ($42) 2 PGE PGE 6.5% 0 79 $570 $144 4.0 $426 3.0 $289 2.7 $247 3 PGE PGE 6.7% 0 60 $420 $144 2.9 $276 2.3 $184 1.9 $131 4 PGE PGE 7.2% 0 95 $678 $144 4.7 $534 3.2 $321 3.2 $313 4 CPAU CPAU 7.2% 0 95 $394 $144 2.7 $250 3.2 $321 3.2 $313 5 PGE PGE 6.8% 0 71 $484 $144 3.4 $340 2.3 $180 1.9 $122 5 PGE SCG 6.8% 0 71 $484 $144 3.4 $340 2.3 $180 1.9 $122 6 SCE SCG 7.8% 0 113 $619 $144 4.3 $475 3.4 $344 3.2 $315 7 SDGE SDGE 8.1% 0 105 $789 $144 5.5 $645 3.4 $339 2.8 $264 8 SCE SCG 7.8% 0 128 $728 $144 5.1 $585 3.9 $413 3.9 $421 9 SCE SCG 7.6% 0 125 $695 $144 4.8 $551 4.2 $461 3.9 $413 10 SCE SCG 7.5% 0 130 $623 $144 4.3 $479 4.2 $457 3.9 $415 10 SDGE SDGE 7.5% 0 130 $972 $144 6.8 $828 4.2 $457 3.9 $415 11 PGE PGE 7.7% 0 148 $897 $216 4.1 $681 3.7 $584 3.4 $523 12 PGE PGE 7.5% 0 122 $736 $216 3.4 $519 3.1 $448 2.8 $397 12 SMUD PGE 7.5% 0 122 $401 $216 1.9 $185 3.1 $448 2.8 $397 13 PGE PGE 7.4% 0 152 $923 $216 4.3 $706 3.4 $523 3.5 $534 14 SCE SCG 7.9% 0 152 $735 $216 3.4 $518 3.6 $556 3.5 $532 14 SDGE SDGE 7.9% 0 152 $1,055 $216 4.9 $838 3.6 $556 3.5 $532 15 SCE SCG 7.8% 0 213 $1,021 $216 4.7 $804 4.5 $768 4.4 $725 16 PGE PGE 6.0% 0 115 $679 $216 3.1 $463 2.3 $279 2.1 $244 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 24 Table 9: All-Electric Package Results: Central Recirculating vs Clustered HPWH Approach with Efficiency (Savings/Cost Per Dwelling Unit)a, b a Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1 or negative values. Values In grey indicate cases which are cost-effective but are not code compliant and cannot be used to support a reach code. b “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Central Recirculating Clustered Total Gas Savings (therm) Comp Margin Total Electric Savings (kWh) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio Comp Margin Total Electric Savings (kWh) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio On- Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV On- Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV 1 PGE PGE 96 -4.6% (671) $775 0.0 0.0 2.1 -6.2% (770) ($643) 0.6 1.9 >1 2 PGE PGE 87 1.0% (557) $702 0.0 0.5 2.5 -0.8% (648) ($715) 1.3 >1 >1 3 PGE PGE 87 0.1% (549) $888 0.0 0.3 1.9 -1.9% (642) ($529) 0.9 >1 >1 4 PGE PGE 81 4.1% (495) $702 0.2 0.5 2.5 2.4% (578) ($715) 2.3 >1 >1 4 CPAU CPAU 81 4.1% (495) $702 0.6 0.5 2.5 2.4% (578) ($715) >1 >1 >1 5 PGE PGE 87 0.2% (536) $888 0.0 0.3 1.7 -1.1% (630) ($529) 1.0 >1 >1 5 PGE SCG 87 0.2% (536) $888 0.0 0.3 1.7 -1.1% (630) ($529) 0.6 >1 >1 6 SCE SCG 78 3.4% (447) $702 0.6 0.7 2.4 0.6% (532) ($715) 10.7 >1 >1 7 SDGE SDGE 78 3.5% (452) $702 0.2 0.7 2.2 1.1% (537) ($715) 1.8 >1 >1 8 SCE SCG 76 4.6% (416) $702 0.7 0.9 2.7 1.4% (492) ($715) >1 >1 >1 9 SCE SCG 76 4.2% (428) $702 0.7 0.9 2.7 1.9% (503) ($715) >1 >1 >1 10 SCE SCG 63 1.5% (422) $484 0.0 0.4 2.5 -0.8% (494) ($933) 2.2 >1 >1 10 SDGE SDGE 63 1.5% (422) $484 0.0 0.4 2.5 -0.8% (494) ($933) 1.5 >1 >1 11 PGE PGE 65 2.0% (434) $557 0.0 0.7 2.4 -1.2% (495) ($861) 2.0 >1 >1 12 PGE PGE 68 1.4% (474) $557 0.0 0.5 2.2 -1.9% (550) ($861) 1.2 10.9 >1 12 SMUD PGE 68 1.4% (474) $557 1.5 0.5 2.2 -1.9% (550) ($861) >1 10.9 >1 13 PGE PGE 63 1.7% (411) $557 0.0 0.6 2.4 -1.9% (467) ($861) 2.4 7.1 >1 14 SCE SCG 65 2.3% (433) $557 0.1 0.8 2.6 -0.7% (498) ($861) 2.4 >1 >1 14 SDGE SDGE 65 2.3% (433) $557 0.0 0.8 2.6 -0.7% (498) ($861) 1.4 >1 >1 15 SCE SCG 51 4.7% (252) $557 0.9 1.4 2.7 2.1% (279) ($861) >1 >1 >1 16 PGE PGE 78 -7.5% (622) $557 0.0 0.0 1.3 -7.1% (698) ($861) 0.7 1.3 >1 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 25 Table 10: All-Electric Central Recirculating HPWH Results: With and Without PV (Savings/Cost Per Dwelling Unit)a, b a Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1 or negative values. b 0.1 kWDC/dwelling unit sufficient in all climate zones to achieve reported compliance margins except in Climate Zones 11-13 0.2 kWDC/dwelling unit is necessary. Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Comp Margin No PV 0.1 kWDC/dwelling unit 0.2 kWDC/dwelling unit No PV With PVb Total Electric Savings (kWh) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) On-Bill B/C Ratio Total Electric Savings (kWh) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) On-Bill B/C Ratio Total Electric Savings (kWh) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) On- Bill B/C Ratio 1 PGE PGE -4.6% -2.5% (671) $775 0.0 (538) $1,091 0.2 (406) $1,408 0.72 2 PGE PGE 1.0% 3.0% (557) $702 0.0 (400) $1,018 1.0 (242) $1,335 1.54 3 PGE PGE 0.1% 3.0% (549) $888 0.0 (386) $1,205 0.8 (224) $1,521 1.36 4 PGE PGE 4.1% 6.1% (495) $702 0.2 (329) $1,018 1.2 (163) $1,335 1.75 4 CPAU CPAU 4.1% 6.1% (495) $702 0.6 (329) $1,018 1.1 (163) $1,335 1.25 5 PGE PGE 0.2% 2.3% (536) $888 0.0 (362) $1,205 0.9 (188) $1,521 1.48 5 PGE SCG 0.2% 2.3% (536) $888 0.0 (362) $1,205 0.7 (188) $1,521 1.25 6 SCE SCG 3.4% 5.7% (447) $702 0.6 (270) $1,018 1.2 (94) $1,335 1.60 7 SDGE SDGE 3.5% 5.6% (452) $702 0.2 (288) $1,018 1.3 (123) $1,335 1.80 8 SCE SCG 4.6% 6.6% (416) $702 0.7 (246) $1,018 1.3 (75) $1,335 1.64 9 SCE SCG 4.2% 5.8% (428) $702 0.7 (250) $1,018 1.2 (72) $1,335 1.52 10 SCE SCG 1.5% 5.7% (422) $484 0.0 (244) $801 1.0 (67) $1,117 1.36 10 SDGE SDGE 1.5% 5.7% (422) $484 0.0 (244) $801 1.3 (67) $1,117 1.96 11 PGE PGE 2.0% 6.7% (434) $557 0.0 (275) $873 1.0 (116) $1,190 1.46 12 PGE PGE 1.4% 6.3% (474) $557 0.0 (311) $873 0.8 (147) $1,190 1.36 12 SMUD PGE 1.4% 6.3% (474) $557 1.5 (311) $873 1.5 (147) $1,190 1.51 13 PGE PGE 1.7% 6.8% (411) $557 0.0 (245) $873 1.1 (80) $1,190 1.56 14 SCE SCG 2.3% 6.5% (433) $557 0.1 (242) $873 1.0 (51) $1,190 1.40 14 SDGE SDGE 2.3% 6.5% (433) $557 0.0 (242) $873 1.2 (51) $1,190 1.90 15 SCE SCG 4.7% 7.7% (252) $557 0.9 (75) $873 1.4 102 $1,190 1.66 16 PGE PGE -7.5% -3.2% (622) $557 0.0 (453) $873 0.3 (283) $1,190 1.03 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 26 Table 11: All-Electric Clustered HPWH Results: With and Without PV (Savings/Cost Per Dwelling Unit)a, b a Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1 or negative values. Values In grey indicate cases which are cost-effective but are not code compliant and cannot be used to support a reach code. b “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. c 0.1 kWDC/dwelling unit sufficient in all climate zones to achieve reported compliance margins except in Climate Zones 11-13 0.2 kWDC/dwelling unit is necessary. Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Comp Margin No PV 0.1 kWDC/dwelling unit 0.2 kWDC/dwelling unit No PV With PVc Total Electric Savings (kWh) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) On-Bill B/C Ratio Total Electric Savings (kWh) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) On-Bill B/C Ratio Total Electric Savings (kWh) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) On-Bill B/C Ratio 1 PGE PGE -6.2% -4.1% (770) ($643) 0.6 (637) ($326) 0.96 (504) ($10) >1 2 PGE PGE -0.8% 1.2% (648) ($715) 1.3 (490) ($399) >1 (333) ($82) >1 3 PGE PGE -1.9% 0.9% (642) ($529) 0.9 (479) ($213) >1 (317) $104 14.67 4 PGE PGE 2.4% 4.3% (578) ($715) 2.3 (412) ($399) >1 (246) ($82) >1 4 CPAU CPAU 2.4% 4.3% (578) ($715) >1 (412) ($399) >1 (246) ($82) >1 5 PGE PGE -1.1% 0.9% (630) ($529) 1.0 (457) ($213) >1 (283) $104 16.38 5 PGE SCG -1.1% 0.9% (630) ($529) 0.6 (457) ($213) >1 (283) $104 12.97 6 SCE SCG 0.6% 2.9% (532) ($715) 10.7 (355) ($399) >1 (179) ($82) >1 7 SDGE SDGE 1.1% 3.1% (537) ($715) 1.8 (372) ($399) >1 (207) ($82) >1 8 SCE SCG 1.4% 3.5% (492) ($715) >1 (322) ($399) >1 (151) ($82) >1 9 SCE SCG 1.9% 3.4% (503) ($715) >1 (325) ($399) >1 (148) ($82) >1 10 SCE SCG -0.8% 3.5% (494) ($933) 2.2 (316) ($617) >1 (139) ($300) >1 10 SDGE SDGE -0.8% 3.5% (494) ($933) 1.5 (316) ($617) >1 (139) ($300) >1 11 PGE PGE -1.2% 3.5% (495) ($861) 2.0 (336) ($544) >1 (177) ($228) >1 12 PGE PGE -1.9% 3.0% (550) ($861) 1.2 (387) ($544) >1 (223) ($228) >1 12 SMUD PGE -1.9% 3.0% (550) ($861) >1 (387) ($544) >1 (223) ($228) >1 13 PGE PGE -1.9% 3.3% (467) ($861) 2.4 (301) ($544) >1 (136) ($228) >1 14 SCE SCG -0.7% 3.5% (498) ($861) 2.4 (308) ($544) >1 (117) ($228) >1 14 SDGE SDGE -0.7% 3.5% (498) ($861) 1.4 (308) ($544) >1 (117) ($228) >1 15 SCE SCG 2.1% 5.1% (279) ($861) >1 (102) ($544) >1 75 ($228) >1 16 PGE PGE -7.1% -2.9% (698) ($861) 0.7 (529) ($544) 2.70 (359) ($228) >1 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 27 4 Conclusions and Summary This report evaluated the feasibility and cost effectiveness of “above code” performance specifications for newly constructed high-rise multifamily buildings. The analysis included application of efficiency measures, electric appliances, and PV in all climate zones and found cost-effective packages across the state. For the building designs and climate zones where cost-effective packages were identified, the results of this analysis can be used by local jurisdictions to support the adoption of reach codes. Cost effectiveness was evaluated according to three metrics: On-Bill customer, 2019 TDV, and 2022 TDV LCC B/C ratio. For mixed-fuel buildings, this analysis demonstrates that there are cost-effective efficiency packages based on at least one of the evaluated cost-effectiveness metrics that achieve a minimum five percent compliance margin in most climate zones. The exception is Climate Zone 1 where the package only resulted in a 4.5 percent compliance margin. Although the Climate Zone 1 package is not cost-effective based on either the 2019 TDV or the On-Bill methodologies, it is cost-effective based on 2022 TDV. This study evaluated electrification of residential loads in new high-rise multifamily buildings. Based on typical construction across California, the base case condition incorporated all-electric appliances within the dwelling unit spaces. As a result, only central water heating was converted from natural gas to electric as part of this analysis. For all-electric buildings, this analysis demonstrates that there are cost-effective efficiency packages with a HPWH that are Title 24 compliant in all climate zones except Climate Zones 1 and 16. The case with the central recirculating HPWH is cost-effective based on the 2022 TDV methodology in all climate zones. Additionally, in Climate Zone 15 it is cost-effective based on 2019 TDV and in Climate Zone 12 in SMUD territory it is cost-effective On-Bill. Utility cost savings were found in Climate Zones 2, 4, 5 (in PG&E territory), 6-9, 10 (in SCE territory), 12 (in SMUD territory), 14 (in SCE territory), and 15. This case (Table 9) demonstrates how the analysis results differ under the 2019 and 2022 TDV metrics. The B/C ratios are typically two to five times greater under 2022 than 2019 because of the higher relative gas versus electric TDV multipliers in 2022.When 0.1 to 0.2 kWDC per dwelling unit is included, the package is cost-effective based on On-Bill in all climate zones except Climate Zone 1. The central recirculating HPWH case is based on the Energy Commission’s approved prescriptive design and applies Sanden HPWHs, which are higher cost than other available products. As HPWHs gain market share, installed costs are anticipated to decrease as the labor force becomes more familiar with the technology, performance improvements are achieved, and available product options increase. It is also anticipated that modeling of central HPWHs will improve as results from field and lab testing inform the modeling algorithms. This will allow for more accurate modeling of system performance and modeling of other design strategies such as multi-pass HPWH systems. The clustered HPWH case is cost-effective without PV On-Bill everywhere except Climate Zones 1, 3, 5 (in SoCalGas territory), and 16, although the package is not code compliant in numerous climate zones. It was found to have a much lower installed cost than the recirculating HPWH case but higher operating cost because federal minimum efficiency was assumed (2.0 UEF). When 0.1 to 0.2 kWDC per dwelling unit is included, the package is cost-effective On-Bill in all climate zones, although still not code compliant in Climate Zone 1 or 16. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 28 Table 12 summarizes compliance margin and cost-effectiveness results for the mixed-fuel and all-electric cases. Compliance margin is reported in the cells and cost effectiveness is indicated by the color of the cell according to the following: • Cells highlighted in green depict cost-effective results using the On-Bill approach. In most cases results are also cost-effective based on TDV. • Cells highlighted in blue depict cost-effective results using both the 2019 and 2022 TDV approach, but not On-Bill. • Cells highlighted in yellow depict cost-effective results using the 2022 TDV approach only. • Cells highlighted in red depict a package that was not cost-effective using any metric. • Red text depicts a negative compliance margin. For more detail on the results, please refer to Appendix D – Detailed Results - Mixed Fuel and Appendix E – Detailed Results - All-Electric. Table 12: High-Rise Multifamily Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Mixed Fuel (No PV) Central Recirculating HPWH Clustered HPWH No PV 0.1 kWDC/apt 0.2 kWDC/apt No PV 0.1 kWDC/apt 0.2 kWDC/apt 1 PGE PGE 4.5% -4.6% -2.5% -2.5% -6.2% -4.1% -4.1% 2 PGE PGE 6.5% 1.0% 3.0% 3.0% -0.8% 1.2% 1.2% 3 PGE PGE 6.7% 0.1% 3.0% 3.0% -1.9% 0.9% 0.9% 4 PGE PGE 7.2% 4.1% 6.1% 6.1% 2.4% 4.3% 4.3% 4 CPAU CPAU 7.2% 4.1% 6.1% 6.1% 2.4% 4.3% 4.3% 5 PGE PGE 6.8% 0.2% 2.3% 2.3% -1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 5 PGE SCG 6.8% 0.2% 2.3% 2.3% -1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 6 SCE SCG 7.8% 3.4% 5.7% 5.7% 0.6% 2.9% 2.9% 7 SDGE SDGE 8.1% 3.5% 5.6% 5.6% 1.1% 3.1% 3.1% 8 SCE SCG 7.8% 4.6% 6.6% 6.6% 1.4% 3.5% 3.5% 9 SCE SCG 7.6% 4.2% 5.8% 5.8% 1.9% 3.4% 3.4% 10 SCE SCG 7.5% 1.5% 5.7% 5.7% -0.8% 3.5% 3.5% 10 SDGE SDGE 7.5% 1.5% 5.7% 5.7% -0.8% 3.5% 3.5% 11 PGE PGE 7.7% 2.0% 2.0% 6.7% -1.2% -1.2% 3.5% 12 PGE PGE 7.5% 1.4% 1.4% 6.3% -1.9% -1.9% 3.0% 12 SMUD PGE 7.5% 1.4% 1.4% 6.3% -1.9% -1.9% 3.0% 13 PGE PGE 7.4% 1.7% 1.7% 6.8% -1.9% -1.9% 3.3% 14 SCE SCG 7.9% 2.3% 6.5% 6.5% -0.7% 3.5% 3.5% 14 SDGE SDGE 7.9% 2.3% 6.5% 6.5% -0.7% 3.5% 3.5% 15 SCE SCG 7.8% 4.7% 7.7% 7.7% 2.1% 5.1% 5.1% 16 PGE PGE 6.0% -7.5% -7.5% -3.2% -7.1% -7.1% -2.9% High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 29 4.1 Additional conclusions • This study found that electrification of central domestic hot water loads, in combination with efficiency measures, can result in an overall benefit to the consumer through lower utility bills, depending on the HPWH strategy and electricity and gas tariff. The all-electric results demonstrate a trend with On-Bill cost effectiveness across the different electric utilities. B/C ratios and NPV in SCE, SMUD, and CPAU territories are typically higher than the cases in PG&E and SDG&E territories. This indicates that rate design can play an important role in encouraging or discouraging electrification. Refer to Appendix D – Detailed Results - Mixed Fuel and Appendix E – Detailed Results - All-Electric for utility cost data. • Two electric water heating scenarios were evaluated. The most appropriate HPWH design approach for any particular building will depend on many aspects including number and size of dwelling units, building layout, and first costs. • In multifamily buildings with central water heating where multiple people or entities are responsible for the utility bills, utility impacts may not align. If tenants pay dwelling unit utility bills and the owner pays the water heating bill, the benefits of efficiency measures or PV serving the dwelling unit will benefit the tenant and savings would not directly impact any water heating electrification cost increases. • This study did not evaluate federally preempted high efficiency appliances. Specifying high efficiency equipment is a viable approach to meeting Title 24 compliance and local ordinance requirements and is commonly used by project teams. Other studies have found that efficiency packages and electrification packages that employ high efficiency equipment can be quite cost-effective ((Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019b), (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019)). • When PV capacity is added to the all-electric packages, all cases are cost-effective based on the On-Bill metric (except Climate Zone 1 with the central recirculating HPWH). In some cases, PV improves cost effectiveness, and in other cases it reduces it. The cost effectiveness of adding PV as an independent measure results in On-Bill B/C ratios between 2.4 and 3.5 for PG&E territory, 2.4 to 2.7 for SCE territory, and 3.5 to 3.8 for SDG&E territory. The B/C ratio is 1.9 and 1.5 in CPAU and SMUD territories, respectively. Adding PV in addition to the efficiency packages improves cost effectiveness where the B/C ratios for the efficiency measures alone are lower than the B/C ratios for PV alone, and vice versa where they are higher. Annual base case electricity costs and annual utility savings from PV are lower in SCE territory than in PG&E and SDG&E territories. This is due to lower off-peak rates and a bigger difference in peak versus off-peak rates for the TOU-D SCE electricity rate tariff. Most PV production occurs during off-peak times (4 pm to 9 pm peak period). High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 30 5 References Barbose, Galen and Darghouth, Naim. 2018. Tracking the Sun. Installed Price Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States – 2018 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September 2018. https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/tracking_the_sun_2018_edition_final_0.pdf California Energy Commission. 2017. Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. 2018a. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400-2018-020-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-020/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018b. 2019 Reference Appendices. CEC-400-2018-021-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-021/CEC-400-2018-021- CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2019a. 2019 Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. CEC-400-2019-006-CMF. May 2019. California Energy Commission. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-006/CEC-400-2019-006-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2019b. Executive Director Determination Pursuant to Section 150.1(c)8C for Central Heat Pump Water Heating System. December 26, 2019. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=231318&DocumentContentId=63067 Energy & Environmental Economics. 2019. Residential Building Electrification in California. April 2019. https://www.ethree.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf Energy & Environmental Economics. 2020. Time Dependent valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards. 2022 Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) and Source Energy Metric Data Sources and Inputs. Prepared for the California Energy Commission. May 2020. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=233345&DocumentContentId=65837 Horii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis. 2014. “Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-07- 09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents/ Statewide CASE Team. 2014. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Nonresidential Opaque Envelope. December 2014. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2016-T24-CASE-Report- NR-Opaque-Envelope-Dec2014-V3.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017a. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative High Performance Walls – Final Report. September 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE- Report_HPW_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017b. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Residential High Performance Windows & Doors – Final Report. August 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-Report_Res-Windows-and-Doors_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2018. Energy Savings Potential and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High Efficiency Windows in California. Prepared by Frontier Energy. May 2018. https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/energy-savings- potential-and-cost-effectiveness-analysis-high-efficiency-windows-california Statewide CASE Team. 2020a. All-Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway Final CASE Report (Updated). Prepared by TRC. November 2020. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2022-T24-Final- CASE-Report_MF-All-Electric_updated.pdf High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 31 Statewide CASE Team. 2020b. Multifamily Indoor Air Quality Draft CASE Report. Prepared by TRC. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/MF-IAQ_Draft-CASE-Report_Statewide-CASE- Team.pdf Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2019a. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Southern California Edison. Prepared by TRC. July 25, 2019. https://localenergycodes.com/download/801/file_path/fieldList/2019%20NR%20NC%20Cost%20Effectiveness%2 0Study-2019-07-25.pdf Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2019b. 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy. August 1, 2019. https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach%20Codes Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2020. 2019 Mid-Rise New Construction Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy. June 22, 2020. https://localenergycodes.com/download/492/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Mid-rise%20NC%20Cost-Eff%20Report TRC. 2018. City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Draft. September 2018. https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66742 TRC. 2019. Multifamily Prototypes. June 7, 2019. Submitted to Southern California Edison. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SCE- MFModeling_MultifamilyPrototypesReport_2019-06-07_clean.pdf High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 32 6 Appendices 6.1 Appendix A – Map of California Climate Zones Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 3. The map in Figure 3 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html. Figure 3: Map of California climate zones. Source: Energy Commission. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 33 6.2 Appendix B – Utility Rate Schedules PG&E The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 13 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 13: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Climate Zone Baseline Territory 1 V 2 X 3 T 4 X 5 T 11 R 12 S 13 R 16 Y Source: PG&E. The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending April 2020 according to the rates shown in Table 14. Rates are based on historical data provided by PG&E.4 Table 14: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) Month Procurement Charge Transportation Charge Total Charge Baseline Excess Baseline Excess Jan 2020 $0.45813 $0.99712 $1.59540 $1.45525 $2.05353 Feb 2020 $0.44791 $0.99712 $1.59540 $1.44503 $2.04331 Mar 2020 $0.35346 $1.13126 $1.64861 $1.48472 $2.00207 Apr 2020 $0.23856 $1.13126 $1.64861 $1.36982 $1.88717 May 2019 $0.21791 $0.99933 $1.59892 $1.21724 $1.81683 June 2019 $0.20648 $0.99933 $1.59892 $1.20581 $1.80540 July 2019 $0.28462 $0.99933 $1.59892 $1.28395 $1.88354 Aug 2019 $0.30094 $0.96652 $1.54643 $1.26746 $1.84737 Sept 2019 $0.25651 $0.96652 $1.54643 $1.22303 $1.80294 Oct 2019 $0.27403 $0.98932 $1.58292 $1.26335 $1.85695 Nov 2019 $0.33311 $0.96729 $1.54767 $1.30040 $1.88078 Dec 2019 $0.40178 $0.96729 $1.54767 $1.36907 $1.94945 Source: PG&E. 4 The PG&E procurement and transportation charges were obtained from the following site: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/GRF.SHTML#RESGAShttps://www.pge.com/tariffs/GRF.SHTML#RESGAS High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 34 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 35 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 36 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 37 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 38 SCE The following pages provide details on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 15 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 15: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Climate Zone Baseline Territory 6 6 8 8 9 9 10 10 14 14 15 15 Source: SCE. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 39 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 40 SoCalGas Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 16 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 16: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Climate Zone Baseline Territory 5 2 6 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 14 2 15 1 Source: SoCalGas. The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending April 2020 according to the rates shown in Table 17. Historical natural gas rate data were only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges.5 To estimate total costs by month, the baseline and excess transmission charges were assumed to be consistence and applied for the entire year based on April 2020 costs. Table 17: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) Month Procurement Charge Transmission Charge Total Charge Baseline Excess Baseline Excess Jan 2020 $0.34730 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.16472 $1.51916 Feb 2020 $0.28008 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.09750 $1.45194 Mar 2020 $0.22108 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.03850 $1.39294 Apr 2020 $0.20307 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.02049 $1.37493 May 2019 $0.23790 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.05532 $1.40976 June 2019 $0.24822 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.06564 $1.42008 July 2019 $0.28475 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.10217 $1.45661 Aug 2019 $0.27223 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.08965 $1.44409 Sept 2019 $0.26162 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.07904 $1.43348 Oct 2019 $0.30091 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.11833 $1.47277 Nov 2019 $0.27563 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.09305 $1.44749 Dec 2019 $0.38067 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.19809 $1.55253 Source: SoCalGas. 5 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site: https://www.socalgas.com/for- your-business/energy-market-services/gas-prices High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 41 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 42 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 43 SDG&E Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 18 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. All-Electric baseline allowances were applied. Table 18: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Climate Zone Baseline Territory 7 Coastal 10 Inland 14 Mountain Source: SDG&E. The SDG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending April 2020 according to the rates shown in Table 19. Historical natural gas rate data from SDG&E were reviewed to identify the procurement and transmission charges 6 used to calculate the monthly total gas rate. Table 19: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) Month Procurement Charge Transmission Charge Total Charge Baseline Excess Baseline Excess Jan 2020 $0.34761 $1.36166 $1.59166 $1.70927 $1.93927 Feb 2020 $0.28035 $1.36166 $1.59166 $1.64201 $1.87201 Mar 2020 $0.22130 $1.36166 $1.59166 $1.58296 $1.81296 Apr 2020 $0.20327 $1.35946 $1.59125 $1.56273 $1.79452 May 2019 $0.23804 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.30153 $1.49057 June 2019 $0.24838 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.31187 $1.50091 July 2019 $0.28491 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.34840 $1.53744 Aug 2019 $0.27239 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.33588 $1.52492 Sept 2019 $0.26178 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.32527 $1.51431 Oct 2019 $0.30109 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.36458 $1.55362 Nov 2019 $0.27580 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.33929 $1.52833 Dec 2019 $0.38090 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.44439 $1.63343 Source: SDG&E. 6 The SDG&E procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following sets of documents: http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-SCHEDS_GM_2020.pdf http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-SCHEDS_GM_2019.pdf High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 44 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 45 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 46 SMUD Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study. RTOD Rate Schedule High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 47 GSN_T Rate Schedule: High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 48 CPAU Following are the CPAU electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. E1 Rate Schedule: E2 Rate Schedule: High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 49 The CPAU monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending June 2020 according to the rates shown in Table 20. Table 20: CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) Effective Date Commodity Rate Cap and Trade Compliance Charge Transportation Charge Carbon Offset Charge G2 Total Volumetric Rate 1/1/20 $0.3289 0.033 0.09941 0.040 1.11151 2/1/20 0.2466 0.033 0.09941 0.040 1.02921 3/1/20 0.2416 0.033 0.09891 0.040 1.02371 4/1/20 0.2066 0.033 0.09891 0.040 0.98871 5/1/20 0.2258 0.033 0.09891 0.040 1.00791 6/1/20 0.2279 0.033 0.09891 0.040 1.01001 7/1/19 0.2471 0.033 0.11757 0.040 1.04787 8/1/19 0.2507 0.033 0.10066 0.040 1.03456 9/1/19 0.2461 0.033 0.10066 0.040 1.02996 10/1/19 0.2811 0.033 0.10288 0.040 1.06718 11/1/19 0.2923 0.033 0.10288 0.040 1.07838 12/1/19 0.3781 0.033 0.10288 0.040 1.16418 Source: CPAU. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 50 Escalation Assumptions The average annual escalation rates in Table 21 were used in this study and are from E3’s 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). These rates are applied to the 2019 rate schedules over a 30-year period beginning in 2020. SDG&E was not covered in the E3 study. The Statewide Reach Codes Team reviewed SDG&E’s GRC filing and applied the same approach that E3 applied for PG&E and SoCalGas to arrive at average escalation rates between 2020 and 2022. The statewide electricity escalation rates were also applied to the analysis for SMUD and CPAU. PG&E gas escalation rates were applied to CPAU as the best available estimate since CPAU uses PG&E gas infrastructure. Table 21: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Source: Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019. Year Statewide Electric Residential Average Rate Escalation (%/year, real) Natural Gas Residential Core Rate Escalation (%/year, real) PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E 2020 2.0% 1.48% 6.37% 5.00% 2021 2.0% 5.69% 4.12% 3.14% 2022 2.0% 1.11% 4.12% 2.94% 2023 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2024 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2025 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2026 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2027 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2028 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2029 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2030 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2031 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2032 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2033 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2034 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2035 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2036 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2037 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2038 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2039 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2040 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2041 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2042 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2043 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2044 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2045 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2046 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2047 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2048 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2049 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 51 6.3 Appendix C – PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 52 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 53 High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 54 6.4 Appendix D – Detailed Results - Mixed Fuel Table 22: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency Only Package Results (Savings/Cost Per Dwelling Unit)a Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Dwelling Units Central Water Heating Total On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings Gas Savings (therm) Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings GHG Savings (lb CO2) On-Bill Utility Savings (2020 PV$) Inc. Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV 1 PGE PGE 39 $8 0.0 0 $0 26 $199 $216 0.9 ($17) 0.6 ($83) 0.8 ($42) 2 PGE PGE 79 $24 0.0 0 $0 45 $570 $144 4.0 $426 3.0 $289 2.7 $247 3 PGE PGE 60 $18 0.0 0 $0 33 $420 $144 2.9 $276 2.3 $184 1.9 $131 4 PGE PGE 95 $29 0.0 0 $0 54 $678 $144 4.7 $534 3.2 $321 3.2 $313 4 CPAU CPAU 95 $17 0.0 0 $0 54 $394 $144 2.7 $250 3.2 $321 3.2 $313 5 PGE PGE 71 $20 0.0 0 $0 39 $484 $144 3.4 $340 2.3 $180 1.9 $122 5 PGE SCG 71 $20 0.0 0 $0 39 $484 $144 3.4 $340 2.3 $180 1.9 $122 6 SCE SCG 113 $26 0.0 0 $0 62 $619 $144 4.3 $475 3.4 $344 3.2 $315 7 SDGE SDGE 105 $33 0.0 0 $0 59 $789 $144 5.5 $645 3.4 $339 2.8 $264 8 SCE SCG 128 $31 0.0 0 $0 72 $728 $144 5.1 $585 3.9 $413 3.9 $421 9 SCE SCG 125 $29 0.0 0 $0 70 $695 $144 4.8 $551 4.2 $461 3.9 $413 10 SCE SCG 130 $26 0.0 0 $0 73 $623 $144 4.3 $479 4.2 $457 3.9 $415 10 SDGE SDGE 130 $41 0.0 0 $0 73 $972 $144 6.8 $828 4.2 $457 3.9 $415 11 PGE PGE 148 $38 0.0 0 $0 91 $897 $216 4.1 $681 3.7 $584 3.4 $523 12 PGE PGE 122 $31 0.0 0 $0 74 $736 $216 3.4 $519 3.1 $448 2.8 $397 12 SMUD PGE 122 $17 0.0 0 $0 74 $401 $216 1.9 $185 3.1 $448 2.8 $397 13 PGE PGE 152 $39 0.0 0 $0 93 $923 $216 4.3 $706 3.4 $523 3.5 $534 14 SCE SCG 152 $31 0.0 0 $0 91 $735 $216 3.4 $518 3.6 $556 3.5 $532 14 SDGE SDGE 152 $45 0.0 0 $0 91 $1,055 $216 4.9 $838 3.6 $556 3.5 $532 15 SCE SCG 213 $43 0.0 0 $0 124 $1,021 $216 4.7 $804 4.5 $768 4.4 $725 16 PGE PGE 115 $29 0.0 0 $0 73 $679 $216 3.1 $463 2.3 $279 2.1 $244 a Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 55 Table 23: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency + 0.1 kWDC PV per Dwelling Unit Results (Savings/Cost Per Dwelling Unit)a Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Dwelling Units Central Water Heating Total On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings Gas Savings (therm) Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings GHG Savings (lb CO2) On-Bill Utility Savings (2020 PV$) Inc. Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV 1 PGE PGE 172 $40 0.0 0 $0 81 $955 $533 1.8 $422 1.2 $93 1.0 $21 2 PGE PGE 236 $67 0.0 0 $0 112 $1,597 $460 3.5 $1,137 2.2 $574 1.9 $417 3 PGE PGE 222 $62 0.0 0 $0 102 $1,472 $460 3.2 $1,011 2.0 $455 1.6 $290 4 PGE PGE 261 $74 0.0 0 $0 125 $1,762 $460 3.8 $1,302 2.4 $628 2.2 $538 4 CPAU CPAU 261 $43 0.0 0 $0 125 $1,025 $460 2.2 $565 2.4 $628 2.2 $538 5 PGE PGE 245 $67 0.0 0 $0 113 $1,596 $460 3.5 $1,136 2.1 $498 1.7 $312 5 PGE SCG 245 $67 0.0 0 $0 113 $1,596 $460 3.5 $1,136 2.1 $498 1.7 $312 6 SCE SCG 290 $63 0.0 0 $0 138 $1,489 $460 3.2 $1,029 2.4 $650 2.2 $558 7 SDGE SDGE 270 $81 0.0 0 $0 130 $1,918 $460 4.2 $1,458 2.4 $664 2.0 $441 8 SCE SCG 299 $66 0.0 0 $0 146 $1,573 $460 3.4 $1,113 2.6 $750 2.5 $712 9 SCE SCG 303 $63 0.0 0 $0 147 $1,502 $460 3.3 $1,042 2.8 $807 2.5 $697 10 SCE SCG 308 $58 0.0 0 $0 150 $1,376 $460 3.0 $916 2.7 $779 2.5 $682 10 SDGE SDGE 308 $90 0.0 0 $0 150 $2,132 $460 4.6 $1,671 2.7 $779 2.5 $682 11 PGE PGE 307 $76 0.0 0 $0 160 $1,800 $533 3.4 $1,267 2.7 $903 2.3 $695 12 PGE PGE 286 $70 0.0 0 $0 144 $1,663 $533 3.1 $1,130 2.4 $755 2.1 $579 12 SMUD PGE 286 $37 0.0 0 $0 144 $874 $533 1.6 $341 2.4 $755 2.1 $579 13 PGE PGE 317 $78 0.0 0 $0 164 $1,858 $533 3.5 $1,325 2.5 $811 2.4 $729 14 SCE SCG 343 $65 0.0 0 $0 172 $1,542 $533 2.9 $1,009 2.8 $980 2.6 $854 14 SDGE SDGE 343 $95 0.0 0 $0 172 $2,247 $533 4.2 $1,714 2.8 $980 2.6 $854 15 SCE SCG 390 $75 0.0 0 $0 199 $1,768 $533 3.3 $1,235 3.1 $1,123 2.8 $981 16 PGE PGE 284 $69 0.0 0 $0 147 $1,641 $533 3.1 $1,108 2.1 $595 1.8 $428 a Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1 or negative values. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 56 6.5 Appendix E – Detailed Results - All-Electric Table 24: All-Electric Central Recirculating HPWH Efficiency Package Results (Savings/Cost Per Dwelling Unit)a, b Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Dwelling Units Central Water Heating Total On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings Gas Savings (therm) Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings GHG Savings (lb CO2) Utility Savings (2020 PV$) Inc. Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV 1 PGE PGE 39 $8 95.7 (710) ($38) 838 ($493) $775 0.0 ($1,268) 0.0 ($744) 2.1 $850 2 PGE PGE 78 $24 86.9 (635) ($32) 785 $5 $702 0.0 ($697) 0.5 ($371) 2.5 $1,067 3 PGE PGE 70 $20 86.7 (618) ($29) 788 ($33) $888 0.0 ($921) 0.3 ($635) 1.9 $763 4 PGE PGE 95 $29 81.4 (590) ($29) 750 $174 $702 0.2 ($528) 0.5 ($317) 2.5 $1,084 4 CPAU CPAU 95 $17 81.4 (590) ($5) 750 $447 $702 0.6 ($255) 0.5 ($317) 2.5 $1,084 5 PGE PGE 80 $22 86.7 (616) ($29) 792 $30 $888 0.0 ($858) 0.3 ($608) 1.7 $656 5 PGE SCG 80 $22 86.7 (616) ($49) 792 ($324) $888 0.0 ($1,212) 0.3 ($608) 1.7 $656 6 SCE SCG 113 $26 78.3 (560) ($21) 732 $399 $702 0.6 ($303) 0.7 ($214) 2.4 $960 7 SDGE SDGE 105 $33 78.0 (558) ($37) 727 $174 $702 0.2 ($528) 0.7 ($237) 2.2 $810 8 SCE SCG 128 $31 75.5 (544) ($21) 715 $501 $702 0.7 ($201) 0.9 ($65) 2.7 $1,174 9 SCE SCG 125 $29 76.3 (552) ($21) 721 $463 $702 0.7 ($239) 0.9 ($64) 2.7 $1,217 10 SCE SCG 130 $26 63.2 (552) ($36) 555 $10 $484 0.0 ($474) 0.4 ($279) 2.5 $745 10 SDGE SDGE 130 $41 63.2 (552) ($55) 555 ($116) $484 0.0 ($600) 0.4 ($279) 2.5 $745 11 PGE PGE 147 $38 64.8 (582) ($47) 580 ($66) $557 0.0 ($623) 0.7 ($150) 2.4 $767 12 PGE PGE 122 $31 67.7 (596) ($48) 589 ($238) $557 0.0 ($795) 0.5 ($254) 2.2 $682 12 SMUD PGE 122 $17 67.7 (596) $12 589 $849 $557 1.5 $292 0.5 ($254) 2.2 $682 13 PGE PGE 152 $39 62.8 (562) ($45) 566 ($9) $557 0.0 ($566) 0.6 ($200) 2.4 $801 14 SCE SCG 152 $31 65.3 (585) ($39) 581 $53 $557 0.1 ($503) 0.8 ($126) 2.6 $892 14 SDGE SDGE 152 $44 65.3 (585) ($59) 581 ($121) $557 0.0 ($678) 0.8 ($126) 2.6 $892 15 SCE SCG 213 $43 51.2 (465) ($31) 507 $481 $557 0.9 ($76) 1.4 $239 2.7 $950 16 PGE PGE 115 $29 77.8 (737) ($66) 642 ($696) $557 0.0 ($1,252) 0.0 ($997) 1.3 $170 a Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1 or negative values. Values In grey indicate cases which are cost-effective but are not code compliant and cannot be used to support a reach code. b “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 57 Table 25: All-Electric Central Recirculating HPWH + 0.1 kWDC PV per Dwelling Unit Results (Savings/Cost Per Dwelling Unit)a, b Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Dwelling Units Central Water Heating Total On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings Gas Savings (therm) Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings GHG Savings (lb CO2) On-Bill Utility Savings (2020 PV$) Inc. Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV 1 PGE PGE 171 $40 95.7 (710) ($38) 894 $262 $1,091 0.2 ($829) 0.5 ($569) 1.8 $914 2 PGE PGE 236 $67 86.9 (635) ($32) 852 $1,032 $1,018 1.0 $14 0.9 ($87) 2.2 $1,237 3 PGE PGE 232 $64 86.7 (618) ($29) 857 $1,019 $1,205 0.8 ($185) 0.7 ($364) 1.8 $922 4 PGE PGE 261 $74 81.4 (590) ($29) 821 $1,258 $1,018 1.2 $239 1.0 ($10) 2.3 $1,309 4 CPAU CPAU 261 $43 81.4 (590) ($5) 821 $1,079 $1,018 1.1 $60 1.0 ($10) 2.3 $1,309 5 PGE PGE 254 $69 86.7 (616) ($29) 867 $1,142 $1,205 0.9 ($62) 0.8 ($290) 1.7 $847 5 PGE SCG 254 $69 86.7 (616) ($49) 867 $789 $1,205 0.7 ($416) 0.8 ($290) 1.7 $847 6 SCE SCG 290 $63 78.3 (560) ($21) 808 $1,269 $1,018 1.2 $251 1.1 $92 2.2 $1,203 7 SDGE SDGE 270 $81 78.0 (558) ($37) 798 $1,303 $1,018 1.3 $284 1.1 $88 2.0 $987 8 SCE SCG 299 $66 75.5 (544) ($21) 789 $1,345 $1,018 1.3 $327 1.3 $272 2.4 $1,465 9 SCE SCG 303 $63 76.3 (552) ($21) 797 $1,270 $1,018 1.2 $251 1.3 $281 2.5 $1,501 10 SCE SCG 308 $58 63.2 (552) ($36) 632 $763 $801 1.0 ($37) 1.1 $43 2.3 $1,013 10 SDGE SDGE 308 $90 63.2 (552) ($55) 632 $1,044 $801 1.3 $243 1.1 $43 2.3 $1,013 11 PGE PGE 307 $76 64.8 (582) ($47) 648 $837 $873 1.0 ($36) 1.2 $169 2.1 $939 12 PGE PGE 285 $70 67.7 (596) ($48) 659 $690 $873 0.8 ($184) 1.1 $53 2.0 $864 12 SMUD PGE 285 $37 67.7 (596) $12 659 $1,321 $873 1.5 $448 1.1 $53 2.0 $864 13 PGE PGE 317 $78 62.8 (562) ($45) 637 $926 $873 1.1 $52 1.1 $87 2.1 $997 14 SCE SCG 343 $65 65.3 (585) ($39) 663 $861 $873 1.0 ($13) 1.3 $299 2.4 $1,214 14 SDGE SDGE 343 $95 65.3 (585) ($59) 663 $1,071 $873 1.2 $198 1.3 $299 2.4 $1,214 15 SCE SCG 390 $75 51.2 (465) ($31) 582 $1,228 $873 1.4 $354 1.7 $594 2.4 $1,206 16 PGE PGE 284 $69 77.8 (737) ($66) 716 $266 $873 0.3 ($607) 0.2 ($681) 1.4 $353 a Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1 or negative values. Values In grey indicate cases which are cost-effective but are not code compliant and cannot be used to support a reach code. b “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 58 Table 26: All-Electric Central Recirculating HPWH + 0.2 kWDC PV per Dwelling Unit Results (Savings/Cost Per Dwelling Unit)a, b Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Dwelling Units Central Water Heating Total On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings Gas Savings (therm) Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings GHG Savings (lb CO2) On-Bill Utility Savings (2020 PV$) Inc. Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV 1 PGE PGE 304 $72 95.7 (710) ($38) 949 $1,018 $1,408 0.72 ($390) 0.7 ($393) 1.7 $977 2 PGE PGE 393 $111 86.9 (635) ($32) 920 $2,060 $1,335 1.54 $725 1.1 $197 2.1 $1,407 3 PGE PGE 395 $109 86.7 (618) ($29) 926 $2,071 $1,521 1.36 $550 0.9 ($93) 1.7 $1,080 4 PGE PGE 427 $120 81.4 (590) ($29) 892 $2,342 $1,335 1.75 $1,007 1.2 $297 2.1 $1,534 4 CPAU CPAU 427 $68 81.4 (590) ($5) 892 $1,669 $1,335 1.25 $334 1.2 $297 2.1 $1,534 5 PGE PGE 428 $116 86.7 (616) ($29) 941 $2,255 $1,521 1.48 $734 1.0 $27 1.7 $1,037 5 PGE SCG 428 $116 86.7 (616) ($49) 941 $1,901 $1,521 1.25 $380 1.0 $27 1.7 $1,037 6 SCE SCG 466 $100 78.3 (560) ($21) 884 $2,140 $1,335 1.60 $805 1.3 $397 2.1 $1,446 7 SDGE SDGE 435 $127 78.0 (558) ($37) 869 $2,404 $1,335 1.80 $1,069 1.3 $414 1.9 $1,164 8 SCE SCG 470 $102 75.5 (544) ($21) 863 $2,190 $1,335 1.64 $855 1.5 $609 2.3 $1,755 9 SCE SCG 480 $95 76.3 (552) ($21) 874 $2,027 $1,335 1.52 $692 1.5 $627 2.3 $1,785 10 SCE SCG 485 $90 63.2 (552) ($36) 708 $1,517 $1,117 1.36 $400 1.3 $365 2.1 $1,280 10 SDGE SDGE 485 $138 63.2 (552) ($55) 708 $2,184 $1,117 1.96 $1,067 1.3 $365 2.1 $1,280 11 PGE PGE 466 $114 64.8 (582) ($47) 717 $1,740 $1,190 1.46 $550 1.4 $488 1.9 $1,111 12 PGE PGE 449 $109 67.7 (596) ($48) 729 $1,617 $1,190 1.36 $427 1.3 $361 1.9 $1,046 12 SMUD PGE 449 $57 67.7 (596) $12 729 $1,793 $1,190 1.51 $604 1.3 $361 1.9 $1,046 13 PGE PGE 482 $118 62.8 (562) ($45) 708 $1,861 $1,190 1.56 $671 1.3 $375 2.0 $1,192 14 SCE SCG 534 $99 65.3 (585) ($39) 744 $1,668 $1,190 1.40 $478 1.6 $723 2.3 $1,537 14 SDGE SDGE 534 $145 65.3 (585) ($59) 744 $2,263 $1,190 1.90 $1,073 1.6 $723 2.3 $1,537 15 SCE SCG 567 $106 51.2 (465) ($31) 657 $1,975 $1,190 1.66 $785 1.8 $949 2.2 $1,463 16 PGE PGE 454 $110 77.8 (737) ($66) 789 $1,228 $1,190 1.03 $38 0.7 ($366) 1.5 $537 a Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1 or negative values. Values In grey indicate cases which are cost-effective but are not code compliant and cannot be used to support a reach code. b “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 59 Table 27: All-Electric Clustered HPWH Efficiency Only Package Results (Savings/Cost Per Dwelling Unit)a, b Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Dwelling Units Central Water Heating Total On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings Gas Savings (therm) Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings GHG Savings (lb CO2) On-Bill Utility Savings (2020 PV$) Inc. Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV 1 PGE PGE 39 $8 95.7 (809) ($64) 838 ($1,096) ($643) 0.6 ($453) 1.9 $297 >1 $1,793 2 PGE PGE 78 $24 86.9 (726) ($55) 785 ($535) ($715) 1.3 $180 >1 $843 >1 $2,069 3 PGE PGE 70 $20 86.7 (711) ($53) 788 ($583) ($529) 0.9 ($54) >1 $542 >1 $1,786 4 PGE PGE 95 $29 81.4 (673) ($50) 750 ($317) ($715) 2.3 $399 >1 $908 >1 $2,025 4 CPAU CPAU 95 $17 81.4 (673) ($19) 750 $97 ($715) >1 $813 >1 $908 >1 $2,025 5 PGE PGE 80 $22 86.7 (711) ($53) 792 ($527) ($529) 1.0 $2 >1 $539 >1 $1,782 5 PGE SCG 80 $22 86.7 (711) ($73) 792 ($881) ($529) 0.6 ($352) >1 $539 >1 $1,782 6 SCE SCG 113 $26 78.3 (645) ($41) 732 ($67) ($715) 10.7 $649 >1 $928 >1 $2,042 7 SDGE SDGE 105 $33 78.0 (642) ($61) 727 ($388) ($715) 1.8 $328 >1 $947 >1 $2,080 8 SCE SCG 128 $31 75.5 (620) ($39) 715 $71 ($715) >1 $786 >1 $994 >1 $2,123 9 SCE SCG 125 $29 76.3 (628) ($40) 721 $26 ($715) >1 $742 >1 $1,062 >1 $2,202 10 SCE SCG 130 $26 63.2 (624) ($53) 555 ($415) ($933) 2.2 $518 >1 $936 >1 $1,832 10 SDGE SDGE 130 $41 63.2 (624) ($77) 555 ($621) ($933) 1.5 $313 >1 $936 >1 $1,832 11 PGE PGE 147 $38 64.8 (643) ($63) 580 ($439) ($861) 2.0 $421 >1 $884 >1 $1,926 12 PGE PGE 122 $31 67.7 (672) ($67) 589 ($691) ($861) 1.2 $170 10.9 $781 >1 $1,896 12 SMUD PGE 122 $17 67.7 (672) ($2) 589 $515 ($861) >1 $1,375 10.9 $781 >1 $1,896 13 PGE PGE 152 $39 62.8 (618) ($60) 566 ($354) ($861) 2.4 $506 7.1 $740 >1 $1,954 14 SCE SCG 152 $31 65.3 (650) ($56) 581 ($363) ($861) 2.4 $498 >1 $942 >1 $1,863 14 SDGE SDGE 152 $44 65.3 (650) ($80) 581 ($610) ($861) 1.4 $250 >1 $942 >1 $1,863 15 SCE SCG 213 $43 51.2 (492) ($42) 507 $201 ($861) >1 $1,062 >1 $1,288 >1 $2,068 16 PGE PGE 115 $29 77.8 (813) ($85) 642 ($1,163) ($861) 0.7 ($302) 1.3 $189 >1 $1,462 a Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1 or negative values. Values In grey indicate cases which are cost-effective but are not code compliant and cannot be used to support a reach code. b “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. Table 28: All-Electric Clustered HPWH + 0.1 kWDC PV per Dwelling Unit Results (Savings/Cost Per Dwelling Unit)a, b Dwelling Units Central Water Heating Total On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV High-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study 2021-02-22 60 Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings Gas Savings (therm) Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings GHG Savings (lb CO2) On-Bill Utility Savings (2020 PV$) Inc. Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV 1 PGE PGE 171 $32 95.7 (809) ($64) 894 -$341 ($326) 0.96 ($14) >1 $472 >1 $1,856 2 PGE PGE 236 $43 86.9 (726) ($55) 852 $492 ($399) >1 $891 >1 $1,127 >1 $2,239 3 PGE PGE 232 $46 86.7 (711) ($53) 857 $469 ($213) >1 $682 >1 $814 >1 $1,945 4 PGE PGE 261 $46 81.4 (673) ($50) 821 $768 ($399) >1 $1,166 >1 $1,215 >1 $2,250 4 CPAU CPAU 261 $27 81.4 (673) ($19) 821 $729 ($399) >1 $1,128 >1 $1,215 >1 $2,250 5 PGE PGE 254 $49 86.7 (711) ($53) 867 $585 ($213) >1 $798 >1 $856 >1 $1,973 5 PGE SCG 254 $49 86.7 (711) ($73) 867 $232 ($213) >1 $445 >1 $856 >1 $1,973 6 SCE SCG 290 $37 78.3 (645) ($41) 808 $803 ($399) >1 $1,202 >1 $1,233 >1 $2,285 7 SDGE SDGE 270 $48 78.0 (642) ($61) 798 $742 ($399) >1 $1,141 >1 $1,273 >1 $2,256 8 SCE SCG 299 $36 75.5 (620) ($39) 789 $915 ($399) >1 $1,314 >1 $1,331 >1 $2,414 9 SCE SCG 303 $34 76.3 (628) ($40) 797 $833 ($399) >1 $1,232 >1 $1,407 >1 $2,486 10 SCE SCG 308 $32 63.2 (624) ($53) 632 $338 ($617) >1 $955 >1 $1,258 >1 $2,100 10 SDGE SDGE 308 $49 63.2 (624) ($77) 632 $539 ($617) >1 $1,156 >1 $1,258 >1 $2,100 11 PGE PGE 307 $38 64.8 (643) ($63) 648 $464 ($544) >1 $1,008 >1 $1,203 >1 $2,098 12 PGE PGE 285 $39 67.7 (672) ($67) 659 $237 ($544) >1 $781 >1 $1,089 >1 $2,078 12 SMUD PGE 285 $20 67.7 (672) ($2) 659 $987 ($544) >1 $1,531 >1 $1,089 >1 $2,078 13 PGE PGE 317 $39 62.8 (618) ($60) 637 $581 ($544) >1 $1,125 >1 $1,027 >1 $2,149 14 SCE SCG 343 $34 65.3 (650) ($56) 663 $445 ($544) >1 $989 >1 $1,366 >1 $2,185 14 SDGE SDGE 343 $50 65.3 (650) ($80) 663 $582 ($544) >1 $1,126 >1 $1,366 >1 $2,185 15 SCE SCG 390 $32 51.2 (492) ($42) 582 $948 ($544) >1 $1,492 >1 $1,643 >1 $2,324 16 PGE PGE 284 $41 77.8 (813) ($85) 716 -$201 ($544) 2.7 $343 13.6 $504 >1 $1,645 a Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1 or negative values. Values In grey indicate cases which are cost-effective but are not code compliant and cannot be used to support a reach code. b “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. 2021-02-22 61 Table 29: All-Electric Clustered HPWH + 0.2 kWDC PV per Dwelling Unit Results (Savings/Cost Per Dwelling Unit)a, b Climate Zone Elec Utility Gas Utility Dwelling Units Central Water Heating Total On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings Gas Savings (therm) Elec Savings (kWh) Year 1 Utility Cost Savings GHG Savings (lb CO2) On-Bill Utility Savings (2020 PV$) Inc. Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV 1 PGE PGE 304 $64 95.7 (809) ($64) 949 $415 ($10) >1 $425 >1 $648 >1 $1,919 2 PGE PGE 393 $87 86.9 (726) ($55) 920 $1,520 ($82) >1 $1,602 >1 $1,411 >1 $2,410 3 PGE PGE 395 $91 86.7 (711) ($53) 926 $1,521 $104 14.7 $1,417 11.5 $1,085 21.3 $2,104 4 PGE PGE 427 $92 81.4 (673) ($50) 892 $1,852 ($82) >1 $1,934 >1 $1,523 >1 $2,474 4 CPAU CPAU 427 $52 81.4 (673) ($19) 892 $1,319 ($82) >1 $1,401 >1 $1,523 >1 $2,474 5 PGE PGE 428 $96 86.7 (711) ($53) 941 $1,698 $104 16.4 $1,594 12.3 $1,173 21.9 $2,163 5 PGE SCG 428 $96 86.7 (711) ($73) 941 $1,344 $104 13.0 $1,241 12.3 $1,173 21.9 $2,163 6 SCE SCG 466 $74 78.3 (645) ($41) 884 $1,674 ($82) >1 $1,756 >1 $1,539 >1 $2,528 7 SDGE SDGE 435 $94 78.0 (642) ($61) 869 $1,842 ($82) >1 $1,925 >1 $1,598 >1 $2,433 8 SCE SCG 470 $71 75.5 (620) ($39) 863 $1,760 ($82) >1 $1,842 >1 $1,668 >1 $2,705 9 SCE SCG 480 $66 76.3 (628) ($40) 874 $1,590 ($82) >1 $1,673 >1 $1,752 >1 $2,771 10 SCE SCG 485 $64 63.2 (624) ($53) 708 $1,092 ($300) >1 $1,392 >1 $1,580 >1 $2,368 10 SDGE SDGE 485 $97 63.2 (624) ($77) 708 $1,680 ($300) >1 $1,980 >1 $1,580 >1 $2,368 11 PGE PGE 466 $76 64.8 (643) ($63) 717 $1,367 ($228) >1 $1,594 >1 $1,521 >1 $2,270 12 PGE PGE 449 $78 67.7 (672) ($67) 729 $1,164 ($228) >1 $1,392 >1 $1,396 >1 $2,260 12 SMUD PGE 449 $40 67.7 (672) ($2) 729 $1,459 ($228) >1 $1,687 >1 $1,396 >1 $2,260 13 PGE PGE 482 $79 62.8 (618) ($60) 708 $1,516 ($228) >1 $1,743 >1 $1,315 >1 $2,344 14 SCE SCG 534 $68 65.3 (650) ($56) 744 $1,252 ($228) >1 $1,480 >1 $1,791 >1 $2,507 14 SDGE SDGE 534 $101 65.3 (650) ($80) 744 $1,774 ($228) >1 $2,002 >1 $1,791 >1 $2,507 15 SCE SCG 567 $63 51.2 (492) ($42) 657 $1,695 ($228) >1 $1,923 >1 $1,998 >1 $2,580 16 PGE PGE 454 $81 77.8 (813) ($85) 789 $760 ($228) >1 $988 >1 $820 >1 $1,829 a Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1 or negative values. Values In grey indicate cases which are cost-effective but are not code compliant and cannot be used to support a reach code. b “>1” indicates cases where there are both incremental measure cost savings and energy cost savings. Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Prepared for: Christopher Kuch Codes and Standards Program Southern California Edison Company Prepared by: TRC EnergySoft Last Modified: July 25, 2019 LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared by Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 2019, Southern California Edison Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither SCE nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights. Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Methodology and Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Building Prototypes .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Cost Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................ 5 3 Measure Description and Cost ................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Energy Efficiency Measures ............................................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 Envelope ................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.2 HVAC and SWH ......................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Lighting ..................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Solar Photovoltaics and Battery Measures .................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Solar Photovoltaics ................................................................................................................. 13 3.2.2 Battery Storage ...................................................................................................................... 15 3.2.3 PV-only and PV+Battery Packages ......................................................................................... 16 3.3 All Electric Measures ...................................................................................................................... 16 3.3.1 HVAC and Water Heating ....................................................................................................... 16 3.3.2 Infrastructure Impacts ........................................................................................................... 20 3.4 Preempted High Efficiency Appliances .......................................................................................... 22 3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 22 4 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Office .................................................................................. 24 4.2 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail .................................................................................. 33 4.3 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel ....................................................................................... 41 4.4 Cost Effectiveness Results – PV-only and PV+Battery ................................................................... 50 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Further Considerations ............................................................................. 55 5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 55 5.2 Conclusions and Further Considerations ....................................................................................... 58 6 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 60 6.1 Map of California Climate Zones .................................................................................................... 60 6.2 Lighting Efficiency Measures .......................................................................................................... 61 6.3 Drain Water Heat Recovery Measure Analysis .............................................................................. 61 6.4 Utility Rate Schedules .................................................................................................................... 62 6.5 Mixed Fuel Baseline Energy Figures ............................................................................................... 63 6.6 Hotel TDV Cost Effectiveness with Propane Baseline .................................................................... 65 6.7 PV-only and PV+Battery-only Cost Effectiveness Results Details .................................................. 69 6.7.1 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Office .......................................................................... 69 6.7.2 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail .......................................................................... 79 6.7.3 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel ............................................................................... 88 6.8 List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored .............................................................................. 97 6.9 Additional Rates Analysis - Healdsburg ........................................................................................ 102 List of Figures Figure 1. Measure Category and Package Overview ....................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Prototype Characteristics Summary ................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Utility Tariffs used based on Climate Zone ....................................................................................... 6 Figure 4. Energy Efficiency Measures - Specification and Cost ...................................................................... 10 Figure 5. Medium Office – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 135 kW Array ................................................. 13 Figure 6. Medium Retail – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 110 kW Array .................................................. 14 Figure 7. Small Hotel – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 80 kW Array ......................................................... 14 Figure 8. Medium Office Upfront PV Costs .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 9. All-Electric HVAC and Water Heating Characteristics Summary. .................................................... 17 Figure 10. Medium Office HVAC System Costs .............................................................................................. 18 Figure 11. Medium Retail HVAC System Costs .............................................................................................. 19 Figure 12. Small Hotel HVAC and Water Heating System Costs .................................................................... 20 Figure 13. Medium Office Electrical Infrastructure Costs for All-Electric Design .......................................... 21 Figure 14. Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Prototypes ............................................. 22 Figure 15. High Efficiency Appliance Assumptions ........................................................................................ 22 Figure 16. Package Summary ......................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 17. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE ......................................... 26 Figure 18. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B............................ 27 Figure 19. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE ......................................... 28 Figure 20. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum ............. 29 Figure 21. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3A – All-Electric + EE .......................................... 30 Figure 22. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B ............................ 31 Figure 23. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3C – All-Electric + HE .......................................... 32 Figure 24. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE .......................................... 34 Figure 25. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B ............................ 35 Figure 26. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE.......................................... 36 Figure 27. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum .............. 37 Figure 28. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3A – All-Electric + EE ........................................... 38 Figure 29. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B ............................. 39 Figure 30. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3C – All-Electric + HE .......................................... 40 Figure 31. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE ............................................... 43 Figure 32. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B ................................. 44 Figure 33. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE ............................................... 45 Figure 34. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum ................... 46 Figure 35. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3A – All-Electric + EE ................................................ 47 Figure 36. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B .................................. 48 Figure 37. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3C – All-Electric + HE ................................................ 49 Figure 38. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office - PV and Battery ............................................................... 52 Figure 39. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail - PV and Battery ................................................................ 53 Figure 40. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel - PV and Battery ..................................................................... 54 Figure 41. Medium Office Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness .................................... 56 Figure 42. Medium Retail Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness ..................................... 57 Figure 43. Small Hotel Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness .......................................... 58 Figure 44. Map of California Climate Zones ................................................................................................... 60 Figure 45. Impact of Lighting Measures on Proposed LPDs by Space Function ............................................ 61 Figure 46. Utility Tariffs Analyzed Based on Climate Zone – Detailed View .................................................. 62 Figure 47. Medium Office – Mixed Fuel Baseline .......................................................................................... 63 Figure 48. Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel Baseline ........................................................................................... 64 Figure 49. Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel Baseline ................................................................................................ 65 Figure 50. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 2 All-Electric Federal Code Minimum ........................................................................................................................................................ 66 Figure 51. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3A (All-Electric + EE) ........ 67 Figure 52. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3B (All-Electric + EE + PV) 67 Figure 53. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3C (All Electric + HE) ........ 68 Figure 54. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office - Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV ..................................................... 71 Figure 55. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ......................... 72 Figure 56. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV ................................................ 73 Figure 57. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ................... 74 Figure 58. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office– All-Electric + 3kW PV ...................................................... 75 Figure 59. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery .......................... 76 Figure 60. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 135kW PV ................................................. 77 Figure 61. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery .................... 78 Figure 62. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 3kW PV..................................................... 80 Figure 63. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery .......................... 81 Figure 64. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 110kW PV ................................................ 82 Figure 65. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 110 kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ................... 83 Figure 66. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 3kW PV ..................................................... 84 Figure 67. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery........................... 85 Figure 68. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 110kW PV ................................................. 86 Figure 69. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 110kW PV + 50 kWh Battery .................... 87 Figure 70. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV .......................................................... 89 Figure 71. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ............................... 90 Figure 72. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel - Mixed Fuel +80kW PV .......................................................... 91 Figure 73. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ........................... 92 Figure 74. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 3kW PV ........................................................... 93 Figure 75. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ................................ 94 Figure 76. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 80kW PV ......................................................... 95 Figure 77. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 80kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ............................ 96 Figure 78. List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored ............................................................................. 97 Figure 79. Healdsburg Utility Rates Analysis – Medium Office, All Packages Cost Effectiveness Summary103 Figure 80. Healdsburg Utility Rates Analysis – Medium Retail, All Packages Cost Effectiveness Summary 104 Figure 81. Healdsburg Utility Rates Analysis – Small Hotel, All Packages Cost Effectiveness Summary ..... 105 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 1 2019-07-25 1 Introduction The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (CEC, 2019) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (the Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Reach Code Team. This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements for design in newly-constructed nonresidential buildings. Buildings specifically examined include medium office, medium retail, and small hotels. Measures include energy efficiency, solar photovoltaics (PV), and battery storage. In addition, the report includes a comparison between a baseline mixed-fuel design and all-electric design for each occupancy type. The Reach Code team analyzed the following seven packages as compared to 2019 code compliant mixed- fuel design baseline: ♦ Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + Energy Efficiency (EE): Mixed-fuel design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies. ♦ Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + Battery (B): Same as Package 1A, plus solar PV and batteries. ♦ Package 1C – Mixed-fuel + High Efficiency (HE): Baseline code-minimum building with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption. The intent of this package is to assess the standalone contribution that high efficiency appliances would make toward achieving high performance thresholds. ♦ Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: All-electric design with federal code minimum appliance efficiency. No solar PV or battery. ♦ Package 3A – All-Electric + EE: Package 2 all-electric design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies. ♦ Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 3A, plus solar PV and batteries. ♦ Package 3C – All-Electric + HE: All-electric design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption. Figure 1 summarizes the baseline and measure packages. Please refer to Section 3 for more details on the measure descriptions. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 2 2019-07-25 Figure 1. Measure Category and Package Overview Measure Category Report Section Mixed Fuel All-Electric Baseline 1A 1B 1C 2 3A 3B 3C Fed Code Minimum Efficiency EE EE+ PV + B HE Fed Code Minimum Efficiency EE EE+ PV + B HE Energy Efficiency Measures 3.1 X X X X Solar PV + Battery 3.2 X X All-Electric Measures 3.3 X X X X Preemptive Appliance Measures 3.4 X X The team separately developed cost effectiveness results for PV-only and PV+Battery packages, excluding any efficiency measures. For these packages, the PV is modeled as a “minimal” size of 3 kW and a larger size based on the available roof area and electric load of the building. PV sizes are combined with two sizes of battery storage for both mixed fuel and all electric buildings to form eight different package combinations as outlined below: ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV Only ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV Only ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ♦ All-Electric + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller ♦ All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery. Each of the eight packages are evaluated against a baseline model designed as per 2019 Title 24 Part 6 requirements. The Standards baseline for all occupancies in this report is a mixed-fuel design. The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment.1 Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting 1 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTML#se10.3.431_197 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 3 2019-07-25 higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency equipment. However, because high efficiency appliances are often the easiest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance, this study provides an analysis of high efficiency appliances for informational purposes. While federal preemption would limit a reach code, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements, including higher efficiency appliances that are federally regulated. 2 Methodology and Assumptions With input from several stakeholders, the Reach Codes team selected three building types—medium office, medium retail, and small hotel—to represent a predominant segment of nonresidential new construction in the state. This analysis used both on-bill and time dependent valuation of energy (TDV) based approaches to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures, as well as quantifying the costs associated with the measures. The main difference between the methodologies is the valuation of energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use. TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time dependent value of energy including long-term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon emissions. With the TDV approach, electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods.2 The Reach Code Team performed energy simulations using EnergyPro 8.0 software for 2019 Title 24 code compliance analysis, which uses CBECC-Com 2019.1.0 for the calculation engine. The baseline prototype models in all climate zones have been designed to have compliance margins as close as possible to 0 to reflect a prescriptively-built building.3 2.1 Building Prototypes The DOE provides building prototype models which, when modified to comply with 2019 Title 24 requirements, can be used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of efficiency measures. These prototypes have historically been used by the California Energy Commission to assess potential code enhancements. The Reach Code Team performed analysis on a medium office, a medium retail, and a small hotel prototype. Water heating includes both service water heating (SWH) for office and retail buildings and domestic hot water for hotels. In this report, water heating or SWH is used to refer to both. The Standard Design HVAC and SWH systems are based on the system maps included in the 2019 Nonresidential Alternate 2 Horii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis. 2014. “Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014- 07-09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents 3 EnergySoft and TRC were able to develop most baseline prototypes to achieve a compliance margin of less than +/-1 percent except for few models that were at +/- 6 percent. This indicates these prototypes are not exactly prescriptive according to compliance software calculations. To calculate incremental impacts, TRC conservatively compared the package results to that of the proposed design of baseline prototypes (not the standard design). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 4 2019-07-25 Calculation Method Reference Manual.4 The Standard Design is the baseline for all nonresidential projects and assumes a mixed-fuel design using natural gas as the space heating source in all cases. Baseline HVAC and SWH system characteristics are described below and in Figure 2: ♦ The baseline medium office HVAC design package includes two gas hot water boilers, three packaged rooftop units (one for each floor), and variable air volume (VAV) terminal boxes with hot water reheat coils. The SWH design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30-gallon storage tank. ♦ The baseline medium retail HVAC design includes five single zone packaged rooftop units (variable flow and constant flow depending on the zone) with gas furnaces for heating. The SWH design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30-gallon storage tank. ♦ The small hotel has two baseline equipment systems, one for the nonresidential spaces and one for the guest rooms. ♦ The nonresidential HVAC design includes two gas hot water boilers, four packaged rooftop units and twelve VAV terminal boxes with hot water reheat coils. The SWH design include a small electric resistance water heater with 30-gallon storage tank. ♦ The residential HVAC design includes one single zone air conditioner (AC) unit with gas furnace for each guest room and the water heating design includes one central gas water heater with a recirculation pump for all guest rooms. Figure 2. Prototype Characteristics Summary Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel Conditioned Floor Area 53,628 24,691 42,552 Number of Stories 3 1 4 Number of Guest Rooms 0 0 78 Window-to-Wall Area Ratio 0.33 0.07 0.11 Baseline HVAC System Packaged DX VAV with gas furnaces + VAV terminal units with hot water reheat. Central gas hot water boilers Single zone packaged DX units with gas furnaces Nonresidential: Packaged DX VAV with hot water coil + VAV terminal units with hot water reheat. Central gas hot water boilers. Residential: Single zone DX AC unit with gas furnaces Baseline Water Heating System 30-gallon electric resistance water heater 30-gallon electric resistance water heater Nonresidential: 30-gallon electric resistance water heater Residential: Central gas water heater with recirculation loop 4 Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual For the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-006/CEC-400-2019-006-CMF.pdf 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 5 2019-07-25 2.2 Cost Effectiveness The Reach Code Team analyzed the cost effectiveness of the packages by applying them to building prototypes (as applicable) using the life cycle cost methodology, which is approved and used by the Energy Commission to establish cost effective building energy standards (Title 24, Part 6).5 Per Energy Commission’s methodology, the Reach Code Team assessed the incremental costs of the energy efficiency measure packages and compared them to the energy cost savings over the measure life of 15 years. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2019 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements. The energy savings benefits are estimated using both TDV of energy and typical utility rates for each building type: ♦ Time Dependent Valuation: TDV is a normalized monetary format developed and used by the Energy Commission for comparing electricity and natural gas savings, and it considers the cost of electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and year. Simulation outputs are translated to TDV savings benefits using 2019 TDV multipliers and 15-year discounted costs for the nonresidential measure packages. ♦ Utility bill impacts (On-bill): Utility energy costs are estimated by applying appropriate IOU rates to estimated annual electricity and natural gas consumption. The energy bill savings are calculated as the difference in utility costs between the baseline and proposed package over a 15- year duration accounting for discount rate and energy cost escalation. In coordination with the IOU rate team, and rate experts at a few electric publicly owned utilities (POUs), the Reach Code Team used the current nonresidential utility rates publicly available at the time of analysis to analyze the cost effectiveness for each proposed package. The utility tariffs, summarized in Figure 3, were determined based on the annual load profile of each prototype, and the most prevalent rate in each territory. For some prototypes there are multiple options for rates because of the varying load profiles of mixed-fuel buildings versus all-electric buildings. Tariffs were integrated in EnergyPro software to be applied to the hourly electricity and gas outputs. The Reach Code Team did not attempt to compare or test a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost effectiveness. The currently available and applicable time-of–use (TOU) nonresidential rates are applied to both the base and proposed cases with PV systems.6 Any annual electricity production in excess of annual electricity consumption is credited at the applicable wholesale rate based on the approved NEM tariffs for that utility. For a more detailed breakdown of the rates selected refer to Appendix 6.4 Utility Rate Schedules. Note that most utility time-of-use rates will be updated in the near future, which can affect cost effectiveness results. For example, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will introduce new rates for new service connections in late 2019, and existing accounts will be automatically rolled over to new rates in November 2020. 5 Architectural Energy Corporation (January 2011) Life-Cycle Cost Methodology. California Energy Commission. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/general_cec_documents/2011-01- 14_LCC_Methodology_2013.pdf 6 Under NEM rulings by the CPUC (D-16-01-144, 1/28/16), all new PV customers shall be in an approved TOU rate structure. As of March 2016, all new PG&E net energy metering (NEM) customers are enrolled in a time-of-use rate. (http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/plans/tou/index.page?). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 6 2019-07-25 Figure 3. Utility Tariffs used based on Climate Zone Climate Zones Electric / Gas Utility Electricity (Time-of-use) Natural Gas IOUs 1-5,11-13,16 PG&E A-1/A-10 G-NR1 5 PG&E / Southern California Gas Company A-1/A-10 G-10 (GN- 10) 6,8-10,14,15 SCE / Southern California Gas Company TOU-GS-1/TOU-GS- 2/TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN- 10) 7,10,14 San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) A-1/A-10 GN-3 Electric POUs 4 City of Palo Alto (CPAU) E-2 n/a 12 Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) GS n/a 6,7,8,16 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) A-2 (B) n/a The Reach Code Team obtained measure costs through interviews with contractors and California distributors and review of online sources, such as Home Depot and RS Means. Taxes and contractor markups were added as appropriate. Maintenance costs were not included because there is no assumed maintenance on the envelope measures. For HVAC and SWH measures the study assumes there are no additional maintenance cost for a more efficient version of the same system type as the baseline. Replacement costs for inverters were included for PV systems, but the useful life all other equipment exceeds the study period. The Reach Code Team compared the energy benefits with incremental measure cost data to determine cost effectiveness for each measure package. The calculation is performed for a duration of 15 years for all nonresidential prototypes with a 3 percent discount rate and fuel escalation rates based on the most recent General Rate Case filings and historical escalation rates.7 Cost effectiveness is presented using net present value and benefit-to-cost ratio metrics. ♦ Net Present Value (NPV): The Reach Code Team uses net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs) as the cost effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost effective. Negative savings represent net costs. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are more negative (i.e., material and maintenance cost savings). ♦ Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (B/C): Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 15 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criteria for cost effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. 7 2019 TDV Methodology Report, California Energy Commission, Docket number: 16-BSTD-06 https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=216062 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 7 2019-07-25 There are several special circumstances to consider when reviewing these results: ♦ Improving the efficiency of a project often requires an initial incremental investment. However, some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). Typically, utility bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’ while incremental construction costs are treated as ‘costs.’ In cases where both construction costs are negative and utility bill savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the utility bill negative savings are the ‘cost.’ ♦ In cases where a measure package is cost effective immediately (i.e., there are upfront cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), cost effectiveness is represented by “>1”. ♦ The B/C ratios sometimes appear very high even though the cost numbers are not very high (for example, an upfront cost of $1 but on-bill savings of $200 over 30 years would equate to a B/C ratio of 200). NPV is also displayed to clarify these potentially confusing conclusions – in the example, the NPV would be equal to a modest $199. 3 Measure Description and Cost Using the 2019 Title 24 code baseline as the starting point, The Reach Code Team identified potential measure packages to determine the projected energy (therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. The Reach Code Team developed an initial measure list based on experience with designers and contractors along with general knowledge of the relative acceptance and preferences of many measures, as well as their incremental costs. The measures are categorized into energy efficiency, solar PV and battery, all-electric, and preempted high efficiency measures in subsections below. 3.1 Energy Efficiency Measures This section describes all the energy efficiency measures considered for this analysis to develop a non- preempted, cost-effective efficiency measure package. The Reach Code Team assessed the cost- effectiveness of measures for all climate zones individually and found that the packages did not need to vary by climate zone, with the exception of a solar heat gain coefficient measure in hotels, as described in more detail below. The measures were developed based on reviews of proposed 2022 Title 24 codes and standards enhancement measures, as well as ASHRAE 90.1 and ASHRAE 189.1 Standards. Please refer to Appendix Section 6.86.7 for a list of efficiency measures that were considered but not implemented. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 8 2019-07-25 Figure 4 provides a summary of the cost of each measure and the applicability of each measure to the prototype buildings. 3.1.1 Envelope ♦ Modify Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) fenestration ♦ Office and Retail - All Climate Zones: reduce window SHGC from the prescriptive value of 0.25 to 0.22 ♦ Hotel ♦ Climate zones 1, 2, 3, 5, and 16: Increase the SHGC for all nonresidential spaces from the prescriptive value of 0.25 to 0.45 in both common and guest room spaces. ♦ Climate zones 4, and 6-15: Reduce window SHGC from the prescriptive value of 0.25 to 0.22, only for common spaces. In all cases, the fenestration visible transmittance and U-factor remain at prescriptive values. ♦ Fenestration as a function of orientation: Limit the amount of fenestration area as a function of orientation. East-facing and west-facing windows are each limited to one-half of the average amount of north-facing and south-facing windows. 3.1.2 HVAC and SWH ♦ Drain water heat recovery (DWHR): Add shower drain heat recovery in hotel guest rooms. DWHR captures waste heat from a shower drain line and uses it to preheat hot water. Note that this measure cannot currently be modeled on hotel/motel spaces, and the Reach Code Team integrated estimated savings outside of modeling software based on SWH savings in residential scenarios. Please see Appendix Section 6.3 for details on energy savings analysis. ♦ VAV box minimum flow: Reduce VAV box minimum airflows from the current T24 prescriptive requirement of 20 percent of maximum (design) airflow to the T24 zone ventilation minimums. ♦ Economizers on small capacity systems: Require economizers and staged fan control in units with cooling capacity ≥ 33,000 Btu/hr and ≤ 54,000 Btu/hr, which matches the requirement in the 2018 International Green Construction Code and adopts ANSI/ASHRAE/ICC/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1. This measure reduces the T24 prescriptive threshold on air handling units that are required to have economizers, which is > 54,000 Btu/hr. ♦ Solar thermal hot water: For all-electric hotel only, add solar thermal water heating to supply the following portions of the water heating load, measured in solar savings fraction (SSF): ♦ 20 percent SSF in CZs 2, 3, and 5-9 ♦ 25 percent in CZ4 ♦ 35 percent SSF in CZs 1 and 10-16. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 9 2019-07-25 3.1.3 Lighting ♦ Interior lighting reduced lighting power density (LPD): Reduce LPD by 15 percent for Medium Office, 10 percent for Medium Retail and by 10 percent for the nonresidential areas of the Small Hotel. ♦ Institutional tuning: Limit the maximum output or maximum power draw of lighting to 85 percent of full light output or full power draw. ♦ Daylight dimming plus off: Turn daylight-controlled lights completely off when the daylight available in the daylit zone is greater than 150 percent of the illuminance received from the general lighting system at full power. There is no associated cost with this measure, as the 2019 T24 Standards already require multilevel lighting and daylight sensors in primary and secondary daylit spaces. This measure is simply a revised control strategy and does not increase the number of sensors required or labor to install and program a sensor. ♦ Occupant sensing in open plan offices: In an open plan office area greater than 250 ft2, control lighting based on occupant sensing controls. Two workstations per occupancy sensor. Details on the applicability and impact of each measure by building type and by space function can be found in Appendices 6.2. The appendix also includes the resulting LPD that is modeled as the proposed by building type and by space function. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 10 2019-07-25 Figure 4. Energy Efficiency Measures - Specification and Cost Measure Baseline T24 Requirement Measure Applicability ● Included in Packages 1A, 1B, 3A, 3C ─ Not applicable Incremental Cost Sources & Notes Med Office Med Retail Small Hotel Guest rooms Comm Spaces Envelope Modify SHGC Fenestration SHGC of 0.25 ● ● ● ● $1.60 /ft2 window for SHGC decreases, $0/ft2 for SHGC increases Costs from one manufacturer. Fenestration as a Function of Orientation Limit on total window area and west-facing window area as a function of wall area. ● ─ ─ ─ $0 No additional cost associated with the measure which is a design consideration not an equipment cost. HVAC and SHW Drain Water Heat Recovery No heat recovery required ─ ─ ● ─ $841 /unit Assume 1 heat recovery unit for every 3 guestrooms. Costs from three manufacturers. VAV Box Minimum Flow 20 percent of maximum (design) airflow ● ─ ─ ● $0 No additional cost associated with the measure which is a design consideration not an equipment cost. Economizers on Small Capacity Systems Economizers required for units > 54,000 Btu/hr ─ ● ─ ─ $2,857 /unit Costs from one manufacturer’s representative and one mechanical contractor. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 11 2019-07-25 Measure Baseline T24 Requirement Measure Applicability ● Included in Packages 1A, 1B, 3A, 3C ─ Not applicable Incremental Cost Sources & Notes Med Office Med Retail Small Hotel Guest rooms Comm Spaces Solar Thermal Hot Water For central heat pump water heaters, there is no prescriptive baseline requirement. ─ ─ ● (electric only) ─ $33/therm-yr Installed costs reported in the California Solar Initiative Thermal Program Database, 2015-present.8 Costs include tank and were only available for gas backup systems. Costs are reduced by 19 percent per federal income tax credit average through 2022. Lighting Interior Lighting Reduced LPD Per Area Category Method, varies by Primary Function Area. Office area 0.60 – 0.70 W/ft2 depending on area of space. Hotel function area 0.85 W/ft2. Retail Merchandise Sales 1.00 W/ft2 ● ● ─ ● $0 Industry report on LED pricing analysis shows that costs are not correlated with efficacy.9 8 http://www.csithermalstats.org/download.html 9 http://calmac.org/publications/LED_Pricing_Analysis_Report_-_Revised_1.19.2018_Final.pdf 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 12 2019-07-25 Measure Baseline T24 Requirement Measure Applicability ● Included in Packages 1A, 1B, 3A, 3C ─ Not applicable Incremental Cost Sources & Notes Med Office Med Retail Small Hotel Guest rooms Comm Spaces Institutional Tuning No requirement, but Power Adjustment Factor (PAF) credit of 0.10 available for luminaires in non-daylit areas and 0.05 for luminaires in daylit areas 10 ● ● ─ ● $0.06/ft2 Industry report on institutional tuning11 Daylight Dimming Plus Off No requirement, but PAF credit of 0.10 available. ● ─ ─ ─ $0 Given the amount of lighting controls already required, this measure is no additional cost. Occupant Sensing in Open Plan Offices No requirement, but PAF credit of 0.30 available. ● ─ ─ ─ $189 /sensor; $74 /powered relay; $108 /secondary relay 2 workstations per sensor; 1 fixture per workstation; 4 workstations per master relay; 120 ft2/workstation in open office area, which is 53% of total floor area of the medium office 10 Power Adjustment Factors allow designers to tradeoff increased lighting power densities for more efficient designs. In this study, PAF-related measures assume that the more efficient design is incorporated without a tradeoff for increased lighting power density. 11 https://slipstreaminc.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/task-tuning-report-mndoc-2015.pdf 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 13 2019-07-25 3.2 Solar Photovoltaics and Battery Measures This section describes the PV and battery measures considered for this analysis. The Reach Code Team estimated the required PV sizes for each building prototype for the efficiency measure packages and the stand alone PV and battery options. 3.2.1 Solar Photovoltaics 2019 Title 24 requires nonresidential buildings to reserve at least 15 percent of the roof area as a “solar zone,” but does not include any requirements or compliance credits for the installation of photovoltaic systems. The Reach Code Team analyzed a range of PV system sizes to determine cost effectiveness. To determine upper end of potential PV system size, the Reach Code Team assumed a PV generation capacity of either ♦ 15 W/ft2 covering 50 percent of the roof area, or ♦ Enough to nearly offset the annual energy consumption. The medium office and small hotel prototypes had small roof areas compared to their annual electricity demand, thus the PV system capacity at 50 percent of the roof area was less than the estimated annual usage. The medium office and small hotel had a 135 kW and 80 kW array, respectively. The medium retail building has a substantially large roof area that would accommodate a PV array that generates more than the annual electricity load of the building. The PV array for the medium retail building was sized at 110 kW to not exceed the annual electricity consumption of the building when accounting for the minimum annual energy demand across climate zones with efficiency packages. The modeling software for nonresidential buildings does not allow auto-sizing of PV based on a desired percent offset of electricity use. Moreover, the PV size is also constrained by the availability of roof area. Hence, a common size of PV is modeled for all the packages including all electric design. Figure 5 through Figure 7 below demonstrate the percent of electricity offset by PV for both mixed fuel and all electric buildings over their respective federal minimum design package. Figure 5. Medium Office – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 135 kW Array 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Climate Zone Medium Office -Percent kWh Offset by PV Mixed-Fuel All-Electric 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 14 2019-07-25 Figure 6. Medium Retail – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 110 kW Array Figure 7. Small Hotel – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 80 kW Array The costs for PV include first cost to purchase and install the system, inverter replacement costs, and annual maintenance costs. A summary of the medium office costs and sources is given in Figure 8. Upfront solar PV system costs are reduced by the federal income tax credit (ITC), approximately 19 percent due to a phased reduction in the credit through the year 2022.12 12 The federal credit drops to 26% in 2020, and 22% in 2021 before dropping permanently to 10% for commercial projects and 0% for residential projects in 2022. More information on federal Investment Tax Credits available at: https://www.seia.org/initiatives/solar-investment-tax-credit-itc 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Climate Zone Medium Retail -Percent kWh Offset by PV Mixed fuel All electric 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Climate Zone Small Hotel -Percent kWh Offset by PV Mixed Fuel All-Electric 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 15 2019-07-25 Figure 8. Medium Office Upfront PV Costs Unit Cost Cost Useful Life (yrs.) Source Solar PV System $2.30 / Wdc $310,500 30 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Q1 2016 13 Inverter Replacement $0.15 / Wdc $20,250 10 E3 Rooftop Solar PV System Report 14 Maintenance Costs $0.02 / Wdc $2,700 1 PV energy output is built into CBECC-Com and is based on NREL’s PVWatts calculator, which includes long term performance degradation estimates.15 3.2.2 Battery Storage This measure includes installation of batteries to allow energy generated through PV to be stored and used later, providing additional energy cost benefits. This report does not focus on optimizing battery sizes or controls for each prototype and climate zone, though the Reach Code Team ran test simulations to assess the impact of battery sizes on TDV savings and found diminishing returns as the battery size increased. The team set battery control to the Time of Use Control (TOU) method, which assumes batteries are charged anytime PV generation is greater than the building load but discharges to the electric grid beginning during the highest priced hours of the day (the “First Hour of the Summer Peak”). Because there is no default hour available in CBECC-Com, the team applied the default hour available in CBECC-Res to start discharging (hour 19 in CZs 2, 4, and 8-15, and hour 20 in other CZs). This control option is most reflective of the current products on the market. While this control strategy is being used in the analysis, there would be no mandate on the control strategy used in practice. The current simulation software has approximations of how performance characteristics change with environmental conditions, charge/discharge rates, and degradation with age and use. More information is on the software battery control capabilities and associated qualification requirements are available in the Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual and the 2019 Reference Appendices for the 2019 Title 24 Standards.16,17 The Reach Code Team used costs of $558 kWh based on a 2018 IOU Codes and Standards Program report, assuming a replacement is necessary in year 15.18 Batteries are also eligible for the ITC if they are installed at the same time as the renewable generation source and at least 75 percent of the energy used to charge 13 Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66532.pdf 14 Available at: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 15 More information available at: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/downloads/pvwattsv5.pdf 16 Battery controls are discussed in Sections 2.1.5.4 and Appendix D of the Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual, available here: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-005/CEC-400-2019-005-CMF.pdf 17 Qualification Requirements for Battery Storage Systems are available in JA12 of the 2019 Reference Appendices: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-021/CEC-400-2018-021-CMF.pdf 18 Available at: http://localenergycodes.com/download/430/file_path/fieldList/PV%20Plus%20Battery%20Storage%20Report 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 16 2019-07-25 the battery comes from a renewable source. Thus, the Reach Code Team also applied a 19 percent cost reduction to battery costs. 3.2.3 PV-only and PV+Battery Packages The Reach Code Team analyzed solar PV and battery storage only, without other efficiency measures in both mixed-fuel and all-electric building designs. Two different sizes of solar PV and battery storage were analyzed. ♦ Small PV Size: 3 kW, assumed to be the minimal PV system considered for installation in a nonresidential building. ♦ Large PV Size: PV capacity equal to 15 W/ft2 over 50 percent of the roof area, or sized to nearly offset annual electricity consumption, as described in Section 3.2.1. ♦ Small Battery Size: 5 kWh, assumed to be the minimal battery system considered for installation in a nonresidential building, and representative of smaller products currently available on the market. ♦ Large Battery Size: 50 kWh, assumed to be a substantially large size for a nonresidential setting. Generally, the reach code team found diminishing on-bill and TDV benefits as the battery size increased. As described in Section 1 and Section 4.4, each PV size was run as a standalone measure. When packaged with a battery measure, the small PV size was paired with the small battery size, and the large PV size was paired with the large battery size. 3.3 All Electric Measures The Reach Code Team investigated the cost and performance impacts and associated infrastructure costs associated with changing the baseline HVAC and water heating systems to all-electric equipment. This includes heat pump space heating, electric resistance reheat coils, electric water heater with storage tank, heat pump water heating, increasing electrical capacity, and eliminating natural gas connections that would have been present in mixed-fuel new construction. The Reach Code Team selected electric systems that would be installed instead of gas-fueled systems in each prototype. 3.3.1 HVAC and Water Heating The nonresidential standards use a mixed-fuel baseline for the Standard Design systems. In most nonresidential occupancies, the baseline is natural gas space heating. Hotel/motels and high-rise residential occupancies also assume natural gas baseline water heating systems for the guest rooms and dwelling units. In the all-electric scenario, gas equipment serving these end-uses is replaced with electric equipment, as described in Figure 9. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 17 2019-07-25 Figure 9. All-Electric HVAC and Water Heating Characteristics Summary. Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel HVAC System Baseline Packaged DX + VAV with HW reheat. Central gas boilers. Single zone packaged DX with gas furnaces NonRes: Packaged DX + VAV with HW reheat. Central gas boilers. Res: Single zone DX AC unit with gas furnaces Proposed All- Electric Packaged DX + VAV with electric resistance reheat. Single zone packaged heat pumps NonRes: Packaged DX + VAV with electric resistance reheat Res: Single zone heat pumps Water Heating System Baseline Electric resistance with storage Electric resistance with storage NonRes: Electric resistance storage Res: Central gas storage with recirculation Proposed All- Electric Electric resistance with storage Electric resistance with storage NonRes: Electric resistance storage Res: Individual heat pumps The Reach Code Team received cost data for baseline mixed-fuel equipment as well as electric equipment from an experienced mechanical contractor in the San Francisco Bay Area. The total construction cost includes equipment and material, labor, subcontractors (for example, HVAC and SHW control systems), and contractor overhead. 3.3.1.1 Medium Office The baseline HVAC system includes two gas hot water boilers, three packaged rooftop units, and VAV hot water reheat boxes. The SHW design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30- gallon storage tank. For the medium office all-electric HVAC design, the Reach Code Team investigated several potential all- electric design options, including variable refrigerant flow, packaged heat pumps, and variable volume and temperature systems. After seeking feedback from the design community, the Reach Code Team determined that the most feasible all-electric HVAC system, given the software modeling constraints is a VAV system with an electric resistance reheat instead of hot water reheat coil. A parallel fan-powered box (PFPB) implementation of electric resistance reheat would further improve efficiency due to reducing ventilation requirements, but an accurate implementation of PFPBs is not currently available in compliance software. Note that the actual natural gas consumption for the VAV hot water reheat baseline may be higher than the current simulation results due to a combination of boiler and hot water distribution losses. A recent research study shows that the total losses can account for as high as 80 percent of the boiler energy use.19 19 Raftery, P., A. Geronazzo, H. Cheng, and G. Paliaga. 2018. Quantifying energy losses in hot water reheat systems. Energy and Buildings, 179: 183-199. November. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.020. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3qs8f8qx 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 18 2019-07-25 If these losses are considered savings for the electric resistance reheat (which has zero associated distribution loss) may be higher. The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water heater as the baseline and has no associated incremental costs. Cost data for medium office designs are presented in Figure 10. The all-electric HVAC system presents cost savings compared to the hot water reheat system from elimination of the hot water boiler and associated hot water piping distribution. CZ10 and CZ15 all-electric design costs are slightly higher because they require larger size rooftop heat pumps than the other climate zones. Figure 10. Medium Office HVAC System Costs Climate Zone Mixed Fuel Baseline All Electric System Incremental cost for All-Electric CZ01 $1,202,538 $1,106,432 $(96,106) CZ02 $1,261,531 $1,178,983 $(82,548) CZ03 $1,205,172 $1,113,989 $(91,183) CZ04 $1,283,300 $1,205,434 $(77,865) CZ05 $1,207,345 $1,113,989 $(93,356) CZ06 $1,216,377 $1,131,371 $(85,006) CZ07 $1,227,932 $1,148,754 $(79,178) CZ08 $1,250,564 $1,172,937 $(77,626) CZ09 $1,268,320 $1,196,365 $(71,955) CZ10 $1,313,580 $1,256,825 $(56,755) CZ11 $1,294,145 $1,221,305 $(72,840) CZ12 $1,274,317 $1,197,121 $(77,196) CZ13 $1,292,884 $1,221,305 $(71,579) CZ14 $1,286,245 $1,212,236 $(74,009) CZ15 $1,357,023 $1,311,994 $(45,029) CZ16 $1,295,766 $1,222,817 $(72,949) 3.3.1.2 Medium Retail The baseline HVAC system includes five packaged single zone rooftop ACs with gas furnaces. Based on fan control requirements in section 140.4(m), units with cooling capacity ≥ 65,000 Btu/h have variable air volume fans, while smaller units have constant volume fans. The SHW design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30-gallon storage tank. For the medium retail all-electric HVAC design, the Reach Code Team assumed packaged heat pumps instead of the packaged ACs. The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water heater as the baseline and has no associated incremental costs. Cost data for medium retail designs are presented in Figure 11. Costs for rooftop air-conditioning systems are very similar to rooftop heat pump systems. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 19 2019-07-25 Figure 11. Medium Retail HVAC System Costs Climate Zone Mixed Fuel Baseline All Electric System Incremental cost for All-Electric CZ01 $328,312 $333,291 $4,978 CZ02 $373,139 $373,702 $563 CZ03 $322,849 $326,764 $3,915 CZ04 $329,900 $335,031 $5,131 CZ05 $359,888 $362,408 $2,520 CZ06 $335,728 $341,992 $6,265 CZ07 $345,544 $349,808 $4,265 CZ08 $368,687 $369,792 $1,104 CZ09 $415,155 $411,069 $(4,087) CZ10 $345,993 $346,748 $755 CZ11 $418,721 $414,546 $(4,175) CZ12 $405,110 $400,632 $(4,477) CZ13 $376,003 $375,872 $(131) CZ14 $405,381 $406,752 $1,371 CZ15 $429,123 $427,606 $(1,517) CZ16 $401,892 $404,147 $2,256 3.3.1.3 Small Hotel The small hotel has two different baseline equipment systems, one for the nonresidential spaces and one for the guest rooms. The nonresidential HVAC system includes two gas hot water boilers, four packaged rooftop units and twelve VAV terminal boxes with hot water reheat coil. The SHW design includes a small electric water heater with storage tank. The residential HVAC design includes one single zone AC unit with gas furnace for each guest room and the water heating design includes one central gas storage water heater with a recirculation pump for all guest rooms. For the small hotel all-electric design, the Reach Code Team assumed the nonresidential HVAC system to be packaged heat pumps with electric resistance VAV terminal units, and the SHW system to remain a small electric resistance water heater. For the guest room all-electric HVAC system, the analysis used a single zone (packaged terminal) heat pump and a central heat pump water heater serving all guest rooms. Central heat pump water heating with recirculation serving guest rooms cannot yet be modeled in CBECC-Com, and energy impacts were modeled by simulating individual heat pump water heaters in each guest room. The reach code team believes this is a conservative assumption, since individual heat pump water heaters will have much higher tank standby losses. The Reach Code Team attained costs for central heat pump water heating installation including storage tanks and controls and used these costs in the study. Cost data for small hotel designs are presented in Figure 12. The all-electric design presents substantial cost savings because there is no hot water plant or piping distribution system serving the nonresidential spaces, as well as the lower cost of packaged terminal heat pumps serving the residential spaces compared to split DX/furnace systems with individual flues. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 20 2019-07-25 Figure 12. Small Hotel HVAC and Water Heating System Costs Climate Zone Mixed Fuel Baseline All Electric System Incremental cost for All-Electric CZ01 $2,337,531 $1,057,178 $(1,280,353) CZ02 $2,328,121 $1,046,795 $(1,281,326) CZ03 $2,294,053 $1,010,455 $(1,283,598) CZ04 $2,302,108 $1,018,675 $(1,283,433) CZ05 $2,298,700 $1,015,214 $(1,283,486) CZ06 $2,295,380 $1,011,753 $(1,283,627) CZ07 $2,308,004 $1,026,029 $(1,281,975) CZ08 $2,333,662 $1,053,717 $(1,279,946) CZ09 $2,312,099 $1,030,355 $(1,281,744) CZ10 $2,354,093 $1,075,348 $(1,278,745) CZ11 $2,347,980 $1,068,426 $(1,279,554) CZ12 $2,328,654 $1,047,660 $(1,280,994) CZ13 $2,348,225 $1,068,858 $(1,279,367) CZ14 $2,345,988 $1,066,263 $(1,279,725) CZ15 $2,357,086 $1,079,241 $(1,277,845) CZ16 $2,304,094 $1,019,973 $(1,284,121) 3.3.2 Infrastructure Impacts Electric heating appliances and equipment often require a larger electrical connection than an equivalent natural gas appliance because of the higher voltage and amperage necessary to electrically generate heat. Thus, many buildings may require larger electrical capacity than a comparable building with natural gas appliances. This includes: ♦ Electric resistance VAV space heating in the medium office and common area spaces of the small hotel. ♦ Heat pump water heating for the guest room spaces of the small hotel. 3.3.2.1 Electrical Panel Sizing and Wiring This section details the additional electrical panel sizing and wiring required for all-electric measures. In an all-electric new construction scenario, heat pumps replace packaged DX units which are paired with either a gas furnace or a hot water coil (supplied by a gas boiler). The electrical requirements of the replacement heat pump would be the same as the packaged DX unit it replaces, as the electrical requirements would be driven by the cooling capacity, which would remain the same between the two units. VAV terminal units with hot water reheat coils that are replaced with electric resistance reheat coils require additional electrical infrastructure. In the case of electric resistance coils, the Reach Code Team assumed that on average, a VAV terminal unit serves around 900 ft2 of conditioned space and has a heating capacity of 5 kW (15 kBtu/hr/ft2). The incremental electrical infrastructure costs were determined based on RS Means. Calculations for the medium office shown in Figure 13 include the cost to add electrical panels as well as the cost to add electrical lines to each VAV terminal unit electric resistance coil in the medium office prototype. Additionally, the Reach Code Team subtracted the electrical infrastructure costs associated with hot water pumps required in the mixed fuel baseline, which are not required in the all-electric measures. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 21 2019-07-25 The Reach Code Team calculated costs to increase electrical capacity for heat pump water heaters in the small hotel similarly. Figure 13. Medium Office Electrical Infrastructure Costs for All-Electric Design A - No. VAV Boxes 60 B - VAV box heating capacity (watts) 4,748 C - No. hot water pumps 2 D - Hot water pump power (watts) 398 E - Voltage 208 F (AxB - CxD)/E Panel ampacity required 1,366 G F/400 Number of 400-amp panels required 4 H - Cost per 400-amp panel $3,100 I GxH Total panel cost $12,400 J - Total electrical line length required (ft) 4,320 K - Cost per linear foot of electrical line $3.62 L JxK Total electrical line cost $15,402 I + L Total electrical infrastructure incremental cost $27,802 3.3.2.2 Natural Gas This analysis assumes that in an all-electric new construction scenario natural gas would not be supplied to the site. Eliminating natural gas in new construction would save costs associated with connecting a service line from the street main to the building, piping distribution within the building, and monthly connection charges by the utility. The Reach Code Team determined that for a new construction building with natural gas piping, there is a service line (branch connection) from the natural gas main to the building meter. In the medium office prototype, natural gas piping is routed to the boiler. The Reach Code Team assumed that the boiler is on the first floor, and that 30 feet of piping is required from the connection to the main to the boiler. The Reach Code Team assumed 1” corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) material is used for the plumbing distribution. The Reach Code Team included costs for a natural gas plan review, service extension, and a gas meter, as shown in Figure 14 below. The natural gas plan review cost is based on information received from the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The meter costs are from PG&E and include both material and labor. The service extension costs are based on guidance from PG&E, who noted that the cost range is highly varied and that there is no “typical” cost, with costs being highly dependent on length of extension, terrain, whether the building is in a developed or undeveloped area, and number of buildings to be served. While an actual service extension cost is highly uncertain, the team believes the costs assumed in this analysis are within a reasonable range based on a sample range of costs provided by PG&E. These costs assume development in a previously developed area. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 22 2019-07-25 Figure 14. Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Prototypes Cost Type Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel Natural Gas Plan Review $2,316 $2,316 $2,316 Service Extension $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 Meter $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Plumbing Distribution $633 $9,711 $37,704 Total Cost $18,949 $28,027 $56,020 3.4 Preempted High Efficiency Appliances The Reach Code Team developed a package of high efficiency (HE) space and water heating appliances based on commonly available products for both the mixed-fuel and all-electric scenarios. This package assesses the standalone contribution that high efficiency measures would make toward achieving high performance thresholds. The Reach Code Team reviewed the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) certified product database to estimate appropriate efficiencies.20 The Reach Code Team determined the efficiency increases to be appropriate based on equipment type, summarized in Figure 15, with cost premiums attained from a Bay Area mechanical contractor. The ranges in efficiency are indicative of varying federal standard requirements based on equipment size. Figure 15. High Efficiency Appliance Assumptions Federal Minimum Efficiency Preempted Efficiency Cost Premium for HE Appliance Gas space heating and water heating 80-82% 90-95% 10-15% Large packaged rooftop cooling 9.8-12 EER 11.4-12.9 IEER 10.5-13 EER 15-15.5 IEER 10-15% Single zone heat pump space heating 7.7 HSPF 3.2 COP 10 HSPF 3.5 COP 6-15% Heat pump water heating 2.0 UEF 3.3 UEF None (market does not carry 2.0 UEF) 3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The analysis uses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates from Zero Code reports available in CBECC-Com.21 Zero Code uses 8760 hourly multipliers accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard projections. Fugitive 20 Available at: https://www.ahridirectory.org/Search/SearchHome?ReturnUrl=%2f 21 More information available at: https://zero-code.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ZERO-Code-TSD-California.pdf 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 23 2019-07-25 emissions are not included. There are two strings of multipliers – one for Northern California climate zones, and another for Southern California climate zones.22 4 Results The Reach Code Team evaluated cost effectiveness of the following measure packages over a 2019 mixed- fuel code compliant baseline for all climate zones, as detailed in Sections 4.1 -- 4.3 and reiterated in Figure 16: ♦ Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE: Mixed-fuel design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies. ♦ Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 1A, plus solar PV and batteries. ♦ Package 1C – Mixed-fuel + HE: Alternative design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption. ♦ Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: All-electric design with federal code minimum appliance efficiency. No solar PV or battery. ♦ Package 3A – All-Electric + EE: All-electric design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies. ♦ Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 3A, plus solar PV and batteries. ♦ Package 3C – All-Electric + HE: All-electric design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption. Figure 16. Package Summary Package Fuel Type Energy Efficiency Measures PV & Battery (PV + B) High Efficiency Appliances (HE) Mixed Fuel All-Electric Mixed-Fuel Code Minimum Baseline X 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE X X 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B X X X 1C – Mixed-fuel + HE X X 2 – All-Electric Federal Code- Minimum Reference X 3A – All-Electric + EE X X 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B X X X 3C – All-Electric + HE X X 22 CBECC-Com documentation does not state which climate zones fall under which region. CBECC-Res multipliers are the same for CZs 1-5 and 11-13 (presumed to be Northern California), while there is another set of multipliers for CZs 6-10 and 14-16 (assumed to be Southern California). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 24 2019-07-25 Section 4.4 presents the results of the PV-only and PV+Battery analysis. The TDV and on-bill based cost effectiveness results are presented in terms of B/C ratio and NPV in this section. What constitutes a ‘benefit’ or a ‘cost’ varies with the scenarios because both energy savings and incremental construction costs may be negative depending on the package. Typically, utility bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’ while incremental construction costs are treated as ‘costs.’ In cases where both construction costs are negative and utility bill savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the utility bill negative savings are as the ‘cost.’ Overarching factors to keep in mind when reviewing the results include: ♦ To pass the Energy Commission’s application process, local reach codes must both be cost effective and exceed the energy performance budget using TDV (i.e., have a positive compliance margin). To emphasize these two important factors, the figures in this Section highlight in green the modeling results that have either a positive compliance margin or are cost effective. This will allow readers to identify whether a scenario is fully or partially supportive of a reach code, and the opportunities/challenges that the scenario presents. Conversely, Section 4.4 only highlights results that both have a positive compliance margin and are cost effective, to allow readers to identify reach code-ready scenarios. ♦ Note: Compliance margin represents the proportion of energy usage that is saved compared to the baseline, measured on a TDV basis. ♦ The Energy Commission does not currently allow compliance credit for either solar PV or battery storage. Thus, the compliance margins in Packages 1A are the same as 1B, and Package 3A is the same as 3B. However, The Reach Code Team did include the impact of solar PV and battery when calculating TDV cost-effectiveness. ♦ When performance modeling residential buildings, the Energy Commission allows the Standard Design to be 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. Nonresidential buildings are not treated in the same way and are compared to a mixed-fuel standard design. ♦ Results do not include an analysis and comparison of utility rates. As mentioned in Section 2.2, The Reach Code Team coordinated with utilities to select tariffs for each prototype given the annual energy demand profile and the most prevalent rates in each utility territory. The Reach Code Team did not compare a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost effectiveness. Note that most utility time-of-use rates are continuously updated, which can affect cost effectiveness results. ♦ As a point of comparison, mixed-fuel baseline energy figures are provided in Appendix 6.5. 4.1 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Office Figure 17 through Figure 23 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Office packages. Notable findings for each package include: ♦ 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE: Packages achieve +12 to +20 percent compliance margins depending on climate zone. All packages are cost effective in all climate zones using the TDV approach. All packages are cost effective using the On-Bill approach except for LADWP territory. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 25 2019-07-25 ♦ 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: All packages are cost effective using the On-Bill and TDV approaches, except On-Bill in LADWP territory. When compared to 1A, the B/C ratio changes depending on the utility and climate zone (some increase while others decrease). However, NPV savings are increased across the board, suggesting that larger investments yield larger returns. ♦ 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE: Packages achieve +3 to +5 percent compliance margins depending on climate zone, but no packages were cost effective. The incremental costs of a high efficiency condensing boiler compared to a non-condensing boiler contributes to 26-47% of total incremental cost depending on boiler size. Benefits of condensing boiler efficiency come from resetting hot water return temperature as boiler efficiency increases at lower hot water temperature. However, hot water temperature reset control cannot currently be implemented in the software. In addition, the natural gas energy cost constitutes no more than 5% of total cost for 15 climate zones, so improving boiler efficiency has limited contribution to reduction of total energy cost. ♦ 2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: ♦ Packages achieve between -27 percent and +1 percent compliance margins depending on climate zone. This is likely because the modeled system is electric resistance, and TDV values electricity consumption more heavily than natural gas. This all-electric design without other efficiency measures does not comply with the Energy Commission’s TDV performance budget. ♦ All incremental costs are negative due to the elimination of natural gas infrastructure. ♦ Packages achieve utility cost savings and are cost effective using the On-Bill approach in CZs 6- 10 and 14-15. Packages do not achieve savings and are not cost effective using the On-Bill approach in most of PG&E territory (CZs 1,2,4, 11-13, and 16). Packages achieve savings and are cost effective using TDV in all climate zones except CZ16. ♦ 3A – All-Electric + EE: Packages achieve positive compliance margins except -15 percent in CZ16, which has a higher space heating load than other climate zones. All packages are cost effective in all climate zones except CZ16. ♦ 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: Packages achieve positive compliance margins except -15 percent in CZ16. All packages are cost-effective from a TDV perspective in all climate zones. All packages are cost effective from an On-Bill perspective in all climate zones except in CZ 2 and CZ 16 in LADWP territory. ♦ 3C – All-Electric + HE: Packages achieve between -26 percent and +2 percent compliance margins depending on climate zone. The only packages that are cost effective and with a positive compliance margin are in CZs 7-9 and 15. As described in Package 1C results, space heating is a relatively low proportion of energy costs in most climate zones, limiting the costs gains for higher efficiency equipment. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 26 2019-07-25 Figure 17. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reduc- tions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1A: Mixed Fuel + EE CZ01 PG&E 34,421 -808 4.5 18% $66,649 $125,902 $71,307 1.9 1.1 $59,253 $4,658 CZ02 PG&E 40,985 -505 8.1 17% $66,649 $163,655 $99,181 2.5 1.5 $97,005 $32,532 CZ03 PG&E 36,266 -463 7.0 20% $66,649 $141,897 $84,051 2.1 1.3 $75,248 $17,401 CZ04 PG&E 40,590 -547 7.7 14% $66,649 $162,139 $95,410 2.4 1.4 $95,489 $28,761 CZ04-2 CPAU 40,590 -547 7.7 14% $66,649 $85,537 $95,410 1.3 1.4 $18,887 $28,761 CZ05 PG&E 38,888 -499 7.4 18% $66,649 $154,044 $91,115 2.3 1.4 $87,395 $24,465 CZ05-2 SCG 38,888 -499 7.4 18% $66,649 $156,315 $91,115 2.3 1.4 $89,665 $24,465 CZ06 SCE 39,579 -305 8.7 20% $66,649 $86,390 $100,469 1.3 1.5 $19,741 $33,820 CZ06-2 LADWP 39,579 -305 8.7 20% $66,649 $51,828 $100,469 0.8 1.5 ($14,821) $33,820 CZ07 SDG&E 41,817 -6 11.3 20% $66,649 $204,394 $112,497 3.1 1.7 $137,745 $45,848 CZ08 SCE 41,637 -60 10.8 18% $66,649 $89,783 $113,786 1.3 1.7 $23,134 $47,137 CZ08-2 LADWP 41,637 -60 10.8 18% $66,649 $54,876 $113,786 0.8 1.7 ($11,773) $47,137 CZ09 SCE 42,539 -210 10.1 16% $66,649 $95,636 $115,647 1.4 1.7 $28,987 $48,998 CZ09-2 LADWP 42,539 -210 10.1 16% $66,649 $58,168 $115,647 0.9 1.7 ($8,481) $48,998 CZ10 SDG&E 41,857 -216 9.8 17% $66,649 $210,303 $108,726 3.2 1.6 $143,654 $42,077 CZ10-2 SCE 41,857 -216 9.8 17% $66,649 $92,736 $108,726 1.4 1.6 $26,087 $42,077 CZ11 PG&E 42,523 -390 9.1 13% $66,649 $166,951 $104,001 2.5 1.6 $100,301 $37,352 CZ12 PG&E 41,521 -466 8.4 14% $66,649 $161,594 $100,135 2.4 1.5 $94,945 $33,486 CZ12-2 SMUD 41,521 -466 8.4 14% $66,649 $71,734 $100,135 1.1 1.5 $5,085 $33,486 CZ13 PG&E 42,898 -434 9.0 13% $66,649 $169,107 $99,992 2.5 1.5 $102,457 $33,343 CZ14 SDG&E 42,224 -441 8.6 14% $66,649 $211,529 $106,913 3.2 1.6 $144,880 $40,264 CZ14-2 SCE 42,224 -441 8.6 14% $66,649 $95,809 $106,913 1.4 1.6 $29,160 $40,264 CZ15 SCE 45,723 -147 11.2 12% $66,649 $102,714 $118,034 1.5 1.8 $36,065 $51,384 CZ16 PG&E 37,758 -736 5.8 14% $66,649 $145,947 $79,755 2.2 1.2 $79,297 $13,106 CZ16-2 LADWP 37,758 -736 5.8 14% $66,649 $40,115 $79,755 0.6 1.2 ($26,534) $13,106 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 27 2019-07-25 Figure 18. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (mtons) Comp- liance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + PV + Battery CZ01 PG&E 211,225 -808 39.9 18% $397,405 $645,010 $454,284 1.6 1.1 $247,605 $56,879 CZ02 PG&E 255,787 -505 50.6 17% $397,405 $819,307 $573,033 2.1 1.4 $421,902 $175,628 CZ03 PG&E 245,421 -463 48.8 20% $397,405 $777,156 $536,330 2.0 1.3 $379,751 $138,925 CZ04 PG&E 267,612 -547 52.7 14% $397,405 $836,221 $597,471 2.1 1.5 $438,816 $200,066 CZ04-2 CPAU 267,612 -547 52.7 14% $397,405 $621,879 $597,471 1.6 1.5 $224,474 $200,066 CZ05 PG&E 264,581 -499 52.5 18% $397,405 $897,216 $578,856 2.3 1.5 $499,811 $181,451 CZ05-2 SCG 264,581 -499 52.5 18% $397,405 $899,487 $578,856 2.3 1.5 $502,082 $181,451 CZ06 SCE 257,474 -305 52.1 20% $397,405 $484,229 $594,416 1.2 1.5 $86,824 $197,011 CZ06-2 LA 257,474 -305 52.1 20% $397,405 $282,360 $594,416 0.7 1.5 ($115,045) $197,011 CZ07 SDG&E 264,530 -6 55.7 20% $397,405 $817,528 $610,548 2.1 1.5 $420,123 $213,143 CZ08 SCE 258,348 -60 54.0 18% $397,405 $479,073 $625,249 1.2 1.6 $81,668 $227,844 CZ08-2 LA 258,348 -60 54.0 18% $397,405 $275,704 $625,249 0.7 1.6 ($121,701) $227,844 CZ09 SCE 262,085 -210 54.3 16% $397,405 $480,241 $622,528 1.2 1.6 $82,836 $225,123 CZ09-2 LA 262,085 -210 54.3 16% $397,405 $282,209 $622,528 0.7 1.6 ($115,196) $225,123 CZ10 SDG&E 258,548 -216 53.4 17% $397,405 $839,931 $595,323 2.1 1.5 $442,526 $197,918 CZ10-2 SCE 258,548 -216 53.4 17% $397,405 $485,523 $595,323 1.2 1.5 $88,118 $197,918 CZ11 PG&E 253,623 -390 50.9 13% $397,405 $826,076 $585,682 2.1 1.5 $428,671 $188,277 CZ12 PG&E 252,868 -466 50.3 14% $397,405 $802,715 $582,866 2.0 1.5 $405,310 $185,461 CZ12-2 SMUD 252,868 -466 50.3 14% $397,405 $415,597 $582,866 1.0 1.5 $18,192 $185,461 CZ13 PG&E 250,915 -434 50.4 13% $397,405 $806,401 $573,606 2.0 1.4 $408,996 $176,201 CZ14 SDG&E 283,684 -441 56.4 14% $397,405 $874,753 $676,271 2.2 1.7 $477,348 $278,866 CZ14-2 SCE 283,684 -441 56.4 14% $397,405 $493,888 $676,271 1.2 1.7 $96,483 $278,866 CZ15 SCE 274,771 -147 56.0 12% $397,405 $476,327 $640,379 1.2 1.6 $78,922 $242,974 CZ16 PG&E 266,490 -736 51.8 14% $397,405 $842,205 $575,563 2.1 1.4 $444,800 $178,158 CZ16-2 LA 266,490 -736 51.8 14% $397,405 $260,372 $575,563 0.7 1.4 ($137,033) $178,158 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 28 2019-07-25 Figure 19. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1C: Mixed Fuel + HE CZ01 PG&E 288 688 4.1 3% $61,253 $18,656 $12,314 0.3 0.2 ($42,597) ($48,939) CZ02 PG&E 3,795 550 4.3 4% $68,937 $36,683 $24,676 0.5 0.4 ($32,254) ($44,261) CZ03 PG&E 1,241 439 2.9 3% $57,529 $20,150 $11,885 0.4 0.2 ($37,379) ($45,644) CZ04 PG&E 5,599 529 4.7 5% $72,074 $44,915 $30,928 0.6 0.4 ($27,158) ($41,145) CZ04-2 CPAU 5,599 529 4.7 5% $72,074 $24,175 $30,928 0.3 0.4 ($47,898) ($41,145) CZ05 PG&E 3,470 453 3.6 4% $60,330 $35,072 $18,232 0.6 0.3 ($25,258) ($42,097) CZ05-2 SCG 3,470 453 3.6 4% $60,330 $32,777 $18,232 0.5 0.3 ($27,553) ($42,097) CZ06 SCE 3,374 298 2.6 3% $55,594 $19,446 $16,132 0.3 0.3 ($36,148) ($39,462) CZ06-2 LADWP 3,374 298 2.6 3% $55,594 $13,450 $16,132 0.2 0.3 ($42,145) ($39,462) CZ07 SDG&E 5,257 140 2.3 4% $54,111 $41,086 $19,903 0.8 0.4 ($13,025) ($34,208) CZ08 SCE 5,921 176 2.7 4% $60,497 $22,210 $24,055 0.4 0.4 ($38,287) ($36,442) CZ08-2 LADWP 5,921 176 2.7 4% $60,497 $14,064 $24,055 0.2 0.4 ($46,434) ($36,442) CZ09 SCE 7,560 224 3.5 4% $61,311 $28,576 $31,835 0.5 0.5 ($32,735) ($29,476) CZ09-2 LADWP 7,560 224 3.5 4% $61,311 $18,262 $31,835 0.3 0.5 ($43,049) ($29,476) CZ10 SDG&E 5,786 288 3.2 4% $62,685 $50,717 $24,628 0.8 0.4 ($11,968) ($38,057) CZ10-2 SCE 5,786 288 3.2 4% $62,685 $24,575 $24,628 0.4 0.4 ($38,110) ($38,057) CZ11 PG&E 8,128 441 4.9 5% $71,101 $54,188 $37,849 0.8 0.5 ($16,912) ($33,252) CZ12 PG&E 6,503 478 4.7 5% $68,329 $47,329 $34,556 0.7 0.5 ($20,999) ($33,773) CZ12-2 SMUD 6,503 478 4.7 5% $68,329 $24,003 $34,556 0.4 0.5 ($44,325) ($33,773) CZ13 PG&E 8,398 432 5.0 5% $69,474 $51,347 $37,229 0.7 0.5 ($18,128) ($32,246) CZ14 SDG&E 7,927 470 5.0 5% $69,463 $62,744 $37,133 0.9 0.5 ($6,718) ($32,329) CZ14-2 SCE 7,927 470 5.0 5% $69,463 $32,517 $37,133 0.5 0.5 ($36,946) ($32,329) CZ15 SCE 15,140 219 5.5 5% $66,702 $43,773 $52,359 0.7 0.8 ($22,929) ($14,344) CZ16 PG&E 3,111 912 6.3 5% $71,765 $36,002 $24,914 0.5 0.3 ($35,763) ($46,851) CZ16-2 LADWP 3,111 912 6.3 5% $71,765 $23,057 $24,914 0.3 0.3 ($48,708) ($46,851) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 29 2019-07-25 Figure 20. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 2: All-Electric Federal Code Minimum CZ01 PG&E -53,657 4967 10.1 -15% ($87,253) ($98,237) ($58,420) 0.9 1.5 ($10,984) $28,833 CZ02 PG&E -49,684 3868 5.0 -7% ($73,695) ($101,605) ($41,429) 0.7 1.8 ($27,910) $32,266 CZ03 PG&E -35,886 3142 5.6 -7% ($82,330) ($57,345) ($29,592) 1.4 2.8 $24,986 $52,738 CZ04 PG&E -48,829 3759 4.7 -6% ($69,012) ($90,527) ($40,570) 0.8 1.7 ($21,515) $28,443 CZ04-2 CPAU -48,829 3759 4.7 -6% ($69,012) ($19,995) ($40,570) 3.5 1.7 $49,018 $28,443 CZ05 PG&E -40,531 3240 4.5 -8% ($84,503) ($63,663) ($39,997) 1.3 2.1 $20,840 $44,506 CZ06 SCE -26,174 2117 3.1 -4% ($76,153) $24,908 ($20,571) >1 3.7 $101,061 $55,581 CZ06-2 LADWP -26,174 2117 3.1 -4% ($76,153) $26,366 ($20,571) >1 3.7 $102,518 $55,581 CZ07 SDG&E -12,902 950 0.9 -2% ($70,325) $46,879 ($11,407) >1 6.2 $117,204 $58,918 CZ08 SCE -15,680 1219 1.5 -2% ($68,774) $17,859 ($12,648) >1 5.4 $86,633 $56,125 CZ08-2 LADWP -15,680 1219 1.5 -2% ($68,774) $18,603 ($12,648) >1 5.4 $87,376 $56,125 CZ09 SCE -19,767 1605 2.4 -2% ($63,102) $20,920 ($14,462) >1 4.4 $84,022 $48,640 CZ09-2 LADWP -19,767 1605 2.4 -2% ($63,102) $21,929 ($14,462) >1 4.4 $85,030 $48,640 CZ10 SDG&E -27,414 2053 2.2 -4% ($47,902) $38,918 ($23,339) >1 2.1 $86,820 $24,562 CZ10-2 SCE -27,414 2053 2.2 -4% ($47,902) $20,765 ($23,339) >1 2.1 $68,666 $24,562 CZ11 PG&E -40,156 3062 3.6 -4% ($63,987) ($72,791) ($32,837) 0.9 1.9 ($8,804) $31,150 CZ12 PG&E -43,411 3327 4.1 -5% ($68,343) ($85,856) ($35,463) 0.8 1.9 ($17,512) $32,880 CZ12-2 SMUD -43,411 3327 4.1 -5% ($68,343) ($5,109) ($35,463) 13.4 1.9 $63,234 $32,880 CZ13 PG&E -39,649 3063 3.8 -4% ($62,726) ($70,705) ($32,408) 0.9 1.9 ($7,980) $30,318 CZ14 SDG&E -44,322 3266 3.4 -5% ($65,156) $6,043 ($38,422) >1 1.7 $71,199 $26,735 CZ14-2 SCE -44,322 3266 3.4 -5% ($65,156) $4,798 ($38,422) >1 1.7 $69,954 $26,735 CZ15 SCE -19,917 1537 1.8 -2% ($36,176) $12,822 ($15,464) >1 2.3 $48,998 $20,711 CZ16 PG&E -94,062 6185 5.6 -27% ($64,096) ($212,158) ($150,871) 0.3 0.4 ($148,062) ($86,775) CZ16-2 LADWP -94,062 6185 5.6 -27% ($64,096) $1,493 ($150,871) >1 0.4 $65,589 ($86,775) * The Incremental Package Cost is equal to the sum of the incremental HVAC and water heating equipment costs from Figure 10, the electrical infrastructure incremental cost of $27,802 (see section 3.3.2.1), and the natural gas infrastructure incremental costs of $(18,949) (see section 3.3.2.2). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 30 2019-07-25 Figure 21. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3A – All-Electric + EE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3A: All-Electric + EE CZ01 PG&E -19,115 4967 19.4 7% ($20,604) $20,630 $28,112 >1 >1 $41,234 $48,716 CZ02 PG&E -11,811 3868 15.2 10% ($7,046) $39,260 $58,563 >1 >1 $46,306 $65,609 CZ03 PG&E 2,530 3142 16.2 16% ($15,681) $85,241 $68,682 >1 >1 $100,922 $84,363 CZ04 PG&E -10,839 3759 14.8 9% ($2,363) $59,432 $58,420 >1 >1 $61,795 $60,783 CZ04-2 CPAU -10,839 3759 14.8 9% ($2,363) $70,680 $58,420 >1 >1 $73,043 $60,783 CZ05 PG&E -2,316 3240 14.6 12% ($17,854) $85,380 $58,802 >1 >1 $103,234 $76,656 CZ06 SCE 15,399 2117 14.3 18% ($9,503) $114,962 $89,921 >1 >1 $124,466 $99,425 CZ06-2 LADWP 15,399 2117 14.3 18% ($9,503) $82,389 $89,921 >1 >1 $91,893 $99,425 CZ07 SDG&E 33,318 950 13.8 20% ($3,676) $256,704 $111,399 >1 >1 $260,380 $115,076 CZ08 SCE 30,231 1219 14.2 18% ($2,124) $110,144 $111,781 >1 >1 $112,268 $113,906 CZ08-2 LADWP 30,231 1219 14.2 18% ($2,124) $76,069 $111,781 >1 >1 $78,194 $113,906 CZ09 SCE 24,283 1605 14.3 15% $3,547 $119,824 $108,249 33.8 30.5 $116,277 $104,702 CZ09-2 LADWP 24,283 1605 14.3 15% $3,547 $83,549 $108,249 23.6 30.5 $80,001 $104,702 CZ10 SDG&E 12,344 2053 12.6 13% $18,748 $230,553 $82,905 12.3 4.4 $211,806 $64,158 CZ10-2 SCE 12,344 2053 12.6 13% $18,748 $105,898 $82,905 5.6 4.4 $87,150 $64,158 CZ11 PG&E 929 3062 14.5 10% $2,662 $85,988 $75,030 32.3 28.2 $83,326 $72,368 CZ12 PG&E -3,419 3327 14.8 10% ($1,694) $68,866 $69,589 >1 >1 $70,560 $71,283 CZ12-2 SMUD -3,419 3327 14.8 10% ($1,694) $71,761 $69,589 >1 >1 $73,455 $71,283 CZ13 PG&E 1,398 3063 14.8 9% $3,923 $89,799 $71,307 22.9 18.2 $85,875 $67,384 CZ14 SDG&E -5,469 3266 13.5 9% $1,493 $206,840 $69,016 138.6 46.2 $205,347 $67,523 CZ14-2 SCE -5,469 3266 13.5 9% $1,493 $94,143 $69,016 63.1 46.2 $92,650 $67,523 CZ15 SCE 25,375 1537 13.7 10% $30,474 $114,909 $104,335 3.8 3.4 $84,435 $73,862 CZ16 PG&E -65,877 6185 12.7 -15% $2,553 ($91,477) ($85,673) -35.8 -33.6 ($94,030) ($88,226) CZ16-2 LADWP -65,877 6185 12.7 -15% $2,553 $72,780 ($85,673) 28.5 -33.6 $70,227 ($88,226) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 31 2019-07-25 Figure 22. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (mtons) Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + PV + B CZ01 PG&E 157,733 4967 54.9 7% $310,152 $518,421 $410,946 1.7 1.3 $208,269 $100,794 CZ02 PG&E 203,026 3868 57.8 10% $323,710 $692,336 $532,273 2.1 1.6 $368,626 $208,563 CZ03 PG&E 211,706 3142 58.0 16% $315,075 $708,235 $520,866 2.2 1.7 $393,160 $205,791 CZ04 PG&E 216,204 3759 59.9 9% $328,393 $741,382 $560,576 2.3 1.7 $412,989 $232,183 CZ04-2 CPAU 216,204 3759 59.9 9% $328,393 $607,074 $560,576 1.8 1.7 $278,681 $232,183 CZ05 PG&E 223,399 3240 59.8 12% $312,902 $799,992 $546,592 2.6 1.7 $487,090 $233,690 CZ06 SCE 233,299 2117 57.7 18% $321,252 $509,969 $583,963 1.6 1.8 $188,716 $262,711 CZ06-2 LA 233,299 2117 57.7 18% $321,252 $311,931 $583,963 1.0 1.8 ($9,322) $262,711 CZ07 SDG&E 256,034 950 58.3 20% $327,079 $870,156 $609,498 2.7 1.9 $543,076 $282,419 CZ08 SCE 246,944 1219 57.4 18% $328,631 $499,506 $623,292 1.5 1.9 $170,874 $294,661 CZ08-2 LA 246,944 1219 57.4 18% $328,631 $296,991 $623,292 0.9 1.9 ($31,640) $294,661 CZ09 SCE 243,838 1605 58.5 15% $334,303 $504,498 $615,178 1.5 1.8 $170,195 $280,875 CZ09-2 LA 243,838 1605 58.5 15% $334,303 $307,626 $615,178 0.9 1.8 ($26,677) $280,875 CZ10 SDG&E 229,044 2053 56.2 13% $349,503 $851,810 $569,549 2.4 1.6 $502,306 $220,046 CZ10-2 SCE 229,044 2053 56.2 13% $349,503 $491,383 $569,549 1.4 1.6 $141,880 $220,046 CZ11 PG&E 212,047 3062 56.4 10% $333,418 $743,403 $556,758 2.2 1.7 $409,985 $223,340 CZ12 PG&E 207,955 3327 56.7 10% $329,062 $713,054 $552,415 2.2 1.7 $383,993 $223,353 CZ12-2 SMUD 207,955 3327 56.7 10% $329,062 $414,371 $552,415 1.3 1.7 $85,310 $223,353 CZ13 PG&E 209,431 3063 56.3 9% $334,679 $728,822 $544,969 2.2 1.6 $394,143 $210,289 CZ14 SDG&E 236,002 3266 61.3 9% $332,249 $865,181 $638,517 2.6 1.9 $532,933 $306,269 CZ14-2 SCE 236,002 3266 61.3 9% $332,249 $488,163 $638,517 1.5 1.9 $155,914 $306,269 CZ15 SCE 254,426 1537 58.5 10% $361,229 $487,715 $626,728 1.4 1.7 $126,486 $265,499 CZ16 PG&E 162,915 6185 58.6 -15% $333,309 $580,353 $406,746 1.7 1.2 $247,044 $73,437 CZ16-2 LA 162,915 6185 58.6 -15% $333,309 $290,566 $406,746 0.9 1.2 ($42,742) $73,437 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 32 2019-07-25 Figure 23. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3C – All-Electric + HE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3C: All-Electric + HE CZ01 PG&E -53,390 4967 10.2 -14% ($43,987) ($93,740) ($57,752) 0.5 0.8 ($49,753) ($13,765) CZ02 PG&E -45,916 3868 6.1 -5% ($22,722) ($77,212) ($26,394) 0.3 0.9 ($54,490) ($3,672) CZ03 PG&E -34,656 3142 6.0 -6% ($38,261) ($45,796) ($25,153) 0.8 1.5 ($7,535) $13,108 CZ04 PG&E -43,248 3759 6.3 -3% ($15,229) ($56,932) ($18,996) 0.3 0.8 ($41,703) ($3,767) CZ04-2 CPAU -43,248 3759 6.3 -3% ($15,229) ($5,298) ($18,996) 2.9 0.8 $9,932 ($3,767) CZ05 PG&E -37,068 3240 5.4 -6% ($40,434) ($38,330) ($29,544) 1.1 1.4 $2,104 $10,890 CZ06 SCE -22,805 2117 4.0 -2% ($30,237) $39,812 ($9,594) >1 3.2 $70,050 $20,644 CZ06-2 LADWP -22,805 2117 4.0 -2% ($30,237) $35,414 ($9,594) >1 3.2 $65,651 $20,644 CZ07 SDG&E -7,646 950 2.5 1% ($22,564) $86,159 $6,062 >1 >1 $108,722 $28,625 CZ08 SCE -9,761 1219 3.2 1% ($18,443) $37,375 $8,305 >1 >1 $55,818 $26,748 CZ08-2 LADWP -9,761 1219 3.2 1% ($18,443) $29,973 $8,305 >1 >1 $48,416 $26,748 CZ09 SCE -12,211 1605 4.5 2% ($10,282) $46,335 $13,364 >1 >1 $56,617 $23,646 CZ09-2 LADWP -12,211 1605 4.5 2% ($10,282) $37,030 $13,364 >1 >1 $47,313 $23,646 CZ10 SDG&E -21,642 2053 3.7 -1% $11,340 $84,901 ($3,818) 7.5 -0.3 $73,561 ($15,158) CZ10-2 SCE -21,642 2053 3.7 -1% $11,340 $40,659 ($3,818) 3.6 -0.3 $29,319 ($15,158) CZ11 PG&E -32,052 3062 5.9 0% ($8,519) ($29,013) ($3,007) 0.3 2.8 ($20,495) $5,512 CZ12 PG&E -36,926 3327 6.0 -1% ($15,443) ($48,955) ($9,546) 0.3 1.6 ($33,511) $5,898 CZ12-2 SMUD -36,926 3327 6.0 -1% ($15,443) $9,916 ($9,546) >1 1.6 $25,359 $5,898 CZ13 PG&E -31,253 3063 6.3 0% ($7,257) ($27,782) ($3,055) 0.3 2.4 ($20,525) $4,202 CZ14 SDG&E -36,402 3266 5.7 -1% ($10,651) $61,605 ($9,832) >1 1.1 $72,256 $819 CZ14-2 SCE -36,402 3266 5.7 -1% ($10,651) $30,625 ($9,832) >1 1.1 $41,276 $819 CZ15 SCE -4,775 1537 6.0 3% $28,927 $52,955 $32,790 1.8 1.1 $24,028 $3,863 CZ16 PG&E -90,949 6185 6.5 -26% ($8,467) ($194,115) ($142,041) 0.0 0.1 ($185,648) ($133,574) CZ16-2 LADWP -90,949 6185 6.5 -26% ($8,467) $37,127 ($142,041) >1 0.1 $45,594 ($133,574) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 33 2019-07-25 4.2 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail Figure 24 through Figure 30 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Retail packages. Notable findings for each package include: ♦ 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE: ♦ Packages achieve +9% to +18% compliance margins depending on climate zone, and all packages are cost effective in all climate zones. ♦ Incremental package costs vary across climate zones because of the HVAC system size in some climate zones are small enough (<54 kBtu/h) to have the economizers measure applied. ♦ B/C ratios are high compared to other prototypes because the measures applied are primarily low-cost lighting measures. This suggests room for the inclusion of other energy efficiency measures with lower cost-effectiveness to achieve even higher compliance margins for a cost effective package. ♦ 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: All packages are cost effective using both the On-Bill and TDV approach, except On-Bill in LADWP territory. Adding PV and battery to the efficiency packages reduces the B/C ratio but increases overall NPV savings. ♦ 1C – Mixed-fuel + HE: Packages achieve +1 to +4% compliance margins depending on climate zone, and packages are cost effective in all climate zones except CZs 1, 3 and 5 using the TDV approach. ♦ 2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: ♦ Packages achieve between -12% and +1% compliance margins depending on climate zone. ♦ Packages achieve positive savings using both the On-Bill and TDV approaches in CZs 6-10 and 14-15. Packages do not achieve On-Bill or TDV savings in most of PG&E territory (CZs 1, 2, 4, 5, 12-13, and 16). ♦ Packages are cost effective in all climate zones except CZ16. ♦ All incremental costs are negative primarily due to elimination of natural gas infrastructure. ♦ 3A – All-Electric + EE: Packages achieve between +3% and +16% compliance margins depending on climate zone. All packages are cost effective in all climate zones. ♦ 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: All packages are cost effective using both the On-Bill and TDV approaches, except On-Bill in LADWP territory. Adding PV and Battery to the efficiency package reduces the B/C ratio but increases overall NPV savings. ♦ 3C – All-Electric + HE: Packages achieve between -8% and +5% compliance margins depending on climate zone, and packages are cost effective using both On-Bill and TDV approaches in all CZs except CZs 1 and 16. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 34 2019-07-25 Figure 24. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1A: Mixed Fuel + EE CZ01 PG&E 15,210 1209 11.10 18% $2,712 $68,358 $60,189 25.2 22.2 $65,646 $57,478 CZ02 PG&E 18,885 613 8.73 13% $5,569 $76,260 $59,135 13.7 10.6 $70,691 $53,566 CZ03 PG&E 18,772 462 7.87 16% $5,569 $66,813 $57,135 12.0 10.3 $61,244 $51,566 CZ04 PG&E 19,100 439 7.84 14% $5,569 $75,989 $58,036 13.6 10.4 $70,420 $52,467 CZ04-2 CPAU 19,100 439 7.84 14% $5,569 $51,556 $58,036 9.3 10.4 $45,987 $52,467 CZ05 PG&E 17,955 415 7.41 16% $5,569 $63,182 $55,003 11.3 9.9 $57,613 $49,435 CZ05-2 SCG 17,955 415 7.41 16% $5,569 $61,810 $55,003 11.1 9.9 $56,241 $49,435 CZ06 SCE 12,375 347 5.54 10% $2,712 $31,990 $41,401 11.8 15.3 $29,278 $38,689 CZ06-2 LADWP 12,375 347 5.54 10% $2,712 $21,667 $41,401 8.0 15.3 $18,956 $38,689 CZ07 SDG&E 17,170 136 5.65 13% $5,569 $73,479 $49,883 13.2 9.0 $67,910 $44,314 CZ08 SCE 12,284 283 5.15 10% $2,712 $30,130 $41,115 11.1 15.2 $27,419 $38,403 CZ08-2 LADWP 12,284 283 5.15 10% $2,712 $20,243 $41,115 7.5 15.2 $17,531 $38,403 CZ09 SCE 13,473 302 5.51 10% $5,569 $32,663 $46,126 5.9 8.3 $27,094 $40,557 CZ09-2 LADWP 13,473 302 5.51 10% $5,569 $22,435 $46,126 4.0 8.3 $16,866 $40,557 CZ10 SDG&E 19,873 267 6.99 12% $5,569 $83,319 $58,322 15.0 10.5 $77,751 $52,753 CZ10-2 SCE 19,873 267 6.99 12% $5,569 $39,917 $58,322 7.2 10.5 $34,348 $52,753 CZ11 PG&E 21,120 578 9.14 13% $5,569 $86,663 $67,485 15.6 12.1 $81,095 $61,916 CZ12 PG&E 20,370 562 8.85 13% $5,569 $81,028 $64,409 14.6 11.6 $75,459 $58,840 CZ12-2 SMUD 20,370 562 8.85 13% $5,569 $44,991 $64,409 8.1 11.6 $39,422 $58,840 CZ13 PG&E 22,115 620 9.98 15% $2,712 $109,484 $83,109 40.4 30.6 $106,772 $80,398 CZ14 SDG&E 25,579 406 9.38 13% $2,712 $116,354 $80,055 42.9 29.5 $113,643 $77,343 CZ14-2 SCE 26,327 383 9.42 13% $2,712 $57,290 $83,065 21.1 30.6 $54,578 $80,354 CZ15 SCE 26,433 169 8.35 12% $2,712 $57,152 $79,506 21.1 29.3 $54,440 $76,794 CZ16 PG&E 15,975 752 8.72 13% $2,712 $72,427 $55,025 26.7 20.3 $69,715 $52,314 CZ16-2 LADWP 15,975 752 8.72 13% $2,712 $31,906 $55,025 11.8 20.3 $29,194 $52,314 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 35 2019-07-25 Figure 25. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + PV + Battery CZ01 PG&E 158,584 1209 40.79 18% $277,383 $509,092 $383,683 1.8 1.4 $231,709 $106,300 CZ02 PG&E 189,400 613 43.75 13% $280,240 $590,043 $465,474 2.1 1.7 $309,803 $185,234 CZ03 PG&E 191,016 462 43.52 16% $280,240 $578,465 $452,795 2.1 1.6 $298,224 $172,554 CZ04 PG&E 195,014 439 44.14 14% $280,240 $605,369 $480,989 2.2 1.7 $325,129 $200,748 CZ04-2 CPAU 195,014 439 44.14 14% $280,240 $451,933 $480,989 1.6 1.7 $171,693 $200,748 CZ05 PG&E 196,654 415 44.30 16% $280,240 $589,771 $464,749 2.1 1.7 $309,530 $184,509 CZ05-2 SCG 196,654 415 44.30 16% $280,240 $588,407 $464,749 2.1 1.7 $308,167 $184,509 CZ06 SCE 185,903 347 41.61 10% $277,383 $322,495 $456,596 1.2 1.6 $45,111 $179,213 CZ06-2 LA 185,903 347 41.61 10% $277,383 $191,428 $456,596 0.7 1.6 ($85,955) $179,213 CZ07 SDG&E 197,650 136 43.24 13% $280,240 $496,786 $477,582 1.8 1.7 $216,545 $197,342 CZ08 SCE 187,869 283 41.48 10% $277,383 $326,810 $478,132 1.2 1.7 $49,427 $200,749 CZ08-2 LA 187,869 283 41.48 10% $277,383 $190,379 $478,132 0.7 1.7 ($87,004) $200,749 CZ09 SCE 191,399 302 42.32 10% $280,240 $334,869 $472,770 1.2 1.7 $54,629 $192,530 CZ09-2 LA 191,399 302 42.32 10% $280,240 $201,759 $472,770 0.7 1.7 ($78,481) $192,530 CZ10 SDG&E 200,033 267 44.01 12% $280,240 $547,741 $472,880 2.0 1.7 $267,501 $192,640 CZ10-2 SCE 200,033 267 44.01 12% $280,240 $340,822 $472,880 1.2 1.7 $60,582 $192,640 CZ11 PG&E 192,846 578 44.07 13% $280,240 $582,969 $490,855 2.1 1.8 $302,728 $210,615 CZ12 PG&E 191,720 562 43.70 13% $280,240 $586,836 $485,076 2.1 1.7 $306,596 $204,836 CZ12-2 SMUD 191,720 562 43.70 13% $280,240 $319,513 $485,076 1.1 1.7 $39,273 $204,836 CZ13 PG&E 195,031 620 45.19 15% $277,383 $605,608 $486,285 2.2 1.8 $328,225 $208,901 CZ14 SDG&E 217,183 406 47.86 13% $277,383 $559,148 $534,915 2.0 1.9 $281,765 $257,532 CZ14-2 SCE 217,927 383 47.91 14% $277,383 $354,757 $538,058 1.3 1.9 $77,373 $260,674 CZ15 SCE 208,662 169 44.51 12% $277,383 $338,772 $496,107 1.2 1.8 $61,389 $218,724 CZ16 PG&E 210,242 752 48.76 13% $277,383 $608,779 $490,262 2.2 1.8 $331,395 $212,879 CZ16-2 LA 210,242 752 48.76 13% $277,383 $207,160 $490,262 0.7 1.8 ($70,223) $212,879 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 36 2019-07-25 Figure 26. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1C: Mixed Fuel + HE CZ01 PG&E 57 346 2.04 2% $9,006 $6,301 $6,065 0.7 0.7 ($2,705) ($2,941) CZ02 PG&E 2,288 229 2.01 3% $9,726 $23,016 $13,998 2.4 1.4 $13,291 $4,273 CZ03 PG&E 1,087 171 1.31 2% $9,063 $6,782 $7,186 0.7 0.8 ($2,282) ($1,877) CZ04 PG&E 1,862 159 1.46 3% $9,004 $17,891 $10,878 2.0 1.2 $8,887 $1,874 CZ04-2 CPAU 1,862 159 1.46 3% $9,004 $7,821 $10,878 0.9 1.2 ($1,182) $1,874 CZ05 PG&E 664 162 1.11 1% $9,454 $5,119 $4,725 0.5 0.5 ($4,335) ($4,729) CZ05-2 SCG 664 162 1.11 1% $9,454 $4,558 $4,725 0.5 0.5 ($4,896) ($4,729) CZ06 SCE 2,648 90 1.24 3% $8,943 $11,646 $11,427 1.3 1.3 $2,703 $2,484 CZ06-2 LADWP 2,648 90 1.24 3% $8,943 $7,329 $11,427 0.8 1.3 ($1,614) $2,484 CZ07 SDG&E 2,376 49 0.95 2% $9,194 $20,103 $9,779 2.2 1.1 $10,909 $585 CZ08 SCE 2,822 72 1.20 3% $9,645 $11,989 $12,877 1.2 1.3 $2,344 $3,233 CZ08-2 LADWP 2,822 72 1.20 3% $9,645 $7,427 $12,877 0.8 1.3 ($2,218) $3,233 CZ09 SCE 4,206 88 1.73 4% $10,446 $16,856 $18,745 1.6 1.8 $6,410 $8,299 CZ09-2 LADWP 4,206 88 1.73 4% $10,446 $10,604 $18,745 1.0 1.8 $158 $8,299 CZ10 SDG&E 4,226 119 1.88 4% $9,514 $36,412 $19,008 3.8 2.0 $26,898 $9,494 CZ10-2 SCE 4,226 119 1.88 4% $9,514 $17,094 $19,008 1.8 2.0 $7,580 $9,494 CZ11 PG&E 4,188 225 2.56 4% $10,479 $31,872 $22,393 3.0 2.1 $21,392 $11,913 CZ12 PG&E 3,675 214 2.34 4% $10,409 $29,653 $20,525 2.8 2.0 $19,243 $10,115 CZ12-2 SMUD 3,675 214 2.34 4% $10,409 $12,823 $20,525 1.2 2.0 $2,414 $10,115 CZ13 PG&E 4,818 180 2.46 4% $9,809 $34,149 $23,623 3.5 2.4 $24,340 $13,814 CZ14 SDG&E 6,439 153 2.71 4% $12,103 $44,705 $26,348 3.7 2.2 $32,601 $14,245 CZ14-2 SCE 6,439 153 2.71 4% $12,103 $22,032 $26,348 1.8 2.2 $9,929 $14,245 CZ15 SCE 8,802 48 2.76 5% $12,534 $25,706 $31,402 2.1 2.5 $13,171 $18,868 CZ16 PG&E 2,316 390 2.97 3% $11,999 $22,663 $13,888 1.9 1.2 $10,665 $1,890 CZ16-2 LADWP 2,316 390 2.97 3% $11,999 $11,921 $13,888 1.0 1.2 ($78) $1,890 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 37 2019-07-25 Figure 27. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 2: All-Electric Federal Code Minimum CZ01 PG&E -29,155 3893 13.85 -4.1% ($23,048) ($8,333) ($13,910) 2.8 1.7 $14,715 $9,138 CZ02 PG&E -21,786 2448 7.49 -1.0% ($27,464) ($16,476) ($4,483) 1.7 6.1 $10,987 $22,981 CZ03 PG&E -14,583 1868 6.26 -0.4% ($24,111) $263 ($1,450) >1 16.6 $24,374 $22,661 CZ04 PG&E -14,186 1706 5.30 -0.1% ($22,896) ($8,753) ($220) 2.6 104.2 $14,143 $22,676 CZ04-2 CPAU -14,186 1706 5.30 -0.1% ($22,896) $12,493 ($220) >1 104.2 $35,389 $22,676 CZ05 PG&E -14,334 1746 5.47 -1.2% ($25,507) ($1,567) ($4,197) 16.3 6.1 $23,940 $21,309 CZ06 SCE -7,527 1002 3.32 0.5% ($21,762) $18,590 $1,868 >1 >1 $40,351 $23,630 CZ06-2 LADWP -7,527 1002 3.32 0.5% ($21,762) $19,309 $1,868 >1 >1 $41,071 $23,630 CZ07 SDG&E -3,812 522 1.76 0.3% ($23,762) $54,345 $1,318 >1 >1 $78,107 $25,080 CZ08 SCE -5,805 793 2.70 0.4% ($26,922) $16,735 $1,846 >1 >1 $43,658 $28,768 CZ08-2 LADWP -5,805 793 2.70 0.4% ($26,922) $17,130 $1,846 >1 >1 $44,052 $28,768 CZ09 SCE -7,241 970 3.32 0.4% ($32,113) $18,582 $1,978 >1 >1 $50,695 $34,091 CZ09-2 LADWP -7,241 970 3.32 0.4% ($32,113) $19,089 $1,978 >1 >1 $51,202 $34,091 CZ10 SDG&E -10,336 1262 3.99 0.1% ($27,272) $54,453 $505 >1 >1 $81,724 $27,777 CZ10-2 SCE -10,336 1262 3.99 0.1% ($27,272) $20,996 $505 >1 >1 $48,268 $27,777 CZ11 PG&E -19,251 2415 7.95 0.5% ($32,202) ($7,951) $2,615 4.1 >1 $24,251 $34,817 CZ12 PG&E -19,471 2309 7.28 -0.1% ($32,504) ($14,153) ($461) 2.3 70.4 $18,351 $32,042 CZ12-2 SMUD -19,471 2309 7.28 -0.1% ($32,504) $12,939 ($461) >1 70.4 $45,443 $32,042 CZ13 PG&E -16,819 1983 6.15 -0.4% ($28,158) ($10,575) ($2,022) 2.7 13.9 $17,582 $26,136 CZ14 SDG&E -13,208 1672 5.44 0.7% ($26,656) $41,117 $4,461 >1 >1 $67,772 $31,117 CZ14-2 SCE -13,208 1672 5.44 0.7% ($26,656) $18,467 $4,461 >1 >1 $45,123 $31,117 CZ15 SCE -2,463 518 2.14 0.9% ($29,544) $16,796 $5,823 >1 >1 $46,339 $35,367 CZ16 PG&E -41,418 4304 13.23 -12.2% ($25,771) ($49,862) ($52,542) 0.5 0.5 ($24,091) ($26,771) CZ16-2 LADWP -41,418 4304 13.23 -12.2% ($25,771) $39,319 ($52,542) >1 0.5 $65,090 ($26,771) * The Incremental Package Cost is the addition of the incremental HVAC and water heating equipment costs from Figure 11 and the natural gas infrastructure incremental cost savings of $28,027 (see section 3.3.2.2). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 38 2019-07-25 Figure 28. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3A – All-Electric + EE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3A: All-Electric + EE CZ01 PG&E -5,478 3893 20.64 15% ($20,336) $63,593 $51,224 >1 >1 $83,929 $71,560 CZ02 PG&E 2,843 2448 14.58 13% ($21,895) $74,997 $56,893 >1 >1 $96,892 $78,788 CZ03 PG&E 7,791 1868 12.73 16% ($18,542) $68,968 $56,586 >1 >1 $87,511 $75,128 CZ04 PG&E 8,572 1706 11.89 14% ($17,327) $81,957 $57,904 >1 >1 $99,284 $75,231 CZ04-2 CPAU 8,572 1706 11.89 14% ($17,327) $63,082 $57,904 >1 >1 $80,408 $75,231 CZ05 PG&E 6,973 1746 11.68 15% ($19,938) $63,677 $51,949 >1 >1 $83,615 $71,887 CZ06 SCE 7,431 1002 7.72 11% ($19,050) $47,072 $42,610 >1 >1 $66,122 $61,660 CZ06-2 LADWP 7,431 1002 7.72 11% ($19,050) $37,078 $42,610 >1 >1 $56,128 $61,660 CZ07 SDG&E 14,350 522 6.98 13% ($18,193) $127,461 $50,828 >1 >1 $145,654 $69,021 CZ08 SCE 8,524 793 6.90 10% ($24,210) $43,679 $42,258 >1 >1 $67,890 $66,468 CZ08-2 LADWP 8,524 793 6.90 10% ($24,210) $34,038 $42,258 >1 >1 $58,248 $66,468 CZ09 SCE 8,403 970 7.81 10% ($26,545) $47,819 $47,356 >1 >1 $74,364 $73,901 CZ09-2 LADWP 8,403 970 7.81 10% ($26,545) $37,934 $47,356 >1 >1 $64,478 $73,901 CZ10 SDG&E 11,737 1262 10.23 12% ($21,703) $137,436 $58,761 >1 >1 $159,139 $80,464 CZ10-2 SCE 11,737 1262 10.23 12% ($21,703) $58,257 $58,761 >1 >1 $79,959 $80,464 CZ11 PG&E 5,892 2415 15.13 12% ($26,633) $85,256 $65,859 >1 >1 $111,889 $92,492 CZ12 PG&E 5,548 2309 14.46 12% ($26,935) $80,631 $63,903 >1 >1 $107,566 $90,838 CZ12-2 SMUD 5,548 2309 14.46 12% ($26,935) $59,311 $63,903 >1 >1 $86,246 $90,838 CZ13 PG&E 10,184 1983 14.15 14% ($25,446) $110,105 $80,604 >1 >1 $135,551 $106,050 CZ14 SDG&E 16,583 1672 13.83 15% ($23,944) $171,200 $88,471 >1 >1 $195,145 $112,415 CZ14-2 SCE 16,583 1672 13.83 15% ($23,944) $656,178 $159,604 >1 >1 $680,122 $183,548 CZ15 SCE 23,642 518 9.44 12% ($26,832) $65,573 $76,781 >1 >1 $92,404 $103,612 CZ16 PG&E -18,232 4304 19.80 3% ($23,059) $38,796 $14,152 >1 >1 $61,855 $37,211 CZ16-2 LADWP -18,232 4304 19.80 3% ($23,059) $67,793 $14,152 >1 >1 $90,852 $37,211 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 39 2019-07-25 Figure 29. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + PV + B CZ01 PG&E 137,956 3893 50.51 15% $254,335 $510,831 $374,432 2.0 1.5 $256,496 $120,097 CZ02 PG&E 173,387 2448 49.87 13% $252,777 $590,112 $463,431 2.3 1.8 $337,336 $210,654 CZ03 PG&E 180,055 1868 48.55 16% $256,129 $585,861 $452,399 2.3 1.8 $329,732 $196,270 CZ04 PG&E 184,499 1706 48.38 14% $257,345 $608,814 $481,011 2.4 1.9 $351,470 $223,666 CZ04-2 CPAU 184,499 1706 48.38 14% $257,345 $465,690 $481,011 1.8 1.9 $208,345 $223,666 CZ05 PG&E 185,690 1746 48.84 15% $254,734 $600,933 $461,804 2.4 1.8 $346,199 $207,071 CZ06 SCE 180,968 1002 43.91 11% $255,621 $335,909 $457,959 1.3 1.8 $80,288 $202,337 CZ06-2 LADWP 180,968 1002 43.91 11% $255,621 $206,021 $457,959 0.8 1.8 ($49,601) $202,337 CZ07 SDG&E 194,837 522 44.67 13% $256,478 $550,714 $478,637 2.1 1.9 $294,236 $222,159 CZ08 SCE 184,120 793 43.32 10% $250,461 $340,301 $479,406 1.4 1.9 $89,840 $228,945 CZ08-2 LADWP 184,120 793 43.32 10% $250,461 $203,813 $479,406 0.8 1.9 ($46,648) $228,945 CZ09 SCE 186,346 970 44.77 10% $248,127 $349,524 $474,176 1.4 1.9 $101,397 $226,049 CZ09-2 LADWP 186,346 970 44.77 10% $248,127 $216,654 $474,176 0.9 1.9 ($31,473) $226,049 CZ10 SDG&E 191,923 1262 47.46 12% $252,969 $593,514 $473,605 2.3 1.9 $340,545 $220,636 CZ10-2 SCE 191,923 1262 47.46 12% $252,969 $356,958 $473,605 1.4 1.9 $103,989 $220,636 CZ11 PG&E 177,639 2415 50.26 12% $248,039 $585,689 $489,317 2.4 2.0 $337,650 $241,278 CZ12 PG&E 176,919 2309 49.46 12% $247,736 $591,104 $484,702 2.4 2.0 $343,368 $236,966 CZ12-2 SMUD 176,919 2309 49.46 12% $247,736 $335,286 $484,702 1.4 2.0 $87,550 $236,966 CZ13 PG&E 183,129 1983 49.48 14% $249,226 $608,560 $483,670 2.4 1.9 $359,334 $234,444 CZ14 SDG&E 208,183 1672 52.54 15% $250,727 $593,232 $544,079 2.4 2.2 $342,505 $293,351 CZ14-2 SCE 264,589 1672 80.97 15% $250,727 $656,178 $580,403 2.6 2.3 $405,450 $329,676 CZ15 SCE 205,869 518 45.67 12% $247,840 $347,125 $493,339 1.4 2.0 $99,285 $245,499 CZ16 PG&E 176,114 4304 60.13 3% $251,612 $567,822 $446,795 2.3 1.8 $316,210 $195,183 CZ16-2 LADWP 176,114 4304 60.13 3% $251,612 $241,757 $446,795 1.0 1.8 ($9,856) $195,183 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 40 2019-07-25 Figure 30. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3C – All-Electric + HE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3C: All-Electric + HE CZ01 PG&E -26,199 3893 14.76 -2% ($587) $369 ($5,757) >1 0.1 $956 ($5,170) CZ02 PG&E -16,989 2448 8.95 3% ($4,211) $12,323 $11,251 >1 >1 $16,534 $15,463 CZ03 PG&E -11,703 1868 7.15 2% ($2,213) $9,159 $6,944 >1 >1 $11,372 $9,157 CZ04 PG&E -10,675 1706 6.37 3% ($316) $14,317 $11,383 >1 >1 $14,633 $11,700 CZ04-2 CPAU -10,675 1706 6.37 3% ($316) $20,599 $11,383 >1 >1 $20,915 $11,700 CZ05 PG&E -11,969 1746 6.19 1% ($2,298) $5,592 $1,824 >1 >1 $7,890 $4,122 CZ06 SCE -3,919 1002 4.35 3% $1,418 $29,751 $13,734 21.0 9.7 $28,333 $12,316 CZ06-2 LADWP -3,919 1002 4.35 3% $1,418 $25,891 $13,734 18.3 9.7 $24,473 $12,316 CZ07 SDG&E -955 522 2.59 3% ($710) $74,518 $11,229 >1 >1 $75,227 $11,939 CZ08 SCE -2,224 793 3.74 4% ($3,719) $28,067 $15,075 >1 >1 $31,785 $18,793 CZ08-2 LADWP -2,224 793 3.74 4% ($3,719) $23,848 $15,075 >1 >1 $27,566 $18,793 CZ09 SCE -2,089 970 4.84 4% ($8,268) $34,648 $21,162 >1 >1 $42,916 $29,430 CZ09-2 LADWP -2,089 970 4.84 4% ($8,268) $28,837 $21,162 >1 >1 $37,105 $29,430 CZ10 SDG&E -4,868 1262 5.58 4% ($5,222) $91,136 $20,041 >1 >1 $96,358 $25,263 CZ10-2 SCE -4,868 1262 5.58 4% ($5,222) $37,200 $20,041 >1 >1 $42,422 $25,263 CZ11 PG&E -12,651 2415 9.95 5% ($8,217) $29,015 $26,172 >1 >1 $37,232 $34,389 CZ12 PG&E -13,479 2309 9.10 4% ($9,239) $20,839 $21,228 >1 >1 $30,078 $30,466 CZ12-2 SMUD -13,479 2309 9.10 4% ($9,239) $26,507 $21,228 >1 >1 $35,746 $30,466 CZ13 PG&E -9,935 1983 8.23 4% ($4,975) $30,123 $24,063 >1 >1 $35,097 $29,037 CZ14 SDG&E -5,407 1672 7.71 5% $121 $88,669 $31,029 732.5 256.3 $88,547 $30,908 CZ14-2 SCE -5,407 1672 7.71 5% $121 $40,709 $31,029 336.3 256.3 $40,588 $30,908 CZ15 SCE 6,782 518 4.77 6% ($2,508) $42,238 $37,379 >1 >1 $44,745 $39,887 CZ16 PG&E -35,297 4304 15.03 -8% $1,102 ($21,384) ($33,754) -19.4 -30.6 ($22,486) ($34,856) CZ16-2 LADWP -35,297 4304 15.03 -8% $1,102 $48,625 ($33,754) 44.1 -30.6 $47,523 ($34,856) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 41 2019-07-25 4.3 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel The following issues must be considered when reviewing the Small Hotel results: ♦ The Small Hotel is a mix of residential and nonresidential space types, which results in different occupancy and load profiles than the office and retail prototypes. ♦ A potential laundry load has not been examined for the Small Hotel. The Reach Code Team attempted to characterize and apply the energy use intensity of laundry loads in hotels but did not find readily available data for use. Thus, cost effectiveness including laundry systems has not been examined. ♦ Contrary to the office and retail prototypes, the Small Hotel baseline water heater is a central gas storage type. Current compliance software cannot model central heat pump water heater systems with recirculation serving guest rooms.23 The only modeling option for heat pump water heating is individual water heaters at each guest room even though this is a very uncommon configuration. TRC modeled individual heat pump water heaters but as a proxy for central heat pump water heating performance, but integrated costs associated with tank and controls for central heat pump water heating into cost effectiveness calculations. ♦ Assuming central heat pump water heating also enabled the inclusion of a solar hot water thermal collection system, which was a key efficiency measure to achieving compliance in nearly all climate zones. Figure 31 through Figure 37 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Small Hotel packages. Notable findings for each package include: ♦ 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE: ♦ Packages achieve +3 to +10% compliance margins depending on climate zone. ♦ Packages are cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach in all CZs except 12 (using SMUD rates), 14 (using SCE rates), and 15 (with SCE rates). ♦ The hotel is primarily guest rooms with a smaller proportion of nonresidential space. Thus, the inexpensive VAV minimum flow measure and lighting measures that have been applied to the entirety of the Medium Office and Medium Retail prototypes have a relatively small impact in the Small Hotel.24 ♦ 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: Packages are cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach in all CZs. Solar PV generally increases cost effectiveness compared to efficiency-only, particularly when using an NPV metric. ♦ 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE: Packages achieve +2 to +5% compliance margins depending on climate zone. The package is cost effective using the On-Bill approach in a minority of climate zones, and cost effective using TDV approach only in CZ15. 23 The IOUs and CEC are actively working on including central heat pump water heater modeling with recirculation systems in early 2020. 24 Title 24 requires that hotel/motel guest room lighting design comply with the residential lighting standards, which are all mandatory and are not awarded compliance credit for improved efficacy. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 42 2019-07-25 ♦ 2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: ♦ This all-electric design does not comply with the Energy Commission’s TDV performance budget. Packages achieve between -50% and -4% compliance margins depending on climate zone. This may be because the modeled HW system is constrained to having an artificially low efficiency to avoid triggering federal pre-emption, and the heat pump space heating systems must operate overnight when operation is less efficient. ♦ All packages are cost effective in all climate zones. ♦ 3A – All-Electric + EE: Packages achieve positive compliance margins in all CZs ranging from 0% to +17%, except CZ16 which had a -18% compliance margin. All packages are cost effective in all climate zones. The improved degree of cost effectiveness outcomes in Package 3A compared to Package 1A appear to be due to the significant incremental package cost savings. ♦ 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: All packages are cost effective. Packages improve in B/C ratio when compared to 3A and increase in magnitude of overall NPV savings. PV appears to be more cost- effective with higher building electricity loads. ♦ 3C – All-Electric + HE: ♦ Packages do not comply with Title 24 in all CZs except CZ15 which resulted in a +0.04% compliance margin. ♦ All packages are cost effective. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 43 2019-07-25 Figure 31. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1A: Mixed Fuel + EE CZ01 PG&E 3,855 1288 5.65 9% $20,971 $34,339 $36,874 1.6 1.8 $13,368 $15,903 CZ02 PG&E 3,802 976 3.91 7% $20,971 $26,312 $29,353 1.3 1.4 $5,341 $8,381 CZ03 PG&E 4,153 1046 4.48 10% $20,971 $31,172 $35,915 1.5 1.7 $10,201 $14,944 CZ04 PG&E 5,007 395 0.85 6% $21,824 $24,449 $24,270 1.1 1.1 $2,625 $2,446 CZ04-2 CPAU 4,916 422 0.98 6% $21,824 $18,713 $24,306 0.9 1.1 ($3,111) $2,483 CZ05 PG&E 3,530 1018 4.13 9% $20,971 $28,782 $34,448 1.4 1.6 $7,810 $13,477 CZ05-2 SCG 3,530 1018 4.13 9% $20,971 $23,028 $34,448 1.1 1.6 $2,057 $13,477 CZ06 SCE 5,137 418 1.16 8% $21,824 $16,001 $26,934 0.7 1.2 ($5,823) $5,110 CZ06-2 LADWP 5,137 418 1.16 8% $21,824 $11,706 $26,934 0.5 1.2 ($10,118) $5,110 CZ07 SDG&E 5,352 424 1.31 8% $21,824 $26,699 $27,975 1.2 1.3 $4,876 $6,152 CZ08 SCE 5,151 419 1.21 7% $21,824 $15,931 $23,576 0.7 1.1 ($5,893) $1,752 CZ08-2 LADWP 5,151 419 1.21 7% $21,824 $11,643 $23,576 0.5 1.1 ($10,180) $1,752 CZ09 SCE 5,229 406 1.16 6% $21,824 $15,837 $22,365 0.7 1.0 ($5,987) $541 CZ09-2 LADWP 5,229 406 1.16 6% $21,824 $11,632 $22,365 0.5 1.0 ($10,192) $541 CZ10 SDG&E 4,607 342 0.92 5% $21,824 $25,506 $22,219 1.2 1.0 $3,683 $396 CZ10-2 SCE 4,607 342 0.92 5% $21,824 $13,868 $22,219 0.6 1.0 ($7,956) $396 CZ11 PG&E 4,801 325 0.87 4% $21,824 $22,936 $19,503 1.1 0.9 $1,112 ($2,321) CZ12 PG&E 5,276 327 0.90 5% $21,824 $22,356 $21,305 1.0 0.98 $532 ($519) CZ12-2 SMUD 5,276 327 0.90 5% $21,824 $15,106 $21,305 0.7 0.98 ($6,717) ($519) CZ13 PG&E 4,975 310 0.87 4% $21,824 $23,594 $19,378 1.1 0.9 $1,770 ($2,445) CZ14 SDG&E 4,884 370 0.82 4% $21,824 $24,894 $21,035 1.1 0.96 $3,070 ($789) CZ14-2 SCE 4,884 370 0.82 4% $21,824 $14,351 $21,035 0.7 0.96 ($7,473) ($789) CZ15 SCE 5,187 278 1.23 3% $21,824 $13,645 $18,089 0.6 0.8 ($8,178) ($3,735) CZ16 PG&E 2,992 1197 4.95 6% $20,971 $27,813 $30,869 1.3 1.5 $6,842 $9,898 CZ16-2 LADWP 2,992 1197 4.95 6% $20,971 $19,782 $30,869 0.9 1.5 ($1,190) $9,898 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 44 2019-07-25 Figure 32. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1B: Mixed Fuel + EE + PV + B CZ01 PG&E 107,694 1288 28.73 9% $228,341 $366,509 $295,731 1.6 1.3 $138,168 $67,390 CZ02 PG&E 130,144 976 31.14 7% $228,341 $359,248 $336,575 1.6 1.5 $130,907 $108,233 CZ03 PG&E 129,107 1046 31.57 10% $228,341 $430,737 $335,758 1.9 1.5 $202,396 $107,416 CZ04 PG&E 132,648 395 28.46 6% $229,194 $355,406 $338,455 1.6 1.5 $126,212 $109,262 CZ04-2 CPAU 132,556 422 28.59 6% $229,194 $322,698 $338,492 1.4 1.5 $93,504 $109,298 CZ05 PG&E 136,318 1018 32.73 9% $228,341 $452,611 $352,342 2.0 1.5 $224,269 $124,001 CZ05-2 SCG 136,318 1018 32.73 9% $228,341 $446,858 $352,342 2.0 1.5 $218,516 $124,001 CZ06 SCE 131,051 418 28.47 8% $229,194 $217,728 $336,843 0.9 1.5 ($11,466) $107,649 CZ06-2 LADWP 131,051 418 28.47 8% $229,194 $131,052 $336,843 0.6 1.5 ($98,142) $107,649 CZ07 SDG&E 136,359 424 29.63 8% $229,194 $306,088 $345,378 1.3 1.5 $76,894 $116,184 CZ08 SCE 132,539 419 28.85 7% $229,194 $227,297 $353,013 1.0 1.5 ($1,897) $123,819 CZ08-2 LADWP 132,539 419 28.85 7% $229,194 $134,739 $353,013 0.6 1.5 ($94,455) $123,819 CZ09 SCE 131,422 406 28.82 6% $229,194 $230,791 $343,665 1.0 1.5 $1,597 $114,471 CZ09-2 LADWP 131,422 406 28.82 6% $229,194 $136,024 $343,665 0.6 1.5 ($93,170) $114,471 CZ10 SDG&E 134,146 342 29.05 5% $229,194 $339,612 $342,574 1.5 1.5 $110,418 $113,380 CZ10-2 SCE 134,146 342 29.05 5% $229,194 $226,244 $342,574 1.0 1.5 ($2,949) $113,380 CZ11 PG&E 128,916 325 27.62 4% $229,194 $352,831 $337,208 1.5 1.5 $123,637 $108,014 CZ12 PG&E 131,226 327 28.04 5% $229,194 $425,029 $338,026 1.9 1.5 $195,835 $108,832 CZ12-2 SMUD 131,226 327 28.04 5% $229,194 $213,176 $338,026 0.9 1.5 ($16,018) $108,832 CZ13 PG&E 127,258 310 27.33 4% $229,194 $351,244 $324,217 1.5 1.4 $122,050 $95,023 CZ14 SDG&E 147,017 370 30.96 4% $229,194 $861,445 $217,675 3.8 0.9 $632,251 ($11,518) CZ14-2 SCE 147,017 370 30.96 4% $229,194 $244,100 $381,164 1.1 1.7 $14,906 $151,970 CZ15 SCE 137,180 278 29.12 3% $229,194 $225,054 $348,320 1.0 1.5 ($4,140) $119,127 CZ16 PG&E 141,478 1197 34.60 6% $228,341 $377,465 $357,241 1.7 1.6 $149,124 $128,899 CZ16-2 LADWP 141,478 1197 34.60 6% $228,341 $136,563 $357,241 0.6 1.6 ($91,778) $128,899 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 45 2019-07-25 Figure 33. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1C: Mixed Fuel + HE CZ01 PG&E 10 632 3.76 2% $22,839 $11,015 $10,218 0.5 0.4 ($11,823) ($12,621) CZ02 PG&E 981 402 2.69 3% $23,092 $16,255 $11,808 0.7 0.5 ($6,837) ($11,284) CZ03 PG&E 81 383 2.30 2% $20,510 $7,066 $6,850 0.3 0.3 ($13,444) ($13,660) CZ04 PG&E 161 373 2.26 2% $22,164 $8,593 $7,645 0.4 0.3 ($13,571) ($14,519) CZ04-2 CPAU 161 373 2.26 2% $22,164 $7,097 $7,645 0.3 0.3 ($15,067) ($14,519) CZ05 PG&E 154 361 2.19 2% $21,418 $6,897 $6,585 0.3 0.3 ($14,521) ($14,833) CZ05-2 SCG 154 361 2.19 2% $21,418 $4,786 $6,585 0.2 0.3 ($16,632) ($14,833) CZ06 SCE 237 201 1.27 2% $20,941 $3,789 $4,882 0.2 0.2 ($17,152) ($16,059) CZ06-2 LADWP 237 201 1.27 2% $20,941 $3,219 $4,882 0.2 0.2 ($17,722) ($16,059) CZ07 SDG&E 1,117 158 1.28 2% $19,625 $13,771 $7,342 0.7 0.4 ($5,854) ($12,283) CZ08 SCE 1,302 169 1.39 2% $20,678 $8,378 $8,591 0.4 0.4 ($12,300) ($12,088) CZ08-2 LADWP 1,302 169 1.39 2% $20,678 $5,802 $8,591 0.3 0.4 ($14,877) ($12,088) CZ09 SCE 1,733 178 1.56 3% $20,052 $10,489 $11,164 0.5 0.6 ($9,563) ($8,888) CZ09-2 LADWP 1,733 178 1.56 3% $20,052 $7,307 $11,164 0.4 0.6 ($12,745) ($8,888) CZ10 SDG&E 3,170 220 2.29 4% $22,682 $35,195 $19,149 1.6 0.8 $12,513 ($3,533) CZ10-2 SCE 3,170 220 2.29 4% $22,682 $16,701 $19,149 0.7 0.8 ($5,981) ($3,533) CZ11 PG&E 3,343 323 2.96 4% $23,344 $27,633 $20,966 1.2 0.9 $4,288 ($2,379) CZ12 PG&E 1,724 320 2.44 4% $22,302 $11,597 $15,592 0.5 0.7 ($10,705) ($6,710) CZ12-2 SMUD 1,724 320 2.44 4% $22,302 $11,156 $15,592 0.5 0.7 ($11,146) ($6,710) CZ13 PG&E 3,083 316 2.81 3% $22,882 $23,950 $17,068 1.0 0.7 $1,068 ($5,814) CZ14 SDG&E 3,714 312 2.99 4% $23,299 $35,301 $21,155 1.5 0.9 $12,002 ($2,144) CZ14-2 SCE 3,714 312 2.99 4% $23,299 $18,460 $21,155 0.8 0.9 ($4,839) ($2,144) CZ15 SCE 8,684 97 3.21 5% $20,945 $26,738 $31,600 1.3 1.5 $5,792 $10,655 CZ16 PG&E 836 700 4.42 3% $24,616 $18,608 $14,494 0.8 0.6 ($6,007) ($10,121) CZ16-2 LADWP 836 700 4.42 3% $24,616 $15,237 $14,494 0.6 0.6 ($9,378) ($10,121) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 46 2019-07-25 Figure 34. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 2: All-Electric Federal Code Minimum CZ01 PG&E -159,802 16917 53.92 -28% ($1,296,784) ($582,762) ($115,161) 2.2 11.3 $714,022 $1,181,623 CZ02 PG&E -118,739 12677 40.00 -12% ($1,297,757) ($245,434) ($51,620) 5.3 25.1 $1,052,322 $1,246,137 CZ03 PG&E -110,595 12322 40.48 -14% ($1,300,029) ($326,633) ($51,166) 4.0 25.4 $973,396 $1,248,863 CZ04 PG&E -113,404 11927 36.59 -13% ($1,299,864) ($225,307) ($53,134) 5.8 24.5 $1,074,556 $1,246,730 CZ04-2 CPAU -113,404 11927 36.59 -13% ($1,299,864) ($17,768) ($53,134) 73.2 24.5 $1,282,096 $1,246,730 CZ05 PG&E -108,605 11960 38.34 -15% ($1,299,917) ($350,585) ($54,685) 3.7 23.8 $949,332 $1,245,232 CZ06 SCE -78,293 8912 29.36 -5% ($1,300,058) ($61,534) ($28,043) 21.1 46.4 $1,238,524 $1,272,015 CZ06-2 LA -78,293 8912 29.36 -5% ($1,300,058) $43,200 ($28,043) >1 46.4 $1,343,258 $1,272,015 CZ07 SDG&E -69,819 8188 28.04 -7% ($1,298,406) ($137,638) ($23,199) 9.4 56.0 $1,160,768 $1,275,207 CZ08 SCE -71,914 8353 28.21 -6% ($1,296,376) ($53,524) ($22,820) 24.2 56.8 $1,242,852 $1,273,556 CZ08-2 LA -71,914 8353 28.21 -6% ($1,296,376) $42,841 ($22,820) >1 56.8 $1,339,217 $1,273,556 CZ09 SCE -72,262 8402 28.38 -6% ($1,298,174) ($44,979) ($21,950) 28.9 59.1 $1,253,196 $1,276,224 CZ09-2 LA -72,262 8402 28.38 -6% ($1,298,174) $46,679 ($21,950) >1 59.1 $1,344,853 $1,276,224 CZ10 SDG&E -80,062 8418 26.22 -8% ($1,295,176) ($172,513) ($36,179) 7.5 35.8 $1,122,663 $1,258,997 CZ10-2 SCE -80,062 8418 26.22 -8% ($1,295,176) ($63,974) ($36,179) 20.2 35.8 $1,231,202 $1,258,997 CZ11 PG&E -99,484 10252 30.99 -10% ($1,295,985) ($186,037) ($49,387) 7.0 26.2 $1,109,948 $1,246,598 CZ12 PG&E -99,472 10403 32.08 -10% ($1,297,425) ($340,801) ($45,565) 3.8 28.5 $956,624 $1,251,860 CZ12-2 SMUD -99,067 10403 32.21 -10% ($1,297,425) $5,794 ($44,354) >1 29.3 $1,303,219 $1,253,071 CZ13 PG&E -96,829 10029 30.60 -10% ($1,295,797) ($184,332) ($50,333) 7.0 25.7 $1,111,465 $1,245,464 CZ14 SDG&E -101,398 10056 29.68 -11% ($1,296,156) ($325,928) ($56,578) 4.0 22.9 $970,228 $1,239,578 CZ14-2 SCE -101,398 10056 29.68 -11% ($1,296,156) ($121,662) ($56,578) 10.7 22.9 $1,174,494 $1,239,578 CZ15 SCE -49,853 5579 18.07 -4% ($1,294,276) $209 ($21,420) >1 60.4 $1,294,485 $1,272,856 CZ16 PG&E -216,708 17599 41.89 -50% ($1,300,552) ($645,705) ($239,178) 2.0 5.4 $654,847 $1,061,374 CZ16-2 LA -216,708 17599 41.89 -50% ($1,300,552) $30,974 ($239,178) >1 5.4 $1,331,526 $1,061,374 * The Incremental Package Cost is the addition of the incremental HVAC and water heating equipment costs from Figure 12, the electrical infrastructure incremental cost of $26,800 (see section 3.3.2.1), and the natural gas infrastructure incremental cost savings of $56,020 (see section 3.3.2.2). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 47 2019-07-25 Figure 35. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3A – All-Electric + EE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp-liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3A: All-Electric + EE CZ01 PG&E -113,259 16917 62.38 1.3% ($1,251,544) ($200,367) $5,460 6.2 >1 $1,051,177 $1,257,005 CZ02 PG&E -90,033 12677 45.46 4% ($1,265,064) ($108,075) $15,685 11.7 >1 $1,156,989 $1,280,749 CZ03 PG&E -83,892 12322 45.93 6% ($1,267,509) ($198,234) $20,729 6.4 >1 $1,069,274 $1,288,237 CZ04 PG&E -91,197 11927 40.36 0.2% ($1,263,932) ($112,892) $703 11.2 >1 $1,151,041 $1,264,635 CZ04-2 CPAU -90,981 11927 40.42 0.2% ($1,263,932) $32,557 $918 >1 >1 $1,296,489 $1,264,850 CZ05 PG&E -82,491 11960 43.62 5% ($1,267,355) ($221,492) $18,488 5.7 >1 $1,045,863 $1,285,843 CZ06 SCE -61,523 8912 32.45 7% ($1,267,916) ($33,475) $15,142 37.9 >1 $1,234,441 $1,283,057 CZ06-2 LADWP -61,523 8912 32.45 7% ($1,267,916) $57,215 $15,142 >1 >1 $1,325,130 $1,283,057 CZ07 SDG&E -53,308 8188 31.22 7% ($1,266,354) ($81,338) $22,516 15.6 >1 $1,185,015 $1,288,870 CZ08 SCE -55,452 8353 31.33 3% ($1,264,408) ($23,893) $9,391 52.9 >1 $1,240,515 $1,273,800 CZ08-2 LADWP -55,452 8353 31.33 3% ($1,264,408) $57,058 $9,391 >1 >1 $1,321,466 $1,273,800 CZ09 SCE -55,887 8402 31.40 2% ($1,266,302) ($19,887) $9,110 63.7 >1 $1,246,415 $1,275,412 CZ09-2 LADWP -55,887 8402 31.40 2% ($1,266,302) $60,441 $9,110 >1 >1 $1,326,743 $1,275,412 CZ10 SDG&E -60,239 8418 29.96 2% ($1,256,002) ($126,072) $7,365 10.0 >1 $1,129,930 $1,263,367 CZ10-2 SCE -60,239 8418 29.96 2% ($1,256,002) ($33,061) $7,365 38.0 >1 $1,222,940 $1,263,367 CZ11 PG&E -77,307 10252 35.12 1% ($1,256,149) ($80,187) $3,114 15.7 >1 $1,175,962 $1,259,263 CZ12 PG&E -75,098 10403 36.73 2% ($1,256,824) ($234,275) $9,048 5.4 >1 $1,022,550 $1,265,872 CZ12-2 SMUD -75,098 10403 36.73 2% ($1,256,824) $54,941 $9,048 >1 >1 $1,311,765 $1,265,872 CZ13 PG&E -75,052 10029 34.72 0.3% ($1,256,109) ($79,378) $1,260 15.8 >1 $1,176,731 $1,257,369 CZ14 SDG&E -76,375 10056 34.28 0.1% ($1,255,704) ($170,975) $543 7.3 >1 $1,084,729 $1,256,247 CZ14-2 SCE -76,375 10056 34.28 0.1% ($1,255,704) ($34,418) $543 36.5 >1 $1,221,286 $1,256,247 CZ15 SCE -33,722 5579 21.43 2% ($1,257,835) $26,030 $12,262 >1 >1 $1,283,864 $1,270,097 CZ16 PG&E -139,676 17599 55.25 -14% ($1,255,364) ($197,174) ($66,650) 6.4 18.8 $1,058,190 $1,188,714 CZ16-2 LADWP -139,676 17599 55.25 -14% ($1,255,364) $165,789 ($66,650) >1 18.8 $1,421,153 $1,188,714 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 48 2019-07-25 Figure 36. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3B: All-Electric + EE + PV + B CZ01 PG&E -8,900 16917 87.15 1% ($1,044,174) $90,964 $324,376 >1 >1 $1,135,139 $1,368,551 CZ02 PG&E 36,491 12677 73.03 4% ($1,057,694) $242,514 $313,711 >1 >1 $1,300,208 $1,371,405 CZ03 PG&E 41,239 12322 73.43 6% ($1,060,139) $155,868 $308,385 >1 >1 $1,216,007 $1,368,524 CZ04 PG&E 36,628 11927 69.70 0.2% ($1,056,562) $240,799 $308,682 >1 >1 $1,297,361 $1,365,244 CZ04-2 CPAU 36,844 11927 69.76 0.2% ($1,056,562) $336,813 $418,836 >1 >1 $1,393,375 $1,475,398 CZ05 PG&E 36,365 11960 73.11 5% ($1,059,985) $119,173 $317,952 >1 >1 $1,179,158 $1,377,937 CZ06 SCE 64,476 8912 60.47 7% ($1,060,545) $156,327 $311,730 >1 >1 $1,216,872 $1,372,275 CZ06-2 LADWP 64,476 8912 60.47 7% ($1,060,545) $180,648 $311,730 >1 >1 $1,241,193 $1,372,275 CZ07 SDG&E 77,715 8188 60.45 7% ($1,058,983) $197,711 $330,458 >1 >1 $1,256,694 $1,389,441 CZ08 SCE 71,990 8353 59.49 3% ($1,057,038) $165,393 $320,814 >1 >1 $1,222,432 $1,377,852 CZ08-2 LADWP 71,990 8353 60.24 3% ($1,057,038) $180,367 $443,809 >1 >1 $1,237,405 $1,500,847 CZ09 SCE 70,465 8402 59.29 2% ($1,058,932) $175,602 $301,459 >1 >1 $1,234,534 $1,360,391 CZ09-2 LADWP 70,465 8402 59.29 2% ($1,058,932) $183,220 $301,459 >1 >1 $1,242,152 $1,360,391 CZ10 SDG&E 69,581 8418 58.04 2% ($1,048,632) $161,513 $294,530 >1 >1 $1,210,145 $1,343,162 CZ10-2 SCE 69,581 8418 58.04 2% ($1,048,632) $164,837 $294,530 >1 >1 $1,213,469 $1,343,162 CZ11 PG&E 47,260 10252 61.57 1% ($1,048,779) $253,717 $286,797 >1 >1 $1,302,496 $1,335,576 CZ12 PG&E 51,115 10403 64.07 2% ($1,049,454) $104,523 $305,446 >1 >1 $1,153,977 $1,354,900 CZ12-2 SMUD 51,115 10403 64.99 2% ($1,049,454) $253,197 $430,977 >1 >1 $1,302,651 $1,480,431 CZ13 PG&E 47,757 10029 60.77 0.3% ($1,048,739) $251,663 $281,877 >1 >1 $1,300,402 $1,330,616 CZ14 SDG&E 66,084 10056 64.54 0.1% ($1,048,334) $148,510 $334,938 >1 >1 $1,196,844 $1,383,272 CZ14-2 SCE 66,084 10056 64.54 0.1% ($1,048,334) $185,018 $334,938 >1 >1 $1,233,352 $1,383,272 CZ15 SCE 98,755 5579 49.04 2.1% ($1,050,465) $233,308 $311,121 >1 >1 $1,283,772 $1,361,585 CZ16 PG&E -873 17599 84.99 -14% ($1,047,994) $191,994 $240,724 >1 >1 $1,239,987 $1,288,718 CZ16-2 LADWP -873 17599 84.99 -14% ($1,047,994) $291,279 $240,724 >1 >1 $1,339,273 $1,288,718 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 49 2019-07-25 Figure 37. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3C – All-Electric + HE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3C: All-Electric + HE CZ01 PG&E -154,840 16917 56.24 -24% ($1,281,338) ($606,619) ($101,272) 2.1 12.7 $674,719 $1,180,066 CZ02 PG&E -118,284 12677 41.18 -11% ($1,283,243) ($395,641) ($44,505) 3.2 28.8 $887,602 $1,238,738 CZ03 PG&E -113,413 12322 40.80 -14% ($1,288,782) ($522,458) ($51,582) 2.5 25.0 $766,324 $1,237,200 CZ04 PG&E -115,928 11927 37.09 -13% ($1,287,878) ($383,177) ($53,285) 3.4 24.2 $904,701 $1,234,593 CZ04-2 CPAU -115,928 11927 37.09 -13% ($1,287,878) ($24,170) ($53,285) 53.3 24.2 $1,263,708 $1,234,593 CZ05 PG&E -111,075 11960 38.75 -15% ($1,288,242) ($530,740) ($56,124) 2.4 23.0 $757,502 $1,232,119 CZ06 SCE -83,000 8912 29.41 -15% ($1,288,695) ($154,625) ($32,244) 8.3 40.0 $1,134,069 $1,256,451 CZ06-2 LADWP -83,000 8912 29.41 -15% ($1,288,695) ($17,626) ($32,244) 73.1 40.0 $1,271,068 $1,256,451 CZ07 SDG&E -73,823 8188 28.32 -7% ($1,285,759) ($268,207) ($24,069) 4.8 53.4 $1,017,552 $1,261,690 CZ08 SCE -75,573 8353 28.56 -6% ($1,281,241) ($157,393) ($21,912) 8.1 58.5 $1,123,848 $1,259,329 CZ08-2 LADWP -75,573 8353 28.56 -6% ($1,281,241) ($18,502) ($21,912) 69.2 58.5 $1,262,739 $1,259,329 CZ09 SCE -74,790 8402 29.04 -4% ($1,285,139) ($138,746) ($16,992) 9.3 75.6 $1,146,393 $1,268,147 CZ09-2 LADWP -74,790 8402 29.04 -4% ($1,285,139) ($6,344) ($16,992) 202.6 75.6 $1,278,794 $1,268,147 CZ10 SDG&E -80,248 8418 27.57 -5% ($1,278,097) ($235,479) ($24,107) 5.4 53.0 $1,042,617 $1,253,990 CZ10-2 SCE -80,248 8418 27.57 -5% ($1,278,097) ($123,371) ($24,107) 10.4 53.0 $1,154,726 $1,253,990 CZ11 PG&E -98,041 10252 32.73 -7% ($1,279,528) ($278,242) ($35,158) 4.6 36.4 $1,001,286 $1,244,370 CZ12 PG&E -100,080 10403 33.24 -9% ($1,282,834) ($480,347) ($38,715) 2.7 33.1 $802,487 $1,244,119 CZ12-2 SMUD -100,080 10403 33.24 -9% ($1,282,834) ($23,362) ($38,715) 54.9 33.1 $1,259,472 $1,244,119 CZ13 PG&E -94,607 10029 32.47 -7% ($1,279,301) ($276,944) $244,552 4.6 >1 $1,002,357 $1,523,853 CZ14 SDG&E -97,959 10056 31.91 -7% ($1,279,893) ($302,123) ($37,769) 4.2 33.9 $977,770 $1,242,124 CZ14-2 SCE -97,959 10056 31.91 -7% ($1,279,893) ($129,082) ($37,769) 9.9 33.9 $1,150,811 $1,242,124 CZ15 SCE -45,226 5579 20.17 0.04% ($1,276,847) ($6,533) $227 195.4 >1 $1,270,314 $1,277,074 CZ16 PG&E -198,840 17599 47.73 -39% ($1,288,450) ($605,601) ($185,438) 2.1 6.9 $682,848 $1,103,011 CZ16-2 LADWP -198,840 17599 47.73 -39% ($1,288,450) $40,268 ($185,438) >1 6.9 $1,328,718 $1,103,011 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 50 2019-07-25 4.4 Cost Effectiveness Results – PV-only and PV+Battery The Reach Code Team ran packages of PV-only and PV+Battery measures, without any additional efficiency measures, to assess cost effectiveness on top of the mixed-fuel baseline building and the all- electric federal code minimum reference (Package 2 in Sections 4.1 – 4.3). Jurisdictions interested in adopting PV-only reach codes should reference the mixed-fuel cost effectiveness results because a mixed-fuel building is the baseline for the nonresidential prototypes analyzed in this study. PV or PV+Battery packages are added to all-electric federal code minimum reference which (in many scenarios) do not have a positive compliance margin compared to the mixed- fuel baseline model, and are solely provided for informational purposes. Jurisdictions interested in reach codes requiring all-electric+PV or all-electric+PV+battery should reference package 3B results in Sections 4.1 – 4.3.25 Each of the following eight packages were evaluated against a mixed fuel baseline designed as per 2019 Title 24 Part 6 requirements. ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV Only: ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh battery ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV Only ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ♦ All-Electric + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller ♦ All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery Figure 38 through Figure 40 summarize the on-bill and TDV B/C ratios for each prototype for the two PV only packages and the two PV plus battery packages. Compliance margins are 0 percent for all mixed-fuel packages. For all-electric packages, compliance margins are equal to those found in Package 2 for each prototype in Sections 4.1 – 4.3. The compliance margins are not impacted by renewables and battery storage measures and hence not shown in the tables. These figures are formatted in the following way: ♦ Cells highlighted in green have a B/C ratio greater than 1 and are cost-effective. The shade of green gets darker as cost effectiveness increases. ♦ Cells not highlighted have a B/C ratio less than one and are not cost effective. 25 Because this study shows that the addition of battery generally reduces cost effectiveness, removing a battery measure would only increase cost effectiveness. Thus, a jurisdiction can apply the EE+PV+Battery cost effectiveness findings to support EE+PV reach codes, because EE+PV would still remain cost effective without a battery. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 51 2019-07-25 Please see Appendix 6.7 for results in full detail. Generally, for mixed-fuel packages across all prototypes, all climate zones were proven to have cost effective outcomes using TDV except in CZ1 with a 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery scenario. Most climate zones also had On-Bill cost effectiveness. The addition of a battery slightly reduces cost effectiveness. In all-electric packages, the results for most climate zones were found cost effective using both TDV and On-Bill approaches with larger PV systems or PV+Battery systems. Most 3 kW PV systems were also found to be cost effective except in some scenarios analyzing the Medium Office using the On-Bill method. CZ16 results continue to show challenges being cost effective with all electric buildings, likely due to the high heating loads in this climate. The addition of a battery slightly reduces the cost effectiveness for all- electric buildings with PV. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 52 2019-07-25 Figure 38. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office - PV and Battery PV Battery Utility On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV CZ01 PG&E 2.8 1.5 1.7 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.2 0.9 1.6 0.9 1.6 2.5 2.0 2.1 1.7 CZ02 PG&E 3.7 1.9 2.1 1.1 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.4 0.8 2.2 0.9 2.6 3.2 2.4 2.7 2.1 CZ03 PG&E 3.7 1.8 2.2 1.0 2.1 1.5 1.9 1.4 1.9 3.9 2.0 4.0 3.4 2.5 2.9 2.2 CZ04 PG&E 3.6 2.0 2.1 1.2 2.3 1.6 2.1 1.5 0.9 2.1 1.1 2.7 3.3 2.5 2.9 2.2 CZ04-2 CPAU 2.1 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 7.7 2.1 9.8 2.7 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.2 CZ05 PG&E 4.2 1.9 2.4 1.1 2.5 1.6 2.3 1.5 1.8 2.7 1.9 2.7 4.0 2.7 3.4 2.3 CZ05-2 SCG 4.2 1.9 2.4 1.1 2.5 1.6 2.3 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.0 9.4 2.6 CZ06 SCE 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.5 >1 7.2 >1 8.2 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.3 CZ06-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.6 0.7 1.5 >1 7.2 >1 8.2 1.5 2.7 1.3 2.3 CZ07 SDG&E 3.2 2.0 1.9 1.2 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.7 2.7 3.2 2.3 CZ08 SCE 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.2 2.7 1.9 2.4 CZ08-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.7 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.3 2.7 1.1 2.4 CZ09 SCE 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.2 2.6 1.9 2.3 CZ09-2 LA 1.1 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.7 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.3 2.6 1.2 2.3 CZ10 SDG&E 3.8 1.9 2.2 1.1 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.5 >1 3.3 >1 6.3 3.3 2.3 2.9 2.0 CZ10-2 SCE 2.1 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.5 >1 3.3 >1 6.3 2.0 2.3 1.8 2.0 CZ11 PG&E 3.6 1.9 2.1 1.1 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 2.6 1.5 3.6 3.2 2.4 2.8 2.1 CZ12 PG&E 3.5 1.9 2.1 1.1 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.5 0.9 2.5 1.2 3.2 3.1 2.4 2.7 2.1 CZ12-2 SMUD 1.4 1.9 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.04 1.5 >1 2.5 >1 3.2 1.9 2.4 1.6 2.1 CZ13 PG&E 3.5 1.8 2.0 1.1 2.2 1.5 2.0 1.4 1.1 2.5 1.5 3.6 3.1 2.3 2.7 2.0 CZ14 SDG&E 3.4 2.3 2.0 1.3 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.7 >1 2.3 >1 3.1 3.6 2.8 3.2 2.5 CZ14-2 SCE 1.9 2.3 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.2 1.7 >1 2.3 >1 3.1 2.2 2.8 1.9 2.5 CZ15 SCE 1.8 2.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.6 >1 7.5 >1 >1 1.8 2.4 1.6 2.1 CZ16 PG&E 3.9 2.0 2.3 1.1 2.3 1.6 2.1 1.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 2.5 1.8 2.2 1.6 CZ16-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.7 1.5 >1 0.4 >1 0.6 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.6 CZ 135kW 0 05kWh 50kWh 3kW 0 135kW 0 3kW 5kWh 135kW 50kWh Mixed Fuel All-Electric 3kW 135kW3kW 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 53 2019-07-25 Figure 39. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail - PV and Battery PV Battery Utility On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV CZ01 PG&E 2.3 1.5 1.3 0.9 1.8 1.3 1.6 1.2 >1 3.0 >1 2.7 2.5 1.6 2.2 1.5 CZ02 PG&E 3.2 1.8 1.9 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.1 2.3 1.9 CZ03 PG&E 2.7 1.8 1.6 1.1 2.2 1.5 2.0 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.0 2.1 2.6 1.9 CZ04 PG&E 3.3 1.9 1.9 1.1 2.0 1.6 1.9 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.1 2.5 2.0 CZ04-2 CPAU 2.1 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 CZ05 PG&E 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.1 2.3 1.6 2.0 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.2 2.1 2.7 2.0 CZ05-2 SCG 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.1 2.3 1.6 2.0 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.7 1.9 3.2 1.6 CZ06 SCE 2.0 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.2 1.5 2.0 CZ06-2 LA 1.3 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.6 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.01 2.2 0.9 2.0 CZ07 SDG&E 4.0 2.0 2.4 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.1 CZ08 SCE 2.1 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.4 1.5 2.1 CZ08-2 LA 1.3 2.0 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.6 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.01 2.4 0.9 2.1 CZ09 SCE 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.8 2.4 1.6 2.1 CZ09-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.7 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.1 2.4 0.99 2.1 CZ10 SDG&E 3.8 2.0 2.2 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.0 CZ10-2 SCE 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.8 2.3 1.6 2.0 CZ11 PG&E 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.1 CZ12 PG&E 3.0 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.1 CZ12-2 SMUD 1.5 1.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.997 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.3 1.4 2.1 CZ13 PG&E 3.0 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.2 2.4 1.9 CZ14 SDG&E 3.5 2.2 2.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.2 CZ14-2 SCE 1.8 2.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.1 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.6 1.5 2.2 CZ15 SCE 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.02 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.4 1.5 2.1 CZ16 PG&E 3.7 2.0 2.1 1.2 2.1 1.7 1.9 1.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 2.7 2.0 2.3 1.8 CZ16-2 LA 1.3 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.6 1.6 >1 0.5 >1 0.4 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.8 3kW 90 kW3kW 0 05kWh 50kWh CZ Mixed Fuel 0 05kWh 50kWh 3kW 90 kW3kW 90 kW All-Electric 90 kW 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 54 2019-07-25 Figure 40. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel - PV and Battery PV Battery Utility On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV CZ01 PG&E 2.3 1.5 1.3 0.9 1.9 1.2 1.6 1.1 2.3 >1 2.3 >1 4.8 >1 4.7 >1 CZ02 PG&E 2.3 1.9 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.4 5.6 >1 5.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ03 PG&E 2.7 1.8 1.6 1.05 2.3 1.5 1.9 1.4 4.2 >1 4.2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ04 PG&E 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 6.2 >1 6.2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ04-2 CPAU 2.1 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ05 PG&E 2.9 1.9 1.7 1.1 2.4 1.6 2.0 1.5 3.9 >1 3.9 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ05-2 SCG 2.9 1.9 1.7 1.1 2.4 1.6 2.0 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ06 SCE 1.8 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ06-2 LA 1.1 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.6 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ07 SDG&E 2.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ08 SCE 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.0 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ08-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.6 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ09 SCE 1.9 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.6 0.997 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ09-2 LA 1.1 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.6 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ10 SDG&E 2.9 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4 8.2 >1 8.2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ10-2 SCE 1.7 1.9 0.99 1.1 1.2 1.6 0.99 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ11 PG&E 2.6 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 7.6 >1 7.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ12 PG&E 2.7 1.9 1.6 1.1 2.3 1.6 1.9 1.4 4.0 >1 4.0 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ12-2 SMUD 1.4 1.9 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.95 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ13 PG&E 2.6 1.8 1.5 1.1 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.4 7.7 >1 7.7 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ14 SDG&E 3.0 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.6 4.2 >1 4.2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ14-2 SCE 1.8 2.2 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.1 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ15 SCE 1.7 2.0 1.002 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.003 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ16 PG&E 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.5 2.1 5.7 2.1 5.6 5.8 >1 5.8 >1 CZ16-2 LA 1.02 2.0 0.6 1.2 0.6 1.6 0.6 1.5 >1 5.7 >1 5.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 5kWh 50kWh 0 CZ Mixed Fuel All-Electric 3kW 80kW3kW 80kW 3kW 80kW3kW 80kW 05kWh 50kWh00 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 55 2019-07-25 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Further Considerations The Reach Codes Team developed packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with PV generation and battery storage systems, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes team coordinated assumptions with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results. 5.1 Summary Figure 41 through Figure 43 summarize results for each prototype and depict the compliance margins achieved for each climate zone and package. Because local reach codes must both exceed the Energy Commission performance budget (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) and be cost-effective, the Reach Code Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary for potential reach code policies: ♦ Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches. ♦ Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach. ♦ Cells not highlighted either depict a negative compliance margin or a package that was not cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach. For more detail on the results in the Figures, please refer to Section 4 Results. As described in Section 4.4, PV-only and PV+Battery packages in the mixed-fuel building were found to be cost effective across all prototypes, climate zones, and packages using the TDV approach, and results are not reiterated in the following figures. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 56 2019-07-25 Figure 41. Medium Office Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness CZ Utility Mixed Fuel All Electric EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE CZ01 PG&E 18% 18% 3% -15% 7% 7% -14% CZ02 PG&E 17% 17% 4% -7% 10% 10% -5% CZ03 PG&E 20% 20% 3% -7% 16% 16% -6% CZ04 PG&E 14% 14% 5% -6% 9% 9% -3% CZ04-2 CPAU 14% 14% 5% -6% 9% 9% -3% CZ05 PG&E 18% 18% 4% -8% 12% 12% -6% CZ05-2 SCG 18% 18% 4% NA NA NA NA CZ06 SCE 20% 20% 3% -4% 18% 18% -2% CZ06-2 LADWP 20% 20% 3% -4% 18% 18% -2% CZ07 SDG&E 20% 20% 4% -2% 20% 20% 1% CZ08 SCE 18% 18% 4% -2% 18% 18% 1% CZ08-2 LADWP 18% 18% 4% -2% 18% 18% 1% CZ09 SCE 16% 16% 4% -2% 15% 15% 2% CZ09-2 LADWP 16% 16% 4% -2% 15% 15% 2% CZ10 SDG&E 17% 17% 4% -4% 13% 13% -1% CZ10-2 SCE 17% 17% 4% -4% 13% 13% -1% CZ11 PG&E 13% 13% 5% -4% 10% 10% 0% CZ12 PG&E 14% 14% 5% -5% 10% 10% -1% CZ12-2 SMUD 14% 14% 5% -5% 10% 10% -1% CZ13 PG&E 13% 13% 5% -4% 9% 9% 0% CZ14 SDG&E 14% 14% 5% -5% 9% 9% -1% CZ14-2 SCE 14% 14% 5% -5% 9% 9% -1% CZ15 SCE 12% 12% 5% -2% 10% 10% 3% CZ16 PG&E 14% 14% 5% -27% -15% -15% -26% CZ16-2 LADWP 14% 14% 5% -27% -15% -15% -26% 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 57 2019-07-25 Figure 42. Medium Retail Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness CZ Utility Mixed Fuel All Electric EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE CZ01 PG&E 18% 18% 2% -4.1% 15% 15% -2% CZ02 PG&E 13% 13% 3% -1.0% 13% 13% 3% CZ03 PG&E 16% 16% 2% -0.4% 16% 16% 2% CZ04 PG&E 14% 14% 3% -0.1% 14% 14% 3% CZ04-2 CPAU 14% 14% 3% -0.1% 14% 14% 3% CZ05 PG&E 16% 16% 1% -1.2% 15% 15% 1% CZ05-2 SCG 16% 16% 1% NA NA NA NA CZ06 SCE 10% 10% 3% 0.5% 11% 11% 3% CZ06-2 LADWP 10% 10% 3% 0.5% 11% 11% 3% CZ07 SDG&E 13% 13% 2% 0.3% 13% 13% 3% CZ08 SCE 10% 10% 3% 0.4% 10% 10% 4% CZ08-2 LADWP 10% 10% 3% 0.4% 10% 10% 4% CZ09 SCE 10% 10% 4% 0.4% 10% 10% 4% CZ09-2 LADWP 10% 10% 4% 0.4% 10% 10% 4% CZ10 SDG&E 12% 12% 4% 0.1% 12% 12% 4% CZ10-2 SCE 12% 12% 4% 0.1% 12% 12% 4% CZ11 PG&E 13% 13% 4% 0.5% 12% 12% 5% CZ12 PG&E 13% 13% 4% -0.1% 12% 12% 4% CZ12-2 SMUD 13% 13% 4% -0.1% 12% 12% 4% CZ13 PG&E 15% 15% 4% -0.4% 14% 14% 4% CZ14 SDG&E 13% 13% 4% 0.7% 15% 15% 5% CZ14-2 SCE 13% 13% 4% 0.7% 15% 15% 5% CZ15 SCE 12% 12% 5% 0.9% 12% 12% 6% CZ16 PG&E 13% 13% 3% -12.2% 3% 3% -8% CZ16-2 LADWP 13% 13% 3% -12.2% 3% 3% -8% 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 58 2019-07-25 Figure 43. Small Hotel Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness CZ Utility Mixed Fuel All Electric EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE CZ01 PG&E 9% 9% 2% -28% 1% 1% -24% CZ02 PG&E 7% 7% 3% -12% 4% 4% -11% CZ03 PG&E 10% 10% 2% -14% 6% 6% -14% CZ04 PG&E 6% 6% 2% -13% 0.2% 0.2% -13% CZ04-2 CPAU 6% 6% 2% -13% 0.2% 0.2% -13% CZ05 PG&E 9% 9% 2% -15% 5% 5% -15% CZ05-2 SCG 9% 9% 2% NA NA NA NA CZ06 SCE 8% 8% 2% -5% 7% 7% -15% CZ06-2 LADWP 8% 8% 2% -5% 7% 7% -15% CZ07 SDG&E 8% 8% 2% -7% 7% 7% -7% CZ08 SCE 7% 7% 2% -6% 3% 3% -6% CZ08-2 LADWP 7% 7% 2% -6% 3% 3% -6% CZ09 SCE 6% 6% 3% -6% 2% 2% -4% CZ09-2 LADWP 6% 6% 3% -6% 2% 2% -4% CZ10 SDG&E 5% 5% 4% -8% 2% 2% -5% CZ10-2 SCE 5% 5% 4% -8% 2% 2% -5% CZ11 PG&E 4% 4% 4% -10% 1% 1% -7% CZ12 PG&E 5% 5% 4% -10% 2% 2% -9% CZ12-2 SMUD 5% 5% 4% -10% 2% 2% -9% CZ13 PG&E 4% 4% 3% -10% 0.3% 0.3% -7% CZ14 SDG&E 4% 4% 4% -11% 0.1% 0.1% -7% CZ14-2 SCE 4% 4% 4% -11% 0.1% 0.1% -7% CZ15 SCE 3% 3% 5% -4% 2% 2% 0.04% CZ16 PG&E 6% 6% 3% -50% -14% -14% -39% CZ16-2 LADWP 6% 6% 3% -50% -14% -14% -39% 5.2 Conclusions and Further Considerations Findings are specific to the scenarios analyzed under this specific methodology, and largely pertain to office, retail, and hotel-type occupancies. Nonresidential buildings constitute a wide variety of occupancy profiles and process loads, making findings challenging to generalize across multiple building types. Findings indicate the following overall conclusions: 1. This study assumed that electrifying space heating and service water heating could eliminate natural gas infrastructure alone, because these were the only gas end-uses included the prototypes. Avoiding the installation of natural gas infrastructure results in significant cost savings and is a primary factor toward cost-effective outcomes in all-electric designs, even with necessary increases in electrical capacity. 2. There is ample opportunity for cost effective energy efficiency improvements, as demonstrated by the compliance margins achieved in many of the efficiency-only and efficiency + PV packages. Though much of the energy savings are attributable to lighting measures, efficiency measures selected for these prototypes are confined to the building systems that can be modeled. There is 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 59 2019-07-25 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. 3. 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: a. 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: a. 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. b. 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. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 60 2019-07-25 6 Appendices 6.1 Map of California Climate Zones Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 44. The map in Figure 44 along with a zip- code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 44. Map of California Climate Zones 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 61 2019-07-25 6.2 Lighting Efficiency Measures Figure 45 details the applicability and impact of each lighting efficiency measure by prototype and space function and includes the resulting LPD that is modeled as the proposed by building type and by space function. Figure 45. Impact of Lighting Measures on Proposed LPDs by Space Function Space Function Baseline Impact Modeled Proposed LPD (W/ft2) Interior Lighting Reduced LPD Institutional Tuning Daylight Dimming Plus OFF Occupant Sensing in Open Office Plan LPD (W/ft2) Medium Office Office Area (Open plan office) - Interior 0.65 15% 10% - 17% 0.429 Office Area (Open plan office) - Perimeter 0.65 15% 5% 10% 30% 0.368 Medium Retail Commercial/Industrial Storage (Warehouse) 0.45 10% 5% - - 0.386 Main Entry Lobby 0.85 10% 5% - - 0.729 Retail Sales Area (Retail Merchandise Sales) 0.95 5% 5% - - 0.857 Small Hotel Commercial/Industrial Storage (Warehouse) 0.45 10% 5% - - 0.386 Convention, Conference, Multipurpose, and Meeting 0.85 10% 5% - - 0.729 Corridor Area 0.60 10% 5% - - 0.514 Exercise/Fitness Center and Gymnasium Areas 0.50 10% - - - 0.450 Laundry Area 0.45 10% - - - 0.405 Lounge, Breakroom, or Waiting Area 0.65 10% 5% - - 0.557 Mechanical 0.40 10% - - - 0.360 Office Area (>250 ft2) 0.65 10% 5% - - 0.557 6.3 Drain Water Heat Recovery Measure Analysis To support potential DWHR savings in the Small Hotel prototype, the Reach Code Team modeled the drain water heat recovery measure in CBECC-Res 2019 in the all-electric and mixed fuel 6,960 ft2 prototype residential buildings. The Reach Code Team assumed one heat recovery device for every three showers assuming unequal flow to the shower. Based on specifications from three different drain water heat recovery device manufacturers for device effectiveness in hotel applications, the team assumed a heat recovery efficiency of 50 percent. The Reach Code Team modeled mixed fuel and all-electric residential prototype buildings both with and without heat recovery in each climate zone. Based on these model results, the Reach Code Team determined the percentage savings of domestic water heating energy in terms of gas, electricity, and TDV for mixed fuel and all-electric, in each climate zone. The Reach Code Team then applied the savings 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 62 2019-07-25 percentages to the Small Hotel prototype domestic water heating energy in both the mixed-fuel and all- electric to determine energy savings for the drain water heat recovery measure in the Small Hotel. The Reach Code Team applied volumetric energy rates to estimate on-bill cost impacts from this measure. 6.4 Utility Rate Schedules The Reach Codes Team used the IOU and POU rates depicted in Figure 46 to determine the On-Bill savings for each prototype. Figure 46. Utility Tariffs Analyzed Based on Climate Zone – Detailed View Climate Zones Electric / Gas Utility Electricity (Time-of-use) Natural Gas Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel All Prototypes CZ01 PG&E A-10 A-1 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ02 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ03 PG&E A-10 A-1 or A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ04 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ04-2 CPAU/PG&E E-2 E-2 E-2 G-NR1 CZ05 PG&E A-10 A-1 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ05-2 PG&E/SCG A-10 A-1 A-1 or A-10 G-10 (GN-10) CZ06 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ06 LADWP/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ07 SDG&E AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) GN-3 CZ08 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ08-2 LADWP/SCG A-2 (B) A-2 (B) A-2 (B) G-10 (GN-10) CZ09 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ09-2 LADWP/SCG A-2 (B) A-2 (B) A-2 (B) G-10 (GN-10) CZ10 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 G-10 (GN-10) CZ10-2 SDG&E AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) GN-3 CZ11 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-10 G-NR1 CZ12 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ12-2 SMUD/PG&E GS GS GS G-NR1 CZ13 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-10 G-NR1 CZ14 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-3 TOU-GS-3 TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ14-2 SDG&E AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) GN-3 CZ15 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-3 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 G-10 (GN-10) CZ16 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ16-2 LADWP/SCG A-2 (B) A-2 (B) A-2 (B) G-10 (GN-10) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 63 2019-07-25 6.5 Mixed Fuel Baseline Energy Figures Figures 47 to 49 show the annual electricity and natural gas consumption and cost, compliance TDV, and GHG emissions for each prototype under the mixed fuel design baseline. Figure 47. Medium Office – Mixed Fuel Baseline Climate Zone Utility Electricity Consumption (kWh) Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) Electricity Cost Natural Gas Cost Compliance TDV GHG Emissions (lbs) Medium Office Mixed Fuel Baseline CZ01 PG&E 358,455 4,967 $109,507 $6,506 84 266,893 CZ02 PG&E 404,865 3,868 $130,575 $5,256 122 282,762 CZ03 PG&E 370,147 3,142 $116,478 $4,349 88 251,759 CZ04 PG&E 431,722 3,759 $140,916 $5,144 141 299,993 CZ04-2 CPAU 431,722 3,759 $75,363 $5,144 141 299,993 CZ05 PG&E 400,750 3,240 $131,277 $4,481 106 269,768 CZ05-2 SCG 400,750 3,240 $131,277 $3,683 106 269,768 CZ06 SCE 397,441 2,117 $74,516 $2,718 105 253,571 CZ06-2 LA 397,441 2,117 $44,311 $2,718 105 253,571 CZ07 SDG&E 422,130 950 $164,991 $4,429 118 257,324 CZ08 SCE 431,207 1,219 $79,181 $1,820 132 265,179 CZ08-2 LA 431,207 1,219 $46,750 $1,820 132 265,179 CZ09 SCE 456,487 1,605 $86,190 $2,196 155 287,269 CZ09-2 LA 456,487 1,605 $51,111 $2,196 155 287,269 CZ10 SDG&E 431,337 2,053 $173,713 $5,390 130 272,289 CZ10-2 SCE 431,337 2,053 $80,636 $2,603 130 272,289 CZ11 PG&E 464,676 3,062 $150,520 $4,333 163 310,307 CZ12 PG&E 441,720 3,327 $142,902 $4,647 152 299,824 CZ12-2 SMUD 441,720 3,327 $65,707 $4,647 152 299,824 CZ13 PG&E 471,540 3,063 $150,919 $4,345 161 316,228 CZ14 SDG&E 467,320 3,266 $185,812 $6,448 165 314,258 CZ14-2 SCE 467,320 3,266 $92,071 $3,579 165 314,258 CZ15 SCE 559,655 1,537 $105,388 $2,058 211 347,545 CZ16 PG&E 405,269 6,185 $127,201 $8,056 116 312,684 CZ16-2 LA 405,269 6,185 $43,115 $8,056 116 312,684 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 64 2019-07-25 Figure 48. Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel Baseline Climate Zone Utility Electricity Consumption (kWh) Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) Electricity Cost Natural Gas Cost Compliance TDV GHG Emissions (lbs) Medium Retail Mixed Fuel Baseline CZ01 PG&E 184,234 3,893 $43,188 $5,247 155 156,972 CZ02 PG&E 214,022 2,448 $70,420 $3,572 202 157,236 CZ03 PG&E 199,827 1,868 $47,032 $2,871 165 140,558 CZ04 PG&E 208,704 1,706 $66,980 $2,681 187 143,966 CZ04-2 CPAU 208,704 1,706 $36,037 $2,681 187 143,966 CZ05 PG&E 195,864 1,746 $45,983 $2,697 155 135,849 CZ05-2 SCG 195,864 1,746 $45,983 $2,342 155 135,849 CZ06 SCE 211,123 1,002 $36,585 $1,591 183 135,557 CZ06-2 LA 211,123 1,002 $21,341 $1,591 183 135,557 CZ07 SDG&E 211,808 522 $75,486 $4,055 178 130,436 CZ08 SCE 212,141 793 $36,758 $1,373 190 133,999 CZ08-2 LA 212,141 793 $21,436 $1,373 190 133,999 CZ09 SCE 227,340 970 $40,083 $1,560 218 146,680 CZ09-2 LA 227,340 970 $23,487 $1,560 218 146,680 CZ10 SDG&E 235,465 1,262 $87,730 $4,700 228 154,572 CZ10-2 SCE 235,465 1,262 $41,000 $1,853 228 154,572 CZ11 PG&E 234,560 2,415 $76,670 $3,547 244 170,232 CZ12 PG&E 228,958 2,309 $75,084 $3,426 234 165,133 CZ12-2 SMUD 228,958 2,309 $32,300 $3,426 234 165,133 CZ13 PG&E 242,927 1,983 $81,995 $3,034 258 170,345 CZ14 SDG&E 264,589 1,672 $97,581 $5,059 277 178,507 CZ14-2 SCE 264,589 1,672 $46,217 $2,172 277 178,507 CZ15 SCE 290,060 518 $50,299 $1,083 300 179,423 CZ16 PG&E 212,204 4,304 $67,684 $5,815 197 180,630 CZ16-2 LA 212,204 4,304 $20,783 $5,815 197 180,630 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 65 2019-07-25 Figure 49. Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel Baseline Climate Zone Utility Electricity Consumption (kWh) Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) Electricity Cost Natural Gas Cost Compliance TDV GHG Emissions (lbs) Small Hotel Mixed Fuel Baseline CZ01 PG&E 177,734 16,936 40,778 20,465 110 340,491 CZ02 PG&E 189,319 12,696 53,396 15,664 110 293,056 CZ03 PG&E 183,772 12,341 42,325 15,210 98 284,217 CZ04 PG&E 187,482 11,945 52,118 14,806 106 281,851 CZ04-2 CPAU 187,482 11,945 32,176 14,806 106 281,851 CZ05 PG&E 187,150 11,979 43,182 14,733 98 281,183 CZ05-2 SCG 187,150 11,979 43,182 10,869 98 281,183 CZ06 SCE 191,764 8,931 28,036 8,437 98 244,664 CZ06-2 LA 191,764 8,931 16,636 8,437 98 244,664 CZ07 SDG&E 189,174 8,207 58,203 10,752 90 233,884 CZ08 SCE 190,503 8,372 27,823 7,991 94 236,544 CZ08-2 LA 190,503 8,372 16,555 7,991 94 236,544 CZ09 SCE 198,204 8,421 30,262 8,030 103 242,296 CZ09-2 LA 198,204 8,421 17,951 8,030 103 242,296 CZ10 SDG&E 215,364 8,437 71,713 10,926 122 255,622 CZ10-2 SCE 215,364 8,437 33,736 8,043 122 255,622 CZ11 PG&E 219,852 10,271 63,724 12,882 131 282,232 CZ12 PG&E 199,499 10,422 46,245 13,022 115 270,262 CZ12-2 SMUD 199,499 10,422 26,872 13,022 115 270,262 CZ13 PG&E 226,925 10,048 65,559 12,629 132 284,007 CZ14 SDG&E 226,104 10,075 73,621 12,167 134 283,287 CZ14-2 SCE 226,104 10,075 35,187 9,350 134 283,287 CZ15 SCE 280,595 5,598 42,852 5,777 152 260,378 CZ16 PG&E 191,231 17,618 51,644 21,581 127 358,590 CZ16-2 LA 191,231 17,618 16,029 21,581 127 358,590 6.6 Hotel TDV Cost Effectiveness with Propane Baseline The Reach Codes Team further analyzed TDV cost effectiveness of the all-electric packages with a mixed- fuel design baseline using propane instead of natural gas. Results for each package are shown in Figure 50. through Figure 53. below. All electric models compared to a propane baseline have positive compliance margins in all climate zones when compared to results using a natural gas baseline. Compliance margin improvement is roughly 30 percent, which also leads to improved cost effectiveness for the all-electric packages. These outcomes are likely due to the TDV penalty associated with propane when compared to natural gas. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 66 2019-07-25 Across packages, TDV cost effectiveness with a propane baseline follows similar trends as the natural gas baseline. Adding efficiency measures increased compliance margins by 3 to 10 percent depending on climate zone, while adding high efficiency HVAC and SHW equipment alone increased compliance margins by smaller margins of about 2 to 4 percent compared to the All-Electric package. Figure 50. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 2 All- Electric Federal Code Minimum Climate Zone Complianc e Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (TDV) CZ01 -4% ($1,271,869) ($28,346) 44.9 $1,243,523 CZ02 27% ($1,272,841) $170,263 >1 $1,443,104 CZ03 -3% ($1,275,114) ($16,425) 77.6 $1,258,689 CZ04 26% ($1,274,949) $155,466 >1 $1,430,414 CZ05 27% ($1,275,002) $154,709 >1 $1,429,710 CZ06 17% ($1,275,143) $126,212 >1 $1,401,355 CZ07 25% ($1,273,490) $117,621 >1 $1,391,111 CZ08 24% ($1,271,461) $122,087 >1 $1,393,548 CZ09 23% ($1,273,259) $123,525 >1 $1,396,784 CZ10 18% ($1,270,261) $109,522 >1 $1,379,783 CZ11 19% ($1,271,070) $129,428 >1 $1,400,498 CZ12 -4% ($1,272,510) ($26,302) 48.4 $1,246,208 CZ13 18% ($1,270,882) $124,357 >1 $1,395,239 CZ14 17% ($1,271,241) $117,621 >1 $1,388,861 CZ15 -7% ($1,269,361) ($45,338) 28.0 $1,224,023 CZ16 9% ($1,275,637) $68,272 >1 $1,343,908 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 67 2019-07-25 Figure 51. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3A (All- Electric + EE) Climate Zone Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (TDV) CZ01 35% ($1,250,898) $252,831 >1 $1,503,729 CZ02 34% ($1,251,870) $217,238 >1 $1,469,108 CZ03 37% ($1,254,142) $218,642 >1 $1,472,784 CZ04 31% ($1,250,769) $191,393 >1 $1,442,162 CZ05 36% ($1,254,031) $208,773 >1 $1,462,804 CZ06 25% ($1,250,964) $159,714 >1 $1,410,677 CZ07 32% ($1,249,311) $154,111 >1 $1,403,422 CZ08 29% ($1,247,282) $146,536 >1 $1,393,818 CZ09 27% ($1,249,080) $146,671 >1 $1,395,751 CZ10 22% ($1,246,081) $134,477 >1 $1,380,559 CZ11 23% ($1,246,891) $157,138 >1 $1,404,029 CZ12 27% ($1,248,330) $167,945 >1 $1,416,276 CZ13 22% ($1,246,703) $149,270 >1 $1,395,973 CZ14 21% ($1,247,061) $145,269 >1 $1,392,331 CZ15 14% ($1,245,182) $93,647 >1 $1,338,829 CZ16 20% ($1,254,665) $154,035 >1 $1,408,701 Figure 52. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3B (All- Electric + EE + PV) Climate Zone Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (TDV) CZ01 35% ($1,043,528) $511,688 >1 $1,555,215 CZ02 34% ($1,044,500) $524,460 >1 $1,568,960 CZ03 37% ($1,046,772) $518,485 >1 $1,565,257 CZ04 31% ($1,043,399) $505,579 >1 $1,548,978 CZ05 36% ($1,046,660) $526,668 >1 $1,573,328 CZ06 25% ($1,043,594) $469,623 >1 $1,513,216 CZ07 32% ($1,041,941) $471,513 >1 $1,513,454 CZ08 29% ($1,039,912) $475,973 >1 $1,515,885 CZ09 27% ($1,041,710) $467,971 >1 $1,509,681 CZ10 22% ($1,038,711) $454,832 >1 $1,493,543 CZ11 23% ($1,039,521) $474,844 >1 $1,514,364 CZ12 27% ($1,040,960) $484,667 >1 $1,525,627 CZ13 22% ($1,039,333) $454,108 >1 $1,493,441 CZ14 21% ($1,039,691) $505,398 >1 $1,545,090 CZ15 14% ($1,037,811) $423,879 >1 $1,461,691 CZ16 20% ($1,047,295) $480,407 >1 $1,527,702 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 68 2019-07-25 Figure 53. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3C (All Electric + HE) Climate Zone Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (TDV) CZ01 27% ($1,256,423) $194,975 >1 $1,451,398 CZ02 28% ($1,258,328) $177,378 >1 $1,435,706 CZ03 28% ($1,263,867) $164,094 >1 $1,427,961 CZ04 26% ($1,262,963) $155,314 >1 $1,418,277 CZ05 26% ($1,263,327) $153,271 >1 $1,416,598 CZ06 17% ($1,263,779) $122,011 >1 $1,385,790 CZ07 24% ($1,260,844) $116,751 >1 $1,377,594 CZ08 25% ($1,256,326) $122,995 >1 $1,379,321 CZ09 24% ($1,260,223) $128,482 >1 $1,388,706 CZ10 20% ($1,253,181) $121,595 >1 $1,374,776 CZ11 21% ($1,254,613) $143,658 >1 $1,398,271 CZ12 23% ($1,257,919) $142,901 >1 $1,400,820 CZ13 21% ($1,254,386) $138,625 >1 $1,393,011 CZ14 20% ($1,254,978) $136,430 >1 $1,391,407 CZ15 14% ($1,251,932) $96,087 >1 $1,348,019 CZ16 15% ($1,263,534) $122,011 >1 $1,385,545 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 69 2019-07-25 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. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 70 2019-07-25 ♦ All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: All packages are cost effective and achieve savings using the On-Bill and TDV approaches. On-Bill and TDV B/C ratios are slightly lower compared to the PV only package. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 71 2019-07-25 Figure 54. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office - Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle $- TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $5,566 $15,743 $8,448 2.8 1.5 $10,177 $2,882 CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $5,566 $20,372 $10,500 3.7 1.9 $14,806 $4,934 CZ03 PG&E 4,660 0 0.9 $5,566 $20,603 $9,975 3.7 1.8 $15,037 $4,409 CZ04 PG&E 5,056 0 1.0 $5,566 $20,235 $11,073 3.6 2.0 $14,669 $5,507 CZ04-2 CPAU 5,056 0 1.0 $5,566 $11,945 $11,073 2.1 2.0 $6,379 $5,507 CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $5,566 $23,159 $10,834 4.2 1.9 $17,593 $5,268 CZ06 SCE 4,853 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,968 $10,930 2.0 2.0 $5,402 $5,364 CZ06-2 LADWP 4,853 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,575 $10,930 1.2 2.0 $1,009 $5,364 CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $5,566 $17,904 $11,025 3.2 2.0 $12,338 $5,459 CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,768 $11,359 1.9 2.0 $5,202 $5,793 CZ08-2 LADWP 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,503 $11,359 1.2 2.0 $937 $5,793 CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 1.0 $5,566 $10,622 $11,216 1.9 2.0 $5,056 $5,650 CZ09-2 LADWP 4,889 0 1.0 $5,566 $6,217 $11,216 1.1 2.0 $651 $5,650 CZ10 SDG&E 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $21,280 $10,787 3.8 1.9 $15,714 $5,221 CZ10-2 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $11,598 $10,787 2.1 1.9 $6,032 $5,221 CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $5,566 $19,869 $10,644 3.6 1.9 $14,303 $5,078 CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.9 $5,566 $19,643 $10,644 3.5 1.9 $14,077 $5,078 CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.9 $5,566 $8,005 $10,644 1.4 1.9 $2,439 $5,078 CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $5,566 $19,231 $10,262 3.5 1.8 $13,665 $4,696 CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.0 $5,566 $18,789 $12,600 3.4 2.3 $13,223 $7,034 CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.0 $5,566 $10,512 $12,600 1.9 2.3 $4,946 $7,034 CZ15 SCE 5,099 0 1.0 $5,566 $10,109 $11,550 1.8 2.1 $4,543 $5,984 CZ16 PG&E 5,096 0 1.0 $5,566 $21,836 $10,882 3.9 2.0 $16,270 $5,316 CZ16-2 LADWP 5,096 0 1.0 $5,566 $6,501 $10,882 1.2 2.0 $935 $5,316 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 72 2019-07-25 Figure 55. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $9,520 $15,743 $8,448 1.7 0.9 $6,223 ($1,072) CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $9,520 $20,372 $10,500 2.1 1.1 $10,852 $980 CZ03 PG&E 4,660 0 0.9 $9,520 $20,603 $9,975 2.2 1.0 $11,083 $455 CZ04 PG&E 5,056 0 1.0 $9,520 $20,235 $11,073 2.1 1.2 $10,714 $1,553 CZ04-2 CPAU 5,056 0 1.0 $9,520 $11,945 $11,073 1.3 1.2 $2,425 $1,553 CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $9,520 $23,159 $10,834 2.4 1.1 $13,639 $1,314 CZ06 SCE 4,853 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,968 $10,930 1.2 1.1 $1,448 $1,410 CZ06-2 LADWP 4,853 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,575 $10,930 0.7 1.1 ($2,945) $1,410 CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $9,520 $17,904 $11,025 1.9 1.2 $8,384 $1,505 CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,768 $11,359 1.1 1.2 $1,248 $1,839 CZ08-2 LADWP 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,503 $11,359 0.7 1.2 ($3,017) $1,839 CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 1.0 $9,520 $10,622 $11,216 1.1 1.2 $1,102 $1,696 CZ09-2 LADWP 4,889 0 1.0 $9,520 $6,217 $11,216 0.7 1.2 ($3,303) $1,696 CZ10 SDG&E 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $21,280 $10,787 2.2 1.1 $11,760 $1,267 CZ10-2 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $11,598 $10,787 1.2 1.1 $2,078 $1,267 CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $9,520 $19,869 $10,644 2.1 1.1 $10,349 $1,123 CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.9 $9,520 $19,643 $10,644 2.1 1.1 $10,123 $1,123 CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.9 $9,520 $8,005 $10,644 0.8 1.1 ($1,515) $1,123 CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $9,520 $19,231 $10,262 2.0 1.1 $9,711 $742 CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.0 $9,520 $18,789 $12,600 2.0 1.3 $9,269 $3,080 CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.0 $9,520 $10,512 $12,600 1.1 1.3 $992 $3,080 CZ15 SCE 5,099 0 1.0 $9,520 $10,109 $11,550 1.1 1.2 $589 $2,030 CZ16 PG&E 5,096 0 1.0 $9,520 $21,836 $10,882 2.3 1.1 $12,316 $1,362 CZ16-2 LADWP 5,096 0 1.0 $9,520 $6,501 $10,882 0.7 1.1 ($3,019) $1,362 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 73 2019-07-25 Figure 56. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel +135kW PV CZ01 PG&E 177,340 0 34.3 $302,856 $526,352 $380,399 1.7 1.3 $223,497 $77,544 CZ02 PG&E 215,311 0 41.5 $302,856 $666,050 $471,705 2.2 1.6 $363,194 $168,849 CZ03 PG&E 209,717 0 40.7 $302,856 $645,010 $449,797 2.1 1.5 $342,154 $146,942 CZ04 PG&E 227,535 0 44.0 $302,856 $686,434 $497,431 2.3 1.6 $383,578 $194,575 CZ04-2 CPAU 227,535 0 44.0 $302,856 $537,521 $497,431 1.8 1.6 $234,665 $194,575 CZ05 PG&E 226,195 0 44.1 $302,856 $753,230 $486,596 2.5 1.6 $450,374 $183,741 CZ06 SCE 218,387 0 42.3 $302,856 $401,645 $492,515 1.3 1.6 $98,789 $189,659 CZ06-2 LADWP 218,387 0 42.3 $302,856 $233,909 $492,515 0.8 1.6 ($68,947) $189,659 CZ07 SDG&E 223,185 0 43.3 $302,856 $623,078 $496,667 2.1 1.6 $320,223 $193,811 CZ08 SCE 217,171 0 42.0 $302,856 $389,435 $510,270 1.3 1.7 $86,579 $207,414 CZ08-2 LADWP 217,171 0 42.0 $302,856 $222,066 $510,270 0.7 1.7 ($80,790) $207,414 CZ09 SCE 220,010 0 43.2 $302,856 $387,977 $505,783 1.3 1.7 $85,122 $202,928 CZ09-2 LADWP 220,010 0 43.2 $302,856 $226,516 $505,783 0.7 1.7 ($76,340) $202,928 CZ10 SDG&E 217,148 0 42.5 $302,856 $632,726 $485,451 2.1 1.6 $329,870 $182,595 CZ10-2 SCE 217,148 0 42.5 $302,856 $394,884 $485,451 1.3 1.6 $92,028 $182,595 CZ11 PG&E 211,556 0 40.9 $302,856 $671,691 $478,912 2.2 1.6 $368,835 $176,056 CZ12 PG&E 211,824 0 40.9 $302,856 $653,242 $478,101 2.2 1.6 $350,386 $175,245 CZ12-2 SMUD 211,824 0 40.9 $302,856 $345,255 $478,101 1.1 1.6 $42,399 $175,245 CZ13 PG&E 208,465 0 40.5 $302,856 $651,952 $462,732 2.2 1.5 $349,096 $159,876 CZ14 SDG&E 241,965 0 46.7 $302,856 $659,487 $566,351 2.2 1.9 $356,632 $263,496 CZ14-2 SCE 241,965 0 46.7 $302,856 $401,712 $566,351 1.3 1.9 $98,856 $263,496 CZ15 SCE 229,456 0 43.9 $302,856 $378,095 $520,102 1.2 1.7 $75,239 $217,246 CZ16 PG&E 229,317 0 44.8 $302,856 $707,095 $489,508 2.3 1.6 $404,239 $186,652 CZ16-2 LADWP 229,317 0 44.8 $302,856 $223,057 $489,508 0.7 1.6 ($79,799) $186,652 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 74 2019-07-25 Figure 57. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 176,903 0 35.3 $330,756 $525,948 $381,450 1.6 1.2 $195,192 $50,694 CZ02 PG&E 214,861 0 42.6 $330,756 $665,864 $472,898 2.0 1.4 $335,108 $142,142 CZ03 PG&E 209,255 0 41.8 $330,756 $644,170 $451,611 1.9 1.4 $313,414 $120,855 CZ04 PG&E 227,076 0 45.0 $330,756 $685,605 $502,108 2.1 1.5 $354,849 $171,352 CZ04-2 CPAU 227,076 0 45.0 $330,756 $536,463 $502,108 1.6 1.5 $205,707 $171,352 CZ05 PG&E 225,752 0 45.1 $330,756 $753,558 $487,742 2.3 1.5 $422,803 $156,986 CZ06 SCE 217,939 0 43.4 $330,756 $401,356 $494,042 1.2 1.5 $70,601 $163,286 CZ06-2 LADWP 217,939 0 43.4 $330,756 $233,673 $494,042 0.7 1.5 ($97,083) $163,286 CZ07 SDG&E 222,746 0 44.4 $330,756 $628,383 $498,147 1.9 1.5 $297,627 $167,391 CZ08 SCE 216,724 0 43.1 $330,756 $389,184 $511,511 1.2 1.5 $58,428 $180,755 CZ08-2 LADWP 216,724 0 43.1 $330,756 $221,839 $511,511 0.7 1.5 ($108,917) $180,755 CZ09 SCE 219,563 0 44.2 $330,756 $387,728 $506,929 1.2 1.5 $56,972 $176,173 CZ09-2 LADWP 219,563 0 44.2 $330,756 $226,303 $506,929 0.7 1.5 ($104,453) $176,173 CZ10 SDG&E 216,700 0 43.5 $330,756 $638,040 $486,644 1.9 1.5 $307,284 $155,888 CZ10-2 SCE 216,700 0 43.5 $330,756 $394,633 $486,644 1.2 1.5 $63,877 $155,888 CZ11 PG&E 211,129 0 41.9 $330,756 $670,932 $481,298 2.0 1.5 $340,177 $150,543 CZ12 PG&E 211,386 0 41.9 $330,756 $652,465 $482,826 2.0 1.5 $321,709 $152,070 CZ12-2 SMUD 211,386 0 41.9 $330,756 $344,668 $482,826 1.0 1.5 $13,913 $152,070 CZ13 PG&E 208,045 0 41.5 $330,756 $651,191 $473,280 2.0 1.4 $320,435 $142,524 CZ14 SDG&E 241,502 0 47.7 $330,756 $672,601 $569,454 2.0 1.7 $341,846 $238,698 CZ14-2 SCE 241,502 0 47.7 $330,756 $401,450 $569,454 1.2 1.7 $70,694 $238,698 CZ15 SCE 229,062 0 44.8 $330,756 $377,827 $521,963 1.1 1.6 $47,071 $191,208 CZ16 PG&E 228,825 0 45.9 $330,756 $706,201 $496,190 2.1 1.5 $375,445 $165,434 CZ16-2 LADWP 228,825 0 45.9 $330,756 $222,802 $496,190 0.7 1.5 ($107,953) $165,434 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 75 2019-07-25 Figure 58. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office– All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ01 PG&E -49,716 4967 10.9 ($80,523) ($84,765) ($49,972) 0.9 1.6 ($4,242) $30,551 CZ02 PG&E -44,899 3868 6.0 ($66,965) ($83,115) ($30,928) 0.8 2.2 ($16,150) $36,037 CZ03 PG&E -31,226 3142 6.5 ($75,600) ($39,441) ($19,617) 1.9 3.9 $36,159 $55,983 CZ04 PG&E -43,772 3759 5.7 ($62,282) ($70,999) ($29,496) 0.9 2.1 ($8,717) $32,786 CZ04-2 CPAU -43,772 3759 5.7 ($62,282) ($8,050) ($29,496) 7.7 2.1 $54,232 $32,786 CZ05 PG&E -35,504 3240 5.5 ($77,773) ($42,559) ($29,162) 1.8 2.7 $35,214 $48,611 CZ06 SCE -21,321 2117 4.0 ($69,422) $35,862 ($9,641) >1 7.2 $105,284 $59,781 CZ06-2 LADWP -21,321 2117 4.0 ($69,422) $32,936 ($9,641) >1 7.2 $102,358 $59,781 CZ07 SDG&E -7,943 950 1.9 ($63,595) $64,781 ($382) >1 166.6 $128,376 $63,214 CZ08 SCE -10,854 1219 2.5 ($62,043) $28,651 ($1,289) >1 48.1 $90,694 $60,755 CZ08-2 LADWP -10,854 1219 2.5 ($62,043) $25,122 ($1,289) >1 48.1 $87,165 $60,755 CZ09 SCE -14,878 1605 3.3 ($56,372) $31,542 ($3,246) >1 17.4 $87,913 $53,126 CZ09-2 LADWP -14,878 1605 3.3 ($56,372) $28,145 ($3,246) >1 17.4 $84,517 $53,126 CZ10 SDG&E -22,588 2053 3.1 ($41,171) $59,752 ($12,553) >1 3.3 $100,924 $28,619 CZ10-2 SCE -22,588 2053 3.1 ($41,171) $32,039 ($12,553) >1 3.3 $73,211 $28,619 CZ11 PG&E -35,455 3062 4.5 ($57,257) ($53,776) ($22,194) 1.1 2.6 $3,481 $35,063 CZ12 PG&E -38,704 3327 5.0 ($61,613) ($66,808) ($24,819) 0.9 2.5 ($5,195) $36,794 CZ12-2 SMUD -38,704 3327 5.0 ($61,613) $2,897 ($24,819) >1 2.5 $64,510 $36,794 CZ13 PG&E -35,016 3063 4.7 ($55,996) ($52,159) ($22,146) 1.1 2.5 $3,836 $33,849 CZ14 SDG&E -38,945 3266 4.5 ($58,426) $24,867 ($25,821) >1 2.3 $83,293 $32,605 CZ14-2 SCE -38,945 3266 4.5 ($58,426) $15,338 ($25,821) >1 2.3 $73,764 $32,605 CZ15 SCE -14,818 1537 2.8 ($29,445) $22,852 ($3,914) >1 7.5 $52,298 $25,532 CZ16 PG&E -88,966 6185 6.6 ($57,366) ($193,368) ($139,989) 0.3 0.4 ($136,002) ($82,623) CZ16-2 LADWP -88,966 6185 6.6 ($57,366) $36,354 ($139,989) >1 0.4 $93,720 ($82,623) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 76 2019-07-25 Figure 59. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E -49,716 4967 10.9 ($78,897) ($84,765) ($49,972) 0.9 1.6 ($5,868) $28,925 CZ02 PG&E -44,899 3868 6.0 ($78,897) ($83,115) ($30,928) 0.9 2.6 ($4,218) $47,969 CZ03 PG&E -31,226 3142 6.5 ($78,897) ($39,441) ($19,617) 2.0 4.0 $39,456 $59,280 CZ04 PG&E -43,772 3759 5.7 ($78,897) ($70,999) ($29,496) 1.1 2.7 $7,898 $49,400 CZ04-2 CPAU -43,772 3759 5.7 ($78,897) ($8,050) ($29,496) 9.8 2.7 $70,847 $49,400 CZ05 PG&E -35,504 3240 5.5 ($78,897) ($42,559) ($29,162) 1.9 2.7 $36,338 $49,735 CZ06 SCE -21,321 2117 4.0 ($78,897) $35,862 ($9,641) >1 8.2 $114,759 $69,256 CZ06-2 LADWP -21,321 2117 4.0 ($78,897) $32,936 ($9,641) >1 8.2 $111,833 $69,256 CZ07 SDG&E -7,943 950 1.9 ($78,897) $64,781 ($382) >1 206.6 $143,678 $78,515 CZ08 SCE -10,854 1219 2.5 ($78,897) $28,651 ($1,289) >1 61.2 $107,548 $77,608 CZ08-2 LADWP -10,854 1219 2.5 ($78,897) $25,122 ($1,289) >1 61.2 $104,019 $77,608 CZ09 SCE -14,878 1605 3.3 ($78,897) $31,542 ($3,246) >1 24.3 $110,439 $75,651 CZ09-2 LADWP -14,878 1605 3.3 ($78,897) $28,145 ($3,246) >1 24.3 $107,042 $75,651 CZ10 SDG&E -22,588 2053 3.1 ($78,897) $59,752 ($12,553) >1 6.3 $138,649 $66,344 CZ10-2 SCE -22,588 2053 3.1 ($78,897) $32,039 ($12,553) >1 6.3 $110,936 $66,344 CZ11 PG&E -35,455 3062 4.5 ($78,897) ($53,776) ($22,194) 1.5 3.6 $25,121 $56,703 CZ12 PG&E -38,704 3327 5.0 ($78,897) ($66,808) ($24,819) 1.2 3.2 $12,089 $54,078 CZ12-2 SMUD -38,704 3327 5.0 ($78,897) $2,897 ($24,819) >1 3.2 $81,794 $54,078 CZ13 PG&E -35,016 3063 4.7 ($78,897) ($52,159) ($22,146) 1.5 3.6 $26,738 $56,751 CZ14 SDG&E -38,945 3266 4.5 ($78,897) $24,867 ($25,821) >1 3.1 $103,764 $53,076 CZ14-2 SCE -38,945 3266 4.5 ($78,897) $15,338 ($25,821) >1 3.1 $94,235 $53,076 CZ15 SCE -14,818 1537 2.8 ($78,897) $22,852 ($3,914) >1 20.2 $101,749 $74,983 CZ16 PG&E -88,966 6185 6.6 ($78,897) ($193,368) ($139,989) 0.4 0.6 ($114,472) ($61,092) CZ16-2 LADWP -88,966 6185 6.6 ($78,897) $36,354 ($139,989) >1 0.6 $115,250 ($61,092) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 77 2019-07-25 Figure 60. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 135kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 135kW PV CZ01 PG&E 123,683 4967 44.5 $163,217 $405,731 $321,979 2.5 2.0 $242,514 $158,762 CZ02 PG&E 165,627 3868 46.6 $176,775 $562,528 $430,276 3.2 2.4 $385,753 $253,501 CZ03 PG&E 173,831 3142 46.3 $168,140 $575,864 $420,205 3.4 2.5 $407,725 $252,066 CZ04 PG&E 178,706 3759 48.7 $181,458 $601,431 $456,861 3.3 2.5 $419,973 $275,403 CZ04-2 CPAU 178,706 3759 48.7 $181,458 $517,526 $456,861 2.9 2.5 $336,069 $275,403 CZ05 PG&E 185,664 3240 48.6 $165,967 $664,842 $446,600 4.0 2.7 $498,875 $280,633 CZ06 SCE 192,214 2117 45.3 $174,317 $423,657 $471,944 2.4 2.7 $249,340 $297,626 CZ06-2 LADWP 192,214 2117 45.3 $174,317 $259,270 $471,944 1.5 2.7 $84,953 $297,626 CZ07 SDG&E 210,282 950 44.3 $180,145 $669,979 $485,260 3.7 2.7 $489,834 $305,115 CZ08 SCE 201,491 1219 43.5 $181,696 $407,277 $497,622 2.2 2.7 $225,580 $315,925 CZ08-2 LADWP 201,491 1219 43.5 $181,696 $240,657 $497,622 1.3 2.7 $58,960 $315,925 CZ09 SCE 200,242 1605 45.6 $187,368 $408,922 $491,322 2.2 2.6 $221,554 $303,953 CZ09-2 LADWP 200,242 1605 45.6 $187,368 $248,452 $491,322 1.3 2.6 $61,084 $303,953 CZ10 SDG&E 189,734 2053 44.7 $202,568 $667,551 $462,111 3.3 2.3 $464,982 $259,543 CZ10-2 SCE 189,734 2053 44.7 $202,568 $412,659 $462,111 2.0 2.3 $210,091 $259,543 CZ11 PG&E 171,399 3062 44.5 $186,483 $597,807 $446,074 3.2 2.4 $411,324 $259,592 CZ12 PG&E 168,413 3327 45.0 $182,127 $571,758 $442,638 3.1 2.4 $389,632 $260,511 CZ12-2 SMUD 168,413 3327 45.0 $182,127 $343,602 $442,638 1.9 2.4 $161,475 $260,511 CZ13 PG&E 168,817 3063 44.3 $187,744 $581,964 $430,324 3.1 2.3 $394,220 $242,580 CZ14 SDG&E 197,643 3266 50.1 $185,314 $667,762 $527,930 3.6 2.8 $482,449 $342,616 CZ14-2 SCE 197,643 3266 50.1 $185,314 $408,424 $527,930 2.2 2.8 $223,110 $342,616 CZ15 SCE 209,539 1537 45.7 $214,294 $390,267 $504,638 1.8 2.4 $175,972 $290,343 CZ16 PG&E 135,255 6185 50.4 $186,374 $470,199 $338,637 2.5 1.8 $283,825 $152,263 CZ16-2 LADWP 135,255 6185 50.4 $186,374 $250,807 $338,637 1.3 1.8 $64,433 $152,263 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 78 2019-07-25 Figure 61. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 123,280 4967 45.4 $191,117 $404,994 $323,077 2.1 1.7 $213,877 $131,960 CZ02 PG&E 165,200 3868 47.7 $204,675 $561,747 $431,469 2.7 2.1 $357,072 $226,795 CZ03 PG&E 173,384 3142 47.4 $196,040 $575,043 $422,019 2.9 2.2 $379,003 $225,979 CZ04 PG&E 178,259 3759 49.8 $209,358 $600,621 $461,634 2.9 2.2 $391,263 $252,276 CZ04-2 CPAU 178,259 3759 49.8 $209,358 $516,495 $461,634 2.5 2.2 $307,137 $252,276 CZ05 PG&E 185,229 3240 49.7 $193,867 $664,046 $447,793 3.4 2.3 $470,179 $253,926 CZ06 SCE 191,767 2117 46.5 $202,217 $423,369 $473,519 2.1 2.3 $221,152 $271,301 CZ06-2 LADWP 191,767 2117 46.5 $202,217 $259,033 $473,519 1.3 2.3 $56,816 $271,301 CZ07 SDG&E 209,848 950 45.4 $208,045 $675,307 $486,787 3.2 2.3 $467,262 $278,743 CZ08 SCE 201,047 1219 44.7 $209,596 $407,027 $498,910 1.9 2.4 $197,430 $289,314 CZ08-2 LADWP 201,047 1219 44.7 $209,596 $240,432 $498,910 1.1 2.4 $30,835 $289,314 CZ09 SCE 199,802 1605 46.6 $215,268 $408,676 $492,515 1.9 2.3 $193,408 $277,246 CZ09-2 LADWP 199,802 1605 46.6 $215,268 $248,242 $492,515 1.2 2.3 $32,974 $277,246 CZ10 SDG&E 189,293 2053 45.7 $230,468 $672,867 $463,352 2.9 2.0 $442,399 $232,884 CZ10-2 SCE 189,293 2053 45.7 $230,468 $412,412 $463,352 1.8 2.0 $181,944 $232,884 CZ11 PG&E 170,987 3062 45.5 $214,383 $597,062 $448,509 2.8 2.1 $382,680 $234,126 CZ12 PG&E 167,995 3327 46.0 $210,027 $571,002 $447,411 2.7 2.1 $360,975 $237,384 CZ12-2 SMUD 167,995 3327 46.0 $210,027 $343,043 $447,411 1.6 2.1 $133,017 $237,384 CZ13 PG&E 168,408 3063 45.3 $215,644 $581,225 $440,920 2.7 2.0 $365,580 $225,275 CZ14 SDG&E 197,188 3266 51.2 $213,214 $680,893 $531,080 3.2 2.5 $467,679 $317,866 CZ14-2 SCE 197,188 3266 51.2 $213,214 $408,166 $531,080 1.9 2.5 $194,952 $317,866 CZ15 SCE 209,148 1537 46.6 $242,194 $390,000 $506,499 1.6 2.1 $147,806 $264,305 CZ16 PG&E 134,809 6185 51.4 $214,274 $469,378 $341,978 2.2 1.6 $255,105 $127,704 CZ16-2 LADWP 134,809 6185 51.4 $214,274 $250,580 $341,978 1.2 1.6 $36,306 $127,704 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 79 2019-07-25 6.7.2 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail Figure 62 through Figure 69 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Retail packages. Notable findings for each package include: ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for all climate zones using the On-Bill and TDV approaches. ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: The packages are less cost effective as compared to the 3 kW PV only package and not cost effective for LADWP and SMUD service area. ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV only: Packages achieve positive energy cost savings and are cost effective using the On-Bill approach for all climate zones except for LADWP territory (CZs 6, 8, 9 and 16). Packages achieve positive savings and are cost effective using the TDV approach for all climate zones. ♦ Mixed Fuel + PV + 5 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces On-Bill B/C ratios but is still cost effective for all climate zones except for LADWP territory. Packages achieve savings and cost effective using the TDV approach for all climate zones. ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV: Packages are cost effective using the On-Bill and TDV approach for all climate zones except for CZ16 under PG&E service. ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: Similar to minimal PV only package, adding battery is cost effective as well using the On-Bill and TDV approach for all climate zones except for CZ16 under PG&E service. ♦ All-Electric + PV only: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings in all climate zones for both the On-Bill and TDV approaches ♦ All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces B/C ratios for both the On-Bill and TDV approaches. Packages are not cost effective for all climate zones except CZ6, CZ8 and CZ9 under LADWP service area. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 80 2019-07-25 Figure 62. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 3kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.76 $5,566 $12,616 $8,460 2.3 1.5 $7,050 $2,894 CZ02 PG&E 4,685 0 0.91 $5,566 $17,635 $10,262 3.2 1.8 $12,069 $4,696 CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.92 $5,566 $15,146 $10,152 2.7 1.8 $9,580 $4,586 CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 0.94 $5,566 $18,519 $10,614 3.3 1.9 $12,953 $5,048 CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 0.94 $5,566 $11,507 $10,614 2.1 1.9 $5,941 $5,048 CZ05 PG&E 4,910 0 0.95 $5,566 $15,641 $10,548 2.8 1.9 $10,075 $4,982 CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.93 $5,566 $11,374 $10,724 2.0 1.9 $5,808 $5,158 CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.93 $5,566 $7,069 $10,724 1.3 1.9 $1,503 $5,158 CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 0.96 $5,566 $22,452 $11,031 4.0 2.0 $16,886 $5,465 CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.93 $5,566 $11,838 $11,339 2.1 2.0 $6,272 $5,773 CZ08-2 LA 4,826 0 0.93 $5,566 $7,342 $11,339 1.3 2.0 $1,776 $5,773 CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 0.96 $5,566 $11,187 $11,229 2.0 2.0 $5,621 $5,663 CZ09-2 LA 4,889 0 0.96 $5,566 $6,728 $11,229 1.2 2.0 $1,162 $5,663 CZ10 SDG&E 4,948 0 0.97 $5,566 $20,999 $10,987 3.8 2.0 $15,433 $5,421 CZ10-2 SCE 4,948 0 0.97 $5,566 $11,384 $10,987 2.0 2.0 $5,818 $5,421 CZ11 PG&E 4,718 0 0.91 $5,566 $15,381 $10,680 2.8 1.9 $9,815 $5,114 CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.91 $5,566 $16,442 $10,614 3.0 1.9 $10,876 $5,048 CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.91 $5,566 $8,247 $10,614 1.5 1.9 $2,681 $5,048 CZ13 PG&E 4,750 0 0.92 $5,566 $16,638 $10,592 3.0 1.9 $11,072 $5,026 CZ14 SDG&E 5,258 0 1.01 $5,566 $19,576 $12,218 3.5 2.2 $14,010 $6,652 CZ14-2 SCE 5,258 0 1.01 $5,566 $10,227 $12,218 1.8 2.2 $4,661 $6,652 CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 0.96 $5,566 $10,476 $11,339 1.9 2.0 $4,910 $5,773 CZ16 PG&E 5,336 0 1.04 $5,566 $20,418 $11,361 3.7 2.0 $14,852 $5,795 CZ16-2 LA 5,336 0 1.04 $5,566 $6,987 $11,361 1.3 2.0 $1,421 $5,795 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 81 2019-07-25 Figure 63. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.76 $9,520 $12,616 $8,460 1.3 0.9 $3,096 ($1,060) CZ02 PG&E 4,685 0 0.91 $9,520 $17,635 $10,262 1.9 1.1 $8,115 $742 CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.92 $9,520 $15,146 $10,152 1.6 1.1 $5,626 $632 CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 0.94 $9,520 $18,519 $10,614 1.9 1.1 $8,999 $1,094 CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 0.94 $9,520 $11,507 $10,614 1.2 1.1 $1,987 $1,094 CZ05 PG&E 4,910 0 0.95 $9,520 $15,641 $10,548 1.6 1.1 $6,120 $1,028 CZ05-2 SCG 4,910 0 0.95 $9,520 $15,641 $10,548 1.6 1.1 $6,120 $1,028 CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.93 $9,520 $11,374 $10,724 1.2 1.1 $1,854 $1,204 CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.93 $9,520 $7,069 $10,724 0.7 1.1 ($2,452) $1,204 CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 0.96 $9,520 $22,452 $11,031 2.4 1.2 $12,932 $1,511 CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.93 $9,520 $11,838 $11,339 1.2 1.2 $2,317 $1,819 CZ08-2 LA 4,826 0 0.93 $9,520 $7,342 $11,339 0.8 1.2 ($2,178) $1,819 CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 0.96 $9,520 $11,187 $11,229 1.2 1.2 $1,667 $1,709 CZ09-2 LA 4,889 0 0.96 $9,520 $6,728 $11,229 0.7 1.2 ($2,792) $1,709 CZ10 SDG&E 4,948 0 0.97 $9,520 $20,999 $10,987 2.2 1.2 $11,479 $1,467 CZ10-2 SCE 4,948 0 0.97 $9,520 $11,384 $10,987 1.2 1.2 $1,863 $1,467 CZ11 PG&E 4,718 0 0.91 $9,520 $15,381 $10,680 1.6 1.1 $5,861 $1,160 CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.91 $9,520 $16,442 $10,614 1.7 1.1 $6,922 $1,094 CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.91 $9,520 $8,247 $10,614 0.9 1.1 ($1,273) $1,094 CZ13 PG&E 4,750 0 0.92 $9,520 $16,638 $10,592 1.7 1.1 $7,117 $1,072 CZ14 SDG&E 5,258 0 1.01 $9,520 $19,576 $12,218 2.1 1.3 $10,056 $2,698 CZ14-2 SCE 5,258 0 1.01 $9,520 $10,227 $12,218 1.1 1.3 $707 $2,698 CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 0.96 $9,520 $10,476 $11,339 1.1 1.2 $956 $1,819 CZ16 PG&E 5,336 0 1.04 $9,520 $20,418 $11,361 2.1 1.2 $10,898 $1,841 CZ16-2 LA 5,336 0 1.04 $9,520 $6,987 $11,361 0.7 1.2 ($2,533) $1,841 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 82 2019-07-25 Figure 64. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 110kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 110kW PV CZ01 PG&E 144,499 0 27.97 $201,904 $454,462 $309,935 2.3 1.5 $252,558 $108,031 CZ02 PG&E 171,790 0 33.31 $201,904 $477,584 $376,300 2.4 1.9 $275,681 $174,396 CZ03 PG&E 173,534 0 33.55 $201,904 $538,530 $372,146 2.7 1.8 $336,626 $170,243 CZ04 PG&E 177,229 0 34.42 $201,904 $489,934 $389,067 2.4 1.9 $288,030 $187,163 CZ04-2 CPAU 177,229 0 34.42 $201,904 $418,173 $389,067 2.1 1.9 $216,269 $187,163 CZ05 PG&E 180,044 0 34.84 $201,904 $556,787 $386,958 2.8 1.9 $354,883 $185,054 CZ06 SCE 174,855 0 33.92 $201,904 $288,188 $393,198 1.4 1.9 $86,284 $191,295 CZ06-2 LA 174,855 0 33.92 $201,904 $165,538 $393,198 0.8 1.9 ($36,366) $191,295 CZ07 SDG&E 181,854 0 35.32 $201,904 $373,974 $404,713 1.9 2.0 $172,070 $202,809 CZ08 SCE 176,954 0 34.23 $201,904 $284,481 $415,789 1.4 2.1 $82,577 $213,885 CZ08-2 LA 176,954 0 34.23 $201,904 $161,366 $415,789 0.8 2.1 ($40,538) $213,885 CZ09 SCE 179,267 0 35.18 $201,904 $289,050 $412,097 1.4 2.0 $87,146 $210,193 CZ09-2 LA 179,267 0 35.18 $201,904 $168,822 $412,097 0.8 2.0 ($33,082) $210,193 CZ10 SDG&E 181,443 0 35.41 $201,904 $410,310 $402,999 2.0 2.0 $208,406 $201,095 CZ10-2 SCE 181,443 0 35.41 $201,904 $291,236 $402,999 1.4 2.0 $89,332 $201,095 CZ11 PG&E 172,983 0 33.46 $201,904 $464,776 $391,550 2.3 1.9 $262,872 $189,646 CZ12 PG&E 172,597 0 33.33 $201,904 $467,870 $389,573 2.3 1.9 $265,966 $187,669 CZ12-2 SMUD 172,597 0 33.33 $201,904 $267,086 $389,573 1.3 1.9 $65,182 $187,669 CZ13 PG&E 174,151 0 33.81 $201,904 $478,857 $387,968 2.4 1.9 $276,953 $186,065 CZ14 SDG&E 192,789 0 36.97 $201,904 $396,181 $448,268 2.0 2.2 $194,277 $246,364 CZ14-2 SCE 192,789 0 36.97 $201,904 $288,782 $448,268 1.4 2.2 $86,878 $246,364 CZ15 SCE 183,214 0 35.12 $201,904 $277,867 $415,789 1.4 2.1 $75,963 $213,885 CZ16 PG&E 195,665 0 37.97 $201,904 $522,352 $416,558 2.6 2.1 $320,448 $214,654 CZ16-2 LA 195,665 0 37.97 $201,904 $171,802 $416,558 0.9 2.1 ($30,101) $214,654 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 83 2019-07-25 Figure 65. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 110 kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 110kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 143,423 0 29.48 $229,804 $452,119 $324,373 2.0 1.4 $222,315 $94,569 CZ02 PG&E 170,542 0 35.14 $229,804 $486,704 $398,363 2.1 1.7 $256,900 $168,559 CZ03 PG&E 172,266 0 35.66 $229,804 $535,974 $395,374 2.3 1.7 $306,170 $165,570 CZ04 PG&E 175,940 0 36.32 $229,804 $525,788 $422,579 2.3 1.8 $295,984 $192,775 CZ04-2 CPAU 175,940 0 36.32 $229,804 $416,019 $422,579 1.8 1.8 $186,216 $192,775 CZ05 PG&E 178,728 0 36.91 $229,804 $554,968 $409,086 2.4 1.8 $325,164 $179,283 CZ06 SCE 173,567 0 35.99 $229,804 $290,599 $412,690 1.3 1.8 $60,795 $182,886 CZ06-2 LA 173,567 0 35.99 $229,804 $169,786 $412,690 0.7 1.8 ($60,018) $182,886 CZ07 SDG&E 180,508 0 37.61 $229,804 $425,793 $427,040 1.9 1.9 $195,989 $197,236 CZ08 SCE 175,616 0 36.29 $229,804 $296,318 $434,687 1.3 1.9 $66,514 $204,883 CZ08-2 LA 175,616 0 36.29 $229,804 $170,489 $434,687 0.7 1.9 ($59,315) $204,883 CZ09 SCE 177,966 0 36.74 $229,804 $300,540 $421,195 1.3 1.8 $70,736 $191,391 CZ09-2 LA 177,966 0 36.74 $229,804 $178,852 $421,195 0.8 1.8 ($50,952) $191,391 CZ10 SDG&E 180,248 0 36.91 $229,804 $459,486 $410,537 2.0 1.8 $229,683 $180,733 CZ10-2 SCE 180,248 0 36.91 $229,804 $301,219 $410,537 1.3 1.8 $71,415 $180,733 CZ11 PG&E 171,779 0 34.85 $229,804 $490,245 $417,679 2.1 1.8 $260,442 $187,875 CZ12 PG&E 171,392 0 34.77 $229,804 $497,363 $417,371 2.2 1.8 $267,559 $187,567 CZ12-2 SMUD 171,392 0 34.77 $229,804 $273,783 $417,371 1.2 1.8 $43,979 $187,567 CZ13 PG&E 173,052 0 34.97 $229,804 $488,196 $397,791 2.1 1.7 $258,392 $167,987 CZ14 SDG&E 191,703 0 38.31 $229,804 $420,241 $452,641 1.8 2.0 $190,437 $222,837 CZ14-2 SCE 191,703 0 38.31 $229,804 $294,010 $452,641 1.3 2.0 $64,206 $222,837 CZ15 SCE 182,299 0 36.01 $229,804 $279,036 $416,382 1.2 1.8 $49,232 $186,578 CZ16 PG&E 194,293 0 40.00 $229,804 $535,137 $432,951 2.3 1.9 $305,333 $203,147 CZ16-2 LA 194,293 0 40.00 $229,804 $175,573 $432,951 0.8 1.9 ($54,231) $203,147 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 84 2019-07-25 Figure 66. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ01 PG&E -25,214 3893 14.61 ($16,318) $4,288 ($5,450) >1 3.0 $20,606 $10,868 CZ02 PG&E -17,101 2448 8.40 ($20,734) $859 $5,779 >1 >1 $21,593 $26,513 CZ03 PG&E -9,851 1868 7.18 ($17,381) $15,418 $8,702 >1 >1 $32,799 $26,083 CZ04 PG&E -9,353 1706 6.24 ($16,166) $9,110 $10,394 >1 >1 $25,276 $26,560 CZ04-2 CPAU -9,353 1706 6.24 ($16,166) $24,000 $10,394 >1 >1 $40,166 $26,560 CZ05 PG&E -9,423 1746 6.42 ($18,776) $14,076 $6,351 >1 >1 $32,852 $25,127 CZ06 SCE -2,759 1002 4.24 ($15,032) $29,710 $12,592 >1 >1 $44,741 $27,623 CZ06-2 LA -2,759 1002 4.24 ($15,032) $26,292 $12,592 >1 >1 $41,324 $27,623 CZ07 SDG&E 1,148 522 2.72 ($17,032) $76,810 $12,350 >1 >1 $93,842 $29,382 CZ08 SCE -979 793 3.64 ($20,192) $28,576 $13,185 >1 >1 $48,768 $33,377 CZ08-2 LA -979 793 3.64 ($20,192) $24,475 $13,185 >1 >1 $44,667 $33,377 CZ09 SCE -2,352 970 4.28 ($25,383) $29,776 $13,207 >1 >1 $55,159 $38,590 CZ09-2 LA -2,352 970 4.28 ($25,383) $25,823 $13,207 >1 >1 $51,207 $38,590 CZ10 SDG&E -5,388 1262 4.95 ($20,541) $75,458 $11,493 >1 >1 $95,999 $32,034 CZ10-2 SCE -5,388 1262 4.95 ($20,541) $32,394 $11,493 >1 >1 $52,936 $32,034 CZ11 PG&E -14,533 2415 8.86 ($25,471) $7,618 $13,295 >1 >1 $33,090 $38,766 CZ12 PG&E -14,764 2309 8.19 ($25,774) $2,210 $10,152 >1 >1 $27,984 $35,926 CZ12-2 SMUD -14,764 2309 8.19 ($25,774) $21,215 $10,152 >1 >1 $46,988 $35,926 CZ13 PG&E -12,069 1983 7.08 ($21,428) $5,647 $8,570 >1 >1 $27,075 $29,998 CZ14 SDG&E -7,950 1672 6.45 ($19,926) $60,412 $16,679 >1 >1 $80,338 $36,605 CZ14-2 SCE -7,950 1672 6.45 ($19,926) $28,631 $16,679 >1 >1 $48,557 $36,605 CZ15 SCE 2,534 518 3.10 ($22,813) $27,271 $17,162 >1 >1 $50,084 $39,976 CZ16 PG&E -36,081 4304 14.26 ($19,041) ($30,111) ($41,181) 0.6 0.5 ($11,070) ($22,140) CZ16-2 LA -36,081 4304 14.26 ($19,041) $45,706 ($41,181) >1 0.5 $64,747 ($22,140) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 85 2019-07-25 Figure 67. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E -25,214 3893 14.61 ($14,692) $4,288 ($5,450) >1 2.7 $18,980 $9,242 CZ02 PG&E -17,101 2448 8.40 ($14,692) $859 $5,779 >1 >1 $15,551 $20,472 CZ03 PG&E -9,851 1868 7.18 ($14,692) $15,418 $8,702 >1 >1 $30,110 $23,394 CZ04 PG&E -9,353 1706 6.24 ($14,692) $9,110 $10,394 >1 >1 $23,802 $25,086 CZ04-2 CPAU -9,353 1706 6.24 ($14,692) $24,000 $10,394 >1 >1 $38,693 $25,086 CZ05 PG&E -9,423 1746 6.42 ($14,692) $14,076 $6,351 >1 >1 $28,768 $21,043 CZ06 SCE -2,759 1002 4.24 ($14,692) $29,710 $12,592 >1 >1 $44,402 $27,284 CZ06-2 LA -2,759 1002 4.24 ($14,692) $26,292 $12,592 >1 >1 $40,984 $27,284 CZ07 SDG&E 1,148 522 2.72 ($14,692) $76,810 $12,350 >1 >1 $91,502 $27,042 CZ08 SCE -979 793 3.64 ($14,692) $28,576 $13,185 >1 >1 $43,268 $27,877 CZ08-2 LA -979 793 3.64 ($14,692) $24,475 $13,185 >1 >1 $39,167 $27,877 CZ09 SCE -2,352 970 4.28 ($14,692) $29,776 $13,207 >1 >1 $44,468 $27,899 CZ09-2 LA -2,352 970 4.28 ($14,692) $25,823 $13,207 >1 >1 $40,516 $27,899 CZ10 SDG&E -5,388 1262 4.95 ($14,692) $75,458 $11,493 >1 >1 $90,150 $26,185 CZ10-2 SCE -5,388 1262 4.95 ($14,692) $32,394 $11,493 >1 >1 $47,086 $26,185 CZ11 PG&E -14,533 2415 8.86 ($14,692) $7,618 $13,295 >1 >1 $22,310 $27,987 CZ12 PG&E -14,764 2309 8.19 ($14,692) $2,210 $10,152 >1 >1 $16,902 $24,845 CZ12-2 SMUD -14,764 2309 8.19 ($14,692) $21,215 $10,152 >1 >1 $35,907 $24,845 CZ13 PG&E -12,069 1983 7.08 ($14,692) $5,647 $8,570 >1 >1 $20,339 $23,262 CZ14 SDG&E -7,950 1672 6.45 ($14,692) $60,412 $16,679 >1 >1 $75,104 $31,371 CZ14-2 SCE -7,950 1672 6.45 ($14,692) $28,631 $16,679 >1 >1 $43,323 $31,371 CZ15 SCE 2,534 518 3.10 ($14,692) $27,271 $17,162 >1 >1 $41,963 $31,855 CZ16 PG&E -36,081 4304 14.26 ($14,692) ($30,111) ($41,181) 0.5 0.4 ($15,419) ($26,489) CZ16-2 LA -36,081 4304 14.26 ($14,692) $45,706 ($41,181) >1 0.4 $60,398 ($26,489) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 86 2019-07-25 Figure 68. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 110kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 110kW PV CZ01 PG&E 115,344 3893 41.82 $143,932 $454,277 $296,025 3.2 2.1 $310,345 $152,093 CZ02 PG&E 150,004 2448 40.80 $139,516 $470,236 $371,817 3.4 2.7 $330,720 $232,301 CZ03 PG&E 158,951 1868 39.82 $142,869 $544,095 $370,696 3.8 2.6 $401,226 $227,827 CZ04 PG&E 163,043 1706 39.73 $144,084 $488,619 $388,847 3.4 2.7 $344,534 $244,763 CZ04-2 CPAU 163,043 1706 39.73 $144,084 $432,905 $388,847 3.0 2.7 $288,821 $244,763 CZ05 PG&E 165,711 1746 40.30 $141,473 $565,525 $382,760 4.0 2.7 $424,051 $241,287 CZ06 SCE 167,328 1002 37.24 $145,218 $306,670 $395,066 2.1 2.7 $161,452 $249,848 CZ06-2 LA 167,328 1002 37.24 $145,218 $184,797 $395,066 1.3 2.7 $39,579 $249,848 CZ07 SDG&E 178,042 522 37.07 $143,218 $428,332 $406,032 3.0 2.8 $285,114 $262,814 CZ08 SCE 171,149 793 36.94 $140,058 $301,219 $417,635 2.2 3.0 $161,161 $277,577 CZ08-2 LA 171,149 793 36.94 $140,058 $178,419 $417,635 1.3 3.0 $38,361 $277,577 CZ09 SCE 172,027 970 38.50 $134,867 $307,640 $414,075 2.3 3.1 $172,773 $279,208 CZ09-2 LA 172,027 970 38.50 $134,867 $187,813 $414,075 1.4 3.1 $52,946 $279,208 CZ10 SDG&E 171,107 1262 39.40 $139,708 $463,692 $403,505 3.3 2.9 $323,984 $263,796 CZ10-2 SCE 171,107 1262 39.40 $139,708 $311,464 $403,505 2.2 2.9 $171,755 $263,796 CZ11 PG&E 153,732 2415 41.41 $134,778 $467,356 $394,165 3.5 2.9 $332,578 $259,387 CZ12 PG&E 153,126 2309 40.61 $134,476 $467,106 $389,111 3.5 2.9 $332,630 $254,635 CZ12-2 SMUD 153,126 2309 40.61 $134,476 $283,343 $389,111 2.1 2.9 $148,867 $254,635 CZ13 PG&E 157,332 1983 39.97 $138,822 $477,831 $385,947 3.4 2.8 $339,008 $247,124 CZ14 SDG&E 179,582 1672 42.42 $140,324 $437,575 $452,729 3.1 3.2 $297,251 $312,405 CZ14-2 SCE 179,582 1672 42.42 $140,324 $309,064 $452,729 2.2 3.2 $168,740 $312,405 CZ15 SCE 180,751 518 37.26 $137,436 $294,877 $421,612 2.1 3.1 $157,440 $284,176 CZ16 PG&E 154,248 4304 51.20 $141,209 $473,892 $364,016 3.4 2.6 $332,682 $222,807 CZ16-2 LA 154,248 4304 51.20 $141,209 $211,677 $364,016 1.5 2.6 $70,467 $222,807 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 87 2019-07-25 Figure 69. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 110kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 90kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 114,356 3893 43.52 $171,832 $451,043 $310,265 2.6 1.8 $279,211 $138,433 CZ02 PG&E 148,793 2448 42.89 $167,416 $475,081 $394,099 2.8 2.4 $307,664 $226,683 CZ03 PG&E 157,707 1868 42.12 $170,769 $541,418 $394,034 3.2 2.3 $370,649 $223,265 CZ04 PG&E 161,769 1706 41.82 $171,984 $523,603 $422,535 3.0 2.5 $351,618 $250,551 CZ04-2 CPAU 161,769 1706 41.82 $171,984 $430,567 $422,535 2.5 2.5 $258,582 $250,551 CZ05 PG&E 164,408 1746 42.68 $169,373 $561,966 $405,087 3.3 2.4 $392,592 $235,714 CZ06 SCE 166,052 1002 39.48 $173,118 $306,697 $414,756 1.8 2.4 $133,579 $241,638 CZ06-2 LA 166,052 1002 39.48 $173,118 $187,941 $414,756 1.1 2.4 $14,823 $241,638 CZ07 SDG&E 176,705 522 39.47 $171,118 $479,038 $428,490 2.8 2.5 $307,920 $257,372 CZ08 SCE 169,825 793 39.14 $167,958 $312,602 $436,709 1.9 2.6 $144,645 $268,751 CZ08-2 LA 169,825 793 39.14 $167,958 $187,142 $436,709 1.1 2.6 $19,185 $268,751 CZ09 SCE 170,747 970 40.23 $162,767 $318,113 $423,370 2.0 2.6 $155,346 $260,604 CZ09-2 LA 170,747 970 40.23 $162,767 $197,006 $423,370 1.2 2.6 $34,240 $260,604 CZ10 SDG&E 169,935 1262 41.08 $167,608 $503,504 $411,284 3.0 2.5 $335,896 $243,675 CZ10-2 SCE 169,935 1262 41.08 $167,608 $317,927 $411,284 1.9 2.5 $150,319 $243,675 CZ11 PG&E 152,559 2415 42.99 $162,678 $491,775 $420,667 3.0 2.6 $329,096 $257,989 CZ12 PG&E 151,956 2309 42.21 $162,376 $494,703 $417,063 3.0 2.6 $332,327 $254,687 CZ12-2 SMUD 151,956 2309 42.21 $162,376 $288,950 $417,063 1.8 2.6 $126,573 $254,687 CZ13 PG&E 156,271 1983 41.25 $166,722 $485,422 $395,770 2.9 2.4 $318,699 $229,047 CZ14 SDG&E 178,505 1672 43.94 $168,224 $452,456 $457,387 2.7 2.7 $284,232 $289,163 CZ14-2 SCE 178,505 1672 43.94 $168,224 $311,520 $457,387 1.9 2.7 $143,296 $289,163 CZ15 SCE 179,840 518 38.23 $165,336 $296,004 $422,293 1.8 2.6 $130,668 $256,957 CZ16 PG&E 152,965 4304 53.53 $169,109 $483,205 $378,299 2.9 2.2 $314,096 $209,190 CZ16-2 LA 152,965 4304 53.53 $169,109 $215,341 $378,299 1.3 2.2 $46,231 $209,190 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 88 2019-07-25 6.7.3 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel Figure 70 through Figure 77 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Small Hotel packages. Notable findings for each package include: ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for all climate zones for both the On-Bill and TDV approaches. ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: The packages are less cost effective as compared to the previous minimal PV only package and not cost effective for LADWP and SMUD service area. The addition of battery reduces the cost effectiveness of packages. ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV only: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for the On-Bill approach for all climate zones except for LADWP territory. Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for the TDV approach for all climate zones. ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces On-Bill B/C ratios. Packages are not cost effective for LADWP territory, SMUD territory as well as for climate zones 6,8,9 under PG&E service area. ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV: All packages are cost effective using the On-Bill approach. All packages are cost effective using the TDV approach but do not achieve positive energy cost savings. ♦ 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 packages are cost effective using the TDV approach but do not achieve positive energy cost savings. ♦ All-Electric + PV only: All packages are cost effective for both On-Bill and TDV approaches. Packages achieve on-bill savings for all climate zones. ♦ All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces On-Bill B/C ratios but is still cost effective for all climate zones. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 89 2019-07-25 Figure 70. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle $- TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $5,566 $12,616 $8,326 2.3 1.5 $7,050 $2,760 CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $5,566 $12,639 $10,332 2.3 1.9 $7,073 $4,766 CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.9 $5,566 $15,146 $9,991 2.7 1.8 $9,580 $4,425 CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 1.0 $5,566 $13,266 $10,445 2.4 1.9 $7,700 $4,879 CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 1.0 $5,566 $11,507 $10,445 2.1 1.9 $5,941 $4,879 CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $5,566 $16,048 $10,634 2.9 1.9 $10,482 $5,068 CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,276 $10,559 1.8 1.9 $4,710 $4,993 CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,307 $10,559 1.1 1.9 $741 $4,993 CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $5,566 $14,576 $10,861 2.6 2.0 $9,010 $5,295 CZ08 SCE 4,824 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,837 $11,202 1.9 2.0 $5,271 $5,636 CZ08-2 LA 4,824 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,505 $11,202 1.2 2.0 $939 $5,636 CZ09 SCE 4,779 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,298 $10,824 1.9 1.9 $4,732 $5,258 CZ09-2 LA 4,779 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,201 $10,824 1.1 1.9 $635 $5,258 CZ10 SDG&E 4,905 0 1.0 $5,566 $16,302 $10,710 2.9 1.9 $10,736 $5,144 CZ10-2 SCE 4,905 0 1.0 $5,566 $9,468 $10,710 1.7 1.9 $3,902 $5,144 CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $5,566 $14,193 $10,483 2.6 1.9 $8,627 $4,917 CZ12 PG&E 4,770 0 0.9 $5,566 $15,262 $10,596 2.7 1.9 $9,696 $5,030 CZ12-2 SMUD 4,770 0 0.9 $5,566 $7,848 $10,596 1.4 1.9 $2,282 $5,030 CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $5,566 $14,674 $10,105 2.6 1.8 $9,108 $4,539 CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.1 $5,566 $16,615 $12,375 3.0 2.2 $11,049 $6,809 CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.1 $5,566 $10,021 $12,375 1.8 2.2 $4,455 $6,809 CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 1.0 $5,566 $9,542 $11,164 1.7 2.0 $3,976 $5,598 CZ16 PG&E 5,240 0 1.0 $5,566 $14,961 $10,975 2.7 2.0 $9,395 $5,409 CZ16-2 LA 5,240 0 1.0 $5,566 $5,670 $10,975 1.0 2.0 $104 $5,409 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 90 2019-07-25 Figure 71. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $9,520 $12,616 $8,326 1.3 0.9 $3,096 ($1,194) CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $9,520 $12,639 $10,332 1.3 1.1 $3,119 $811 CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.9 $9,520 $15,146 $9,991 1.6 1.0 $5,626 $471 CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 1.0 $9,520 $13,266 $10,445 1.4 1.1 $3,746 $925 CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 1.0 $9,520 $11,507 $10,445 1.2 1.1 $1,987 $925 CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $9,520 $16,048 $10,634 1.7 1.1 $6,528 $1,114 CZ05-2 SCG 5,027 0 1.0 $9,520 $16,048 $10,634 1.7 1.1 $6,528 $1,114 CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,276 $10,559 1.1 1.1 $756 $1,039 CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,307 $10,559 0.7 1.1 ($3,213) $1,039 CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $9,520 $14,576 $10,861 1.5 1.1 $5,056 $1,341 CZ08 SCE 4,824 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,837 $11,202 1.1 1.2 $1,317 $1,682 CZ08-2 LA 4,824 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,505 $11,202 0.7 1.2 ($3,015) $1,682 CZ09 SCE 4,779 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,298 $10,824 1.1 1.1 $778 $1,303 CZ09-2 LA 4,779 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,201 $10,824 0.7 1.1 ($3,319) $1,303 CZ10 SDG&E 4,905 0 1.0 $9,520 $16,302 $10,710 1.7 1.1 $6,782 $1,190 CZ10-2 SCE 4,905 0 1.0 $9,520 $9,468 $10,710 0.99 1.1 ($52) $1,190 CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $9,520 $14,193 $10,483 1.5 1.1 $4,673 $963 CZ12 PG&E 4,770 0 0.9 $9,520 $15,262 $10,596 1.6 1.1 $5,742 $1,076 CZ12-2 SMUD 4,770 0 0.9 $9,520 $7,848 $10,596 0.8 1.1 ($1,672) $1,076 CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $9,520 $14,674 $10,105 1.5 1.1 $5,154 $584 CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.1 $9,520 $16,615 $12,375 1.7 1.3 $7,095 $2,855 CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.1 $9,520 $10,021 $12,375 1.1 1.3 $501 $2,855 CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 1.0 $9,520 $9,542 $11,164 1.0 1.2 $22 $1,644 CZ16 PG&E 5,240 0 1.0 $9,520 $14,961 $10,975 1.6 1.2 $5,441 $1,455 CZ16-2 LA 5,240 0 1.0 $9,520 $5,670 $10,975 0.6 1.2 ($3,851) $1,455 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 91 2019-07-25 Figure 72. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel - Mixed Fuel +80kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV CZ01 PG&E 105,090 0 20.6 $179,470 $336,440 $221,883 1.9 1.2 $156,970 $42,413 CZ02 PG&E 127,592 0 25.0 $179,470 $320,009 $275,130 1.8 1.5 $140,539 $95,660 CZ03 PG&E 126,206 0 24.8 $179,470 $403,900 $266,426 2.3 1.5 $224,430 $86,956 CZ04 PG&E 128,894 0 25.4 $179,470 $322,782 $278,536 1.8 1.6 $143,312 $99,066 CZ04-2 CPAU 128,894 0 25.4 $179,470 $306,862 $278,536 1.7 1.6 $127,392 $99,066 CZ05 PG&E 134,041 0 26.5 $179,470 $427,935 $283,834 2.4 1.6 $248,465 $104,364 CZ06 SCE 127,168 0 25.0 $179,470 $200,425 $281,488 1.1 1.6 $20,955 $102,018 CZ06-2 LA 127,168 0 25.0 $179,470 $119,357 $281,488 0.7 1.6 ($60,113) $102,018 CZ07 SDG&E 132,258 0 26.1 $179,470 $247,646 $289,700 1.4 1.6 $68,176 $110,230 CZ08 SCE 128,641 0 25.3 $179,470 $207,993 $298,594 1.2 1.7 $28,523 $119,124 CZ08-2 LA 128,641 0 25.3 $179,470 $122,591 $298,594 0.7 1.7 ($56,879) $119,124 CZ09 SCE 127,447 0 25.3 $179,470 $211,567 $288,830 1.2 1.6 $32,096 $109,360 CZ09-2 LA 127,447 0 25.3 $179,470 $123,486 $288,830 0.7 1.6 ($55,984) $109,360 CZ10 SDG&E 130,792 0 25.8 $179,470 $274,832 $285,386 1.5 1.6 $95,361 $105,916 CZ10-2 SCE 130,792 0 25.8 $179,470 $206,865 $285,386 1.2 1.6 $27,395 $105,916 CZ11 PG&E 125,366 0 24.6 $179,470 $316,781 $279,331 1.8 1.6 $137,311 $99,861 CZ12 PG&E 127,203 0 25.0 $179,470 $406,977 $282,358 2.3 1.6 $227,507 $102,888 CZ12-2 SMUD 127,203 0 25.0 $179,470 $198,254 $282,358 1.1 1.6 $18,784 $102,888 CZ13 PG&E 123,535 0 24.4 $179,470 $317,261 $269,908 1.8 1.5 $137,791 $90,437 CZ14 SDG&E 143,387 0 28.1 $179,470 $309,521 $330,345 1.7 1.8 $130,051 $150,875 CZ14-2 SCE 143,387 0 28.1 $179,470 $225,083 $330,345 1.3 1.8 $45,612 $150,875 CZ15 SCE 133,246 0 25.9 $179,470 $207,277 $297,648 1.2 1.7 $27,807 $118,177 CZ16 PG&E 139,738 0 27.3 $179,470 $341,724 $292,728 1.9 1.6 $162,254 $113,258 CZ16-2 LA 139,738 0 27.3 $179,470 $114,215 $292,728 0.6 1.6 ($65,255) $113,258 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 92 2019-07-25 Figure 73. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV + 50kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 104,026 0 23.2 $207,370 $332,596 $237,740 1.6 1.1 $125,226 $30,370 CZ02 PG&E 126,332 0 28.1 $207,370 $336,179 $296,058 1.6 1.4 $128,809 $88,688 CZ03 PG&E 124,934 0 28.0 $207,370 $399,220 $289,360 1.9 1.4 $191,850 $81,990 CZ04 PG&E 127,602 0 28.5 $207,370 $332,161 $308,887 1.6 1.5 $124,790 $101,517 CZ04-2 CPAU 127,602 0 28.5 $207,370 $303,828 $308,887 1.5 1.5 $96,458 $101,517 CZ05 PG&E 132,725 0 29.8 $207,370 $423,129 $303,627 2.0 1.5 $215,758 $96,257 CZ06 SCE 125,880 0 28.4 $207,370 $193,814 $297,950 0.9 1.4 ($13,556) $90,580 CZ06-2 LA 125,880 0 28.4 $207,370 $123,083 $297,950 0.6 1.4 ($84,287) $90,580 CZ07 SDG&E 130,940 0 29.5 $207,370 $274,313 $309,682 1.3 1.5 $66,943 $102,312 CZ08 SCE 127,332 0 28.5 $207,370 $199,786 $312,899 1.0 1.5 ($7,584) $105,529 CZ08-2 LA 127,332 0 28.5 $207,370 $124,651 $312,899 0.6 1.5 ($82,719) $105,529 CZ09 SCE 126,232 0 28.2 $207,370 $206,706 $292,804 1.0 1.4 ($664) $85,433 CZ09-2 LA 126,232 0 28.2 $207,370 $126,710 $292,804 0.6 1.4 ($80,660) $85,433 CZ10 SDG&E 129,683 0 28.4 $207,370 $292,202 $287,278 1.4 1.4 $84,832 $79,908 CZ10-2 SCE 129,683 0 28.4 $207,370 $206,171 $287,278 1.0 1.4 ($1,199) $79,908 CZ11 PG&E 124,337 0 26.9 $207,370 $315,330 $283,683 1.5 1.4 $107,960 $76,313 CZ12 PG&E 126,013 0 27.8 $207,370 $403,127 $297,118 1.9 1.4 $195,757 $89,748 CZ12-2 SMUD 126,013 0 27.8 $207,370 $198,007 $297,118 1.0 1.4 ($9,363) $89,748 CZ13 PG&E 122,591 0 26.5 $207,370 $315,541 $280,996 1.5 1.4 $108,171 $73,626 CZ14 SDG&E 142,257 0 30.7 $207,370 $317,565 $334,697 1.5 1.6 $110,195 $127,327 CZ14-2 SCE 142,257 0 30.7 $207,370 $224,195 $334,697 1.1 1.6 $16,824 $127,327 CZ15 SCE 132,418 0 27.8 $207,370 $208,044 $299,199 1.0 1.4 $674 $91,829 CZ16 PG&E 138,402 0 30.7 $207,370 $358,582 $315,699 1.7 1.5 $151,212 $108,329 CZ16-2 LA 138,402 0 30.7 $207,370 $118,770 $315,699 0.6 1.5 ($88,600) $108,329 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 93 2019-07-25 Figure 74. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ01 PG&E -155,861 16917 54.7 ($1,265,139) ($568,892) ($106,835) 2.2 11.8 $696,246 $1,158,304 CZ02 PG&E -113,954 12677 40.9 ($1,266,111) ($229,433) ($41,288) 5.5 30.7 $1,036,679 $1,224,823 CZ03 PG&E -105,862 12322 41.4 ($1,268,383) ($309,874) ($41,175) 4.1 30.8 $958,510 $1,227,208 CZ04 PG&E -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,268,218) ($208,239) ($42,689) 6.1 29.7 $1,059,980 $1,225,530 CZ04-2 CPAU -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,268,218) ($6,261) ($42,689) 202.6 29.7 $1,261,958 $1,225,530 CZ05 PG&E -103,579 11960 39.3 ($1,268,272) ($332,879) ($44,051) 3.8 28.8 $935,393 $1,224,221 CZ06 SCE -73,524 8912 30.3 ($1,268,413) $48,898 ($17,484) >1 72.5 $1,317,311 $1,250,929 CZ06-2 LA -64,859 8188 29.0 ($1,266,760) ($120,842) ($12,337) 10.5 102.7 $1,145,918 $1,254,423 CZ07 SDG&E -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,264,731) ($43,964) ($11,618) 28.8 108.9 $1,220,767 $1,253,113 CZ08 SCE -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,264,731) $48,736 ($11,618) >1 108.9 $1,313,467 $1,253,113 CZ08-2 LA -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,266,529) ($35,547) ($11,126) 35.6 113.8 $1,230,982 $1,255,403 CZ09 SCE -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,266,529) $52,410 ($11,126) >1 113.8 $1,318,939 $1,255,403 CZ09-2 LA -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,263,531) ($156,973) ($25,469) 8.0 49.6 $1,106,558 $1,238,061 CZ10 SDG&E -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,263,531) ($54,711) ($25,469) 23.1 49.6 $1,208,820 $1,238,061 CZ10-2 SCE -94,783 10252 31.9 ($1,264,340) ($169,847) ($38,904) 7.4 32.5 $1,094,493 $1,225,436 CZ11 PG&E -94,702 10403 33.0 ($1,265,779) ($324,908) ($34,968) 3.9 36.2 $940,872 $1,230,811 CZ12 PG&E -94,297 10403 33.1 ($1,265,779) $13,603 ($33,757) >1 37.5 $1,279,382 $1,232,022 CZ12-2 SMUD -92,196 10029 31.5 ($1,264,152) ($168,358) ($40,229) 7.5 31.4 $1,095,794 $1,223,923 CZ13 PG&E -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,264,510) ($308,542) ($44,202) 4.1 28.6 $955,969 $1,220,308 CZ14 SDG&E -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,264,510) ($110,730) ($44,202) 11.4 28.6 $1,153,780 $1,220,308 CZ14-2 SCE -44,856 5579 19.0 ($1,262,631) $8,996 ($10,256) >1 123.1 $1,271,627 $1,252,375 CZ15 SCE -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,268,907) ($625,671) ($228,203) 2.0 5.6 $643,236 $1,040,704 CZ16 PG&E -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,268,907) $37,142 ($228,203) >1 5.6 $1,306,049 $1,040,704 CZ16-2 LA -155,861 16917 54.7 ($1,265,139) ($568,892) ($106,835) 2.2 11.8 $696,246 $1,158,304 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 94 2019-07-25 Figure 75. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E -155,861 16917 54.7 ($1,288,428) ($568,892) ($106,835) 2.3 12.1 $719,536 $1,181,593 CZ02 PG&E -113,954 12677 40.9 ($1,288,428) ($229,433) ($41,288) 5.6 31.2 $1,058,996 $1,247,140 CZ03 PG&E -105,862 12322 41.4 ($1,288,428) ($309,874) ($41,175) 4.2 31.3 $978,554 $1,247,253 CZ04 PG&E -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,288,428) ($208,239) ($42,689) 6.2 30.2 $1,080,190 $1,245,740 CZ04-2 CPAU -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,288,428) ($6,261) ($42,689) 205.8 30.2 $1,282,167 $1,245,740 CZ05 PG&E -103,579 11960 39.3 ($1,288,428) ($332,879) ($44,051) 3.9 29.2 $955,549 $1,244,377 CZ06 SCE -73,524 8912 30.3 ($1,288,428) ($52,341) ($17,484) 24.6 73.7 $1,236,087 $1,270,944 CZ06-2 LA -73,524 8912 30.3 ($1,288,428) $48,898 ($17,484) >1 73.7 $1,337,326 $1,270,944 CZ07 SDG&E -64,859 8188 29.0 ($1,288,428) ($120,842) ($12,337) 10.7 104.4 $1,167,586 $1,276,091 CZ08 SCE -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,288,428) ($43,964) ($11,618) 29.3 110.9 $1,244,464 $1,276,810 CZ08-2 LA -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,288,428) $48,736 ($11,618) >1 110.9 $1,337,164 $1,276,810 CZ09 SCE -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,288,428) ($35,547) ($11,126) 36.2 115.8 $1,252,881 $1,277,302 CZ09-2 LA -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,288,428) $52,410 ($11,126) >1 115.8 $1,340,838 $1,277,302 CZ10 SDG&E -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,288,428) ($156,973) ($25,469) 8.2 50.6 $1,131,455 $1,262,959 CZ10-2 SCE -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,288,428) ($54,711) ($25,469) 23.5 50.6 $1,233,718 $1,262,959 CZ11 PG&E -94,783 10252 31.9 ($1,288,428) ($169,847) ($38,904) 7.6 33.1 $1,118,582 $1,249,524 CZ12 PG&E -94,702 10403 33.0 ($1,288,428) ($324,908) ($34,968) 4.0 36.8 $963,520 $1,253,460 CZ12-2 SMUD -94,297 10403 33.1 ($1,288,428) $13,603 ($33,757) >1 38.2 $1,302,031 $1,254,671 CZ13 PG&E -92,196 10029 31.5 ($1,288,428) ($168,358) ($40,229) 7.7 32.0 $1,120,071 $1,248,199 CZ14 SDG&E -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,288,428) ($308,542) ($44,202) 4.2 29.1 $979,887 $1,244,226 CZ14-2 SCE -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,288,428) ($110,730) ($44,202) 11.6 29.1 $1,177,698 $1,244,226 CZ15 SCE -44,856 5579 19.0 ($1,288,428) $8,996 ($10,256) >1 125.6 $1,297,425 $1,278,172 CZ16 PG&E -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,288,428) ($625,671) ($228,203) 2.1 5.6 $662,757 $1,060,225 CZ16-2 LA -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,288,428) $37,142 ($228,203) >1 5.6 $1,325,570 $1,060,225 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 95 2019-07-25 Figure 76. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 80kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 80kW PV CZ01 PG&E -54,712 16917 74.6 ($1,123,442) ($240,170) $106,722 4.7 >1 $883,272 $1,230,164 CZ02 PG&E 8,853 12677 65.0 ($1,124,415) $128,649 $223,510 >1 >1 $1,253,063 $1,347,925 CZ03 PG&E 15,612 12322 65.3 ($1,126,687) $44,532 $215,260 >1 >1 $1,171,219 $1,341,947 CZ04 PG&E 15,490 11927 62.0 ($1,126,522) $145,778 $225,402 >1 >1 $1,272,300 $1,351,924 CZ04-2 CPAU 15,490 11927 62.0 ($1,126,522) $289,094 $225,402 >1 >1 $1,415,616 $1,351,924 CZ05 PG&E 25,436 11960 64.8 ($1,126,575) $56,019 $229,149 >1 >1 $1,182,594 $1,355,724 CZ06 SCE 48,875 8912 54.4 ($1,126,716) $163,343 $253,445 >1 >1 $1,290,060 $1,380,161 CZ06-2 LA 62,439 8188 54.1 ($1,125,064) $115,822 $266,502 >1 >1 $1,240,886 $1,391,565 CZ07 SDG&E 56,727 8353 53.5 ($1,123,034) $147,987 $275,773 >1 >1 $1,271,022 $1,398,808 CZ08 SCE 56,727 8353 53.5 ($1,123,034) $163,971 $275,773 >1 >1 $1,287,005 $1,398,808 CZ08-2 LA 55,185 8402 53.7 ($1,124,832) $155,101 $266,880 >1 >1 $1,279,933 $1,391,712 CZ09 SCE 55,185 8402 53.7 ($1,124,832) $169,010 $266,880 >1 >1 $1,293,843 $1,391,712 CZ09-2 LA 50,731 8418 52.0 ($1,121,834) $113,936 $249,207 >1 >1 $1,235,770 $1,371,041 CZ10 SDG&E 50,731 8418 52.0 ($1,121,834) $138,265 $249,207 >1 >1 $1,260,099 $1,371,041 CZ10-2 SCE 25,882 10252 55.6 ($1,122,643) $162,626 $229,944 >1 >1 $1,285,269 $1,352,587 CZ11 PG&E 27,731 10403 57.1 ($1,124,083) $12,954 $236,794 >1 >1 $1,137,037 $1,360,876 CZ12 PG&E 28,136 10403 57.2 ($1,124,083) $206,756 $238,005 >1 >1 $1,330,839 $1,362,087 CZ12-2 SMUD 26,706 10029 55.0 ($1,122,455) $165,991 $219,574 >1 >1 $1,288,446 $1,342,030 CZ13 PG&E 41,989 10056 57.8 ($1,122,814) $22,333 $273,768 >1 >1 $1,145,147 $1,396,582 CZ14 SDG&E 41,989 10056 57.8 ($1,122,814) $120,943 $273,768 >1 >1 $1,243,757 $1,396,582 CZ14-2 SCE 83,393 5579 44.0 ($1,120,934) $210,511 $276,228 >1 >1 $1,331,445 $1,397,162 CZ15 SCE -76,971 17599 69.2 ($1,127,210) ($199,308) $53,550 5.7 >1 $927,902 $1,180,760 CZ16 PG&E -76,971 17599 69.2 ($1,127,210) $172,787 $53,550 >1 >1 $1,299,997 $1,180,760 CZ16-2 LA -54,712 16917 74.6 ($1,123,442) ($240,170) $106,722 4.7 >1 $883,272 $1,230,164 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 96 2019-07-25 Figure 77. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 80kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 80kW PV + 50kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E -55,323 16917 75.7 ($1,095,542) ($238,351) $118,605 4.6 >1 $857,191 $1,214,147 CZ02 PG&E 7,849 12677 67.4 ($1,096,515) $129,794 $239,632 >1 >1 $1,226,309 $1,336,146 CZ03 PG&E 14,594 12322 67.7 ($1,098,787) $43,166 $235,280 >1 >1 $1,141,953 $1,334,067 CZ04 PG&E 14,459 11927 64.4 ($1,098,622) $148,698 $249,244 >1 >1 $1,247,320 $1,347,866 CZ04-2 CPAU 14,459 11927 64.4 ($1,098,622) $286,573 $249,244 >1 >1 $1,385,195 $1,347,866 CZ05 PG&E 24,292 11960 67.6 ($1,098,675) $53,719 $244,514 >1 >1 $1,152,394 $1,343,189 CZ06 SCE 47,762 8912 57.2 ($1,098,816) $165,763 $267,221 >1 >1 $1,264,579 $1,366,037 CZ06-2 LA 61,252 8188 57.1 ($1,097,164) $138,060 $283,797 >1 >1 $1,235,223 $1,380,960 CZ07 SDG&E 55,588 8353 56.2 ($1,095,134) $138,718 $286,483 >1 >1 $1,233,852 $1,381,618 CZ08 SCE 55,588 8353 56.2 ($1,095,134) $165,932 $286,483 >1 >1 $1,261,066 $1,381,618 CZ08-2 LA 54,162 8402 56.1 ($1,096,932) $149,615 $269,453 >1 >1 $1,246,548 $1,366,386 CZ09 SCE 54,162 8402 56.1 ($1,096,932) $171,168 $269,453 >1 >1 $1,268,101 $1,366,386 CZ09-2 LA 49,832 8418 54.1 ($1,093,934) $120,627 $250,720 >1 >1 $1,214,561 $1,344,654 CZ10 SDG&E 49,832 8418 54.1 ($1,093,934) $136,144 $250,720 >1 >1 $1,230,078 $1,344,654 CZ10-2 SCE 25,148 10252 57.3 ($1,094,743) $160,744 $233,842 >1 >1 $1,255,487 $1,328,585 CZ11 PG&E 26,813 10403 59.2 ($1,096,183) $10,314 $247,504 >1 >1 $1,106,497 $1,343,686 CZ12 PG&E 27,217 10403 59.3 ($1,096,183) $206,749 $248,790 >1 >1 $1,302,931 $1,344,973 CZ12-2 SMUD 26,027 10029 56.5 ($1,094,555) $164,506 $229,300 >1 >1 $1,259,061 $1,323,856 CZ13 PG&E 41,123 10056 59.7 ($1,094,914) $25,707 $276,947 >1 >1 $1,120,621 $1,371,860 CZ14 SDG&E 41,123 10056 59.7 ($1,094,914) $119,382 $276,947 >1 >1 $1,214,296 $1,371,860 CZ14-2 SCE 82,697 5579 45.5 ($1,093,034) $209,837 $277,287 >1 >1 $1,302,871 $1,370,321 CZ15 SCE -77,815 17599 71.1 ($1,099,310) ($193,758) $65,850 5.7 >1 $905,552 $1,165,160 CZ16 PG&E -77,815 17599 71.1 ($1,099,310) $175,872 $65,850 >1 >1 $1,275,182 $1,165,160 CZ16-2 LA -55,323 16917 75.7 ($1,095,542) ($238,351) $118,605 4.6 >1 $857,191 $1,214,147 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 97 2019-07-25 6.8 List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored The Reach Code Team started with a potential list of energy efficiency measures proposed for 2022 Title 24 codes and standards enhancement measures, as well as measures from the 2018 International Green Construction Code, which is based on ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2017. The team also developed new measures based on their experience. This original list was over 100 measures long. The measures were filtered based on applicability to the prototypes in this study, ability to model in simulation software, previously demonstrated energy savings potential, and market readiness. The list of 28 measures below represent the list of efficiency measures that meet these criteria and were investigated to some degree. The column to the far right indicates whether the measure was ultimately included in analysis or not. Figure 78. List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include? Water Heating Drain water Heat Recovery Add drain water heat recovery in hotel prototype Requires calculations outside of modeling software. Y Envelope High performance fenestration Improved fenestration SHGC (reduce to 0.22). Y Envelope High SHGC for cold climates Raise prescriptive fenestration SHGC (to 0.45) in cold climates where additional heat is beneficial. Y Envelope Allowable fenestration by orientation Limit amount of fenestration as a function of orientation Y Envelope High Thermal Mass Buildings Increase building thermal mass. Thermal mass slows the change in internal temperature of buildings with respect to the outdoor temperature, allowing the peak cooling load during summer to be pushed to the evening, resulting in lower overall cooling loads. Initial energy modeling results showed marginal cooling savings, negative heating savings. N Envelope Opaque Insulation Increases the insulation requirement for opaque envelopes (i.e., roof and above-grade wall). Initial energy modeling results showed marginal energy savings at significant costs which would not meet c/e criteria. N Envelope Triple pane windows U-factor of 0.20 for all windows Initial energy modeling results showed only marginal energy savings and, in some cases, increased energy use. N 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 98 2019-07-25 Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include? Envelope Duct Leakage Testing Expand duct leakage testing requirements based on ASHRAE Standard 215-2018: Method of Test to Determine Leakage of Operating HVAC Air Distribution Systems (ANSI Approved). More research needs to be done on current duct leakage and how it can be addressed. N Envelope Fenestration area Reduce maximum allowable fenestration area to 30%. Instead of this measure, analyzed measure which looked at limiting fenestration based on wall orientation. N Envelope Skinny triple pane windows U-factor of 0.20 for all windows, with no changes to existing framing or building structure. Market not ready. No commercially-available products for commercial buildings. N Envelope Permanent projections Detailed prescriptive requirements for shading based on ASHRAE 189. PF >0.50 for first story and >0.25 for other floors. Many exceptions. Corresponding SHGC multipliers to be used. Title 24 already allows owner to trade off SHGC with permanent projections. Also, adding requirements for permanent projections would raise concerns. N Envelope Reduced infiltration Reduce infiltration rates by improving building sealing. Infiltration rates are a fixed ACM input and cannot be changed. A workaround attempt would not be precise, and the practicality of implementation by developers is low given the modeling capabilities and the fact that in-field verification is challenging. Benefits would predominantly be for air quality rather than energy. N 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 99 2019-07-25 Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include? HVAC Heat recovery ventilation For the hotel, recover and transfer heat from exhausted air to ventilation air. For small hotels, the ventilation requirement could be met by various approaches, and the most common ones are: a. Exhaust only system, and ventilation is met by infiltration or window operation. b. Through a Z-duct that connects the zone AC unit’s intake to an outside air intake louver. c. Centralized ventilation system (DOAS) The prototype developed for the small hotel is using Type 2 above. The major consideration is that currently, HRV + PTACs cannot be modeled at each guest room, only at the rooftop system. Option 1 would require the same type of HRV implementation as Option 2. Option 3 may be pursuable, but would require a significant redesign of the system, with questionable impacts. Previous studies have found heat recovery as cost effective in California only in buildings with high loads or high air exchange rates, given the relatively mild climate. N HVAC Require Economizers in Smaller Capacity Systems Lower the capacity trigger for air economizers. Previous studies have shown cost effectiveness for systems as low as 3 tons. Y HVAC Reduce VAV minimum flow limit Current T24 and 90.1 requirements limit VAV minimum flow rates to no more than 20% of maximum flow. Proposal based on ASHRAE Guideline 36 which includes sequences that remove technical barriers that previously existed. Also, most new DDC controllers are now capable of lower limits. The new limit may be as low as the required ventilation rate. A non-energy benefit of this measure is a reduction in over-cooling, thus improving comfort. Y 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 100 2019-07-25 Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include? HVAC Building Automation System (BAS) improvements With adoption of ASHRAE Guideline 36 (GDL-36), there is now a national consensus standard for the description of high-performance sequences of operation. This measure will update BAS control requirements to improve usability and enforcement and to increase energy efficiency. BAS control requirement language will be improved either by adoption of similar language to GDL- 36, or reference to GDL-36. Specific T24 BAS control topics that will be addressed include at a minimum: DCV, demand-based reset of SAT, demand-based reset of SP, dual-maximum zone sequences, and zone groups for scheduling. In order to realize any savings in the difference, we would need a very detailed energy model with space- by-space load/occupant diversity, etc. We would also need more modeling capability than is currently available in CBECC-Com. N HVAC Fault Detection Devices (FDD) Expand FDD requirements to a wider range of AHU faults beyond the economizer. Fault requirements will be based on NIST field research, which has consequently been integrated into ASHRAE Guideline 36 Best in Class Sequences of Operations. Costs are solely to develop the sequences, which is likely minimal, and much of the hardware required for economizer FDD is also used to detect other faults. Market not ready. N HVAC Small circulator pumps ECM, trim to flow rate Circulator pumps for industry and commercial. Hot water pump energy use is small already (<1% building electricity usage) so not much savings potential. More savings for CHW pumps. Modeling limitations as well. N HVAC High Performance Ducts to Reduce Static Pressure Revise requirements for duct sizing to reduce static pressure. Preliminary energy modeling results showed only marginal energy savings compared to measure cost. N HVAC Parallel fan-powered boxes Use of parallel fan-powered boxes Unable to model PFPB with variable speed fans in modeling software. N Lighting Daylight Dimming Plus OFF Automatic daylight dimming controls requirements include the OFF step. Y Lighting Occupant Sensing in Open Plan Offices Take the PAF without allowing for increased design wattage Y Lighting Institutional tuning Take the PAF without allowing for increased design wattage Y 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 101 2019-07-25 Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include? Lighting Reduced Interior Lighting Power Density Reduced interior LPD values. Y Lighting Shift from general to task illumination Low levels of general illumination with task and accent lighting added to locations where higher light levels are required. The shift from general to task illumination measure is based on the assumption that proper lighting of a desk surface with high efficacy lighting can allow for the significant reduction of ambient general lighting. This is a tough measure to require as the LPDs decrease. N Lighting Future-proof lighting controls Fill any holes in the current code that could lead to the situations where TLEDS or LED fixtures that are not dimmable or upgradable in the future, or any other issues with code that make it hard to transition to ALCS/IoT lighting in the future Major lighting controls already covered in other measures being considered N Lighting Integrated control of lighting and HVAC systems Formalize the definition of "lighting and HVAC control integration" by defining the level of data sharing required between systems and the mechanism needed to share such data. The highest savings potential would likely be generated from VAV HVAC systems by closing the damper in unoccupied zones based on the occupancy sensor information from the lighting systems. Not market ready enough. N Other NR Plug Load Controls Energy savings opportunities for plug loads, which may include: energy efficient equipment, equipment power management, occupancy sensor control, and occupant awareness programs. The proposal could be extending controlled receptacles requirements in Section 130.5(d) to more occupancy types. It would also consider circuit- level controls. Office equipment now all have their own standby power modes that use very little power, making plug load controls very difficult to be cost-effective. N 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 102 2019-07-25 6.9 Additional Rates Analysis - Healdsburg After the final version of the report was released, the Reach Code Team provided additional cost effectiveness analysis in Climate Zone 2 using City of Healdsburg electric utility rates and PG&E gas rates. All aspects of the methodology remain the same, and the results for each package and prototype are aggregated below in Figure 79 through Figure 81. Results generally indicate: ♦ Mixed fuel prototypes achieve positive compliance margins for EE packages and are cost effective. ♦ All-electric prototypes achieve slightly lower compliance margins than mixed fuel for EE packages and are cost effective. ♦ All PV and PV+Battery packages are cost effective both using an on-bill and TDV approach. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 103 2019-07-25 Figure 79. Healdsburg Utility Rates Analysis – Medium Office, All Packages Cost Effectiveness Summary Prototype Package Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Comp- liance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Medium Office Mixed Fuel + EE 40,985 -505 8.1 17% $66,649 $89,645 $99,181 1.3 1.5 $22,996 $32,532 Mixed Fuel + EE + PVB 255,787 -505 50.6 17% $359,648 $510,922 $573,033 1.4 1.6 $151,274 $213,385 Mixed Fuel + HE 3,795 550 4.3 4% $68,937 $24,204 $24,676 0.4 0.4 -$44,733 -$44,261 All-Electric -49,684 3,868 5.0 -7% -$73,695 -$7,042 -$41,429 10.5 1.8 $66,653 $32,266 All-Electric + EE -11,811 3,868 15.2 10% -$7,046 $83,285 $58,563 >1 >1 $90,331 $65,609 All-Electric + EE + PVB 203,026 3,868 57.8 10% $285,953 $511,954 $532,273 1.8 1.9 $226,001 $246,320 All-Electric + HE -45,916 3,868 6.1 -5% -$22,722 $6,983 -$26,394 >1 0.9 $29,705 -$3,672 Mixed Fuel + 3kW 4,785 0 0.9 n/a $5,566 $10,430 $10,500 1.9 1.9 $4,864 $4,934 Mixed Fuel + 3kW + 5kWh 4,785 0 0.9 n/a $8,356 $10,430 $10,500 1.2 1.3 $2,074 $2,144 Mixed Fuel + 135kW 215,311 0 41.5 n/a $250,470 $424,452 $471,705 1.7 1.9 $173,982 $221,235 Mixed Fuel + 135kW + 50kWh 214,861 0 42.6 n/a $278,370 $423,721 $472,898 1.5 1.7 $145,351 $194,528 All-Electric + 3kW -44,899 3,868 6.0 n/a -$68,129 $3,299 -$30,928 >1 2.2 $71,429 $37,201 All-Electric + 3kW + 5kWh -44,899 3,868 6.0 n/a -$65,339 $3,299 -$30,928 >1 2.1 $68,639 $34,411 All-Electric + 135kW 165,627 3,868 46.6 n/a $176,775 $424,146 $430,276 2.4 2.4 $247,371 $253,501 All-Electric + 135kW + 50kWh 165,200 3,868 47.7 n/a $204,675 $423,466 $431,469 2.1 2.1 $218,792 $226,795 All-Electric + 80kW + 50kWh 40,985 -505 8.1 17% $66,649 $89,645 $99,181 1.3 1.5 $22,996 $32,532 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 104 2019-07-25 Figure 80. Healdsburg Utility Rates Analysis – Medium Retail, All Packages Cost Effectiveness Summary Prototype Package Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Comp- liance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Medium Retail Mixed Fuel + EE 18,885 613 8.7 13% $5,569 $49,546 $59,135 8.9 10.6 $43,977 $53,566 Mixed Fuel + EE + PVB 189,400 613 43.8 13% $249,475 $376,219 $465,474 1.5 1.9 $126,744 $215,999 Mixed Fuel + HE 2,288 229 2.0 3% $9,726 $13,143 $13,998 1.4 1.4 $3,417 $4,273 All-Electric -21,786 2,448 7.5 -1% -$27,464 $9,228 -$4,483 >1 6.1 $36,692 $22,981 All-Electric + EE 2,843 2,448 14.6 13% -$21,895 $61,918 $56,893 >1 >1 $83,813 $78,788 All-Electric + EE + PVB 173,387 2,448 49.9 13% $222,012 $391,257 $463,431 1.8 2.1 $169,245 $241,419 All-Electric + HE -16,989 2,448 8.9 3% -$4,211 $23,567 $11,251 >1 >1 $27,779 $15,463 Mixed Fuel + 3kW 4,685 0 0.9 n/a $5,566 $10,256 $10,262 1.8 1.8 $4,690 $4,696 Mixed Fuel + 3kW + 5kWh 4,685 0 0.9 n/a $8,356 $10,256 $10,262 1.2 1.2 $1,900 $1,906 Mixed Fuel + 110kW 171,790 0 33.3 n/a $204,087 $316,293 $376,300 1.5 1.8 $112,206 $172,213 Mixed Fuel + 110kW + 50kWh 170,542 0 35.1 n/a $231,987 $320,349 $398,363 1.4 1.7 $88,363 $166,376 All-Electric + 3kW -17,101 2,448 8.4 n/a -$21,898 $19,523 $5,779 >1 >1 $41,421 $27,677 All-Electric + 3kW + 5kWh -17,101 2,448 8.4 n/a -$19,108 $19,523 $5,779 >1 >1 $38,631 $24,887 All-Electric + 110kW 150,004 2,448 40.8 n/a $176,623 $332,213 $371,817 1.9 2.1 $155,591 $195,194 All-Electric + 110kW + 50kWh 148,793 2,448 42.9 n/a $204,523 $335,043 $394,099 1.6 1.9 $130,520 $189,577 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 105 2019-07-25 Figure 81. Healdsburg Utility Rates Analysis – Small Hotel, All Packages Cost Effectiveness Summary Prototype Package Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Comp- liance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Small Hotel Mixed Fuel + EE 3,802 976 3.9 7% $20,971 $22,829 $29,353 1.1 1.4 $1,857 $8,381 Mixed Fuel + EE + PVB 130,144 976 31.1 7% $205,967 $254,577 $336,575 1.2 1.6 $48,610 $130,608 Mixed Fuel + HE 981 402 2.7 3% $23,092 $12,291 $11,808 0.5 0.5 -$10,801 -$11,284 All-Electric - 118,739 12,677 40.0 -12% -$1,297,757 -$24,318 -$51,620 53.4 25.1 $1,273,439 $1,246,137 All-Electric + EE -88,410 12,677 45.9 5% -$1,265,064 $45,918 $20,860 >1 >1 $1,310,982 $1,285,924 All-Electric + EE + PVB 38,115 12,677 73.5 5% -$1,080,068 $296,233 $317,296 >1 >1 $1,376,301 $1,397,365 All-Electric + HE - 118,284 12,677 41.2 -11% -$1,283,243 -$83,994 -$44,505 15.3 28.8 $1,199,249 $1,238,738 Mixed Fuel + 3kW 4,785 0 0.9 n/a $5,566 $8,927 $10,332 1.6 1.9 $3,361 $4,766 Mixed Fuel + 3kW + 5kWh 4,785 0 0.9 n/a $8,356 $8,927 $10,332 1.1 1.2 $571 $1,976 Mixed Fuel + 80kW 127,592 0 25.0 n/a $148,427 $229,794 $275,130 1.5 1.9 $81,367 $126,703 Mixed Fuel + 80kW + 50kWh 126,332 0 28.1 n/a $176,327 $236,570 $296,058 1.3 1.7 $60,243 $119,731 All-Electric + 3kW - 113,954 12,677 40.9 n/a -$1,292,191 -$14,447 -$41,288 89.4 31.3 $1,277,744 $1,250,902 All-Electric + 3kW + 5kWh - 113,954 12,677 40.9 n/a -$1,289,401 -$14,447 -$41,288 89.3 31.2 $1,274,954 $1,248,112 All-Electric + 80kW 8,853 12,677 65.0 n/a -$1,149,330 $222,070 $223,510 >1 >1 $1,371,400 $1,372,840 All-Electric + 80kW + 50kWh 7,849 12,677 67.4 n/a -$1,121,430 $223,812 $239,632 >1 >1 $1,345,241 $1,361,062 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office C Last Modified: 10/13/2021 Prepared by: TRC, P2S Engineers, and Western Allied Mechanical Prepared for: Dave Intner, Codes and Standards Program, Southern California Edison Company Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2020 Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Large Office Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office C Legal Notice This report was prepared by Southern California Edison Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 2021, Southern California Edison Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither SCE nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy, or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, or copyrights. Acronym/Abbreviation List ASHRAE - Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers B/C – Benefit-to-Cost (ratio) CBECC - California Building Energy Code Compliance BSC - California Building Standards Commission CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities (utility) CZ – Climate Zone DOE – United States Department of Energy E3 - Energy and Environmental Economics Energy Commission - California Energy Commission ft2 – square foot gal – gallon GHG - Greenhouse Gas HVAC - Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (equipment) IOU – Investor-Owned Utility kBtu – kilo British thermal unit kBtu/hr – kilo British thermal unit per hour kW – kilowatt kWh – kilowatt-Hour LADWP – Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (utility) mtons – metric tons NPV – Net Present Value POU – Publicly-Owned Utility PG&E – Pacific Gas & Electric (utility) PV - Photovoltaic (solar) SCE – Southern California Edison (utility) SoCalGas – Southern California Gas (utility) SDG&E – San Diego Gas & Electric (utility) Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office C SHW – Service Hot Water (equipment) SMUD – Sacramento Municipal Utility District (utility) TDV - Time Dependent Valuation Title 24 – California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 W – watt(s) Wdc – direct current watt(s) VAV – Variable Air Volume Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office C TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................................................... 2 Cost-Effectiveness ................................................................................................................... 2 2.1.1 Benefits .............................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.2 Costs .................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.3 Metrics................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1.4 Utility Rates ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................... 4 3 Prototype Description, Measure Packages, and Costs............................................................... 5 Prototype Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 5 Measure Definition and Costs ................................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 All-Electric .......................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.2 Efficiency ............................................................................................................................................ 6 3.2.3 Solar PV ............................................................................................................................................. 6 3.2.4 Measure Packages ............................................................................................................................ 7 4 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 8 5 Summary of Results .................................................................................................................... 15 6 References ................................................................................................................................... 17 7 Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 18 Map of California CZs ............................................................................................................. 18 Utility Rate Schedules ............................................................................................................ 18 Efficiency Measures for Large Office ...................................................................................... 20 Mixed-Fuel Baseline Energy Figures ...................................................................................... 22 List of Figures FIGURE 1. UTILITY TARIFFS USED BASED ON CZ ..................................................................................................................... 3 FIGURE 2. LARGE OFFICE PROTOTYPE CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................................... 5 FIGURE 3. LARGE OFFICE ALL-ELECTRIC HEATING SYSTEM COSTS ......................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 4. LARGE OFFICE: ANNUAL PERCENT KWH OFFSET WITH 285 KW ARRAY ................................................................... 7 FIGURE 5. COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR LARGE OFFICE: ALL-ELECTRIC ..................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 6. COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR LARGE OFFICE: ALL-ELECTRIC + EFF ......................................................................... 10 FIGURE 7. COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR LARGE OFFICE: ALL-ELECTRIC + EFF + PV ................................................................. 11 FIGURE 8. ANNUAL TDV ENERGY CONSUMPTION MIXED-FUEL BASELINE, 2019 AND 2022 .................................................... 12 FIGURE 9. TDV SAVINGS FOR ALL-ELECTRIC + EFF PACKAGES, 2019 VS 2022 ..................................................................... 13 FIGURE 11. COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR LARGE OFFICE: ALL-ELECTRIC + EFF 2022 .............................................................. 14 FIGURE 12. LARGE OFFICE SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE MARGIN AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS .................................................. 16 FIGURE 13. MAP OF CALIFORNIA CZS .................................................................................................................................. 18 FIGURE 14. UTILITY TARIFFS ANALYZED BASED ON CZ: DETAILED VIEW ................................................................................ 19 FIGURE 15. REAL UTILITY RATE ESCALATION RATE ASSUMPTIONS ABOVE INFLATION ............................................................ 19 FIGURE 16. ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES FOR LARGE OFFICE ......................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 17. LARGE OFFICE: MIXED-FUEL BASELINE .............................................................................................................. 22 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 1 Introduction localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 1 Introduction The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of Title 24, Part 6). Local jurisdictions that adopt energy conservation amendments or ordinances as the term is used in PRC 25402.1(h2) must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective according to the local jurisdiction criteria and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. For energy conservation amendments, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2020, for design in newly constructed buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Reach Code Team. The Reach Code Team published nonresidential new construction studies in 2019 that documented the cost- effectiveness of energy measure packages for Medium Office, Medium Retail, and Small Hotel prototypes (Statewide Utility Team, 2020). Based on stakeholder requests, this report extends that analysis to the Large Office new construction prototype. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment (E-CFR, 2020). Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high-efficiency heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. High-efficiency appliances are often the easiest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance. While federal preemption limits reach code mandatory requirements for covered appliances, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 2 Methodology and Assumptions localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 2 Methodology and Assumptions The Reach Code Team analyzed the large office prototype using the general cost-effectiveness methodology described in this section. Cost-Effectiveness This section describes the approach to calculating cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection. 2.1.1 Benefits This analysis used both on-bill and time dependent valuation (TDV) of energy-based approaches to evaluate cost- effectiveness. Both on-bill and TDV require quantifying the energy savings and costs associated with energy measures. The primary difference between on-bill and TDV is how energy is valued: • On-bill: Customer-based lifecycle cost approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 15-year duration for nonresidential buildings, accounting for a three percent discount rate and energy cost inflation per Appendix 7.2. • TDV: TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time dependent value of energy including long- term projected costs of energy, such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon emissions and grid transmission impacts. With the TDV approach, electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (natural gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. The Reach Code Team performed energy simulations using the most recent software available for 2019 Title 24 code compliance analysis, California Building Energy Code Compliance for Commercial/Nonresidential Buildings (CBECC- Com) 2019.1.3. The Reach Code Team also tested the 2022 weather files and 2022 TDV multipliers using CBECC- Com 2022 software for most results to understand potential impacts on cost-effectiveness. 2.1.2 Costs The Reach Code Team assessed the incremental costs and savings of the energy packages over the 15 years for nonresidential prototypes. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2019 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices. The Reach Code Team obtained measure costs from manufacturer distributors, contractors, literature review, and online sources, such as Home Depot and RS Means. Taxes and contractor markups were added as appropriate. Maintenance and replacement costs are included. 2.1.3 Metrics Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics. • NPV: The Reach Code Team uses net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs) as the cost-effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost-effective. Negative savings represent net costs. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost-effective if the costs to implement the measure are even more negative (i.e., construction and maintenance cost savings). • B/C ratio: The ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 15 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criteria for cost-effectiveness is a B/C ratio greater than 1.0. A value of 1.0 indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. Improving the energy performance of a building often requires an initial investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual on-bill utility or TDV savings, and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. However, some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 3 Methodology and Assumptions localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). In cases where both incremental construction cost and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the benefit while the increased energy costs are the cost. In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective immediately (i.e., upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost-effectiveness is represented by “>1”. Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values. 2.1.4 Utility Rates In coordination with the rate specialists at each IOU, and the publicly available information for several Publicly-Owned Utilities (POUs), the Reach Code Team determined appropriate utility rate for each measure package (see Appendix 7.2 for details). The utility tariffs were determined based on the annual load profile of each prototype and the corresponding package, the most prevalent rate in each territory, and information assuring that the rate was not planned to be phased out. For some prototypes there are multiple options for rates because of the varying load profiles of mixed-fuel buildings versus all-electric buildings. If more than one rate schedule is applicable for a particular load profile, the Reach Code Team did not attempt to compare or test a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost- effectiveness. Utility rates were applied to each climate zone (CZ) based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone according to Figure 1. A time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases. In addition to energy consumption charges, there are kW demand charges for monthly peak loads. Utilities calculate the peak load by the highest kW of the 15-minute interval readings in the month. However, the energy modeling software produces results on hourly intervals, hence TRC calculated the demand charges by multiplying the highest load of all hourly loads in a month with the corresponding demand charge per kW. For cases with PV generation, the approved NEM2 (Net Energy Metering) tariffs were applied along with minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges. For the PV cases, annual electric production was always less than annual electricity consumption; and therefore, no credits for surplus generation were necessary. Figure 1. Utility Tariffs used based on CZ CZ Electric/Gas Utility Electricity (TOU) Natural Gas IOUs 1-5,11- 13,16 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) B-1/B-10 G-NR1 5 PG&E/Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) B-1/B-10 G-10 (GN-10) 6, 8-10, 14, 15 Southern California Edison (SCE)/SoCalGas TOU-GS-1/TOU-GS- 2/TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) 7, 10, 14 San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) TOU-A+EECC/AL- TOU+EECC GN-3 POUs 4 City of Palo Alto (CPAU) E-2/E-4 TOU G-2 12 Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)/PG&E GSN/GSS G-NR1 6, 8, 9, 16 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)/SoCalGas A-1/A-2 G-10 (GN-10) Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019) and escalation rates used in the development of the 2022 TDV multipliers (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2021). See Appendix 7.2 Utility Rate Schedules for additional details. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 4 Methodology and Assumptions localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The analysis uses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions multipliers developed by E3 (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2021). E3 developed the multipliers to support development of compliance metrics for use in the 2022 Title 24. There are 8,760 hourly multipliers accounting for GHG source emissions, including Renewable Portfolio Standards, methane leakage, and refrigerant leakage. There are 32 strings of multipliers, with a different string for each California Climate Zone and each fuel type (electricity and natural gas). The Reach Code Team used the multipliers to calculate emissions from both the 2019 and 2022 simulation results. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 5 Prototype Description, Measure Packages, and Costs localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 3 Prototype Description, Measure Packages, and Costs This section describes the prototype and analysis method, drawing from previous 2019 Reach Code research where necessary. The Reach Code Team used a modified version of the DOE building prototype to evaluate cost- effectiveness of measure packages, after initializing the prototypes to comply with 2019 Title 24 new construction requirements, to reflect a prescriptively compliant new construction building in each CZ. The 2019 Nonresidential Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study (Statewide Utility Team, 2020) examined the Medium Office prototype for mixed-fuel plus efficiency, all-electric plus efficiency, and demand flexibility measure packages (Statewide Reach Code Team 2019a). The Medium Office was a 53,000 ft2 building, and representatives from jurisdictions planning to use the results to inform the development of local ordinances were unsure whether findings would apply to larger office buildings. In response, the Reach Code Team builds on the 2019 study by examining a Large Office prototype in this report. Prototype Characteristics Figure 2 summarizes the basic geometry and features of the Large Office. For the purposes of this study, the number of above-grade floors were reduced from the DOE prototype from ten to five at the request of jurisdictions to more accurately represent their building stock, which also reduces the total conditioned floor area. The Reach Code Team would not expect results to vary significantly compared to a ten-story office due to similar building characteristics and systems, just at a larger scale. The baseline HVAC system includes two natural gas hot water boilers, two chillers and two cooling towers, one built up rooftop unit per floor, and variable air volume (VAV) hot water reheat boxes. The SHW design includes one 20.12 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 70-gal storage tank. Figure 2. Large Office Prototype Characteristics Large Office Conditioned Floor Area (ft2) 191,765 Number of Stories 5 (1 below grade) Window-to-Wall Area Ratio 0.38 Baseline HVAC System Built-up VAV hot water reheat system. Central gas hot water boilers (2), chillers (2), and cooling towers (2) Baseline Water Heating System 70 gal of electric resistance water heating Measure Definition and Costs 3.2.1 All-Electric For the Large Office all-electric HVAC design, as with the Medium Office, the Reach Code Team selected a VAV system with an electric resistance reheat instead of hot water reheat coil. An alternative all-electric design that is designed frequently in large offices is a central heat recovery chiller and water heater serving hot water reheat coils. While this system can perform very efficiently, as of October 2021 it cannot be modeled in CBECC-Com (though the Energy Commission intends on adding this functionality in the near term). Actual energy consumption for the VAV hot water reheat baseline may be higher than the current simulation results show due to a combination of boiler and hot water distribution losses. A recent research study shows that the total losses can account for as much as 80 percent of the boiler energy use (Raftery, Geronazzo, Cheng, and Paliaga, 2018). If these losses are considered savings for the Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 6 Prototype Description, Measure Packages, and Costs localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 electric resistance reheat (which has no associated distribution losses) compared to the mixed-fuel baseline, the savings may be higher. Cost data for the Large Office prototype are presented in Figure 3. The all-electric HVAC system presents cost savings compared to the hot water reheat system from elimination of the hot water boiler and associated hot water piping distribution. Chiller, chilled-water piping, and controls cost are not presented as they are assumed to be the same for both the mixed-fuel and all-electric scenarios. The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water heater as the baseline and has no associated incremental costs. Figure 3. Large Office All-Electric Heating System Costs Mixed-Fuel Measure Mixed-Fuel Cost All-Electric Measure All-Electric Cost All-Electric Incremental Cost Source Boilers (2) and heating hot water piping $876,616 n/a $0 ($876,616) Cost estimator Hydronic VAV reheat terminal units $2,041,460 Electric resistance VAV reheat terminal units $2,322,839 $281,379 Cost estimator Gas plumbing distribution $6,843 Electrical upgrades, such as wiring, distribution boards, and transformers $478,656 $471,813 RSMeans Natural gas plan review, service extension, meter $18,316 n/a $0 ($18,316) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Study (Statewide Reach Code Team 2019a) Total $2,943,235 $2,801,495 ($141,740) 3.2.2 Efficiency Efficiency measures are the same as those from the 2019 Nonresidential Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Codes Team 2019a) for the Medium Office, which are primarily lighting measures but also include envelope and HVAC measures. Please refer to Appendix 7.3 Efficiency Measures for Large Office for cost information reproduced from the 2019 study. 3.2.3 Solar PV The Reach Code Team estimated a large PV system size at 15 W/ft2 covering 50 percent of the roof area. This approach assumes that the other 50 percent of the roof is for skylights, mechanical equipment, and walking paths. Figure 4 shows the percent of electricity offset by PV for both mixed-fuel and all-electric buildings over their respective federal minimum design package. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 7 Prototype Description, Measure Packages, and Costs localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 Figure 4. Annual Percent kWh Offset with 285 kW Array 3.2.4 Measure Packages The Reach Code Team examined the following packages: • Large Office Baseline Package: Mixed-fuel prescriptively built building. • All-Electric (AE): Including electric appliances that meet federal minimum efficiency criteria, as well as electrical upgrades, such as on-site secondary transformers. All other aspects of the building are prescriptively built. • All-Electric + Efficiency (AE Eff): All-electric, including efficiency measures. See Appendix 7.3 Efficiency Measures for Large Office for details. • All-Electric + Efficiency + Solar PV (AE Eff PV): All-electric, including efficiency measures and a solar PV array. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Annueal Percent kWh OffsetClimate Zone Mixed Fuel All-Electric Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 8 Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 4 Results TDV and on-bill based cost-effectiveness results are presented in terms of B/C ratio and NPV savings. What constitutes a ‘benefit’ or a ‘cost’ varies with the scenarios because both energy savings and incremental construction costs may be negative depending on the package. Typically, on-bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’ while incremental construction costs are treated as ‘costs.’ In cases where both construction costs and on-bill savings are negative; the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the on-bill negative savings are the ‘cost.’ Overarching factors to keep in mind when reviewing the results include: • All-electric packages will have lower GHG emissions than mixed-fuel packages in all cases, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers. • To be approved by the Energy Commission’s application process, local reach codes that amend the energy code must both be cost-effective compared to the mixed-fuel baseline package and exceed the energy performance budget using TDV (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) compared to the standard design in the compliance software. To emphasize these two important factors, the figures in this section highlight in green the modeling results that have either a positive compliance margin or are cost-effective. This will allow readers to identify whether a scenario is fully or partially supportive of a reach code. When a modeling result is not cost-effective, it is highlighted in red. Section 5 highlights only results that have both a positive compliance margin and are cost- effective, to allow readers to identify reach code-ready scenarios. • Nonresidential buildings do not have an all-electric prescriptive design pathway and are compared to a mixed- fuel standard design for most occupancies. Because of current policy metrics, this comparison typically results in TDV-related penalties and associated negative compliance margins. These negative compliance margins are reflected in the ‘baseline’ all-electric packages, and must be overcome with the addition of building energy efficiency measures. • The Energy Commission does not currently allow compliance credit for solar PV in nonresidential buildings. Thus, compliance margins for nonresidential packages containing these technologies are the same as packages without. However, the Reach Code Team did include the impact of solar PV when calculating overall TDV cost- effectiveness. • As mentioned in Section 2.1.4, The Reach Code Team coordinated with utilities to select tariffs given the annual energy demand profile and the most prevalent rates in each utility territory. The Reach Code Team did not compare a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost-effectiveness although utility rate changes or updates can effect on-bill cost-effectiveness results. • As a point of comparison, mixed-fuel baseline energy figures are provided in Appendix 7.4 Mixed-Fuel Baseline Energy Figures. • The cost-effectiveness results for 2022 analysis differs from 2019 mainly in TDV savings, but also differs slightly in energy consumption which translates in minor difference in on-bill energy savings. The Reach Code Team has not reported the 2022 Energy Code compliance margin outputs as the compliance software has not yet been updated to reflect the 2022 Energy Code. Because there is no all-electric prescriptive pathway for nonresidential buildings under the 2019 Energy Code, Figure 5 shows negative compliance margins in all CZs when replacing natural gas HVAC equipment with all-electric. The addition of cost-effective energy efficiency measures—with lighting delivering the most savings—yields positive compliance margins in all CZs except the coldest (CZs 1 and 16). The construction cost savings of using electric HVAC results in cost-effective all-electric efficiency packages in most CZs, and efficiency + solar PV packages in all CZs, as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 9 Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 Figure 5. Cost-effectiveness for Large Office: All-Electric CZ Utility Annual Elec Savings (kWh) Annual Gas Savings (therms) Annual GHG Reductions (tons) Comp- liance Margin Upfront Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings Lifecycle $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) CZ01 PG&E (262,847) 16,395 28.5 -29.8% $(141,740) $(359,716) $(371,473) 0.4 0.4 $(217,976) $(229,733) CZ02 PG&E (206,143) 12,600 19.7 -11.5% $(141,740) $(290,124) $(233,027) 0.5 0.6 $(148,385) $(91,287) CZ03 PG&E (166,467) 9,905 13.6 -16.6% $(141,740) $(227,387) $(206,276) 0.6 0.7 $(85,647) $(64,536) CZ04 PG&E (147,048) 8,778 12.1 -11.0% $(141,740) $(186,234) $(170,819) 0.7 0.8 $(44,494) $(29,079) CZ04-2 CPAU (147,048) 8,778 12.1 -11.0% $(141,740) $(81,699) $(170,819) 0.8 0.8 $60,041 $(29,079) CZ05 PG&E (194,316) 11,756 17.1 -18.1% $(141,740) $(226,399) $(241,369) 0.6 0.6 $(84,659) $(99,629) CZ05-2 SoCalGas (194,316) 11,756 17.1 -18.1% $(141,740) $(288,893) $(241,369) 0.5 0.6 $(147,154) $(99,629) CZ06 SCE (123,271) 7,088 7.5 -7.7% $(141,740) $(45,293) $(146,660) 3.2 0.97 $96,447 $(4,920) CZ06-2 LADWP (123,271) 7,088 7.5 -7.7% $(141,740) $33,031 $(146,660) >1 0.97 $174,771 $(4,920) CZ07 SDG&E (93,327) 5,092 4.7 -7.9% $(141,740) $(36,592) $(116,624) 3.9 1.2 $105,148 $25,116 CZ08 SCE (112,492) 6,371 6.4 -5.1% $(141,740) $(34,679) $(134,973) 4.1 1.1 $107,061 $6,767 CZ08-2 LADWP (112,492) 6,371 6.4 -5.1% $(141,740) $34,202 $(134,973) >1 1.1 $175,942 $6,767 CZ09 SCE (112,134) 6,444 7.1 -2.6% $(141,740) $(35,382) $(131,390) 4.1 1.1 $106,358 $10,350 CZ09-2 LADWP (112,134) 6,444 7.1 -2.6% $(141,740) $33,011 $(131,390) >1 1.1 $174,751 $10,350 CZ10 SDG&E (134,491) 7,574 7.8 -4.8% $(141,740) $(61,938) $(160,839) 2.3 0.9 $79,802 $(19,099) CZ10-2 SCE (134,491) 7,574 7.8 -4.8% $(141,740) $(54,157) $(160,839) 2.7 0.9 $87,583 $(19,099) CZ11 PG&E (179,689) 10,792 13.9 -5.9% $(141,740) $(244,543) $(200,734) 0.6 0.7 $(102,803) $(58,994) CZ12 PG&E (177,729) 10,678 14.0 -7.3% $(141,740) $(258,118) $(200,865) 0.5 0.7 $(116,378) $(59,126) CZ12-2 SMUD (177,729) 10,678 14.0 -7.3% $(141,740) $(102,625) $(200,865) 1.3 0.7 $39,115 $(59,126) CZ13 PG&E (159,727) 9,590 11.5 -5.8% $(141,740) $(220,348) $(183,952) 0.6 0.8 $(78,608) $(42,212) CZ14 SDG&E (190,360) 10,986 10.4 -7.4% $(141,740) $(216,220) $(221,327) 0.7 0.6 $(74,480) $(79,587) CZ14-2 SCE (190,360) 10,986 10.4 -7.4% $(141,740) $(138,030) $(221,327) 1.05 0.6 $3,710 $(79,587) CZ15 SCE (71,444) 3,890 1.9 2.1% $(141,740) $(22,684) $(86,001) 6.4 1.6 $119,056 $55,739 CZ16 PG&E (336,846) 18,599 23.5 -37.8% $(141,740) $(536,715) $(576,006) 0.3 0.2 $(394,975) $(434,266) CZ16-2 LADWP (336,846) 18,599 23.5 -37.8% $(141,740) $(56,676) $(576,006) 2.5 0.2 $85,064 $(434,266) Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 10 Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 Figure 6. Cost-effectiveness for Large Office: All-Electric + Eff CZ Utility Annual Elec Savings (kWh) Annual Gas Savings (therms) Annual GHG Reductions (tons) Comp- liance Margin Upfront Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings Lifecycle $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) CZ01 PG&E (164,077) 16,395 44.3 -11.3% $58,676 $(109,969) $(145,177) -1.9 -2.5 $(168,645) $(203,854) CZ02 PG&E (91,089) 12,600 38.4 6.1% $58,676 $15,651 $57,472 0.3 0.98 $(43,025) $(1,205) CZ03 PG&E (47,376) 9,905 33.3 5.5% $58,676 $89,927 $84,923 1.5 1.4 $31,251 $26,246 CZ04 PG&E (23,199) 8,778 32.7 9.2% $84,515 $143,442 $137,608 1.7 1.6 $58,927 $53,094 CZ04-2 CPAU (23,199) 8,778 32.7 9.2% $84,515 $195,263 $137,608 2.3 1.6 $110,748 $53,094 CZ05 PG&E (80,683) 11,756 35.2 2.2% $58,676 $75,708 $34,757 1.29 0.6 $17,031 $(23,919) CZ05-2 SoCalGas (80,683) 11,756 35.2 2.2% $58,676 $13,213 $34,757 0.2 0.6 $(45,463) $(23,919) CZ06 SCE 10,223 7,088 30.5 12.6% $84,515 $151,619 $192,519 1.8 2.3 $67,105 $108,004 CZ06-2 LADWP 10,223 7,088 30.5 12.6% $84,515 $164,918 $192,519 1.95 2.3 $80,403 $108,004 CZ07 SDG&E 42,211 5,092 28.5 14.1% $84,515 $349,658 $232,184 4.1 2.7 $265,144 $147,670 CZ08 SCE 21,755 6,371 29.9 13.6% $84,515 $158,816 $207,746 1.9 2.5 $74,302 $123,231 CZ08-2 LADWP 21,755 6,371 29.9 13.6% $84,515 $161,890 $207,746 1.9 2.5 $77,376 $123,231 CZ09 SCE 18,792 6,444 29.4 13.8% $84,515 $156,638 $202,843 1.9 2.4 $72,123 $118,328 CZ09-2 LADWP 18,792 6,444 29.4 13.8% $84,515 $161,996 $202,843 1.9 2.4 $77,482 $118,328 CZ10 SDG&E 4,572 7,574 32.1 13.0% $84,515 $300,594 $184,670 3.6 2.2 $216,079 $100,155 CZ10-2 SCE 4,572 7,574 32.1 13.0% $84,515 $140,138 $184,670 1.7 2.2 $55,624 $100,155 CZ11 PG&E (58,308) 10,792 33.9 9.1% $84,515 $86,028 $102,806 1.0 1.2 $1,513 $18,291 CZ12 PG&E (58,409) 10,678 33.4 8.8% $84,515 $53,554 $102,291 0.6 1.2 $(30,961) $17,777 CZ12-2 SMUD (58,409) 10,678 33.4 8.8% $84,515 $110,597 $102,291 1.3 1.2 $26,082 $17,777 CZ13 PG&E (43,265) 9,590 30.5 9.5% $84,515 $84,765 $104,812 1.0 1.2 $250 $20,297 CZ14 SDG&E (70,979) 10,986 30.0 7.7% $84,515 $88,727 $80,053 1.0 0.9 $4,213 $(4,462) CZ14-2 SCE (70,979) 10,986 30.0 7.7% $84,515 $18,453 $80,053 0.2 0.9 $(66,062) $(4,462) CZ15 SCE 55,545 3,890 23.4 15.6% $84,515 $167,981 $235,297 2.0 2.8 $83,466 $150,782 CZ16 PG&E (217,178) 18,599 45.5 -18.9% $58,676 $(263,234) $(289,187) -4.5 -4.9 $(321,910) $(347,863) CZ16-2 LADWP (217,178) 18,599 45.5 -18.9% $58,676 $18,637 $(289,187) 0.3 -4.9 $(40,040) $(347,863) Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 11 Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 Figure 7. Cost-effectiveness for Large Office: All-Electric + Eff + PV CZ Utility Annual Elec Savings (kWh) Annual Gas Savings (therms) Annual GHG Reductions (tons) Comp- liance Margin Upfront Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings Lifecycle $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) CZ01 PG&E 208,501 16,395 61.2 -11.3% $669,506 $793,703 $652,657 1.2 0.97 $124,197 $(16,848) CZ02 PG&E 355,791 12,600 58.7 6.1% $669,506 $1,091,002 $1,033,622 1.6 1.5 $421,496 $364,116 CZ03 PG&E 399,620 9,905 53.8 5.5% $669,506 $1,168,136 $1,041,892 1.7 1.6 $498,630 $372,386 CZ04 PG&E 440,513 8,778 54.6 9.2% $695,344 $1,265,593 $1,150,898 1.8 1.7 $570,248 $455,553 CZ04-2 CPAU 440,513 8,778 54.6 9.2% $695,344 $1,252,581 $1,150,898 1.8 1.7 $557,237 $455,553 CZ05 PG&E 401,653 11,756 59.1 2.2% $669,506 $1,239,738 $1,068,395 1.9 1.6 $570,232 $398,889 CZ05-2 SoCalGas 401,653 11,756 59.1 2.2% $669,506 $1,177,244 $1,068,395 1.8 1.6 $507,738 $398,889 CZ06 SCE 465,400 7,088 54.1 12.6% $695,344 $680,649 $1,210,243 0.98 1.7 $(14,695) $514,899 CZ06-2 LADWP 465,400 7,088 54.1 12.6% $695,344 $579,838 $1,210,243 0.8 1.7 $(115,506) $514,899 CZ07 SDG&E 517,218 5,092 54.0 14.1% $695,344 $1,360,957 $1,282,704 2.0 1.8 $665,612 $587,360 CZ08 SCE 481,259 6,371 53.4 13.6% $695,344 $685,891 $1,274,010 0.99 1.8 $(9,453) $578,665 CZ08-2 LADWP 481,259 6,371 53.4 13.6% $695,344 $575,703 $1,274,010 0.8 1.8 $(119,642) $578,665 CZ09 SCE 492,757 6,444 53.9 13.8% $695,344 $692,836 $1,283,827 0.99 1.8 $(2,508) $588,483 CZ09-2 LADWP 492,757 6,444 53.9 13.8% $695,344 $582,237 $1,283,827 0.8 1.8 $(113,108) $588,483 CZ10 SDG&E 478,753 7,574 56.7 13.0% $695,344 $1,296,256 $1,229,995 1.9 1.8 $600,912 $534,651 CZ10-2 SCE 478,753 7,574 56.7 13.0% $695,344 $674,381 $1,229,995 0.97 1.8 $(20,964) $534,651 CZ11 PG&E 399,585 10,792 55.4 9.1% $695,344 $1,162,457 $1,129,930 1.7 1.6 $467,113 $434,585 CZ12 PG&E 392,978 10,678 54.0 8.8% $695,344 $1,131,755 $1,115,934 1.6 1.6 $436,411 $420,590 CZ12-2 SMUD 392,978 10,678 54.0 8.8% $695,344 $904,425 $1,115,934 1.3 1.6 $209,080 $420,590 CZ13 PG&E 404,328 9,590 50.6 9.5% $695,344 $1,150,674 $1,095,498 1.7 1.6 $455,329 $400,153 CZ14 SDG&E 449,987 10,986 57.4 7.7% $695,344 $1,231,844 $1,289,059 1.8 1.9 $536,499 $593,715 CZ14-2 SCE 449,987 10,986 57.4 7.7% $695,344 $631,960 $1,289,059 0.91 1.9 $(63,384) $593,715 CZ15 SCE 544,152 3,890 49.3 15.6% $695,344 $692,819 $1,335,246 0.99 1.9 $(2,526) $639,902 CZ16 PG&E 269,671 18,599 69.9 -18.9% $669,506 $846,748 $748,403 1.3 1.1 $177,242 $78,897 CZ16-2 LADWP 269,671 18,599 69.9 -18.9% $669,506 $418,341 $748,403 0.6 1.1 $(251,165) $78,897 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 12 Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 The Reach Code Team tested the All-Electric + Efficiency package in 2022 software to ascertain potential improvements in cost-effectiveness resulting from 2022 weather files and TDV, because the TDV intensity of electricity usage is lower in 2022 versus 2019 TDV (i.e., electricity usage has become less valuable, and thus electrification may be less penalized in the compliance software). Figure 8 depicts the growing TDV intensity of gas and the lower intensity of electricity for the Large Office when comparing the 2022 annual TDV consumption of the mixed-fuel baseline to the 2019 annual TDV consumption. The overall 2022 TDV energy consumption is lower than 2019. Figure 8. Annual TDV Energy Consumption Mixed-Fuel Baseline, 2019 and 2022 Figure 9 shows that the 2022 TDV savings of the All-Electric + Eff packages are lower than 2019 for all CZs except CZ3. This may be because the 1) overall TDV consumption of the mixed-fuel baseline is lower in 2022, as shown above, and thus the available savings are also smaller, and 2) the largest energy efficiency gains are resulting from lighting measure electricity savings, and these savings are less valued under 2022 TDV. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 13 Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 Figure 9. TDV Savings for All-Electric + Eff Packages, 2019 vs 2022 Cost-effectiveness does not show significant improvement in Figure 10. Note that the software outputs for 2022 compliance margins are not reported. The 2022 Energy Code compliance software is still in development. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 14 Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 Figure 10. Cost-effectiveness for Large Office: All-Electric + Eff 2022 CZ Utility Annual Elec Savings (kWh) Annual Gas Savings (therms) Annual GHG Reductions (tons) Comp- liance Margin Upfront Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings Lifecycle $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) CZ01 PG&E (187,142) 18,821 36.4 <0 $58,676 $(107,652) $(197,805) -1.8 -3.4 $(166,328) $(256,481) CZ02 PG&E (106,635) 14,094 39.2 >0 $58,676 $40,368 $41,623 0.7 0.7 $(18,308) $(17,054) CZ03 PG&E (50,653) 10,650 38.2 >0 $58,676 $132,079 $95,007 2.3 1.6 $73,402 $36,331 CZ04 PG&E (26,266) 9,368 40.1 >0 $84,515 $177,292 $122,821 2.1 1.5 $92,777 $38,306 CZ04-2 CPAU (26,266) 9,368 40.1 >0 $84,515 $229,143 $122,821 2.7 1.5 $144,628 $38,306 CZ05 PG&E (62,776) 11,028 36.7 >0 $58,676 $123,433 $33,729 2.1 0.6 $64,757 $(24,948) CZ05-2 SoCalGas (62,776) 11,028 36.7 >0 $58,676 $64,558 $33,729 1.1 0.6 $5,882 $(24,948) CZ06 SCE 14,532 5,151 41.7 >0 $84,515 $117,536 $133,269 1.4 1.6 $33,021 $48,754 CZ06-2 LADWP 14,532 5,151 41.7 >0 $84,515 $120,465 $133,269 1.4 1.6 $35,951 $48,754 CZ07 SDG&E 42,566 5,313 42.0 >0 $84,515 $330,250 $217,762 3.9 2.6 $245,735 $133,248 CZ08 SCE 30,239 6,218 41.9 >0 $84,515 $161,511 $198,882 1.9 2.4 $76,997 $114,367 CZ08-2 LADWP 30,239 6,218 41.9 >0 $84,515 $162,228 $198,882 1.9 2.4 $77,714 $114,367 CZ09 SCE 24,495 6,646 41.2 >0 $84,515 $158,352 $201,004 1.9 2.4 $73,838 $116,490 CZ09-2 LADWP 24,495 6,646 41.2 >0 $84,515 $162,958 $201,004 1.9 2.4 $78,444 $116,490 CZ10 SDG&E 5,973 7,669 42.9 >0 $84,515 $315,200 $176,958 3.7 2.1 $230,686 $92,443 CZ10-2 SCE 5,973 7,669 42.9 >0 $84,515 $146,716 $176,958 1.7 2.1 $62,202 $92,443 CZ11 PG&E (69,606) 12,156 40.1 >0 $84,515 $108,111 $81,549 1.3 0.96 $23,596 $(2,966) CZ12 PG&E (67,837) 11,933 38.4 >0 $84,515 $101,811 $70,264 1.2 0.8 $17,297 $(14,251) CZ12-2 SMUD (67,837) 11,933 38.4 >0 $84,515 $118,718 $70,264 1.4 0.8 $34,204 $(14,251) CZ13 PG&E (39,003) 9,930 37.3 >0 $84,515 $127,205 $102,422 1.5 1.2 $42,691 $17,908 CZ14 SDG&E (66,480) 11,529 35.5 >0 $84,515 $190,690 $67,444 2.3 0.8 $106,175 $(17,071) CZ14-2 SCE (66,480) 11,529 35.5 >0 $84,515 $74,832 $67,444 0.89 0.8 $(9,683) $(17,071) CZ15 SCE 60,850 4,137 38.4 >0 $84,515 $167,823 $231,422 2.0 2.7 $83,309 $146,907 CZ16 PG&E (233,692) 20,003 37.1 <0 $58,676 $(250,720) $(350,853) -4.3 -6.0 $(309,396) $(409,529) CZ16-2 LADWP (233,692) 20,003 37.1 <0 $58,676 $43,985 $(350,853) 0.7 -6.0 $(14,691) $(409,529) Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 15 Summary of Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 5 Summary of Results The Reach Code Team developed packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with PV generation and battery storage systems, simulated them in CBECC-Com, and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Code Team coordinated assumptions with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results. Figure 11 summarizes results for the Large Office prototype and depicts the compliance margins achieved for each CZ and package. Because local reach codes must both exceed the Energy Commission performance budget (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) and be cost-effective, the Reach Code Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary for potential reach code policies: • Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both on-bill and TDV approaches. • Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the on-bill or TDV approach. • Cells not highlighted either depict a negative compliance margin or a package that was not cost-effective using either the on-bill or TDV approach. The Reach Code Team found that electrifying Large Office HVAC and adding efficiency measures is generally cost- effective. The all-electric plus energy efficiency packages are cost-effective in all CZs except 1, 2, 5-2 (SoCalGas), 14- 2 (SCE), and 16. Adding solar PV makes the efficiency packages cost-effective in all CZs, though do not achieve positive compliance margins in CZs 1 and 16. Reach codes may require all-electric large offices in all CZs except 1 and 16, but must include solar PV requirements in CZs 2, 5-2, and 14-2. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 16 Summary of Results localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 Figure 11. Large Office Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost-effectiveness CZ Utility All Electric (2019 TDV) All Electric (2022 TDV) AE AE + Eff AE + Eff + PV AE + Eff CZ01 PG&E -30% -11% -11% <0 CZ02 PG&E -12% 6% 6% >0 CZ03 PG&E -17% 5% 5% >0 CZ04 PG&E -11% 9% 9% >0 CZ04-2 CPAU -11% 9% 9% >0 CZ05 PG&E -18% 2% 2% >0 CZ05-2 SoCalGas -18% 2% 2% >0 CZ06 SCE -8% 13% 13% >0 CZ06-2 LADWP -8% 13% 13% >0 CZ07 SDG&E -8% 14% 14% >0 CZ08 SCE -5% 14% 14% >0 CZ08-2 LADWP -5% 14% 14% >0 CZ09 SCE -3% 14% 14% >0 CZ09-2 LADWP -3% 14% 14% >0 CZ10 SDG&E -5% 13% 13% >0 CZ10-2 SCE -5% 13% 13% >0 CZ11 PG&E -6% 9% 9% >0 CZ12 PG&E -7% 9% 9% >0 CZ12-2 SMUD -7% 9% 9% >0 CZ13 PG&E -6% 10% 10% >0 CZ14 SDG&E -7% 8% 8% >0 CZ14-2 SCE -7% 8% 8% >0 CZ15 SCE 2% 16% 16% >0 CZ16 PG&E -38% -19% -19% <0 CZ16-2 LADWP -38% -19% -19% <0 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 17 References localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 6 References E3. (2021). Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=233260&DocumentContentId=65748 E-CFR. (2020). Retrieved from Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197 Energy & Environmental Economics. (2019). Residential Building Electrification in California. Retrieved from https://www.ethree.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf Energy & Environmental Economics. (2021). Staff Workshop - 2022 Energy Code Compliance Metrics. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/event/workshop/2020-03/staff-workshop-2022-energy-code-compliance-metrics Navigant. (2018). Retrieved from http://calmac.org/publications/LED_Pricing_Analysis_Report_- _Revised_1.19.2018_Final.pdf NORESCO. (2020). Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=233257&DocumentContentId=65743 Raftery, Geronazzo, Cheng, and Paliaga. (2018). Quantifying energy losses in hot water reheat systems. Energy and Buildings. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.020 Seventhwave. (2015). Retrieved from https://slipstreaminc.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/task-tuning-report- mndoc-2015.pdf Statewide Utility Team. (2020, September 24). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=233820- 7&DocumentContentId=66491 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 18 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 7 Appendices Map of California CZs CZ geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 12. The map in Figure 12 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 12. Map of California CZs Utility Rate Schedules The Reach Code Team used the IOU rate tariffs listed in to determine the on-bill savings for each prototype. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 19 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 Figure 13. Utility Tariffs Analyzed Based on CZ: Detailed View CZ Electric/Gas Utility Electricity (TOU) Natural Gas CZ01 PG&E B-10 G-NR1 CZ02 PG&E B-10 G-NR1 CZ03 PG&E B-10 G-NR1 CZ04 PG&E B-10 G-NR1 CZ04-2 CPAU E-2 G-2 CZ05 PG&E B-10 G-NR1 CZ05-2 PG&E/SoCalGas B-10 G-10 (GN-10) CZ06 SCE/SoCalGas TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ06-2 LADWP/SoCalGas A-2 G-10 (GN-10) CZ07 SDG&E AL-TOU+EECC GN-3 CZ08 SCE/SoCalGas TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ08-2 LADWP/SoCalGas A-2 G-10 (GN-10) CZ09 SCE/SoCalGas TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ09-2 LADWP/SoCalGas A-2 G-10 (GN-10) CZ10 SDG&E AL-TOU+EECC GN-3 CZ10-2 SCE/SoCalGas TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ11 PG&E B-10 G-NR1 CZ12 PG&E B-10 G-NR1 CZ12-2 SMUD/PG&E GSS G-NR1 CZ13 PG&E B-10 G-NR1 CZ14 SDG&E AL-TOU+EECC GN-3 CZ14-2 SCE/SoCalGas TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ15 SCE/SoCalGas TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ16 PG&E B-10 G-NR1 CZ16-2 LADWP/PG&E A-2 G-NR1 Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019) and escalation rates used in the development of the 2022 TDV multipliers (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2021). Figure 14 demonstrates the escalation rates used for nonresidential buildings above inflation. Figure 14. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Above Inflation Year Source Statewide Electric Nonresidential Average Rate (%/year, real) Natural Gas Nonresidential Core Rate (%/year, real) 2020 E3 2019 2.0% 4.3% 2021 E3 2019 2.0% 4.3% 2022 E3 2019 2.0% 2.7% 2023 E3 2019 2.0% 4.0% 2024 2022 TDV 0.7% 7.7% 2025 2022 TDV 0.5% 5.5% 2026 2022 TDV 0.7% 5.6% 2027 2022 TDV 0.2% 5.6% 2028 2022 TDV 0.6% 5.7% Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 20 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 2029 2022 TDV 0.7% 5.7% 2030 2022 TDV 0.6% 5.8% 2031 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.3% 2032 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.6% 2033 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.4% 2034 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.4% Efficiency Measures for Large Office The Reach Code Team applied the efficiency measures from the 2019 Nonresidential Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study to the Large Office. These measures are listed below. Refer to Figure 15 for cost information reproduced from the 2019 study. • Modify SHGC fenestration: In all CZs, Reduce window SHGC from the prescriptive value of 0.25 to 0.22. The fenestration visible transmittance and U-factor remain at prescriptive values. • Fenestration as a function of orientation: Limit the amount of fenestration area as a function of orientation. East- facing and west-facing windows are each limited to one-half of the average amount of north-facing and south- facing windows. • VAV box minimum flow: Reduce VAV box minimum airflows from the current T24 prescriptive requirement of 20 percent of maximum (design) airflow to the T24 zone ventilation minimums.1 • Interior lighting reduced LPD: Reduce LPD by 15 percent. • Institutional tuning: Limit the maximum output or maximum power draw of lighting to 85 percent of full light output or full power draw. • Daylight dimming plus off: Turn daylight-controlled lights completely off when the daylight available in the daylit zone is greater than 150 percent of the illuminance received from the general lighting system at full power. There is no associated cost with this measure, as the 2019 T24 Standards already require multilevel lighting and daylight sensors in primary and secondary daylit spaces. This measure is simply a revised control strategy, and does not increase the number of sensors required or labor to install and program a sensor • Occupant sensing in open plan offices: In an open plan office area greater than 250 ft2, control lighting based on occupant sensing controls. Two workstations per occupancy sensor. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 21 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 Figure 15. Energy Efficiency Measures for Large Office Measure Baseline T24 Requirement Incremental Cost Sources & Notes Modify SHGC Fenestration SHGC of 0.25 $1.60 /ft2 window for SHGC decreases, $0/ft2 for SHGC increases Costs from major U.S. manufacturer. Fenestration as a Function of Orientation Limit on total window area and west- facing window area as a function of wall area. $0 No additional cost associated with the measure; measure is a design consideration not an equipment cost. VAV Box Minimum Flow 20 percent of maximum (design) airflow $0 No additional cost associated with the measure; measure is a design consideration not an equipment cost. Interior Lighting Reduced LPD Per Area Category Method, varies by Primary Function Area. Office area 0.60 – 0.70 W/ft2 depending on area of space. $0 Industry report on LED pricing analysis shows that costs are not correlated with efficacy (Navigant, 2018) Institutional Tuning No requirement, but Power Adjustment Factor (PAF) credit of 0.10 available for luminaires in non-daylit areas and 0.05 for luminaires in daylit areas 2 $0.06/ft2 Industry report on institutional tuning (Seventhwave, 2015) Daylight Dimming Plus Off No requirement, but PAF credit of 0.10 available. $0 Given the amount of lighting controls already required, this measure is no additional cost. Occupant Sensing in Open Plan Offices No requirement, but PAF credit of 0.30 available. $189 /sensor; $74 /powered relay; $108 /secondary relay 2 workstations per sensor; 1 fixture per workstation; 4 workstations per master relay; 120 ft2/workstation in open office area, which is 53% of total floor area of the office 2 Power Adjustment Factors allow designers to tradeoff increased lighting power densities for more efficient designs. In this study, PAF-related measures assume that the more efficient design is incorporated without a tradeoff for increased lighting power density. Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Large Office 22 Appendices localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2021-10-13 Mixed-Fuel Baseline Energy Figures Figure 16 show the annual electricity and natural gas consumption and cost, compliance TDV, and GHG emissions for the mixed-fuel design baseline Large Office. The compliance margins are non-zero in some cases and represent typical baseline compliance margins with prescriptive prototypes. The non-zero compliance margins are largely a result of compliance software complexities, and they are not expected to significantly impact the proposed case results or nature of recommendations. Figure 16. Large Office: Mixed-Fuel Baseline CZ Utility Annual Electricity Consumption (kWh) Annual Natural Gas Consumption (therms) Annual Electricity Cost Annual Natural Gas Cost Compliance Margin Annual GHG Emissions (mton) CZ01 PG&E 1,215,150 16,395 $285,639 $18,373 -0.2% 234 CZ02 PG&E 1,319,740 12,600 $319,306 $14,117 2.5% 223 CZ03 PG&E 1,266,120 9,905 $301,581 $11,148 -1.0% 202 CZ04 PG&E 1,317,420 8,779 $315,439 $9,962 0.3% 202 CZ04-2 CPAU 1,317,420 8,779 $300,066 $11,493 0.3% 202 CZ05 PG&E 1,274,340 11,756 $304,572 $13,106 -0.4% 212 CZ05-2 SoCalGas 1,274,340 11,756 $304,572 $9,512 -0.4% 212 CZ06 SCE 1,363,960 7,088 $181,861 $6,093 1.1% 196 CZ06-2 LADWP 1,363,960 7,088 $138,338 $6,093 1.1% 196 CZ07 SDG&E 1,346,930 5,092 $411,744 $4,401 -0.5% 186 CZ08 SCE 1,383,530 6,371 $185,083 $5,308 2.4% 195 CZ08-2 LADWP 1,383,530 6,371 $140,976 $5,308 2.4% 195 CZ09 SCE 1,407,310 6,444 $190,030 $5,259 4.0% 200 CZ09-2 LADWP 1,407,310 6,444 $145,758 $5,259 4.0% 200 CZ10 SDG&E 1,402,250 7,574 $430,610 $6,419 3.5% 205 CZ10-2 SCE 1,402,250 7,574 $186,796 $6,018 3.5% 205 CZ11 PG&E 1,401,560 10,792 $336,954 $12,362 4.2% 224 CZ12 PG&E 1,361,920 10,678 $327,386 $12,186 3.6% 218 CZ12-2 SMUD 1,361,920 10,678 $190,932 $12,186 3.6% 218 CZ13 PG&E 1,405,300 9,590 $336,926 $11,074 4.1% 217 CZ14 SDG&E 1,404,070 10,986 $430,133 $8,626 3.8% 224 CZ14-2 SCE 1,404,070 10,986 $186,646 $8,527 3.8% 224 CZ15 SCE 1,560,390 3,890 $204,763 $3,365 5.8% 204 CZ16 PG&E 1,311,220 18,599 $307,718 $21,068 -0.4% 258 CZ16-2 LADWP 1,311,220 18,599 $127,503 $14,046 -0.4% 258 MCE’s Planning to Support Greater Building Electrification 12/22/21 MCE was formed for the express purpose of empowering its member communities to choose supply-side and demand-side resources that reflect their specific values and needs. Member community values and needs are reflected in the procurement principles, goals, targets, and directives reviewed and adopted by MCE’s governing Board via MCE’s Operational Integrated Resource Plan (OIRP). MCE’s 2022 OIRP (this document) has a planning period of 2022 through 2031 and takes into account numerous dimensions: ●Load forecasts based on the number and types of customers, potential service territory expansions, opt-out rates,electrification trends,demand-side resources, and weather; ●Renewables and emissions targets; ●Agency-wide budgetary considerations and customer rate implications; ●Long-term contracting requirements and goals for new steel in the ground; ●Grid reliability needs and capacity requirements,including regulatory mandates; ●Market price hedging needs; ●Goals for local resources, local resiliency MCE’s Procurement Process MCE has a well-established procurement process that includes the following ten key activities: 1. Forecasting load based on the number and types of customers, potential service territory expansions, opt-out rates,electrification trends, demand-side resources, and weather; 2. Integrated resource planning based on load forecasts,renewables and emissions targets, agency-wide budgetary considerations and customer rate implications, long-term contracting requirements and goals for new steel in the ground, grid reliability needs and capacity requirements, market price hedging needs and goals for local resources, local resiliency, and local workforce development; 3. Calculating open positions and interim volumetric needs based on MCE’s risk management policies; 4. Soliciting volumetric needs through Requests for Offers (RFOs), bilateral discussions or brokers; 5. Evaluating offers using a combination of proprietary and public models; 6. Negotiating (and ultimately executing) power purchase agreements, while enabling agreements and confirmations including credit provisions and collateral requirements; 7. Managing pre-Commercial Operation Date (COD) executed contracts and monitoring progress towards key development milestones (such as interconnection status, deliverability studies, siting, zoning, permitting, financing, construction, commercial operation, etc.); 8. Managing post-COD executed contracts: obtaining generation forecasts, bidding and scheduling resources into the CAISO, validating and paying invoices; 9. Bidding and scheduling MCE’s load into the CAISO; and 10. Regulatory compliance reporting. Electrification assumptions come from the CPUC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) which accounts for state level policy goals for building and transportation electrification. To learn more please see the report here. Below are slides from: 11/10/21 Power Association of Northern California (PANC) Presentation from the CEC - On Future Planning January 6, 2022 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors RE: DRAFT ELECTRIC NEW BUILDING ORDINANCE Dear Members of the Board, Thank you for moving forward on the proposed ordinance to ban natural gas in all new residences, and many new nonresidential buildings. We have reviewed the draft ordinance, and only have a couple of comments: 1. The ordinance is silent on new commercial buildings where HVAC and water heating systems are installed prior to occupancy types being identified (where a building is a multiple tenant type, and where a single tenant may have both applicable and exempt space types). On December 13, I spoke to Demian Hardman-Saldana about this, and he assured me – to our organization’s satisfaction – that planning and building department staff will not allow natural gas infrastructure to be installed unless a space is an exempt occupancy type. 2. Solar Thermal Systems. While this proposed ordinance has been characterized as an “electrification” ordinance, its purpose is to stop new buildings from burning fossil fuels. Therefore, solar thermal space heating and water heating systems ought to be allowed (and encouraged). Section III (b) includes a definition for All-Electric Building. The definition’s final line is “An all-electric building may utilize solar thermal pool heating.” We propose that this line’s wording change to “An all-electric building may utilize solar thermal space and solar water heating”. We look forward to working with the County on additional programs to phase out fossil fuels in transportation, and in all buildings – new and existing. Please feel free to contact me should you need any additional information. Gary Farber, on behalf of 350 Contra Costa cc: Demian Hardman-Saldana, Wes Sullens, Clerk of the Board January 6, 2022 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors RE: DRAFT ELECTRIC NEW BUILDING ORDINANCE Dear Members of the Board, Thank you for moving forward on the proposed ordinance to ban natural gas in all new residences, and many new nonresidential buildings. We have reviewed the draft ordinance, and only have a couple of comments: 1. The ordinance is silent on new commercial buildings where HVAC and water heating systems are installed prior to occupancy types being identified (where a building is a multiple tenant type, and where a single tenant may have both applicable and exempt space types). On December 13, I spoke to Demian Hardman-Saldana about this, and he assured me – to our organization’s satisfaction – that planning and building department staff will not allow natural gas infrastructure to be installed unless a space is an exempt occupancy type. 2. Solar Thermal Systems. While this proposed ordinance has been characterized as an “electrification” ordinance, its purpose is to stop new buildings from burning fossil fuels. Therefore, solar thermal space heating and water heating systems ought to be allowed (and encouraged). Section III (b) includes a definition for All-Electric Building. The definition’s final line is “An all-electric building may utilize solar thermal pool heating.” We propose that this line’s wording change to “An all-electric building may utilize solar thermal space and solar water heating”. We look forward to working with the County on additional programs to phase out fossil fuels in transportation, and in all buildings – new and existing. Please feel free to contact me should you need any additional information. Gary Farber, on behalf of 350 Contra Costa cc: Demian Hardman-Saldana, Wes Sullens, Clerk of the Board RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT update on COVID 19 and PROVIDE direction to staff. FISCAL IMPACT: Administrative Reports with no specific fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department has established a website dedicated to COVID-19, including daily updates. The site is located at: https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/ APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Monica Nino I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Update on COVID -19 CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: No name given; Casimir Karbo; Debbie Toth, Choice in Aging; Natalie. ACCEPTED the oral report. RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. CONSIDER and ADOPT the Proposed 2022 State and Federal Legislative Programs for Contra Costa County. 2. DIRECT the County Administrator's Office to return to the Board of Supervisors, as necessary, to update the County's adopted 2021-22 Legislative Platforms to reflect intervening actions of the Board. 3. DIRECT the County Administrator's Office and Department staff to review proposed legislation and regulation that relates to the County's adopted Legislative Platforms and recommend appropriate positions or comments on specific bills, ballot measures and regulations for consideration by the Board's Legislation Committee and/or the Board of Supervisors. 4. AUTHORIZE Board Members, the County's federal and state legislative representatives, and the County Administrator, or designee, to prepare and present information, position papers and testimony in support of the adopted 2021-22 Federal and State Legislative Platforms. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-655-2057 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D.4 To:Board of Supervisors From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Proposed 2022 State and Federal Legislative Programs for Contra Costa County FISCAL IMPACT: No direct impact to the County from the adoption of the Legislative Programs. However, if the programs are successful, additional state and federal funds could flow to Contra Costa County. BACKGROUND: At the beginning of each two-year legislative cycle, the Board of Supervisors adopts State and Federal Legislative Platforms that establish Contra Costa County's priorities and policy positions with regard to state and federal legislation and regulation. The Board of Supervisors adopted the 2021-22 State and Federal Legislative Platforms on January 19, 2021, with subsequent amendments in March 2021. The State Legislative Platform includes County-sponsored bill proposals, legislative or regulatory advocacy priorities, and principles that provide direction and guidance for identification of and advocacy on bills, regulations and ballot measures which could affect the services, programs or finances of Contra Costa County. The Federal Legislative Platform establishes federal funding needs and policy positions with regard to potential federal legislation and regulation. These Legislative Platform documents, prepared by staff of the County Administrator's Office in collaboration and consulation with County department heads and other key staff, the County's state and federal advocates, and with input from the Board's commissions/committees and the public, are utilized by the County's state and federal advocates, elected officials, and staff as the basis for the County's annual advocacy programs. For the development of the 2022 state and federal legislative programs, centered on the sponsored bills and appropriation requests initiated by the County as well as the County's legislative priorities, CAO staff conducted outreach in the fall of 2021, inviting input so that draft programs could be considered by the Legislation Committee (Chair Burgis/Vice Chair Mitchoff) at their November 8, 2021 meeting. Subsequent to the November 8, 2021 meeting of the Legislation Committee and their approval of the 2022 legislative programs, CAO staff conducted additional outreach to County department heads and key staff regarding potential state budget earmark requests; two additional earmark proposals were identified by Contra Costa Fire Protection District and staff to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. (These additional state budget earmark requests were not considered by the Legislation Committee due to timing.) Proposed 2022 State Legislative Program Carry-over from 2021 1. AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan) Mental Health: Mobile Crisis Support Teams: 988 Crisis: Additional funding is needed to provide community-based crisis response services. As a co-sponsor of AB 988, the County's role in system development and operations is of great concern to County Behavioral Health staff. Advocacy and engagement on this bill will continue in 2022. 2. AB 844 (Grayson) Green Empowerment Zone for the Northern Waterfront Area: Funding and staffing are needed to implement the bill. Incentive mechanisms need to be identified. Additional representation for Contra Costa County and the City of Richmond is also needed on the board. Although the bill was enacted in 2021, engagement on implementation and potential amendment will continue in 2022. 3. Medi-Cal expansion for ages 27-49: On July 27, Governor Newsom signed into law the first-in the-nation expansion of Medi-Cal to undocumented Californians age 50 and over, through the health care trailer bill, AB 133. Under AB 133, approximately 235,000 Californians aged 50 and older are newly eligible for Medi-Cal, including preventive services, long-term care and In-Home Supportive Services. In 2019, California became the frist state to expand Medi-Cal coverage to all eligible undocumented young adults up to the age of 26. With the Governor's signature on AB 133, a gap exists in eligibility for those ages 27-49. As part of the Governor's proposed 2022-23 budget, a proposal was included to extend coverage to immigrants ages 27-49 beginning in 2024. 4. ACA 1: ACA 1 would lower the necessary voter threshold from a two-thirds supermajority to 55 percent to approve local general obligation (GO) bonds and special taxes for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects. ACA 1 would create an additional exception to the 1% ad valorem tax rate limit on real property that would authorize a city, county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing, if the proposition proposing the tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city or county, and the proposition includes accountability requirements. This proposal will be carried over into 2022 for further consideration by the Legislature. This bill proposes an amendment to the California Constitution, which means that if passed by the Legislature, the proposal would then go to the ballot for voter approval at a statewide election. New County-sponsored (or co-sponsored) Legislation for 2022 1. Stipends to Address Menstruation Equity: Attachment A . The umbrella term "period poverty" describes inequities resulting from the lack of access to menstrual hygiene tools and resources. Menstrual hygiene products cannot be purchased with Food Stamps (CalFresh), Medi-Cal, and the WIC program. EHSD staff have developed a legislative proposal to provide monthly $15 stipends for hygiene products for female, transgender, and non-binary Welfare-to-Work recipients, aged 11-55, to allow for their purchase. The County Welfare Directors Association has approved an S-3 position on the proposal, which . 2. Illegal Dumping: Consistent with a strategy to target commercial actors who engage in illegal dumping activities, the County's state advocates have proposed, and staff in the Department of Conservation and Development and District Attorney's Office have reviewed, revisions to state statute (California Penal Code 374.3) that would allow for greater monetary penalties for persons who dump commercial quantities (increasing the ceilings of the fine from $3,000 to $5,000 on first conviction, from $6,000 to $10,000 on second conviction, and from $10,000 to $20,000 on third or subsequent conviction), loss of license, paying for the cost of removal, and posting the information publicly in a manner set forth by the court. If authorized by the Board of Supervisors, the proposed legislative changes would be submitted to the state Office of Legislative Counsel for drafting and introduction by a legislator. 3. Flaring Penalty Amendments: (co-sponsor) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) staff have developed legislative language relative to amending various sections of the Health and Safety Code (42400-42411) regarding violations of emissions limitations at large stationary sources. If introduced as a Senate or Assembly Bill, BAAQMD would likely act as the primary sponsor, pending Board approval, and Contra Costa County would co-sponsor, pending Board of Supervisor approval. 4. Accessible Transportation: (co-sponsor) The California Senior Legislature (CSL) is proposing new legislation to fund and improve accessible transportation statewide. Department of Conservation and Development staff and our transportation legislative advocate have been providing support to the CSL on the subject, given the supporting language in the adopted 2021-22 State Legislative Platform. The proposal would create the Accessible Transportation Account (ATA), authorize Consolidated Transportation Services Agencies (CTSAs, authorized under existing law) to oversee expenditures at the local level, and improve the CTSA mechanism. While vehicle registration/license fees are cited as potential revenue sources in the proposal, that specific detail has not yet been finalized. The origin of the bill was the State's Master Plan for Aging (MPA) process which began in 2019 and was completed in early 2021. The MPA addressed a spectrum of aging issues including housing, caregiving, affordability of aging, fighting isolation, and transportation. 5. While no language has been drafted or proposed as yet for a legislative vehicle, County Administrator staff seek authority, aligned with the adopted Platform advocacy priority "Health Care, including Mental Health, Behavioral Health and Substance Use Disorder services," to advocate for sufficient funding and streamlined statutory authority to provide individual or group psychotherapy, psychotropic medication, and discharge planning services to behavioral health patient inmates within County detention facilities, including those committed incompetent to stand trial, in community or in-custody settings. These efforts are a component of the County's comprehensive system to address the population of those with mental illness in the County's jail facilities. 6. Permanent Changes to the Brown Act: Although not proposed as County-sponsored legislation, the County would support permanent changes to the Brown Act to allow for hybrid Board and commission/committee meetings (including in-person, Zoom, and phone) without requiring elected officials or members of the commission/committee to post their address on the agenda. The Urban Counties of California (UCC) will take a leadership role in advocating for improvements to statutory provisions that direct the conduct of public meetings that ensure that (1) they are open and accessible to all members of the public, and (2) disruptive behavior and hate speech can be addressed swiftly to maintain a safe environment. The County's adopted 2021-22 State Platform currently contains the principle: "ENABLE local governments to continue offering opportunities for public meeting attendance, participation, and accessibility through technological means after the pandemic has ended." (p. 14) FY 2022-23 State Budget Requests Although there is no existing, established state budget earmark process (as there has been in prior years for federal community project funding requests), given the projected surplus in the FY 2022-23 budget and the experience of FY 2021-22 wherein legislators sought and secured project/program specific budget allocations, our state advocates have urged the identification of possible Contra Costa County-specific earmarks for FY 22-23. The following state budget earmark requests have been identified. Staff seeks Board of Supervisor input on the prioritization of these requests: 1. "Seed money" for a Regional Responders Complex at the Concord Naval Weapons Station site: $3 million. Since 2007 the Fire District and Office of the Sheriff have been working towards a plan to reuse approximately 75 acres of former Concord Naval Weapons Station land for a combined administrative, training, and logistics center. The County and the Fire District expect to take physical possession of the land in late 2022 or 2023. There is a need to refresh a business plan and conceptual design that was originally authored in 2007. The Fire District envisions a unique all-risk training facility with props and facilities not found anywhere else in the region. This could include swift water rescue, rail, BART cars, electric vehicles, confined space, indoor and outdoor tactical ranges, a skid pan driving course, a training village to simulate residential and commercial settings and modern classrooms. Space planning, conceptual design and civil work such as utility planning are all needed design elements. Additionally, once the land is transferred a temporary access will need to be constructed. This temporary access has already been tentatively identified as Evora Road. One time $3 million in funding will help the team advance the planning concepts required to define what the facility needs are on the site, provide temporary access, and begin some of the civil design work required for the site. 2. Choice in Aging's "Aging in Place Campus:" $20 million. (Attachment B ) Choice in Aging, a non-profit organization serving some of Contra Costa County's frailest and most vulnerable residents since 1949, is in the process of building a new and innovative model for how we age in our community – the Aging in Place on Campus – which will provide elder and fragile adults with independent housing and co-located services that will allow them to age with dignity in their homes. The campus will include intergenerational services that will allow multiple generations to learn and grow together in a single location. The housing construction funding will be made available from other sources, but the full range of services can only be realized with the help of the state. 3. Funding to implement the proposed Menstruation Equity bill: $8.5 million. 4. Funding to provide individual or group psychotherapy, psychotropic medication, and discharge planning services to behavioral health patient inmates within County detention facilities, including those committed incompetent to stand trial: $5 million (approximately ) 5. Funding to support the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy: Attachment C Conservation Grazing Infrastructure: $1,000,000 (scaleable)1. Mount Diablo: Pine tree and Manzanita Die-off Investigation: $500,0002. Land Acquisition funding for the local regional Natural Community Conservation Plan (East CCC HCP/NCCP): $6,000,000 (scaleable proposal) 3. Habitat Restoration funding for the local regional Natural Community Conservation Plan (East CCC HCP/NCCP): $6,000,000 (scaleable proposal) 4. The above described sponsored (and co-sponsored) bills and state budget requests, if approved by the Board of Supervisors, will be pursued in 2022 in addition to the Advocacy Priorities included in the 2021-22 State Legislative Platform: COVID-19 Response and Economic Recovery Climate Change Health Care, including Mental Health, Behavioral Health and Substance Use Disorder (SUD) services Housing and Homelessness Justice Reform The Delta/ Water and Levees Proposed 2022 Federal Legislative Program Similar to the process undertaken for the development of the 2022 State Legislative Program, County staff and the County's federal advocate, Mr. Paul Schlesinger of Alcalde & Fay, initiated outreach to County staff and officials in the fall of 2021 in anticipation of future federal member-directed spending requests (colloquially referred to as "earmarks") in 2022, as well as for the purpose of ascertaining federal legislative priorties for the year. CAO staff was notified on November 1, 2022 that Mr. Schlesinger had separated from Alcalde & Fay and joined the firm Thorn Run Partners; he has been the County's principal federal lobbyist since 2001, assisting the County with its federal legislative and regulatory needs and helping to secure federal appropriations and grants. In addition to the consideration of member-directed community project funding requests, which have been discussed but not finalized for Board action, County staff have identified federal policy and funding priorities for 2022, including the following (not in priority order): 1. The Elimination of the IMD Exclusion Rule. Requested by County Behavioral Health Director, Dr. Tavano, this prohibition on so-called "institutes of mental diseases" (IMD), has been in place since 1965. Under the IMD exclusion, federal rules prohibit Medicaid from paying for psychiatric inpatient care facilities with at least 16 beds. The facilities can be those treating for acute behavioral conditions and substance use disorders with regulations on the exclusion varying among states. 2. Federal Weatherization Programchanges to include more Energy Efficiency Options. Requested by the County's Sustainability Coordinator, Jody London. SUPPORT modifications to the federal Weatherization Assistance Program that expand eligible measures to include whole building clean energy improvements such as wall insulation, duct sealing, electric panel upgrades, electric heat pumps, and related measures. Also SUPPORT modifications that increase the income eligibility limits for the Weatherization Assistance Program. 3. Medicare expansion and lowering prescription drug prices. Requested by Dr. William Walker, on behalf of Contra Costa Health Services. Medicare expansion to cover dental, hearing, and vision. Empower Medicare to negotiate prices for certain drugs and cap the out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare. 4. Hospital infrastructure funding. Requested by Dr. William Walker, on behalf of Contra Costa Health Services. 5. Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) Reallocation . Requested by Chief Assistant CAO Time Ewell, support for an application by the state to the U.S. Treasury Department for reallocation of ERAP 1 dollars for the continued benefit of California and Contra Costa County residents. 6. Municipal Securities. Requested by Chief Assistant CAO Tim Ewell, support fully reinstating tax-exemption of advance refunding bonds as well as provisions restoring and expanding the use of direct-pay bonds. Advocacy efforts consistent with past federal platforms have been under way. 7. Families First Prevention Services Act. Requested by Chief Probation Officer Esa Ehmen-Krause. This legislation from 2018 offered states an opportunity to transform state child welfare systems by providing substance abuse, mental health and other prevention and treatment services to prevent children’s entry into foster care. The law also sought to reduce states’ reliance on group and residential treatment homes and instead prioritize family-based care. Information on implementation outcomes in California and financial benefits was requested. 8. Housing Vouchers for Homeless Veterans: The HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program combines HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) rental assistance for homeless Veterans with case management and clinical services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). VA provides these services for participating Veterans at VA medical centers (VAMCs), community-based outreach clinics (CBOCs), through VA contractors, or through other VA designated entities. Congress has appropriated additional funding for new HUD-VASH vouchers every year since 2008. The County Administrator requests additional efforts in 2022 to secure these VASH vouchers for homeless Veterans in Contra Costa County. 9. Funding for Buchanan Field Airport (Tower replacement) and Byron Airport development: The County has 9. Funding for Buchanan Field Airport (Tower replacement) and Byron Airport development: The County has submitted earmark requests relative to these projects and although not successful in advancing those earmarks in FY '22, there may be additional opportunities in FY '23. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the adoption of a 2022 legislative program, County staff and its advocates will not have direction on specific state and federal policy and funding priorities to pursue. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C 2022 Legislative Proposal 1/4/2022 p.1 Submitted by: Contra Costa County Contact: Sherry Lynn Peralta, (925) 608-4881, speralta@ehsd.cccounty.us Topic: Stipends to Address Menstruation Equity PROBLEM STATEMENT: In Contra Costa County and across the country, too many low-income women struggle to obtain menstrual hygiene products for themselves and their female children or dependent household members. A 2019 study by Obstetrics & Gynecology of low-income women in a large U.S. city found that nearly two-thirds (64%) could not afford menstrual hygiene products or supplies in the past year. The same study found that more than one in five (21%) women experienced this problem monthly 1. The umbrella term “period poverty” describes inequities resulting from the lack of access to menstrual hygiene tools and resources. In addition to low-income women and girls, “period poverty” also adversely affects students, transgender and non-binary individuals, incarcerated women, and homeless women. Among the key contributors to “period poverty” are: •Exorbitant prices of tampons or pads: 27 states* currently view these products as luxury goods and impose sales tax, also known as the “tampon tax,” on menstrual hygiene products. o Last year, menstrual products and diapers were permanently exempted from the retail tax through a budget bill, AB 150. See: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB150&s earch_keywords=menstrual+products •Menstrual hygiene products cannot be purchased with Food Stamps (CalFresh in California), Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California), and the WIC program. Health savings accounts only recently allowed for the purchase of menstrual hygiene products due to the recent CARES Act. Recent studies have found linkages between frequent instances of “period poverty” and the prevalence of health inequities. For example, a recent analysis of college-age women in the U.S. conducted by the National Library of Medicine found that women who experienced monthly period poverty over the past year were the most likely to report moderate/severe depression2. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Research reveals that Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez carried a bill in 2018 that made $30 in diaper assistance available in the CalWORKs Welfare to Work and Cal Learn programs. See: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB480 In Illinois, House Bill 155 was recently signed into law and will take effect on January 1, 2022. House Bill 155 will require the Department of Human Services to apply for a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service permitting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefit recipients to use their benefits to purchase diapers and menstrual hygiene products. 1 Unmet Menstrual Hygiene Needs Among Low-Income Women: Obstetrics & Gynecology (lww.com) 2 Period poverty and mental health implications among college-aged women in the United States - PubMed (nih.gov) Attachment A 2022 Legislative Proposal 1/4/2022 p. 2 PROPOSED SOLUTION: This proposal aims to help alleviate menstrual inequity through a stipend pilot program for CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work recipients. EHSD proposes a $15 monthly stipend for all female, transgender, and non-binary WTW recipients between the ages of 11 solely to purchase feminine hygiene products. Stipend-eligible individuals shall receive the benefit monthly through the household’s CalWORKs-issued EBT Card. Modelled after the diaper stipend, EHSD proposes this pilot program as a way to cover an initial population of vulnerable individuals engaged in Welfare-to-Work, with the intent to expand the stipend to a broader population of vulnerable individuals in the future. ANALYSIS Potential Eligibles: All active CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work (WTW) participants who are female, transgender, or non-binary, and between ages 11 and 55 shall be eligible for the stipend. Individuals experiencing program sanctions and ineligible household members shall not be eligible for the stipend. An analysis of the current active Contra Costa CalWORKs households in CalWIN reveals the following as of September 2021: • There are 12,608 CalWORKs participants in Contra Costa County which includes 1,809 individuals who are enrolled in Welfare-To-Work (WTW). • There are 4,156 individuals enrolled in CalWORKs who are females between the ages of 11-55, of which 1,363 individuals enrolled in WTW are eligible for the stipend. Contra Costa worked with CDSS to generate statewide estimates of the number of potentially eligible. CDSS estimates that as of September 2021, there may be approximately 43,000 WTW recipients statewide who are female, between the ages of 11-55, and are not sanctioned or excluded from WTW activities3. POTENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT Rough Estimates Annual cost of the stipend are as follows: • This proposal would allow 1,363 female, aged 11-55, non-exempt, non-sanctioned Contra Costa WTW participants to qualify to a monthly $15 stipend as a supportive service. This translates to an annual cost of 1,363 x $15 x 12 = $245,340 to cover eligible individuals in Contra Costa County. • This proposal would allow 43,000 female, aged 11-55, non-exempt, non-sanctioned individuals statewide (per CDSS estimates) to qualify to a monthly $15 stipend as a supportive service. This translates to an annual cost of 43,000 x $15 x 12 = $7.74 million to cover eligible individuals statewide. • There is an approximate one-time cost of $800,000 for CalSAWS integration. 3 CDSS generated this estimate by pulling a Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS) point-in-time extract of eligibility data as of the end of September 2021, and matching that with a Welfare Data Tracking Implementation Project (WDTIP) point-in-time extract from November 2021. Attachment A 2022 Legislative Proposal 1/4/2022 p. 3 In summary, this pilot stipend program may allow more than 43,000 low-income females aged 11-55 statewide, which includes 1,300 vulnerable Contra Costa community members, to benefit from a monthly stipend of $15 per month based on the above estimates. Transmission of Stipend: Qualified individuals linked to an active CalWORKs case shall receive the monthly stipend through the listed Head of Household’s EBT card. These costs may be recouped in other areas, such as lower utilization of public health resources (including mental health resources), an increase in overall health and well-being of individuals who experience menstruation, leading to positive outcomes. POTENTIAL IMPACT TO OTHER COUNTY DEPARTMENTS OR SPECIFIC SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS N/A ANTICIPATED SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION Anticipated Support: • Other County Human Services Departments • American Academy of Pediatrics, California • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX • Anti-Defamation League • California Grocers Association • CaliforniaHealth+ Advocates • California Welfare Directors Association • Courage Campaign • End the Tampon Tax in California Grassroots Coalition • Equal Rights Advocates • IGNITE • The Indie-Activists • National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter • National Women's Political Caucus of California • Pad Project • Sacramento Homeless Period Project • Western Center on Law and Poverty • Women's Empowerment • Feeding America • California Association of Food Banks • California WIC Association Anticipated Opposition: N/A Attachment A REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR CHOICE IN AGING CAMPUS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Choice in Aging is a not-for-profit organization that has been serving Contra Costa County’s frailest and most vulnerable residents since 1949. It provides a variety of services to older adults and children in Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, and Sacramento counties. Choice in Aging has been a leader in creating innovative programs that allow more people to age independently, in their own homes. Choice in Aging is in the process of building a new and innovative model for how we age in our community – the Aging in Place on Campus – which will provide elder and fragile adults with independent housing and co-located services that will allow them to age with dignity in their homes. The campus will include intergenerational services that will allow multiple generations to learn and grow together in a single location. Research shows that intergenerational programming provides a myriad of benefits, including decreased isolation and/or increased connectedness, increased self-esteem and feelings of worth, increased trust, and an increased sense of community.1 This model for aging independently will create a blueprint that can be used nationwide to meet the challenges our aging population faces. Choice in Aging is seeking a one-time allocation of $20 million in the 2022-23 state budget to build out the facilities for services for the residents, community members, and preschool attendees. The housing construction funding will be made available from other sources, but the full range of services can only be realized with the help of the state. While the campus will serve local residents, it will stand as both an incubator and policy platform for an intergenerational and integrated service approach to aging in place. Attached is an FAQ for the project. Additional details of the project and services can be made available upon request. 1 See http://www.ltsscenter.org/resource- library/Research_Snapshot_Intergenerational_Programming_in_Senior_Housing.pdf Attachment B 490 Golf Club Road, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 • Phone: (925) 682-6330 • www.choiceinaging.org CHOICE IN AGING CAMPUS: FAQ WHAT ARE THE PROJECT GOALS? • Create a national model for aging independently with wrap around services outside (and inside) your front door • Build 82 single bedroom apartment units • New Choice in Aging adult day health care facility • New Choice in Learning Montessori intergenerational pre-school WHAT ARE THE DETAILS OF THE HOUSING COMPONENT? • 82 single bedroom apartment units in a three- story building (1 is for onsite property manager) • Satellite Affordable Housing Association (SAHA) is the non-profit developer • SAHA is securing funding for the housing on the campus – there are a multitude of available funding streams to build housing, such that a capital campaign is not necessary for them WHY IS A NEW CAMPUS NEEDED? • Access to affordable senior housing for a fast-growing population • Current facility is more than 75 years old; maintenance is becoming cost prohibitive WHAT IS INNOVATIVE ABOUT THIS PROJECT? • This project is the first of its kind to provide an intergenerational space with independent senior living for frail adults with the services they need right outside their front door to keep them living independently, and out of a skilled nursing facility. • A senior living independently, instead of in a skilled nursing facility, is healthier and happier. And, it costs less for seniors and their families and for taxpayers. WHAT IS THE $20 MILLION CAPITAL CAMPAIGN FUNDING? • Construction of a new facility for Choice in Aging including: • Adult Day Health Care • Alzheimer’s Day Care Resource Center • Caregiver Support and Education • Farsi Speaking Program • Russian Speaking Program • Physical Therapy • Outdoor Program and Therapy Spaces • Construction of a new facility for Choice in Learning including: • Montessori classrooms • Playgrounds • Continuation of our innovative intergenerational program and activities • Expansion of our complex case management programs • Expansion of our transitions out of skilled nursing program • Expansion of our wraparound support services including fiduciary, elder abuse prevention and care management services WHAT IS THE PROJECT STATUS? • Architectural renderings have been approved by the City of Pleasant Hill • First phase entitlements have been approved by the City of Pleasant Hill • Initial construction begins this year; to begin grading and underground infrastructure installed WHAT ARE CHOICE IN AGING’S PROGRAMS? • Adult Day Health Care (2) • Alzheimer’s Day Care Resource Center (2) • Caregiver Support and Education • Multipurpose Senior Services Program (MSSP) (2) -- provides nursing and social work care management to Medi-Cal eligible individuals who are 65 years or older and disabled as an alternative to nursing facility placement. • California Community Transitions (CCT) – Transition out of skilled nursing facilities; gives on-going support, services and funding to support seniors and disabled to transition back to community living. • The Prevention and Early Access for Seniors Program (PEAS) -- a mental health case management program that strives to identify Older Adults 60+ in Solano County that are struggling with isolation, depression or anxiety. There is also a community education component around stigma reduction, suicide prevention and neighborhood support. • CiA provides other services such as transportation, caregiver support groups, community education and more. Additionally, CiA provides comprehensive budget and policy advocacy at the local, state and federal levels. CiA is also a teaching institute and take advantage of opportunities to provide internships for CNAs, nurses, social workers, physicians and other students pursuing careers in the geriatric health and social fields of practice. • Young at Heart Intergenerational Program • Montessori Pre-School WHAT IS INNOVATIVE ABOUT CHOICE IN AGING’S MODEL OF CARE? • Participated in the piloting of the first-in-the- nation program that serves seniors with mid to late stage Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in an adult day health care setting – a model for subsequent programs around the country. • Created a model intergenerational program that allows clients and preschoolers to master and maintain similar motor skills and bust ageism through weekly interactions that build bonds between participants. • Partnered with the Contra Costa County Health Department to administer vaccination clinics for seniors in congregate care facilities, contributing to one of the highest vaccination rates for seniors in the nation. • CEO Debbie Toth was appointed by California Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly to the California Masterplan for Aging Stakeholder Advisory Committee. The Committee created a blueprint for building an age-friendly environment in California. MODEL AGING IN PLACE CAMPUS 1 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (and partners) PROPOSAL 1: Conservation Grazing Infrastructure: $1,000,000. (scale-able proposal) This project proposes to fund infrastructure to support use of livestock to manage grasslands. Funds will be used to establish wells/water sources, construct livestock watering systems, install fencing, and provide other critical infrastructure for livestock. These funds would be used across the east Contra Costa County region to ensure efficient function systems to support livestock as a tool to manage habitat, control invasive weeds and reduce wildfire risk. Well managed conservation grazing helps maintain healthy grasslands that act as a carbon sink and provide habitat for native endangered species. Livestock grazing is the most powerful tool in East Contra Costa County to help the region respond to the effects of climate change that is further threatening endangered species, habitat and local communities. These priorities are identified in a variety of state platforms and documents. AB1500 Chapter 2 / SB 45 Chapter 2: Wildfire: Fuel management: Conservation grazing reduces the fuel load in open space areas around the region. Contra Costa County has extensive urban-wildlife interface and the use of livestock to reduce fuel loads helps prevent the acceleration of wildfires. AB1500 Chapter 5 / SB45 Chapter 4: Protecting fish, wildlife and natural areas: Habitat and Endangered Species: Conservation grazing uses livestock as a tool to manage grassland habitats. The timing of grazing, type of livestock, and close monitoring of grasslands results the creation and maintenance of habitat that support state and federally endangered and special status species. In Contra Costa County conservation grazing is key to maintaining habitats for western burrowing owl, California red legged frog, California tiger salamander and others. With more frequent drought cycles in our region, natural and restored wetlands, streams, and ponds are drying more quickly. The water in these habitat features needs to be conserved for wildlife breeding habitat. By excluding cattle from these areas are providing alternate sources of water we can preserve wetland habitats and continue to keep livestock on grazing throughout the growing season to manage the upland habitats. AB1500 Chapter 6 / SB45 Chapter 5: Protecting farms, ranches and working lands: Invasive Weeds: Conservation grazing uses livestock to mange invasive weeds in our grasslands. Livestock when introduced to a landscape early in the rainy season can eat and control noxious and invasive weeds. Livestock are land managers greatest tool in addressing widespread invasive plans in grasslands. Timing: This project is ready to go and start spending in January 2022. It will probably take up to 3 years to spend the entirety of these funds across 14,000 acres of conserved land owned and managed by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and East Bay Regional Park District. Attachment C 2 PROPOSAL 2: Mount Diablo: Pine tree and Manzanita Die-off: $500,000. This project seeks to investigate the cause of the recent sudden (over the last 12 months) die off and/or dieback of thousands of manzanita and knob cone pine trees in the Knob Cone Point area, contiguous to Save Mount Diablo’s Curry Canyon reserve and Mount Diablo State Park, as well as along the Wall Point Trail area of Mount Diablo State Park, and potentially identify methods of management of this situation. All species of manzanita (including the Mount Diablo Manzanita) are being affected by this issue and are dying at dizzying rates in lush, wide chaparral areas, some seemingly impenetrable. This die off is concerning as it greatly increases the vulnerability of the area to fire and also has the potential to have extreme impacts to state and federally endangered and special status species. Justification, by chapter of AB1500 & SB45: Forest management to reduce fire risk to Mount Diablo State Park and surrounding conservation areas. This project provides important fire management and environmental benefits (Chapters 2 and 5). AB1500 Chapter 2 / SB 45 Chapter 2: Wildfire: The sudden die-off of pines and manzanitas needs to be understood, controlled and managed. The cause is currently unknown and partners in the region would like to move quickly to prevent the spread of this phenomenon across though the region. The current situation is a fire risk, but an spread of this would be devastating for the fuels management in the region (note powerlines in photo). AB1500 Chapter 5 / SB45 Chapter 4: Protecting fish, wildlife and natural areas: Habitat and Endangered Species: This forest and chaparral habitat supports state and federal endangered and special status species including Alameda whipsnake, golden eagle, mount diablo manzanita. The loss of the pine and manzanita cover could dramatically impact the populations of the species that are targeted for conservation. Timing: This project is ready to go and start spending as of March 2022. It will probably take up to 4 years to spend the entirety of these funds on research, experimental management, and to develop management protocols and guidelines. Attachment C 3 PROPOSAL 3: Land Acquisition funding for the local regional Natural Community Conservation Plan (East CCC HCP/NCCP): $6,000,000. (scale-able proposal) The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC) implements the Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). There is an ambitious land acquisition component of this plan that anticipates up to 30,300 acres of new conservation in the region. The ECCCHC will provide match funding for the state funds toward acquisition up to 45% with local, federal funds, and/or private funds for the conservation of endangered species habitat. Conservation of land helps secure and manage healthy watersheds, sequester carbon, preserve habitat for state and federally listed endangered species. AB1500 Chapter 5 / SB45 Chapter 4: Protecting fish, wildlife and natural areas: The HCP/NCCP targets habitats that support 28 state and federally protected species. The ECCCHC has a track record of working with other local agencies and NGOs to move quickly to effectively protect and manage lands. In the last 14 years, the ECCCHC has successfully conserved over 14,000 acres of land and is working to continue this effort. Timing: This project is ready to go and start spending as of June 2022. It will probably take up to 4 years to spend the entirety of these funds and the pace of expenditures will depend on the opportunities to acquire land from willing sellers in the region. PROPOSAL 4: Habitat Restoration funding for the local regional Natural Community Conservation Plan (East CCC HCP/NCCP): $6,000,000. (scale-able proposal) The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC) implements the Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). There is an ambitious aquatic habitat restoration and creation component of this plan (focusing on wetland, pond and stream habitats). AB1500 Chapter 5 / SB45 Chapter 4: Protecting fish, wildlife and natural areas: The HCP/NCCP targets habitats that support 28 state and federally protected species. The ECCCHC has a track record of working designing, constructing, monitoring and maintaining habitat restoration projects. In the last 14 years, the ECCCHC has successfully constructed 11 restoration projects and has three projects in the planning stages. These funds could be used for planning/design or construction. Timing: There projects ready to go (planning) and start spending as of January 2022. Other projects could start construction in summer 2022. It will probably take up to 6 years to spend Attachment C 4 the entirety of these funds and the pace of expenditures will depend on the opportunities presented on existing and soon to be acquired conserved lands. Attachment C RECOMMENDATION(S): INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2022-04, amending the Election Campaign Ordinance to revise the limits on individual campaign contributions to supervisorial and non-supervisorial candidates; WAIVE reading; FIX February 1, 2022, for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Election Campaign Ordinance was first adopted in 1984 and has been amended sporadically since that time. The limit for individual campaign contributions to non-supervisorial county office candidates was last revised in 2004. The current limit is one-thousand, six hundred seventy-five dollars ($1,675) per election cycle, and it applies to candidates for the offices of Assessor, Auditor-Controller, County Clerk-Recorder, District Attorney, Sheriff-Coroner, and Treasurer-Tax Collector. (See Ordinance, §§ 530-2.210; 530-2.402). The limit for individual campaign contributions to supervisorial candidates was last revised in 2005. The current limit is one-thousand, six hundred seventy-five dollars ($1,675) per election cycle. This limit increases to five thousand dollars ($5,000) in two limited circumstances: where the total cumulative expenditures of the committee or committees making independent expenditures opposing the candidate or supporting the candidate’s opponent equal $75,000 or more; where the candidate faces a self-funded opponent, as defined. (See Ordinance, §§ 530-2.703; 530-2.705 (a); 530-2.708 (c).) The proposed ordinance amendment would increase the individual campaign contributions limits for both supervisorial and non-supervisorial candidates to two thousand, five hundred dollars ($2,500) per election cycle. As to supervisorial candidates, the increased limit triggered by large independent expenditures and self-funded candidates would continue to apply. All other provisions of the Election Campaign Ordinance would remain unchanged. (See proposed Ordinance No. 2022-04, attached.) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anne O, Chief of Staff, District IV, (925) 521-7100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Monica Nino, County Administrator, Mary Ann McNett Mason, County Counsel, Deborah Cooper, County Clerk-Recorder, Assessor, Auditor-Controller, District Attorney, Sheriff-Coroner, Treasurer-Tax Collector D.5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Ordinance increasing limits on individual campaign contributions to candidates for all County offices BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In the sixteen years since these campaign contribution limits were last revised, the cost of election campaigns has significantly increased due to the rising cost of living and the increased cost for outreach resulting from the increased County population. Another related factor in rising campaign costs is the larger role of Independent Expenditure Committees for or against candidates in campaigns at the local level. Independent Expenditure Committees can raise large sums of money that can have an impact on the outcome of an election. Raising the individual campaign contribution limits for County elected offices will help candidates offset the potential impacts of the changes that have raised the costs of local campaigns. In 2019, Assembly Bill 571 (Chapter 566) was signed by the Governor, and beginning January 1, 2021, it applied statutory campaign contribution limits to elective city and county offices in jurisdictions that do not have local laws imposing campaign contribution limits. Along with the statutory contribution limits, other related provisions that formerly applied only to state level candidates now apply in such local jurisdictions. The current statutory contribution limit for city and county candidates is $4,900 per election. This amount is adjusted every odd-numbered year by the Fair Political Practices Commission to reflect any increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index. Because this County’s Election Campaign Ordinance imposes campaign contribution limits for all elective County offices, the new statutory contribution limits and other related provisions do not apply to County candidates. (See Government Code, §§ 85301 (d); 85702.5.) AB 571 expressly acknowledges that a local government may establish a different limitation that is more precisely tailored to the needs of its communities. The proposed ordinance which would increase individual contribution limits for all County candidates to $2,500 is permitted by state law and is less than the higher statutory limit of $4,900 for individual campaign contributions in counties without local contribution limits. If Ordinance No. 2022-04 is adopted on February 1 as proposed, it will be effective March 2, during an ongoing election cycle for candidates for both supervisorial and non-supervisorial office. This ordinance would provide that the increased contribution limits would apply to both supervisorial and non-supervisorial candidates during the remainder of the current election cycle. Thus, candidates could receive individual campaign contributions at the increased amount during the current election cycle. (See, Ordinance No. 2022-04, § IV, Effect of Ordinance on Limits Applicable to Current Election Cycle.) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The current individual campaign contribution limits will remain unchanged. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2022-04 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-04 AMENDING THE COUNTY’S ELECTION CAMPAIGN ORDINANCE The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance amends Division 530 of the County Ordinance Code, the County’s Election Campaign Ordinance, to increase the limit on individual campaign contributions made during a single county election cycle to or for a candidate for county supervisor or other county office. SECTION II. Section 530-2.402 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 530-2.402 Individual campaign contributions. For a single county election cycle, no person or political committee (other than the candidate or a broad based political committee) shall make, and no candidate or campaign treasurer shall accept, any monetary or nonmonetary contribution to or for a single candidate for county office or to or for a committee authorized in writing by the candidate to accept contributions for him or her that will cause the total amount contributed by that person or political committee in support of that candidate for that election cycle to exceed $2,500. (Ords. 2022-04 § 2, 04-22 § 2, 89-11, 84-9.) SECTION III. Section 530-2.703 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 530-2.703 Individual campaign contributions. For a single county election cycle, no person or political committee (other than the candidate or a broad based political committee) shall make, and no candidate or campaign treasurer shall accept, any contribution to or for a single candidate for county supervisor or to or for a committee authorized in writing by the candidate to accept contributions to him or her that will cause the total amount contributed by that person or political committee in support of that candidate for that election cycle to exceed $2,500, except as provided in Section 530-2.705(a) and Section 530-2.708(c) of this article. (Ords. 2022-04 § 3, 2005-22 § 3, 99-40 § 3, 98-6, 96-48, 95-8.) SECTION IV. NEW CONTRIBUTION LIMITS APPLY TO CURRENT ELECTION CYCLES. The individual campaign contribution limits established by this ordinance go into effect on the effective date of this ordinance. If an election cycle began before the effective date, the new campaign contribution limits established by this ordinance apply during the remainder of the election cycle to all non-supervisorial candidates and to all supervisorial candidates, except as otherwise provided in Ordinance Code sections 530-2.705(a) and 530-2.708(c). \\\ \\\ ORDINANCE NO. 2022-04 1 SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for or against it in the East Bay Times, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on ___________________________, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: MONICA NINO, _____________________________ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair and County Administrator By: ______________________[SEAL] Deputy KCK: H:\Client Matters\2022\Ordinance No. 2022-04 Election Campaigns.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 2022-04 2 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2022/4514 to prohibit stopping, standing, or parking at all times, except for those vehicles of individuals with disabilities (blue curb) on the north side of Winslow Street (Road No. 2295AD), beginning at a point 405 feet east of the east roadway edge of Bay Street (Road No. 2295AJ) and continuing easterly a distance of 20 feet, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Crockett area. (District V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: County Public Works Department, Transportation Engineering staff, upon request for a residential disabled parking space, conducted a field visit to 600 Winslow Street in Crockett. The onsite visit included an onsite assessment and verification that the property did not have a driveway or garage. Evidence of disability by the resident was also provided. Therefore, criteria is met to designate a disabled persons parking space in front of the requestor's residence. Entering/exiting the vehicle from the elevated curb/sidewalk in front of the residence will allow a safer/easier transition into/out of the resident’s rear entry accessible vehicle. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Monish Sen, 925.313.2187 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Prohibit parking on the north side of Winslow Street (Road No. 2295AD), Crockett area. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Parking will remain unrestricted at this location. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Traffic Resolution 2022/4514 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2022/4514 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Traffic Resolution on January 18, 2022 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2022/4514 ABSTAIN: Supervisorial District V SUBJECT: Prohibit parking at all times, except for those vehicles displaying a special identification license plate or distinguishing placard issued to those individuals with disabilities, on a portion of Winslow Street (Road No. 2295AD), Crockett area. The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: Based on recommendations by the County Public Works Department's Transportation Engineering Division, and pursuant to County Ordinance Code Sections 46-2.002 - 46-2.012, the following traffic regulation is established: Pursuant to Sections 22507 and 22511.7 of the California Vehicle Code declaring parking to be prohibited at all times, except for vehicles of individuals with disabilities (blue curb), on the north side of Winslow Street (Road No. 2295AD), beginning at a point 405 feet east of the east roadway edge of Bay Street (Road No. 2295AJ), and continuing easterly a distance of 20 feet, Crockett area. JS:sr Orig. Dept: Public Works (Traffic) Contact: Monish Sen (925-313-2187) cc: California Highway Patrol Sheriff Department TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2022/4514 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct Copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE plans, specifications, and design for Crockett Area Guardrail Upgrades, Crockett area. County Project No. 0662-6R4105, Federal Project No. HSIPL-5928(157) (District V) (2) DETERMINE that the bid submitted by Coral Construction Company (Coral Construction) exceeded the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for this project, and FURTHER DETERMINE that Coral Construction has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for this project. (3) AWARD the construction contract for the above project to Coral Construction in the listed amount ($1,117,777.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid, and DIRECT that Coral Construction shall present two good and sufficient surety bonds, as indicated below, and that the Public Works Director, or designee, shall prepare the contract. (4) ORDER that, after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds as noted below and any required certificates of insurance or other required documents, and the Public Works Director has reviewed and found them to be sufficient, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign the contract for this Board. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Adelina Huerta, 925-313-2305 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Construction Contract for the Crockett Area Guardrail Upgrades, Crockett Area. RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) (5) ORDER that, in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon signature of the contract by the Public Works Director, or designee, bid bonds posted by the bidders are to be exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security shall be returned. (6) ORDER that, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the direct payment of retentions into escrow or the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contract, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300. (7) DELEGATE, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, to the Public Works Director, or designee, the Board’s functions under Public Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110. (8) DELEGATE, pursuant to Labor Code Section 6705, to the Public Works Director, or to any registered civil or structural engineer employed by the County, the authority to accept detailed plans showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection during trench excavation covered by that section. (9) DECLARE that, should the award of the contract to Coral Construction be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contract to any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing in this Board Order shall prevent the Board from re-awarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract, or fails to furnish required bonds or insurance (see Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107). FISCAL IMPACT: The Project will be funded by 51.55% Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), 48.45% Local Road Funds BACKGROUND: The above project was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, plans and specifications were filed with the Board, and bids were invited by the Public Works Director. On December 21, 2021, the Public Works Department received bids from the following contractors: BIDDER, TOTAL AMOUNT, BOND AMOUNTS Coral Construction Company.: $1,117,777.00; Payment: $1,117,777.00; Performance: $1,117,777.00 Dirt and Aggregate Interchange, Inc.: $1,148,833.00 Midstate Barrier, Inc.: $1,185,410.00 Construction H Inc.: $1,788,600.00 The first bidder listed above, Coral Construction, submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $31,056.00 less than the next lowest bid. This is a federally funded project subject to a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) contract goal and requirements. The Public Works Director reports that the lowest monetary bidder, Coral Construction, exceeded the DBE goal (11.00%) for this project. The Public Works Director recommends that the Board determine that Coral Construction has complied with the DBE requirements for this project and recommends that the construction contract be awarded to Coral Construction. The Board of Supervisors previously determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 2(c) Categorical Exemption, and a Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk on September 17, 2020. The general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, have been filed with the Clerk of the Board, and copies will be made available to any party upon request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Construction of the project would be delayed, and the project might not be built. RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/19 approving the seventh extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD91-07553, for a project being developed by Alamo Land Investors, LLC and Alamo 37, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Alamo area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The termination date of the Subdivision Agreement needs to be extended. The developer has not completed the required improvements and has requested more time. (Approximately 0% of the work has been completed to date.) By granting an extension, the County will give the developer more time to complete improvements and keeps the bond current. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The termination date of the Subdivision Agreement will not be extended and the developer will be in default of the agreement, requiring the County to take legal action against the developer and surety to get the improvements installed, or revert the development to acreage. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Randolf Sanders (925) 313-2111 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Approving the Seventh Extension of the Subdivision Agreement for Subdivision SD91-07553, Alamo area AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2022/19 Application Extension Agreement Extension MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2022/8 Recorded at the request of:Clerk of the Board Return To:Public Works, Engineering Services Division THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 01/18/2022 by the following vote: AYE:John Gioia, District I SupervisorCandace Andersen, District II SupervisorDiane Burgis, District III SupervisorKaren Mitchoff, District IV SupervisorFederal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2022/19 IN THE MATTER OF approving the seventh extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD91-07553, for a project being developed by Alamo Land Investors, LLC and Alamo 37, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Alamo area. (District II) WHEREAS the Public Works Director having recommended that he be authorized to execute the seventh agreement extension which extends the subdivision agreement between Alamo Land Investors, LLC and Alamo 37, LLC and the County for construction of certain improvements in SD91-07553, Alamo area, through January 12, 2023. APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF WORK COMPLETE: 0% ANTICIPATED DATE OF COMPLETION: 2026 BOND NO.: LICX1203868 Date: January 21, 2021 REASON FOR EXTENSION: Custom lots with specific home foot prints. Currently finalizing waterline issues with EBMUD. Break Ground anticipated in 2024 (grading), improvements in 2025 (under grounding), construction in 2026 (vertical building). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Public Works Director is APPROVED. Contact: Randolf Sanders (925) 313-2111 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Urban Air Mobility, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, for the negotiation of a long-term lease of approximately 0.86-acre of land on the northwest side of the Buchanan Field Airport. A. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Urban Air Mobility, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, for the negotiation of a long-term lease of approximately 11-acres of land on the northeast side of the Buchanan Field Airport. B. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no negative impact on the General Fund. The Airport Enterprise Fund could realize lease and other revenues. The County General Fund could realize sales tax and other revenues if a lease is successfully negotiated. BACKGROUND: On January 14, 2021, the Board authorized the Director of Airports, or APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee, 925-681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Director of Airports Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Exclusive Negotiating Agreements – Urban Air Mobility, LLC for Land at the Buchanan Field Airport, Concord Area (District IV) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) designee, to negotiate a long-term ground lease and development terms for this 0.86-acre site. The property is located on the northwest side of Buchanan Field Airport on Sally Ride Drive. The proposal from Mark Scott Construction, Inc. was the only offer the County received following a solicitation for competitive interest in the site. On March 10, 2020, the Board authorized the Director of Airports, or designee, to negotiate a long-term ground lease and development terms for this 11-acre site. The property is located on the northeast side of Buchanan Field Airport on Marsh Drive immediately west of the Walnut Creek channel. The proposal from Mark Scott Construction, Inc. was the only offer the County received following a solicitation for competitive interest in the site. Mark Scott Construction, Inc. desires to lease the sites and develop them for aviation purposes and has formed a limited liability company called Urban Air Mobility, LLC for this purpose. By entering into exclusive negotiation agreements with Urban Air Mobility, they can actively market the properties to identify a tenant or tenants. Further, it will enable the County and Urban Air Mobility to feel confident in proceeding with the CEQA process, as mandated by State law. Development of these vacant parcels would expand economic development activity at the Buchanan Field Airport and lead to increased revenues to the Airport Enterprise Fund and added local jobs. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A delay in entering into exclusive negotiating agreements for either of these sites will delay their development, which could impact the Airport Enterprise Fund and County General Fund. ATTACHMENTS Authorization to Execute an Exclusive Negotiation Agmt 0.86-acre Authorization to Execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agmt 11-acres RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by CA Insurance Co., as subrogee of Aaron Smith, DeMaria Gipson, Mercury Insurance, as subrogee of Peter Fogarty, Dustin Rober Scudder, Aaron and Holli Smith, State Farm, a subrogee of Rodolfo L. Angelito, Subro Claims Insurance Obo Geico Insurance, a subrogee of Christina Given, and Scott Talley. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: California Automobile Insurance Company as subrogee of Aaron Smith: Property claim for damage to vehicle in the amount of $1,456.25 DeMaria Gipson: Personal injury claim for fungal infection in the amount of $500,000. Mercury Insurance a subrogee of Peter Fogarty: Amended property claim for damage to vehicle in the amount of $15,694.93 Dustin Robert Scudder: Property claim for damage to vehicle in the amount of $293.98 Aaron & Holli Smith: Property claim for damage to vehicle in the amount of $500. State Farm a subrogee of Rodolfo L. Angelito: Property claim for damage to vehicle in the amount APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor RECUSE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Contact: Risk Management I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of $1,987. Subro Claims Inc. obo Geico Insurance a subrogee of Christina Given: Property claim for damage to vehicle in the amount of $9,625.61 Scott Talley: Property claim for damage to vehicle in an amount to be determined. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not acting on the claims could extend the claimants’ time limits to file actions against the County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE clarification of Board action on November 2, 2021, regarding payment of up to $100,000 for property damage repairs and associated costs to the building at 611 23rd Street in Richmond, to reflect the legal owner of the building as Paper Tree Garden LLC, with no change to the payment amount. FISCAL IMPACT: Risk Management Liability Internal Service Fund payment of up to $100,000. BACKGROUND: Risk Management was previously authorized by the Board of Supervisors to pay up to $100,000 to Arnulfo Ramirez for property damage repairs to the building at 611 23rd Street in Richmond after a deputy sheriff struck the building with his patrol vehicle, causing property damage. Risk Management later learned that the legal owner of the property is Paper Tree Garden LLC and is requesting authorization to change the payee on the claim to Paper Tree Garden LLC and to negotiate and execute a final settlement agreement, including paying up to $100,000 for property damage repairs and associate costs, with Paper Tree Garden LLC. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County would incur additional expenses with a lawsuit, and repairs to the building would be delayed. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Karen Caoile 925-335-1400 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Caoile, Director of Risk Management Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Property Damage Reimbursement RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for December 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Government Code section 53232.3(d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging ex cetera). The attached reports were submitted by the Board of Supervisors members in satisfaction of this requirement. Districts I and V have nothing to report. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board of Supervisors will not be in compliance with Government Code 53232.3(d). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Joellen Bergamini 925.655.2000 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for December 2021 ATTACHMENTS District II December 2021 Report District IV December 2021 Report District III December 2021 Report Supervisor Candace Andersen – Monthly Meeting Report December 2021 Date Meeting Location 1 Urban Counties BOD Zoom Meeting 2 MP&L Health Comm Zoom meeting 4 EBRCSA Zoom meeting 6 DVOC Zoom meeting 6 CCCTA/LAVTA Zoom Meeting 6 SWAT Zoom Meeting 7 Board of Supervisors Zoom Meeting 7 Dnvl/Ornda/WC council Zoom Meeting 8 CCCERA Zoom meeting 8 JJCC Zoom meeting 8 Moraga Council Zoom meeting 9 EBEDA Zoom meeting 9 Recycle Smart Zoom meeting 10 JCC Zoom meeting 13 TWIC Zoom meeting 13 Internal Operations Zoom meeting 13 TVTC Zoom meeting 13 First 5 Zoom meeting 14 Board of Supervisors Zoom meeting 16 CCCTA Zoom meeting 16 Public Protection Zoom meeting 16 ABAG Exec Board Zoom meeting 29 TVTC Special meeting Zoom meeting Supervisor Karen Mitchoff December 2021 DATE MEETING NAME LOCATION PURPOSE 12/06/21 Meeting with CAO Martinez Discuss County related items Date Meeting Name Location 1-Dec California State Association of Counties 2021 Annual Meeting Monterey CA 2-Dec California State Association of Counties 2021 Annual Meeting Monterey CA 3-Dec California State Association of Counties 2021 Annual Meeting Monterey CA 7-Dec Board of Supervisors Meeting Web Meeting 7-Dec Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Meeting Web Meeting 7-Dec Contra Costa County Housing Authority Web Meeting Supervisor Diane Burgis - December 2021 AB1234 Report (Government Code Section 53232.3(d) requires that members legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc). * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County Purpose Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Supervisor Diane Burgis - December 2021 AB1234 Report (Government Code Section 53232.3(d) requires that members legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc). * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lia Bristol, (925)521-7100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:In the Matter of Recognizing Assistance League of Diablo Valley’s TeleCare Program and its 50 years of service to our community ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/27 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2022/27 In the Matter of Recognizing Assistance League of Diablo Valley’s TeleCare Program and its 50 years of service to our community WHEREAS, Assistance League of Diablo Valley was chartered as a chapter of National Assistance League® on March 8, 1967, in Walnut Creek, California; and WHEREAS, Assistance League of Diablo Valley is a nonprofit member volunteer organization dedicated to improving lives in our community through a wide variety of hands-on programs that serve a diverse set of needs; and WHEREAS, Assistance League of Diablo Valley has been benefiting adults and children in need and at risk; and WHEREAS, they currently have 16 philanthropic programs; and WHEREAS, Assistance League of Diablo Valley’s TeleCare Program started in 1971 and is the oldest philanthropic program of the chapter; and WHEREAS, TeleCare has provided over 275,420 daily reassurance calls to housebound people who are living alone; and WHEREAS, the calls are both a reassurance call for the health and welfare of the client, as well as an opportunity for a friendly chat and exchange of ideas; and WHEREAS, in 2020 at the height of the pandemic when residents were experiencing more isolation, TeleCare callers placed over 5,000 daily reassurance calls to homebound clients. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors does hereby commend the Assistance League of Diablo Valley TeleCare philanthropic program for its 50 years of service to our county. ___________________ KAREN MITCHOFF Chair, District IV Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS FEDERAL D. GLOVER District III Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator By: ____________________________________, Deputy APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Colleen Awad, 925-521-7100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:In the Matter of Proclaiming January 2022 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month in Contra Costa County. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/28 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2022/28 In the Matter of Proclaiming January 2022 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month in Contra Costa County. WHEREAS, human trafficking is a form of abuse in which force, fraud or coercion is used to control victims for the purpose of commercial sexual or labor exploitation; that occurs in every industry and affects individuals of all genders, ages and of all backgrounds; and WHEREAS, human trafficking is a lucrative industry and the fastest growing criminal industry in the world; and uses violent and exploitive tactics to target vulnerable members of our communities; and WHEREAS, the crime of human trafficking violates an individual's privacy, dignity, security and humanity due to the systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and economic exploitation, control and/or abuse; and WHEREAS, the impact of human trafficking is wide-ranging, directly affecting foreign nationals as well as U.S. citizens, and society as a whole; victims experience trauma, violence, manipulation, fraud and coercion at the hands of their traffickers. It is often the most vulnerable members of our communities who are affected by human trafficking; and WHEREAS, as of from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, 10,583 human trafficking cases were reported nationwide to the National Human Trafficking Resource Center, of those reports, the majority of cases were reported in California, and it is likely that statistics for calendar year 2021 will be similar based on recent historical patterns in the data. Contra Costa County is not immune to human trafficking. While underreported, over the last four years the Contra Costa Human Trafficking Coalition and several partner agencies including Community Violence Solutions, STAND! for Families Free of Violence, Bay Area Legal Aid, International Rescue Committee and Calli House, identified and served over 500 victims of human trafficking; and WHEREAS, the County's Alliance to End Abuse acknowledges that fighting exploitation and human trafficking is a shared community responsibility and therefore has worked with numerous public and private agencies to establish the Contra Costa Human Trafficking Coalition, in order to strengthen the County’s comprehensive response to human trafficking initiated by county departments, law enforcement agencies, and numerous community and faith-based organizations; and continuing to build its collaboration by linking with local, regional and federal agencies; and WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa is working to raise awareness so individuals will become more informed, identify ways their behavior contributes to a patriarchal culture that supports and tolerates the systemic abuse of vulnerable populations that include women and people of color; and take action to end human trafficking in their communities. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim January 2022 as HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS MONTH, and urges all residents to actively participate in the efforts to both raise awareness of, and end, all forms of human trafficking in our communities. During Human Trafficking Awareness Month, let us recognize the survivors of trafficking, and let us resolve to build a future in which no people are denied their inherent human rights of freedom and dignity. Let us make it known that human trafficking has no place in this city, this county, this nation or this world. ___________________ KAREN MITCHOFF Chair, District IV Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS FEDERAL D. GLOVER District III Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator Monica Nino, County Administrator By: ____________________________________, Deputy APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Colleen Awad, 925-521-7100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:In the Matter of Proclaiming January 2022 as Positive Parenting Month ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/30 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2022/30 In the Matter of Proclaiming January 2022 as Positive Parenting Month WHEREAS, raising children and youth to become healthy, confident, capable individuals is the most important job parents and caregivers have; and WHEREAS, positive parenting strengthens family relationships, increases parents’ confidence, well-being and promotes children’s healthy development; and WHEREAS, the quality of parenting or caregiving – starting in the prenatal period – is one of the most powerful predictors of children’s future social, emotional, and physical health; and WHEREAS, positive parenting can prevent or mitigate the effects of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES) such as child abuse, neglect or other traumatic events that can create dangerous levels of stress and impair lifelong health and well-being; and WHEREAS, many parents and caregivers begin the lifetime job of raising children feeling unprepared, and the social stigma of seeking help prevents many from getting parenting support; and WHEREAS, in Contra Costa County, families caring for children, including parents, grandparents, foster parents, family members, and other caregivers, receive support from evidence-based positive parenting programs; and WHEREAS, these programs equip parents with the knowledge and competencies necessary as socio-emotional buffers to mitigate the effects of toxic stress and ACEs; and WHEREAS, the Triple P - Positive Parenting Program at C.O.P.E. Family Support Center is an international award-winning program with over 25 years of clinically proven, worldwide research and ranked #1 by the United Nations based on the extent of its evidence. Triple P is a prevention program, that helps parents learn strategies that promote social competence and self-regulation in children; and WHEREAS, the Triple P – Positive Parenting Program provides levels of interventions of increasing strength based on the severity of behavioral problems, targeting all children, including specific populations such as children with special needs, and parents with a variety of issues including co-parent conflict and generational disfunction; and WHEREAS, Child Abuse Prevention Council provides the Nurturing Parenting Program (NPP) a family-strengthening approach to parenting education for parents of children up to 12 years. The Nurturing Parenting Program is built on the Five Protective Factors Framework to make positive outcomes more likely for young children and their families, and to reduce the likelihood of child abuse and neglect, promote health development and wellbeing during times of stress. This family-centered, trauma-informed curriculum is designed to prevent Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES) and build nurturing parenting skills as an alternative to abusive and neglectful parenting and childrearing practices, and WHEREAS, research and evidence-based Make Parenting a Pleasure, parenting curriculum, provided by the Community Services Bureau Head Start, trained parent educators promote child and family well-being by focusing on the parents and their strengths. Key curriculum topics focus on self-care; stress and anger management; understanding child development; communication skills and positive discipline, and WHEREAS, Organizations like Contra Costa County Office of Education, First 5 Contra Costa and Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services MHSA, support and encourage positive parenting through a population health approach using collaborative funding so that all families have equitable opportunities to access information and support in ways that respects their unique beliefs, traditions, customs, interests, and racial, ethnic, tribal, and cultural practices; and WHEREAS, during the month of January, C.O.P.E. Family Support Center, First 5 Contra Costa Family Resource Centers, Child Abuse Prevention Council, Early Childhood Prevention and Intervention Coalition (EPIC), Head Start Preschool Centers, Contra Costa Office of Education SARB and Court Schools, Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services MHSA, together join in offering evidence-based parenting programs, to increase awareness of the importance of positive parenting and the availability of resources such as Triple P Positive Parenting, Nurturing Parenting and other evidence-based programs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim January 2022 to be the 3rd Annual Positive Parenting Awareness Month in Contra Costa County, and commend this observance to the people of this county. ___________________ KAREN MITCHOFF Chair, District IV Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS FEDERAL D. GLOVER District III Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator By: ____________________________________, Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2022-05 amending the County Ordinance Code to exclude from the merit system the new classification of Chief of Administrative Services-Exempt, update section heading, and reorganize existing section, WAIVE READING and FIX February 1, 2022, for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will not have any fiscal impacts. BACKGROUND: In April 2018 the County established a new unrepresented classification of Chief of Administrative Services. The intention at that time was to exempt the classification from the merit system and consolidate several department-specific classification serving in that same capacity. However, that consolidation of the classifications was delayed, and the new classification has not been used. This Chief of Administrative Services typically reports to the department head and acts with a high-degree of independence when developing and implementing policies and procedures, and supervising staff performing personnel, payroll, fiscal, and administrative functions in mid-size or large departments. The Human Resources Department is recommending that the exemption of this classification so that it is available for use in County departments. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gladys Reid (925) 655-2122 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Eric Suitos C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Ann Elliott, Human Resources Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Introduce Ordinance No. 2022-05 amending the County Ordinance Code to exempt the classification Chief of Administrative Services CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Departments looking to use this classification will lack the authority to appoint an at-will employee needed to ensure the maximum level of responsiveness and and responsibility for major departmental functions. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 2022-05 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05 (Exclude from the Merit System the New Classification of Chief of Administrative Services-Exempt and Non-substantive Section Reorganization & Heading Update) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I: Section 33-5.375 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to exclude from the merit system the new classification of Chief of Administrative Services-Exempt and non-substantive section reorganization & heading update: 33-5.375 – Countywide Departmental Exempt Classifications. (a) The departmental human resources officer I-exempt and departmental human resources officer II-exempt are excluded and are appointed by any department head as may be authorized by the board. (b) The chief of administrative services-exempt is excluded and is appointed by any department head as may be authorized by the board. (Ord. Nos. 2022-05, § 1, 2-01-2022; 2021-14, § 1, 04-27-21; 2018-03 § 1, 02-06- 18; Editor's note: Ord. No. 2014-01, § II, adopted January 14, 2014, repealed § 33- 5.375 in its entirety. Former § 33-5.375 pertained to general services and was derived from Ord. No. 85-54 § 2; Ord. No. 85-79 § 2; Ord. No. 2000-34; Ord. No. 2000-42; Ord. No. 2002-51 § 1; Ord. No. 2005-30 § 1; Ord. No. 2009-22, § I, adopted October 20, 2009 and Ord. No. 2010-06, § I, adopted June 22, 2010.) SECTION II: EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of the supervisors voting for and against it in the ___________________, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED ON ____________________________________ by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05 ABSTAIN: ATTEST: MONICA NINO, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By:_________________________ _____________________________ Deputy Board Chair [SEAL] RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Mr. Michael Bruno as the Sterling Aviation representative to the Aviation Advisory Committee (AAC) as recommended by the Contra Costa County Airports Business Association. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: On July 1, 2021, the Airports Business Association sent an email attached, nominating Michael Bruno as their representative on the Aviation Advisory Committee (AAC). Mr. Bruno will complete the term vacated by Cody Moore and would begin serving as Airport Business Aviation’s representative to the Committee immediately upon appointment by the Board of Supervisors and would serve until February 28, 2022. The AAC was established by the Board of Supervisors (Board) to provide advice and recommendations to the Board on the aviation issues related to the economic viability and security of airports in Contra Costa County (County). The AAC is mandated to cooperate with local, state, and national aviation interests for the safe and orderly operation of airports; advance and promote the interests APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee, 925-681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:Director of Airports Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINT MICHAEL BRUNO TO THE AIRPORTS BUSINESS ASSOCIATION SEAT ON THE AVIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of aviation; and protect the general welfare of the people living and working near the airport and the County in general. The AAC may initiate discussions, observations, or investigations and may hear comments on airport and aviation matters from the public or other agencies in order to formulate recommendations to the Board. In conjunction with all the above, the AAC provides a forum for the Director of Airports regarding policy matters at and around the airport. The AAC comprises 13 members who must work and/or reside in Contra Costa County: one appointed by each Supervisor; one from and nominated to the Board by the City of Concord; one from and nominated to the Board by the City of Pleasant Hill; one from and nominated to the Board by the Contra Costa County Airports Business Association; one from the community of Pacheco and nominated to the Board by the Airport Committee; one from the vicinity of Byron Airport (Brentwood, Byron, Knightsen or Discovery Bay) and nominated to the Board by the Airport Committee; and three at large to represent the general community, to be nominated by the Airport Committee. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The AAC Airports Business Association will not have representation regarding airport matters that could affect their businesses. ATTACHMENTS ABA Email Nominating Mike Bruno RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Richard Bell, DECLARE a vacancy in the District 1 seat on the Family & Children's Trust Committee for a term ending September 30, 2023, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Mr. Bell has been serving successfully and now wishes to resign his seat. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Supervisor Gioia would not be able to fill the seat and that may cause the Family & Children's Trust committee to not have a quorum at their meetings. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: James Lyons, 510-942-2222 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT the resignation of Richard Bell from the District 1 seat of the Family & Children's Trust Committee AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice Contra Costa County NOTICE C.13 The Board of Supervisors will make appointments to fill existing advisory body vacancies. Interested citizens may submit written applications for vacancies to the following address: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1025 Escobar Street, 1st Floor Martinez, CA 9455 Board , Commission, or Committee Family & Children's Trust Committee Seat: District 1 A ppointments will be made after February 1, 2022 I, Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator, hereby certify that, in accordance with Section 54974 of the Government Code, the above notice of vacancy (vacancies) will be posted on January 18, 2022. cc: Hard Copy to Clerk of the Board Lobby Hard Copy to Minutes File Soft Copy .DOCX to M:\5-Notices and Postings Soft Copy .PDF to $:\Minutes Attachments\Minutes 2020 Soft Copy .PDF to M:\1-Committee Files and Applications I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors And z =•o• By: Wl&Vl~ Deputy Clerk RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Silvia Ledezma, DECLARE a vacancy in the District 1 seat on the Arts & Culture Commission for a term ending June 30, 2025, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Ms. Ledezma has been serving successfully and now wishes to resign her seat. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Supervisor Gioia would not be able to fill the seat and that may cause the Arts & Culture Commission to not have a quorum at their meetings. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: James Lyons, 510-942-2222 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT the resignation of Silvia Ledezma from the District 1 seat of the Arts & Culture Commission AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice Contra Costa County NOTICE C.14 The Board of Supervisors will make appointments to fill existing advisory body vacancies. Interested citizens may submit written applications for vacancies to the following address: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1025 Escobar Street, ist Floor Martinez, CA 9455 Board , Commission , or Committee Arts & Culture Commission Seat: District 1 A pp ointments will be made after February 1, 2022 I, Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator, hereby certify that, in accordance with Section 54974 of the Government Code, the above notice of vacancy (vacancies) will be posted on January 18, 2022. cc: Hard Copy to Clerk of the Board Lobby Hard Copy to Minutes File Soft Copy .DOCX to M:\5-Notices and Postings Soft Copy .PDF to S:\Minutes Attachments\Minutes 2020 Soft Copy .PDF to M:\1-Committee Files and Appl ications I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors And ~dministrator By: a .. uA.alh ~ Deputy Clerk RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT in lieu of election Coleman Foley and Thomas E. Baldocchi, Jr. to the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2065 for terms of four years, concluding December 5, 2025. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors received correspondence from Dante Nomellini, Jr., District Secretary and Attorney for Reclamation District 2065, requesting appointment to the Board of Trustees of the District in lieu of elections. Mr. Nomellini, Jr. reports that pursuant to the notice calling for nomination petitions for two vacancies, no petitions were received and no petition requesting an election was presented to the District. Therefore, the District respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors appoint Coleman Foley and Thomas E. Baldocchi, Jr. to four-year terms on the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2065. The terms will conclude December 5, 2025. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lauren Hull, (925) 655-2007 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Reclamation District 2065 Appointments In Lieu of Election CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The proposed nominees to the Board of Trustees for Reclamation District 2065 would not be approved, which may hinder the Board of Trustees in achieving a quorum and conducting the District's business. ATTACHMENTS Reclamation District 2065 Letter RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Joan D'Onofrio, DECLARE a vacancy in the At-Large 3 seat on the Arts & Culture Commission for a term ending June 30, 2025, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the County Administrator. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Arts and Culture Commission advises the Board of Supervisors in matters and issues relevant to arts and culture to: advance the arts in a way that promotes communication, education, appreciation and collaboration throughout Contra Costa County; to preserve, celebrate and share the arts and culture of the many diverse ethnic groups who live in Contra Costa County; to create partnerships with business and government; and to increase communications and understanding between all citizens through art. Most importantly, the Commission promotes arts and culture as a vital element of the quality of life for all of the citizens of Contra Costa County. Commissioner Joan D'Onofrio was appointed to the Arts and Culture Commission by the Board of Supervisors on November APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lara DeLaney, (925) 655-2057 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept the Resignation of Joan D'Onofrio from the At-Large 3 Seat of the Arts & Culture Commission BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 6, 2018. Commissioner D'Onofrio submitted her letter of resignation on January 4, 2022. Given the recent resignations of several commissioners, the County Administrator's Office will seek directions from the Internal Operations Committee regarding the next step for the Arts and Culture Commission. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the resignation will not be accepted. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice Contra Costa County NOTICE C.16 The Board of Supervisors will make appointments to fill existing advisory body vacancies. Interested citizens may submit written applications for vacancies to the following address: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1025 Escobar Street, pt Floor Martinez, CA 9455 Board , Commission , or Committee Arts & Cultur~ Commission Seat: At-Large 3 A ppointments will be made after February 1, 2022 I, Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator, hereby certify that, in accordance with Section 54974 of the Government Code, the above notice of vacancy (vacancies) will be posted on January 18, 2022. cc : Hard Copy to Clerk of the Board Lobby Hard Copy to Minutes File Soft Copy .DOCX to M:\5-Notices and Postings Soft Copy .PDF to S:\Minutes Attachments\Minutes 2020 Soft Copy .PDF to M :\1-Committee Files and Applications I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors And ~z= By:~~ Deputy Clerk RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5025 authorizing additional revenue from the California Department of Social Services to the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau (0589), in the amount of $3,249,222 for an increase in the Maximum Reimbursable Amount (MRA) in FY 21-22 for the California Alternative Payment Program (CAPP-1009-01); and an amount of $225,828 for an increase in the Maximum Reimbursable Amount (MRA) for the California Alternative Payment Program Stage II (C2AP-1008-01 Stage II). FISCAL IMPACT: This action is to adjust estimated revenue and appropriated expenditures based on additional funds approved by the California Department of Social Services during FY 21-22; no county Match is required. BACKGROUND: This Board Order is to appropriate the Maximum Reimbursable Amount (MRA) in FY 21-22 for the California Alternative Payment Child Care Program (CAPP-1009-01) and California Alternative Payment Program Stage II (C2AP-1008-01 Stage II). The County routinely receives funds from the California Department of Social Services to provide Child care and Development Services for infant and preschool children. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Nancy Benavides (925) 681-4268 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:CSB Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment – Alternative Payment Programs - CAPP and C2AP Stage II CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Appropriations and estimated revenues will not be properly reflected in the FY 21/22 budget. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three (3) of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes – Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TC24/27_AP005025 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Approp Adj 5025 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5026 authorizing additional revenue from the California Department of Social Services in the amount of $182,566 in the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau (0589) for an increase in the Maximum Reimbursable Amount (MRA) to the Child Care and Development Program (CCTR). FISCAL IMPACT: This action is to adjust estimated revenue and appropriated expenditures based on additional funds approved by the California Department of Social Services during FY 21-22; no county match is required. BACKGROUND: This board order is to adjust estimated revenue and appropriated expenditures based on additional funds approved by the California Department of Social Services during FY 21-22. This is an increase to the Maximum Reimbursable Amount (MRA) to provide a cost of living adjustment (COLA). County routinely receives funds from the California Department of Social Services to provide child care and development services for infant and preschool children. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Appropriations and estimated revenues will not be properly reflected in the FY 21-22 budget. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Nancy Benavides (925) 681-4268 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:CSB Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment – Child Care and Development Program (CCTR) CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three (3) of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes – Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 2: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and Outcome 3: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TC24/27_AP005026 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Appropriation Adjustment 5026 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriation Adjustment No. 005027 transferring $154,693.00 in revenues to the County Counsel's Office (0030), for fiscal year 2021-22 specialized legal services for Health Services. FISCAL IMPACT: The specialized legal services are funded 100% by Health Services. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department has requested that the County Counsel's Office dedicate a full-time Deputy County Counsel to Health Services to ensure necessary legal representation related to critical and time sensitive technical software and hardware contracts and data sharing agreements. Health Services advises that delays in IT contracting put millions of dollars in grant funding at risk, can cause critical CalAIM projects to be postponed and can delay implementations of critical system upgrades. Adding the proposed position corresponding to P300 AIR 48158 will ensure adequate legal staffing to serve Health Services IT projects. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County Counsel's Office will not receive the funding necessary to provide additional staffing, hindering provision of critical legal services to Health Services and other clients. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Wanda McAdoo 925-655-2211 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Wanda McAdoo C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mary Ann Mason, County Counsel Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Appropriation Transfer for Deputy County Counsel Position AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TC24/27_AP005027 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Appropriation Adjustment 5027 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25872 to add one (1) Deputy County Counsel - Advanced - Exempt (2ET3) (unrepresented) position at salary plan and grade B8B 2297 ($14,451.40-$17,178.18) in the Office of the County Counsel. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an increased annual salary cost of approximately $206,138 and pension and benefit costs of $103,247 for the full-time position. The total cost for the remainder of this fiscal year is estimated to be $154,693. This is a dedicated position funded by the Health Services Department. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting and funding the addition of one full-time Deputy County Counsel. This position will ensure the necessary legal representation in critical and time sensitive review of technical software and hardware contracts and data sharing agreements. Over the past year, the demand for these specialized legal services has increased significantly, necessitating the use of multiple attorneys APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Wanda McAdoo, (925) 655-2211 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Wanda McAdoo, Sylvia WongTam C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mary Ann Mason, County Counsel Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Deputy County Counsel - Advanced -Exempt position in the Office of County Counsel BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) in the General Law division of the County Counsel’s Office to review, draft and negotiate a high volume of complex IT contracts and related documents. The Health Services Department advises that delays in contracting put millions of dollars in grant funding at risk, can cause critical CalAIM projects to be postponed and can delay implementations of critical system upgrades. To continue to provide adequate representation at the increased level of services now needed by Health Services Information Technology, an additional permanent dedicated Deputy County Counsel position is necessary. Adding the proposed position will ensure adequate staffing to serve not only Health Services, but other clients as well. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Insufficient staffing in County Counsel will hinder provision of legal services to Health Services risking costly loss of grant funding and project delays for Health Services IT. It will also reduce availability of services for other clients. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS AIR 48158_P300 25872 - Add Deputy County Counsel Advanced_BOS 1.18.22.docx MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25872 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25872 DATE 1/18/2022 Department No./ Department Office of the County Counsel Budget Unit No. 0030 Org No. 1700 Agenc y No. 17 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. to ADD one (1) full-time Deputy County Counsel - Advanced Exempt (2ET3) (unrepresented) position at salary level B 8B 2297 ($14,451.40-$17,178.18) in the Office of the County Counsel. Proposed Effective Date: 1/19/2022 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $1,000.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $309,386.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $154,693.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Position funded by Health Service Department . Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Mary Ann Mason ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT L.Strobel 1/6/22 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 1/7/2022 Add one (1) full-time Deputy County Counsel - Exempt Advanced Level (2ET3) (Unrepresented) position at salary level; B8B 2297 ($14,451.40-$17,178.18) in the Office of the County Counsel. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Amanda Monson 1/7/2022 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25877 to reallocate the salary of the Director of Airports (9BD1) (unrepresented) classification from salary plan and grade B85 2071 (annual salary range of, $126,426 - $153,672) to salary plan and grade B85 2215 (annual salary range of, $145,800 - $177,221) in the Public Works Department – Airports Division. FISCAL IMPACT: This action will result in an additional annual salary and benefits costs of approximately $38,620, including pensions costs of approximately $6,309. This will be 100% funded by the Airport Enterprise Fund. BACKGROUND: The reallocation is recommended to attract highly qualified applicants for the position of Director of Airports. Our County airports, Buchanan Field and Byron Airport, are experiencing significant growth and development opportunities in addition to increasing demands for aviation uses at both facilities. While the airports are well positioned for future success based on the work done over recent years, this salary adjustment is necessary to help secure a successful APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Adrienne Todd (925) 313-2108 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Sylvia Wong Tam C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Reallocate the salary of the Director of Airports (9BD1) classification BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) candidate to lead the Contra Costa County Airports Division now and into the future. The Airports Division has many development opportunities underway and in planning for both Buchanan Field and Byron Airports. There are also a number of airport infrastructure improvement projects either underway or being planned and developed for both airports. These important projects will potentially increase the use and attractiveness of the County’s airports for aviation activities and thus will increase potential revenue sources for the airports and the County. The Airports Division will need a strong Director of Airports adept at managing competing demands, multiple priorities and strategic thinking to lead staff, and oversee airport administration and operations. A successful Director of Airports must be an effective communicator, able to build consensus from many diverse partners and lead by example. This adjustment will assist in developing a strong pool of candidates to meet the qualifications of an excellent Director of Airports. After reviewing the existing salary for this position, it is recommended that this salary adjustment is necessary for the position of Director of Airports. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County’s pool of potential Director of Airports candidates may not be as well qualified and skilled to lead our Airports Division if this action is not approved. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS AIR 48140 P300 25877 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25877 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25877 DATE 1/5/2022 Department No./ Department Public Works Budget Unit No. 0841 Org No. 4841 Agency No. 65 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25877 to reallocate the salary of the classification of Director of Airports (9BD1) (unrepresented) from salary plan and grade B85 2071 ($126,426 - $153,672) to salary plan and grade B85 2215 ($145,800 - $177,221) in the Public Works Department – Airport Division. Proposed Effective Date: Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost 38620 Net County Cost 0 Total this FY 16092 N.C.C. this FY 0 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Airport Enterprise funds. Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Brian M. Balbas ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT L.Strobel 1/7/22 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 1/11/2022 Reallocate the salary of the Director of Airports (9BD1) (unrepresented) classification Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Amber Lytle 1/10/22 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 1/12/2022 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefit s Costs : b. Support Cost s : (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c . Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c . financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Resolution No. 25870 to add one (1) Assistant Chief Information Officer-Exempt (LTB1) position at salary plan and grade B85 2265 ($12,155.04 - $16,288.92) and appoint the incumbent in position no. 17614 to this position; cancel one (1) Chief Information Security Officer-Exempt (LWS1) position at salary plan and grade B85 2212 ($12,114.04 - $14,724.69) and abolish the class; and reallocate the salary of the Assistant Chief Information Officer-Exempt (LTB1) at salary plan and grade B85 2265 ($15,090 - $18,343) in the Department of Information Technology. FISCAL IMPACT: The annual cost of this action is $80,686 of which $6,605 represents an increase in pension costs. The cost will be covered through charges to user departments. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Marc Shorr, (925) 608-4071 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Nancy Zandonella, Sylvia WongTam C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:Marc Shorr, Chief Information Officer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one (1) Assistant Chief Information Officer-Exempt position BACKGROUND: The Human Resources Department recently performed a salary survey on the Assistant Chief Information Officer-Exempt classification as well as the Chief Information Security Officer-Exempt classification. Both salaries fell below the nine (9) bay area Counties surveyed. Accordingly, the Human Resources Department has recommended a 12.6% salary increase to establish parity with the other surrounding jurisdictions. The department is also abolishing the classification of Chief Information Security Officer-Exempt and adding a new Assistant Chief Information Officer-Exempt position as the duties of the current Chief Information Security Officer-Exempt are more in line with the duties of a Assistant Chief Information Officer-Exempt. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the salary of this classifications will remain below market. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS AIR 48144 P300 25870 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25870 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25870 DATE 1/6/22 Department No./ Department Department of Information Technology Budget Unit No. 0147 Org No. 1050 Agency No. Action Requested: Add one (1) Assistant Chief Information Officer-Exempt (LTB1) position and appoint the incumbent in position no. 17614 to this position; cancel one (1) Chief IT Security Officer-Exempt (LWS1) position, abolish the class; and reallocate the salary of the Assistant Chief Information Officer-Exempt on the salary schedule. Proposed Effective Date: Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) as sociated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $80,868.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $26,956.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% User Departments Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Marc Shorr ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT L.Strobel 1/6/2022 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 1/7/2022 Add one (1) Assistant Chief Information Officer-Exempt (LTB1) position and appoint the incumbent in position no. 17614 to this position; cancel one (1) Chief IT Security Officer-Exempt (LWS1) position and abolish the class; and reallocate the salary of the Assistant Chief Information Officer-Exempt (LTB1) at salary plan and grade B85 2265 ($15,090 - $18,343) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Carol Berger 1/7/2022 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Resolution No. 25871 to add one (1) Chief of Administrative Services - Exempt (APDK) at Salary Plan and Grade B85 1003 ($9,593.34 - $11,660.76) and cancel one (1) Administrative Services Officer (APDB) (unrepresented) position no.12578 at Salary Plan and Grade B82 1692 ($7,458.06 - $10,030.27) in the Department of Information Technology. FISCAL IMPACT: The annual cost of this action is $22,100 of which $3,610 represents an increase in pension costs. BACKGROUND: In April 2021, the long tenured incumbent who was responsible for the APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Marc Shorr, (925) 608-4071 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Nancy Zandonella, Sylvia Wong Tam C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:Marc Shorr, Chief Information Officer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one (1) Chief of Administrative Services (APDK) (Exempt) position. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) department’s fiscal and administrative matters as well as activities related to payroll and personnel functions retired. Since that time, the department has struggled to backfill this critical role with a classification that did not carry with it the knowledge, skills, and abilities to effectively fill this role. It is necessary for the department to add a Chief of Administrative Services position so we may recruit and fill this critical role with an individual who possesses the ability to perform complex and comprehensive budgetary analysis, the ability to maintain fiscal controls and to work closely with the senior management on organizational and policy implementation to accomplish the goals of the department. As a cost-recovery department, it is vital to fill this position with an individual who has progressively responsible experience in budgetary analysis. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, we will continue to struggle to effectively meet the fiscal needs of the department. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 25871 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25871 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25871 DATE 1/5/2022 Department No./ Department Department of Information Technology Budget Unit No. 0147 Org No. 1050 Agenc y No. Action Requested: Add one (1) Chief of Administrative Services position (APDK) and cancel one (1) Administrative Services Officer position No. 12578 (APDB) in the Department of Information Technology . Proposed Effective Date: Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $22,100.00 Net County Cost $22,100.00 Total this FY $5,525.00 N.C.C. this FY $5,525.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% User Departments Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Marc Shorr ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT L.Strobel 1/6/2022 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administ rator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 1/7/2022 Add one (1) Chief of Administrative Services position (APDK) (Exempt) at Sa lary Plan and Grade B85 1003 ($9,593.34 - $11,660.76) and cancel one (1) Administrative Services Officer position no. 12578 (APDB) (Not Represented) Salary Plan and Grade B82 1692 ($7,458.06 - $10,030.27) in the Department of Information Technology. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Melissa Moglie 1/7/2022 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25879 to add the following 73 represented positions (35.0 full-time equivalent): Twelve (12) 32/40 and fifteen (15) 24/40 Registered Nurse (VWXG) positions at salary plan and grade L32-1880 ($10,398 - $12,986); Three (3) full-time Charge Nurse (VWTF) positions at salary plan and grade L35-1883 ($12,066 - $15,069); Six (6) 32/40 and six (6) 24/40 Certified Nursing Assistant (VTWA) positions at salary plan and grade TA5-0906 ($3,323 - $4,039); Three (3) 32/40 and three (3) 24/40 Licensed Vocational Nurse (VT7G) positions at salary plan and grade TAX-1287 ($4,833 - $6,172); One (1) 24/40 Clinical Lab Scientist II (VHVD) position at salary plan and grade TC5-1809 ($8,531 - $10,370); One (1) 24/40 Diagnostic Imaging Technician II (V8VE) position at salary plan and grade TC5-1738 ($8,323 - $10,116); One full-time MH Specialist II (VQVA) position at salary plan and grade TC2-1284 ($4,978 - $7,033); Two (2) full-time, three (3) 32/40, and three (3) 24/40 ISW - Generalist (1KVD) positions at salary plan and grade TB5-0922 ($3,376 - $4,104); APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jo-Anne Linares, (925) 957-5240 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Bud Decesare, Nancy Hendra, Linh Huynh, Kathi Caudel, kathy Sitton C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Add 73 positions in varied classifications in the Health Services Department RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) > One (1) 24/40 Lab Tech II (VJVA) position at salary plan and grade TC5-1095 ($4,007 - $4,870); Two (2) full-time and one (1) 24/40 Mental Health Clinical Specialist (VQSB) positions at salary plan and grade TC2-1384 ($5,496 - $8,158); One (1) full-time Dietitian (1KSA) position at salary plan and grade TC5-1376 ($5,292 - $6,433); Two (2) full-time Occupational Therapist II (V5VH) positions at salary plan and grade TC5-1746 ($7,634 - $9,279); Two (2) full-time Therapy Assistant (V5WF) positions at salary plan and grade TC5-1435 ($5,611 - $6,820) One (1) full-time Pharmacy Tech (VY9B) position at salary plan and grade TC5-1065 ($4,668 - $5,673) One (1) full-time Pharmacist II (VYTA) position at salary plan and grade TC5-1964 ($11,367 - $14,508); and Three (3) full-time Clerk-Senior Level (JWXC) positions at salary plan and grade 3RX-1033 ($3,759 - $4,800) for Inpatient psychiatric services within the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in the Health Services Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $10,994,062 with $4,263,497 in retirement and benefit costs already included. The permanent salary and benefit costs will be fully offset by the reduction of contract registry staffing expenditures. BACKGROUND: In 2020, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center reopened the Inpatient Psychiatric Services providing acute behavioral health care. The unit is a 24- hour operation staffed with nurses, physicians, social workers, and therapists to provide care for patients' psychiatric recovery. With an increase in needs for psychiatric emergency services due to COVID-19 and partnered with local and State shortages of inpatient psychiatric beds, the reopening was necessary to address the County’s increasing community needs for local and immediate acute inpatient psychiatric care. The Inpatient Psychiatric Services was initially opened with the use of contract employees, which was intended to be a temporary circumstance until the County was able to add and fill the necessary permanent positions. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, there will not be permanent staff to provide a continuum of psychiatric patient care in the Inpatient Psychiatric Services unit at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 25879 HSD P300 No. 25879 Attachment MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25879 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25879 DATE 1/6/2022 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6314 Agenc y No. A18 Action Requested: Add 73 positions in varied classifications in the Health Services Department - see Attachment. Proposed Effective Date: 2/1/2022 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $10,994,062.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $4,580,86.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Jo-Anne Linares ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kaitlyn Jeffus for 1/11/2022 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Admini strator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under Delegated Authority Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 1/13/2022 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY Attachment to Position Adjustment No. 25879 Classification Class Code No. of Positions Position Hours Total FTE Salary Plan and Grade Registered Nurse VWXG 12 32/40 9.6 L32 -1880 ($10,398 - $12,986) Registered Nurse VWXG 15 24/40 9.0 L32 -1880 ($10,398 - $12,986) Charge Nurse VWTF 3 40/40 3.0 L35 -1883 ($12,066 - $15,069) Certified Nursing Assistant VTWA 6 32/40 4.8 TA5-0906 ($3,323 - $4,039) Certified Nursing Assistant VTWA 6 24/40 3.6 TA5-0906 ($3,323 - $4,039) Licensed Vocational Nurse VT7G 3 32/40 2.4 TAX-1287 ($4,833 - $6,172) Licensed Vocational Nurse VT7G 3 24/40 1.8 TAX-1287 ($4,833 - $6,172) Clinical Lab Scientist II VHVD 1 24/40 0.6 TC5-1809 ($8,531 - $10,370) Diagnostic Imaging Technician II V8VE 1 24/40 0.6 TC5-1738 ($8,323 - $10,116) MH Specialist II VQVA 1 40/40 1.0 TC2-1284 ($4,978 - $7,033) ISW - Generalist 1KVD 2 40/40 2.0 TB5-0922 ($3,376 - $4,104) ISW - Generalist 1KVD 3 32/40 2.4 TB5-0922 ($3,376 - $4,104) ISW - Generalist 1KVD 3 24/40 1.8 TB5-0922 ($3,376 - $4,104) Lab Tech II VJVA 1 24/40 0.6 TC5-1095 ($4,007 - $4,870) Mental Health Clinical Specialist VQSB 2 40/40 2.0 TC2-1384 ($5,496 - $8,158) Mental Health Clinical Specialist VQSB 1 24/40 0.6 TC2-1384 ($5,496 - $8,158) Dietitian 1KSA 1 40/40 1.0 TC5-1376 ($5,292 - $6,433) Occupational Therapist II V5VH 2 40/40 2.0 TC5-1746 ($7,634 - $9,279) Therapy Assistant V5WF 2 40/40 2.0 TC5-1435 ($5,611 - $6,820) Pharm Tech VY9B 1 40/40 1.0 TC5-1065 ($4,668 - $5,673) Pharmacist II VYTA 1 40/40 1.0 TC5-1964 ($11,367 - $14,508) Clerk-Senior JWXC 3 40/40 3.0 3RX-1033 ($3,759 - $4,800) TOTALS 73 35.0 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/11 authorizing the Health Services Department Director to apply for and accept loan funds from the State of California's No Place Like Home Program (NPLH)/Competitive Allocation, Round 4, as a joint applicant with a Resources for Community Development (RCD), as development sponsor, for a loan in an amount not to exceed $20 million to fund a portion of an affordable permanent supportive housing project on Ygnacio Valley Road in Walnut Creek for persons with a serious mental illness who are homeless, chronically homeless or at-risk of chronic homelessness, including: a. Authorizing the Department of Health Services Director (HSD) to apply for and accept NPLH funds with the affordable housing developer, Resources for Community Development, as a joint applicant (the "Development Sponsor") and execute documents necessary to accept the funds; b. Acknowledging that the County and/or the Development Sponsor will be subject to the terms and conditions included in the Standard Agreement to be entered into with the State pursuant to Government Code section 15463, Part 3.9 of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and Welfare and Institutions Code section 5890; and c. Authorizing a commitment by the Health Services Department to make mental health supportive services available to the project's NPLH tenants for at least twenty years. 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/34 authorizing the Health Services Department Director to apply for and accept loan funds from the State of California's No Place Like Home Program (NPLH)/Competitive Allocation, Round 4, as a joint applicant with Community Housing Development Corporation, as a development sponsor, for a loan in an amount not to exceed $20 million to fund a portion of an affordable permanent supportive housing project on Fred Jackson Way in Richmond for persons with a serious mental illness who are homeless, chronically homeless or at-risk of chronic homelessness, including: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Adam Down C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Authorization to Participate in the No Place Like Home Program/Competitive RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) a. Authorizing the Department of Health Services Director (HSD) to apply for and accept NPLH funds with the affordable housing developer Community Housing Development Corporation, as a joint applicant (the "Development Sponsor") and execute documents necessary to accept the funds; b. Acknowledging that the County and/or the Development Sponsor will be subject to the terms and conditions included in the Standard Agreement to be entered into with the State pursuant to Government Code section 15463, Part 3.9 of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and Welfare and Institutions Code section 5890; and c. Authorizing a commitment by the Health Services Department to make mental health supportive services available to the project's NPLH tenants for at least twenty years. FISCAL IMPACT: The NPLH Competitive Allocation funds will be loaned directly to the Development Sponsors and secured by a Deed of Trust on the development property. The cost of providing mental health supportive services will be covered by existing Mental Health Services Act funds allocated to HSD. BACKGROUND: On September 18, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved an advocacy position for Proposition 2 that authorized the issuance of bonds to fund existing housing programs for individuals with mental illness. The proposition was passed by voters on November 6, 2018. The proceeds of the Proposition 2 bond issuance are designated for the NPLH program to be provided as deferred payment loans for the development of permanent supportive housing for persons with a serious mental illness who are homeless, chronically homeless or at-risk of chronic homelessness. NPLH funds are administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in two tranches: 1. Noncompetitive Allocation Funds - Funding available on an "over the counter" basis to specific cities and counties throughout the State. Contra Costa's allocation is $2,231,571. The County made its selection as part of the Round 3 Request for Proposals and Noncompetitive Allocation has been awarded by HCD to the selected bidder. 2. Competitive Allocation Funds - Funding available on a competitive per-project allocation basis. These funds will be available through four Notice of Funding Availability rounds with the current Round 4 being the last of the expected competitive rounds. The County may apply independently or with a development sponsor. Applications for the fourth round are due on January 19, 2022. The funds may be used to acquire, design, construct, rehabilitate, or preserve permanent supportive housing, which may include a capitalized operating subsidy reserve. The Development Sponsor will be the borrower of record for the loan; however the County will also be a party to documents associated with the application for and award of NPLH funds for the purpose of providing the supportive services. The maximum loan amount per project is $20,000,000 and the loan will be secured by a Deed of Trust on the project property. As a joint sponsor, the County shall be jointly and severally liable for all obligations of the Development Sponsor as set forth in the Standard Agreement. HSD will work jointly with the Development Sponsor to apply to HCD for an allocation of NPLH competitive funds for one or more projects. Staff will review project applications for compliance with threshold requirements, development feasibility, competitiveness and eligibility, and participate on behalf of the County in the financing transaction. The Behavioral Health Services Division of HSD, in cooperation with the Development Sponsor, will write the project specific Supportive Services Plan that is included with the application, and enter into a Memorandum of Understanding for the county's 20-year commitment of mental health supportive services of the project's NPLH tenants. HCD will monitor the project for ongoing compliance. The two projects are known as 699 YVR on Ygnacio Valley Road in Walnut Creek with Resources for Community Development (RCD) and Legacy Court on Fred Jackson Way in Richmond with Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC) and Eden Housing. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the County’s ability to secure permanent supportive housing for persons with a serious mental illness who are Homeless, Chronically Homeless or At-Risk of Chronic Homelessness will be diminished. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/11 Resolution No. 2022/34 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2022/11 Signed Resolution No. 2022/34 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 01/18/2022 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2022/11 IN THE MATTER OF: AUTHORIZATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NO PLACE LIKE HOME PROGRAM WHEREAS, the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) issued a Notice of Funding Availability for Round 4 funds dated October 29, 2021, as may be amended from time to time, (“NOFA”), under the No Place Like Home Program (“NPLH” or “Program”) authorized by Government Code section 15463, Part 3.9 of Division 5 (commencing with Section 5849.1) of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and Welfare and Institutions Code section 5890; WHEREAS, the NOFA relates to the availability of a minimum of $486 million in Competitive Allocation funds under the NPLH Program; and WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa is a County and an Applicant (“County”), as those terms are defined in the NPLH Program Guidelines, enacted in 2020 (“Guidelines”). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That County is hereby authorized and directed to apply for and if awarded, accept funds from the NPLH Program not to exceed $20,000,000 (“NPLH Loan”). That Anna Roth, Director of Health Services, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed to act on behalf of County in connection with an award of the NPLH Loan, and to enter into, execute, and deliver any and all documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to evidence the NPLH Loan, the County’s obligations related thereto, and the Department’s security therefore. These documents may include, but are not limited to, a State of California Standard Agreement (“Standard Agreement”), a regulatory agreement, a promissory note, a deed of trust and security agreement, a capitalized operating subsidy reserve agreement and any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate by the Department as security for, evidence of, or pertaining to the NPLH Loan, and all amendments thereto (collectively, the “NPLH Program Documents”). That County shall be subject to the terms and conditions that are specified in the Standard Agreement; that the application in full is incorporated as part of the Standard Agreement; that any and all activities funded, information provided, and timelines represented in the application are enforceable through the Standard Agreement; and that County will use the NPLH Loan in accordance with the Guidelines, other applicable rules and laws, the NPLH Program Documents, and any and all NPLH Program requirements. That County will make mental health supportive services available to each project’s NPLH tenants for at least 20 years and will coordinate the provision of or referral to other services (including, but not limited to, substance use services) in accordance with the County’s relevant supportive services plan, and as specified in Section 202 of the Guidelines. Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Adam Down 7+(%2$5'2)683(59,62562)&2175$&267$&2817<&$/,)251,$ DQGIRU6SHFLDO'LVWULFWV$JHQFLHVDQG$XWKRULWLHV*RYHUQHGE\WKH%RDUG $GRSWHGWKLV5HVROXWLRQRQE\WKHIROORZLQJYRWH $<( 12 $%6(17 $%67$,1 5(&86( 5HVROXWLRQ1R ,17+(0$77(52)$87+25,=$7,21723$57,&,3$7(,17+(123/$&(/,.(+20(352*5$0 :+(5($6WKH6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI+RXVLQJDQG&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW ³'HSDUWPHQW´ LVVXHGD1RWLFHRI )XQGLQJ$YDLODELOLW\IRU5RXQGIXQGVGDWHG2FWREHUDVPD\EHDPHQGHGIURPWLPHWRWLPH ³12)$´ XQGHUWKH1R 3ODFH/LNH+RPH3URJUDP ³13/+´RU³3URJUDP´ DXWKRUL]HGE\*RYHUQPHQW&RGHVHFWLRQ3DUWRI'LYLVLRQ FRPPHQFLQJZLWK6HFWLRQ RIWKH:HOIDUHDQG,QVWLWXWLRQV&RGHDQG:HOIDUHDQG,QVWLWXWLRQV&RGHVHFWLRQ :+(5($6WKH12)$UHODWHVWRWKHDYDLODELOLW\RIDPLQLPXPRIPLOOLRQLQ&RPSHWLWLYH$OORFDWLRQIXQGVXQGHUWKH 13/+3URJUDPDQG:+(5($6WKH&RXQW\RI&RQWUD&RVWDLVD&RXQW\DQGDQ$SSOLFDQW ³&RXQW\´ DVWKRVHWHUPVDUH GHILQHGLQWKH13/+3URJUDP*XLGHOLQHVHQDFWHGLQ ³*XLGHOLQHV´  12:7+(5()25(%(,75(62/9('7KDW&RXQW\LVKHUHE\DXWKRUL]HGDQGGLUHFWHGWRDSSO\IRUDQGLIDZDUGHGDFFHSW IXQGVIURPWKH13/+3URJUDPQRWWRH[FHHG ³13/+/RDQ´ 7KDW$QQD5RWK'LUHFWRURI+HDOWK6HUYLFHVRUKHU GHVLJQHHLVKHUHE\DXWKRUL]HGDQGGLUHFWHGWRDFWRQEHKDOIRI&RXQW\LQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKDQDZDUGRIWKH13/+/RDQDQGWR HQWHULQWRH[HFXWHDQGGHOLYHUDQ\DQGDOOGRFXPHQWVUHTXLUHGRUGHHPHGQHFHVVDU\RUDSSURSULDWHWRHYLGHQFHWKH13/+/RDQ WKH&RXQW\¶VREOLJDWLRQVUHODWHGWKHUHWRDQGWKH'HSDUWPHQW¶VVHFXULW\WKHUHIRUH7KHVHGRFXPHQWVPD\LQFOXGHEXWDUHQRW OLPLWHGWRD6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD6WDQGDUG$JUHHPHQW ³6WDQGDUG$JUHHPHQW´ DUHJXODWRU\DJUHHPHQWDSURPLVVRU\QRWHDGHHG RIWUXVWDQGVHFXULW\DJUHHPHQWDFDSLWDOL]HGRSHUDWLQJVXEVLG\UHVHUYHDJUHHPHQWDQGDQ\DQGDOORWKHUGRFXPHQWVUHTXLUHGRU GHHPHGQHFHVVDU\RUDSSURSULDWHE\WKH'HSDUWPHQWDVVHFXULW\IRUHYLGHQFHRIRUSHUWDLQLQJWRWKH13/+/RDQDQGDOO DPHQGPHQWVWKHUHWR FROOHFWLYHO\WKH³13/+3URJUDP'RFXPHQWV´ 7KDW&RXQW\VKDOOEHVXEMHFWWRWKHWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQV WKDWDUHVSHFLILHGLQWKH6WDQGDUG$JUHHPHQWWKDWWKHDSSOLFDWLRQLQIXOOLVLQFRUSRUDWHGDVSDUWRIWKH6WDQGDUG$JUHHPHQWWKDW DQ\DQGDOODFWLYLWLHVIXQGHGLQIRUPDWLRQSURYLGHGDQGWLPHOLQHVUHSUHVHQWHGLQWKHDSSOLFDWLRQDUHHQIRUFHDEOHWKURXJKWKH 6WDQGDUG$JUHHPHQWDQGWKDW&RXQW\ZLOOXVHWKH13/+/RDQLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH*XLGHOLQHVRWKHUDSSOLFDEOHUXOHVDQG ODZVWKH13/+3URJUDP'RFXPHQWVDQGDQ\DQGDOO13/+3URJUDPUHTXLUHPHQWV7KDW&RXQW\ZLOOPDNHPHQWDOKHDOWK VXSSRUWLYHVHUYLFHVDYDLODEOHWRHDFKSURMHFW¶V13/+WHQDQWVIRUDWOHDVW\HDUVDQGZLOOFRRUGLQDWHWKHSURYLVLRQRIRUUHIHUUDO WRRWKHUVHUYLFHV LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRVXEVWDQFHXVHVHUYLFHV LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH&RXQW\¶VUHOHYDQWVXSSRUWLYH VHUYLFHVSODQDQGDVVSHFLILHGLQ6HFWLRQRIWKH*XLGHOLQHV &RQWDFW6X]DQQH7DYDQR3K'  ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVLVDWUXHDQGFRUUHFWFRS\RIDQDFWLRQWDNHQDQGHQWHUHGRQWKHPLQXWHVRIWKH%RDUGRI6XSHUYLVRUVRQWKHGDWH VKRZQ $77(67('-DQXDU\ 0RQLFD1LQR&RXQW\$GPLQLVWUDWRUDQG&OHUNRIWKH%RDUGRI6XSHUYLVRUV %\'HSXW\ FF0DUF\:LOKHOP$GDP'RZQ RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute the Continued Funding Application (CFA) with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) for General Child Care and Development Program, CalWORKs Stage 2, and California Alternative Payment Program for Fiscal Year 2022-23. FISCAL IMPACT: The Board Order will authorize the EHSD Director, or designee, to execute the CFA on behalf of the County to be considered for continued funding from the California Department of Social Services for Fiscal Year 2022-23. The intent of the CFA is to notify the CDSS of the County’s interest to continue to receive the funding. The anticipated award amount was not listed in the application. County contract numbers: 39-801 for General Child Care and Development Program; 29-212 for California Alternative Payment Program; 29-213 for CalWORKs Stage 2. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Noppol Keeratiyakul (925) 608-4961 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Nelly Ige, Nancy Sparks, Ali Vahidizadeh, Theodore Trinh C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Continued Funding Application for FY 2022-23 for General Childcare and Development Program, CalWORKs Stage 2, and Alternative Payment Program BACKGROUND: In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 98 (Chapter 24, Statutes of 2020), effective July 1, 2021, the following programs transferred from the California Department of Education to the California Department of Social Services: General Child Care and Development Program, CalWORKs Stage 2, California Alternative Payment Program. California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (5 CCR), Division 1, Chapter 19, Subchapter 1, Article 5, Section 18010 (d) states, “contractors that intend to accept the offer to continue services in the subsequent contract period shall respond to a Continued Funding Application (CFA) request from the Child Development Division in accordance with the instructions and timelines specified in the request.” On December 10, 2021, the California Department of Social Services issued Child Care Bulletin 21-23 notifying Executive Officers and Program Directors regarding the Continued Funding Application (CFA) process for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23. As part of the CFA requirements, a Board Order is required if the governing board requires approval prior to application submittal. By authorizing the signature of the Employment and Human Services Director, the application will meet all requirements for submission to execute FY 2022-23 CFA to CDSS. Approval of this Board Order will allow the continued provision of the General Child Care and Development Program, CalWORKs Stage 2, and Alternative Payment Program services to program eligible children and families. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the County will not receive funding to operate General Child Care and Development Program, CalWORKs Stage 2, and California Alternative Payment Program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This board order supports three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self-sufficient"; and 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing" by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. ATTACHMENTS Continued Funding Application Fiscal Year 2022-23 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer, Department of Information Technology, or designee, to execute an Interagency Agreement including indemnification changes with Delta Diablo to pay the County an amount not to exceed $140,000 to provide information technology services for the period of November 17, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The execution of this agreement will result in revenue for the Department of Information Technology. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: In November 2021, Delta Diablo’s Information Technology Manager resigned leaving a critical void in their staffing. To assist with the operation of their vital information technology systems, the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) was able to begin performing services to ensure uninterrupted services to the district’s technology services. DoIT has qualified staff to perform these services and is willing to assist the district until a new IT Manager is hired. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Marc Shorr, 608-4071 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:Marc Shorr, Chief Information Officer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer, Department of Information Technology, to execute an Interagency Agreement with Delta Diablo. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, Delta Diablo will be without the necessary staffing to perform critical IT functions and would have a detrimental impact on their services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to apply for and accept California State Library grant funding in the amount not to exceed $20,000 to meet the operational and services expenses required by Project Second Chance, the Contra Costa County Library adult literacy program, to provide English as a Second Language (ESL) services for the period of January 1 to June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds committed to Project Second Chance by the Contra Costa County Library will be matched by the California State Library. For fiscal year 2021/22, the Library has pledged ESL funds currently budgeted in the amount of $26,821 (63% Library fund and 37% California State Library). BACKGROUND: Project Second Chance was founded in 1984 with a grant from the California State Library. In 2003, AB 1266 was passed. Article 4.6, Section 18880-18884 of that bill, established the California Library Literacy and English Acquisition Services Program and the formula that determines how local funds, generated by individual library jurisdictions, are matched by the California State Library, using funds legislated specifically for this purpose. The 2021-22 California State Budget included $15 million in supplemental APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Walt Beveridge 925-608-7730 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:Alison McKee, County Librarian Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:California State Library Grant for English as a Second Language Services for FY 2021 - 2022 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) funding for ESL services to be awarded by the California State Library through grants to existing California Library Literacy Services programs over a five-year period. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Library will not receive California State Library funding for English as a Second Language services, reducing the number of community members who can be served. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with the City and County of San Francisco, in an amount not to exceed $634,686 as part of the 2021 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Grant for homeland security related projects for the period November 1, 2021 through the end of the grant funding. (100% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: No County Costs. $634,686; 100% 2021 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant from the City and County of San Francisco acting as fiscal agent for the Bay Area Urban Area Security Initiative. (CFDA # 97.067) BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Program funds the unique planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high threat, high density urban areas. This grant assists designated regions in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. California is home to five of these urban areas and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security designated the City and County of San Francisco as the fiscal agent for the Bay Area Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Chrystine Robbins, 925-655-0008 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:2021 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The County, as a member of the Bay Area UASI, will receive $634,686. Funds will be used to enhance public safety capabilities of law enforcement agencies throughout the region by aggregating discrete criminal information sources into a unified platform. Without a regional system, there exists no active solution for connecting data across jurisdictions. Expand existing systems to participate in other state, regional, and national initiatives. Funding will also be used to: fund three prime movers for the Office of the Sheriff to assist with the movement of critical equipment during mutual aid deployments, search and rescue missions and other disasters; to purchase 80 Class 1 and 2 Hazmat suits for the County’s four participating Hazmat teams. As the fiscal agent for the grant, the City and County of San Francisco has developed a standard form contract for use with all Bay Area UASI partner agencies requiring full indemnification of the City and County of San Francisco. The County has agreed to previous inter-agency agreements with the City and County of San Francisco, which contained the same language, to participate in regional homeland security efforts and access important Federal funding. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If unapproved, the County will not receive its share of the 2021 UASI Grant funds, and risk management and planning for regional response capabilities will need to be funded through another source or not performed at all. RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise for bids for the 2022 Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) Services Contract(s) for maintenance and emergency repairs to County UPS units at various County facilities, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for the maintenance and emergency repairs of the County's Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) units. These units are put inline of incoming power to the buildings. In the case of a power outage, UPS units will allow the facility to continue functioning without losing power. Facilities Services has several of these units protecting facilities at various locations such as 30 Douglas for the Department of Information Technology's (DOIT’s) computer servers, detention centers and several Health Services facilities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:ADVERTISE for Bids for the 2022 Uninterrupted Power Supply Services Contract(s) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to advertise and conduct a formal solicitation for Maintenance and Repair UPS services. A Notice to Bidders would be placed in the Contra Costa Times and several building exchanges in accordance with the Cost Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual of the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission. The Public Works Department intends to award at least one (1) but not more than two (2) contracts, total of contracts not to exceed $600,000. Each contract will have a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions, and will be used as needed with no minimum amount that has to be spent. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the request to advertise is not approved, the Public Works Department will not be able to advertise for UPS services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #23-724 and Order Forms with Wellsky Corporation, a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,815,883, to provide hosted software services, and maintenance, and support to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center for Wellsky’s hosted blood bank system and skilled nursing facility care management system for the period from January 18, 2022 through January 10, 2027. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $1,815,883 over a 5-year period and will be funded 100% by COVID-19 Enhancing Learning Capacity Supplemental Funding (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) does not have an integrated blood bank system. This contract meets the needs of CCHS patients by providing an integrated blood bank and skilled nursing facility care - management system for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center. Wellsky’s Cloud Services Transfusion Suite is FDA approved and was chosen because of its extensive integration with our Electronic Health Records system, Epic, replacing our legacy blood bank system, Meditech's Laboratory Information System (LIS). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Pat Wilson (925) 335-8777 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Fern Carroll, M Wilhelm C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-724 with Wellsky Corporation BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) After looking at the limited number of FDA-approved blood bank LIS solutions, Wellsky's Cloud Services Transfusion Suite was determined to be the most suitable and secure solution. Also, through demonstrations, we found that it had the best user experience. The demonstrators were better able to answer questions about their product than other vendors considered. Wellsky's CarePort, skilled nursing facility care - management system allows for coordination between providers and payers across the continuum to track and manage patients in real-time with an established national network. Through a vast national network of hospital and post-acute providers, this care management system allows for the seamless transition of patients to the next level of care with increased efficiency. This contract obligates the County to indemnify Wellsky against third-party claims that arise out of County's use of the software and services. The County may only terminate the contract due to a material breach by Wellsky, or in the event, the County does not appropriate funds in any fiscal year for payments under the contract. The contract includes a limitation of liability limiting Wellsky's liability to County to an amount equal to twelve months of payments. Approval of this new Contract #23-724 allows the contractor to provide services through January 10, 2027. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center’s laboratory unit will not have an integrated blood bank system, resulting in potential errors caused by manually entering data. Further, absent the automated care management process, requests from CCHS to skilled nursing facilities for inpatient discharge are processed manually, jeopardizing patient care by putting CCHS at a disadvantage by the hospitals who process their submissions electronically. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #74-586-7 with A Better Way, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $700,000, to provide mental health, case management, crisis intervention, intensive coordinated care and in-home behavioral services for children ages birth to twenty-one and their families who are residents of Contra Costa County, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $350,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $700,000 and will be funded by 50% Federal Medi-Cal ($350,000) and 50% Employment and Human Services Department ($350,000). (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing mental health services to adolescents with emotional and behavioral problems to improve school performance, reduce unsafe behavioral practices, and reduce the need for out-of-home placements. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, PhD., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74-586-7 with A Better Way, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The County has been contracting with A Better Way, Inc. since July 2018. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-586-5 with A Better Way, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $290,233, for the provision of mental health services to children and adolescents, and their families, who are residents of Contra Costa County, referred by Child Family Services and placed for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021. On July 13, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment Agreement #74-586-6 to allow rate adjustments to provide cash flow and budget predictability due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit or term. Approval of Novation Contract #74-586-7 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. The contract renewal request was delayed due to pending approval of new contract language, which has been added to all contracts to ascertain cohesiveness and alignment with State regulations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contra Costa County children and their families will not have access to the contractor’s services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #74-218-23 with Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. (dba Familias Unidas), a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $431,158, to provide community based mental health services for children and their families in West Contra Costa County, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $215,579. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $431,158 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded by 50% Federal Medi-Cal ($215,579) and 50% Mental Health Realignment ($215,579) revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing community-based mental health services, including assessments; individual, group, and family counseling; case management; and outreach to an underserved Latino population in West Contra Costa County, which will result in greater home, community, and school success. Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. (dba Familias Unidas) has provided community based mental health services for the County since October 1, 2003. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, PhD., 925-957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74-218-23 with Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. (dba Familias Unidas) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On January 5, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-218-21 with Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. (dba Familias Unidas), in an amount not to exceed $204,933 for the provision of community-based mental health services, including assessments; individual, group, and family counseling; case management; and outreach to an underserved Latino population in West Contra Costa County, for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021. On July 13, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment #74-218-22, with Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. (dba Familias Unidas)., to modify the billing rates due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit of $204,933 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $204,933. Approval of Novation Contract #74-218-23 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. The contract renewal request was delayed due to pending approval of the new contract language, which has been added to specific contracts to ascertain cohesiveness and alignment with State regulations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, children in West Contra Costa County will have reduced access to community-based mental health services and may require higher levels of service. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an in-crease in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Function-al Assessment Scale (CAFAS). ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #24-928-34 with Fred Finch Youth Center, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,439,194, to provide school and community based mental health services to adolescent children, including Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS), for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $709,597. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $1,439,194 and will be funded by 49% Federal Medi-Cal ($709,597), 49% Mental Health Realignment Funds ($709,597) and 2% by Mt. Diablo Unified School District ($20,000). (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing school and community-based mental health services including: assessments, individual, group and family therapy, medication support, case management, outreach, TBS and crisis intervention services for Seriously Emotionally APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #24-928-34 with Fred Finch Youth Center BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Disturbed (SED) middle and high school aged children and their families. Fred Finch Youth Center has been providing school-based mental health services to the county since January 1988. On January 5, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #24-928-32, with Fred Finch Youth Center, in an amount not to exceed $695,088, for the provision of school-based mental health services and a multi-dimensional family treatment program for SED students and their families, for the period January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $695,088. On July 13, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment #24-928-33 to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit or term. Approval of Novation Contract #24-928-34 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. The contract renewal request was delayed due to pending approval of the new contract language, which was added to certain contracts to ascertain cohesiveness and alignment with State regulations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, SED children within the Mt. Diablo Unified School District will not receive the school-based day treatment and mental health services that they need and may require higher and more costly levels of treatment. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #74-575-9 with Lincoln, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,612,202, to provide mental health services and multi-dimensional family therapy for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) adolescents and their families, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $806,101. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $1,612,202 and will be funded by 34% Federal Medi-Cal ($546,283), 32% Mental Health Services Act Uninsured ($519,636), 26% Mental Health Services Act ($424,735), and 8% Mental Health Realignment ($121,548). (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing mental health and multi-dimensional family therapy services including: assessments, individual, group and family therapy, case management, and crisis intervention for SED adolescents and their families. Lincoln has been providing mental health services to the county since July 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, PhD., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74-575-9 with Lincoln BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On March 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74–575-3 with Lincoln, in an amount not to exceed $2,139,128, to provide mental health services and multi-dimensional family therapy for SED adolescents and their families, for the period from March 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $800,864. On April 28, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #74-575-4 to modify the rate schedule for the period April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020, due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit or term of March 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. On July 28, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #74-575-5 to modify the rate schedule for the period July 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit or term. On June 8, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #74-575-7 to decrease the payment limit from $2,139,128 to a new payment limit of $1,886,585, with no change in the term of March 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, and to decrease the automatic extension payment limit from $800,864 to a new payment limit of $754,634 through December 31, 2021. On July 13, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #74-575-8 to modify the rate schedule for the period April 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021, due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit or term. Approval of Novation Contract #74-575-9 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue to provide mental health services through June 30, 2022. The contract renewal request was delayed due to pending approval of the new contract language, which has been added to certain contracts to ascertain cohesiveness and alignment with State regulations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, SED adolescents and their families may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) and placement at discharge to a lower level of care. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #24-773-33 with Mountain Valley Child and Family Services, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,852,100, to provide mental health services, case management and Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) youth and dependents, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $926,050. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $1,852,100 and will be funded by 50% Mental Health Realignment ($926,050) and 50% by Federal Medi-Cal ($926,050) revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing a comprehensive range of services and supports, including intensive individualized mental health services to Contra Costa dependents who are experiencing serious mental illness, likely to exhibit co-occurring disorders, and from underserved populations. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #24-773-33 with Mountain Valley Child and Family Services, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Behavioral Health Services Department has been contracting with Mountain Valley Child and Family Services, Inc. since July 1, 1994. On July 1, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #24-773-31, as amended by Amendment Agreement #24–773–32, with Mountain Valley Child and Family Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $2,482,828, for the provision of TBS, and mental health services for SED youth and dependents, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $1,241,414. On July 13, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment Agreement #24-773-32 to allow rate adjustments to provide cash flow and budget predictability due to COVID-19 with no change in the original payment limit or term. Approval of Novation Contract #24-773-33 replaces the prior contact and allows the contractor to continue providing comprehensive mental health services through June 30, 2022. The contract renewal request was delayed due to pending approval of the new contract language, which has been added to certain contracts to ascertain cohesiveness and alignment with State regulations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, transitional-aged youth in Contra Costa County will not have access to contractor’s mental health services, which will lead to reduced levels of service to the community and potential placement in higher levels of care. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #24-409-45 with Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $3,846,000, to provide mental health services including wraparound and outpatient treatment to children in West County for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $1,923,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in an annual budgeted expenditure of up to $3,846,000 for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 and will be funded by 50% by Federal Medi-Cal and 50% Mental Health Realignment. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing school and community based mental health services, including: assessments, individual, group and family therapy; medication support, case management, outreach, and crisis intervention services, to an underserved population and will result in greater home, community, and school success. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #24-409-45 with Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau has been providing mental health service to the county since May 1987. On January 19, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-409-43 with Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau, in an amount not to exceed $1,783,741 for the provision of specialized mental health service including in-home behavioral health services to children and their families in West Contra Costa County for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, which included a six month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $1,783,741. On July 13, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #24-409-44 with Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau, to modify the rate schedule due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit of $1,783,741 or term January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, including an automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $1,783,741. Approval of Novation Contract #24-409-45 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. The contract renewal request was delayed due to pending approval of the new contract language, which has been added to certain contracts to ascertain cohesiveness and alignment with State regulations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau and other ethnic groups receiving services at four programs in West County would have reduced access to mental health services in school, drug court and clinic settings. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This Early and Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment Program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) and a decrease in juvenile offender recidivism as measured by probation database information. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #74–363-12 which includes mutual indemnification with La Clinica de La Raza, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $297,644, to provide Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) services for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $148,822. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in an annual expenditure of up to $297,644 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded 100% by Mental Health Services Act. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing MHSA PEI services to families of Native American heritage. La Clinica de La Raza, Inc. has been providing MHSA PEI services to the county since July 1, 2009. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74–363-12 with La Clinica de La Raza, Inc BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On November 3, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-363-11 with La Clinica de La Raza, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $288,975 to provide MHSA PEI services for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021. Approval of Novation Contract #74–363-12 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. This contract includes mutual indemnification to hold harmless both parties for any claims arising out of the performance of this contract. The contract renewal request was delayed due to pending approval of the new contract language, which has been added to certain contracts to ascertain cohesiveness and alignment with State regulations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not have access to this contractor’s PEI program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This MHSA PEI program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-644-26 with Covelo Group, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $450,000, to provide temporary medical staffing and recruitment services, including clinical laboratory scientist supervisor, medical/clinical analyst and pharmacy inventory specialists, at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in annual expenditures of up to $450,000 and will be funded as budgeted by the Department in FY 2021-2022 by 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers have an obligation to provide medical staffing services to patients. Therefore, the County contracts with temporary help firms to ensure patient care is provided during peak loads, temporary absences, vacations and emergency situations where additional staffing is required. The County has been using the contractor’s temporary staffing services since January 1, 2009. On November 3, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-644-25 with Covelo Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $450,000 to provide temporary medical staffing and recruitment services for clinical laboratory scientist supervisor, medical/clinical analyst and pharmacy inventory specialists at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, to provide coverage during peak loads, temporary absences and emergencies, for the period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. Approval of Contract #26-644-26 will allow the contractor to continue providing temporary medical staffing and recruitment services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, through December 31, 2022. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-644-26 with Covelo Group, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This contract includes services provided by represented classifications and the County has met its obligations with the respective labor partner(s). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not have access to this contractor’s temporary medical staffing services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #76-561-8 with The Sun Healthcare and Surgery Group, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $538,000, to provide podiatry services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers patients for the period October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $538,000 over a 2-year period and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: The County has been contracting with The Sun Healthcare and Surgery Group, Inc., since October 2016 to provide podiatry services for CCRMC and Health Center patients. On October 22, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-561-7 with The Sun Healthcare and Surgery Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $538,000, to provide podiatry services at CCRMC and Health Centers for the period October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-561-8 with The Sun Healthcare and Surgery Group, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #76-561-8 will allow the contractor to continue to provide podiatry services at CCRMC and Health Centers through September 30, 2023. Due to an administrative oversight and delayed negotiations with the contractor, the contract renewal and Board authorization are requested retroactively. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring podiatry services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers will not have access to this contractor’s services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Amendment/Extension Agreement #72-147-1 with American Medical Response West, a corporation, to amend Contract #72-147, effective October 1, 2021, to decrease the payment limit by $116,231, from $233,816 to a new total payment limit of $117,585 and extend the termination date from August 31, 2022 to September 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment/extension agreement will result in a decrease of budgeted expenditures of $116,231 and is funded 100% by State Public Health grants. BACKGROUND: The contractor collaborates with Contra Costa Public Health (CCPH) to implement the Choosing Change three-year pilot program. The contractor services include providing education to patients, family members and bystanders involved in 9-1-1 overdose emergency calls on the proper administration of Narcan, distributing Narcan for future use for patients post Narcan administration and for family members or bystanders in high-risk situations, and administer first dose of Buprenorphine to patients in acute withdrawal. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ori Tzvieli, M.D., 925-608-5267 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment/Extension Agreement #72-147-1 with American Medical Response West BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On April 28, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #72-147 with American Medical Response West, in an amount not to exceed $233,816, to implement the Choosing Change Program, an overdose prevention program, which allows emergency responders to provide opioid overdose medication to patients and bystanders and education services on same for the period from January 1, 2020 through August 31, 2022. Approval of Amendment/Extension Agreement #72-147-1 will allow the contractor to decrease funds and reduce the amount needed for supplies and eliminate the contractor’s prehospital coordinator position and continue to provide education to patients, family members and bystanders involved in 9-1-1 overdose emergency calls and administration of Narcan and Buprenorphine, through September 30, 2022. This amendment/extension was submitted late by the division due to an administrative oversight. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment/extension is not approved, CCPH will not be able to decrease the payment limit and allocate the State Public Health grant funds elsewhere. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the County Contract #27-898-6, with Wanyi He, LAC, a sole proprietor, in an amount not to exceed $300,000, to provide acupuncture services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members and County recipients for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $300,000 over a 3-year period and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II revenues. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized acupuncture health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contractor has been in the CCHP Provider Network and has been providing acupuncture services since February 1, 2013. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Noel Garcia, Marcy Wilhelm C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-898-6 with Wanyi He, LAC (dba Bay Oriental Medical Clinic) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In January 2020, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #27-898-5 with Wanyi He, LAC, (dba Bay Oriental Medical Clinic), in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for the provision of acupuncture services to CCHP members and County recipients for the period February 1, 2020 through January 31, 2022. Approval of Contract #27-898-6 will allow the contractor to continue providing acupuncture services through January 31, 2025. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized acupuncture health care services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contract with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #23-441-7 with DJR Healthcare Consulting, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $307,464, to provide consultation and technical assistance to the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers, for the period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in annual expenditures of up to $307,464 and will be fully funded as budgeted by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: DJR Healthcare Consulting, Inc. has been contracting with the Health Services Department since 2009 to coordinate with the CCRMC executive team in designing, implementing and analyzing of monitoring systems that assure quality outcomes at CCRMC; design and implement policies, procedures, and processes that will be effective and efficient in providing health care to the patient population at CCRMC; and provide advice and strategic planning to the Health Services Department’s Chief Executive Officer. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patrick Godley, 925-957-5405 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-441-7 with DJR Healthcare Consulting, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On December 17, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-441-6 with the DJR Healthcare Consulting, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $597,000 to provide professional consultation and technical assistance to the CCRMC and Health Centers with regard to planning, organizing, directing and evaluating systems for quality care, for the period from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. Approval of Contract #23-441-7 will allow the contractor to provide consultation and technical assistance to the CCRMC and Health Centers as requested by the CCRMC Chief Executive Officer or the Health Services Chief Executive Officer, through December 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the Department would not have appropriate consultation and technical assistance to plan, organize direct and evaluate operations at CCRMC and Health Centers. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #77-409 with Center for Behavioral Solutions, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $675,000, to provide applied behavioral analysis (ABA) services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $675,000 over a three-year period and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II allocations. BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized ABA services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County, providing services for members with pervasive developmental disorders or autism including, but not limited to, treatment plans and staff to provide services in the following licensed categories: licensed family therapy, social work, speech and language pathology, educational psychology, and audiology to improve the functioning of members. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-409 with Center for Behavioral Solutions BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Under new Contract #77-409, the contractor will provide ABA services for CCHP members for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized ABA health care services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #24-086-145(19) containing mutual indemnification with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $95,000, to provide adult residential care and mental health services for the period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $95,000 and will be funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment funding. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department has been contracting with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc., since September 2006 to provide residential care and mental health services to adults. This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing a multi-disciplinary treatment program to adults who need active psychiatric treatment, including medication support and individual and group therapy services, as an alternative to hospitalization at a State Hospital. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, PhD., 925-957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-086-145(19) with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On November 3, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-086-145(18) with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $95,000, to provide adult residential care and mental health services for the period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. Approval of Contract #24-086-145(19) will allow the contractor to continue providing services through December 31, 2022. This contract includes mutual indemnification to hold harmless both parties for any claims arising out of the performance of this contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s mental health clients will not receive the inpatient psychiatric treatment they need from this contractor and may require hospitalization at a State Hospital. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #76-577-9 with Hobbs Investments, Inc.(dba Am-Tran), a corporation, effective October 1, 2021, to amend Contract #76-577-7 to increase the payment limit by $85,000, from $375,000 to a new payment limit of $460,000, with no change in the original term of February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment will result in additional expenditures in an amount not to exceed $85,000 and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: The contractor provides routed courier services and on demand courier services to Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers. The contractor provides qualified vehicles and California-licensed drivers to pick up, transport, and deliver laboratory specimens, transmittals, pharmacy medications, and other items. The contractor provides vehicles, equipment, and facilities that meet the construction, safety, sanitary, and other standards prescribed by the statutes and administrative regulations of the State of California, and by the applicable ordinances and regulations of local governmental agencies and entities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #76-577-9 with Hobbs Investments, Inc. (dba Am-Tran) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The contractor has been providing courier services for the County since February 2017. On January 5, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-577-7 with Hobbs Investments, Inc. (dba Am-Tran) in an amount not to exceed $375,000 for the provision of courier services including specimens, film and other items used for health services at CCRMC and Health Centers for the period from February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022. Approval of Amendment Agreement #76-577-9 will allow this contractor to provide additional courier services through January 31, 2022. There was a delay in the Division's administrative approval for this amendment request, therefore, it was not submitted in a timely manner. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, CCRMC and Health Centers will not have access to this contractor’s additional courier services. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #27-924-4 with Animate Consulting LLC (dba Animate Behavior, LLC), a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $900,000, to provide applied behavior analysis (ABA) services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period from December 1, 2021 through November 30, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $900,000 over a three-year period and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized ABA services including, but not limited to: treatment plans to improve the functioning of CCHP members with pervasive developmental disorder or autism under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contractor has been providing ABA services to CCHP members as part of the CCHP Provider Network December 1, 2013. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-924-4 with Animate Consulting, LLC (dba Animate Behavior) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On November 5, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-924-3 with Animate Consulting, LLC (dba Animate Behavior, LLC), in the amount of $1,250,000 for the provision of ABA services for CCHP members for the period from December 1, 2019 through November 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #27-924-4 will allow the contractor to continue to provide ABA services to CCHP members through November 30, 2024. Contract submittal was delayed by additional review and approval processes. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized ABA services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-602-16 with Traditions Psychology Group, Inc. (dba Traditions Behavioral Health), a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $18,000,000 to provide physician management and psychiatric staffing for the Inpatient Psychiatric Crisis Stabilization Unit at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, the County’s Main Detention Facility and Mental Health Clinics, for the period from December 1, 2021 through November 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in annual expenditures of up to $18,000,000 and will be funded as budgeted by 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. As appropriate, patients and/or third party payors will be billed for services. This contract provides cost savings compared to using contracts with individual psychiatrists and temporary staffing companies. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5475 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-602-16 with Traditions Psychology Group, Inc. (dba Traditions Behavioral Health) BACKGROUND: This contractor has provided staffing and medical staff leadership of the Inpatient Psychiatric and Crisis and Stabilization Units, George and Cynthia Miller Wellness Center at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers, the Main Detention Facility and Mental Health Clinics including, but not limited to, providing a required number of psychiatrists necessary for clinical coverage of patients twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, a lead psychiatrist to direct administrative and clinical supervision and supervision of all non-clinical areas related to the medical staff of the Department of Psychiatry, since 2007. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-602-15 with Traditions Psychology Group, Inc. (dba Traditions Behavioral Health), in an amount not to exceed $18,000,000 to provide physician management and psychiatric staffing at the Inpatient Psychiatric Crisis Stabilization Unit at CCRMC, Main Dentition Facility and Mental Health Clinics, for the period from December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #26-602-16 will allow the contractor to continue providing psychiatric staffing and leadership at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, the County’s Main Detention Facility and Mental Health Clinics, through November 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the Department would not have adequate psychiatric coverage and quality and performance compliance in the County’s Inpatient Psychiatric and Crisis Stabilization Units at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, the County’s Main Detention Facility and Mental Health Clinics. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #26-583-31 with Specialty Laboratories, Inc. (dba Quest Diagnostic Nichols Institute), a corporation, effective May 1, 2021, to amend Contract #26-583-30, to include additional tests for outside laboratory testing services with no change to the payment limit of $7,000,000 or term of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no change to the original payment limit of $7,000,000 which is funded by 71% Hospital Enterprise Fund I and 29% Federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (Cares) Act and other federal and state emergency funding. (New rates added) BACKGROUND: Specialty Laboratories, Inc. (dba Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute) provides outside clinical laboratories testing for tests that are rarely requested and require special equipment which CCRMC does not have onsite. This contract also includes COVID-19 testing which helps to serve as a backup if needed. The contractor has been APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5501 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment Agreement #26-583-31 with Specialty Laboratories, Inc. (dba Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) providing outside clinical laboratory testing for CCRMC since January 2007. On January 19, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-583-30 with Specialty Laboratories, Inc. (dba Quest Diagnostic Nichols Institute), in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000 for the provision of outside clinical laboratory services, for the period from of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-583-31 will allow the contractor to provide additional laboratory testing services through December 31, 2022. This amendment agreement was delayed due to CCRMC Clinical Lab recently acquiring the new test panels, pricing and CPT codes for billing. The effective date needs to be May 1, 2021 which is when the new testing was made available to the laboratory. This will assure any outstanding invoices will be paid under the contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, patients requiring certain outside laboratory testing services will not have access to this contractor’s services. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay City Boiler and Engineering Company Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $750,000 to provide on-call boiler maintenance and repair services at various County buildings, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for maintenance and repairs to all hot water, boiler furnace and heat pump systems, which provide hot water and heating to County buildings. Scheduling this maintenance is done by Facilities Services, but the actual maintenance is performed by outside vendors. The existing contract for boiler services is set to expire January 31, 2022. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County Facilities. The Public Works Department recently conducted a formal solicitation for boiler maintenance and repair services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Bay City Boiler and Engineering Company Incorporated, a California Corporation, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Originally bid on Bidsync #2107-497, Bay City Boiler and Engineering Company Incorporated, was one of two contractors awarded for this contract. The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to execute a contract with Bay City Boiler and Engineering Company Incorporated. The contract will have a limit of $750,000 and a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions and will pay for services according to the rates set forth in the contract. Bay City Boiler and Engineering Company Incorporated, will be able to request rate increases equal to the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco - Oakland area as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, plus two percent, on each anniversary of the effective date of this contract. The contract will be used on an as-needed basis, with no minimum amount that must be spent. Facilities Services is requesting a contract with Bay City Boiler and Engineering Company Incorporated, to be approved for a period covering three years. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, boiler services with Bay City Boiler and Engineering Company Incorporated, will not happen. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Consulting Services Agreement (contract) Amendment with Fehr & Peers (F&P), effective February 28, 2022, to extend the term from February 28, 2022 through June 30, 2022, to provide transportation planning services to the County in preparation of the County’s first Active Transportation Plan (Plan), with no change to the payment limit of $300,000, Countywide. (Project No. 0676-6P1099) (All Districts) FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with this action as it is only to extend the term of the contract. This project, including the contract, will be funded by 88.4% Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Funds (State) and 11.6% Transportation Development Act Funds. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jerry Fahy, 925.313.2276 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Consulting Services Agreement Amendment with Fehr & Peers, Countywide. BACKGROUND: The original Agreement to provide transportation planning services to the County was approved by the Board on August 11, 2020. On September 30, 2021, Administrative Amendment No. 1 was approved by the Public Works Director, effective January 1, 2021 to update the County’s contact information and to correct errors in the original Personnel and Billing Rates of the contract. On November 2, 2021, Amendment No. 2 was approved by the Board of Supervisors, effective November 9, 2021, to increase the payment limit from $250,000 to $300,000 and replace Personnel and Billing Rates of the contract to reflect changes in the allocation of funding by task. Proposed Amendment No. 3 will extend the term of the contract from February 28, 2022 to June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without approval from the Board of Supervisors, the Consultant will not have sufficient time to complete the Plan. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Charles Kopp Inc. d/b/a Continental Electric, in an amount not to exceed $2,250,000 to provide on-call electrical maintenance and repair services at various County sites and facilities, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: The Public Works Facilities Services Division is responsible for the electrical repair of all County sites and facilities. Electrical contracts are divided among specialized fields which include but are not limited to: building electrical, airport electrical, traffic signals and traffic loop installation. On-call electrical contracts are on an as-needed basis and utilized for repairs. The existing contracts for electrical services are set to expire January 31, 2022. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County Facilities. The Public Works Department recently conducted APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Charles Kopp Inc. d/b/a Continental Electric, a California Corporation, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) a formal solicitation for on-call electrical services. Originally bid on Bidsync #2107-493, Charles Kopp Inc. d/b/a Continental Electric, was one of three contractors awarded for this contract. The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to execute a contract with Charles Kopp Inc. d/b/a Continental Electric. The contract will have a limit of $2,250,000 and a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions and will pay for services according to the rates set forth in the contract. Charles Kopp Inc. d/b/a Continental Electric, will be able to request rate increases equal to the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco - Oakland area as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, plus two percent, on each anniversary of the effective date of this contract. The contract will be used on an as-needed basis, with no minimum amount that must be spent. Facilities Services is requesting a contract with Charles Kopp Inc. d/b/a Continental Electric, to be approved for a period covering three years. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, electrical services with Charles Kopp Inc. d/b/a Continental Electric, will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #27-896-5, with Serramonte Pulmonary Asthma Sleep Clinic, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000, to provide pulmonary and sleep study services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period December 1, 2021 through November 30, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $1,200,000 over a three-year period and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized pulmonary and sleep study services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contractor has been a part of the CCHP Provider Network since December 1, 2012. On December 10, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-896-4 with Serramonte Pulmonary Asthma Sleep Clinic, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-896-5 with Serramonte Pulmonary Asthma Sleep Clinic, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 to provide pulmonary and sleep study services for CCHP members for the period December 1, 2019 through November 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #27-896-5 will allow the contractor to continue providing pulmonary and sleep study services for CCHP members through November 30, 2024. This contract submission was delayed due to staffing shortages in the Contracts and Grants Unit. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized pulmonary and sleep study services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contract with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to provide on-call electrical maintenance and repair services at various County sites and facilities, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: The Public Works Facilities Services Division is responsible for the electrical repair of all County sites and facilities. Electrical contracts are divided among specialized fields which include but are not limited to: building electrical, airport electrical, traffic signals and traffic loop installation. On-call electrical contracts are on an as-needed basis and utilized for repairs. The existing contracts for electrical services are set to expire January 31, 2022. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County Facilities. The Public Works Department APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., a California Corporation, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) recently conducted a formal solicitation for on-call electrical services. Originally bid on Bidsync #2107-493, Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., was one of three contractors awarded for this contract. The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to execute a contract with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. The contract will have a limit of $500,000 and a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions and will pay for services according to the rates set forth in the contract. Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., will be able to request rate increases equal to the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco - Oakland area as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, plus two percent, on each anniversary of the effective date of this contract. The contract will be used on an as-needed basis, with no minimum amount that must be spent. Facilities Services is requesting a contract with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., to be approved for a period covering three years. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, electrical services with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with St Francis Electric, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $2,250,000 to provide on-call electrical maintenance and repair services at various County sites and facilities, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: The Public Works Facilities Services Division is responsible for the electrical repair of all County sites and facilities. Electrical contracts are divided among specialized fields which include but are not limited to: building electrical, airport electrical, traffic signals and traffic loop installation. On-call electrical contracts are on an as-needed basis and utilized for repairs. The existing contracts for electrical services are set to expire January 31, 2022. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County Facilities. The Public Works Department APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with St Francis Electric, LLC, a California Corporation, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) recently conducted a formal solicitation for on-call electrical services. Originally bid on Bidsync #2107-493, St Francis Electric, LLC, was one of three contractors awarded for this contract. The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to execute a contract with St Francis Electric, LLC. The contract will have a limit of $2,250,000 and a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions and will pay for services according to the rates set forth in the contract. St Francis Electric, LLC, will be able to request rate increases equal to the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco - Oakland area as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, plus two percent, on each anniversary of the effective date of this contract. The contract will be used on an as-needed basis, with no minimum amount that must be spent. Facilities Services is requesting a contract with St Francis Electric, LLC, to be approved for a period covering three years. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, electrical services with St Francis Electric, LLC, will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Social Service Staffing & Recruiting, Inc., a corporation, effective February 1, 2022 to increase the payment limit by $100,000 to a new payment limit of $500,000 to provide additional qualified temporary social worker services for clients of Children and Family Services, with no change to term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract amendment will increase expenditures by $100,000. The cost of the contract is covered as Administrative Overhead. (60% Federal, 34% State, and 6% County) BACKGROUND: Children & Family Services (CFS) has experienced difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified social workers. Currently, there are 24 vacancies in addition to staff on LOA, FMLA and COVID related absences, resulting in a higher than optimal caseload. Recruitment efforts through Human Resources have produced APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Noppol Keeratiyakul (925) 608-4961 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Jessica Laumann, Vicky Quinto , Laura Volante C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with Social Service Staffing & Recruiting, Inc. for Temporary Social Worker Staffing, FY 2021-22 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) candidates but not adequate numbers to fill all vacancies. Even when new social workers are recruited, they require extensive training to be ready to assume a caseload. Social Service Staffing & Recruiting, Inc. ensures a ready source of temporary, fully qualified social workers to immediately address this situation and ensure child safety. Additionally, social workers obtained through this contractor may become interested in permanent County positions and apply for current vacancies, which would support the Department’s efforts to fill permanent positions with qualified and well-trained applicants familiar with CFS programs, clients and procedures. The original contract, in the amount of $400,000, was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the June 8, 2021 meeting (c.79). This contract amendment will increase the payment limit to ensure funding to support qualified temporary social workers under the current contract does not deplete before the contract term's end date of June 30, 2022. Under the current contract, funding is projected to be exhausted by March 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Clients in CFS programs will not be served efficiently by qualified social workers. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The services provided under this contract support all five of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes: (1) “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School”; (2) “Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood”; (3) “Families that are Economically Self-Sufficient”; (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (5) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families" by ensuring children and families in CFS programs are working with qualified staff on a consistent basis. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #77-413 with Bay Medic Transportation, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $375,000, to provide non-emergency medical transportation services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) and Medi-Cal members for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $375,000 over a three-year period and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain non-emergency medical health care transportation services for its Medi-Cal members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contractor has been a part of the CCHP Provider Network formerly under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CCHP, and was required to convert to a County contract. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-413 with Bay Medic Transportation, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Under new Contract #77-413, the contractor will provide non-emergency medical transportation services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) Medi-Cal members for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain non-emergency medical health care transportation services for CCHP Medi-Cal members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #23-648-6 with Vickie Lee Scharr, an individual, in an amount not to exceed $260,000, to provide consultation, technical support and planning services with regard the West Contra Costa Health Care District (WCCHCD) for the period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in expenditures of up to $260,000 and will be funded 100% by West Contra Costa Health Care District funding. BACKGROUND: The contractor has provided consultation, technical support and planning services to the Chief Operating Officer with regard to the transition of the WCCHCD to Contra Costa County, as well as having assisted with its financial planning and operational improvement. The contractor has been contracting with the County since January 1, 2019. On October 13, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-648-4 with Vickie Lee Scharr, in an amount not to exceed $205,000 to provide consultation, technical support and planning services to the Chief Operating Officer for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patrick Godley, 925-957-5405 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-648-6 with Vickie Lee Scharr BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On September 21, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #23-648-5 to increase the payment limit by $55,000, from $205,000 to a new payement limit of $260,000, with no change in the term of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. Approval of Contract #23-648-6 will allow the contractor to continue to provide services through December 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the Health Services Department will not be able to use this contractor’s consultation, technical support and planning services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County novation Contract Agreement #23-681-1 with Well Health, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $578,094 for the continued use of Well Health's patient engagement application for the period from May 1, 2021 through May 19, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval will result in annual expenditures of up to $578,094 and will be funded as budgeted by the department in FY 2021-22, by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase). BACKGROUND: Before contracting with Well Health, Inc. in May 2020, the patient engagement system utilized by Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) processed batches daily. As such, CCHS was only able to outreach to patients daily. WellApp, a patient engagement application, solves this by providing built-in real-time integration within Epic. WellApp is a HIPAA-compliant messaging and patient engagement platform that connects healthcare patient staff and patients on their existing text and messaging applications. Thus, allowing case managers, providers, and others the ability to directly engage a single patient, a patient cohort, or our entire patient population. The past tool caused delays in patient outreach during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since using WellApp, CCHS has strived for better communication which helps to improve patient outcomes. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patrick Wilson, 925-335-8777 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: F Carroll, M Wilhelm C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract Renewal #23-681-1 with Well Health, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On April 28, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-681 with Well Health, Inc. for the provision of their WellApp, patient engagement application including, software licensing and support, for the period from May 1, 2020 through April 30, 2021. Approval of novation Contract Agreement #23-681-1 will allow the contractor to continue providing services through May 19, 2022 and is retroactive due to administrative delays caused by the pandemic during the public health emergency. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the contractor's patient engagement services will be discontinued and past invoices will not be paid, affecting CCHS patient services. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-699-10 with Semon Bader, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $300,000, to provide orthopedic services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted annual expenditures of up to $300,000 and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: The County has been contracting with Semon Bader, M.D., since August 2011 to provide orthopedic services including, but not limited to clinical coverage, consultation, training, on-call and administrative services for CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers. On November 3, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-699-9 with Semon Bader, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $300,000, to provide orthopedic services, for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: SAMIR SHAH, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-699-10 with Semon Bader, M.D. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #26-699-10 will allow the contractor to continue providing orthopedic services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, through December 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring orthopedic services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers will not have access to this contractor’s services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #72-087-4 with Randell Lee Wilferd Jr. (dba Randy’s Mobile Mechanical Service), a sole proprietor, in an amount not to exceed $310,000, to provide consultation, vehicle inspections, maintenance and repair services to the Public Health Division’s Mobile Satellite Health Centers for the period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted annual expenditures of up to $310,000 and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: The County has been contracting with Randell Lee Wilferd Jr. (dba Randy’s Mobile Mechanical Service) since January 2017 to provide consultation, vehicle inspections, maintenance and repair services to the Public Health Division’s Mobile Satellite Health Centers. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dr. Ori Tzvieli, 925-608-5267 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 61 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #72-087-4 with Randell Lee Wilferd Jr. (dba Randy’s Mobile Mechanical Service) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On January 14, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #72-087-3 with Randell Lee Wilferd Jr. (dba Randy’s Mobile Mechanical Service), in an amount not to exceed $575,000, to provide vehicle inspections, repairs and maintenance to Public Health Division’s Mobile Satellite Health Center vehicles for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. Approval of Contract #72-087-4 will allow the contractor to continue to provide consultation, vehicle inspections at specified intervals, and repairs and maintenance through December 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, this contractor will not provide safety inspections or maintenance service on County owned Mobile Satellite Health Centers vehicles. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #76-575-7 with Signature Parking, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $420,849, to provide parking management services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted annual expenditures of up to $420,849 and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: The County has been contracting with Signature Parking, LLC since January 2017 to provide parking management services for CCRMC including stack parking and parking management to ease parking and eliminate patients missing appointments due to the lack of parking. On December 15, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-575-5 with Signature Parking, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $479,772, to provide parking management services at CCRMC, for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5741 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 62 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-575-7 with Signature Parking, LLC BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In October 2021, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Administrative Amendment Agreement #76-575-6, to make necessary technical adjustments to the hourly rates due to an administrative error, with no change in term or payment limit. Approval of Contract #76-575-7 will allow the contractor to continue to provide parking management services for CCRMC through December 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients at CCRMC will continue to miss medical appointments due to lack of parking. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-438-16 with Vasanta Venkat Giri, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $376,320, to provide telepsychiatry services to children in Central County, for the period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $376,320 and will be funded by 50% Federal Medi-Cal ($188,160) and 50% Mental Health Realignment ($188,160) revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: The County has been contracting with Vasanta Venkat Giri, M.D., since February 2012 to provide telepsychiatry services, including diagnosing, counseling, evaluating and medical and therapeutic treatment to children. On November 17, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-438-14, with Vasanta Venkat Giri, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $240,000, for the provision of telepsychiatry services to children for the period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 63 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-438-16 with Vasanta Venkat Giri, M.D. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #74-438-16 will allow the contractor to continue providing telepsychiatry services, through December 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s clients will not have access to this contractor’s telepsychiatry services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-616-9 with InfoImage of California, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $330,000, to provide patient billing services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $330,000 over a 2-year period and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: The County has been contracting with InfoImage of California, Inc., since January 2008 to provide patient billing services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers. On April 14, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-616-8 with InfoImage of California, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $330,000, to provide patient billing services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers for the period from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 64 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-616-9 with InfoImage of California, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #26-616-9 will allow contractor to continue providing patient billing services through December 31, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not have access to this contractor’s patient billing services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #77-430 with Jiva Health, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000, to provide endocrinology, diabetes, and allergy specialty services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in annual contractual service expenditures of up to $2,000,000 and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II allocations. BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized endocrine, diabetes and allergy specialty services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. The contractor is providing endocrinology, diabetes, and allergy specialty services as a part of the CCHP Provider network effective January 1, 2022. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 65 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-430 with Jiva Health, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Under new Contract #77-430, contractor will provide endocrine, diabetes, and allergy specialty services for CCHP members for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized endocrine, diabetes, and allergy specialty services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74–322–22 with Youth Homes Incorporated, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $2,205,290, to provide residential treatment and Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) to children who are Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED), for the period from January 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $2,205,290. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in annual budgeted expenditures of up to $2,205,290 and will be funded by 50% Federal Medi-Cal and 50% Mental Health Realignment funding. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing residential day treatment therapeutic behavioral services, including medication, support, crisis intervention and other mental health services to children who are seriously emotionally disturbed, and their families in order to keep them out of higher levels of placement. The contractor has been providing residential treatment services and TBS to SED children for the County since September 2007. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74–322–22 with Youth Homes Incorporated BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On January 19, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74–322–20, with Youth Homes Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $2,096,386 for the provision of residential treatment and TBS to SED children for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $2,096,386. On July 13, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #74-322-21 to allow rate adjustments to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow services to continue through December 31, 2021 with no change to the payment limit of $2,096,386 or term January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $2,096,386. Approval of Contract #74-322-22 will allow the contractor to continue to provide services through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, there would be fewer step-down group home options available in the County and SED children who are requiring this level of care may experience out of State placement. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) and placement at discharge to a lower level of care. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #76-766 with Kunwardeep Sohal, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $1,800,000, to provide gastroenterology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $1,800,000 over a 3-year period and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: Due to the limited number of specialty providers available within the community, CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers relies on services provided by contractors, such as Kunwardeep Sohal, M.D. to provide necessary specialty health services to its patients. Under Contract #76-766, the contractor will provide gastroenterology services, including but limited to clinic coverage, consultation, training, medical and/or surgical procedures and on-call coverage at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 67 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-766 with Kunwardeep Sohal, M.D. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring gastroenterology services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers will not have access to this contractor’s services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #77-214-2, effective January 1, 2022, with America West Transportation, Inc., to amend Contract #77-214-1 effective January 1, 2022, to increase the payment limit by $150,000 from $525,000 to a new payment limit of $675,000 for additional non-emergency medical transportation services for CCHP Medi-Cal members requiring additional physical assistance in accordance with the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) initiative with no change in the original term of April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment will result in additional contractual service expenditures up to $150,000 and will be funded 100% by Contra Cost Health Plan (CCHP) Enterprise Fund II. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized non-emergency medical transportation services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contactor has been a part of the CCHP Provider Network since April 1, 2019. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 68 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #77-214-2 with America West Medical Transportation, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On April 20, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #77-214-1 in the amount of $525,000 for the provision of non-emergency medical transport services for CCHP Medi-Cal members for the period from April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2024. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #77-214-2 will allow the contractor to provide additional non-emergency medical transportation services for CCHP Medi-Cal members requiring additional physical assistance to follow the CalAIM initiative which includes transportation services for members that are fragile and/or obese requiring transport by gurney requiring one additional attendant in the transport vehicle to provide the service as opposed to one attendant available during transport. The addition of staffing, complexity of transport and to meet network adequacy the compensation rates are being adjusted effective January 1, 2022 through March 31, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the contractor will not be able to provide additional non-emergency medical transport services to CCHP members as recommended by the CalAIM initiative. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #74–369-12 with Native American Health Center, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $257,753, to provide Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $128,876. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in an annual expenditure of up to $257,753 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded 100% by MHSA-PEI Funds. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing MHSA PEI services to the County since July 1, 2009. On December 15, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74 369-11 with Native American Health Center, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $250,257, to provide APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 69 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74–369-12 with Native American Health Center, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) MHSA PEI services for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021. Approval of Novation Contract #74–369-12 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. The contract renewal request was delayed due to pending approval of the new contract language, which has been added to certain contracts to ascertain cohesiveness and alignment with State regulations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s mental health clients will not have access to this contractor’s PEI program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Children’s Impact Statement: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #74-379-12 with People Who Care Children Association, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $236,689, to provide Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) services, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $118,344. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $236,689 and will be funded 100% by Mental Health Services Act – PEI funds. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing work experience for 200 multicultural youth residing in the Pittsburg/Bay Point communities, as well as programs aimed at increasing educational success among youth who are either at-risk or high-risk of dropping out of school, or committing a repeat offense. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: afloyd , marcy.wilham C. 70 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74-379-12 with People Who Care Children Association BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On November 3, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74–379-11 with People Who Care Children Association, to provide MHSA PEI services for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021. Approval of Novation Contract #74–379–12 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. The contract renewal request was delayed due to pending approval of the new contract language, which has been added to certain contracts to ascertain cohesiveness and alignment with State regulations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, at risk youth from East Contra Costa County will have reduced access to job training and other programs, aimed at increasing educational success. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #74–378-15 with Contra Costa Interfaith Transitional Housing, Inc. (dba Hope Solutions), a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $397,041 to provide an on-site, on-demand and culturally appropriate Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) program to help formerly homeless families, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $198,520. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in an annual expenditure of up to $397,041 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded 100% by Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) -PEI. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing an on-site, on-demand and culturally appropriate PEI program to help formerly homeless families. Contra Costa Interfaith Transitional Housing, Inc. (dba Hope Solutions) has been providing MHSA PEI services to the County since July 1, 2009. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 71 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74–378-15 with Contra Costa Interfaith Transitional Housing, Inc. (dba Hope Solutions) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On December 15, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74 378-14 with Contra Costa Interfaith Transitional Housing, Inc. (dba Hope Solutions), in an amount not to exceed $385,477 to provide an on-site, on-demand and culturally appropriate Prevention and Early Intervention program to help formally homeless families for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021. Approval of Novation Contract #74–378-15 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. The contract renewal request was delayed due to pending approval of the new contract language, which has been added to certain contracts to ascertain cohesiveness and alignment with State regulations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not have access to this contractor’s on-site, on-demand and culturally appropriate PEI program. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #27-277-25 with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., a non-profit corporation, effective July 1, 2021 to amend Contract #27-277-20 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #27-277-21 and Amendment/Extension Agreement #27-277-22) with no change in the payment limit of $600,000,000 to revise the Delegation Agreement, to include data exchange requirements per the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) All Plan Letter APL20-017, and reporting requirements for continuing Medi-Cal services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members enrolled in the Kaiser Health Plan with no change in the term. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment will result in no additional contractual expenditures as funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contractor has been a part of the CCHP Provider Network since October 1, 2004, providing health care services for CCHP Medi-Cal recipients enrolled in the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 72 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #27-277-25 with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On September 27, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-277-20 with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $600,000,000 to provide health care services for Medi-Cal recipients enrolled in the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, for the period from October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2019. On July 10, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment Agreement #27-277-21, to add a Delegation Agreement with no change in the payment limit of $600,000,000 or term of October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2019. On September 10, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement #27-277-22, to extend the term from September 30, 2019 to September 30, 2021, with no change in the payment limit of $600,000,000, to allow the contractor to continue to provide additional Medi-Cal services to Medi-Cal members enrolled in the Kaiser Health Plan through September 30, 2021. On September 21, 2021 the Board of Supervisors approved item C.34 to clarify incorrect term language as previously approved by the Board on September 27, 2016, July 10, 2018 and September 10, 2019 to correct the term to match the agreement so it will automatically be renewed for successive two year periods, until such time it is terminated by either party. Approval of Amendment Contract #27-277-25 will modify the Delegation Agreement, include data exchange requirements per the DHCS All Plan Letter 20-017, and revise reporting requirements for continuing Medi-Cal services for CCHP members enrolled in the Kaiser Health Plan with no change in the payment limit of $600,000,000 or term. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, certain specialized health care services for Medi-Cal members may not be provided. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Silicon Valley Fire, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $600,000 to provide fire suppression certification and repair services at various County facilities, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Public Works Fleet and Facilities Services are responsible for fire extinguisher and fire suppression system certification and repairs in County buildings and vehicles. By law, fire extinguishers must be inspected and certified annually. Fire suppression contractors also provide repair services and replacement extinguishers. The existing contract for these services is set to expire January 31, 2022. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County Facilities. The Public Works Department recently conducted a solicitation for fire extinguisher certification APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 73 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Silicon Valley Fire, Inc., a California Corporation, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and repair services. The Request for Proposal was originally bid on Bidsync #2107-492 and Silicon Valley Fire, Inc., was the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder. The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to execute a contract with Silicon Valley Fire, Inc. The contract will have a limit of $600,000 and a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions and will pay for services according to the rates set forth in the contract. Silicon Valley Fire, Inc., will be able to request rate increases equal to the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco - Oakland area as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, plus two percent, on each anniversary of the effective date of this contract. The contract will be used on an as-needed basis, with no minimum amount that must be spent. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, fire extinguisher services with Silicon Valley Fire, Inc., will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Diablo Boiler & Steam Inc., in an amount not to exceed $750,000 to provide on-call boiler maintenance and repair services at various County buildings, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for maintenance and repairs to all hot water, boiler furnace and heat pump systems, which provide hot water and heating to County buildings. Scheduling this maintenance is done by Facilities Services, but the actual maintenance is performed by outside vendors. The existing contract for boiler services is set to expire January 31, 2022. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County Facilities. The Public Works Department recently conducted a formal solicitation for boiler maintenance and repair APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 74 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Diablo Boiler & Steam Inc., a California Corporation, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) services. Originally bid on Bidsync #2107-497, Diablo Boiler & Steam Inc., was one of two contractors awarded for this contract. The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to execute a contract with Diablo Boiler & Steam Inc. The contract will have a limit of $750,000 and a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions and will pay for services according to the rates set forth in the contract. Diablo Boiler & Steam Inc., will be able to request rate increases equal to the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco - Oakland area as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, plus two percent, on each anniversary of the effective date of this contract. The contract will be used on an as-needed basis, with no minimum amount that must be spent. Facilities Services is requesting a contract with Diablo Boiler & Steam Inc., to be approved for a period covering three years. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, boiler services with Diablo Boiler & Steam Inc., will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): Accept the Canvass of Votes for the December 14, 2021 Elections for Police Services Measures in the following County Service Areas: P-6, Zone 3008, Supervisorial District 1 - Unincorporated area of San Pablo - DID PASS P-6, Zone 3114, Supervisorial District 1 - Unincorporated area of El Sobrante - DID PASS FISCAL IMPACT: All tax proceeds will accrue to the new County Service Areas. BACKGROUND: For the election results, see the attached Certificates of the County Clerk, providing results of the December 14, 2021 Election for County Service Areas, where each landowner of the affected area was allowed one vote for each acre or portion thereof: P-6 Zone 3008, Resolution No. 2021/324 P-6 Zone 3114, Resolution No. 2021/325 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Rosa Mena, 925.335.7806 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 75 To:Board of Supervisors From:Deborah R. Cooper, Clerk-Recorder Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT CANVASS OF VOTES FOR TWO POLICE SERVICE ELECTIONS IN CSA-P6 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Each Resolution so as to authorize a special tax on said properties, located in unincorporated areas in San Pablo and El Sobrante, to maintain present level of police protection services and provide additional funding for increased police protection services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board of Supervisors does not accept the Canvass of Votes, Zones 3008 and 3114 will not be formed. ATTACHMENTS Zone 3008 Election Certificate Zone 3114 Election Certificate RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE relief of cash shortage in the Health Services - Alcohol & Other Drugs Services in the amount of $362.90. FISCAL IMPACT: Cash shortage in the amount of $362.90 will be funded with 100% General Fund. BACKGROUND: In accordance with provisions of Administrative Bulletin 207.7, the Auditor-Controller has verified and concurs with the report of a cash shortage in the amount of $362.90 in the Health Services - Alcohol & Other Drugs Services Division. The shortage resulted from a need to use petty cash for off-site public laundry services from July - August 2020 due to a water leak at the Discovery House residential treatment program. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The shortage will not be relieved; cash will not be in balance. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Laura Strobel (925) 655-2058 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 76 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Request for Relief of Cash Shortage ATTACHMENTS Subject Report RECOMMENDATION(S): DECLARE as surplus and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to dispose of fully depreciated vehicles and equipment no longer needed for public use, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Section 1108-2.212 of the County Ordinance Code authorizes the Purchasing Agent to dispose of any personal property belonging to Contra Costa County and found by the Board of Supervisors not to be required for public use. The property for disposal is either obsolete, worn out, beyond economical repair, or damaged beyond repair. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Public Works would not be able to dispose of surplus vehicles and equipment. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Nida Rivera, (925) 313-2124 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 77 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Disposal of Surplus Property ATTACHMENTS Surplus Vehicles and Equipment 22 ATTACHMENT TO BOARD ORDER JANUARY 18, 2022 Department Description/Unit/Make/Model Serial No. Condition A. Obsolete B. Worn Out C. Beyond economical repair D. Damaged beyond repair FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2002 CLUBCAR PATHWAY # 897 ( MILES) NQ0399238777 C. BEYOND ECONOMICAL REPAIR EHS / COMM SERVICES 2001 FORD TAURUS SEDAN # 0498 (72098 MILES) 1FAFP52251G241343 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2009 TOYOTA PRIUS # 1120 (40691 MILES) JTDKB20U393512686 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2011 FORD CROWN VIC. # 2144 (25149 MILES) 2FABP7BV3BX179795 B. WORN OUT EHS / COMM SERVICE 1998 FORD E-150 PASS. VAN # 4478 (83960 MILES) 1FMRE11L6WHA90395 B. WORN OUT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2002 CHRYSLER GEM # () 5ASAK27422F027764 D. DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2002 CHRYSLER GEM # 898 () 5ASAK27462F027783 D. DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT CUSHMAN SHUTTLE 2 S/N 3160998 C. BEYOND ECONIMICAL REPAIR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2000 ISUZU NQR BOX TRUCK # 893 (82079 MILES) JALC4B140Y7005152 C. BEYOND ECONOMICAL REPAIR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1982 FORD L9000 WATER TENDER # 737 (33712 MILES) 1FDYK90R8CVA52754 B. WORN OUT PUBLIC WORKS 1998 BROCE RC-350 # 7805 (1007 HOURS) 89070 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2014 FORD INTERCEPTOR SUV # 3410 (112688 MILES) 1FM5K8AR5EGB02447 B. WORN OUT EHS / COMM SERVICES 2008 FORD FUSION SEDAN # 0790 (107836 MILES) 3FAHP07158R123436 B. WORN OUT AGRICULTURE 2005 FORD TAURUS SEDAN # 0749 (102389 MILES) 1FAFP53U35A216871 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2000 GMC SAVANA VAN # 4545 (100657 MILES) 1GTHG39R5Y1166263 B. WORN OUT ANIMAL SERVICES 2010 FORD F-250 TRUCK # 5477 (96288 MILES) 1FDSX2A50AEB37242 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2017 FORD INTERCEPTOR SUV # 3621 (84095 MILES) 1FM5K8AT4HGD93068 D. DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR PUBLIC WORKS 2002 BRUSH BAND 250 CHIPPER # 8311 (3311 HOURS) 4FMUS15182R017850 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2000 CHEVY 2500 TRUCK # 6148 (72637 MILES) 1GCGK29UXYE381428 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2004 FORD E-350 VAN # 5742 (71652 MILES) 1FDWE35L54HA61542 B. WORN OUT EHS / COMM SERVICES 2002 FORD TAURUS SEDAN # 0337 (86367 MILES) 1FAFP52U92G168304 B. WORN OUT PUBLIC WORKS 2001 FREIGHTLIN FL112 D. TRUCK # 6857 (51150 MILES) 1FVXTECB11DH31571 B. WORN OUT RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. AUTHORIZE initiation of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) process to consider changing the General Plan land use designation from Agricultural Lands (AL) to Single-Family Residential Low-Density (SL) for a portion of a 23.9-acre parcel located at the intersection of Camino Pablo and Sanders Ranch Road in the Moraga area, Assessor's Parcel No. 258-290-029. (County File #GP21-0004) 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that granting this authorization does not imply any sort of endorsement for an application to amend the General Plan, but only that the matter is appropriate for consideration. FISCAL IMPACT: None. If the authorization is granted, the project applicant will pay application fees to cover the cost of processing the GPA. BACKGROUND: On November 17, 2021, the Department of Conservation and Development received documents from Wendell Rosen, LLP, describing a proposed 15-lot single-family residential subdivision in the Moraga area (Attachment A). The subject site is designated AL on the General Plan Land Use Element Map and zoned General Agricultural District (A-2). The applicant requests redesignation of a portion of the subject site from AL to SL with an accompanying rezoning of the same portion from A-2 to Planned Unit District (P-1). Attachment B illustrates the existing and proposed General Plan designations; Attachment C illustrates the existing and proposed zoning. The subject site consists of one parcel totaling approximately 23.9 acres. The parcel fronts Camino Pablo and Sanders Ranch Road for approximately 2,750 feet and narrows from over 500 feet wide at the southern end to a tip at the northern end. The topography is severe, rising from an elevation of approximately 550 feet at Camino Pablo to over 700 feet at the parcel’s highest point. The parcel is vacant and used for cattle grazing. To the south, west, and north are single-family homes and a stretch of Moraga Creek. To the east is an estate lot and vacant land designated for agriculture. Attachment D is an aerial photo of the site and its surroundings. The proposed project involves development of up to 15 single-family homes with several incorporated accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on 7.9 acres at the parcel’s southern end. The lots would be arranged along a new cul-de-sac that would intersect Camino Pablo opposite Tharp Drive APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: (925) 655-2898 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 78 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:GP21-0004 General Plan Amendment Feasibility Study BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and ascend the hill to an elevation of approximately 605 feet. Building pad elevations would range from approximately 570-618 feet. The homes would be a mix of single- and two-story, anticipated in the 3,500-5,500 square foot range. The project also proposes frontage improvements and landscaping along Camino Pablo. The project site is inside the Urban Limit Line (ULL) and within the Town of Moraga’s sphere of influence. In August 2021 the Town Council denied a similar proposal for a 13-unit subdivision that included a General Plan amendment and request for annexation of the residential lots. Primary reasons given for the denial included: The parcel is within a Wildland-Urban Interface and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as mapped by CalFire. The parcel is geologically unstable. Numerous landslides are present, some being in the area proposed for development. Significant remediation grading, approximately 144,000 cubic yards, would be necessary. The parcel is topographically prominent and within a scenic corridor. The project would be perched on the hillside, making it highly visible and altering the area’s character. Density increases should occur in the community’s center, not at its periphery. The Town of Moraga’s existing General Plan designations allow for development of up to 6 units on 6.26 acres at the southern end of the parcel and 1-3 additional units on the remaining 17.64 acres, which are designated Open Space. The County General Plan designation of AL allows a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. As the parcel is 23.9 acres, up to 4 units theoretically could be developed under the existing County General Plan. Thus, the proposed GPA requests a nearly 4-fold increase in units across the entirety of the parcel, with the proposed cluster at the southern end being significantly more dense than the 0.2 unit/net acre density currently allowed. To amend the General Plan the Board of Supervisors must make several findings, one being that the proposed amendment is “in the public interest.” The Town of Moraga’s planning review has identified significant issues, particularly related to public safety. The project may run afoul of several County General Plan policies related to public safety and hillside development. Staff also notes that the draft policy language for the updated County General Plan limits subdivisions in High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to four parcels. Currently it is unclear how the “public interest” finding could be made given that the project’s discernible benefits, marginally increased tax base and provision of several ADUs, seem minimal relative to the identified policy concerns. However, except in rare cases where a project as proposed clearly conflicts with County policy, and no apparent avenue for resolution exists, it has been the County’s practice to initiate the GPA process and provide the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate the merits of their proposal. Staff therefore recommends Board authorization to proceed with the GPA process with the understanding that authorization to proceed does not imply the Board's ultimate endorsement of the application to amend the General Plan, but only that this matter is appropriate for further evaluation. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board decides not to authorize initiation of the GPA process, then an application to amend the General Plan cannot be filed and the subject site will retain its AL land use designation. The proposed residential project would not be able to proceed. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Submittal by Wendell Rosen, LLP Attachment B - GP21-0004 Existing and Proposed General Plan Designations Attachment C - GP21-0004 Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations Attachment D - GP21-0004 Aerial Photo 024124.0001\6472610.2 1111 Broadway, 24th Floor Oakland, CA 94607-4036 T: 510.834.6600 F: 510.834.1928 www.wendel.com ptuck@wendel.com November 17, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION AND EMAIL Will Nelson Principal Planner Contra Costa County Planning Dept. 30 Muir Rd Martinez, CA 94553 E-mail: will.nelson@dcd.cccounty.us Re: South Camino Pablo General Plan Amendment Feasibility Request (APN 725-829-001/258-290-029) Dear Mr. Nelson: As I previously discussed with you, we represent Dobbins Properties, LLC, the owners of an approximately 23.9-acre parcel along the southwestern edge of unincorporated Contra Costa County, bordering the Town of Moraga (APNs 725-829-001/258-290-029). This area is locally known as Carr Ranch, and we are referring to the proposed development as “South Camino Pablo.” The subject parcel is currently designated as “AL-Agricultural Lands” in the County’s land use element map, and is zoned “A-2-General Agricultural District” in the County’s zoning map. We are requesting a General Plan Amendment Feasibility analysis to amend the General Plan to designate the approximately 7.9-acre southernmost portion of this parcel with a single- family residential designation so that the owners may develop that portion of the property with 15 single family homes, and incorporated accessory dwelling units. We propose that the remaining approximately 16-acre northern portion of the property will remain designated as “AL-Agricultural Lands” in the General Plan. Specifically, we are proposing an amendment that would modify the designation in the County’s General Plan for the 7.9-acre portion of the parcel to “SL-Single-Family Residential-Low Density,” which allows 1.0 to 2.9 single-family units per net acre, and lot sizes up to 43,560 square feet. This would more than accommodate the proposed project in this section of the property, while leaving more than two-thirds of the property as designated agricultural land. Please see the attached site plan exhibit showing the existing General Plan designation for the property and neighboring parcels, as well as the proposed General Plan designations after the requested amendment. If the County’s General Plan is amended as requested, or in another manner such that the proposed development would be consistent with the General Plan’s Land Use Element, we WENDEL ROSEN LLP Will Nelson November 17, 2021 Page 2 024124.0001\6472610.2 would then intend to apply to have the relevant portion of the parcel rezoned in conformance with the County’s “P-1-Planned Unit District” provisions, as indicated on the attached site plan. We look forward to the County’s analysis and feedback on this General Plan Amendment Feasibility request. Uploaded to the County’s online planning application system along with this letter is the exhibit site plan referenced above, as well as payment of the $750 deposit required to initiate this feasibility review. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me at ptuck@wendel.com or (510) 622-7605 or to my colleague Patricia Curtin at pcurtin@wendel.com or (510) 622-7660 if you have any other questions about the subject parcel, requested amendment, or the proposed development project, or would like us to submit any additional information as part of this General Plan Amendment Feasibility Request. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, WENDEL ROSEN LLP Patrick Tuck PAT/mh Enclosures: General Plan Amendment Site Plan Exhibit; $750 Deposit cc/enc: Matt Dobbins, Dobbins Properties, LLC (Via Email Only) AL WS WS AL AL (23.9 Ac.) 3-DUA 1-DUA 2-DUA OS OS SL R-15 SL / P-1 (±7.9 Ac.) AL (±16 Ac.) LEGEND EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11 AL WS SL COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND-USE DESIGNATIONS PROJECT TEAM SITE INFORMATION 1931 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE, SUITE 100, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596, (925) 932-6868 SUBDIVISION 9396 SOUTH CAMINO PABLO UNINCORPORATED MORAGA, CALIFORNIA FOR DOBBINS PROPERTIES, LLC NOVEMBER, 2021 SHEET OF VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TOWN OF MORAGA GENERAL PLAN LAND-USE DESIGNATIONS 1, 2, 3-DUA OS COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATIONS P-1 R-15 Unincorporated MoragaRim e r Dr LarchAveTharpDr S h uey D r DeerfieldDr Q uailXing C a m in o P ablo SandersRanchRdW alfo rd D rLisaLnHodges DrO xfordDrIrvin e DrHarring t o n R dFairfield P lS a ra h L n S h a n n onCt K n o ll D rTia PlM i l l f i e l d P lLakefield PlCami n o P a blo Sanders Ranch RdRockyRidge Trail RimerCreek T rail OldMoragaRanchTrail R o ckyRidge Tra i l Map Created 8/26/2021 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, M artinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI01,200 2,400600 Fe et This map was created by the Contra C osta County Departm ent of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Som e base data, primarily City Lim its, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assum es no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It m ay be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Attachment B: APN: 258-290-029General Plan Amendment Study (GP21-0004)General Plan Designations Moraga Unincorporated Rimer Dr TharpDr S hueyDrLarchAveDeerfieldDr C a m in o P ablo SandersRanchRdW alfordDr LisaLnHodges DrQ u a il X i ng Irvin eDrO x fordDrFairfield P lS a rahLnReed Dr S h a n n o n Ct K n o ll D r Redfield Pl Tia PlM i l l f i e l d P lStonefieldPl Butterfield PlLakefield PlCami noPa bloRockyRidgeTrailO ldMoragaRanchTrailR i m e rCreekTrailOldMoragaRanch Trail Curr ent Genera l Plan Pr oposed General Plan SITE SITE GP21-0004 Project Site GP21-0004 Project Parcel Parcels General Plan Designations SL (Single Family Residential - Low) AL (Agricultural Lands) WS (Watershed) WS WS WS AL AL SL AL AL WS WS WS SL Unincorporated MoragaRim e r Dr LarchAveTharpDrShueyDrDeerfieldDr Q uailXing C a m in o P ablo SandersRanchRdW alfo rd D rLisaLnHodges DrO xfordDrIrvin e DrHarring t o n R dFairfield P lS a ra h L n S h a n n onCt K n o ll D rTia PlM i l l f i e l d P lLakefield PlCami n o P a blo Sanders Ranch RdRockyRidge Trail RimerCreek T rail OldMoragaRanchTrail R o ckyRidge Tra i l Map Created 1/12/2022 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, M artinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI01,200 2,400600 Fe et This map was created by the Contra C osta County Departm ent of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Som e base data, primarily City Lim its, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assum es no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It m ay be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Attachment B: APN: 258-290-029General Plan Amendment Study (GP21-0004)Zoning Map Unincorporated Moraga Rimer Dr TharpDr S hueyDrLarchAveDeerfieldDr C a m in o P ablo SandersRanchRdW alfordDr LisaLnHodges DrQ u a il X i ng Irvin eDrO x fordDrFairfield P lS a rahLnReed Dr S h a n n o n Ct K n o ll D r Redfield Pl Tia PlM i l l f i e l d P lStonefieldPl Butterfield PlLakefield PlCami noPa bloRockyRidgeTrailO ldMoragaRanchTrailR i m e rCreekTrailOldMoragaRanch Trail Curr ent Genera l Plan Pr oposed General Plan SITE SITE GP21-0004 Project Site GP21-0004 Project Parcel Parcels Zoning R-15 (Single Family Residential) A-2 (General Agriculture) A-4 (Agricultural Preserve) P-1 (Planned Unit) A-2 A-2 A-4 R-15 A-4 A-2 A-2 R-15 P-1 A-2 A-2 LarchAveTharp Dr Sh ueyDrSandersRanchRdC a m in o P a blo Fairf i e l d Pl DeerfieldD r Q uailXing Reed Dr K n o ll D r W alf o r d Dr Tia PlM i l l f i e l d P lStonefieldPl Redfield Pl Butterfield PlC a mi noPabloOldMoragaRanchTrailOld MoragaRanchTrail Old M oraga Ranch Trail Map Created 1/12/2022 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, M artinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI0430860215 Fe et This map was created by the Contra C osta County Departm ent of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Som e base data, primarily City Lim its, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assum es no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It m ay be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Attachment D: APN: 258-290-029General Plan Amendment Study (GP21-0004)Aerial Photograph SITE Project Site Project Parcel Parcels RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to pay $113,867.91 to Tri Delta Transit for emergency transportation services provided to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) for the period June 14, 2020 through July 3, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this action would result in a one-time expenditure of $113,867.91 and will be funded 100% by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds. BACKGROUND: During the period between June 14, 2020 and July 3, 2021 Tri Delta Transit was activated during the County’s ongoing response to COVID-19 in support of Emergency Function 1 (Transportation) as an asset to both the County’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and Contra Costa Health Services Department Operations Center (DOC) to provide scalable transportation solutions to community members and groups affected by COVID-19 and to meet patient transportation needs at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC). Throughout most of their activation, Tri Delta Transit was covered by the County’s emergency blanket purchase order and generated weekly invoices associated with services rendered during that period. However, due to administrative oversight, staff turnover, and a variety of other factors expressed by the vendor and HSD staff assigned to cover transportation, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Erika Jenssen, 925-957-2670 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: E Jenssen, M Wilhelm C. 79 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Payments for Services Provided by Tri Delta Transit BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the vendor was unable to receive payment for services rendered in good faith before the window to encumber funds through the County’s Emergency PO had expired. Due to the aforementioned administrative oversight, staff turnover and other factors that inhibited the vendor from submitting invoices for processing in a timely manner during the County’s activation and response to COVID-19, the vendor was not paid by the CCRMC for services rendered in good faith. Therefore, the CCRMC has determined that Tri Delta Transit is entitled to payment for the reasonable value of services rendered under the equitable relief theory of quantum meruit. The theory provides that where a vendor has been asked to provide services without a valid purchase order, and the vendor does so to the benefit of the recipient, the vendor is entitled to recover the reasonable value of those services. The vendor and CCRMC have ultimately decided to demobilize utilization of Tri Delta Transit at this time in support of the ongoing response to COVID-19 as a function of EF1 (Transportation) due to resource shortages on the vendor’s end and availability of nominal service providers to meet the CCRMC’s needs as of July 3, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this board order is not approved, Tri Delta Transit will not be paid for transportation services rendered in good faith associated with the County’s activation and response to Covid-19. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, an amendment to purchase order #023100 with Metropolitan Van & Storage Inc., to increase the payment limit by $425,000 to a new payment limit of $624,000 for additional staging, storage, and delivery of emergency medical supplies as well as setup and demobilization support for community vaccination and testing sites associated with the department’s ongoing response to COVID-19, for the period from August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment will result in additional expenditures of up to $425,000 and will be funded 100% by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocations. BACKGROUND: Metropolitan Van & Storage has been providing support to the County’s initial and ongoing response to COVID-19 in the staging, storage, and delivery of mutual aid supplies allocated from state and federal sources distributed to County departments, health systems, and community organizations. Additionally, Metropolitan Van & Storage Inc. has assisted with large scale setup and demobilization of testing and vaccination sites. This amendment request is required due to an unanticipated increase in utilization due to surges in need associated with the department’s ongoing emergency response to COVID-19. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Erika Jenssen, 925-957-2670 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: E Jenssen, M Wilhelm C. 80 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment to Purchase Order with Metropolitan Van & Storage Inc. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the recommended action is not approved, the department will not be able to provide Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and other essential supplies as well as setup and demobilize large scale operational sites in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the Office of the Sheriff report, in accordance with Penal Code Section 4025(e), illustrating an accounting of all Inmate Welfare Fund receipts and disbursements for Fiscal Year 2020/2021. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Penal Code Section 4025(e) states that money and property deposited in the Inmate Welfare Fund shall be expended by the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner primarily for the benefit, education, and welfare of inmates confined within the jail. Any funds not needed for the welfare of inmates may be expended for the maintenance of county jail facilities. Maintenance of county jail facilities may include, but is not limited to, the salary and benefits of personnel used in the programs to benefit the inmates, education, drug and alcohol treatment, welfare, library, accounting, and other programs deemed appropriate by the Sheriff. An itemized report of these expenditures shall be submitted annually to the Board of Supervisors. This fund received the majority of its revenues from inmate telephone commissions APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Heike Anderson, (925) 655-0023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Heike Anderson, Alycia Rubio, Paul Reyes C. 81 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Inmate Welfare Fund Expenditure Report BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and commissary sales. The Director of Inmate Services, working with the public members of the Inmate Welfare Committee, manages the delivery of professional services, establishes an annual budget and oversees expenditures for the Sheriff. The Inmate Welfare Fund continues to provide valuable professional, educational, and recreational services to persons in custody at the Martinez Detention Facility, West County Detention Facility, and the Marsh Creek Detention Facility. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If unapproved, the County will not be in compliance with Penal Code section 4025(e). ATTACHMENTS IWF FY 20-21 Inmate Welfare Fund Statement of Receipts, Disbursements, and Fund Balance Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 Receipts: GTL Telephone Commissions $144,000 Canteen Commissions 843,794 WCDF Inmate Industries 24,056 WCDF Frame Shop 1,122 Investment Interest 1,114 Total Receipts $1,014,086 Disbursements: General Expenditures Maintenance/Equipment Lease 11,694 Personal Care/Hygiene/Rewards 1,037 BART/Bus Tickets 18,000 (AB-109 Funded) Telerus (Inmate information line) 18,000 Other Svc/GSD, labor 244 Entertainment (TV, Board Games, Etc.) 26,550 AB-109 Sub-Total $18,000 IWF Sub-Total $57,525 Education and Welfare Bay Area Chaplains Contractual Services $166,860 Office of Education Contractual Services 180 874,815 (AB-109 Funded) Library Program 254,207 Inmate Legal Services 15,944 MCDF Landscape Program 38,679 WCDF Inmate Industries 124,750 47,084 (AB-109 Funded) WCDF Frame Shop Program 30,827 AB-109 Sub-Total $921,899 IWF Sub-Total $631,447 Other Staff Salaries/Benefits $342,451 Staff Travel Expenses 1,727 Communication 0 Office Supplies 53 IWF Sub-Total $ 344,231 Total Disbursements, IWF & AB109 939,899 (AB-109) 1,033,203 (IWF) $1,973,102 Receipts less Disbursements (IWF Only) $ 19,117 Cash & Investments $2,967,681 Total $2,986,798 Closing Date 12-31-2021 RECOMMENDATION(S): DECLARE the Board's intent to adopt a FY 2022/23 General Fund budget that balances annual expenses and revenues; 1. ACKNOWLEDGE that significant issues will continue to create financial pressure on the Board of Supervisors in its effort to provide essential services and programs which Contra Costa County residents need, or expect will be provided to them by the County; 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that, in addition to the effects on the provision of services for residents, that State and local economic issues have challenged the maintenance of the Board of Supervisors' reserve policy; 3. ACKNOWLEDGE that maintaining the County’s reserve funds, maintaining an improved credit rating, and maintenance of the County's physical assets remain a priority of the Board of Supervisors; 4. RE-AFFIRM the Board of Supervisors’ policy prohibiting the use of County General Purpose Revenue to back-fill State revenue cuts; 5. DIRECT Department Heads to work closely with the County Administrator to develop a Recommended Budget for consideration of the Board of Supervisors that balances expenses with revenues, minimizes net County cost and maintains core service levels; 6. ACKNOWLEDGE that the 2022/2023 assessment roll will be prepared using the maximum inflation factor of 1.02; 7. ACKNOWLEDGE that the employees of Contra Costa County have been affected as a result of the requirement to balance the County’s expenses with available revenues; 8. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 655-2047 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: All County Departments (via CAO) C. 82 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:FY 2022/23 Recommended Budget Development RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) DIRECT the County Administrator to continue to meet with the County’s union representatives and employees to explain the size, scope and anticipated length of the County’s fiscal challenges and to gain their input/suggestions; 9. DIRECT the County Administrator to continue to make this information readily available to the residents of the County; 10. DIRECT Departments, in cooperation with Labor Relations and Union representatives, to begin, if necessary, the meet-and-confer process with employee representatives about the impact of potential program reductions on the terms and conditions of employment for affected employees; 11. DIRECT the County Administrator to return to the Board of Supervisors on April 12, 2022 with a FY 2022/2023 Recommended Budget that meets the above requirements; 12. DESIGNATE Tuesday, April 12, 2022 for FY 2022/2023 budget hearings and Tuesday, May 10, 2022 for the adoption of the FY 2022/23 Recommended County and Special District Budgets; and 13. DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to publish notice of the budget hearings and the availability of the Recommended Budget documents. 14. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. However, the result of the recommendations herein, if implemented, are designed to maintain the County's fiscal stability in FY 2022/2023 and improve it in subsequent years. BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors, Department Heads, and our Employees worked and sacrificed to stabilize the County's finances during the last decade. Now our task will be to preserve this legacy so as to prevent a return to those years in which we were making painful cuts to programs and to the staff that was necessary to provide those services. There are always factors over which the County has little or no control (such as a pandemic, federal and State budgets actions, economic changes, and demographics) that will affect the size of the baseline budget and ultimately challenge the County’s budget. Over the next five years we can expect more fiscal volatility due to the Federal Tax plan, State legislative action, as well as negotiated wage and benefit increases. The majority of the County's general purpose revenues are generated through property taxes. Revenue and Taxation Code section 51 provides that base year values determined under section 110.1 shall be compounded annually by an inflation factor not to exceed 2 percent. Section 51(a)(1)(C) provides that, for any assessment year commencing on or after January 1, 1998, the inflation factor shall be the percentage change, rounded to the nearest one-thousandth of 1 percent, from October of the prior fiscal year to October of the current fiscal year in the California Consumer Price Index (CCPI) for all items, as determined by the California Department of Industrial Relations. Information from the Department of Industrial Relations shows that the CCPI increased from 286.843 in October 2020 to 302.793 in October 2021. Rounded to the nearest one-thousandth of 1 percent, this is an increase of 5.561 percent. Accordingly, we will prepare our 2022 assessment roll using the maximum inflation factor of 1.02 (base year value change of 2%). The Board of Supervisors has authorized the establishment of an Office of Racial Equity and Social Justice (D. 4, 11/10/20). Although the Office has not yet been established, departments are encouraged to include the voices of diverse communities in budget development discussions with the goal of advancing racial equity and/or social justice through County programs. As per the norm, Department Heads will be expected to work closely with the County Administrator to design a balanced budget that restricts the growth in net County cost while minimizing service delivery cuts. Wherever possible, categorical/program revenues will be increased to offset the increased cost of doing business. Restrictions on increases in net County cost needed to balance the budget may result in the loss of federal and State program revenues, and this added loss may cause program reductions. Meet and Confer Departmental budget requests are due to the County Administrator’s Office on February 4. At that time Department Heads will know which, if any, positions may be affected by reductions necessary to balance the budget. Departments, in cooperation with Labor Relations, will if necessary, begin the meet-and-confer process with employee representatives regarding the impact of potential program reductions on the terms and conditions of employment for affected employees. Early planning will allow Departments a reasonable period of time to meet and confer, and permit them to implement all budgetary required actions prior to July 1, 2022. Per the norm, this progress will allow the County to adopt a budget that is balanced from the first day of the new fiscal year. Public Notice The County Budget Act requires that the Board of Supervisors publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation throughout the county, stating when budget documents will be available and the date of Budget Hearings. The FY 2022/23 Recommended Budget document will be available to the public approximately April 1, 2022. Conclusion Conclusion The County Administrator will return to the Board on April 12 with a FY 2022/23 Recommended Budget that meets the requirements listed above. Tuesday, April 12 will be reserved for FY 2022/23 budget hearings. Additionally, it is recommended that the County Administrator return to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, May 10 for adoption of the FY 2022/23 Recommended County and Special District Budgets, including any changes the Board makes on April 12. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delayed processing of the FY 2022/23 Recommended Budget and potential impact on the fiscal stability of the County and Special Districts. ATTACHMENTS 2022-23 California Consumer Price Index STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT PO BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94279-0064 1-916-274-3350 z FAX 1-916-285-0134 www.boe.ca.gov December 27, 2021 TED GAINES First District, Sacramento MALIA M. COHEN Second District, San Francisco ANTONIO VAZQUEZ, CHAIRMAN Third District, Santa Monica MIKE SCHAEFER, VICE CHAIR Fourth District, San Diego BETTY T. YEE State Controller BRENDA FLEMING Executive Director No. 2021/065 TO COUNTY ASSESSORS: 2022-23 CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRICE INDEX Revenue and Taxation Code section 51 provides that base year values determined under section 110.1 shall be compounded annually by an inflation factor, not to exceed 2 percent. Section 51(a)(1)(C) provides that for any assessment year commencing on or after January 1, 1998, the inflation factor shall be the percentage change, rounded to the nearest one- thousandth of 1 percent, from October of the prior fiscal year to October of the current fiscal year in the California Consumer Price Index (CCPI) for all items, as determined by the California Department of Industrial Relations. Information from the Department of Industrial Relations shows that the CCPI increased from 286.843 in October 2020 to 302.793 in October 2021. Rounded to the nearest one-thousandth of 1 percent, this is an increase of 5.561 percent. Accordingly, please prepare your 2022 assessment roll using an inflation factor of 1.02. A list of the final inflation factors announced for current and prior years is enclosed. If you have any questions, please contact our County-Assessed Properties Division at 1-916-274-3350. Sincerely, /s/ David Yeung David Yeung Deputy Director Property Tax Department DY:gs Enclosure 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 FINAL INFLATION FACTORS FOR CURRENT AND PRIOR YEARS Year CCPI % Change Base Year Value Change1 Factor 6.250 2% 1.02 7.169 2% 1.02 8.233 2% 1.02 9.826 2% 1.02 17.316 2% 1.02 7.134 2% 1.02 11.137 2% 1.02 1.033 1% 1.01 5.034 2% 1.02 5.089 2% 1.02 4.374 2% 1.02 2.095 2% 1.02 5.160 2% 1.02 4.730 2% 1.02 4.758 2% 1.02 6.390 2% 1.02 3.039 2% 1.02 3.441 2% 1.02 2.308 2% 1.02 1.194 1.19% 1.0119 1.115 1.11% 1.0111 2.399 2% 1.02 2.081 2% 1.02 1.853 1.85% 1.01853 3.214 2% 1.02 4.172 2% 1.02 3.215 2% 1.02 2.459 2% 1.02 1.867 1.87% 1.01867 3.665 2% 1.02 4.596 2% 1.02 2.269 2% 1.02 3.380 2% 1.02 3.477 2% 1.02 -0.237 -0.24% 0.99763 0.753 0.75% 1.00753 2.889 2% 1.02 3.081 2% 1.02 0.454 0.45% 1.00454 1.998 2.00% 1.01998 1.525 1.53% 1.01525 Year CCPI % Change Base Year Value Change Factor 2017-18 2.619 2% 1.02 2018-19 2.962 2% 1.02 2019-20 3.847 2% 1.02 2020-21 2.980 2% 1.02 2021-22 1.036 1.04% 1.01036 2022-23 5.561 2% 1.02 1 Increase to base year value is limited to 2 percent pursuant to California Constitution, article XIII A, section 2(b). RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/24 approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (“ROPS 22-23”) for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the General Fund. Since the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency dissolved (the “Dissolved RDA”), the tax allotment is now deposited in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (“RPTTF”), which is administered by the County Auditor-Controller. Distributions are made semi-annually from the RPTTF to the Successor Agency by the County Auditor-Controller to fund the Successor Agency's administrative budget and Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule. These funds are distinct and separate from other funds used by the Department of Conservation and Development. According to State law, any obligation of the Successor Agency that cannot be funded by the RPTTF would not be an obligation of the County. BACKGROUND: Resolution No. 2022-24 adopts ROPS 22-23, which is included as Exhibit A to this report. After adoption by the Successor Agency, ROPS 22-23 will be submitted to the Countywide Oversight Board for approval. The Oversight Board is scheduled to meet on January 24, 2022. As required under Health and Safety Code Section 34179.6, ROPS 22-23 will be submitted to the State Controller's Office, Department of Finance (DOF) and the County Auditor-Controller and will be posted on the Successor Agency's website. The DOF must receive ROPS 22-23 no later than February 1, 2022. ROPS 22-23 authorizes all payments to be made by the Successor Agency for enforceable obligations for the twelve-month time period between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023. The payments noted on the ROPS are estimates. In most cases, assumptions made for ROPS 22-23 were based on actual expenditures in the prior ROPS and expected expenditures in the upcoming period. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/18/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Maureen Toms, 925-655-2895 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 83 To:Board of Supervisors From:Maureen Toms, Oversight Board Secretary Date:January 18, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The title page of ROPS 22-23 shows that enforceable obligations require $8,287,374 from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (the “RPTTF”) and $250,000 for Administrative RPTTF. This amount assumes the RPTTF has already set aside pass-through payments to taxing entities and administrative costs for the County Auditor-Controller. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule, the County Auditor-Controller would not be able to allocate funds to the Successor Agency for staffing services and payment of recognized obligations during this twelve-month period, and the Successor Agency would risk defaulting on enforceable obligations. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/24 ROPS 22-23 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2022/24 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 01/18/2022 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2022/24 THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE FORMER CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE PERIOD JULY 2022 THROUGH JUNE 2023 FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUCCESSOR AGENCY. WHEREAS, the California state legislature enacted Assembly Bill x1 26 (the “Dissolution Act") to dissolve redevelopment agencies formed under the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2012 and pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34173, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa (the "Board of Supervisors") declared that the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (the "County"), would act as successor agency (the "Successor Agency") for the dissolved Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa (the "Dissolved RDA") effective February 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2012, the RDA was dissolved pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34172; and WHEREAS, the Dissolution Act provides for the appointment of an oversight board (the "Oversight Board") with specific duties to approve certain Successor Agency actions pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34180 and to direct the Successor Agency in certain other actions pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34181; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1484 enacted June 27, 2012 to amend various provisions of the Dissolution Act, the Successor Agency is now declared to be a separate legal entity from the County of Contra Costa; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2013, the Department of Finance issued the Successor Agency a "finding of completion" pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34179.7 and as a result of the issuance of the finding of completion, pursuant to 34191.4 the Successor Agency is authorized to: (1) place loan agreements between the Dissolved RDA and the County on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (“ROPS “) and (2) utilize proceeds derived from bonds issued prior to January 1, 2011, in a manner consistent with the original bond covenants; and WHEREAS, the ROPS 22-23 must be submitted by the Successor Agency to the Countywide Oversight Board for their approval in accordance with the Dissolution Act; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Health and Safety Section 34179.6, the ROPS 22-23 will be submitted by the Successor Agency to the Countywide Oversight Board, Contra Costa County Administrative Officer, the Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller, and the State Department of Finance; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency is charged with paying for and completing the enforceable obligations of the Dissolved RDA (each as further defined in Health and Safety Code Section 34171(d)), disposing of the properties and other assets of the Dissolved RDA, and unwinding the affairs of the Dissolved RDA; and WHEREAS, the accompanying staff report provides supporting information upon which the actions set forth in this Resolution are based. NOW, THEREFORE, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency does hereby finds, resolves, approves, and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and together with information provided by the Successor Agency staff and the public, form the basis for the approvals, findings, resolutions and determinations set forth below. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that under Health and Safety Code Section 34180(g), the Oversight Board must approve establishment of a ROPS for the Successor Agency. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED in accordance with the Dissolution Act, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency hereby approves ROPS 22-23, including the agreements and obligations described on the ROPS 22-23, and hereby determines that such agreements and obligations constitute "enforceable obligations" and "recognized obligations" for all purposes of the Dissolution Act. In connection with such approval, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency makes the specific findings set forth below. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED in accordance with the Dissolution Act, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency directs staff to forward ROPS 22-23, to the Countywide Oversight Board for consideration on January 24, 2022, with submittal to the Department of Finance by February 1, 2022. Contact: Maureen Toms, 925-655-2895 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 18, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 22-23) - Summary Filed for the July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Period Successor Agency: Contra Costa County County: Contra Costa Current Period Requested Funding for Enforceable Obligations (ROPS Detail) 22-23A Total (July - December) 22-23B Total (January - June) ROPS 22-23 Total A Enforceable Obligations Funded as Follows (B+C+D) $ - $ - $ - B Bond Proceeds - - - C Reserve Balance - - - D Other Funds - - - E Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) (F+G) $ 3,837,399 $ 4,449,975 $ 8,287,374 F RPTTF 3,712,399 4,324,975 8,037,374 G Administrative RPTTF 125,000 125,000 250,000 H Current Period Enforceable Obligations (A+E) $ 3,837,399 $ 4,449,975 $ 8,287,374 Certification of Oversight Board Chairman: Name Title Pursuant to Section 34177 (o) of the Health and Safety code, I hereby certify that the above is a true and accurate Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the above named successor agency. /s/ Signature Date Contra Costa County Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 22-23) - ROPS Detail July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Item # Project Name Obligation Type Agreement Execution Date Agreement Termination Date Payee Description Project Area Total Outstanding Obligation Retired ROPS 22-23 Total ROPS 22-23A (Jul - Dec) 22-23A Total ROPS 22-23B (Jan - Jun) 22-23B Total Fund Sources Fund Sources Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF Admin RPTTF Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF Admin RPTTF $130,855,544 $8,287,374 $- $- $- $3,712,399 $125,000 $3,837,399 $- $- $- $4,324,975 $125,000 $4,449,975 46 Placemaking Transit Village OPA/DDA/ Construction 12/19/ 2005 07/10/2026 Avalon Bay Placemaking improvements (i.e. parks, etc.) C - Y $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $- 60 Bond-License agreement Professional Services 03/31/ 2006 03/31/2038 DAC Document repository for bond issues ALL 45,500 N $4,000 - - - 4,000 - $4,000 - - - - - $- 61 Bond- Treasurer fees Fees 07/10/ 1984 08/01/2037 CCC Treasurer Cash management for bond issues ALL - Y $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $- 63 Hookston Station Remediation Remediation 11/05/ 1997 08/01/2037 Bank Of Amer, Trustee Remediation of hazardous material C 1,900,000 N $250,000 - - - 250,000 - $250,000 - - - - - $- 77 Financial Assistance OPA/DDA/ Construction 11/01/ 1998 11/01/2028 Bridge Housing Agency assistance C 600,000 N $100,000 - - - 100,000 - $100,000 - - - - - $- 78 Financial Assistance OPA/DDA/ Construction 12/19/ 2005 05/01/2036 Avalon Bay Agency assistance. C 17,261,556 N $1,327,812 - - - - - $- - - - 1,327,812 - $1,327,812 82 I H Trail/ Hookston Remediation (IH Hookston Station) Professional Services 08/15/ 2012 12/31/2027 Contra Costa County - County Counsel Remediation of I H corridor parcels (IH Hookston Station) C 25,000 N $20,000 - - - 10,000 - $10,000 - - - 10,000 - $10,000 91 Hookston Station Remediation (IH Hookston Station) Professional Services 01/23/ 2012 06/15/2017 Ensafe Administrator of haz-mat remediation fund. (IH Hookston Station) C 42,158 N $9,000 - - - 5,000 - $5,000 - - - 4,000 - $4,000 94 Administrative Allowance Admin Costs 07/01/ 2016 05/01/2037 Contra Costa County Administrative Allowance ALL 4,000,000 N $250,000 - - - - 125,000 $125,000 - - - - 125,000 $125,000 110 Disclosure Statements Reporting Compliance Fees 04/20/ 1999 03/01/2038 Fraser & Associates/ Schiff Harden Disclosure Statements Compliance Services ALL 85,000 N $5,000 - - - 1,500 - $1,500 - - - 3,500 - $3,500 125 Financial Assistance- Escrow OPA/DDA/ Construction 12/19/ 2005 05/01/2036 Banking/ Escrow Fund TBD Related to #78, but the escrow payee 23,078,677 N $356,405 - - - 356,405 - $356,405 - - - - - $- A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Item # Project Name Obligation Type Agreement Execution Date Agreement Termination Date Payee Description Project Area Total Outstanding Obligation Retired ROPS 22-23 Total ROPS 22-23A (Jul - Dec) 22-23A Total ROPS 22-23B (Jan - Jun) 22-23B Total Fund Sources Fund Sources Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF Admin RPTTF Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF Admin RPTTF portion 126 2017 Series A&B Debt Service Refunding Bonds Issued After 6/27/12 08/01/ 2018 08/01/2037 US BANK Series 2017 A&B Tax Allocation Bonds 83,755,653 N $5,960,157 - - - 2,980,494 - $2,980,494 - - - 2,979,663 - $2,979,663 127 Trustee fees for 2017 Series A&B Fees 08/01/ 2018 08/01/2038 US BANK Annual administration fees - 2017 Series A&B 62,000 N $5,000 - - - 5,000 - $5,000 - - - - - $- Contra Costa County Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 22-23) - Notes July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Item # Notes/Comments 46 60 61 63 77 78 82 91 94 110 125 126 127