Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009/09/14 Board of Appeals & Advisors Agenda Packet
CITY OF CHULA VISTA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Monday - 5:15 pm Conference Room #137 (Public Service Bldg) September 14, 2009 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Buddingh Buencamino-Andrews Flach Lopez Sides 1. DECLARATION OF EXCUSED/UNEXCUSED ABSENTEEISM: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 10, 2009 3. NEW BUSINESS: A.. Presentation of an ordinance of the Ciry of Chula Vista amending Chapter 15,26 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and adding Section 15.26,030, increased energy efficiency standards, 4. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS/REPORTS: 5. BUILDING OFFICIAL'S COMMENTS/REPORTS: 6. COMMUNICATIONS (PUBLIC REMARKS/WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE): 7. ADOURNMENT TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2009 AT 5:15 PM IN CONFERENCE ROOM 137. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a city meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodation at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance for meetings and five (6) days for scheduled services and activities, Please contact Rosemarie Rice, Secretary for specifc information (619) 409-5838 or Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647 California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.. ]:\Bld_Hsg\Rosemarie R\BAA\BAA Agenda 9.14.09 doc I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the Department of Planning and Building and that I posted a copy of this Meeting Agenda CITY OF CHULA VISTA on the City Docket at the City Hall Building. BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISOR Date: 9I8I09 Signed~-~~~~--' REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Monday - 5:15 pm Conference Room #137 (Public Service Bldg) September 14, 2009 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Buddingh Buencamino-Andrews Flach Lopez Sides 1. DECLARATION OF EXCUSED/UNEXCUSED ABSENTEEISM: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 10, 2009 3. NEW BUSINESS: A. Presentation of an ordinance of the City of Chula Vista amending Chapter 15.26 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and adding Section 15..26..030, increased energy efficiency standards. 4. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS/REPORTS: 5. BUILDING OFFICIAL'S COMMENTS/REPORTS: 6. COMMUNICATIONS (PUBLIC REMARKS/WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE): 7. ADOURNMENT TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2009 AT 5:15 PM IN CONFERENCE ROOM 137. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a city meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodation at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance for meetings and five (5) days for scheduled services and activities Please contact Rosemarie Rice, Secretary for specifc information (619) 409-5838 or Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647 California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 10, 2009 Conference Room #137 5:15 PM 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 MEMBERS PRESENT': Chairman Buddingh, Flach, Sides, Buencamino-Andrew and Lopez MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT': Lou EI- Khazen, Building Official; Rosemarie Rice, Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL MEETING T'O ORDER: Chairman Buddingh called meeting to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: Members present constituted a quorum, 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 13th, and December 15, 2008 MSC (Flach/Buencamino-Andrews) (5-0-) Approve the minutes of December 13, 2008.. Motion carried I MSC (Flach/Buencamino-Andrews) (5-0) Approve the minutes of December 15, 2008. Motion carried 3 NEW BUSINESS: A ELECTION OF NEW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR FYE 09/10 MSC (Lopez/Sides) (4-0-1-0} Elect Jan Buddingh to Chair. MSC (Lopez/Sides) (4-0-1-0) Elect Rita Buencamino-Andrews to Vice Chair B Review of ordinance of the City of Chula Vista adding Chapter 15 12, Green Building Standards, to the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 4, MEMBERS COMMENTS/CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS/REPORTS: Chair Buddingh addressed the fact that there were only 5 members on the committee and asked the members to keep in mind anyone (with a building construction background) who they felt would be a good candidate for the BAA 5 BUILDING OFFICIAL'S COMMENTSIREPORTS: Building Official, Lou EI-Khazen, gave a brief overview of the new ordinance that will adopt Green Building Standards. Those standards will be applied citywide to all residential and non-residential construction.. Mr, EI-Khazen said he would be presenting this to Council on September 2009 so that it will go into effect October 2009 Chair Buddingh noted that many of the larger builders are already implementing some of these measures.. Mr, EI-Khazen concurred, he stated the building industry is currently focused on green products, and many of the home improvement stores are beginning to carry the "Green" building materials. Chair Buddingh pointed out a typographical error in Section 15..12.010 Definitions On the fourth line down the text began with: "meaning ascribed to in" he thought it should read: meaning ascribed to it, since "iY' was referring to a term on the line above. Also on Exhibit "A" of the Chula Board of Appeals & Advisors Page 2 August 10, 2009 Meeting Minutes Vista Green Building Standards, page 7 of 8, item 3c. Carpet adhesive All carpet adhesives shall meet the requirements of Tablet It should be fable 3 Mr EI-Khazen thanked Chair Buddingh for bringing this up and would make the necessary corrections before it goes to council. Member Sides discussed the compliance verification aspect and wanted to know how the city would enforce this provision, especially when it came to materials such as paint. He noted it wasn't currently part of the inspector's protocol to inspect paint, In this instance, he believed it would be easy for someone to fake using a low VOC material, Mr, EI-Khazen stated it would be a challenge until the public is educated on this and sees the benefit of using these products.. There will be some flexibility in the beginning to allow the owner to get the right product The inspectors will be notifying the contractors at the start of the project that these kinds of materials must be used in order for final inspection to be issued, For now, staff will be relying on the specifications provided in the building plans and holding the builders accountable to that, Mr EI-Khazen noted as part of implementation of this new ordinance there would be additional training for building inspectors, plan examiners and more public outreach in order to enlighten the public concerning the products and criteria, Member Buencamino-Andrews asked if any public hearings had been held for the businesses, being impacted by this new ordinance, and what the reaction was? Mr EI-Khazen said there had been several hearings and talks for the past 18 months with no adverse reactions.. The BIA was also informed that the Boards of Appeals and Advisors would be meeting and recommending this today. Member Lopez asked how this ordinance would apply to large alterations specifically ones that have I multi level floors, Mr. EI-Khazen replied that the standards would apply only to the scope of work of the alterations. Member Sides also commented about the water table and noted that there was no mention of irrigation usage. Mr. EI-Khazen stated that it was addressed on page 4 of the standards listed as # 2 I Outdoor Water Use. Member Flach and Mr, EI-Khazen discussed the usage of recycled water within the city, Mr. EI- Khazen noted that recycled water is used in landscaped common areas in many areas of the city, particularly those in the Otay Water district. Currently there is no recycled water used in residential areas, MSC (Buddingh/Flach) (5-0) Recommend to City Council adoption of Chapter 15..12, Green Building Standards, of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and the resolution, Building Official EI-Khazen also commented about: • Increased Energy Efficiency Ordinance will be presented to BAA in September • Fee Study to be presented to Council in December 6, COMMUNICATIONS (PUBLIC REMARKS/ WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE): None 7 ADJOURNMENT: Chair Buddingh adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p m. to a regular meeting on September 14, 2009 at 5:15 p.m in Planning and Building Conference Room #137, MINUTES TAKEN BY: ROSEMARIE RICE, SECRETARY I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT -BUILDING DIVISION BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS Meeting Date: 09/14/09 SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF IHE CIIY OF CHULA VISIA AMENDING CHAPTER 15,26 OF IHE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING SECIION 15.26,030, INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS SUBMITTED BY: Building Official On July 10-2008, Council-appxovecrResolutiori No.-2008=177 in which Council-adopted the Implementation Plans for the Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) measures„ Measure # 4, Green Building Standards, consists of several components, one of which is the adoption of increased energy efficiency standards requiring residential and nonresidential buildings to be more energy efficient than the State mandated building energy effciency standards. The proposed ordinance amends the City's Energy Code and adopts increased energy efficiency standards, RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to City Council the adoption of the ordinance., ' DISCUSSION: Rackgrnnnd i the City has been a leader in climate protection policies and programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Through its Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan, the City committed itself to reducing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 20% below 1990 levels., the City's 2005 GHG emissions inventory indicated that annual citywide GHG levels had increased by 35% since 1990 I due primarily to residential growth As a result, the City Council directed staff to convene a Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) to develop recommendations to add to the City's existing Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan and its portfolio of programs which would further reduce the community's greenhouse gas emissions., On April 1, 2008, City Council adopted the CCWG seven recommendations and directed staff to return to Council with detailed implementation plans. On ,July 10, 2008, Council approved Resolution No. 2.008-177 in which Council adopted the i implementation plans far the CCWG measures and approved parfial implementation of the I measures based on funding levels. Measure # 4, Green Building Standards, consists of several components, one of which is the adoption of increased energy efficiency standards requiring residential and nonresidential buildings to be more energy efficient than the State mandated building energy efficiency standards, The proposed ordinance amends the City's Energy Code (MC Chapter 15..26) and adopts increased energy efficiency standards. Increased energy efficiency standards will reduce the rapid growth in demand for electricity which in turn will reduce the need for new generation, transmission and distribution facilities, and will reduce the risk of power shortage Furthermore, it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions which will help mitigate the causes and effects of global climate change and improve air and F:\CVGBP\EE Ordinance\BOAA EE Ord doc Boazd of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 09/14/09 Page 2 of 8 water quality by reducing emissions from smog and acid rain forming pollutants.. Saving energy will economically benefit residents and businesses by reducing the rate of increase in energy prices and by reducing energy bills. the initial implementation plan far Measure # 4 proposed mandating new and retrofit residential and non-residential projects to achieve carbon savings equivalent to exceeding current State Standards (OS Standards) by at least 15%. As staff warked on the details of the program, staff realized that establishing a carbon savings benchmaik as a means of compliance is ahead of its time and concluded that it will result in a program that is mare complex than it needs to be. Fos the purpose of simplifying the program, while at the same time achieving an equivalent level of energy savings, staff proposed to only require projects to demonstrate that they have exceeded the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (08 Standards) by a specific percentage. This compliance method is consistent with the struchue, format and calculation methods of the California Energy Efficiency Standards and is simple and clear fox the building industry to understand and staff to enforce, In addition, staff proposed to offer an energy credit option for building construction within Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan project areas where developers can meet a portion of the increased energy efficiency requirements through community site design measures. 2008 Rnilrling Rnergy Ffficiency 4tanclarcls the 08 Standards, minimum standards mandated by the State, will take effect on .January 1, 2010., the 08 Standards aze about 15% to 20% more stringent than the current Standards.. Increased standards of 15% and 20% above the 08 Standards are about 30% to 40% above the current Standards Climate 7.nnes the City falls within two climate zones (CZ); CZ 7 and CZ 10, the majority of the City falls ! within the mild CZ 7, and about 20%, the most easterly part of the City, falls within the harsher CZ 10 Attachment B, Climate Zones map, delineates the two CZs, PrnnnaPrl TncreaGerl Stanrlarrls the proposed Ordinance requires new residential and nonresidential construction to be more energy efficient than the 08 Standards as follows: CZ 7: New residential and nonresidential projects that fall within CZ 7 must be at least 15% I more energy efficient than the 08 Standards, CZ 10: New low-rise residential projects (tluee-stories or less) that fall within CZ 10 must be at least 20% more energy efficient than the 08 Standazds, and new nonresidential, high-rise residential or hotel/motel projects that fall within CZ 10 must be at least 15% more I energy efficient than the 08 Standards. In both climate zones, low-rise residential additions, remodels ar alterations that are less than or equal to 1,000 square feet, and nonresidential, high-rise residential or hotel/motel additions, remodels or alterations that ate less than or equal to 10,000 square feet, aze exempt from the increased energy efficiency standards. F:\CVGBP\EE Ordinance\BOAA EE Ord doc Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 09/14/09 Page 3 of 8 California FnPrgy Commission Ap liPn atinn In order for the City to adopt and enforce increased building energy efficiency standards, the City must submit an application to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and obtain approval before the increased standards can take effect., The application submittal must include (1) the proposed standards as adopted by Council, (2) A study with supporting analysis showing how the City determined energy savings, (3) A statement that the proposed standards will require buildings to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and (4) the basis of the City's determination that the proposed standards ate cost effective, the determination that the standards are cost effective will need to be adopted by Council at a public hearing, After City Council place the proposed Ordinance on first reading, staff will submit the application to the CEC for their review and approval.. After CEC approval, staff will bring the Ordinance to City Council for second reading and adoption.. the CEC review and approval process can take np to three months,- l ,tlGt-F"FFPPY1VP7tPCC ~Y71(1V In order to meet the CEC requirements, the City, with help from San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), hired an energy consultant, Gable Associates, LLC (consultant), to perform the required cost effectiveness analysis, The analysis is included as Attachment C the analysis is performed by using CEC approved software to compare life cycle costs with the estimated cost savings to be achieved by complying with the proposed standards. It is a limited study and is not intended to determine the macro-effects of any specific policy decisions the ' study analyzed exceeding the 08 Standards by 10%, 15% and 20% for low-rise residential, high- li rise residential and non-residential projects. It took into account the two CZs the City falls within; CZ 7 and CZ 10 the combination of energy efficiency measures used in the case studies to reach the various thresholds were based on the consultant's experience and professional judgment and not on a comprehensive analysis of all possible combinations of energy efficiency measures.. the table below shows the average incremental cost and the average simple payback period for the added energy measures as determined from the case studies: ~ 'k A a ~ ~ c ~y t a r S fB7tk~rtt'LF~'Yt1c' ~ ate; ~tlteTe"fn # ~n~l'e3q I~kC~k '~eitt```" ~ ~ ~ ~ sr~~ ~ u i . rt° Y ~ i 1 y « r'~~"C y~~i~+'~ ~'-sa ~~3S~Celtf~i~ P`~bael( ~ r, Gast i Gn~tn ~ ~ {ors Y ~ Cost ~ ~ Gash (Xrr ~ Single Family 10% 944 0.39 24 1 749 0.69 17.3 (Avg ofresults fora 2,000 15% 1498 0.62 22 2 437 0.99 16.7 & 3 000 s . ft. 20% 2 187 0.89 23 3 303 1.30 16.4 Multi Family 10% 5 083 0.60 26 8 900 1.05 27 j (8-units, 2-story, 8,442 sq IS% 9 605 1.14 32 11 705 1.39 23.5 ' ft. 20% 9 915 1.17 18 14 570 1.73 18.5 High-Rise Residential (4- 10% 21,428 0.58 12.5 26,237 0,71 12.8 story res.. over I-story 15% 28 336 0.77 11.7 71 392 1.94 22.4 retail, 36,800 sq. ft. 20% 60,352 1.64 16.7 114 080 3.10 27.2 Non-Residential (5-story, 10°% 32 660 0.62 4.6 82 884 1.57 12.9 52,900 sq ft) 15 93 104 1.76 8.1 92 046 1.74 9.7 20% 126 180 239 8.5 146 098 2.76 10.3 F:\CVGBP\EE Ordinance\BOAA EE Ord doc Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 09/14/09 Page 4 of 8 Incremental costs depend on the energy efficiency features used by the designer/builder to achieve compliance, Any one building can achieve compliance in a number of ways and therefore, the cost of compliance can vary. Similarly, paybacks depend on the specific selection of energy measures, how they perform in a specific building design in a pazticular climate zone, and what the first costs are far those measures. As stated in the study, "A set of energy measures is generally considered cost-effective if the payback is less than the average useful life of those measures. In residential construction, for example, most energy measures will typically last at least 15 years, and most will not function beyond .30 years.. So energy measures with a payback of around 15 years or less would usually be cost-effective, and a payback beyond 30 years usually would not. Paybacks between 15 and 30 yeazs may be cost-effective depending on the weighted average useful life of the measures _ seYected," the useful-life of irrsulafiori is about 50 years for windows and-doors is about 20 years, for air heating/cooling units is about 18 yeazs and for domestic water heaters is about 14 years. Charts 1 and 2 below show the payback periods for CZ 7 and CZ 10, respectively: Chart 1 Payback Periods - CZ 7 35 30 25 - ui 20 } 15 10 0 T24+10% T2d~+15°l0 12d+20% SFD --~--MF --~-HRR --~--NR F:\CVGBPIEE Ordinance\BOAA EE Ord doc Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 09/14/09 Page 5 of 8 Chart 2 Payback Periods - CZ 10 30 25 ® Y 15 ~ : _ 10 - -~-__...__------e---~--° - _ 5 _ - 0 - T24'+10% T24+15% T24+20% SFD ,a., MF _ HRR _ NR 1 Chart 1 fox CZ 7 shows the. payback period for low-rise multi-family fox the 15% level to be over i the 30-year line, whereas for the 20% level, the payback period is closer to the 15-year line.. This gives the notion that, in general, for low-rise multi-family in CZ '7, the 20% level is more cost effective than the I S% level, which is not the case.. For the 20% level, the consultant introduced instantaneous tankless gas hot water heaters, a readily available but not a standard measure, instead of simply increasing the efficiency of'standaxd measures such as insulation ox standard hot water heaters. The consultant could have inhoduced the instantaneous tankless gas hot water heaters at the 15% level and the payback period fox the 15% level would have been close to or below the 15-year line making the 15% level mare cost effective than the 20% level. Ihis emphasizes what was previously noted that the combination of energy efficiency measures used in the case studies to reach the various thresholds do not represent a comprehensive analysis of all possible combinations of energy efficiency measures or the most cost effective combination.. Fnergy 4uhmmmittee Meetin~¢ On May 6, 2.009, staff presented the cost-effectiveness study and staff recommendation to the City Council Energy Subcommittee. the initial study consisted of case studies analyzing the upfront incremental cost and payback periods resulting from requiring low-rise residential projects (tluee stories ar less) to be more energy efficient than the 08 Standards by 10%, 15%, and 20%, and non- residential and high-rise residential by 10%, At that time, staff proposed requning low-rise residential to be 15% more energy efficient than the 08 Standards, and 10% for high-rise residential and non-residential. the Subcommittee asked staff to return with additional information on the impact of 15% and 20% above the 08 Standards for non-residential and high-rise residential. Staff worked with SDG&E on amending their contract with the consultant to include the addifional case studies. Staff retruned to the Subcommittee on August 3, 2.009 and presented the updated study and proposed 15% above the 08 Standards for both residential and non-residential, and proposed exempting low-rise residential additions and alterations that are less than ar equal to 1,000 squaze feet, and high-rise residential and non-residential additions and alterations that axe less than or equal to 10,000 square feet, In addition, staff proposed including a placeholder in the ordinance fox a F:\CVGBP\EE Ordinance\BOAA EE Ord doc Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 09/14/09 Page 6 of 8 futrue community design energy credit option. the Subcommittee modified staff's proposal with a recommendation to require 20% above the 08 Standards for low-rise residential in CZ10, the hazsher climate zone covering the most easterly part of the City. Furthermore, the Subcommittee directed staff to provide statistical data on the median size of residential additions in the City to help identify if the 1,000 squaze foot threshold for residential addition alteration is a reasonable size. Staff met with both Subcommittee members individually and presented the requested information and the reasoning for the 1,000 squae foot low-rise residential addition/alteration ' exemption threshold (discussed below).. Both members are in support of the residential exemption threshold. Additions, Remndelc and Alteratinnc Fxemnrtinn Threcheldc the consultant recommended exempting low-rise residential additions, remodels or alterations that are less than ox equal to 1,000 square feet, and high-rise residential and non-residential additions, - _ remodels oar alterations that-are less than or equal to 10,000 square feet Based on the consultant's experience, small additions tend to have long payback periods especially if they have to upgrade the existing house to get the addition to meet the increased standazds. It costs more to replace or upgrade an existing component than simply installing a more energy efficient one in a new building. In addition, the incremental cost is a larger percentage of the overall construction cost for I a small addition than a large addition. Furthermore, requiring the increased standards on these types of projects takes away the prescriptive compliance option which is currently available to permit applicants, The prescriptive option is a simple prepackaged option where all new or altered components will need to meet ' predetermined requirements, Typically, this option does not require the involvement of an energy consultant or computer analysis. If the increased standards aze to be required on small additions or alterations, applicants will have to use the performance option to demonstrate compliance; a CEC j approved compliance software which typically involves an energy consultant which adds coordination time and cost to the project.. Fnergy Credit to inn The proposed Ordinance includes an energy credit option for building construction within Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan project areas whose SPA is approved subsequent to the effective date of the proposed Ordinance„ Under this option, the developer may meet a portion of the increased energy efficiency standards provided the SPA Plan has satisfied the qualifying energy savings thresholds for community design and site planning features established in the SPA's approved Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) If the approved AQIP satisfied the qualifying thresholds, the ~ applicant may request and receive an energy savings credit towards a portion of the increased ~ standazds subject to approval by the Director of Development Services and subject to applicable guidelines in effect at the time of the request for credit, This option encourages energy savings early in the site planning process and provides flexibility and recognizes savings through ' community site design. Tncentivec Homes built to at least I S% above the 08 Standards may qualify for incentive programs offered by SDG&E such as the CA Energy Star New Homes program or the New Solar Homes Partnership program. the incentive per Single-Family under the CA Energy Star New Homes F:\CVGBP\EE Ordinance\BOAA EE Ord doc Board ofAppeals and Advisors Meeting Date 09/14/09 Page 7 of 8 program is about $400 and $500 for CZ 7 and CZ 10, respectively,. For Multi-Family, the incentive per dwelling unit is $150 and $200 for CZ 7 and CZ 10, respectively. As for nonresidential projects, SDG&E has an incentive program called Savings By Design offering owner incentives of up to $150,000, and design team incentives of up to $50,000. Ihese incentives will reduce the upfiont cost for qualifying buildings.. Based on the average incremental costs and payback periods shown above, SDG&E incentives can potentially reduce the initial cost and payback period fora 3000 square foot new home that is 15% better than the 08 Standards and in CZ 7 as follows: Cii><Erat °f°of~l~ldg ~utral,~ i ,Zneen€i~xa I€`eddce~ %~o€I3fdg ~edi~t~ed r i b~l~$1 ''Coast ~ Pa~Uae~`s'~ ~ f$}; irnr~ial ~ Cantst $~YGae}~ _,...x, , , ' ,.v,.-+,.~`OB~` _ ? YS. t ~ t ' ~ s Cost . C`os~ ,7"3« , $ 1555 0.43 24 $400 $ 1155 0.32 $ 18 *Based on estimated building construction cost of $120 per square foot. Estimated ('omhined Cnet The table below shows the estimated combined incremental cost of the new 08 Standards, the proposed increased energy efficiency standards and the proposed Chula Vista Green Building Standards (separate ordinance) for a new single-family residence that is 15% and 20% above the 08 Standards in CZ 7 and CZ 10, respectively: „ ~y j~ S.v.v...Y,~' S-., 5...- ~...rr ~ S i,~ 1 F S i}..F e .m. Y ~ . i..::_~~Sk"§ u ~,~~+f_S 1~5~111'. C~~; f ~ S e.~ ^ 5 ~ ~ 1kv: ~4fp~° .'.'...3 ry, ~ 1 New 08 Standards (from current $0.55/sf $0.65/sf Stds. CV Green Building Stds (separate $0..60/sf $0,60/sf ordinance 15%Above 08 Stds. $0.62/sf 20% above 08 Stds. 1.3/sf Sum 1.77/sf 2.55/sf of Total Const. Cost * 1.48% 2.13% For 3 000 s ware foot residence $5 310 $7 650 SDG&E Incentive -$400 -$500 Ad'usted Cost $4 910 $7 150 Ad~usted cost/sf $1.64/sf $2.38/sf Ad'usted % of Total Const. Cost * %1.37 %1.98 * Based on estimated building construction cost of $120 per square foot„ Qther_hlrisdtctinns/Prngmm s the consultant informed staff that other jurisdictions he is assisting with adopting increased standazds aze considering requiring only 15% above the 08 Standards for both residential and non residential; San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa, Palo Alto, Berkley, Richmond, County of Santa Elena, County Sonoma, Maxin County and the City of Hayward. Also, Build-It-Green, a well recognized nonprofit organization that promotes green building and sustainability practices in California is setting the qualification level for their Green Point Rated program at 15% above the 08 Standards. Furthermore, the State is proposing changes to the voluntazy measures in the F:\CVGBP\EE Ordinance\BOAA EE Ord doc Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 09/14/09 Page 8 of 8 California Green Building Standards Code to provide a designation of CALGREEN Tier 1 and Iier 2 to buildings exceeding the minimum State standards by 15% and 30%, respectively. Rnilding Permit Feee Building permit fees will need to be adjusted to recover the cost of the additional staff time associated with plan review and inspection. the additional staff time will be accounted fox in a comprehensive building permit fee study which staff anticipates finalizing and presenting to Council in December 2009. Attachments: A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CIIY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 15,26 OF IHE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING SECIION 15,26.030, INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS B Climate Zones Map C Cost-Effectiveness Study F:\CVGBP\EE Ordinance\BOAA EE Ord doc Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPIER 15..26 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING SECTION 15 260.30, INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I. Findings The City Council finds as follows: - - _ 1- -Modf cations to the California Building SCaridards and Building Energy Eff ciency Standards, as detailed in this Ordinance, axe reasonably necessary due to local climatic conditions As a result of high sxuxuner ambient temperatures and periods of heat waves, average load demand and peak load demand of energy used in Chula Vista is an important factor concerning public safety and adverse economic impacts of power outages or power reductions. Reduction of total and peak energy use, as a result of incremental energy conservation measux es required by this Ordinance, will have local and regional benefits in the cost-effective reduction of energy costs for the building owner; additional available system energy capacity, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions„ 2. the increased energy efficiency standards required by Section 15.,26.,030 will require the diminution of energy consumption levels permitted by the 2008 ' Building Energy Efficiency Standards and are determined to be cost effective based on acost-effectiveness study by Gable Associates, LLC SECTION II That Chapter 15,26 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 15.26 ENERGY CODE Sections: 15..26.010 California Energy Code adopted by reference 15,26.020 Outdoor lighting zones, 15.26.030 Increased Energy Efficiency Standards i 15.26.010 California Energy Code adopted by reference. The City of Chula Vista adopts, by reference, that certain document known as the California Energy Code, set farth in Iitle 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, as copyrighted by, and as maybe amended from time to time by, the California Building Standards Commission, That California Energy Code is adopted as the energy code of the City of Chula Vista for the purpose of regulating building design H:\BLD_HSG\CVGB Ordinances\EE Ordinance\2003 Enemy Code Ordinance 122 doc Pale 7 of 4 ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPIER 15.26 OF IHE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING SECTION 15..26..030, INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS : the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I. Findings, the City Council finds as follows: - - - -1---Modifications-to theCalifomiaBuilding-Standards-and-Building-Energy - Efficiency Standards, as detailed in this Ordinance, axe reasonably necessary due to local climatic conditions, As a result of high srrmmex ambient temperatures and periods of heat waves, average load demand and peak load demand of energy used in Chula Vista is an important factor concerning public safety and adverse economic impacts of power outages ox power reductions. Reduction of total and peak energy use, as a result of incremental energy conservation measures required by this Ordinance, will have local and regional benefits in the cost-effective reduction of energy costs for the building owner; additional available system energy capacity, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 2, The increased energy efficiency standards required by Section 15.26.030 will require the diminution of energy consumption levels permitted by the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and are determined to be cost effective based on acost-effectiveness study by Gable Associates, LLC . SECTION IL That Chapter 15..2.6 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 15.26 ENERGY CODE Sections: 15,26.010 California Energy Code adopted by reference. 15.26 020 Outdoor lighting zones. 15.26.030 Increased Energy Efficiency Standards 15.26.010 California Energy Code adopted by reference. The City of Chula Vista adopts, by reference, that certain document known as the California Energy Code, set forth in Iitle 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, as copyrighted by, and as may be amended from time to time by, the California Building Standards Commission, That California Energy Code is adopted as the energy code of the City of Chula Vista for the purpose of regulating building design H:\BLD_HSG\CVGB Ordinances\EE Ordinance\2008 Energy Code Ordinance R2 doe Page t of 4 I and construction standards to increase efficiency in the use of energy for new residential and nonresidential buildings, excepting such portions as aze modified, or amended by this Chapter Chester 15 06 CVMC shall serve as the administrative organizational and enforcement rules and regulations for this Chapter. 15,.26.020 Outdoor lighting zones. Pursuant to Section 10-114 (c) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, the city has adopted an outdoor lighting zones map amending state default lighting zones as applied to certain areas of the City. The location of outdoor lighting zones in the City are per the adopted Outdoor Lighting Zones Map, dated September 2, 2005 and kept on file with the City Planning and Building Depaztment, 15.26.030 Increased EnerSV Efficiencv Standards A: Scope-The provisions-of thisSection-shall-appl-y-to-all ne~uresidential-construction, additions remodels and alterations and to all new non-residential construction, additions remodels and tenant improvements except as follows: a Additions remodels or alterations to existing low-rise (three stories or less) residential buildings where the addition remodel or alteration is less than or equal tol 000 square feet of conditioned floor area aze exempt from the provisions of this Section. b Additions remodels or alterations to existing high-rise residential (more than three stories) non-residential or hotel/motel buildings where the addition, remodel or alteration is less than or equal to10 000 square feet of conditioned floor area are exempt from the provisions of this Section. Compliance with the California Energy Code is always required even if the increased I ever y efficiency standards specified in this Section do not apply. B Definitions. Terms used in this Section are as defined in the California Energy Code and Chapter 15.06 19.06 and 19.48 of the Municipal Code. C. Requirements. In addition to the requirements of the California Enemy Code, applications for building permits covered under Section 15.26.030 (A) shall com rely with the followin>7: a. For Climate Zone 7: i. Ail new iow-rise residential buildings or additions, remodels or alterations to existing low-rise residential buildings where the additions, remodels or alterations are greater than 1 000 square feet of conditioned floor area shall use at least 15.0% less TDV Energy than the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards allows. ii. All new non- residential high-rise residential or hotel/motel buildings, or additions remodels or alterations to existing non- residential, high- rise residential or hotel/motel buildinis where the additions, remodels or alterations aze greater than 10 000 square feet of conditioned floor area shall use at least 15.0% less TDV Energy than the 2008 Building Enexgy_Efficiency Standards allows. H:\BLD HSG\CVGB Ordinances\EE Ordinance\2008 Energy Code Ordiname i22 doc Page 2 of 4 b. For Climate Zone 10: i All new low-iise residential buildings or additions, remodels or alterations to existing low-iise residential buildings where the additions, remodels or alterations are greater than 1 000 square feet of conditioned floor area shall use at least 20.0% less TDV Energy than the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards allows. ii All new non- residential high-rise residential ox hotel/motel buildings, or additions remodels or alterations to existing non- residential, high- rise residential or hotel/motel buildings where the additions, remodels or alterations axe greater than 10,000 square feet of conditioned floor area shall use at least 15.0% less TDV Enemy than the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards allows. D Compliance No building permit shall be issued unless the permit application demonstrates compliance with the requirements of Section 15.26.030 based on the performance approach as specified in the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards using a California Energy Commission approved enemy compliance software program. E Compliance Option for Buildings within Sectional Planning_Area (SPAT Plan Projects. Fox building construction within Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan project areas whose SPA is a~pxoved subsequent to the effective date of this Ordinance the developer may meet a portion of the requirements set forth under Section 15.26 030C provided the SPA Plan has met the qualifying enemy savings thresholds for community design and site planning features pursuant to the requirements as set forth in the SPA's approved Air Qualit Iy~m ~rovement Plan (A IP). If the approved AQIP has met the qualifying thresholds, the applicant may request and receive an enemy savings credit towards a portion of the requirements specified in Section 15.26.030C subject to approval by the Director of Development Services and subject to ap lip cable guidelines in effect at the time of the request for credit. F. Iechnical Assistance. The building official may require the applicant to retain the services of a consultant having expertise in energy efficiency techniques to review and evaluate complex systems and/or alternate methods of compliance and provide recommendations as to compliance with the requirements of Section 15 26 030 The cost of such consultant shall be paid b~pplicant. G Expiration Section 15 26 030 shall expire upon the date the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are no longer in effect. SECIION III. EFFECIIVE DAIS This ordinance will take effect and be in force thirty days after final passage.. H:\BLD HSG\CVGB Ordinances\EE Ordinance\2008 Energy Code Ordinance R2.doc Page 3 of 4 Submitted by: Approved as to farm by Gazy Halbert Bart Miesfeld Deputy City Manager/ City Attorney Director of Development Services H:~BLD_HSG\CVGB Ordinances~EE Ordinance\2008 Energy Code Ordinance R2 doc Page 4 of 4 a[i ~ jr1 I ~ s.-~ rat. U r _ rte,, I i ~ . ~``F' 4^~~ 1 ln`~ ...n.~ l ~ y~ ~~3 y, ~ ~ ( i Y {'r U ~aVn i~t ~ y ~_~r ` ~ j` P~ ~ 1. _ I `u _r~-. g _ ih~ Ey"ry a6' yl _+~[S i ~ .15.4 t {t.}.$ J ~ ~ C ~ z { ~ r ~ ~ ~ x i ~ ~ ~ ~ 2.. 1 n ~ 5 t ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ s ~ w ~ ~ ;sue,. ~ wY, ~ ~ Y t ~ ~ 3i'1~ 5 ~ ' ~ ~ i e LZ ff. ri14~ ~ tf i~...._ ~ d p r _ ? A _ ; ~ 1 G - t @ x Attachment C Cost-Effectiveness Case Studies Under the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards For the 2009 Chula Vista Energy Ordinance July 22, 2009 Report prepared for: Lou EI-Khazen, PE, CBO City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 409-1960 Email: lelkhazen@ci Chula-vista ca us Report prepared bv: Michael Gabel Gabel Associates, LLC 1818 Harmon Street, Suite #1 Berkeley, CA 94703 (510) 428-0803 mike .gabelenergy.com Table of Contents 1,.0 Executive Summa?y 1 2,.0 Impacts of the 2008 Standards 2 2.1 Single Family House Case Studies „ „ „ , . . „ „ . 3 2.2 Low-rise Multi-family Building Case Study „ „ „ , „ „ „ „ 8 2.3 High rise Residential Case Study..,....,..,...„„„„„„„„„„„,.„.„.„„..,..,. 11 2,.4 Nonresidential Building Case Study, „ „ „ . „ . „ „ . 16 3.0 Cost Effectiveness 22 3,.1 Climate Zone #7 Results „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ 23 3.2 Climate Zone #10 Results „ „ . „ „ . „ 45 4..0 Policy Recommendations....,.....„,...,...„,.„.....,..,...„„.„....,..„„ ..............67 1.0 Executive Summary Gabel Associates has researched and reviewed the feasibility and energy cost- effectiveness of permit applicants exceeding the state's 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which take effect January 1, 2010, in order to meet the minimum energy- efficiency requirements of a proposed Chula Vista Ordinance, The study contained in this report shall be included in Chula Vista's application to the California Energy Commission which must meet the requirements specified in Section 10-106 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, LOCALLY ADOPTED ENERGY STANDARDS.. The proposed Chula Vista ordinance shall be enforceable after the Commission has reviewed and approved the local energy standards as meeting all I requirements of Section 10-106; and the Ordinance has been filed with the Building Standards Commission, Case studies of several building designs were used to consider the cost-effectiveness of exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards in the two California climate zones within Chula Vista, Zones 7 and 10. The case studies have been used to consider the following questions for common building types in each climate zone: • What set of energy measures are needed to just meet the 2008 Standards? And what sets of additional measures are needed to reduce the standard TDV energy in KBtu/sf-yr by 10%, 15% and 20% for low-rise residential buildings; and by 10% for high-rise residential and nonresidential buildings, I • What is the incremental (added) construction cost of the various sets of energy measures? And what are those costs per square foot? ~ • What is the annual energy saving in each case study? What is the annual energy cost saving for each scenario? I • What is the Simple Payback for the added energy measures? • What is the CO2-equivalent reduction in emissions from each scenario (Ib /sf-yr)? j • What level or levels of energy efficiency that exceed the 2008 Standard appear I~, cost-effective in these climate zones? Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 1 2.0 Impacts of the New Ordinance Energy performance impacts of the Ordinance have been evaluated using several case studies which reflect a broad range of building types covered by the Ordinance • Two single family homes • A low-rise multi-family building • A high-rise residential building • A nonresidential (office) building Overall Case Study Method The methodology used in these case studies is based on the way that real buildings are designed and evaluated in just meeting or exceeding the energy standards,. (a) Each building design is tested for compliance with the 2008 Standards, The energy measures chosen are not all the prescriptive measures, but are a combination of measures which reflects how designers, builders and developers are likely to achieve a specified level of performance, For single family home designs, all four cardinal orientations are run to find the worst-case scenario for this step and in step (b) below. (b) Starting with a 2008 Standards minimally compliant set of measures, various items are changed to just reach the next increment of energy performance (e g, 10%, 15% and 20% better than Title 24) In this study, the design choices are based on many years of experience with architects, mechanical engineers and builders as well general knowledge of the relative incremental costs of most measures, (c) A minimum and maximum range of incremental costs of added energy measures is established by a variety of research means Site energy in INVh and Therms is calculated for each run to establish the annual energy savings, energy cost savings and C02-equivalent reductions in greenhouse gases, (d) Different metrics are generated to illustrate different aspects of cost-effectiveness by building type and climate zone, The goal of these case studies is to provide relatively real-world order-of-magnitude results for local jurisdictions attempting to understand and calibrate energy and cost impacts of local energy ordinances or local green building ordinances. In this limited study, no attempt has been made to gather statistically significant data that can be applied to all new construction projects and thereby determine the macro-effects of specific policy decisions. Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 2 2.1 Single Family House Case Studies House Designs. Atypical single family home design is modeled to just meet the overall TDV energy performance requirements of 2008 Title 24 standards using a 2008 Standards research version of Micropas Incremental improvements to building energy efficiency measures then are made to reduce TDV energy to: (a) 10% less than the 2008 standards; (b) 15% less than the 2008 standards; and, (c) 20% less than the 2008 standards, The following measures were first evaluated so that the house design just meets the 2008 standards in each climate zone, CLIMATE ZONE #7 Climate Zone #7: 2,025 SF 2-story home 2008 Title 24 Base Case, 20.2% total glazing area: • R-38 roof w/ radiant barrier • R-13 exterior walls • R-0 slab-on-grade, R-19 over garage at 2nd floor • Low E vinyl windows, U=0..40, SHGC=0,36 w/ no overhangs • Furnace: 80%AFUE; No Cooling • R-6.0 ducts in the attic • DHW: 50 gallon gas water heater, EF=0,62; no extra pipe insulation Climate Zone #7: 2,975 SF 2-story home 2008 Title 24 Base Case, 22.0% total glazing area: • R-38 roof w/ radiant barrier • R-15 exterior walls • R-0 slab-on-grade, R-19 over garage at 2"d floor • Low E vinyl windows, U=0.40, SHGC=0.36 w/ no overhangs • Furnace: 80%AFUE; No Cooling • R-6 0 ducts in the attic • DHW: 50 gallon gas water heater, EF=0.62; no extra pipe insulation Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page $ CLIMATE ZONE #10 Climate Zone #10: 2,025 SF 2-story home 2008 Title 24 Base Case, 20.2% total glazing area: R-38 roof w/ radiant barrier • R-15 exterior walls • R-0 slab-on-grade, R-19 over garage at 2"d floor • Low E2 vinyl windows, U=0,36, SHGC=0.30 w/ no overhangs • Furnace, 80%AFUE • Air Conditioner, 13,0 SEER: TXV +Refrig. Charge (HERS) • R-6 ducts in the attic • Reduced duct leakage/testing (HERS) • DHW: 50 gallon gas water heater, EF=0.62; w/all pipe insulation Climate Zone #10: 2,975 SF 2-story home 2008 Title 24 Base Case, 22..0% total glazing area: • R-38 roof w/ radiant barrier • R-15 exterior walls • R-0 slab-on-grade • Low E2 vinyl windows, U=0,36, SHGC=0,23 w/ no overhangs • Furnace, 80%AFUE • Air Conditioner, 13, 0 SEER / 11,0 EER (HERS): TXV +Refrig, Charge (HERS) • R-6 ducts in the attic • Reduced duct leakage/testing (HERS) • DHW: 50 gallon gas water heater, EF=0,62; no extra pipe insulation Enerqv Measures Needed to Exceed the 2008 Standards The following energy features have been modified from the above Title 24 set of measures so that the proposed design uses less TDV energy than the 2008 standards, The added first cost of that measure compared with the equivalent 2008 Title 24 design measure is listed to the right, and the sum of all incremental costs is listed, CLIMATE ZONE #7 (A-10%) 2,025 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerqv bV 10%) • R-15 wall: 2,550 sf @$0..12 to $0.20/sf $ 305 - 510 • Reduced duct leakage (installation testing & HERS inspection) $ 300 - 600 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 605 -1,110 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.30 to 0.55/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cosf = $858 or $0.42 /sf Ene~gyCost-Effectiveness Studyfo~CityofChulaVista 7/22/09 Page4 (A-15%) 2,025 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 15%) • R-15 wall: 2,550 sf @$0,12 to $0 20/sf $ 305 - 510 • Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0 36, SHGC=0,30 $ 550 - 615 409 sf @ $1.35 - $1,50/sf • Reduced duct leakage (installation testing & HERS inspection) $ 300 - 600 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 1,155 -1,725 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.57 to 0..85 /sq..ft. Average Incremental Cost = $1,440 or $0..71 /sf (A-20%) 2,025 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 20%) • R-15 wall: 2,550 sf @$0.12 to $0,20/sf $ 305 - 510 • Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0..30 $ 550 - 615 409 sf @ $1.35 - $1,50/sf • R-4.2 ducts (from R-6 0) $ (325 - 225) • Tankless gas DHW 0.80 EF (5 to 10 qpm) $ 900 - 1,500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 1,430 - 2,400 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.71 to 1.19 /sq..ft. Average Incremental Cost = $1,915 or $0,.95 /sf (A-10%) 2.975 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 10%) • R-13 walls (from R-15): 2,204 sf @$0,12 to $0.20/sf $ (440 - 265) • Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0,30 $ 885 - 980 655 sf @ $1,35 - $1.50/sf • Reduced duct leakage (installation testing & HERS inspection) $ 300 - 600 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 745 -1,315 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0..25 to 0..44 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $1,030 or $0..35 /sf IA-15%) 2,975 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 15%) • R-30 roof (from R-38): 1,775 sf @$0,10 to $0 15/sf $ (270 - 180) • R-13 walls (from R-15): 2,204 sf @$0 12 to $020/sf $ (440 - 265) • Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0,30 $ 885 - 980 655 sf @ $1.35 - $1,50/sf • Tankless gas DHW 0.80 EF (5 to 10 qpm) $ 900 - 1,500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 1,075 - 2,035 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0..36 to 0.68 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $1,555 or $0.,52 /sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 5 (A-20%) 2,975 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 20%) • R-8 attic ducts $ 275 - 375 • Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0 36, SHGC=0.30 $ 885 - 980 655 sf @ $1,35 - $1,50/sf • Tankless gas DHW 0.80 EF (5 to 10 qpm) $ 900 - 1,500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 2,060 - 2,855 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.69 to 0.96/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $2,458 or $0.83 /sf CLIMATE ZONE #10 IA-10%) 2,025 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 10%) • 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS) $ 500 - 1,500 • R-8 attic ducts $ 275 - 375 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 775 -1,875 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.38 to 0.93 /sq.ft. Average Incremenfal Cost = $1,325 or $0.65 /sf (A-15%) 2,025 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 15%) • R-30 floor over garage: 448 sf @ $0.12 to $0,20/sf $ 55 - 90 • 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS) $ 500 - 1,500 • No extra pipe insulation $ (200 - 150) • Tankless gas DHW 0.80 EF (5 to 10 qpm) $ 900 - 1,500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 1,255 - 2,940 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.62 to 1.45/sq..ft. Average Incremental Cost = $2,098 or $1„04 /sf (A-20%) 2,025 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 20%1 • R-30 floor over garage: 448 sf @ $0,12 to $020/sf $ 55 - 90 • 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS) $ 500 - 1,500 • No extra pipe insulation $ (200 - 150) • Quality insulation installation (includes HERS inspection) $ 250 - 350 • Tankless gas DHW. 0.80 EF (5 to 10 qpm) $ 900 - 1.500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 1,505 - 3,290 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.74 to 1.62/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $2,398 or $1.18 /sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 6 (A-10%) 2,975 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 10%) • R-13 walls (from R-15): 2,204 sf @$0 12 to $0,20/sf $ (440 - 265) • 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS) $ 500 - 1,500 • R-8 attic ducts $ 275 - 375 • Tankless gas DHW 0.80 EF (5 to 10 qpm) $ 900 - 1,500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 1,235 - 3,110 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.42 to 1..05 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $2,173 or' $0„73 /sf (A-15%) 2,975 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 15%) • R-13 walls (from R-15): 2,204 sf @$0,12 to $0,20/sf $ (440 - 265) • Super Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0,36, SHGC=0,23 $ 885 - 980 655 sf @ $1.35 - $1..50/sf • 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS) $ 500 - 1,500 • Tankless gas DHW 0.80 EF (5 to 10 qpm) $ 900 - 1,500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 1,845 - 3,715 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.62 to 1.25/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $2,780 or' $0.,93 /sf (A-20%) 2,975 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 20%) • Super Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=023 $ 885 - 980 655 sf @ $1,35 - $1.50/sf • Furnace, 90%AFUE (from 80%) $ 500- 1,000 • 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS) $ 500 - 1,500 • R-8 attic ducts $ 275 - 375 • Tankless gas DHW 0 80 EF (5 to 10 qpm) $ 900 - 1,500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 3,060 - 5,355 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 1.03 to 1.80 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $4,208 or $1..41 /sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 7 2.2 Low-rise Multi-family Building Case Study Building Design. Atypical 8-unit, 2-story low-rise multi-family building is modeled to just meet the overall TDV energy performance requirements of 2008 Title 24 standards using a 2008 Standards research version of Micropas, Incremental improvements to building energy efficiency measures then are made to reduce TDV energy to: (a) 10% less than the 2008 standards; (b) 15% less than the 2008 standards; (c) 20% less than the 2008 standards; and, The following measures were first evaluated so that the house design just meets the 2008 standards in each climate zone as follows: Climate Zone #7: 8,442 SF 2-story building 2008 Title 24 Base Case, 12.5% total glazing area: • R-30 roof, R-13 exterior walls, slab-on-grade 15t floor • Dual vinyl windows, U=0,40, SHGC=0,36 w/ no overhangs • Furnaces: 80%AFUE; No Cooling • R-4.2 ducts in the attic • DHW: 40 gallon gas water heater, EF=0,60; no extra pipe insulation Climate Zone #10: 8,442 SF 2-story building 2008 Title 24 Base Case, 12.5% total glazing area: • R-38 roof w/ radiant barrier, R-15 exterior walls, slab-on-grade 15t floor • House wrap • Dual vinyl windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0,30 w/ no overhangs • Furnaces: 80%AFUE • Air conditioner: 13.0 SEER, 10,0 EER • Reduced duct leakage (HERS measure) • R-8 ducts in the attic • DHW: 40 gallon gas water heater, EF=0,63; extra pipe insulation Enerav Measures Needed to Exceed the 2008 Standards The following energy features have been modified from the above Title 24 set of measures so that the proposed design uses less TDV energy than the 2008 standards. The added first cost of that measure compared with the equivalent 2008 Title 24 design measure is listed to the right, and the sum of all incremental costs is listed, Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chuta Vista, 7/22/09 Page 8 CLIMATE ZONE #7 (A-10%) 8,442 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 10%) • R-38 roof, 2,880 sf @$0,10 - $020 /sf $ 290 - 575 • R-6 ducts (from R-4 2) $ 1,000 - 1,400 • Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0.30 1,055sf@$1,00-$1,50/sf $ 1,055-1,585 • (8) 0.63 EF water heaters (from 0 60 EF) $ 800 - 1,600 • House wrap: 9 266 sf (a2 $0.08 to $0.12/sf $ 745 - 1,115 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 3,890 - 6,275 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.46 to 0.74 /sq,.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $5,083 or $0,.60 /sf (A-15%) 8,442 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 15%1 • R-38 roof, 2,880 sf @$0..10 - $0.20 /sf $ 290 - 575 • R-6 ducts (from R-4.2) $ 1,000 - 1,400 • Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0,30 1,055 sf @ $1.00 - $1.50/sf $ 1,055 - 1,585 • (8) 0 63 EF water heaters (from 0..60 EF) $ 800 - 1,600 • Reduced duct leakage (installation testing & HERS inspection) $ 2000 - 4000 • R-15 wall insulation: 9,266 sf @ $0.06 to $0,08 sf $ 560 - 745 • Pipe insulation Cc~$150 - $300/unit $ 1,200 - 2,400 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 6,905-12,305 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.82 to 1.46 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $9,605 or $1.14 /sf (A-20%) 8,442 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 20%) • R-19 roof, 2,880 sf @$0,19 - $022 /sf 635 - 545) • (8) 0.80 EF tankless water heaters (from 0..60 EF) $ 7,200 -12,000 • Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0,30 1,055 sf @ $1,00 - $1.50/sf $ 1,055 - 1,585 • No roof radiant barrier 2 880sf (a7-$0.12 to -$0.18/sf 520 - 3451 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 7,045 -12,785 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.83 to 1.51 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $9,915 or $1,.17 /sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 9 CLIMATE ZONE #10 (A-10%1 8,442 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Eneray by 10%) • R-6 ducts (from R-8) 1,600 - 1,000) • Reduced duct leakage (installation testing & HERS inspection) $ 2000 - 4000 • TXV/Refrig. Charge (HERS inspection) $ 300 - 500 • (8) 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioners $ 2,800 -10,800 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 3,500 -14,300 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.41 to 1.69 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $8,900 or $1..05 /sf (A-15%) 8,442 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 15%1 • Reduced duct leakage (installation testing & HERS inspection) $ 2000 - 4000 • TXV/Refrig, Charge (HERS inspection) $ 300 - 500 • Low-E3 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0,23 1,055 sf @ $1,35 - $1.50/sf $ 1,425 - 1,585 • (8) 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioners $ 2,800 -10,800 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 6,525 -16,885 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.77 to 2.00 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $11,705 or $1,.39 /sf (A-20%1 8.442 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 20%) • (8) 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioners $ 2,800 -10,800 • TXV/Refrig, Charge (HERS inspection) $ 300 - 500 • Reduced duct leakage (installation testing & HERS inspection) $ 2,000 - 4,000 • R-6 ducts (from R-8) 1,600 - 1,000) • No pipe insulation @$150 - $300/unit 2,400 - 1,200) • No house wrap: 9,266 sf @ $0,08 to $0..12/sf 1,115 - 745) • (8) 0.80 EF tankless water heaters (from 0.63 EF) $ 6.400 -10,400 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 6,385 - 22,755 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.76 to 2.70/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $14,570 or $1,.73 /sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 10 2.3 High-Residential Building Case Study High Residential Building Design. Atypical high-rise residential building has been modeled with a research version of EnergyPro has been used to evaluate compliance with the 2008 Nonresidential, Hotel/Motel and High-rise Residential standards The following measures were evaluated so the building just meets the 2008 standards Building Description: 36,800 SF, 4 stories of apartments above a 1St floor retail level building, 35.2% Window Wall Ratio glazing area, w/ 40 dwelling units, including the following energy measures: Climate Zone #7 Base Case Measures Which Just Meet 2008 Title 24 • R-19 attic insulation, R-19 walls in metal stud exterior walls • Un-insulated (R-0) raised slab floor over parking garage; • Dual metal NFRC-rated Low-E windows: U-factor=0,48, SHGC=0,43 • (2) room heat pumps for each dwelling unit: HSPF=7.2, EER=10.2 • Central domestic hot water boiler, 80%AFUE; re-circulating system w/ timer and temperature controls; variable speed drive hot water pump Climate Zone #10 Base Case Measures Which Just Meet 2008 Title 24 • R-19 attic insulation, R-19 walls in metal stud exterior walls • Un-insulated (R-0) raised slab floor over parking garage; • Dual vinyl NFRC-rated Low-E windows: U-factor=0,.33, SHGC=O 30 • (2) room heat pumps for each dwelling unit: HSPF=7.2, EER=10.2 • Central domestic hot water boiler, 82.7% AFUE; re-circulating system w/ timer and temperature controls; variable speed drive hot water pump Energy Measures Needed to Exceed the 2008 Standards Under two different scenarios, (A) and (B), the following energy features have been modified from the above Title 24 set of measures so that the proposed design uses 10%, 15% and 20% Tess TDV energy than the 2008 standards. The added first cost of that measure compared with the equivalent 2008 Title 24 design measure is listed to the right, and the sum of all incremental costs is listed, CLIMATE ZONE #7 (A-10%) 36.800 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energy by 10%) • Low-E glazing: U=0.48, SHGC=0.35, 6,240 sf @ $1..50 - $1,80/sf $ 9,360 - 11,232 • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmittance=0,75 9 200 sf (7a. $0.55 - $0.75/sf $ 5,060 - 6,900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $14,420 - 18,132 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0,.39 to 0.49 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $16,276 or $0.44 /sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page ~ ~ IB-10%) 36,800 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 10%) • Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7 84 EER=11 2 80 units total @$180 - $300 each $14,400 - 24,000 • 82,7%AFUE hot water boiler $ 1,000 - 1,800 • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0,70, emmittance=0.75 9.200 sf (a7 $0.55 - $0.75/sf $ 5,060 - 6,900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $20,460 - 32,700 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft,,: $ 0.56 to 0.89 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $26,580 or $0.J2 /sf Climate Zone #7, Exceeding fhe 2008 Standards by 10% Average Incremental Cosf for Two Compliance Scenarios: $0.58 /sf (A-15%) 36,800 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 15%) • Low-E glazing: U=0,48, SHGC=0.35, 6,240 sf @ $1,50 - $1.80/sf $ 9,360 - 11,232 • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmittance=0.75 9,200 sf @ $0.55 - $0.75/sf $ 5,060 - 6,900 • (2) Munchkin boilers 92%AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each $ 3,000 - 5,000 • Premium efficiencv pump motors $ 300 - 500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $17,720 - 23,632 Incremental cost in $/sq..ft.: $ 0.48 to 0.64/sq.ft. Average Incremenfal Cost = $20,676 or $0..56 /sf (B-15%) 36,800 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 15%) • Low-E glazing: U=0.48, SHGC=0,35, 6,240 sf @ $1,50 - $1,80/sf $ 9,360 - 11,232 • Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7,84 EER=11,2 80 units total @$180 - $300 each $14,400 - 24,000 • (2) Munchkin boilers 92%AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each $ 3,000 - 5,000 • R-30 roof, 9.200 sf (cil $0.20 - $0.30/sf $ 1,840 - 2,760 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $28,600 - 42,992 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft,,: $ 0.78 to 1.17 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $35,796 or' $0..97/sf Climate Zone #7, Exceeding the 2008 Standards by 15% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios; $0.77/sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 12 (A-20%) 36,800 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 20%) • Low-E glazing: U=0..51, SHGC=O 23, 6,240 sf @ $3.50 - $5 00/sf $21,840 - 31,200 • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0..70, emmittance=075 9,200 sf @ $0.55 - $0 75/sf $ 5,060 - 6,900 • R-4, 1+" spray-on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 sf $13,800 - 23,000 @$1,50 - $2.50/sf • 82.7%AFUEhot water boiler $ 1,000 - 1,800 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $41,700 - 62,900 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 1.13 to 1..71 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $52,300 or $1..42 /sf (B-20%) 36,800 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 20%) • Low-E glazing: U=0,48, SHGC=0,35, ' 6,240 sf @ $1,50 - $1,80/sf $ 9,360 - 11,232 • Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7,84 EER=11 2 80 units total @$180 - $300 each $14,400 - 24,000 • (2) Munchkin boilers 92% AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each $ 3,000 - 5,000 • R-4, 1+" spray-on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 sf $13,800 - 23,000 @$1..50 - $2,50/sf • R-38 + R-6.5 Cool Roof, 9,200 sf (7a. $1.55 - $2.00/sf $14,260 - 18,400 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $54,820 - 81,632 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 1.49 to 2.22 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $68,226 or $1,.85 /sf Climate Zone #7, Exceeding fhe 2008 Standards by 20% ' Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $1.64 /sf CLIMATE ZONE #10 ° ° A-10 36 800 s .ft. Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Ener b 10 ( ) Q ( qV V ) • Super Low-E glazing: U=0.48, SHGC=O 22, 6,240 sf @ $1,35 - $1,50/sf $ 8,425 - 9,360 • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmittance=075 9.200 sf Cad $0.55 - $0.75/sf $ 5,060 - 6.900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $13,485 - 16,260 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0..37 to 0.44/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $14,873 or $0.40/sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 13 (B-10%) 36,800 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerpV bV 10%) • R-3 2 (1 K-13 spray-on insulation under raised floor 9,200 sf @ $1.20 - $1,50/sf $11,040 - 13,800 • Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7 84 EER=11.2 80 units total @$180 - $300 each $14,400 - 24,000 • R-38 roof 9 200 sf aC~ $0.30 - $0.40/sf $ 5,060 - 6,900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $30,500 - 44,700 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.83 to 1.21 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $37,600 or $1..02 /sf Climate Zone #10, Exceeding the 2008 Standards by 10% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $0.71 /sf (A-15%) 36,800 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energy by 15%) • Super Low-E glazing: U=0..48, SHGC=0.22, 6,240 sf @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf $ 8,425 - 9,360 • (2) Munchkin boilers 92%AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each $ 3,000 - 5,000 • R-6, 2" spray-on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 sf $ 20,700 - 29,900 @$2 25 - $3 25/sf • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0,70, emmittance=0..75 9 200 sf (a) $0.55 - $0.75/sf $ 5,060 - 6.900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 37,185 - 51,160 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 1.01 to 1.39 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $44,173 or $1..20 /sf IB-15%) 36,800 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 15%) • R-6, 2" spray-on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 sf $ 20,700 - 29,900 @$2,25 - $3.25/sf • (2) Munchkin boilers 92% AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each $ 3,000 - 5,000 • Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7,84 EER=11 2 80 units total @$180 - $300 each $ 14,400 - 24,000 • R-38 roof, 9,200 sf @ $0.30 - $0.40/sf $ 5,060 - 6,900 • 18% Net Solar Fraction solar hot water $ 40.000 - 56,000 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 83,160 -113,800 Incremental cost in $/sq..ft.: $ 2..26 to 3.09 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $98,480 or' $2..68 /sf Climate Zone #10, Exceeding the 2008 Standards by 15% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios; $1,94 /sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 14 (A-20%) 36,800 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energy by 20%) • Super Low-E glazing: U=0,48, SHGC=022, 6,240 sf @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf $ 8,425 - 9,360 • R-6, 2" spray-on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 sf $ 20,700 - 29,900 @$225 - $3,25/sf • (2) Munchkin boilers 92%AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each $ 3,000 - 5,000 • Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7.84 EER=112 80 units total @$180 - $300 each $ 14,400 - 24,000 • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0,70, emmittance=0.75 9 200 sf (7a. $0.55 - $0.75/sf $ 5,060 - 6,900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 51,585 - 75,160 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 1.40 to 2.04 /sq..ft. Average Incremental Cost = $63,373 or $1,.72 /sf (B-20%) 36.800 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerov by 20%) • R-6, 2" spray-on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 sf $ 20,700 - 29,900 @$225 - $325/sf • (2) Munchkin boilers 92%AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each $ 3,000 - 5,000 • Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7.84 EER=112 80 units total @$180 - $300 each $ 14,400 - 24,000 • R-38 roof, 9,200 sf @ $0,30 - $0,40/sf $ 5,060 - 6,900 • 45% Net Solar Fraction solar hot water $100.000 - 120,000 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $143,160 - 185,800 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 3.89 to 5.05 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $164,480 or $4.47/sf Climate Zone #10, Exceeding fhe 2008 Standards by 20% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $3,10/sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22109 Page 15 2.4 Nonresidential Building Case Study Nonresidential Building Design. Atypical office building has been modeled with a research version of EnergyPro has been used to evaluate compliance with the 2008 Nonresidential, Hotel/Motel and High-rise Residential standards The following measures were evaluated so the building just meets the 2008 standards. Building Description: 52,900 SF, 5 stories, 32,5% Window Wall Ratio glazing areaincluding the following energy measures: Climate Zone #7 Base Case Measures Which Just Meet 2008 Title 24 • R-30 cool roof reflectance=0,70, emmittance=0.75 • R-19 in metal frame exterior walls, slab-on-grade 1SC floor; • NFRC-rated Low-E windows: U-factor=0..50, SHGCc=0,38 (e.g., Viracon VE 1-2M) w/ no exterior shading • Lighting = 0, 885 w/sf: 650 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures @ 62w each and 250 26w CFLs @ 26 w each; no lighting controls • 4 identical Packaged VAV units: Aaron 25 ton, EER=10,4, 10,000 CFM, standard efficiency fan motors, 30% VAV boxes w/ reheat • Ducts in conditioned space, R-4.2 duct insulation • Service hot water: standard gas tank water heater Climate Zone #10 Base Case Measures Which Just Meet 2008 Title 24 • R-30 roof, R-19 in metal frame exterior walls, slab-on-grade 1St floor; • NFRC-rated Low-E windows: U-factor=0.50, SHGCc=0.38 (e.g., Viracon VE 1-2M) w/ substantial overhang on the 1St floor only Lighting = 0 885 w/sf: 650 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures with high efficiency instant start ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 50 input watts; and 250 26w CFLs @ 26w each; no lighting controls • 4 identical Packaged VAV units: Aaron 25 ton, EER=10,4, 10,000 CFM, standard efficiency fan motors, 30% VAV boxes w/ reheat • Ducts in conditioned space, R-4.2 duct insulation Service hot water: standard gas tank water heater Energy Measures Needed to Exceed the 2008 Standards Under two different scenarios, (A) and (B), the following energy features have been modified from the above Title 24 set of measures so that the proposed design uses 10%, 15% and 20% less TDV energy than the 2008 standards. The added first cost of that measure compared with the equivalent 2008 Title 24 design measure is listed to the right, and the sum of all incremental costs is listed.. Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 16 CLIMATE ZONE #7 IA-10%) 52.900 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 10%) • 650 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures with high efficiency instant start ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 50 input watts @$25,00 - $30,00/fixture; Installed LPD=0.703 w/ OS listed below $16,250 - 19,500 • 90 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures; $ 5,850 - 7,650 @$65,00 - $85,00 each • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmittance=0,75 9 200 sf (cil $0.55 - $0.75/sf $ 5.060 - 6,900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $27,160 - 34,050 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.51 to 0.64 /sq..ft. Average Incremental Cosf = $30,605 or $0,.58 /sf (B-10%) 52,900 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 10%) • 650 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures with high efficiency instant start ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 50 input watts @$25..00 - $30,00/fixture; Installed LPD=0,737 $16,250 - 19,500 • U=0,50, SHGCc=0,31 (e g , Viracon VE 2-2M) $15,680 - 23,520 7,840 sf @$2.00 - 3,00/sq ft (excludes 1St floor glazing) • R-30 roof (no cool roof) 9 200 sf (a) $0.25 - $0.35/sf 2,300 - 3,220) Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $29,630 - 39,800 Incremental cost in $/sq..ft.: $ 0..56 to 0.75/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cosf = $34,715 or $0,.66 /sf Climate Zone #7. Exceeding the 2008 Standards by 10% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $0.62 /sf (A-15%) 52,900 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 15%) • 650 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures with high efficiency instant start ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 50 input watts @$25,00 - $30,00/fixture; Installed LPD=0,682 w/OS$ 16,250 - 19,500 • 90 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures; $ 5,850 - 7,650 @$65,00 - $85,00 each • 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures w/ 18w lamps @$175 - $250 each $ 8,750 - 12,500 • (5) Trane 25 ton units, EER=11..0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each w/ premium fan motors $ 45,000 - 65,000 • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmittance=0.75 9 200 sf (cil $0.55 - $0.75/sf $ 5,060 - 6,900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 80,910 -111,550 Incremental cost in $/sq,.ft.: $ 1.53 to 2..11 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cosf = $96,230 or $1..82 /sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 17 (B-15%) 52,900 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 15%) • 650 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures with high efficiency instant start ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 50 input watts @$25,00 - $30 00/fixture; Installed LPD=O 737 $ 16,250 - 19,500 • U=0,50, SHGCc=0.31 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-2M) $ 15,680 - 23,520 7,840 sf @$2.00 - 3,00/sq ft, (excludes 1St floor glazing) • (5) Trane 25 ton units, EER=11,0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each w/ premium fan motors $ 45,000 - 65,000 • R-30 roof (no cool roofl 9 200 sf ~ $0.25 - $0.35/sf 2.300 - 3,220) Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 74,630 -104,800 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 1.41 to 1.98/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cosf = $89,715 or $1,.70 /sf Climate Zone #7, Exceeding the 2008 Standards by 15% Average Incremental Cosf for Two Compliance Scenarios: $1.76 /sf (A-20%) 52,900 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 20%) • 650 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures with high efficiency instant start ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 50 input watts @$25,00 - $30,00/fixture; Installed LPD=0682 w/OS$ 16,250 - 19,500 • 90 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures; $ 5,850 - 7,650 @$65.00 - $85.00 each • 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures w/ 18w lamps @$175 - $250 each $ 8,750 - 12,500 • U=0,50, SHGCc=0.31 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-2M) $ 15,680 - 23,520 7,840 sf @$2.00 - 3.00/sq,ft, (excludes 1St floor glazing) • (5) Trane 25 ton units, EER=11,0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each w/ premium fan motors $ 45,000 - 65,000 • R-38 + R-6.5 Cool Roof 9.200 sf @ $1.55 - $2.00/sf $ 14,260 - 18.400 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $105,790 - 146,570 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 2.00 to 2..77 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $126,180 or $2..39/sf Only one practical combination of energy measures was able to achieve 20% better- than-Title 24 using a mixture of `A" and "8"features. Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 18 CLIMATE ZONE #10 (A-10%) 52,900 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energy by 10%) • U=0.50, SHGCc=0,31 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-2M) $15,680 - 23,520 7,840 sf @$2.00 - 3..00/sq ft (excludes 15t floor glazing) • 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures w/ 18w lamps @$175 - $250 each $ 8,750 - 12,500 • 90 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures; $ 5,850 - 7,650 @$65.00 - $85,00 each • 1" R-6.5 rigid insulation + R-19 metal frame walls 20,730 sf @ $1.75 - 2,25/sq,ft, $36,280 - 46,645 • R-38 roof 9 200 sf Car7 $0.10 - $0.20/sf $ 5,060 - 6.900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $71,620 - 97,215 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 1.35 to 1.84 /sq..ft. Average Incremental Cost = $84,418 or $1.60 /sf IB-10%) 52,900 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerpy by 10%) • U=0,50, SHGCc=0.31 (e g ,Viracon VE 2-2M) $15,680 - 23,520 7,840 sf @$2.00 - 3..00/sq,ft, (excludes 15t floor glazing) • 90 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures; $ 5,850 - 7,650 @$65.00 - $85,00 each • (5) Trane 30 ton units, EER=11,0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each w/ premium fan motors $45,000 - 65,000 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $66,530 - 96,170 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 1.26 to 1.82 /sq..ft. Average Incremental Cost = $81,350 or $1..54 /sf Climate Zone #10, Exceeding the 2008 Standards by 10% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $1.57/sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 19 (A-15%) 52,900 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energy by 15%1 • U=0.50, SHGCc=0..31 (e.g ,Viracon VE 2-2M) $ 15,680 - 23,520 7,840 sf @$2 00 - 3.00/sq,ft (excludes 1St floor glazing) • 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures w/ 18w lamps @$175 - $250 each $ 8,750 - 12,500 • 100 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures; $ 6,500 - 8,500 @$65.00 - $85,00 each • 1" R-6.5 rigid insulation + R-19 metal frame walls 20,730 sf @ $1.75 - 2.25/sq ft, $ 36,280 - 46,645 • (5) Trane 30 ton units, EER=11..0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each w! premium fan motors $ 45.000 - 65,000 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $112,210 - 156,165 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft,,: $ 2.12 to 2.95 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $134,188 or$2,.52/sf IB-15%) 52,900 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energv by 15%) • U=0,50, SHGCc=0,22 (e g ,Viracon VE 2-55) $ 27,740 - 35,280 7,840 sf @$3,50 - 4,50/sq,ft (excludes 1St floor glazing) • 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures w/ 18w lamps @$175 - $250 each $ 8,750 - 12,500 • 100 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures; $ 6,500 - 8,500 0$65.00 - $85.00 each • Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 42,990 - 56,280 Incremental cost in $/sq..ft.: $ 0.81 to 1..06 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $49,635 or $0,.94 /sf Climate Zone #10, Exceeding the 2008 Standards by 15% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios; $1.74 /sf Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 20 (A-20%) 52.900 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energy by 20%) • U=0..50, SHGCc=0,22 (e g , Viracon VE 2-55) $ 27,740 - 35,280 7,840 sf @$3, 50 - 4..50/sq ft (excludes 15t floor glazing) • 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures w/ 18w lamps @$175 - $250 each $ 8,750 - 12,500 • 100 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures; $ 6,500 - 8,500 @$65,00 - $85 00 each • 1" R-6.5 rigid insulation + R-19 metal frame walls 20,730 sf @ $1.75 - 2,25/sq,ft, $ 36,280 - 46,645 • (5) Trane 30 ton units, EER=11 0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each w/ premium fan motors $ 45,000 - 65,000 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $124,270 - 167,925 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft,,: $ 2.35 to 3.17/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $146,098 or $2..76 /sf Only one practical combination of energy measures was able to achieve 20% better- than-Title 24 using a mixture of °A" and "8" features, Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista 7/22/09 Page 21 3.0 Cost Effectiveness The tables in this section are based upon the following: • Incremental site electricity (kWh) and natural gas (therms) saved per year as calculated using the state-approved energy compliance software; • Average utility rates for residential buildings: $0,187/kWh for electricity and $1.14/therm for natural gas (in constant dollars); for nonresidential buildings: $0.194/kWh for electricity and $0.944/therm for natural gas (in constant dollars) The assumption that there is no change (i e , no inflation or deflation) in utility rates in constant dollars over time The assumption that there is no increase in summer temperatures even though most scientific studies predict that global climate change will increase temperatures in the Western U S which will increase air conditioning energy use • Simple Payback includes neither the cost of financing nor any external cost associated with global climate change A set of energy measures is generally considered cost-effectiveness if the payback is less than the average useful life of those measures, In residential construction, for example, most energy measures will typically last at least 15 years, and most will not function beyond 30 years.. So energy measures with a payback of around 15 years or less would usually be cost-effective, and a payback beyond 30 years usually would not. Paybacks between 15 and 30 years may be cost-effective depending on the weighted average useful life of the measures selected, Also note that paybacks depend on the specific selection of energy measures, how they perform in a specific building design in a particular climate zone, and what the first costs are for those measures, The data summarized here is intended to be only illustrative, not comprehensive or definitive, in demonstrating the scale of typical results and the variability of results depending on the selection of energy measures and assumed first costs.. Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 22 3.1 CLIMATE ZONE #7 RESULTS Figure 3-CZ7a-1: Added First Cost - 2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home -2,025 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $/Bldg: CZ7 Szso4 - , 51,504 i sIs 51,404 . . . $544 e... sa T24-lo;f T24-15°l T24-24% Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 23 Figure 3-CZ7a-2: Added First Cost - 2,975 sf 2-Story Single Family Home 2,975 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $JBldg: CZ~ sa aaa - - - Szsoa _ - - - - - _ sz,aao _ - - slsaa S1,oaa _ _ - Ssoa T24-la°lo T24-1s4~ T24-2a°/a Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 24 Figure 3-CZ7a-3: Added First Cost/Dwelling Unit, 2-Story Multifamily Building Lowrise Multifamily Incremental Cost ~ $/Unit CZ7 ~ ~i,4oo si,zoo - I S7,ooo - $604 i $600 S4oo - - . - Szoo So T24-10°f° T24 15°,'° T24 20% Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 2$ Figure 3-CZ7b-1: Added First Cost/Sq.Ft., - 2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home ~ 2,Q2S sf Single Family Incremental Cost $ jSf: CZ7 $1 00 -I - i I $094 ~ I SO 80 I sago ~ i- Soso - - - - - - I So so ~ _ _ . S030 5020 Sa io $0.00 T2440°1o T~4-15°lo T24-?0% Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 26 Figure 3-C27b-2.: Added First Cost/Sq..Ft.., - 2,975 sf 2-Story Single Family Home 2,975 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $JSf: CZ7 500 Soso ; - - i Solo - - - I I so so - - - ' So SO i I $0 40 - I So ao L . So zo 50 10 So 00 - 3 T24-10°.o T"L4-15% T24-20°l0 J~ l Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 27 Figure 3-CZ7b-3: Added First Cost/Sq.Ft, 2-Story Multifamily Building ~wrise Multifamily Incremental Cost i $/5f: CZ7 si ao i I . S~ zo S7 00 - _ _ - Soso _ . 5a eo C------ i I ~ I So ao ! _ 5o zo _ So 00 _ T2A-1D% ~L4-15% T24-ZO°lo Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 28 Figure 3-CZ7c-7: Simple Payback of Energy Measures - 2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home 2,025 sf Single Family Simple Payback of----- Energy Measures (Years) CZ7 zos i - ~ zoo ~ 195 1~ o ~ 1s s d_,.._. - - - 18 0 . . . . 13 s 13 0 e.'----- . 165 1s o - - - 1s s _ - _ _ T24-10°Io 72A-SS% T24-zo°r~'~ Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 29 Figure 3-CZ7c-2: Simple Payback of Energy Measures - 2,975 sf 2-Story Single Family Home 2,975 sf Single Family Simple Payback of Energy Measures {Years) CZ7 35.0 30.0 _ 200 10.0 50 0 0 i T24-10°I° T24d5% T24~20% Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page $0 Figure 3-CZ7c-3: Simple Payback of Energy Measures 2-Story Multifamily Building I.owrise Multifamily Simple Payback of Energy Measures (Years) CZ7 ~ 3so 30 0 - 20.0 15.0 _ 10.0 sa _ a o T24-10% T24-15%a T24-201 Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 31 Figure 3-CZ7d-7: Annual Reduction in C02 in Lbs../Sg..Ft. in Single Family - 2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home 2,025 sf Single Family Annual C02 Reduction in Lbs./Sq.Ft. CZ7 ~ o so o ns - _ ono- _ . oss - _ - o so _ - I o zs : I n zo I o is - - o to - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - a as ~ - - - _ _ 000 ~ __I_ y T24101 T241S°JO --.-......T24~20°l0 i Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 32 ' Figure 3-CZ7d-2: Annual Reduction in CO2 in Lbs../Sq.Ft, in Single Family - 2,975 sf 2-Sfory Single Family Home 2,975 sf Single Family Annual C02 Reduction in ~bs.JSq.Ft. CZ7 o zs o zo . - _ - a is - € o to I i 0 05 1 _ ~ I i I T2~~-10°fa T2A-15°lo T24-20"!0 Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 3$ Figure 3-CZ7d-3: Annual Reduction in CO2 in Lbs../Sq..Ft.., 2-Story Multifamily Building Lowrise Multifamily Annual CCi2 Reduction in t.bs.jSq.Ft. CZ7 0.80 OJO - 060 050 0 X10 0 30 0 20 0.10 i T24-SO% T24-25°la R~-20~ Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 34 High-rise Residential Building: Climate Zone 7 10% Better-than-Title 24 The following high-rise residential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 10% in Climate Zone 7 as outlined in Section 2.3: Average Incremental Cost per Dwelling Unit: $ 536 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.58 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 12.5 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equivalent: 0.131bs./sq.ft.-year 15% Better-than-Title 24 The following high-rise residential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 15% in Climate Zone 7 as outlined in Section 2.3: Average Incremental Cost per Dwelling Unit: $ 706 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.77 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 11.7 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equivalent: 0.261bs„/sq.ft.-year 20% Better-than-Title 24 The following high-rise residential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 20% in Climate Zone 7 as outlined in Section 2,3: Average Incremental Cost per Dwelling Unit: $1,507 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 1,.64 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 16,.7 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equivalent: 0.23 lbs./sq.ft.-year Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 35 Figure 3-CZ7a-4: Added First Cost/Dwelling Unit, High-rise Residential Building _ _ ~ High-rise Res Incremental Cost $JUnit: ~ CZ7 S~soa - Si,aoo - - - - _ - _ si.zoa - - _ - - si,aoo - - - - - _ - Ssoa _ ssaa _ _ Saoa So - i 724-1a% T2445% T24-20% Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page $s Figure 3-CZ7b-4: Added First Cost/Sq..Ft,., High-rise Residential Building High-rise Res Cost $JSF: CZ7 51 so I 51 so L_._. I $1.40 ~ . . $120 51 p0 - - _ 3 ~ $0 SO z ~ ~ ~ i 1 5040 $0 20 $0 QO _ T24-10% TZ415°,n i24~2Q% Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 37 Figure 3-CZ7c-4.: Simple Payback of Energy Measures, High-rise Residential Building High-rise Res Simple Payback of Energy Measures {Yrs) CZ7 is a - - - lso - - 1A a 12 0 ~ _ ~ iao _ - - a o _ ~ o - a o _ zo 00 _ - rza-1o°~ Tza-is~ Tza-zo°,o Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page Figure 3-CZ7d-4: Annual Reducfion in CO2 in Lbs../Sq.,Ft,,, High-rise Residential Building High-rise Res Annual CU2 Reduction in Lbs.jSq,Ft. CZ7 0 30 0 25 . 020 0 TS 0 SO . 605 - 000 T24-10% T24-15°,~ T24-20% Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 39 Nonresidential Building: Climate Zone 7 10% Better-than-Title 24 The following nonresidential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 10% in Climate Zone 7 as outlined in Section 2 4: Average Incremental Cost per Building: $ 32,660 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.62 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 4.6 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equivalent: 0.30 lbs./sq.ft.-year 15% Better-than-Title 24 The following nonresidential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 15% in Climate Zone 7 as outlined in Section 2,4: Average Incremental Cost per Building: $ 92,973 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 1.76 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 8.1 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equivalent: 0.55 lbs./sq.ft.-year 20% Better-than-Title 24 The following nonresidential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 20% in Climate Zone 7 using only one combination of measures as outlined in Section 2 4: Incremental Cost per Building: $126,180 Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 2.39 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 8.5 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equivalent: 0.70 lbs./sq.ft.-year Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 40 Figure 3-CZ7a-5: Added First Cost/Dwelling Unit, Nonresidential Building (Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) Nonresidential Incremental Cost $/Bldg: CZ7 SZaopoo - - - - - I I szz4,o44 i I $140,040 j~ i 5$OA40 - . $60000 . ~ I i I SA0,444 ; i i I $24,444 ~ 54 ~ . ...._._____-_r TZ$-10°fo i2A-1S°Ti 724-20% Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 41 Figure 3-CZ7b-5,: Added Firsf Cost/Sq,.Ft., Nonresidential Building (Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) r_._._.._...__._.. _ _ _ Nonresidential Incremental Cost $/SF: CZ7 53.00 1 $Z.SO ---_.v.~___.___.__ i 3 3 52.00 I 51..50 I i i i 51.t}~ I I 50-SO I_.__ I I $D 00 T24~~~10°lo T24-15°lu T2A-20°ro Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 42 Figure 3-CZ7c-5: Simple Payback of Energy Measures, Nonresidential Building (Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) ------------Nonresidential Simple Payback of Energy Measures {Yrs) CZ7 9.0 - a a ~ - - _ - i 7.0 - _ 3 ~ ~ ~ e o - l50~_.. i ~ 4 0 ~ I I 3 4 i I za - - 3 I i I ~ o o - T24-10% T2A~~15°lU T24-20°0 ~ Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 43 Figure 3-CZ7d-4: Annual Reduction in CO2 in Lbs./Sq„Ff., Nonresidential Building (Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) Nonresidential Annual C02 Reduction in~~~ ~ lbs.jSg.Ft. CZ7 a ao . - - _ _ _ - - - 0 70 . a so _ _ oso - 0 40 ~ 0 34- 020 - ; OIO I O QO ; 1 8410°J6 T24 15"/o T24 20% I t ~ Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page als{ 3.2 CLIMATE ZONE #10 RESULTS Figure 3-CZ10a-1: Added First Cost- 2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home 2,fl25 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $/Bldg: CZ1O $3,000 . 52,500 j $1,500 d... . sz,oao - _ - 5soo - Sa - - - - - rza ro°;~ rza-is°,o rza-za°i~ Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 45 Figure 3-CZ10a-2.: Added First Cosf - 2,975 sf 2-Sfory Single Family Home ~ 2,975 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $/Bldg: CZ10 $4,Soo 54,000 - s~soo - - - - - - - i Sa,ooo_._..._..______________ - - - ~zsoo._ - S1sao _ . _ - X1,000 - - - _ - - Ssoo = - so _ _ T24~~QO°,% T24d5°.o T24-20°,~n Energy Cosf-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 46 Figure 3-CZ10a-3: Added First CosUOwelling Unit, 2-Story Multifamily Building Lowrise Multifamily Incremental Cost $/Unit CZ10 s2,ooa - - - $lsoo - - _ w___ _ I $1,400 51,200 51,000 $600 54oa _ 5200 50 T2410°io T24-1510 T24-20°l° Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 47 Figure 3-CZ10b-1: Added First CosUSq,Ft„ - 2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home 2,©25 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $/Sf: CZ1{7 S74a ~ ~ I si zo Sz oa - - - - saso ' I Soeo - - - SQ 40 SO 20 - $000 - T24-10°10 724-15°/a T24-2o% Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 48 Figure 3-CZ10b-2: Added First Cost/Sq..Ft, - 2,975 sf 2-Story Single Family Home 2,935 sf Single Family Incremental Cast $/Sf: CZ1fl s1$o - $140 ~ s1 zo 1 i I ~ S i oo ~ _ _ - - - - - - I ~ Soso) - ---_~__.__._-----_______m_ Soso - - 50.40 $0 20 so DD T24-10% 724-15°/n T2A-20°,0 Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 49 Figure 3-CZ10b-3; Added First Cost/Sq„Ff., 2-Story Multifamily Building Lowrise Multifamily Incremental Cost i $/Sf: CZ10 sz o0 - - _ $iso - 516n - - - - - 5 ~ 40 - - si 20 $ioo i $0 SO ~ i $0 GO $0 20 $0.00 - T2410°,$ T24-1S°,~o T24~20°.0 Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 5t) Figure 3-CZ10c-1: Simple Payback of Energy Measures - 2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home ~ 2,025 sf Single Family Simple Payback of Energy Measures {Years} CZ10 1s o - - - ' 14 5 1ao - - _ 135 13 0 . 12 5 120 3~ I 11 5 11 D T24~10°lu T2A~15°Jo T24~Z6% ! 3 Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 51 Figure 3-CZ10c-2: Simple Payback of Energy Measures - 2,975 sf 2-Story Single Family Home 2,975 sf Single Family Simple Payback of Energy Measures {Years) CZ10 u o zo s _ zo a i ' 3 1~ o r - - - - - 1s a--------- - - I 17 5 T24-10% T24-15°lo T24-20% Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 52 Figure 3-CZ10c-3: Simple Payback of Energy Measures 2-Story Multifamily Building ~ ~owrise Multifamily Simple Payback of Energy Measures tYears) CZ10 30 0 25 0 ~ 20 0 . I 15 0 ] l 10 0 5 0 0 0 T24-1096 TZ4-15% T2420°r Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 5$ Figure 3-CZ10d-1: Annual Reduction in CO2 in Lbs../Sq.Ft. in Single Family, 2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home 2,425 sf Single Family Annual C02 Reduction in Lbs.fSq.Ft, CZ1fl o ao - - - 0.50 - i 6.30 .j..------ - _.r_-.-._----- 020 b 10 _ 460 , .n... [ T2A~YOl T24-15% T2A-201 Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 54 Figure 3-CZ10d-2: Annual Reduction in CO2 in Lbs../Sq..Ft.. in Single Family, 2,975 sf 2-Story Single Family Home 2,975 sf Single Family Annual C02 Reduction in t.bs,/Sq.Ft. CZ1O 0.40 - - - - 0 35 030 ~ 025 _ 0 20 - 015 e 0.10 i ~ 005 I 000 T24~~10°!o T24~~15% T24-20% Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chuta Vista, 7/22/09 Page 55 Figure 3-CZ10d-3: Annual Reduction in CO2 in Lbs./Sq„Ft„ 2-Story Multifamily Building Lowrise Multifamily Annual CCi2 Reduction in Lbs.JSp.Ft. C22fl ~ o ~o - - - j 0.G6 ~ - 0.56 -I-...- - _ I 0 d6 , 0 26 . - 010 000 T24-10% T2AQSti 12d-20"fu Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 56 High-rise Residential Building: Climate Zone 10 10% Better-than-Title 24 The following high-rise residential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 10% in Climate Zone 10 as outlined in Section 2,3: Average Incremental Cost per Dwelling Unit: $ 656 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.71 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 12.8 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equivalent: 0.12 lbs./sq.ft.-year 15% Better-than-Title 24 The following high-rise residential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 15% in Climate Zone 10 as outlined by Case Study "A" in Section 2,3 (i.e., excluding the expensive solar hot water option in Case Study "B"): Average Incremental Cost per Dwelling Unit: $1,104 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 1.94 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 22..4 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equivalent: 0..42 lbs./sq.ft.-year 20% Better-than-Title 24 The following high-rise residential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 20% in Climate Zone 10 as outlined by Case Study "A" in Section 2,3 (i e., excluding the expensive solar hot water option in Case Study "B"): Average Incremental Cost per Dwelling Unit: $1,584 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 3.10 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 27.2 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equivalent: 0.62 lbs./sq.ft.-year Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 57 Figure 3-CZ10a-4: Added First Cost/Dwelling Unit, High-rise Residential Building High-rise Res Incremental Cost $/Unit: CZ10 $1,840 $1,600 ~ $1.400 3 $1,200 I $lAOO - - - $800; $600 $400 e.... $200 $0 T24-10% 724-SS°l T24-20°.io Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 58 Figure 3-CZ10b-4: Added First Cost/Sq.Ft., High-rise Residential Building High-rise Res Cost $f SF: CZ1fl $3 50 ; 3 i $3 00 -4~---_._------ - l $250 _ i i 52.00 - I $1.50 i 51 00 - 3 SO 50 1.___. SO 00 L , 7Z4 $0°la T2~~'15°lo T2440°I Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 59 Figure 3-CZ10c-4: Simple Payback of Energy Measures, High-rise Residential Building High-rise Res Simple Payback of Energy Measures{Yrs) CZ1d 30 0 - 25.0 - - - zoa - - uo - - _ io o , s o - 0 0 _ _ _ - - - V T2410°/a T2415°lo T2A-20°F 1 Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page s~ Figure 3-CZ10d-4: Annual Reduction in CO2 in Lbs./Sq,.Ft,., High-rise Residential Building Nigh-rise Res Annual C02 Reduction in ~ lbs./s~.~'t. czs~ o ~o 4 so - - 4 sa . ~ 0 40 T . _ 0 34 024 _ 024 ' 000 ~ ~ -f24-10°lu T24-15°fo T24-20°.0 Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 61 Nonresidential Building: Climate Zone 10 10% Better-than-Title 24 The following nonresidential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 10% in Climate Zone 10 as outlined in Section 2, 4: Average Incremental Cost per Building: $ 82,884 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 1..57 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 12..9 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equivalent: 0.36 lbs./sq.ft„- year 15% Better-than-Title 24 The following nonresidential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 15% in Climate Zone 10 as outlined in Section 2 4: Average Incremental Cost per Building: $107,769 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 1.74 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 9.7 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equivalent: 0.57 lbs./sq.ft.- year 20% Better-than-Title 24 The following nonresidential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 20% in Climate Zone 10 using only one combination of measures as outlined in Section 2 4: Incremental Cost per Building: $146,098 Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 2.76 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 10.3 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equivalent: 0.75 lbs./sq.ft.- year Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 62 Figure 3-CZ10a-5: Added First Cost/Dwelling Unif, Nonresidential Building (Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) Nonresidential Incremental Cost ~ $jBldg: CZ1U $z6o,oo0 ~ - - - i I r ~ $zzo,ooo f I i i $80,006 564,000 ~ $40,000 $20,000 A SO T24-10% T24-1S% T24-20°.0 i Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page s$ Figure 3-CZ10b-5: Added First Cost/Sq„Ft, Nonresidential Building (Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) ~ Nonresidential Incremental Cost $jSF: CZ1fl ~ Saaa sz so . ~ ~zao _ - - ~ ~i so ; _ .__w___ ..______w_~_ ~s ao _ - ~ ~ Soso So 00 _ T24-10% T2415°%o T24~26% Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista. 7/22/09 Page 64 Figure 3-CZ10c-5: Simple Payback of Energy Measures, Nonresidential Building (Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) Nonresidential Simple Payback of Energy Measures (Yrs) CZ10 14.0 - I 4 0 ~ 2 p - 0.0 = -~...__-,._..__.~..__i T24-10°la T24-151 724--20°l0 Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 65 Figure 3-CZ10d-4: Annual Reduction in CO2 in Lbs,•/Sq.Ft., Non?•esidential Building (Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) Nonresidential Annual CQ2 Reduction in Lbs.JSq.Ft. CZ1fl OSO 0.70 . 050 aso ~ ' ado ' - - I i 020 - 010 _ 000 ~ ~~i T2A-10% T24-15°!u T24-20% _ .......i Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 66 4.0 Policy Recommendations Performance vs. Prescriptive Approach While some local energy ordinances have in rare instances provided prescriptive options for local nonresidential envelope and lighting energy requirements, the performance approach has been implemented in all local ordinances for residential and nonresidential buildings as the most effective and cost-effective way to achieve higher levels of building energy efficiency, Rather than selecting specific energy measures as required, it is better to have the building industry determine how to reach energy-equivalence with the+ required efficiency level using the performance method. This is the approach used in a large variety of applications such as: • Utility incentive programs • State tax credits for solar PV systems (NSHP program) • GreenPoint Rated green building system • LEED green building system • Local energy ordinances • Multi-family affordable housing federal tax credits • Energy Star homes • Federal energy efficiency tax credits • HERS Phase 2 for Existing and New Homes (2010) Conversely, we strongly recommend against a local ordinance including required prescriptive measures that can be modeled in the performance method. i Certified Energy Plans Examiners (CEPEsJ ' The California Association of Building Energy Consultants (CABEC) sponsors and administers the Certified Energy Plans Examiner (CEPE) program for the Residential and Nonresidential Standards CEPE candidates must pass an examination to demonstrate knowledge of the applicable standards. Starting in 2009, they must also agree to share electronic files with authorized enforcement personnel, We recommend that local ordinances include a requirement within the ordinance or administratively require that the energy analysis and documentation either be prepared by an individual with the current applicable CEPE credential or that the Title 24 report be plan checked by a CEPE. Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 67