HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/10/20 Item 11
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~\ft,- CITYOF
.=-~ (HULA VISTA
Item No.: / /
Meeting Date: 10/20/09
ITEM TITLE:
A. 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.
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA DIRECTING STAFF TO PROPOSE
LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO FUTURE VERSIONS OF
THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, TITLE 24, PART 6,
REQUIRING INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS
Deputy City M~velopment Services Director
City Managerr
4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO [K]
SUMMARY
On July 10, 2008, Council approved Resolution No. 2008-177 adopting 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 efficiency standards. The proposed Ordinance
amends the City's Energy Code and adopts increased energy efficiency standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Ordinance for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no
possibility that the activity may have signiticant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) of the state CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to
CEQA. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, additional environmental
review will be required if applicable, prior to the approval of any future project specific
development entitlements including, but not limited to, site development plans, building permits,
land development permits, and conditional use permits.
11-1
Item No.: 1/
Meeting Date: 10/20/09
Page 2 of 10
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council place the Ordinance on first reading and adopt the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Board of Appeals and Advisors at their Monday, September 14, 2009 meeting, unanimously
recommended the adoption of the proposed Ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Background
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 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 I, 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. 2008-177 in which
Council adopted the implementation plans for the CCWG measures and approved partial
implementation of the 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
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 for Measure # 4 proposed mandating new and retrofit residential
and non-residential projects to achieve carbon savings equivalent to exceeding current State
Standards (05 Standards) by at least 15%. As staff worked on the details of the program, staff
realized that establishing a carbon savings benchmark as a means of compliance is ahead of its
time and concluded that it will result in a program that is more complex than it needs to be. For
the purpose of simplifying the program, while at the same time achieving an equivalent level of
energy savings, staff proposed to 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 structure, format and calculation methods of the
California Energy Efficiency Standards and is simple and clear for the building industry to
11-2
Item No.: / I
Meeting Date: 1 0/20/09
Page 3 of 10
understand and staff to enforce. Through discussion with the Building Industry Association
(BIA), statf also 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 building energy efficiency requirements through community site design measures,
provided the SPA Plans meet certain design criteria.
Local Amendments to California Building Standards
Pursuant to Sections 17958 and 18941 of the Health and Safety Code, before making any
modifications to the California Building Standards Code, the City must make an express finding
that such modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geologic or
topographical conditions. Modifications to the California Building Standards and Building
Energy Efficiency Standards, as detailed in this Ordinance, are reasonably necessary due to local
climatic conditions. As a result of high summer 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 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.
2008 Building Energv Efficiencv Standards
The 08 Standards, minimum standards mandated by the State, will take effect on January I,
2010. The 08 Standards are 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 Zones
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.
Proposed Increased Standards
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%
more energy efficient than the 08 Standards.
CZ 10: New low-rise residential projects (three-stories or less) that fall within CZ 10 must be at
least 20% more energy efficient than the 08 Standards, and new nonresidential, high-rise
residential or hotel/motel projects that fall within CZ 10 must be at least 15% more
energy efficient than the 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 hotel/motel additions,
11-3
Item No.: II
Meeting Date: 10/20/09
Page 4 oflO
remodels or alterations that are less than or equal to 10,000 square feet, are exempt from the
increased energy efficiency standards.
California Energy Commission Application
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 are 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 up to three months.
Cost-Effectiveness Study
In order to meet the CEC requirements, the City, with help from San Diego Gas and Electric
(SDG&E), hired an energy consultant, Gabel Associates, LLC (consultant), to perform the
required cost effectiveness analysis. The analysis is included as Attachment C.
The analysis is performed by using early 2008 Standards beta version of CEC approved software
to compare life cycle costs with the estimated cost savings to be achieved by complying with the
proposed standards. [t 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-rise residential and non-residential projects. It took into
account the two CZs the City falls within; CZ 7 and CZ'IO. 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:
.,..':,: ','
~~~~i~J~J,~\?~~7ype- ",[;,;;,
i""":"'""",;,,':,:,,', ,':"'/-':"".
Single Family
(A vg. of results for a
2,000 & 3,000 sq. ft.)
Multi Family
(8-units, 2-story, 8,442 sq.
ft.)
High-Rise Residential (4-
'.' :;,,', I' .rCZ7. .'. .,:: ';.'..,,~;. " ":'tt,,"V;;"\>.'i:CZI0::;:.'<~~",;?i:i>;'J;;:;.
.."L%.., ., I~1;:~.~i :,S~~;~:P~';~;~~ki1 fJi~~~~J"E~'i!~i&:;~~:~i~ :':f~i~:~~\
,.Cost ..' Cost ',(Yrs.) ,..",'Cost ,'."Cost ,',:'(Yrs.),
, ,,,is) ,'\i$/~r\'> ,"_':':r:,<.~ ;"':'j($i;-":W' ..;(sAn';j:"t#flk'i
10% 944 0.39 24 1,749 0.69 17.3
15% 1,498 0.62 22 2,437 0.99 16.7
20% 2,187 0.89 23 3,303 1.30 16.4
10% 5,083 0.60 26 8,900 1.05 27
15% 9,605 1 14 32 11,705 1.39 23.5
20% 9,915 1 17 18 14,570 1.73 18.5
10% 21,428 0.58 12.5 26,237 0.71 12.8
11-4
Item No.: / /
Meeting Date:l0/20/09
Page 5 of 10
story res. over I-story 15% 28,336 0.77 \1.7 71,392 1.94 22.4
retail. 36,800 sa. 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 2.39 8.5 146,098 2.76 10.3
Incremental costs depend on the energy efficiency features used by the designer/builder to
achieve compliance. Anyone 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 particular climate zone,
and what the first costs are for 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
years may be cost-effective depending on the weighted average useful life of the measures
selected." The useful life of insulation is about 50 years, for windows and doors is about 20
years, for air heating/cooling units is about 18 years and for domestic water heaters is about 14
years.
Charts I and 2 below show the payback periods for CZ 7 and CZ 10, respectively:
Chart 1
Payback Periods - CZ 7
35
30
25
Ul 20
...
>- 15
10
5
o
-~
-
-
..
- - ~I
.. - - -
- - - - - ...
- -\d - - - - - - .J.
- - - -
-
,..
,
T24+10%
-----+- SFD
-....MF
T24+15%
- .. - HRR
T24+20%
- 'A- - NR
11-5
Item No.: /I
Meeting Date:l0/20/09
Page 6 of 10
Chart 2
Payback Periods - CZ 10
30
25 ........... '. ..-~.-.
...~ ..
. .. -~":"
20 . .....
. '0 '.
- oO'(-~1
Ul
... 15 -
>- ~J-:~._._
----
10 -. . -
'-.J
5
0
T24+10% T24+15% T24+20%
--+- SFD 0...... MF -........ HRR -....-NR
Chart 1 for CZ 7 shows the payback period for low-rise multi-family for the 15% level to be over
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 15% 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 standard measures such as insulation or standard
hot water heaters. The consultant could have introduced the instantaneous tankless gas hot water
heaters at the 15% level and the payback period for the 15% level would have been close to or
below the 15-year line 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 reach the various thresholds do not represent a comprehensive analysis of
all possible combinations of energy efficiency measures or the most cost effective combination.
Energy Subcommittee Meetings
On May 6, 2009, 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 (three stories or 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
requiring 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 additional case studies. Staff returned to the Subcommittee on August
3, 2009 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 or equal to 1,000 square feet, and high-rise residential and non-
residential additions and alterations that are less than or equal to 10,000 square feet In addition,
11-6
Item No.: / /
Meeting Date:l0/20!09
Page 7 of 10
staff proposed including a placeholder in the Ordinance for a future community design energy
credit option. The Subcommittee modified staffs proposal with a recommendation to require
20% above the 08 Standards for low-rise residential in CZIO, the harsher 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 idcntify if the 1,000
square 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 square foot low-rise residential addition/alteration exemption threshold (discussed
below). Both members are in support of the residential exemption threshold.
The Subcommittee also provided input and direction to staff regarding the encrgy credit option
within new SPA Plan areas. While they supported retaining the option, the Subcommittee
directed that staff remove Ordinance provisions specifying particular amounts of credit at this
time. Staff had proposed allowing a third of the 15 % or 20% efficiency increase for buildings to
be credited if the SPA Plan met performance criteria. The Subcommittee asked that more
specific information be gathered as to the energy saving value of various SPA Plan community
and site design features before determining what level of credit should be granted. They wanted
some level of empirical measurement that the building savings to be forcgone would reasonably
be offset. Staff indicated that this is an active and evolving area of research, and that it may take
approximately a year before reliable information is vetted based on current status of several
studies regarding the energy and carbon saving values of community design and site planning
features. In the mean time, the Subcommittee supported placeholdcr language in the Ordinance
that allows the credit option subject to future guidelines.
Additions. Remodels and Alterations Exemption Thresholds
The consultant recommended exempting low-rise residential additions, remodels or alterations
that are less than or equal to 1,000 square feet, and high-rise residential and non-residential
additions, remodels or alterations that arc 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 standards. 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 pcrcentage of the overall
construction cost for 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 are to be required on small
additions or alterations, applicants will have to use the performance option to demonstrate
compliance; a CEC approved compliance software which typically involves an energy consultant
which adds coordination time and cost to the project.
Energv Credit Option
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
11-7
Item No.: / I
Meeting Date:l0/20/09
Page 8 of 10
effective date of the proposed Ordinance (see Section 15.26.030E). The option encourages
energy savings early in the site planning process, provides flexibility and recognizes savings
through community site design. Under this option, the developer may meet a portion of the
increased building energy efficiency standards provided the SPA Plan has satisfied the qualifying
thresholds for community design and site planning features as established in the SPA's approved
Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP). Those thresholds have been included as part of draft
revised AQIP Guidelines that statI will be presenting for Council action in early November. If
the approved AQIP has met the qualifying thresholds, the applicant may request and receive an
energy savings credit towards a portion of the increased standards subject to approval by the
Director of Development Services, and subject to applicable guidelines in effect at the time of
the request for credit.
Other J urisdictions/Programs
The consultant informed staff that other jurisdictions he is assisting with adopting increased
standards are 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
Sonoma and Marin County. In addition, 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 voluntary measures in the 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.
Incenti ves
Homes built to at least 15% 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
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 $50,000. These
incentives will reduce the upfront cost for qualifying buildings. Based on the average
incremental costs and payback periods shown above, SDG&E incentives can potentially reduce
the initial cost and payback period for a new home that is 15% better than the 08 Standards and
in CZ 7 as follows:
1498
..... .Incentive':: 'o"'LReduced .
($) '.. ". . Iriitiaid;t ($) : .
~,'~'\ '
68
400
1098
R~lIu!,ed' ;;
Payback '.
,. ','
rS',
16
Initi,al Cos! ($) . . Energy .. .
. . '" : Sa~ings ~$/yr:):
. .
Estimated Combined Cost
The table below shows the estimated combined incremental cost of the new 08 Standards which
will take effect Statewide on January I, 2010, the recently adopted green building standards
which will be mandated Statewide for residential in 2011, and the proposed increased energy
11-8
Item No.: II
Meeting Date: I 0/20/09
Page 9 of 10
efticiency standards for a new single-family residence that IS 15% and 20% above the 08
Standards in CZ 7 and CZ 10, respectively:
.' "'::-',1;' ", ",c"" :,' ':,',~:': ' ' , :,<'i'i,:i:;~: :,);~, ~,. .' " '",\CZT(15% iE' """" , "',CZ10,(20% ) .,..'
New 08 Standards (Mandated Statewide $0,55/sf $0,65/sf
1/1/2010)
HCD's Green Building Stds, (Mandated $0,60/sf $0,60/sf
Statewide 1/1/201 L \Vater conservation
measures 7/1/2011)
15% Above 08 Stds, (ProDosed Ordinance) $0,62/sf -
20% above 08 Stds, (Proposed Ordinance) - $ L30/sf
Sum 51.77/sf $2.55/sf
% of Total Const. Cost * 1.48% 2.13%
For 2,500 square foot residence $4,425 $6,375
SDG&E Incentive -$400 -$500
Adiusted Cost $4,025 $5,875
Adiusted cost/sf $l.61/sf $2,35/sf
Ad iusted % of Total Const. Cost * 1.34% 1.96%
* Based on estimated building construction cost of $120 per square foot.
Expiration ofIncreased Standards
Pursuant to State law, local amendments to the California Energy Code will no longer be in
effect the date a new California Energy Code takes effect. Therefore, Section 15.26,030 of the
proposed Ordinance, Increased Energy Efficiency Standards, will have to expire upon the date
the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are no longer in effect. Amendments to future
State building energy efficiency standards will have to go through the CEC approval and local
adoption processes, Regardless of the periodic expirations and the need to readopt local
standards, it is staff s understanding that the City Council desires that our local standards always
exceed the minimums required under the State building energy efficiency standards, To this end,
staff would intend to pursue the currently proposed levels of 15% and 20% above State building
energy efficiency standards for climate zones 7 and 10, respectively, for future code updates, and
will conduct its reevaluations of cost-effectiveness using those levels, We would then return to
Council to present the study results as to the cost-effectiveness of continuing to apply the 15%
and 20% levels prior to proceeding with the required local adoption and CEC approval process,
In the event that the Council, based on the study, determines that sustaining the 15% and 20%
levels is not cost-effective, Council can provide appropriate direction to staff at that time, It
would be staffs goal to carry out these actions so that the City's standards would be in place no
later than the effective date of the State's new standards,
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has determined that the recommendations requiring Council action are not site specific and
consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Section 18704,2(a)(1) is
not applicable to this decision.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMP ACT
11-9
Item No.: / /
Meeting Date: 10/20/09
Page 10 of 10
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 for in a
comprehensive building permit fee study which staff anticipates finalizing and presenting to
Council in December 2009.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
No ongoing fiscal impact. The additional building permit review and inspection time associated
with implementing this Ordinance will be funded through updated building permit fees.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Board of Appeals and Advisors September 14, 2009 Meeting Minutes.
B. Climate Zones Map
C. Cost-Effectiveness Case Studies by Gabel Associates, LLC, July 22, 2009.
Prepared by: LOll EI-Khazen, Building Official, Development Services Department
11-10
[ID~~lf
ATTACHMENT "A"
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
September 14, 2009
Conference Room #137
276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910
5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Buddingh, Flach, Sides, Buencamino-Andrew and Lopez
(Buencamino-Andrews left at 6:00 pm)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lou EI-Khazen, Building Official; Rosemarie Rice, Secretary, Andrew
McGuire, Ed Batchelder
OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Molloy, BIA
CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Chairman Buddingh called meeting to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Members present constituted a quorum.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 10, 2009
MSC (Flach/Sides) (5-0-) Approve the minutes of August 10, 2009. Motion carried.
2. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Review of ordinance of the City of Chula Vista amending Chapter 15.26 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code and adding Section 15.26.030, Increased Efficiency Standards.
3. MEMBERS COMMENTS/CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS/REPORTS:
Chair Buddingh reminded the committee that there were two vacancies to fill; if they knew of anyone
with a building construction background please encouraged them to apply. Mr. EI-Khazen also noted
he would be interviewing a potential candidate possibly next week.
5. BUILDING OFFICIAL'S COMMENTS/REPORTS:
Building Official, Lou EI-Khazen, presented the proposed ordinance and gave a power point
presentation providing background information on the proposed increased energy efficiency
standards.
Ed Batchelder, Advance Planning Manager gave an explanation of the energy credit savings option
and how it will apply to projects in Chula Vista within Sectional Planning Areas (SPA).
Scott Molloy, with the Building Industry Association commented on the financial impact to the building
industry and home prices and asked that it be voluntary accompanied with incentives such as
expedited permitting process.
After deliberation, the Board of Appeal and Advisors unanimously recommended that City Council
adopt the proposed ordinance.
11-11
Board of Appeals & Advisors
Meeting Minutes
September 14, 2009
MSC (Buddingh/Flach) (4-0-0-1) Recommend to City Council that they amend Chapter 15.26 of the
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and add Section 15.26.030, Increased Energy Efficiency
Standards.
6 COMMUNICATIONS (PUBLIC REMARKSI WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE): None
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Buddingh adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. to a regular meeting on October 12, 2009 at 5:15
p.m. in Planning and Building Conference Room #137.
MINUTES TAKEN BY.
ROSEMARIE RICE, SECRETARY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - BUILDING DIVISION
11-12
c::l
'"
'"
~
o
N
'"
~
c:l
.S
u
c
I
...
=
OJ
E
..::
<.l
c::
...
...
~
<1.: II. .
'::S-~:~+'r~' ,
iV'''':.;:'
,~
A
I~"
&" '
I#~
,,"'.11'
;.'1- .
.,
i-
c
c
/
I t....r
"", -, '
'I ) .. ' ']y- -;
lJ" f.> I
'l~'- :o,.-:?, \
f':') H ,.' "~..LJ.::1::'>:. I,
~Ti;1/ . ~~)~
\ -~,e" i'tT"-.:'.
E:~' '.:'-
it
~ '
. [""1,,1
.lJ
i
<L."
df
;:"~'
'~
1
1
\.---
~ "
~, ';''::.'-';'\
,.J\. .~.
<:-.~ \rrrr'fT1~
l~\.\\
~ =?ifi..'.
<,llfthl ~~"'<
"
.----
......c
,
"-
\,
\,--
n---)
./
11-13
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@qabelenerqV.com
11 -1 4.
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 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
11-15
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 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.
. 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?
. What is the Simple Payback for the added energy measures?
. What is the C02-equivalent reduction in emissions from each scenario (Ib.lsf-yr)?
. What level or levels of energy efficiency that exceed the 2008 Standard appear
cost-effective in these climate zones?
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chu/a Vista, 7/22/09
Page 1
11-16
2.0 Impacts of the New Ordinance
Energy performance impacts of the Ordinance have been evaluated using several case
studies which refiect 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 refiects 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 KWh 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 Df Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 2
11-17
2.1 Single Family House Case Studies
House Desiqns. A typical 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 wI radiant barrier
. R-13 exterior walls
. R-O slab-on-grade, R-19 over garage at 2nd floor
. Low E vinyl windows, U=OAO, SHGC=0.36 wI 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 wI radiant barrier
. R-15 exterior walls
. R-O slab-on-grade, R-19 over garage at 2nd floor
. Low E vinyl windows, U=OAO, SHGC=0.36 wI 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 3
11-18
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-O 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 + 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-O 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
EnerQY 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 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Eneray by 10%)
. R-15 wall: 2,550 sf @$0.12 to $0.20/sf $
. Reduced duct leakaqe (installation testinq & HERS inspection) $
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $
Average Incremental Cost = $858 or $0.42 Isf
305 510
300 600
605 - 1,110
0.30 to 0.55 Isq.ft.
Energy Cost.Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22109
Page 4
11-19
(A-15%) 2,025 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerQY by 15%)
. R-15 wall: 2,550 sf @$0.12 to $0.20/sf $
. Low-E2 windows. U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0.30 $
409 sf @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf
. Reduced duct leakaQe (installation testinq & HERS inspection)
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $1,440 or $0.71 Isf
305
550
510
615
$ 300 600
$1,155 -1,725
$ 0.57 to 0.85 Isq.ft.
(A-20%) 2.025 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerQY by 20%)
. R-15 wall: 2,550 sf @$0.12to$0.20/sf
. Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0.30
409 sf @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf
. R-4.2 ducts (from R-6.0)
. Tankless qas DHW, 0.80 EF (5 to 10 qpm)
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $1,915 or $0.95 Isf
$ 305 510
$ 550 - 615
$ (325 - 225)
$ 900 - 1.500
$ 1,430 - 2,400
$ 0.71 to 1.19/sq.ft.
(A-10%) 2.975 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerQY by 10%)
. R-13 walls (from R-15): 2,204 sf @$0.12to$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 leakaqe (installation testinq & HERS inspection) $ 300 - 600
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $ 745 -1,315
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $ 0.25 to 0.44 Isq.ft.
Average Incremental Cost = $1,030 or $0.35 Isf
(A-15%) 2.975 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerQY by 15%)
. R-30 roof (from R-38): 1,775 sf @$0.10 to $0.15/sf
. R-13 walls (from R-15): 2,204 sf @$0.12 to $0.20/sf
. Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0.30
655 sf @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf
. Tankless qas DHW, 0.80 EF (5 to 10 qpm)
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $1,555 or $0.52 Isf
$ (270 180)
$ (440 - 265)
$ 885 980
$ 900 - 1.500
$ 1,075 - 2,035
$ 0.36 to 0.68 Isq.ft.
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 5
11-20
(A-20%) 2,975 sCl.fi. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerClY by 20%)
. R-8 attic ducts $
. Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0.30 $
655 sf@ $1.35 - $1.50/sf
. Tankless Clas DHW, 0.80 EF (5 to 10 Clom)
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $2,458 or $0.83 1st
CLIMATE ZONE #10
275 - 375
885 - 980
$ 900 - 1.500
$ 2,060 - 2,855
$ 0.69 to 0.96/sq.ft.
(A-10%) 2,025 sCl.fi. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerClY by 10%)
. 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS)
. R-8 attic ducts
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.fi.:
Average Incremental Cost = $1,325 or $0.65 1st
$ 500 -1,500
$ 275 - 375
$ 775 - 1,875
$ 0.38 to 0.93/sq.fi.
(A-15%) 2,025 sCl.fi. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerClY by 15%)
. R-30 floor over garage: 448 sf @ $0.12 to $0.20/sf
. 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS)
. No extra pipe insulation
. Tankless Clas DHW, 0.80 EF (5 to 10 Clom)
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.fi.:
A verage Incremental Cost = $2,098 or $1.04 1st
$ 55 - 90
$ 500 - 1,500
$ (200 - 150)
$ 900 - 1,500
$ 1,255 - 2,940
$ 0.62 to 1.45 Isq.fi.
(A-20%) 2.025 sCl.fi. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerClY by 20%)
. R-30 floor over garage: 448 sf@ $0.12 to $0,20/sf
. 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS)
. No extra pipe insulation
. Quality insulation installation (includes HERS inspection)
. Tankless qas DHW, 0.80 EF (5 to 10 qom)
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.fi.:
Average Incremental Cost = $2,398 or $1.18 1st
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
11-21.
$ 55 - 90
$ 500 - 1,500
$ (200 - 150)
$ 250 - 350
$ 900 - 1,500
$ 1,505 - 3,290
$ 0.74 to 1.62 /sq.ft.
Page 6
(A-10%) 2.975 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOY Eneray by 10%)
. R-13 walls (from R-15): 2,204 sf @$0.12 to $0.20/sf
. 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS)
. R-8 attic ducts
. Tankless qas DHW 0.80 EF (5 to 10 qom)
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $2,173 or $0.73 1st
$ (440 - 265)
$ 500 -1,500
$ 275 - 375
$ 900 - 1.500
$1,235 -3,110
$ 0.42 to 1.05/sq.ft.
(A-15%) 2.975 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOY Eneray by 15%)
. R-13 walls (from R-15): 2,204 sf @$0.12 to $0.20/sf
. Super Low-E2 windows: U-factor=O 36, SHGC=0.23
655 sf@$1.35-$1.50/sf
. 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS)
. Tankless aas DHW 0.80 EF (5 to 10 aom)
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $
Average Incremental Cost = $2,780 or $0.93 1st
$ (440 265)
$ 885 - 980
$ 500 -1,500
$ 900 - 1.500
$ 1,845 - 3,715
0.62 to 1.25 Isq.ft.
(A-20%) 2.975 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOY Eneray by 20%)
. Super Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0.23 $
655 sf @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf
. Furnace, 90% AFUE (from 80%)
. 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioner (HERS)
. R-8 attic ducts
. Tankless qas DHW 0.80 EF (5 to 10 aorn)
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $
Average Incremental Cost = $4,208 or $1.41 1st
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
11-22
885 - 980
$ 500 - 1,000
$ 500 - 1 ,500
$ 275 - 375
$ 900 - 1.500
$ 3,060 - 5,355
1.03 to 1.80 Isq.ft.
Page 7
2.2 Low-rise Multi-family Building Case Study
BuildinQ DesiQn. 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;
(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 1st floor
. Dual vinyl windows, U=OAO, SHGC=0.36 wi 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 wi radiant barrier, R-15 exterior walls, slab-on-grade 1 sl floor
. House wrap
. Dual vinyl windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 wi 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
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.
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 8
11-23
CLlMA TE ZONE #7
(A-10%) 8.442 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerqy by 10%)
. R-38 roof, 2,880 sf @$0.1 0 - $0.20 Isf . $
. R-6 ducts (from R-4.2) $
. Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0.30
1,055 sf @ $1.00 - $1.50/sf
. (8) 0.63 EF water heaters (from 0.60 EF)
. House wrap: 9.266 sf @ $0.08 to $0.12/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $5,083 or $0.60 1st
290 - 575
1,000 - 1,400
$ 1,055 - 1 ,585
$ 800 - 1,600
$ 745 - 1.115
$ 3,890 - 6,275
$ 0.46 to 0.74/sq.ft.
(A-15%) 8.442 Sq.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerqy by 15%)
. R-38 roof, 2,880 sf @$0.10 - $0.20 Isf
. R-6 ducts (from R-4.2)
. Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0.30
1,055 sf @ $1.00 - $1.50/sf $
. (8) 063 EF water heaters (from 0.60 EF) $
. Reduced duct leakage (installation testing & HERS inspection) $
. R-15 wall insulation: 9,266_sf@ $0.06 to $0.08 sf. $
. Pipe insulation @$150 - $300/unit $
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: $
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.: $
Average Incremental Cost = $9,605 or $1.14 1st
$ 290 - 575
$ 1,000 - 1 ,400
1,055 - 1,585
800 - 1,600
2000 - 4000
560 - 745
1.200 - 2.400
6,905-12,305
0.82 to 1.46 Isq.ft.
(A-20%) 8,442 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerqy by 20%)
. R-19 roof, 2,880 sf@$0.19-$0.22/sf
. (8) 0.80 EF tankless water heaters (from 0.60 EF)
. Low-E2 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0.30
1,055 sf@$1.00-$1.50/sf
. No roof radiant barrier 2.880sf @-$0.12 to -$0. 18/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $9,915 or $1.17 1st
($ 635 - 545)
$ 7,200 -12,000
$ 1,055 - 1,585
($ 520 - 345)
$ 7,045 - 12,785
$ 0.83 to 1.51/sq.ft.
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of ChuJa Vista. 7/22/09
Page 9
11-24
CLIMATE ZONE #10
(A-10%1 8,442 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOY EnerQY by 10%1
. 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 1st
(A-15%1 8,442 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOY EnerQY by 15%1
. Reduced duct leakage (installation testing & HERS inspection)
. TXV/Refrig. Charge (HERS inspection)
. Low-E3 windows: U-factor=0.36, SHGC=0.23
1,055 sf @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf
. (8) 15 SEER/12 EER air conditioners
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $11,705 or $1.39 1st
$ 2000 - 4000
$ 300 - 500
$ 1,425 -1,585
$ 2.800 -10.800
$ 6,525 -16,885
$ 0.77 to 2.00 /sq.ft.
(A-20%1 8,442 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOY EnerQY by 20%1
. (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)
. (810.80 EF tankless water heaters (from 0.63 EFl $ 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 Isq.ft.
Average Incremental Cost = $14,570 or $1.73 1st
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chura Vista. 7/22/09
Page 10
11-25
2.3 High-Residential Building Case Study
Hiqh Residential Buildinq Desiqn. A typical 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.
Buildinq Description: 36,800 SF, 4 stories of apartments above a 1st floor retail level
building, 35.2% Window Wall Ratio glazing area, wI 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-O) 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 wI 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-O) 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 wI timer and
temperature controls; variable speed drive hot water pump
Enerqy 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.
CLIMATE ZONE #7
(A-10%l 36,800 Sq.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Eneroy by 10%)
. Low-E glazing: U=0.48, SHGC=0.35,
6,240 sf @ $1.50 - $1 80/sf
. R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmittance=0.75
9.200 sf@ $055 - $0.75/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $16,276 or $0.44/sf
$ 9,360 - 11,232
$ 5,060 - 6,900
$14,420 - 18,132
$ 0.39 to 0.49 Isq.ft.
Energy Cost.Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 11
11-26
(8-10%) 36,800 sCl.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerClY by 10%)
. Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7.84 EER=11.2
80 units total @$180 - $300 each
. 82.7% AFUE hot water boiler
. R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmittance=0.75
9.200 sf@ $0.55 - $0.75/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $26,580 or $0.72 Isf
$14,400 - 24,000
$ 1,000 - 1,800
$ 5.060 - 6.900
$20,460 - 32,700
$ 0.56 to 0.89 Isq.fi.
Climate Zone #7, Exceedinq the 2008 Standards bv 10%
Averaqe Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $0.58Isf
(A-15%) 36.800 sCl.fi. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerClY by 15%)
. Low-E glazing: U=0.48, SHGC=0.35,
6,240 sf @ $1.50 - $1.80/sf
. R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmittance=0.75
9,200 sf @ $0.55 - $0.75/sf
. (2) Munchkin boilers 92% AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each
. Premium efficiency pump motors
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.fi.:
Average Incremental Cost = $20,676 or $0.56 Isf
(8-15%) 36.800 sCl.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerClY by 15%)
. Low-E glazing: U=0.48, SHGC=0.35,
6,240 sf @ $1.50 - $1.80/sf
. Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7.84 EER=11.2
80 units total @$180 - $300 each
. (2) Munchkin boilers 92% AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each
. R-30 roof. 9.200 sf @ $0.20 - $0.30/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $35,796 or $0.97 Isf
$ 9,360 - 11,232
$ 5,060 - 6,900
$ 3,000 5,000
$ 300 500
$17,720 - 23,632
$ 0.48 to 0.64 Isq.fi.
$ 9,360 - 11,232
$14,400 - 24,000
$ 3,000 - 5,000
$ 1.840 - 2.760
$28,600 - 42,992
$ 0.78 to 1.17 Isq.fi.
Climate Zone #7. Exceedinq the 2008 Standards bv 15%
Averaqe Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $0.77Isf
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chuta Vista, 7122109 Page 12
11-27
(8-20%1 36.800 so.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOY EnerGV bv 20%)
. Low-E glazing: U=0,48, SHGC=0.35,
6,240 sf @ $1.50 - $1.80/sf
. Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7.84 EER=11.2
80 units total @$180 - $300 each
. (2) Munchkin boilers 92% AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each
. R-4, 1+" spray-on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 sf
@$1.50 - $2.50/sf
. R-38 + R-6.5 Cool Roof, 9,200 sf @ $155 - $2.00/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $68,226 or $1.85 Isf
(A-20%1 36,800 so.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOY EnerGV bv 20%)
. Low-E glazing: U=0.51, SHGC=0.23,
6,240 sf @ $3.50 - $5.00/sf
. R-38 cool roof, reflectance=O 70, emmittance=0.75
9,200 sf @ $0.55 - $0.75/sf
. R-4, 1 +" spray-on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 sf
@$1.50 - $2.50/sf
. 82.7% AFUE hot water boiler
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $52,300 or $1.42 Isf
$21,840 - 31,200
$ 5,060 - 6,900
$13,800 23,000
$ 1 ,000 1 ,800
$41,700 - 62,900
$ 1.13 to 1.71/sq.ft.
$ 9,360
11,232
$14,400 24,000
$ 3,000 - 5,000
$13,800 - 23,000
$14,260 - 18,400
$54,820 - 81,632
$ 1.49 to 2.22/sq.ft.
Climate Zone #7. Exceedinq the 2008 Standards bv 20%
A veraqe Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $1.64 Isf
CLIMATE ZONE #10
(A-10%) 36.800 so.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOY EnerGV bv 10%)
. Super Low-E glazing: U=0,48, SHGC=0.22,
6,240 sf @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf
. R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmittance=0.75
9.200 sf @ $0.55 - $0.75/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $14,873 or $0.40 Isf
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chufa Vista, 7/22109
11-28
$ 8,425 - 9,360
$ 5,060 6,900
$13,485 16,260
$ 0.37 to 0.44/sq.ft.
Page 13
(8-10%) 36,800 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Eneroy by 10%)
. R-3.2 (1") K-13 spray-on insulation under raised floor
9,200 sf @ $1.20 - $1.50/sf
. Higher efficiency heat pumps. HSPF=7.84 EER=11.2
80 units total @$180 - $300 each
. R-38 roof. 9.200 sf @ $0.30 - $OAO/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $37,600 or $1.02 Isf
$11,040 - 13,800
$14,400 - 24,000
$ 5.060 - 6.900
$30,500 - 44,700
$ 0.83 to 1.21/sq.ft.
Climate Zone #10, Exceedinq the 2008 Standards bv 10%
Averaqe Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $0.71Isf
(8-15%) 36,800 so.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Eneroy by 15%)
. R-6, 2" spray-on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 sf $
@$2.25 - $3.25/sf
. (2) Munchkin boilers 92% AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each
. Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7.84 EER=11.2
80 units total @$180 - $300 each
. R-38 roof, 9,200 sf @ $0.30 - $OAO/sf
. 18% Net Solar Fraction solar hot water
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $98,480 or $2.68 Isf
(A-15%) 36,800 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Eneroy by 15%)
. Super Low-E glazing: U=OA8, SHGC=0.22,
6,240 sf @ $1.35 - $1.50/sf
. (2) Munchkin boilers 92% AFUE @$1,500-$2,500each
. R-6, 2" spray-on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 sf
@$2.25 - $3.25/sf
. R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmittance=0.75
9.200 sf @ $0.55 - $0.75/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $44,173 or $1.20 Isf
$ 8,425
$ 3,000
$ 20,700
- 9,360
- 5,000
- 29,900
$ 5.060 - 6.900
$ 37,185 - 51,160
$ 1.01 to 1.39 Isq.ft.
20,700 - 29,900
$ 3,000
5,000
$ 14,400 24,000
$ 5,060 - 6,900
$ 40.000 - 56.000
$ 83,160 -113,800
$ 2.26 to 3.09/sq.ft.
Climate Zone #10, Exceedinq the 2008 Standards bv 15%
Averaqe Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $1.94Isf
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista. 7/22/09 Page 14
11-29
(8-20%) 36,800 so.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerqv bv 20%)
. R-6, 2" spray-on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 sf $
@$2.25 - $3.25/sf
. (2) Munchkin boilers 92% AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each
. Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7.84 EER=11.2
80 units total @$180 - $300 each
. R-38 roof, 9,200 sf @ $0.30 - $OAO/sf
. 45% Net Solar Fraction solar hot water
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $164,480 or $4.47 Isf
(A-20%) 36,800 so.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerov bv 20%)
. Super Low-E glazing: U=OA8, SHGC=0.22,
6,240 sl@$1.35-$1.50/s1
. R-6, 2" spray-on insulation below raised slab; 9,200 sf
@$2.25 - $3.25/sf
. (2) Munchkin boilers 92% AFUE @$1,500 - $2,500 each
. Higher efficiency heat pumps: HSPF=7.84 EER=11.2
80 units total @$180 - $300 each
. R-38 cool roof, reflectance=0.70, emmittance=0.75
9,200 sf @ $0.55 - $0.75/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
A verage Incremental Cost = $63,373 or $1.72 Isf
$ 8,425 9,360
$ 20,700 - 29,900
$ 3,000
5,000
$ 14,400 - 24,000
$ 5,060 - 6.900
$ 51,585 - 75,160
$ 1.40 to 2.04/sq.ft.
20,700 - 29,900
$ 3,000 - 5,000
$ 14,400 - 24,000
$ 5,060 - 6,900
$100,000 - 120.000
$143,160 -185,800
$ 3.89 to 5.05/sq.ft.
Climate Zone #10, Exceedinq the 2008 Standards bv 20%
Averaqe Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $3.10Isf
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chuta Vista, 7/22/09 Page 15
11-30
2.4 Nonresidential Building Case Study
Nonresidential Buildinq Desiqn. A typical 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.
Buildino Description: 52,900 SF,S 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 roofreflectance=0.70, emmittance=0.75
. R-19 in metal frame exterior walls, slab-on-grade 151 floor;
. NFRC-rated Low-E windows: U-factor=0.50, SHGCc=0.38 (e.g., Viracon VE 1-2M)
wi 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=10A, 10,000 CFM, standard
efficiency fan motors, 30% VAV boxes wi 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 151 floor;
. NFRC-rated Low-E windows: U-factor=0.50, SHGCc=0.38 (e.g., Viracon VE 1-2M)
wi substantial overhang on the 151 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=10A, 10,000 CFM, standard
efficiency fan motors, 30% VAV boxes wi reheat
. Ducts in conditioned space, R-4.2 duct insulation
. Service hot water: standard gas tank water heater
Eneroy 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
11-31
CLIMATE ZONE #7
(A-10%) 52.900 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerqy 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
wi OS listed below
. 90 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures;
@$6500 - $85.00 each
. R-38 cool roof, refrectance=0.70, emmittance=0.75
9.200 sf @ $0.55 - $0.75/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $30,605 or $0.58 Isf
(8-10%) 52.900 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerqy 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
. U=0.50, SHGCc=0.31 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-2M)
7,840 sf @$2.00 - 3.00/sq.ft. (excludes 1st froor glazing)
. R-30 roof (no cool roof) 9.200 sf @ $0.25 - $0.35/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $34,715 or $0.66 Isf
$16,250 19,500
$ 5,850 - 7,650
$ 5.060 - 6.900
$27,160 . 34,050
$ 0.51 to 0.64/sq.ft.
$16,250
$15,680
19,500
23,520
($ 2.300 3.220)
$29,630 39,800
$ 0.56 to 0.75/sq.ft.
Climate Zone #7. Exceedinq the 2008 Standards bv 10%
Averaqe Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $0.62Isf
(A-15%) 52.900 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerqy 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 wi 18w lamps
@$175 - $250 each
. (5) Trane 25 ton units, EER=11.0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each
wi premium fan motors
. R-38 cool roof, refrectance=0.70, emmittance=0.75
9.200 sf @ $0.55 - $0.75/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $96,230 or $1.82 Isf
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
11-32
$ 8,750 - 12,500
$ 45,000 - 65,000
$ 5.060 - 6.900
$ 80,910 -111,550
$ 1.53 to 2.11/sq.ft.
Page 17
(8-15%) 52.900 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerov bv 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=0.737
. U=0.50, SHGCc=0.31 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-2M)
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
wI premium fan motors
. R-30 roof (no cool roof) 9.200 sf @ $0.25 - $0.35/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
A verage Incremental Cost = $89,715 or $1.70 Isf
$ 16,250 19,500
$ 15,680 - 23,520
$ 45,000 - 65,000
( $ 2.300 - 3.220)
$ 74,630 - 104,800
$ 1.41 to 1.98/sq.ft.
Climate Zone #7. Exceedinq the 2008 Standards bv 15%
Averaqe Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $1.76/sf
(A-20%) 52.900 SQ.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerov bv 20%) **
. 650 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures with high efficiency instant start
ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 50 input watts
@$25.00 - $30.00/fixture; Installed LPD=0.682 w/OS$ 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 wI 18w lamps
@$175 - $250 each
. U=0.50, SHGCc=0.31 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-2M)
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
wI premium fan motors
. R-38 + R-6.5 Cool Roof. 9.200 sf @ $1.55 - $2.00/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
A verage Incremental Cost = $126,180 or $2.39Isf
$ 8,750 - 12,500
$ 15,680 - 23,520
$ 45,000 - 65,000
$ 14.260 - 18.400
$105,790 - 146,570
$ 2.00 to 2.77/sq.ft.
** Only one practical combination of energy measures was able to achieve 20% better-
than- Title 24 using a mixture of "A" and "B" features.
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
11-33
Page 18
CLIMATE ZONE #10
(A-10%\ 52.900 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Eneray by 10%)
. U=0.50, SHGCc=0.31 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-2M) $15,680
7,840 sf@$2.00 - 3.00/sq.ft. (excludes 1st floor glazing)
. 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures wi 18w lamps
@$175 - $250 each
. 90 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures;
@$6500 - $85.00 each
. 1" R-6.5 rigid insulation + R-19 metal frame walls
20,730 sf@ $1.75 - 2.25/sq.ft.
. R-38 roof, 9.200 sf@ $0.10 - $0.20/sf
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $84,418 or $1.60 1st
- 23,520
$ 8,750
$ 5,850
12,500
7,650
$36,280 - 46,645
$ 5,060 - 6,900
$71,620 - 97,215
$ 1.35 to 1.84/sq.ft.
(8-10%) 52.900 sa.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Eneray by 10%)
. U=0.50, SHGCc=0.31 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-2M) $15,680
7,840 sf@$2.00 - 3.00/sq.ft. (excludes 1st floor glazing)
. 90 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures;
@$65.00 - $85.00 each
. (5) Trane 30 ton units, EER=11.0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each
wi premium fan motors
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $81,350 or $1.54 1st
- 23,520
$ 5,850 - 7,650
$45.000 - 65.000
$66,530 - 96,170
$ 1.26 to 1.82/sq.ft.
Climate Zone #10, Exceedinq the 2008 Standards bv 10%
Averaqe Incremental Cost tor Two Compliance Scenarios: $1.57 1st
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista. 7/22/09 Page 19
11-34
(A-15%) 52,900 sq,ft, (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerGV bv 15%)
. U=0.50, SHGCc=0.31 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-2M) $
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
. 100 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures;
@$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.
. (5) Trane 30 ton units, EER=11.0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each
wI premium fan motors
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $134,188 or $2,52/sf
(8-15%) 52,900 Sq.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV EnerGV bv 15%)
. U=0.50, SHGCc=022 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-55) $
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
. 100 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures;
@$6500 - $85.00 each
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $49,635 or $0.94/sf
.
15,680 - 23,520
$ 8,750
$ 6,500
12,500
8,500
$ 36,280 - 46,645
$ 45,000 - 65.000
$112,210 - 156,165
$ 2.12 to 2.95/sq.ft.
27,740 - 35,280
$ 8,750 - 12,500
$ 6,500 8,500
$ 42,990 - 56,280
$ 0.81 to 1.06 Isq.ft.
Climate Zone #10, Exceedinq the 2008 Standards bv 15%
Averaqe Incremental Cost for Two Compliance Scenarios: $1.74/sf
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of ChuJa Vista, 7/22/09 Page 20
11-35
IA-20%1 52.900 so.ft. (Reduction in 2008 T24 TDV Enerov bv 20%1 **
. U=0.50, SHGCc=0.22 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-55) $ 27,740
7,840 sf @$3.50 - 4.50/sq.ft. (excludes 1st floor glazing)
. 50 more recessed CFL fixtures, all CFL fixtures wi 18w lamps
@$175 - $250 each
. 100 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures;
@$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.
. (5) Trane 30 ton units, EER=11.0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each
wi premium fan motors
Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure:
Incremental cost in $/sq.ft.:
Average Incremental Cost = $146,098 or $2.76 Isf
- 35,280
$
$
8,750
6,500
12,500
8,500
$ 36,280 - 46,645
$ . 45.000 - 65.000
$124,270 - 167,925
$ 2.35 to 3.17 Isq.ft.
** Only one practical combination of energy measures was able to achieve 20% better-
than- Title 24 using a mixture of "An and "B" features.
Energy Cost-Effectiveness StUdy for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
11-36
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 Chuta Vista. 7122109
Page 22
11-37
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
$2,500
$2,000 r---------------------
I
I
"J
I
I
$1,500 - ----------"
'"
$500
1-----
so -
'"'"'--T---'--'--'---'._--~----------~ --- --1
T24-1O%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chufa Vista, 7/22/09
Page 23
11-38
Figure 3-CZ7a-2: Added First Cost - 2,975 sf 2-Story Single Family Home
2,975 sf Single Family Incremental Cost
$/Bldg: CZ7
$ 3 ,000-1.-..------.-. -----.---------.--------------- -------.---------------.. ---.----------------------.-
"'oor-- -----------
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500 --
so -: . ----.--~-...r-'------ --.-----,---. ------~.--------.,
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chufa Vista, 7/22/09
Page 24
11-39
Figure 3-CZ7a-3: Added First Cost/Dwelling Unit, 2-Story Multifamily Building
Lowrise Multifamily Incremental Cost
$/Unit CZ7
.$ 1,400 ---------------------- -------- ------____ _________ _________________________
I
$1.200 -------- -------------------- ----------____ ___
..
$1,000 -----------------------
.$800
.$600
.$400
/
-----...-- ----------..--.- --.------- ----.---- -_._---,--- --------.
$200 - -----------____
$0 -,
~
T24-10%
T24-1S":t
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiver:ess Study for City of Chufa Vista, 7/22/09
11 -40
Page 25
Figure 3-CZ7b-1: Added First Cost/Sq.Ft., - 2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home
2,025 sf Single Family Incremental Cost
$/Sf: CZ7
$1.00
$0.90
,
-<~._-_._._.._..,..-
$0.80
1---- nu --- -- .
I
!
$0.70
-L---___________."_~_._._
$0.60
,
I
I
,
,
$0.50 t
i
$0.40
.--------.-----+
,
$0.30
I
.,-..--.--...-.....--
I
i
i
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
.-.----.-----.--.----.-------.--------'T
...-..----.-------...- -_.".-'~'--"'" "1
T24+10%
T24-1S%
T24~20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chufa Vista, 7/22/09
Page 26
11-41
Figure 3-CZ7b-2: Added First Cost/Sq.Ft., - 2,975 sf 2-Story Single Family Home
2,975 sf Single Family Incremental Cost
$/Sf: CZ7
$0.90 '1 ...................
I
I
:::: r
I
I
$0.60 .,
I
I
i
$0.50 "[.....------..---. ........-.-...-... _... _..... ............. ............................
$0.40 ,1,-,--", .......
$ 0 .301.. ......-..
- ---.---.--___.~_. '_'__n___ _____.~..~_.
I
$0.20 l-........---........- .......-.......---...---..-- -----.-......---.-----
I
$0.10 t--
I
I
1
$0,00 +---- .....----.-..,-......__....__.._...__ __..__......_ ..._._...._.....,
"."_"_........m"."_.__.__..n"_"...m.....n... _....__......."'.._......._..._.
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost.Effectiveness Study for City of Chuia Vista, 7/22/09
Page 27
11 -42
Figure 3-CZ7b-3: Added First CostlSq.Ft, 2-Story Multifamily Building
Lowrise Multifamily Incremental Cost
$/Sf: CZ7
$1.40 r-.-----..- .... ......--..-.---.--.-..........-...-.
I
I
i
$1.20 +.--.-.....-.- .-...----....-..
I
I
I
I
$1 00 1 . ........-............. .................-........................-..--.-.....-.-.....-... ...
. r.........-..
I
I
$0.80 +.--.--..-..--. ............................................-.-..... .. ................. .....................
I
I
SO.60 .
$0.40
I
._1...._____
,
,
I
1-.
I
!
,
!
$0.20
SO.OO
._~
T24-10%
T24*20%
T24-15%
Energy Cost.Effectiveness Study for City of Chuta Vista, 7/22/09
11-43
Page 28
Figure 3-CZ7c-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) eZ7
20.5 r------.----------..-~=~~~~~~.~=_~
::.: J.-...----------,,--..-.... ._.
18.5 . .--...-..
....\.-..
..-...-"....-
\
-- -" - \ .--.. --- -------
~
18.0 ')....-.....-
175 1_____...___._...____..._.
. I
17.0 "................ --
16.5
16.0
15.5
. n_,[
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista. 7/22/09
11-44
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) eZ7
35.0 . --_.,_._.~-_._"--------"--_._------_._-----"- ,----..----.--.-_____..__
"'1-- ~--
250 -;-- -------- - -- ----- -- ---
20_0 - --------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
15 _0 - ___n______________________________________________ - --------------------------------------------------
10_0
5_0 "-------------------------
0.0 I
T24-10%
............." ..............--...."['"" """". .-.'''.-.''--''.''''''--''''---'-'--'''''.''''''.''--1
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
11-45
Page 30
Figure 3-CZ7c-3: Simple Payback of Energy Measures
2-Story Multifamily Building
Lowrise Multifamily Simple payback of
Energy Measures (Years) eZ7
35.0 - ------------------------- -------.-----_______________________._
30_0
"" r.. ..~
20.0 --
15.0 -
10_0
5.0 ---
0_0 -,
T24~10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chuta Vista, 7/22/09
11-46
Page 31
Figure 3-CZ7d-1: Annual Reduction in C02 in Lbs./Sq.Ft. in Single Family
- 2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home
2,025 sf Single Family Annual C02
Reduction in Lbs.fSq.Ft. CZ7
0.50
0.45----------- ----------------------------_____ _________________ _____________
0.35
0.40
0.30 -I
I
0.25 r-~---------:- ------- -
0.20 T----
0.15
0_10 -------------------------------- --------------
0_05
j
1--.
","...n........n.'T'.".'__
--..........1-..
0.00
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness StUdy for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 32
11 -47
Figure 3-CZ7d-2: Annual Reduction in C02 in Lbs./Sq.Ft. in Single Family
- 2,975 sf 2-Story Single Family Home
2,975 sf Single Family Annual C02
Reduction in lbs.fSq.Ft. cn
0.25 "-------...--- ...-.--....--.---.--.-------__.__...______________________
0.20
0.15 m................... .........___..On... ....__._..
0.10
-...-.....".-..---......--- ..-......-----...--.-...-.--.- --------.-.-------.
0.05 r..-.-.......
I
I
i
0.00 ..J..-..-..-.-..-..
T24.10%
T24"15~{.l
T24.20%
Energy Cost.Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 33
11-48
Figure 3-CZ7d-3: Annual Reduction in C02 in Lbs./Sq.Ft.,
2-Story Multifamily Building
lowrise Multifamily Annual C02
Reduction in lbs.jSq.Ft. CZ7
0.30
0.70 n._______.__ --.- ..--.-----.------...------------.-..--. -.-
0.60 I
0.50 - -----.-------.------------- --- - --.... -.-- -- -.---..--.-.-.-.--.-..-.---.-----..--.--
0.30 -----.---..----
0.40 - .----.-------.----.-.--..-.- - --.--..-------.-.--
0.20 -.-
0.10 .
0.00
____._,,_...._ ..__._.,_.._,~ _~._ _._ ,_........m__._.___._n__ ___.______._.___.__..,___
. .
T24-10%
T24-20%
T24-15%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
11-49
Page 34
Hiqh-rise Residential Buildinq: 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:
Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot:
$ 536
$ 0.58
Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 12.5 years
Annual Reduction in C02-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:
Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot:
$ 706
$ 0.77
Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 11.7 years
Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.26 Ibs.lsq.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:
Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot:
$1,507
$ 1.64
Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 16.7 years
Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.23 Ibs.lsq.ft.- year
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 35
11-50
Figure 3-CZ7a-4: Added First Cost/Dwelling Unit, High-rise Residential Building
High-rise Res Incremental Cost $/Unit:
CZ7
$1,600
$1,400 ~.
1~___ _~___
$1,200 -;
I
$ 1,000
$800
$400
":: L
124-10%
T24~lS%
, J
T24-20%
...".._._-~------
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 36
11-51
Figure 3-CZ7b-4: Added First Cost/Sq.Ft., High-rise Residential Building
High-rise Res Cost $/SF: CZ7
$1.80
"'-'."___'__"""_"'__.__...__n_"_ ,...___.._____n.. ...._....._n..omo._"___.._
$1.60
'"
...----.----.------.-------.--..---..----. ----.......----,.-.....--..--
$1.40 .. -..-.-.. - -....--..--..-...-. . ...--...-_......_.......__...._....__..____._.....___..._._..._____.___._ .___..__
$1.20 'j-"'-"--" --.............--....-..-..-..........-...-...........-.....-...-...-..-.-.--.1--.....-.-.-.----..--.-..-.-.. -.-
i
i
$1.00!
I
I
$0.80 '1
I
I
I
.'060..1------
": .....
$0.40 1.
I
I
i
$0.20
$0.00 --,
T24.1O% T24.15%
--,
T24-20%
_....___m____.n._._.______._____.__..__. '._._____m...._._ ___...._..____n______.__
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista. 7/22/09
Page 37
11-52
Figure 3-CZ7c-4: Simple Payback of Energy Measures,
High-rise Residential Building
High-rise Res Simple Payback of Energy
Measures (Yrs) eZ7
18.0
16.0 ..
14.0 ..........................
+--
12.0 "~-~ ....
10.0
8.0 ..................... - .................. ................
6.0 . .........- .....
4.0 -. ....-............-......
:: L.~~=~~.~ --~ ...~~=~-=~=~~~......
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chu{a Vista, 7/22/09
11-53
Page 38
Figure 3-CZ7d-4: Annual Reduction in C02 in Lbs./Sq.Ft.,
High-rise Residential Building
High-rise Res Annual C02 Reduction in
Lbs';Sq.Ft. cn
0.30
I
0.15
0.25 ----.-- -",--
0.20 - .-.-...........-.......-.-.-..-----..-...-.-- --
0.10 +
0.05 """"" " "."."....--. ...."."....--............................".---,.--
0.00 .,
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/2V09
11-54
....,
Page 39
Nonresidential Buildin~: 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:
Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot:
$ 32,660
$ 0.62
Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 4.6 years
Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.30 Ibs.lsq.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:
Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot:
$ 92,973
$ 1.76
Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 8.1 years
Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.55 Ibs.lsq.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:
Incremental Cost per Square Foot:
$126,180
$ 2.39
Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 8.5 years
Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.70 Ibs.lsq.ft.- year
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 40
11-55
Figure 3-CZ7a-5: Added First Cost/Dwelling Unit, Nonresidential Building
(Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24)
1""000
Nonresidential Incremental Cost
$/Bldg: CZ7
5120,000 ------- -- -- ------ -- --------------7-
5100000 ----- -- - -- - - - - L- _ _ ---- --- ---- --- ---
/~
'"".000 u u.. .. u._/__ _________ ________ __
560,000 -
540,000 .. .-.-....-.-.-..-.--.......-.--.
520,000 -- ------
so -
----- ._'-~-----r-----~ -----;-""-- -. .-----------,
T24.10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chu{a Vista, 7/22/09
Page 41
11-56
Figure 3-CZ7b-5: Added First Cost/Sq.Ft., Nonresidential Building
(Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24)
----------------------------------- -------------------------------l
Nonresidential Incremental Cost $/SF:
CZ7 I
$3_00 I
I
$2.50 -I
I
$200 +-------------------
I
$0.50 t
!
i
i
$1.50 t---------------- -----
i
i
$1.00 +- ------------
$0_00
T24-10%
T24-15%
124-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 42
11-57
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) eZ7
9.0
6.0
----
T
7.0 ----~-;L
~
-/----
80 -
5.0--
4.0
3.0 ----.---- -.----..---.--.--.-.__.______.__________________...._________________..
2.0 .--~--~-.
1.0 -
0.0 -~--
r-------~-
--~-,
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
~---.,-------.--_.----- ..-..--......- --.---.....--._.___.......___,__..__... '_"___m~______._._.,____.____._. __.__._______.__.,____.__
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 43
11-58
Figure 3-CZ7d-4: Annual Reduction in C02 in Lbs./Sq.Ft., Nonresidential Building
(Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24)
Nonresidential Annual C02 Reduction in
Lbs.fSq.Ft. CZ7
0.80
i
I
0.70.1.-.-.-..--.- .--.......----.-. ... .. ......--..---.---.....-..---.......--....-...--.----------...--........
i
i
i
I
0.60 ,---.------.-.--.------.-..
I
!
;
I
i
0.50 I
!
0.40.f---...----..............
,
I
I
0.30 I _uu__ ,,____
I
O?O -~~ ---"-"...--...'-.-.. ._._.___..._.....__..___n..________..____."____.___.___.~_.- ------~--
-- I
I
I
0.10 -!-....-----.. --..............--.....-.............-......-... ... ...----........-....----................. ..........-......
I
I
0..00 -I
............_m.........".1
-.-.--.'.'1
T24-1O%
T24-15%
T24.20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 44
11-59
3.2 CLIMATE ZONE #10 RESULTS
Figure 3-CZ10a-1: Added First Cost - 2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home
2,025 sf Single Family Incremental Cost
$/Bldg: CZiO
$3,000 i
I
$2,500 ~--------------_._..__._---_._._--
I ~
$2,000 J
$1,500
$ 1,000 n
$500
I
I
$0 t._-
____.....____n____._____.__._.___._._.._______,
, ,
T24-10%
T24-150/1)
T24~20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 45
11-60
Figure 3-CZ10a-2: Added First Cost- 2,975 sf 2-Story Single Family Home
2,975 sf Single Family Incremental Cost
$/Bldg: CZIO
$4,500
i
I
$4,000 t---~----- ----.~----~~---~- --
i
i
53,500 +~~
$2,500
$3,000 (
i
;
I
,
. r.~--'~'~'~~'~'-~'-~'-
,
I
,
,
$ 2 .000 -i-~-~-"'-~~-'-~'~'~'~"."~"'''~~~'~'---
,
I
$1,500 +-------.-----~~---~-------~-.------~----------..--
!
i
I
$1,000 ,-----.
i
$500 ~
$0 "".'".,---".-...--.. -..-.--.-.-.-- -".T-.-..--...--.------.-.-~--~-.---- ..-----------------,
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chuta Vista, 7122109
Page 46
11-61
Figure 3-CZ10a-3: Added First Cost/Dwelling Unit,
2-Story Multifamily Building
lowrise Multifamily Incremental Cost
$/Unit CliO
$2,000 1------------------------------------------------------
i
i
$1,800 r------
j
$1,600 J_
i
I
$1,400 ~-------------------- ----~ -
$1200 -1--------- - -~------
'j 7'"--" --- _.__._____n
I
$ 1 ,000 ---- --------------------- ------------------------
$800
i
!
i
j__________ - ____ ________________________ ___ - __ __ ___ ______m_______
,
I
i
,
$600 ~---
$400
i
i
,
I
+------ - --- -
I
$200
I
$0 +---------------------------------,--------------
T24-10%
T24-20%
T24-15%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
11-62
Page 47
Figure 3-CZ10b-1: Added First Cost/Sq.Ft. - 2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home
2,025 sf Single Family Incremental Cost
$/Sf: CZ10
$lAO ,---------------------
I
I
I
$1 '0 I ---------------------..--------------------------------- ----- --------------
-1- ----
I
I
Sl.OOt----
I
I
I
I
SO_80 -L--____
"00 L- ... ... .u_..___. --
I
I
I
$0_40 r--
I
I
SO_20 I
I
!
I
$0_00 -,-----------------
"'-~-r
.... --...---.-----..---.....'.'------1
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 48
11-63
Figure 3-CZ10b-2: Added First Cost/Sq.Ft.,
- 2,975 sf 2-Story Single Family Home
2,975 sf Single Family Incremental Cost
$/Sf: CZIO
$1.60 ,----------------- -----.________________________._._
I
I
i
$1.40 1
I
$1.20 .--.-.-.
I
::: 1----
$060 L
I
I
,
$0.40 r-------------------------
$0.20 t.-------.--.--...-------------- ---
,
I
I
$0.00 , -~--"------r
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
.----------- _..._______"__..n_._.__n__........_..._.__________ "n._...,,___ .._.____. ...__
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chuta Vista, 7/22/09
11-64
Page 49
Figure 3-CZ10b-3: Added First Cost/Sq.Ft.,
2-Story Multifamily Building
Lowrise Multifamily Incremental Cost
$/Sf: CZiO
$2.00 l
I
$1.80 .1-.----..-.--.-.
i
$160 l-~- ..............
I
$1.40 +.-.--......- .'.' ...........
I
I
$1 20 1__.______.
1/
::: 1- -- - .-- --
i
$0.60 l...... ................................... .... -. ....-...-.-..-..-.--- ......--.
I
I
i
$0.40 j ..............-......-..... ..............-......-..............-....---..----.--..
I
I
SO.20 t.-..-....... ...................... .... ....-...-.............--.-.
i
$0.00 4
T24-10%
T24.15%
T24.20%
Energy Cost.Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
11-65
Page 50
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) CZIO
15.0 __..~_._..._.___...m'_'_._n"__.'_._ .. ........ __..____..__n.__......________..____.._________..____________"____.
14.5
...,A
............................................ ----. \
...----- ..
\
..................\
-\---
~
T24~10%
T24-15% T24-20%
Energy CDs/-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vis/a, 7/22/09
14.0
13.5
13.0
12.5
12.0
11.5
11.0
11-66
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) CZI0
21.0
20.5
20.0
19.5
19.0
18.5
18.0
17.5
T24-1O%
TZ4-15~1t.
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chuia Vista. 7/22/09
11-67
Page 52
Figure 3-CZ10c-3: Simple Payback of Energy Measures
2-Story Multifamily Building
30.0 .
lowrise Multifamily Simple Payback of
Energy Measures (Years) CZiO
25.0 _0___...__._______.___.._.__________.___
20.0 ............................ . ... .......... ...........................
15.0
10.0 ..
5.0 ......-............
0.0 .;
---,---- -,
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost.Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
11-68
Page 53
Figure 3-CZ10d-1: Annual Reduction in C02 in Lbs./Sq.Ft. in Single Family,
2,025 sf 2-Story Single Family Home
2,025 sf Single Family Annual C02
Reduction in Lbs./Sq.Ft. CZIO
0.60
0.30 ---.-------- ---- -----.--..--~ .-----..-..--...---.--------...-----
0.50 .. ____,._________n_u.. ------- -. --~.~._~.__
0.40 .. -.-----..-----..............--...----........-...-..-..........:---..-----
0.20 ----------...-.....-----...-....----.-.....-------------..---..------- - ----------
0.10 .---...
0.00
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24A20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 54
11-69
Figure 3-CZ10d-2: Annual Reduction in C02 in Lbs./Sq.Ft. in Single Family,
2,975 sf 2-Story Single Family Home
2,975 sf Single Family Annual C02
Reduction in Lbs.fSq.Ft. CZiO
0.40 .,--------------
,
...,._-,.,-------------------
0.35 ~
7
0.30
,
,
,
,
i
,
r----...--..-....
i
i
0.25 ~-------------- ------ ----.-----___.________
I
,
;
0.20!------------
--------~-~----._-~------- -
,
0.15 +---------
- --~---_._._-_._---------------------_._---_.- ---...---------.
0.10
,
-[----------
i
i
_.._---~-,-,-_...._....._,.,-_... ---.----~--------_._--_.__._-_...._----------_._---
0.05 .----.------..------------- -.-------_._______ _ ________ ____________
,
,
0.00 ~-
-_._------,--~ -
-.-,.--.------,
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24.20%
--------.---------------- -------
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09 Page 55
11-70
Figure 3-CZ10d-3: Annual Reduction in C02 in Lbs./Sq.Ft.,
2-Story Multifamily Building
Lowrise Multifamily Annual C02
Reduction in Lbs.fSq.Ft. CZiO
0.70 T--~~------
I
,
i
i
0_60 -j----------------------.--
i
I
0.50,1--
I
I
i
OAO -j---- ------------
I
I
0_30 t--------- - -----------
I
I
I
i
0.20 +------'"'---.---.......-.---"-
I
I --<>
O_lOI---~----
I
i
0_00 -,
.."................T".
T24-1O%
124-20%
T24-15%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
11-71
Page 56
Hiqh-rise Residential Buildinq: 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:
Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot:
$ 656
$ 0.71
Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 12.8 years
Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.12 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 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:
Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot:
$1,104
$ 1.94
Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 22.4 years
Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.42 Ibs.lsq.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:
Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot:
$1,584
$ 3.10
Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 27.2 years
Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.62 Ibs.lsq.ft.- year
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 57
11-72
Figure 3-CZ10a-4: Added First Cost/Dwelling Unit, High-rise Residential Building
High-rise Res Incremental Cost $/Unit:
CZ10
$1,300 T----------.----.--..- ------"-----,,,- -' ------.-----.~------
!
i
$1,600 +-------.... --..-..---..-.--------..---.- --- ----"..._-------,."--....-,,..
I
$1400 +-----
!
!
$1,200 1.____
,
$1,000 i---~----..-----. --
i
i
I
i
$300 t--------
I
!
$600
$400
$200
__._____n__._._........ ........_ _,."._
,
so ~-----_._._---_.__._-- ..'r--.----.------
~
T24.10%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chu/a Vis/a, 7/2V09
Page 58
11-73
Figure 3-CZ10b-4: Added First CostlSq.Ft., High-rise Residential Building
High-rise Res Cost $/SF: CZlO
$3.50
$.3.00
. ---- ;/--
:/
$2.50
$2.00 ..____________._.u._ _ _ ..Uu________~________._
$1.50 r
$1.00 I
']""'.-'
I
,
$0.50 1---
I
I
$000 ./.....
.r
T24-10'/o
T24"15~'i:'
T24~20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 59
11-74
Figure 3-GZ10c-4: Simple Payback of Energy Measures,
High-rise Residential Building
High-rise Res Simple Payback of Energy
Measures (Yrs) Cl10
30.0 .-...-.-----...----. -..-.-.-.-.--.-.-....-,..----... ._.__._-~----_._--------_."-
25.0
._...~:.__......-
20.0 .-........-.........-............
15.0
T24.1O%
T24-15%
T24-20%
10.0
5.0
Energy Cost.Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
0.0
11-75
Page 60
Figure 3-CZ10d-4: Annual Reduction in C02 in Lbs./Sq.Ft.,
High-rise Residential Building
High-rise Res Annual C02 Reduction in
Lbs./Sq.Ft. C210
0.70 .
!
I
0.60 I
--.---------------.----
.
0.50 1-----.-.-
I
I .
040 I -1
,,"t---I.--------
",,!- /
0.10 J
I
;
,
0.00
!
;
i
I
_._______.m__.___..___.____.____.
,-------.--.. ---------.--r.----~ --------1
T24-10%
T24-15%
T24-20S{,
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chufa Vista, 7/22/09
11-76
Page 61
Nonresidential Buildinq: 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:
Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot:
$ 82,884
$1.57
Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 12.9 years
Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.36 Ibs.lsq.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:
Average Incremental Cost per Square Foot:
$107,769
$1.74
Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures:
Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent:
9.7 years
0.57 Ibs./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:
Incremental Cost per Square Foot:
$146,098
$ 2.76
Simple Payback of Incremental Energy Measures: 10.3 years
Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.75 Ibs.lsq.ft.- year
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chufa Vista, 7122109
Page 62
11-77
Figure 3-CZ10a-5: Added First Cost/Dwelling Unit, Nonresidential Building
(Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24)
~-onresid-enti~~cremental Cost
I $/Bldg: CZlO
5160,000 ---.---------------.------------------- ----..--
$30 ,000 --..---------..-----..----......----..---------...--------..----.---------------.--.----.. --- --- ..---
$140,000 .. ------------...------------..------------...-
$120.000 ...---- ........------ - ---..----- ---..----...-.........-...--......-..-....--
$100,000
$60,000 .. ---- .--- -----...--------........ .-............ --....
$40.000
$20,000 ---.----......-.........-.....-
$0
T24810%
T24-15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chufa Vista, 7/22/09
Page 63
11-78
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 $/5F:
CZIO
$3.00 -,--'---'----'-'-'---
$2.50 1---.---..
i
I
I
j
i
$2.00 +------.----------------------- -----
$1.50
$1.00 t--------------------
I
I
j
$0.50 j
!
!
,
1----- ------------T-
$0_00
......,_._-~
T24~10%
T24-15%
T24~20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 64
11-79
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) CZIO
14.0 r----.------.---~-_.-.-------.--.-'------------------,--___
I +~
12.0 r-.---- ---~~----.---.----.-----------
I
i
I
10.0 +---------.-....--
1
!
I
,
1
I
8.0 '1
,
!
i
I
6.0
I
4.0 J.
!
,
2.0 +--
!
i
i
0.0 -1 ___........______.__."_.....m.....___...
...........----.-..-----.....--...-....-1-...---
T24-10':l;:.
T24-15(~L'
T24-20tJ!tl
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 65
11-80
Figure 3-CZ10d-4: Annual Reduction in C02 in Lbs.lSq.Ft., Nonresidential Building
(Only one combination of energy measures achieves 20% better than Title 24)
Nonresidential Annual C02 Reduction in
Lbs.jSq.Ft. CZiO
0_80
i
I
L
0_70 ,
,
L
0.60 '"_....."'.._...u.._..._........
I
!
i
0.50 '1---- -------.------------- ----------------------------
,
I
i
I
0.40 .1- --.--.---.-
I
I
030 -l---- -- -------
- ,
1
I
I
0_20 -I
I
I
I
0_10 +--.----.-.--.-- .. - -.---.---.--.-.-...-....-.-.--.--.-.----..-..--.-.--.--.----- --...-.----..---.--..-..--.-.-..------------.-...-.
I
I
I
0.00 ~-----._,---._-.-- ,'--- --"."--'-'-,--'--- ..........-----....--..., -- ......
T24-10%
T24.15%
T24-20%
Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 7/22/09
Page 66
11:--81
4.0 Policv 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.
Certified Energy Plans Examiners (CEPEs)
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 Chufa Vista, 7/22/09
Page 67
11-82
ORDINANCE NO.
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
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION I. Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
I. Modifications to the California Building Standards and Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, as detailed in this Ordinance, are reasonably necessary due
to local climatic conditions. As a result of high summer 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 measures required
by this Ordinance, will have local and regional benefits in the cost-effective
reduction of eJ;1ergy 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 a cost-effectiveness study by Gabel Associates, LLC.
SECTION I!. 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 Energv Et1iciencv Standards
15.26.010 California Energy Code adopted by reference.
The City ofChula Vista adopts, by reference, that certain document known as the
California Energy Code, set forth in Title 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 o{the City ofChula Vista for the purpose ofregulating building'design
nAttornev\FINAL RESOS\2009\tO 20 09\2008 Energv Code Ordirunce Strk Undln.Joc
, . -- 11-83 -
Page] of4
and construction standards to increase efficiency in the use of energy for new residential
and nonresidential buildings, excepting such portions as are modified, or amended by this
Chapter. Chapter 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 I, 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 Department.
15.26.030 Increased Energy Efficiency Standards
A. Scope. The provisions of this Section shall apply to all new residential construction.
additions. remodels and alterations, and to all new non-residential construction.
additions. remodels and alterations 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 to 1.000 square feet of conditioned floor area are 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 to I 0.000 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
energv 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 Energy Code,
applications for building permits coyered under Section 15.26.030 (A) shall comply
with the following:
a. For Climate Zone 7:
1. All new low-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.
11. 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 buildings where the additions, remodels or
alterations are greater than 10.000 square feet of conditioned floor area
shall use at least 15.0% less TDV Energy than the 2008 Building
Energy Efficiencv Standards allows.
J:\Attomey\FfNAL RESQS\2009\10 20 09\2008 Energy Code Ordinance Strk Undln.doc
11-84 -
Page 2 of4
b. For Climate Zone 10:
1. All new low-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 conJitioned
floor area shall use at least )0.0% less TDV Energv than the )008
Building Energv Efficiencv Standards allows.
11. All ncw non- residential. high-rise residential or 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 are greater than 10.000 square feet of conditioned floor area
shall use at least 15.0% lcss TDV Energy than the 2008 Building
Energv Efficiencv 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 Energv Commission approved energv compliance software
program.
E. Compliance Credit Option for Buildings within Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
Proiects.
For building construction within Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan proiect areas
whose SPA is approved 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 energy savings thresholds for
communitv dcsign and site planning features pursuant to the rcquirements as set forth
in the SPA's approved Air Oualitv Improyement Plan (AOIP). If the approved AOIP
has met the qualifying thresholds. the applicant may request and receive an energy
savim(s credit towards a portion of the requirements specitied in Section 15.26.030C
subiect to approval bv the Director of Development Services, provided the proiect
fully complies with the 2008 Building Energy Efficiencv Standards (Title 24, Part 6)
at the time of permitting, and conforms to applicable guidelines in effect at the time
of the request for credit.
F. Technical Assistance. The building official may require the applicant to retain the
services of a consultant havinl!: expertise in energy efficiency teclmiques 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 by the applicant.
G. Expiration. Section 15.26.030 shall expire upon the date the 2008 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards are no longer in effect.
SECTION III. EFFECTIVE DATE.
J:\Attorney\FrNAL RESOS\2009\lO 20 09\2008 Energy Code Ordinance Strk_Undln.doc
11-85
Page 3 of4
This ordinance will take effect and be in force thirty days after final passage.
Gary Halbert, AICP, PE
Deputy City Manager!
Director of Development Services
./\
\
I
Er-atCMie e
~ t::.ity ~Jrney
Approved as to form by
/)
,.I/i
i'
!
Submitted by:
J:\Attorney\FINAL RESOS\2009\lO 20 09\2008 Energy Code Ordinance Strk Undln.doc
11-86 -
Page 4 of4
ORDINANCE NO.
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
The City Council of the City ofChula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION I. Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
1. Moditications to the California Building Standards and Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, as detailed in this Ordinance, are reasonably necessary due
to local climatic conditions. As a result of high summer 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 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 a cost-effectiveness study by Gabel 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
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 Title 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
J:\Attornev\FINAL RESOS\2009\lO 20 09\2008 Energy Code Ordinance.doc
. 11-87
Page 1 of4
and construction standards to increase efficiency in the use of energy for new residential
and nomesidential buildings, excepting such portions as are modified, or amended by this
Chapter. Chapter 15.06 CYMC 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 I, 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 Department.
15.26.030 Increased Energy Efficiency Standards
A. Scope. The provisions of this Section shall apply to all new residential construction,
additions, remodels and alterations, and to all new non-residential construction,
additions, remodels and alterations 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 to I ,000 square feet of conditioned floor area are 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 to I 0,000 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
energy 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 Energy Code,
applications for building permits covered under Section 15.26.030 (A) shall comply
with the following:
a. For Climate Zone 7:
1. All new low-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 TOY Energy than the 2008
Building Energy Efficiency Standards allows.
11. 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 buildings where the additions, remodels or
alterations are greater than 10,000 square feet of conditioned floor area
shall use at least 15.0% less TOY Energy than the 2008 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards allows.
J:\Attomey\FINAL RESOS\2009\lO 20 09\2008 Energy Code Ordimnce.doc
11-88
Page 2 of4
b. For Climate Zone 10:
1. All new low-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 20.0% less TDV Energy than the 2008
Building Energy Efficiency Standards allows.
11. 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 buildings where the additions, remodels or
alterations are greater than 10,000 square feet of conditioned floor area
shall use at least 15.0% less TDV Energy 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 energy compliance software
program.
E. Compliance Credit Option for Buildings within Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
Projects.
For building construction within Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan project areas
whose SPA is approved 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 energy savings thresholds lor
community design and site planning features pursuant to the requirements as set forth
in the SPA's approved Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP). If the approved AQIP
has met the qualifying thresholds, the applicant may request and receive an energy
savings credit towards a portion of the requirements specified in Section 15.26.030C
subject to approval by the Director of Development Services, provided the project
fully complies with the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6)
at the time of permitting, and conforms to applicable guidelines in effect at the time
of the request for credit.
F. Technical 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. Thc
cost of such consultant shall be paid by the applicant.
G. Expiration. Section 15.26.030 shall expire upon the date the 2008 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards are no longer in effect.
SECTION III. EFFECTIVE DATE.
J:\Attorney\F'fNAL RESOS\2009\10 20 09\2008 Energy Code Ordinance.doc
11-89
Page 3 of4
This ordinance will take effect and be in force thirty days after final passage.
Submitted by:
Approved as to form by
Gary Halbert, AICP, PE
Deputy City Managerl
Director of Development Services
J:\Attorney\FfNAL RESOS\2009\1O 20 09\2008 Energy Code Ordinance.doc
11-90
Page 4 of4
~-2 ~ i S:~t ~ t v~.r~~ (v a -~i
T-f~ vl~ I I f~
ORDINANCE NO.
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
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION I. Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
Modifications to the California Building Standards and Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, as detailed in this Ordinance, aze reasonably necessary due
to local climatic conditions. As a result of high summer 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 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 Standazds and are determined to be cost effective
based on acost-effectiveness study by Gabel 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 Ener>?y 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 Title 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 Califomia Energy Code is adopted as
the energy code of the City of Chula Vista for the purpose of regulating building design
Page 1 of 4
and construction standards to increase efficiency in the use of energy for new residential
and nonresidential buildings, excepting such portions as are modified, or amended by this
Chapter to exceed the California Energy Code, set forth in Title 24, Part 6. Chapter 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 Department.
15.26.030 Increased Ener¢y Efficiency Standards
A. Scone. The provisions of this Section shall apply to all new residential construction
additions remodels and alterations, and to all new non-residential construction,
additions, remodels and alterations 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 to1,000 square feet of conditioned floor area are 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
energy 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 Energy Code
applications for building permits covered under Section 15.26.030 (A) shall comply
with the following:
a. For Climate Zone 7:
i. All new low-rise residential buildings or additions, remodels or
alterations to existing low-rise residential buildings where the additions,
remodels or alterations are ¢reater 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 buildings where the additions, remodels or
alterations are greater than 10,000 square feet of conditioned floor area
Page 2 of 4
shall use at least 15.0% less TDV Energy than the 2008 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards allows.
b. For Climate Zone 10:
i. All new low-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 20.0% 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 buildings where the additions, remodels or
alterations are greater than 10,000 square feet of conditioned floor area
shall use at least 15.0% less TDV Energy 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 energy compliance software
program.
E. Compliance Credit Option for Buildings within Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
Projects.
For building construction within Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan project areas
whose SPA is approved 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 energy savings thresholds for
community design and site planning features pursuant to the requirements as set forth
in the SPA's approved Air Quality Improvement Plan (AOIP) If the approved AOIP
has met the qualifying thresholds, the applicant may request and receive an energy
savings credit towards a portion of the requirements specified in Section 15.26.030C
subject to approval by the Director of Development Services provided the proiect
fully complies with the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6)
which are in effect at the time of permitting, and conforms to applicable guidelines in
effect at the time of the request for credit.
F. Technical 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 by the applicant.
G. Expiration Section 15 26 030 shall expire upon the date the 2008 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards are no longer in effect.
Page 3 of 4
SECTION III. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance will take effect and be in force thirty days after final passage.
Submitted by:
Gary Halbert, AICP, PE
Deputy City Manager/
Director of Development Services
Pagc 4 of 4
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DIRECTING STAFF TO PROPOSE LOCAL
AMENDMENTS TO FUTURE VERSIONS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, TITLE 24, PART 6,
REQUIRING INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS
WHEREAS, through its C02 Reduction Plan Chula Vista committed to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 1990 levels; and
WHEREAS, as presented in a citywide 2005 greenhouse gas inventory, Chula Vista's
greenhouse gas emissions increased since 1990 due largely to new residential growth; and
WHEREAS, as a result the City Council directed staff to convene a Climate Change
Working Group (CCWG) to develop recommendations to reduce the community's greenhouse
gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, the CCWG recommended seven climate protection measures including a
20% above Title 24 building energy efficiency standards; and
WHEREAS, the CCWG recommended that increased local building energy efficiency
standards be updated regularly to meet the State's goal of zero net energy construction by 2020
for homes and 2030 for businesses; and
WHEREAS, on April I, 2008, City Council adopted the CCWG's seven
recommendations and directed staff to develop implementation plans; and
WHEREAS, on July 10,2008, City Council approved the implementation plans for the
seven measures and directed staff to implement the measures based on funding levels and
specifically directed staff to evaluate the impacts and initiate the process for establishing a
standard of 15% to 20% above 2008 Title 24 standards; and
WHEREAS, as a component of the implementation plan for the CCWG Measure No.4,
Green Building Standards, staff proposed adopting local building energy efficiency standards
that are generally 10% and 15% above the minimum 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency
Standards for non-residential and residential buildings, respectively, and
WHEREAS, staff is presenting to Council an Ordinance amending Chapter 15.26 of the
Municipal Code and adding Section 15.26.030 requiring increased energy efficiency standards
for residential and non-residential construction; and
WHEREAS, in climate zone 7, the Ordinance requires residential and nonresidential
construction to be at least 15% more energy efficient than the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards; and
11-91
WHEREAS, in climate zone 10, the Ordinance requires low-rise residential construction
to be at least 20% more energy efficient than the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards,
and high-rise residential, hotel/motel and nonresidential construction to be at least 15% more
energy efficient than the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance exempts additions, remodels or alterations to existing low-
rise residential buildings where the addition, remodel or alteration is less than or equal to 1,000
square feet of conditioned floor area, and additions, remodels or alterations to existing high-rise
residential, non-residential or hotel/motel buildings wherc the addition, remodel or alteration is
less than or equal to 10,000 square feet of conditioned floor area from the required increased
energy efficiency standards; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State law, these local amendments to the 2008 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards will no longer be in effect upon the date new State building energy
efficiency standards take effect; and
WHEREAS, local amendments to future State building energy efficiency standards,
which are developed every three to four years, must go through California Energy Commission
(CEC) approval and local adoption processes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that City standards would always exceed the
minimums required under the State building energy efficiency standards; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to set the currently proposed levels of increased
standards for climate zones 7 and 10 as the minimum level for future local amendments to
exceed new State building energy efficiency standards; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part I, Section 10-
106, Locally Adopted Energy Standards, and the CEC's submittal and approval process, Council
will have to make the determination, based on a cost-effectiveness study, that requiring the 15%
and 20% levels above the new State standards are cost-effective; and
WHEREAS, utilizing the data from the study, the City Council, shall determine the cost
effectiveness of sustaining the 15% and 20% minimum levels and provide appropriate direction
to staff at that time; and
WHEREAS, staff shall work with the City Council, consultant and appropriate agencies
in advance to implement these actions so that the City's standards could be in place no later than
the effective date of the State's new standards whenever possible; and
WHEREAS, City Council should anticipate that staff would request that the City Council
authorize the expenditure to cover consultant fees required to conduct the required studies and
any additional study options generated by City Council direction.
11-92
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista hereby adopts this resolution, and directs staff to prepare and present for City Council
consideration proposed local amendments to future versions of California Energy Code requiring
increased local energy efficiency standards, and the necessary future cost-effectiveness studies,
consistent with this resolution.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Gary Halbert, AICP, PE
Deputy City Manager/Development
Services Director
11-93