Attachment 4 - 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study Low-Rise Residential New ConstructionMargin?
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
ATTACHMENT 4
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.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank