The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009/09/14 Board of Appeals & Advisors Agenda PacketBOARD OFAPPIt AND ADVISORS Meeting Date: 09/14/09 SUB.IECT 3q AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OP CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 15,260F THE CRULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING smrION 15.26.030, INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS SUBMITTED BY: Building Official On July 10, 200&,Councilapproved-Resolution No. 2009177 m which Co no cit adopted the - Implementation Plana for the Climate Change Working Croup (CCWG) measures, Measure 4 4, Green Building Standards, consists eI several components, one of which is the adoption of hiscreassured energy efficiency standards requiring residential and nonresidential buildings to be more energy effiolent than the Sons mandated building energy ofitcieney, standards. The proposed ordinance amends tine City's Energy Code add adopts Increased energy efficiency, standards. RECOMMENDATION: Re meramend In City Council the adoption of tine ordinance. DISCUSSION: Background The City has been a leader in climate protection policies and programs designed to reddee greenhouse gas emissions. Through his Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan, did City committed itseifto redwing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 20% below 1990 levels. The City's 2005 GHG eartissiones inventory indicated that:mndel citywide GHG levels had increased by 35% since 1990 due primarily to residential growth. As a result, the City Council diewhol staff to convene a Climate Change Womin; Group (CCWG) to develop recommendations to add to the City's existing Carbon Dioxide Reduetiou Plan and its portfolio of programs which would further reduce the (rmmrmity's 1peerhouse gas emissions. On April I, 2008, City Council adopted the CCWG sieven reeoounendatidns and directed MIT to return to Council with detailed Implementation plans. On July 10, 2008, Council approved Resolution No. 2008-197 in which Council adopted the implementation plans for the CCWG moderates and apiroved partial implementation of the nuisance based on fending levels. Measure 4 4, Greed Building Sluudands, codais4 of several components one of which is the adoption of increased onergy efficiency slandmds wilding eaidential and mrresidcntial buildings to be more energy efficient than the Stop mandated building, energyefficiency standards. The purposed ordinance amends the City's Energy Code FvIC Chapter 15.26) end odopm 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. Emthernme, it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions which will help mitigate the causes and effects of global etlmatc change and improve air and PnCw3BP133 OrdinimmBOAA C, Ord doc Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Bate 09/14/09 Page 2 of 8 aurum quality by reducing emissions firm wing mid acid rein forming pollntauts. Saving energy will economically benefit residents and businesses by reducing the rate of increase for energy prices and by reducing energy bills. 'Ihe initial Implementation plan for Measure p 4 proposed mandating new and retrofit residential and nonresidential projects to achieve carbon savings equivalent to exceediug current Sto Standards (05 Standards) by at least 15%. As staff worked on the details of the program, sniff realized that establishing a carbon savings benchmark as a means of complianeo is almost of its time and concluded that it will result in a program that is more complex thou it needs to be For the purpose of simplifying the program, while at the dame time achieving an equivalent level of energy savings, stall proposed to only reform projects as demonstrate that they have exceeded the 2008 Building Energy efficiency Surrounds (08 Standards) by a specific percentage. This compliance method iscon cletent with the structure, format and calculation methods of the California eocrgy efficiency Standards end is simple and clear for the building industry to understand and staff to enforce. In addition, stuff proposed m offer an energy credit option for building construction within Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan project auras where developers dan meet a portion of the increased energy efficiency requirements through community site esign measured. 2008 H 'l(j..nu F,r w Fffir �nry crzMam The 08 Standards, minimum standards mandated by the State, will take effect on January 1, 2010. The 08 Standard are about 15% m 20% more stnhgeat thza Ne current Standards. Increased standard of 15% and 20% above the 08 Standards are about 30% to 40% above the current Standards C'm rc inn 'Iho City falls within two climate zones (CZ); CZ 7 and CZ 10. The majority of the City fells within the mild CZ 7, and about 20%, the most cussedly part of the City, Who witirin lire harsher CZ 10, Attachment B, Climate Zones coup, delineates the two CZs. connnerA n acrA cr+nelarAa 'Ile proposed Ordinance requires new residential and nomssiderdial construction to be mom energy efficient than the Oft Standards as follows: CZ 7: New residential had nonresidential projects that fall within CZ 7 most be at least 15% more energy efficient than the 08 Standards, CZ 10: Now low-rise residential projects (three -stories or Tess) that fill within CZ 10 must be at least 20% 'note energy efficient than the 08 Standards, and new mnrcsidemlal, high-rise residential or hotel/motel projects that fall within CZ 10 must be at least l51s more energy efficient than Ne 08 Standards. In both climate zones, low-rise residential additions, remodels or alterations that are less than or equal to 1,000 square feet, and nonresidential, high-rise residential or hotellmmel additions, remodels or ahasfions that are less than or equal to 10,000 square feet, are exempt from the increased energy efficiency standards. rsvoanco(rd,�,,oOAe ee omen Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Dale 09/14/09 Page 3 o£8 r, Timm Rvergr, In older for Ne 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 area take effect The application submittal must include (1) The proposed standards as adopted by Council, (2) A study with supporting analysis showing Imw Ne City determined energy savings, (3) A sediment Nat the proposed standards will require buildings to be designed to consume no more energy Nan permitted by the State Building P gy Efficiency standards, and (4) The basis of Ne City's determination that the proposed standards arc cost effective. the determination that the standards are cost effective will need to be adapted by Council at a public hearing. After City Council place the proposed OrNnan ce on first reading staff will submit the application to tare CEC for [heir review and approval. After CEC approval, staff will bring the Ordinance to City Council for second reading and adoption. The CRC review and approval process can take up to three months. (AsCoffictresimnStudly In older to meet the CEC requirements, Ne City, with help flown San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), hired an energy consultant, Gable Associates, LLC (consult t), to perforin the required cost effectiveness analysis. The analysis is included as Attempted 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 stda ix It is a limited study and is not intended to determine the macro -effects of any specific policy decisions. The study easily ed exceeding the 08 Standards by 10%, 15% and 20% for low-rlse residential, high- rise and von-msdential projects. It took into account the two CZs the City falls wit; CZ 7 and CZ 10. The combinadon of energy efficiency men days used in the case studies to reach To various thresholds were based on the consultant's experience and professional judgment and not on a comprehensive analysis of all possible computations of energy efficiency measures. The table below shows the average incremental cost and the arrange simple payback period for the added energy measures as determined floor the case studies_ ll IIB ¢TYPe �/ _ _ Z7 _ CZIQ _ Inc] en 1 poll,isa poll,k 1 Pm cN�k�u Wp�� t [vc ctsn � I In le loans (AY&0 remts a,a2,000 &3000x H. kor 944 039 24 1719 ries 0.99 173 167 loo 1498 0.(r2 2 243V 20% 2187 0 t 16.4 Multi Family (8uni1a, 2atary, 8,442 sq. 10% 5083 4.60 26 8900 _I 05 27 IS°' 9605 1.14 32 11705 139 23.5 9915 1.17 IB 14570 1 3 I85 Iltgh-Riw Residential in goy curerhrtory aue11, 36,800 sq B_ lo% 21428 059 12.5 26237 0,71 128 ISk ]$336 0. 7 11.7 71392 19 224 2qy 60352 164 16] 114080 310 272 Nona 1tl Coup) (Sstory, 52900sq-0-) 10% 32 6 ISN j104 IZ. 8.1 92046 1,74 9_ 20°° 126180 239 85 146098 _ 276 103 F^VrVcnPC Ordm... Book F➢ O,d ao° Board mAppcala and Advisors Meeting Date 09/14/09 page 4 of 8 Incremental costs depend on the energy elbcicnry features used by the designannuilder to achieve compliance. Arry one building can achieve compliance in a number of ways aM thore£ore, Ne coat of complimwcan vary. Similarly, paybaeks depend on the specific selection of energy measures, how they perform in a pacific building design in a particular climate Zone, and what the First costs me for those measures. As stated in the study, "A set of emsgy measures is generally considered cost effective if the payback is less than the average useful life of those measorae. ru residential construction, for ro mple, most energy measures will typically last at least 15 years, and most will not function beyond 30 years Se energy measures with apaybaek of method 15 years or less would usually be coseffective, and a payback beyond 30 years usually would not. Paybacks; between 15 and 30 Years may be coseffective depending oil the weighted average useful life of the measures seleu4dY the useful life of insolation is about 50 years, for windows and doors is about 20 yeses, fin air beating/000ling units Is about 18 yeas and for domestic water healers is about 14 years. Charts 1 mid 2 below show the payback periods for CZ 7 and CZ 10, respectively: Chart 1 Payback Periods - CZ 7 35 30 25 r..... 20 15 _..l 10 a-'_.. _.._- _.-r . 5 0 T24+10% T24+15% T24+20% ti—SFD MF —a—HRR NR RrV mrEF Oa,,,,aeAA hp ON Eco Hoard of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 09/1409 Page5 of 3 Chart 2 Payback Periods -CZ 10 30 25 20- 15 LI 5 0 T24+10k T24+15% T24+20% �SFD .-MF - ."HRR - a —NR Chart 1 for CZ 7 shows the payback period for low-risemulb-family for she 15% level to be over die30-year lino, whereas fon the 20%level, the payback period is closer todue l5-yearline , This gives the notion that, in general, for low rise multi -family in CZ 7, the 20% level is more cost effective than the 15% level, winch is not the case. For the 20% level, the consultant introduced domertmeous trackless gas hot water heaters, a readily available but not a standard measure, instead of simply increasing the efficiency of stmdard measures sued as insulation or standard hot water heaters. noconsultantcould have introduced the m atantaneous mankless gas hot waar heaters at the 15% level and the payback period for the 15% level would have been close to or below the I5 -year lino making the 15% level more cost effective than the 20% level. This emphasizes what was previously noted that the combination of energy efficiency measures used in the case studies to much the various Wresholds do not represent a comprehensive analysis of all possible combinations ofevergy efficiency measures or the most teal effective combination. Formed May 6, emy Subcommittee The the Th cost-effectiveness cal study and stuff recommendation a the City Cowan anergy Sdd payback I'Iw iridal study consisted of naso studies analyzing the upfront incremortal cost and payback gy eflis resulting mficam 08 requiring low rise residential projects (dare resides or leas) to high-rise more energy residential by 1then oho 08 Fiat by 10°/a, proposed and tion and -on- residetial and high -mo renemyef by 10%. At teat time, staff proposed cerise low-rise residentialdnonresidential.si 15%more energy efficient pouked rte f t mansur s, and 10% for high-rise residential and ct of15ad The Subcommittee asked staff or os reside with additional information or the ff impact of 15% and E o above rhe 08 Standards with the consultant and include se s addition Scan wodned with SDG&E on amending Subcommittee cermet[ with the consultants include the aced stud cesc studies Sr15% abredove to are 0 Standards for August 3,both residential 2009 addpresented residential, study and purposed 1lo above the OS Stmdons for bothhionithatal and non-residential, and purposed sampling,anlowriseresidential additions and tial abortions that are less than or equal ss than o square kat, and high-rise post. I tial diti non-residential additions and alacknvs thataceless Men or equal es Ig000 square kat. Ir addition, stafF proposed including a placehdder n the otdfnanco for a ucvGmTF( I.....,uoan an oam, Board of Appeals and Advisers Meeting Date 09/14/09 Page 6 of 8 Poturo community wmm design energy credit option. The Subiroe modified staffs proposal snub a rowwnerd¢tlon to require 20% above the 08 Standards for low -use residential in CZ10, the brasher climate zone covering the most easterly paid of the City. Furthermore, the Subcommittee directed ataff t0 provide statistical data on the median size of residential additions in the City to help identify if the 1,000 square foot threshold for residential aciftiondaltuation is a reasouable sup Stuff met with bob Snbcomminee members individually and prevented the requested information and the reasoning for the 1,000 square foot low-rise residemiel additioNallemtion exemption threshold (discussed below). Bob members are lin support of the residential exemption threshold. Additions Rrmn ed Aro one Extauritionalmeduldrilds The consultant recommended exempting law -rise residential additions, remodels or alterations that are less than or equal to 1,000 square fvroS and high rise residential and momresmood al additions, remodels or alterations that are less than or equal in 10,000 square feet. Based on flu consultant's experience, small additions tend to have look payback periods especially if they have to pgadethe painting house to get the addition le meet the increased standards. It ports mora to mplaoc or organic an existing component bun simply heading a more energy efficient one in a new building. In addition, Che incremental cost is a larger percentage of the overall production cost for a small chip don ban a large addition. Furthermore, requiring the increased smindauis on these types of project, takes away be prescriptive compliance option which is comedy available to permit applicants. Tho proscriptive option is a simple prepackaged option where all new or slipped components will need to meed predetermined requirements. Typically, this option does not require the involvement of our energy consultant or computer analysisif the increased standards are to be required on smell additions or alterations, appllcams will have to Lose the performance option in demonstrate oompliance; a CEC approved compliance software which typically involves an energy wnmltant which adds coordination time and cost to the project. An=aur hnd'rrtn' I he proposed Ordinance includes an energy credit option fru building construction within Sectional Plarding Area (SPA) Plan project arrow whose SPA is approved subsequent to the effrefive date of the proposed Ordinance. Under this option, tier developer may meet a portion of the increased lemBY efficiency standard, provided the SPA Plan has satisfied be qualifying angry savings thresholds for community design and site plunning features established in the SPA's approved Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQP). TE the approved ACT safinfied the qualifying thresholds, the applicant may request and receive an energy savings credit towards a portion of the iuceamd standards subject to approval by the Director of Development Services and subject to applicable guideline, in effect at the time of the request for credit. This option Ordinariness energy savings early in the site planning process and provides flexibility, and recognizes savings though community site design. Impetus tes Homes built to at least 15% above the 08 Standards may qualify for incentive programs offered by SDC&e such as the CA bmergy Star Now Homes program or the New Solar Homes paMership program. The incentive per Single -Family under the CA basely Star Nov Homes eeWalsin ONP.. sPOAA es orae.. Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 09/14/09 Page ] 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 inomesidential projects, SDC&P 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. These oat ctives will reduce the upfront cost for qualifying buildings. Based on the average lrcnental costs and payback periods shown above, SDG&E incentives em potentially reduce rm One initial cost and payback period for a 3000 square not new home that is 155v bedn than the 08 Standards end in CZ ] as follows: Initial /of Bldg Based on astinesed building CuMtovon cost at $120 per aquae foot 1sGm�eV (`,mF'nrd f`n 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, nspnctively: _ New 08 St d da (fro boot Std C99 Ig% $0 55ul Initial f utile educed /oofRide fiducel Cast Clea. _ Cost Ptback (Ytp. (Sl 1 t I � fid Const Payback Cosh Cmnj b d43 za auo $1155 nv $Ix Based on astinesed building CuMtovon cost at $120 per aquae foot 1sGm�eV (`,mF'nrd f`n 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, nspnctively: _ New 08 St d da (fro boot Std C99 Ig% $0 55ul _CZ OI20% $0 65ol CVG Build SW (epamm ordine n l $060/sf $060/sf 15%Above 08 Suds- 0_.62/G20% above 08 Stds_ - 13�sfSum of Total Coast. Cost*_ $177/sf 1.48% $25$/sf% 2.1Far 3 000 square that residenc$5 f 310 ] 6 adSDG&P Incentive -$400 -$sonAd'rated Cost _$4910 $]150Ad'usted verdf IbFsf $238/sfAdjusted° of Toti-Const "1.}7 %1.9A Based on estimated building constmcfion cast of $120 per square foot. D .er i nN'rt' ne/P.ngtams The consultant ninformed naff that labor junsdiaiova be is Donating with adopting increased standards are considering requiring only 1501, above the 09 Standards for both residential and non resfdwtial; San Frmoisw, San lase, Santa Ross, Palo Alm, Berkley, Itlehmond, County of Santa Elena, County Sonoma, Merin County and the City of Hayward. Also, Build -It -Green, a well recognized nonprofit organ)/amen that promotes green building and sustainability Fractions in Cothran is setting the qualification level for their Green Point Rated program at 15G above the 08 Standards. Furthermore, the State is proposing changes to the voluntary measures in the recvaesrc o,m,...oea eA ex erode 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 Tier 2 to buildings exceeding the minimum State standards by 15% and 30%, respectively. Building PR 't Fr 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 fime will be accounted for in a comprehensive building permit fee study which staganticipates finalizing and presenting to Coanal or December 2009. Attachments: A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHHLA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.26 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODB AND ADDING SEC'HON 15.26.030, INCREASED ENERGY ITFICIE.NCY STANDARDS B. Climate Zones Map C. coat -Effectiveness Study AteachmentA ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.26 OF THE CINI.A VISTA DOE CPAI, CODE AND ADDING SECTION 15.26.030, INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTIONS. Findings, The City Council probe as follows: I. Modifications to the California Building Standards and Building Energy Efficula y Standards, as detailed N this Ordinance, are reasonably necessary due to local climatic conditions. As aresult of high summer ambient temperatures and periods of heat waves, average load demand and peak lead demand of energy used in Chula Vista is an Uportatrt 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 measures required by Ws Carbonate, will have local and regional benefits in the cost effective reduction it] energy costs for the btulding owner, additional available system energy capacity, and a reduction of greeWoose gas emissions. 2. The increased energy efficiency standards required by Section 15 26.030 will require [he diminution of energy consumption levels permitted by me 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and are determined to be cost effective based on a cost-effectiveness study by Gable Associates, LLC . SECTION If That Chapter 15.26of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read ss follows, Chapter 15.26 ENERGY CODE Sections'. 15 26.010 Califomia Energy Code adopted by tefu'®ice 1526-020 Outdoor lighting zones. 15 26,030 hicilemed EnergyOf ccienev Standuds 1526.010 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 Title 2e,, Part 6 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, as copyrighted by, and as may be amended Arm time to time by, the California Building Standards Commission. That California Energy Code is adopted as the orange code of the City of Chula Vista for the purpose of regulating building design HOLD Pigs 1 '14 ORDINANCENO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTF,R 1526 OF THE CHELA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING SECTION 1526-030, INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS The City Council ofthe City of Chula Vista docs ordain as follows: SECTIONI. Findings. The City Council finds as follows: — — -1-. -Modifications to pie California Building Standards and Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as detailed in this Ordinance, are reasonably necossary due to local climatic Concluded. As a result of Itgh summer ambient temperatures and periods of beat waves, aveiuge load demand mrd peak load demand of energy used in Chula Vista is au important picnic 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 cuugy wvservadon measures required by this Ordinance, will have local and regional beoefits in the costTeffeetive reduction of energy cost for the building owner, additional available system energy capacity, and a reduction in greeMouse gas emissions. 2. The mcrexsed energy efficiency standards required by Section 1526.030 will require the diminution of energy consumption levels permitted by the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and and determined to be cost effective based on a cost-effectiveness study by Gable Associates, LLC . SECTION IL That Chapter 15.26 of the Chula Vista Municipal Cede is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 15.26 ENERGY CODE seasons: 1526.010 Califomta Energy Code adopted by reference. 15 26.020 Outdoor lighting weed. 15.26.030 Increased Energy Efficiency Spending 15.26.010 California Energy Code adopted by rufurcuce. The City of Chula Vista adopts, by reference, that certain document known as the California Energy Code, set forth in Title 24,E 6 of the Caldonua Code of Regulations, is copyriSMe4 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 IIcan IywCvaoOld d,coine o,mnm.aeOB Pd+pay eudv UeI, c,NNw Post If and eenstmetion standards to increase efficiency in the use of energy for new residenfial and nonresidential buildings, eleapst esuch pomace _modified oam _reud;9.bv this Ch Ch 1506CVMC hal] h administrative. iz_atimial and effmQemeart rules and regulations for this Chaeta. 15.26.020 Outdoor lighting zones. PuT.suam to Section 10-114let of the California Code ofRegulators, Title 24, Part 1, me city has adopted an outdoor ighting zones map amending slide default lighting canes as applied to certain areas of the City. The location of outdoor IiShfing zones in the City are per tie odopled Fracture Lighting Zones Map, dated September 2, 2005 and kept on file earth the City Planning and Building Department 15.26.030 Increased Entrain EtRcicncv Standards A. Scope The Provisions of Section Full anally to all new residential construction additions remodels and alterations and to all new non-residential construction additions remodels and tent improve nen excex as 1'ol lows. a. Additions, remodels or alterations to contra low- True Nu en. stories or less) residemird buildings where the addition remorld or altervtio n is less than or eTLI to1000 square feet of conditioned floorwa are exmetfromLte provisions of this Section. b. Ad litre rs erne Bels r al eal'ons to ex'sCve high-Cse msidwtial (mom then three tonics) non iisidentild or hoteVmotel buildings where the addition model or alteration's less than or equal holo 000 square feet of conditioned Floor area are exempt from the Provisions of this Section Compliancewiah the California Erten Code is always required even if the incased energy efficiency standards specified in this Section do not apvlv. R. Defnidona Tams used in this Section arc as dcfincd in the California Energy Code and Charter 1506 1906 and 1948 of the Municipal Co& C. Requirements he additen to the regulremePis o f the Cali mmiaP ergvCode applications for build'nn nn'ts covered under Section 1526030 (A) shall comply with tis following) For Climate Lone 7, L All new low-rise residential buildings or additions, remodels or alteral'p rs to courting low-rise residential buildings wherethe additions models or alterations ue urerum[ than 1,000 square feet of conditioned floor area shall use at least 15.0%less TDV actgy thea the2008 Building Enerev Effloiennv Standards allows. rt All new non -re.ulderard high rise residential or hoteVmetel buildings or additions, remodels or cliental to dralug mon-residential hiall- rise residential or hotel/motel buildings where the additions remodels or alterarions aep� ter thea 10 000 square feet of conditioned floor area shall use at least 15 0% less I DV Enerev than the 2008 ➢ riding Energy Efficiency Standards allows IT um I IS GrrVGBDm,lanvsormmonnwa react CIL, Drown., aadw cacmra IF Lor ClimateZmc 10: i. All new low -r codential buildines or additions remodelsor rise _ elleratiuns to exieim low-use res'deatial 00 squaref}et the additions nrdela shelf use atl e2�sev 001 Energy than oe 2009 ned floor gain gy Efficiency aria Standards llo Eursev they the 2eOR az Bllne ePmeresl, hi high-rise residential ri. Alinemm-residential,for highation; todwfiing noneleticlu ial,hit, are resides. ntial or hotels iteaitl bioremexlstinthen-re4demlal Eels rise reaers are or hgr than 110 buildings chem the additions reno me or shimmall use a ere st 15t 0r than l0 000 revere fees the 20 Toned flog shell use f least ISL% tars TDV Bnernv than Iia 2008 Building Pmce¢v P.Blcinnev Shmd'aNs ullmers D_ Compliance No huildine permit shall be issued unless the pub eyp�tion demolonrams emmmiance with the icquinnionits of Section 15.26, 030 based on the vedrrna we approaal,'s specified in me 2008 Building L lyaLfficicey S� n AAIIn a Cahforn P Cmmrrwimi approved amrev compliance software PFogram. F Comlienee Option 0rr Buildinveset Ellin Sectional Thiamine Area (SPA) Plan plojeces For Whim constriction within Sectional Platy ne Area lSP2lPlan preject are whose SPA Sana approved Portion fth tctheeffective rtsset c of moth OrdrSectiow rhe developerhe SPAmeet Fla tort on t me greentremenm sat fotth wdcr thresholds dol 15 26-030C community SpA plan has metmefiahfv'necrcrev say'esthresholdsf<' inaunSPA's � and site planning fomums n uemw lbereuIfithe avw as setforth inthemet approved Aieshold,the;m t� him Iitemt mayPI TP)ta IftheapprovedAy haemes the ruatifv ds a Portion the atnTwri raw retreat in mtei rec an energy savings tress oval by a tort ec er Na retchr evelo ens Services in Section 1526D30C sainted er approval by the time Director of Development Services and subject to applicable m,iaeE�a wefftm at thgihngyf t� at for mean. P. servioeco aconenet. Tieing ranadise incoavreuuic(heaprllca6sg retanthe sola compltanshxvine expertise'n vefficiencv techn'wes to_review recdmmene motetscompliande wimthc yemecrecels of fSectionp12 30n recommendations such c ons. as to shall be compliance with the rc applicant mts of Section 1526 030- The cost of such consultant shell be paid by thcanvlicenr O. Expiration_ Section 15 26.030 shall eNphe meet the date the 2008 Buildine Energy FPicoucv Standards me no, Ionpe''n effect SECTION III. EFFECTIVE DAT'G. This ordinance wF l take effect and be in force thirty days after First passage Submitted by: Approved an to form by Gary Halbert A;ut Miesfeld Deputy CityMaua5er/ City Attorney Director of Development Services HSG6vGeoNNmres¢9onh... wvWB rWrU cob amwim R2 d" .g"ora 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 Elk"itzeo, PE, CBO City of Chula vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619)409-1960 Email'. IelkhazenQci.chula-visunciaus Report Prepared by Michael Gabel Gabel Associates, LLC 1818 Harmon Street, Suite #1 Berkeley, CA 94703 (510) 428-0803 miketSoabelenerpv.core Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................ 1 2.0 Impacts ofthe 2006 Standards ....................................... 2 2.1 Single Family House Case Studies .............................. 3 2.2 Low-rise Multi -family Building Case Study ....................... 6 2.3 High rise Residential Case Study ............................... 11 2.4 Nonresidential Building Case Study ............................. 16 3.0 Cost Effectiveness ................................................ 22 3.1 Climate Zone g2 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 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 cosscfiectiveness of exceeding she 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards in the two California climate zones within Chula Vista, Zones ] 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. • What is the moremental (added) construction cost of tine various sets of energy measures? And what are those costs per square foot? • Mat is the annual energy saving in each case study? Mat is the annual energy cost saving for each scenario? What is the Simple Payback for the added energy measures? • What is the CO2 -equivalent reduction In emissions from each scenario (Ib /sf-yr)? • What level or levels of energy efficiency that exceed the 2008 Standard appear cost-effective in these climate zones? tvxTymer£neevows shwa r ettv Cr mote mss, Move eoge1 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 tlesign 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 designersbuilders and developers are likely to achieve a specified level of performance. For single family home designs, all four caminal orientations are run to find Ne 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 hag, 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 KWh and Therms is calculated for each run to establish the annual energy savings, energy cost savings and CO2 -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 ominances or local green building eminences. In this limited study, no attempt has been made to gather statistically signifcant data that can be applied to all new construction projects and thereby determine the macro -effects of specific policy decisions. EwdyC IrfflocPoeoenc Study For Clly of Chute Vlsb,]¢%JB P%,2 2,7 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 #1: 2,025 SF 2mtory home 2008 Title 24 Base Case, 20.2% total glazing area'. • R-38 roof wl radiant barrier • R- 13 exterior walls • R-0 slab -on -grade, R-19 over garage at 2n° floor • Low E vinyl wintlows, U-0.40, SHGC=0.36 wl no overhangs • Furnace. 80%AFUE', No Cooling • R-6.0 ducts in the auto • DHW'. 50 gallon gas water heater, EF -0.62; no extra pipe insulation Climate Zone V: 2,575 SF 2 -story, home 2008 Title 24 Base Case, 22.0% WWI glazing area'. • R- 38 roof wl radiant barrier • R-15 exterior walls • R-0 slab -on -grade, R- 19 over garage at 2nd floor • Low E vinyl windows, U=0.40, SHGC=0.36 wl no overhangs • Furnace: 81 No Cooling • R-6.0 ducts in the attic • DHW: 50 gallon gas water heater, E17=0.82, no extra pipe insulation energy GoeiERbCJNvM6B Sirdy lot cry W Odub Vxw 72i pvvi5 CLIMATE ZONE #10 Climate Zone #10: 2,025 $F 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 2nd floor • Low E2 vinyl windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 w/no overhangs • Furnace, 80%AFUE • Air Conditioner, 13.0 SEER _TXV+ Re01g. Charge (HERS) • R-6 ducts in the attic • Reduced duct leakage/testing(HERS) • DHW: 50 gallon gas water heater, EF=D.fi2, w/ all pipe insulation Climate Zone #10: 2,915 SF 2Rri home 2008 Tige 24 Base Case, 22.0% total glazing area'. • R-38 roof w/ radiant barrier R-15 exterior walls • R-0 slabon-grade • Low E2 vinyl windows, U=0.36, SHGC=023 w/no overhangs • Furnace , 80% AERIE • At Conditioner, 13.0 SEER 111 0 EER (HERS): TXV+Rising. Charge (HERS) • R-6 ducts in the attic • Reduced duct leakagetlesting (HERS) • DHW'. 50 gallon gas water header, EF=0.62; no extra pipe Insulation 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 fust 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 #T IA -10l 2,025 soft IRsouction in 2005 T24 TDV Enemy by 10%1 • R-15 wall: 2,550 at 0$0.12 to $0.20/sf $ 305 - 510 • Reduced d t leakage (installation testing & HERS inspection) $ 300 - 600 Total Incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 505 -1,110 Incremental cost in$/sq.ft.: $ 0.30 to 0.55 lsidt. Average Incremental Cost= $858or$0.421sf EnWaYL oE9xemllss Srdy or ply or Ohula UMa,?2We Pop,4 A-15%) 2.0 5 soft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemy by 15% • R-15 wall: 2 550 sf @$0.12 to $0.20/sf $ 305 - 510 • Low -E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=630 $ 550 - 615 409 sf @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf Reduced duct leakage (installation testing 8 HERS'nsoedonl $ 300 - 600 Total Incremental coal of Ordinance energy measure: $1,155 -1,]25 Incremental cost in $Isq.t.: $ 0.57 to 0.85 /soft. Average Incremental Cost= $1,440or$OJ1/si A-20%) 2,025 sg t,IReduction in 2005 T24 TDV Enemy by 20% • R-15 wall: 2,550 at @$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 • R4.2 ducts (from RE.0) $ (325 - 225) Teri gas DHW 080 EF (5 to 10 ) $ 900- 1500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $1,430-2,400 Incremental coat in $/sq.ft: $ 0.71 to 1.191aq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $1,915 or $0.95/51 A-10%) 2.9 Ssq.t. (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-fador-0.36, SHGC=0.30 $ 885 - 980 655 sf @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf Reduced dud eakaqe Installation testil HERSinspection) $ 300 - 600 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 745-1,315 Incremental cost in$hq.t.: $0.25 to 0.44/sq.& Average Incremental Cost = $1,030 or $0.35 /sf (A-15%) 2.975 soft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemy by 15%1 • R 30 roof (from 1_ 1,775 sf @$0.10 to $0.15/sf $ (270 - 180) • R-13 walls (from R-15)'. 2,204 sf @$0.12 to $0.20/sf $ (440 - 265) • Low -E2 windows : U-faclor=0. 36, SHGC=0.30 $ 805 - 980 655 of @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf • Tankless gas DHW 080 EF to to 10 ) $ 900- 1500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $1,075.2,035 Incremental cost in $/soft.: $ 0.36 to 0.681sq.t. Average Incremental Cost = $1,555 or $0.52/s1 Enerercos,ow0wnws srwrfirr Ciy ofce„w V,xe, wovao veae5 AA -2 ,975 sq.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energy by 20% • R-8 attic duds $ 275 - 375 Low -E2 windows: u-factor=0.36, SHOO -0.30 $ 885 - 980 655 at @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf - 375 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: • Tankless DHW 080 EF (5 to 10 ) $ 900- 1,500 Total Incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $2,060-2,655 0.38 to 0.93 /sq.ft. Incremental cost in Itha L: $ 0.69 to 0.96 /sq.N. Average Incremental Cost = $2,458 or $0.83 /sf CLIMATE ZONE N10 AA( 10J_2,025 sq.R. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemy by 10% • 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS) $ 500-1,500 • R-eatticduds $ 275 - 375 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 775 .1,876 Incremental coat in tilaq.fl.: $ 0.38 to 0.93 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $1,325 or $0.65 /sf IA -15%) 2,025 sq.ft. (Reduction 12008 T24TDVE by 15%1 R-30 floor over garage'. 448 at @ $0.12 to $0.20/sf $ 55 - 90 • 15 SEEW12 EER air conditioner (HERS) $ 500-1,500 • No extra pipe insulation $ (200 - 150) • Tankless ass DHW 080 EF (5 to 10 drum $ 900- 1,500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $1,255- 2,940 Incremental cost In$/aq.fL: $ 0.62 to 1.46/sq.R, Average Incremental Cost = $2,096 or $1.04/si (A-20%1 2.025 s0.1t. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemy by 20%) • R-30 door over garage: 448 at @ $0.12 to $020/d $ 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 gym) $ 900- 1,500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $1,505-3,290 Incremental cost in$/sq.ft.: $ 0.74 to 1.62 lsq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $2,398 or $1.18 /sf enervr cost ermnwaness stmt' vraty orcnmo vna, 7s2v9 a,ee6 A-10%1 2.975 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemv, by 10 • R-13 walls (from R-15)'. 2,209 if 0$0.12 to $0.20/si $ (440 - 265) • 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (H ERS) $ 500-1,500 $ 500- • R-8 a0ic ducts $ 275 - 375 • Tankless gas DHW 0.80 EF IS to 10 nom) $ 900-1500 Tankless gas DHW 080 EF (5 to 10 gym) Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $1,235.3,110 Total Incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $3,060-5,355 Incremental cost in$laq.ft.: $0.42 to 1.05/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost= $2,173 or$0.737si (A-15%) 2.975 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 TM TDV Enemy by 15%1 • R-13 walls (from R-15): 2,204 elf @$0.12 to $0.20/si $ (440 - 265) • Super LowE2windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0.23 $ 885 - 980 655 at @ $1.35 - $150/sf • 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS) $ 500 - 1,600 • Tankless gas DHW. 060 EF(5 to 10 qpm) $ 900-1500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $1,845-3,715 Incremental cost In $Isq.ft.: $ 0.62 to 1.25 Imil it. Average Incremental Cost= $2,780 or$0.937si A-20%) 2.975 sq.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemy 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 • 16 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS) $ 500 - 1,500 • R-8 attic ducts $ 275 - 375 Tankless gas DHW 080 EF (5 to 10 gym) $ 900- 1,500 Total Incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $3,060-5,355 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft: It 1.03 to 1.80 /aq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $4,208 or $1.41 led ETy Cost£/kdl rvss Slow br Cllyol LM1ule v'Er Dlygp Pagel 2.2 Low-rise Multi -family Building Case Study Building Design. A typical 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; dd 15% less than the 2008 standards; (c) 20% less than the 2008 standards ', and, The following measures were bust evaluated so that the house design lust meets the 2008 standards in each climate zone as follows: Climate Zone 91: 8,442 SF 2 -story building 2008 Title 24 Base Case, 12.5% total glazing area. • R-30 roof, R-13 exterior walls, slab-onyrads 1"floor • Dual vinyl windows, U=0.40, Bill. 36 w/no overhangs • Furnaces : 80%AFUE', No Cooling • R4.2 ducal in the attic • Chilly, 40 gallon gas water heater, EF=0.80', no extra pipe insulation Climate Zone #10: 8,442 BE 2 -story building 2008 Title 24 Base Case, 12.5% total glazing area: • R-38 roof w/ radiant barrier, R-15 exlenor walls,slab-on-grade for floor House wrap • Dual vinyl windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 w/no overhangs • Furnaces : 80%AFUE • Air conditioner: 13.0 SEER, 100 EER Reduced duct leakage (HERS measure) • R-8 ducts in the pulp • DHW: 40 gallon gas water heater, EF=0.63; extra pipe insulation Energy Measures Needed to Exceed the 2008 Standards The following energy features have been modified from the above TiBe 24 set of measures so that the proposed design uses less TDV energy than the 2008 standards. The added frst 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. Eneryy Call Esollueness story ro. Gry or Chula WAe,]42(b vagoa CLIMATE ZONE 87 A-10%) 8,442 sq.N. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOV Energy by 10% • R-38 roof, 2, 880 sf@$0.10-$0,20Isf $ 290- 575 • R-6 ducts (from R-0.2) $ 1,000-1,400 • Low -E2 windows'. U -factor --0.36, SHGC=0.30 Low -E2 windows: U-fador=0.36, SHGC=030 1,055 sf@$100-$1.50/sf $ 1,055.-1,585 • (8) 0 63 EF water heaters (from 0.60 EF) $ 800 - 1,600 House wrap: 9266 sf (a3$008 to$012/sf $ 745-1115 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 3,890-6,275 Incremental coat in$/eq.ff.: IS 0.46 to 0.74/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $5,083 or $0.60 /sf A-15%) 8,442 so .& (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energy by 15% • R-38 roof, 2,880 sf @$0.10 - $0.20 /sf $ 290 - 575 • R-6 duds (from R-02) $ 1,000-1,400 Low -E2 windows: U-fador=0.36, SHGC=030 1055 sf@$1.00-$1.50/sf $ 1,055-1,585 (8) 0.63 EF water heaters (from 0.60 EF) $ 800 -1,600 Reduced dud leakage (installation testing 6 HERS inspection) $ 2000- 4000 • R-15 wall insulation'. 9,266 sf @ $0.0610 $0.08 sf $ 560- 745 • Pipe insulation e$150-$300/unt $ 1200-2400 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $6,905-12,305 Incremental cost In illia .: $ 0.82 to 1.46 /sq.R. Average Incremental Cost = $9,805 or $1.14 /si (4-20%) 8.442 sg.R. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energy by 20%1 • R-19 roof, 2,880 at @$0.19 - $0.22 /sf ($ 635- 545) • (8)0.80 EF tankless water heaters(from 060 EF) $],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 88 04012 to -$018/sf ($ 520- 345) Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 7,045.12,785 Incremental cost in $/sq.ft: It 0.83 to 1.51 Isq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $9,915 or $1.171sf Energy Co9-EHeelM1eness slay mr oily of WWe Nsk,7,e a9 Pe 9 CLIMATE ZONE N10 A-10%) 8,442 sa fl (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemy by 10% • R-6 ducts (from R-8) ($ 1,600- 1,000) • Reduced duct leakage (installation testing & HERS inspection) $ 2000- 4000 • TXV/Rdrig. 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 $Is0.R.: $ 0.41 to 1.69/si Average Incremental Cost = $8,900 or $1.05 Af A-15%) 8,442 sail (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energy by 15% • Reduced dud leakage (installation testing& HERS inspection) $ 2000- 4000 • TXV/Refrig. Charge (HERS inspection) $ 300 - 500 • Low -E3 windows: U-factor=0.3Q SHGC=023 $ 2,000- 4,000 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 $1i $0.11 to 2.00/s0.R. Average Incremental Cost = $11,705 or $1.99 /sf A-20%) 8,442 sa ft (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemy by 20% • (8)15 SEER/12 EER air conditioners $2,800-10,800 • TXV/Refrig. Charge (HERS inspection) $ 300 - 500 • Reduced dud leakage (installation testing & HERS inspection) $ 2,000- 4,000 • RE 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$0AVsf ($1,115- 145) • (8) 0 80 EF handless water heaters (from 0 63 EE) $ 6 400 -10 400 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $6,305-22,]55 Incremental cost In $Isq.ft $ 0.76 to 2.70 /si Average Incremental Cost = $14,570 or $1.13 /sf Enegy cost-ErceOVirirre® Stwv s, cry or mule vraa, lrzzns Pees 10 2.3 High -Residential Building Case Study High Residential Building Design A typical high-rise residential building has been modeled with a research version of EnergyPrc 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 1"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 and insulation ,R-19 walls in metal stud ederior walls • Un -insulated (R-0) eased 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=72, EER=10.2 • Central domestic hot water boiler, 80%AFUE, re -circulating system wl timer and temperature controls; variable speed drive hot water pump Climate Zone #10 Base Case Measures Mich 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=0.30 (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 Enemy Measures Needed to Exceed the 2008 Standards Under two different scenarios, (A) and (8), the following energy features have been modified from the above Ti0e 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. CLIMATE ZONE #1 (A-10%) X800 stuff. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energy by 10%) Low -E glazing'. U=048, SHGC=0.35, 6,240 at ® $1 50 - $1.80Isf $ 9,360 - 11 232 • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmittance=0.75 9.200 sf 0$055-$075Isf $ 5.060 - 6900 TOWI Incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $14,420 -18,132 Incremental cost in$leq.N.: $ 0.39 to 0.49 hall Ai earagelr cremental Cost= $16,276 or$0.44/s1 Energy c5a4cht"new study ror Cry or Chula vLtle,]Qy09 Fags 11 (B-10%) 36,800 earth (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemy by 10%) Higher efficiency heat pumps'. HSPF=7.84 EER=11.2 $ 9,360 - 11,232 80 units total @$160-$300 each $14,400 - 24,000 • 82.7% AFUE hot water boiler $ 1,000 - 1,800 • R-38 cool roof, re0e tance=0]Q emmihance=075 $ 3,000 - 5,000 9.200 sf e $0.55 - $0 751c' $ 5 060 - 6 900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $20p60 -32,700 Incremental cost In $Isa.f .: S 0.56 to 0.89 hat.ft. Avenge Incremental Cost= $26,560 or$0.72 /sf Climate Zone #7. Exceeding the 2008 Standards 6v 10% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios, $058 /s! A-15%1 36,800 so.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemv by 15% • Low -E glazing'. U=0.48, SHGC=0.35, 6, 240 sf@$1.50-$1.80Isf $ 9,360 - 11,232 • R-38 cool roof, reflectancee) 70, emmittance=0]5 9, 200 at@$0.55-$0]Slsf $ 5,060 - 6,900 • (2) Munchkin boilers 92% AFUE @$1,500-$2, 500 each $ 3,000 - 5,000 • Premium efficiency Pump motors $ 300 - 500 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $17,720 - 23,632 Incremental cost in $lsq.ft.: $ 0.48 to 0.641sa.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $20,676 or $0.58 /st BB -0 S%L36,800 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemv by 15% Low -E glazing: U=0.48, SHGC=0.35, 6,240 sf@$1.50-$1.801sf $9,360 -11,232 • Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7 64 EER=112 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 0 $0 20 - $0 30W $ 1 840 - 2,760 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $28,600 -42,992 Incremental cost In $l $0.78 to 1.1711 Avenge Incremental Cost= $35,796 or$0.97/sf Climate Zone #7. Exceeding the 2008 Standards by 15% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios, $077/sf Envoy co,icon irer smay tf crtv or Cows mere, rners ap 12 A-20%) 36,000 sq.k. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOV Enerav by 20% • Law -E glazing: U=0.51, SHGC=023, 6240 sf@$1.35-$1.50/sf $8425 6,240sf@$3.50-$5.00/sf $21,840 -31,200 • R-38 pool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmitlance=075 $ 5060 - 6900 Total Incremental coat of Ordinance energy measure: 9, 200 sf@$055-$075/sf $ 5,060 - 6,900 • R-4, W spray -on Insulation below raised slab, 9,200 if $13,800 - 23,000 @$1.50 - $150/sr • 82.7% AFUE hot water boiler $ 1000 - 1800 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $41,700 - 62,900 Incremental cost in $Ieq,k.: $ 1.13 to 191 /sq.k. Average Incremental Cost= $52,300or$1.421sf (B-20%)38000 ri (Reduction 2008 T24 TDV Enemy by 20%) • Low -E glazing: U=0.48, SHGC=0.35, 6240 sf@$1.50-$1.80/sf $ 9,360 - 11,232 • Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSRE=7.84 EER=11.2 86 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 9200 sf(a$155-$200/sf $14260 -18400 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $54,820 - 81,632 Incremental cost In flisc .: $ 1.49 to 2.221sq.k. Average Incremental Cost= $68,226 or$1.85/sf Climate Zone #7. Exceed/no the 2008 Standards by 20% Avemae Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios $164/sf CLIMATE ZONE #10 A-10%) 36,800 sq. k. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOV Enerav by 10% • Super Low -E glazing: U=0.48, SHGC=022, 6240 sf@$1.35-$1.50/sf $8425 - 9,360 • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=070, emmittancii 75 8200 at(cS$065-$075/sf $ 5060 - 6900 Total Incremental coat of Ordinance energy measure: $13,405 - 16,260 Incremental cost In $/sq.k.: $ 0.37 to 0." 11 Average Incremental Cost = $14,873 or $0.40/5f Er upyemay Nr GO wcewe wsre, esaroe veey 13 B-10%) 36 800 sq.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerav by 10% • 12 (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 - 9,360 • (2) Munchkin boilers 92% AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each 80 units total @$180 - $300 each $14,400 - 24,000 • R-38 roof. 9.200 0 fd $0.30 - $0 40/sf $ 5,060 - 6 900 Total Incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $30,500 -44,)00 Incremental cost In $/sq.ti $ 0.83 to 1.21 Icq.ft. Average Incremental Cost= 537,600 or$1.02/s' Climate Zone #10. aceedino the 2008 Standards by 10% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios, $071/s/ A-15%) 36,800 sq.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerav by 15% • Super Lew -E glazing: U=048, SHGC=0.22, 6, 240 sf@$1.35-$150/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 all 9,200 of $ 20,700 - 29,900 @$2.25 - $3 25/5f • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0]0, emmidance=075 9.200 sf nc$0.55-$0.75of $ 5,060 - 6900 Total incremental coal of Ordinance energy measure: $37,185 -51,160 Incremental cost in li aq.ft.: $ 1.01 to 1.39Isq.ft. Average Incremental Cost= $44,173 or$1.20/sf (B.1M 36,800 sq.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Energy by 15s 1 • R-6, 2" spray -on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 at $ 20,700 - 29,900 @$2.25 - $3.25od • (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 at @ $0.30 - $0.40/sf $ 5,060 - 6,900 • 18% Net Solar Fraction solar hot water $ 40000 - 56000 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 83,160 .113,800 Incremental cost in $laq.ft.: $ 2.26 to 3.08 /sq.11. Average Incremental Cost = $98,480 or $2.68 /si Climate Zone #10 Exceeding Ne 2008 Standards by 15% A verage Incremental Ct for Tart Compliance S $194/f Energy Cao£ffi mens Sludy W City o/ Chula NSR, 7dsog pegs 14 AA -2 8,800 sq.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOV Enerav 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 @$2.25 - $3.25/sf • (2) Munchkin boilers 92% AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each $ 3,000 - 5,000 • Higher efficiency heal pumps'. HSPF=7.84 EER=11.2 80 units total @$180-$300each $14,400-24,000 • R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0]Q emmittance=0 75 9200 sf G)$055-$075/sf $ 5060 - 6900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $51,585.75,160 Incremental cost in$Isq.ft.: $ 1.40 to 2.04/sq.ft. Aveagelncremental Cost= $83,373 or$1.721si IB -20%1 36,800 sq.11. (Redudion in 2008 T24 TDV Enemy by 20%1 R-6, 2- spray on insulation below urged slab; 9,200 at $ 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 • 45% Net Solar Fraction solar hot water $100,000-120000 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $143,160-185,800 Incremental cost in$/sq.ft.: $ 3.88 to 5.06/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cosi = $164,480 or$4.471sf Climate Zone #10, Exceeding the 2008 Standards by 20% Avemge Incremental Cost for Taro Compliance Scenarios $310// msrz, zrzws page 15 2.4 Nonresidential Building Case Study Nonresidential Building Des'on A typical once building has been modeled with a research version of EnergyPro has been used to evaluate compliance with the 2008 Nonresidential, HoteuMotel and High-rise Residential standards. The following measures were evaluated so the building just meets the 2008 standards. Builtlino 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 75 • R- 19 in metal frame exterior walls, slab -on -grade Is floor; • NFRC-rated Loi windows'. U-factor=0.50, SHGCc=0.38 (e.g., Verson VE 1-21M) w/ no exterior shading • Lighting = 0 885 whsf'. 650 2 -lamp 4 T8 fixtures @ 52w 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 ong rade i"floor, • NFRC.rated Low -E windows'. U-factor=0.50, SHGCc=0.38 (eq, Viracon VE 1-2M) w/ substantial overhang on the Iv floor only • Lighting =0.885 what 6502 -lamp 4' Te fixtures with high efficiency instant start ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 5D input watts; and 25025w CFLs @ 26w each, no lighting controls • 4 identical Packaged VAV units'. Aaron 25 ton, EER=104, 10,000 CFM, standard efficiency fan motors, 30% VAV boxes w/ reheat • Ducts in conditioned space, R4.2 duct insulation • Service hot water: standard gas tank water heater Enemy 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 me 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. Vif1a, 7rz2M rade 16 CLIMATE ZONE V (A-10%) 52,900 all (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerav by 10% • 6502 -lamp 4'TS fixtures with high efficiency instant start ballasts and premium TO lamps, 50 input wafts @$25.00-$30.00/fixture; Installed LPD=0.]03 • 90 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-1amp TO fixtures, W1 OS listed below $16,250 - 19,500 90 occupant sensors controlling(2)2-lamp TO fixtures; $5,650 - 7,650 @$65.00 - $85.00 each @$i]5-$250 each • R-38 cool roof, re0ectance=03q emmi0snce-0]5 • (5) Trane 25 ton units. EER -11.0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each 9200 at 103$055-$0751 $ 5,060 - 6,900 Total Incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $27,160 -34,050 Incremental cost In $/sq.ft.: $ 0.51 to 0.641sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $30,605 or$0.58/sf Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: (8-10%) 52.900 sg.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemy by 10%) Incremental cost in $Isq.ft.: • 6502 -lamp 4' TO fixtures with high effciency instant start ballasts and premium TO lamps, 50 input watts @$25.00-$3000/fixture; Installed LPD=0.]3] $16,250- 19,500 • U=0.50, SHGCd-0.31 (e.g., Vi racon VE 2-2M) $15,680 - 23,520 7,840 sf @$2.00 - 3 OOlsq.ft. (excludes In floor glazing) • R-30 roof me cool roon 9,200 at 0$025-$035/sf ($2300- 3220) Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $29,630 -39,800 Incremental cost in$Iscil $ 0.56 to 0.75/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $34,715 or $0.66 /sf Climate Zone ITT. Exceeding the 2008 Standards by 10% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios, $082/sf A-15%) 52.900 sg.ft. (Reduction In 2008 T24 TDV Enerav by 15% • 6502 -lamp 4'TOfixtures with high efficiency instant start ballasts and premium TO lamps, 50 input watts @$25.00 - $30.00/fixture; Installed LPD=0.682 w/OS$ 16,250 - 19,500 • 90 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-1amp TO fixtures, $ 5,850 - 7,650 @$65.00 - $85.00 each 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures w/ 1M lamps @$i]5-$250 each $ 8,]50-12,500 • (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]0, emmittance=0.75 9.200 sf fm$055-$0 I5/sf $ 5,060 - 6900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $80,910-111,550 Incremental cost in $Isq.ft.: $ 1.53 to 2.11 hq.ft. Average Incremental Costs; $96,230 or $1.82 /sf Energy Cost EflecRveness 5tutlyMGyal Chula Ysh, zz2no Pg 17 B-15%1 52,900 mi (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Effects by 15% • 6502 -lamp 4' T8 fixtures with high efficiency instant start ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 50 input watts ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 50 input were @$25.00-$30.00/fixture; Installed LPD=0.682 w/OS$ 16,250- 19,500 @$25.00 -$30.00/fixture; Installed LPD=0]37 $16,250 - 19,500 • 0=0.50, SHGCc=0.31 (e. g., Viracon VE 2-2M) $15,680 - 23,520 ],840 at @$2 00 - 3.00/sq ft. (excludes 1" floor glazing) $ 8,750- 12,500 • t1=0.50, SHGCc=0.31 mg, Viracon VE 2-21 • (5) Trane 25 ton units, EER=11.0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each 7,840 sf @$200 - 3.00/sq,ft. (excludes 1"' floor glazing) w/ premium tan motors $45,000- 65,000 R-30 roof (no cool roc09200 at 0$D 25-$035/sf ($2300 - 3220) Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 74,630 104,800 Incremental coat in $/sq.ft.: $ 1.41 to 1.88 /eq.R. Average Incremental Cost = $89,715 or $1.701sf Climate Zone V. Exceeding the 2088 Standards by 15% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios, $176/s/ A-20%) 52,900 sp.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enemv by 20%1'" • 6502 -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/ 1 Bw lamps @$175-$250 each $ 8,750- 12,500 • t1=0.50, SHGCc=0.31 mg, Viracon VE 2-21 $ 15,680 - 23,520 7,840 sf @$200 - 3.00/sq,ft. (excludes 1"' floor glazing) • (5) Trane 25 ton units, EER=11.0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each w/ premium fan motors $45000- 65,000 R -38+R-65 Cool Roof 9,200 sf no $155-$200/sf 14,260 - 18400 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $105,790-146,570 Incremental cost in $Isq.fl.: $ 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% belief - than -Title 24 using a mixture of "A"and'LO features. Enoriff, t£llecWenesv isi logy airy or Chula Nsla, x2i page 18 CLIMATE ZONE #10 A-10%) 52,900 si (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerav by 10% • 11=0 50, SHGCc-0.31 (e. g., Uracon VE 2-210) $15,680 - 23,520 7,840 sf @$2.00 - 3.00/sq.ft. (excludes 1"floor glazing) • 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures w/ 18w lamps @$175-$250each $8,750- 12,500 • 90 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2 -lamp TO 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]5-225/sqR. $36.280 -46,645 • R38 root 9200 sf oR$0. 10-$020/sf 35060- 6,900 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $71,620 - 97,215 Incremental cost In $Isq.ft.: $ 1.35 to 1.84 Isq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $84,418 or $1.607sf B-10%) 52.900 sq.ft. (Reduction in 2606 T24 TDV Enerav by 10% • D=0.5Q SHGCc=0.31 (e. g., Viracon VE 2-2M) $15,680 - 23,520 7,840 sf @$2.00 - 3.00/sq ft (excludes to floor glazing) • 90 occupant sensors controlling(2)2-lamp TO 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 $45000 - 65,000 Total incremental opal of Ordinance energy measure: $66,530- 96,170 Incremental cost In ti/squib $ 126 to 1.82 /sq.ft. Average Incremental Cost = $81,350 or $1.54/ef Climate Zone 910. Exceeding the 2008 Standards by 10% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenanos, $1.571s Energy carEfft[Ilven&SS SrW M ruy If Chula NNe,]/22M9 Page 19 A-15%) 52,900 s l (Red ucdon in 2008 T24 TDV Enerav by 15% • u-0.50, SHGCc=0.31 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-2M) $ 15,680 - 23,520 7,840 si @$2.00 - 3.00/sq ft (excludes 1" floor glazing) • 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures wl1Bw lamps @$175-$250 each $ 8,750 - 12,500 • 100 occupant sensors controlling(2)2-lamp T8 fixtures; $ 8,500 - 8,500 @$65 00 - $85.00 each • l'R-6.5 rigid insulation + R-19 metal frame walls 20, 730 s1@$175-2.251sq.ft, $36,280-46,645 • (5) Trane 30 ton units, EER=11.0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each w/ Premum fan motors $ 45.000 - 65.000 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $112,210-156,165 Incremental cost in$Isq.X.: $ 2.12 to 2.951sq.ft Average Incremental Coal $134,188 or $2.52 list 8-05%1 52,900 so R.. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerav by 15% • 11=0.50, SHGCc-022 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-55) $ 27,740 - 35,280 7,840 sf @$3.50-4.50/sq.R. (excludes 1st floor glazing) • 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures w/i8w lamps @$175-$250 each $ 8,750 - 12,500 • 100 occupant sensors controlling(2)2-lamp T8 fixtures', $ 6.500 - 6,500 A$65,00 - $85.00 each • Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $42,990. 56,280 Incremental cost In$Isq.%: $0.81 to 1.06/sq.ft. Average Incremental Cosf = $49,835 or$0.941sf Climate Zone #10, Exceeding the 2008 Standarl by 15% Average Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios- $1747sf EwTy Cwt ERcflreness Sf y H City of rchfa VSxrfaM9 page 20 A-20%) 52,900 sa 1t !Reduction in 2008 T24 TOV Enemv by 20%)" • U=0.50, SHGOC-022 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-55) $ 2],]40 - 35,280 TM at @$3.50 -4.50/sq.It (excludes 1' floor glazing) • 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures w/18w lamps @$1]5-$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" RE 5 rigid insulation a R-19 metal frame walls 20,730 sf@$1]5-2.25/sq.ft. $36,280-46,lb5 • (5) Trane 30 ton units ,EER=11.0@$9,000to$13,000 each w/ Premium fan motors $45000 -65000 Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $124,2]0-16],925 Incremental cost In$16cu : $ 2.35 to 3.17 lsq.fl, Averege Incremental Cost = $146,098 or $2.76 /s1 Only one practical combination of energy measures was able to achieve 20% beder- then-Title 24 using a mixture of "A" and 'B' features. ouch, Cult seoirroaaa Si 16, oar or Chula male. rrzvoe Paye 21 3.0 Cost Effectiveness The fables 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 187IkWh 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 a-, 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 predid 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 cast -effective, and a payback beyond 30 years usually would not. Paybacks between 15 and 30 years may be costeRective 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 pedicular climate zone, and what the first casts 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. EreW eos(£ROUMOSS Stile( mY of Clwla Nsle,]6YN9 Pape 22 3.1 CLIMATE ZONE V RESULTS Figum3-CZ7a-0: Added First Cost— 2,035 at 2 -Story Single Family Home 2,025 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $/Bldg: CZ7 szsee i _- $2 MO 51,500 51,0M $500 Tza 10% T2a 15% T24 20% Enecpy Cost£Hecfiren¢ss SfW bT Clly olCos Vlete, 7Rbm Pape 23 Figure 3.CZ7a-2: Added First Cost -2, 925 at 2 -Story Single Family Home 2,975 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $/Bldg: CZ7 53,opo 2 5O szaao uma Energy Ccl Mcmeoea smey ror cwy d enwc VIVO, 7azro9 Fade 24 T24 10% rxa.vs% T24 H% Energy Ccl Mcmeoea smey ror cwy d enwc VIVO, 7azro9 Fade 24 Figure 3.CZ7a3: Added First CosYD"lling Unit, 2 -Story Multifamily Building Lowrise Multifamily In creme nta l Cost $/Unit CZ7 s5am i sx,eoo — sem — SIM 4cc z4 1G% T29.15% I24 20'2 Enegy Cosl£Rectire,ress Cody M Cr1y W Chula Villa, 7A?M9 Page 25 Figure 3.CZ7&1: Added First Cost/Sq.FG,-2,025 s/2 -Story Single Family Home 2,025 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $/Sf: CZ7 so so S040 I. 50.30—.. _..... _. _. __ so 20 sono $e oo _._ rzamx T24 15% T24 20% Ene,py Cost£flxtirenass SuTylo, Gly olCbula Visye, lay q paps 26 Fi9ore3-CZ16-2: Added First CosYSq.Ff.,-2,9]5 sf 2 -Story Single Family Home 21975 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $JSf: CZ7 EnmgyGoelEffeolrveness S(wy r, C,F of cnwa V11f,7 vm page 27 Figure 3-CZ7b-3: Added Finn COSUSQ.Fq F-Slory Muhthunly Building Lowrise Multifamily Incremental Cost $/Sf: CZ7 S140 Som -- soon T2410%T2415% T24 20,c FnITY Cnufff mh n a„ sues Nr cm or Cnnm w.,m, 7a2M gaga 28 Figure 3-CZ7c-f: 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 ms 200 ____• ____. ____. e�,ay couenacnrenesc sway ro.aiy orcnma mna, 7aM9 a 29 Figure]-CZlc3: Simple Payback of Energy Measures — Z915 sf 2-Sfmy Single Family Home 2,975 sf Single Family Simple Payback of Energy Measures (Years) CZ7 35.0-..._.. 300 250 d00 150 100 enerey cosi-cftcMress story For crzy m M,?a Vista, MMM ap30 Figum3-Mc-3: Simple Payback of Energy Measures 1-StoryMultifamily Building iso 300 250 200 is o 100 Lowrise Multifamily Simple Payback of Energy Measures (Years) CZ7 Enegy Casf£p Offnoss SIDdy lw Cry o/Chula Vr9a, 7R2 9 Gege 31 r2410% U4 15% T24 20% Enegy Casf£p Offnoss SIDdy lw Cry o/Chula Vr9a, 7R2 9 Gege 31 Figure 3-Uld-l: Annual Redudlon in COY in LbsJSq.Ft. in Single Family - Z015 sf 2 -Slog, Single Family Home 21025 sf Single Family Annual CO2 Reduction in Lbs./Sq.Ft. CZ7 030 Et?emv ca+rmr c¢y If vista, vrznme pat, 32 Figure 3-CZ7d-2: Annual Reduction in CO2 in Lbs./Sq.Ft. in Single Family - Z975 sf 2 -Story Single Family Home 2,975 st Single Family Annual CO2 Reduction in Lbs./Sq.Ft. CZ7 T24 10% r24.15x rzn-rox Energy oa r -t rroomerress story ,Cy or chord visa, rnzoa pees 33 Figure 3-CZ7d-3: Annual Reduction in CO2 in Lbs./Sq.Ft, 1 -Story Multifamily Building Lowrise Multifamily Annual CO2 Reduction in Lbs./Sq.Ft. CZ7 T21 10', 12415% T24 20% Emgy Cosl-enalvane:SSIayr.cny,fculawSla. rnzme vase 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: $0.0 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 12.5 years Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 0.13 Ibs.lsq.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 COR -equivalent: 0.26lise/sq.14 year 20% Betler-than8itle 24 The following high-rise residential case study data is based on exceed Ing the 2008 TiOe 24 Standards by 20% in Climate Zone 7 as outlined in Section 23: Average Incremental Cost per Dwelling Unit: $1,507 Average Incremental Cost per Square Fool: $1.64 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 16.7 years Annual Reduction in CO2equivalent: 0.2316s.lsq.fl: year enwgy CO&EFFeoweneee away k, cry Or Chi h5br7wMa page 35 Figure 3.CZ7a4: Added First Cost/Dwelling Unit, High-rise Residential Building High-rise Res Incremental Cost $/Unit: CZ7 SL6aa $1,200 51,003 SO IAlOF R415% 04_01 were, 7rz2 op page 36 Figure 3.CZ7b.4: Added First Cosl/Sq.F[.,High-rise Residential Building High-rise Res Cost $/SF: CZ7 so 0o $O 4D So ,o oo ____. ____. _._, T24 10% T24 15% rzo-m% Energy Gb4ENIII,,nsce nIey mr oo, Of ChUJ8 wm=,7rzw ooy 37 Figure 3.CZ7c4: Simple Payback of Energy Measures, High-rise Residential Building High-rise Res Simple Payback of Energy Measures (yrs) CZ7 00 T24 10% rza 15% T24 20% Vista, 7/1 9 Faye 38 Figure 3-CZ1C4: Annual Reduction in COI in LbsJSq.Ff., High-rise Rsidenfial Building High-rise Res Annual CO2 Reduction in Lbs./Sq.Ft. CZ7 030 025 — 020E--- is 020 -- msra, 7aue pegs 39 Nonresidential Building: Climate Zone 7 10% Beger-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: 0.301bs./ial year 15% BeRerAhan-Title 2A 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 par 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: 0.56 lbs.lsq.R, 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 ou0ined in Section 24. 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 lies./scil year Energy Coel£TeMerass SYuav k, City m Chula W aW 7/21Ne Frage 40 Figure 3-CZ7a-5: Added First Cosl/Dwelling Unit, Nonresidential Building (Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) Nonresidential Incremental Cost $/Bldg: CZ7 sra0.000 i $10swo Saoma $60,0[10 Easily Coal-EXo6veiress sl1*M Cl, of Chula VISM 7?Wg page 41 Figure 3-CZ7b-5: Added First CosH q.Ft, Nonresidential Building (Only one ca mbinetion of energy measures achieves 20%better than Title 24) Nonresidential Incremental Cost $/SF: CZ7 Tzam% T24 15% T24 20% Eneryy Carl EfleabMnes5 audy M osy of Chula Vlsle, Lege Page 42 Figure 3-CZ7c5: Simple Payback of Energy Measures, Nonresidential Building (Only one combination ofenergy, measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) Nonresidential Simple Payback of Energy Measures (Yrs) CZ7 E^amY COM -Elralholiess raise, as, cry of Chula Vista 7Z22419 vase 43 Figure 3 -Md -4r Annual Reduction In CO2 in L6slSq.ft, Nonresidential Building (Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) Nonresidential Annual CO2 Reduction in lbs./Sq.Ft. CZ7 12410-1 T2415% rz4-20% EnelaY cast£neoli st,* e, Cy or Chula Vista, misoll Fap" 3.2 CLIMATE ZONE#10 RESULTS Flgure3-CZ10a4: Added FirstCost-2,025 s(2 -Story Single Family Home 2,025 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $/Bldg: CZ10 S3 Poo IZF10% T24 6% n4¢0% Ene/gy Cosicxemre... smy lorpy orcnwe utas, vrzaoe va,45 Figure 3-CZiga-2: Added First Cost - 2,975 at 2-Sfory Single Family Home 20975 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $/Bldg: CZ10 51,500 - - l4 MO l3SW--- v000 5? 500 $2110 $l 500 51000 - —_.. 5501 --. $0 I ea mn i21-1slf ixl 20% En(gy cos4E;kmveness SaWor cry of chum um,7/22hf Page 46 Figure 3.CZ1Oa-3: Added First COSNDWelling Unit, i-Skny Muldfamily Building $2000 $1,800 slew 51400 $1300 $1000 $800 Lowrise Multifamily Incremental Cost $/Unit CZSO VWO,, MR R Page 47 Figure8-CZIOM: Added First Cost/Sq.Ft-2025 sf 2-Sfory Single Family Home 2,025 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $/Sf: CZ10 s140 $lop So 5060 5040 sa20 $000 -- ixo-10% T24 15% T24 2G% eieryy a,�-cmrwenees smayroi cny ucx„m v�s�a, 7a2M pays 48 Figure3-CZi0&2: Added First CosbSq.Ff., - Z975 at 2 -Story Single Family Home 2,975 sf Single Family Incremental Cost $/Sf: C210 $19e $130 V160 — 50,40 _ __ ___- $020 aO 00 - — 12410% 124-154 12420"/. EnegYCo56EROmnoss St' b,Cityo/Ch,la VILa, 722 9 psne 49 Figure J-CZ'lOb-3: Added First CosNSq.Ft., 2 -Story Multifamily Building Lowrise Multifamily Incremental Cost $/Sf: CZ10 W 6 10 $000 -- - 1lCm T24 15 r.1.m14 E,a9y Ciat rearvarress sway Rr Cly a Chula Vista , 7A?M9 pale 5O Figure 3-CZIOc-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 las 1 lea Eaegy Chat EB(RAhMOSS SfudY k, Gly a Chula call, )QiAD page Si Figure S-CZ10cd: Simple Payback of Energy Measures — Z975 s11 -Story Single Family Home 2,975 sf Single Family Simple Payback of Energy Measures (Years) CZ10 u° xas___�— RO�IDYu 21 15% T24 20% Energy Cw EftCtWnesc smay mr cny or coma w:ra, MM9 Eeae 52 Figure3-L210cJ: Simple Payback of Energy Measures S -Story Multifamily Building Lowrise Multifamily Simple Payback of Energy Measures (Years) CZ10 Jno 150 100 so rl410% 24 15% T24 20% c-,ersycVa� olfenoss smey by ar w ovula Vora,, 7aW9 as 0 Flgure ]-CZlON: Annual Reduction in CO2 In Lbs./Sq.F[. in Single Family, 2,025 s(2-Sbuy Single Family Home MG 0.50 an0 Dao 0,20 0,10 2,025 sf Single Family Annual CO2 Reduction in Lbs,JSq.Ft. CZ10 Energy Co9£necnreness StW k, city W Cnura Voda, Irzws Page 54 12410% i2n 15% 124.20% Energy Co9£necnreness StW k, city W Cnura Voda, Irzws Page 54 Figure 3-CZ10d.2: Annual Reduction in COP In LbsJSq.Ft. in Single Family, 2,975 sf 2 -Story Single Family Home 040 035 030 ou 21975 sf Single Family Annual CO2 Reduction in Lbs./Sq.Ft. CZ10 energy c0e1�rectWp� Smof rorerry or cnma v,4a, mems vage 55 Figure 3-CZIOd.: Annual Reduction in CO2 in LbsJSq.Ft, 2 -Story Multifamily Building ElOW CQVt£ OMIOSS sIoey ro aiy m mora VIVa, 7aan uses 56 Lowrise Multifamily Annual COZ Reduction in Lbs./Sq.Ft. CZ10 ovo 340 ana 0 20 D 10 0 0 ----- rza.mw° T24 15% rzaeo°m ElOW CQVt£ OMIOSS sIoey ro aiy m mora VIVa, 7aan uses 56 High-rise Residential euildirm 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 Secant 2.3'. Average Incremental Cost per Dwelling Unit: $ 858 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $0.71 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 12.8 years Annual Reduction In CO2 -equivalent: 0.12 Ibs./sq.R- year 15%BeBer.thi lila 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")i Average Incremental Cost par Owelling Unit: $1,104 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 1.94 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 22.4 years Annual Reduction in CO2-equlvalanl 0.421ba.lsq.1t: year 20% Beder4han-Title 24 The following high-rise residential rase study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 20% in Climate Zone 10 as outlined by Case Study in Section 2 3 (i.e., excluding the expensive solar hot water option in Case Study W): 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�equivalenl 0.6216s.1aq$: year Eneyr sldr r cny of Chia Weir rrzwa aaae 57 Figure XCZ10a4: Added First CosUDwelling Unit, High-rise ResiCenfial Building High-rise Res Incremental Cost $/Unit: CZ10 s� eoo Ereyy eoatEneowenesc sway h. cryolcnWa msre, 7m2M page 58 Figure 9.CZ10b-4: Added First CosUSQ.Ft., High -use Residential Building 535p - sn �o sssa �� S2 og 52so 'i, syoo SG sa High-rise Res Cost $/SF: CZSO So 00 I I I T24.10b Tyl 156 i24-2 o Eneiay Go,t study tv Glyof CGYIa Osta, 71ng Pepe 59 Figure 3-CZ10": Simple Payback o/ Energy Measures, High-rise Residential Building High-rise Res Simple Payback of Energy Measures (Yrs) 0230 Eneyy Cost Eff wness story ro, Gty OFChule mem, vrzace Paye 60 Figure 3.CZ10G-4: Annual Reduction in CO2 in LbsJSq.Ft., High-nse Residential Building High-rise Res Annual CO2 Reduction in Lbs./Sq.Ft. CZ10 g lg __. ___. ____ T2410%T2415% 124 Z()% Ellegy Co#fhMalfaess ffiddu far Cay If Chula Neta 7]241 page 61 Nonresidential Building: Climate Zone 70 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 Builtling: $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 Ibs./sq.B: year 15% Better.lhan-Title 24 The following nonresidential case study data is based on exceeding the 2008 Title 24 Standards by 15% in Climate Zane 10 as outlined in Section 2 4. Average Incremental Cost per Building: $107,789 Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $1.74 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 9.7 year; Annual Reduction in CO2aqulvalent: 0.57 lbs./sq.fb-year 20% Beger-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: $148,098 Incremental Cost Per Square Foot: $ 2.78 Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 10.3 years Annual Reduction In CO2 -equivalent 0.76lbs./actli year Efervv(Cot fxaorroaness Slurry b, cry orooma wsra, Wh2de Pass 82 Figure 3-CZ1Oa-5: Added First CosbDurelling Unit, Nonresidential Building (Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% belief than Title 24) $160.000 5190P00 5300ie06 580,000 %ero0 $40 g00 529,000 Nonresidential Incremental Cost $/Bldg: CZ1O T24 ION Tzo-isx Tza-x0e Efergr Gbaf£affaaOross ea0y mf arty or onus Vista, Cf2M9 page 63 Figure 9.CZ10b.5: Added First CosUSq.Ft., Nonresidential Building (Only one combination o/energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) Nonresidential Incremental Cost $/SF: U10 s3 ar , Soar I ___. ____ 50 00 rza Irv. T2415Mrza mx Ernrgy C,,it cMven... StatVA CsyaFChuta Vista, stoves page 54 Figure]-CZ10c-5: Simple Payback of Energy Measures, Nonresidential Building (Only one combination or energy measures achieves 20% better than The 24) ao T2410% T2415% T24,20% Emod,Cost EXtlrvemss Study Air Clly of Chula VuSt Sa2NB Pape 65 Nonresidential Simple Payback of Energy Measures (Yrs) CZ30 laa ¢o loo — - — ao T2410% T2415% T24,20% Emod,Cost EXtlrvemss Study Air Clly of Chula VuSt Sa2NB Pape 65 Figure 3-CZ10d-4: Annual Reduction in CO2 in Lbs.tSq.Ft, Nonresidential euiltling (Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24) 0j 6'0 0Y0 0 20 010 000 Nonresidential Annual CO2 Reduction in Lbs./Sq.Ft. CZ30 ite m% 124-15% T24 20',. Ei WCwt El/ec(vanesS SVWy cr Cilyol China Viol 7c o)9 rage 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) • GreenPcint Rated green building system • LEED green building system • Local energy ordinances • Muff -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. Cenffied Energy Plans Examiners (CEPEal The California Association of Building Energy Consultants (CABEC) sponsors and administers the Gedified Energy Plans Examiner (CEPS) 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 commerce 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. 6ieryr Coat£ffivd nars&Wy Nr cry of vlala, 7cs B page 67