HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/3/2018 - STAFF REPORTS - 5.E. ;pF P A`M Sp4
iZ
� Q
u m
f yC4MP11if0,,� M
cq�fFORN�P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 3, 2018 NEW BUSINESS
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED POLICY TO ALLOW THE
REQUIREMENT FOR SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS AS PART OF
DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT.
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Department of Planning Services
Building and Safety Department
SUMMARY:
At the direction of the City Council Solar Installation Ordinance Subcommittee, staff has
drafted a policy regarding requirements for solar photovoltaic systems for new residential
development as part of discretionary reviews. The policy will replace the proposed solar
ordinance, which was reviewed by the City Council at the meeting of October 4, 2017.
The policy will allow the Planning Commission or the City Council to require the
installation of solar photovoltaic panels as part of a discretionary review for new single-
family and multifamily residential development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM SPRINGS, ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE PROVISION OF SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS AS PART OF DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS FOR NEW
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT."
BACKGROUND:
Related Relevant City Actions
The City Council held a joint meeting with the Sustainability
Commission and discussed mandatory solar requirements; while no
06/23/16 action was taken on the matter, the City Council requested additional
research relative to costs, incentives, threshold requirements, and
impact to affordable housing.
ITEM NO.
City Council Staff Report
January 3, 2018 -- Page 2
Proposed Solar Policy
Related Relevant Uty Actions
12/14/16 The Sustainability Commission held a joint study session with the
Planning Commission on the topic of mandatory solar requirements.
12/21/16 The Sustainability Commission voted to recommend approval of a
ro osed solar ordinance to the City Council.
The Planning Commission considered the proposed solar ordinance
and reviewed the recommendations of the Sustainability Commission.
01/11/17 The Planning Commission expressed general support for the proposed
ordinance, but requested additional analysis prior to making a
recommendation to the City Council.
04/26/17 The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the
ro osed solar ordinance to the City Council.
The City Council considered the proposed solar ordinance, and
10/04/17 appointed a subcommittee (Kors, Roberts) to further review the
ordinance and provide direction to staff.
The City Council Solar Installation Ordinance subcommittee met and
directed staff to prepare a policy that would allow the Planning
10/12/17 Commission and City Council to require the installation of solar
systems as part of discretionary reviews for new residential
development.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
In anticipation of potential action by the State of California to adopt mandatory solar
requirements for new residential construction in 2020, the Solar Installation Ordinance
Subcommittee felt that adopting a solar policy would achieve nearly the same results as
the previously-proposed ordinance, while allowing flexibility in adapting to any
forthcoming State regulations. Based on direction from the subcommittee, staff has
prepared a policy document for adoption by City Council, which will allow the Planning
Commission or the City Council to require the provision of solar systems as a condition
of approval of discretionary applications. A discussion of the policy and its application is
provided in the following section of this staff report.
Draft Policy.-
The proposed policy will allow either the Planning Commission and/or the City Council to
impose a condition of approval for the mandatory provision of solar photovoltaic panels
as part of discretionary reviews for new single-family and multifamily residential
development. The requirement for solar systems would be considered for any of the
following types of discretionary reviews:
• Architectural Review applications (Major Architectural applications only);
• Conditional Use Permit applications (where required for residential development);
• Development Agreements;
02
City Council Staff Report
January 3, 2018 -- Page 3
Proposed Solar Policy
• Planned Development District applications (or Major Amendments to an approved
Planned Development District);
• Specific Plan applications or amendments; and
• Variance applications.
The policy would exempt certain types of new residential construction from the provision
of solar systems:
• Low-income housing (as defined in the California Public Utilities Code);
• Manufactured/factory-built housing (as defined in the California Health and Safety
Code);
• Any housing developments which were fully entitled prior to the adoption of the
policy;
• Accessory dwelling units, when constructed on a parcel with an existing residential
dwelling;
• New residential dwelling units that are not subject to discretionary reviews.
The policy establishes a general requirement for solar photovoltaic systems with a
wattage that is at least equal to 2.0 times the square footage of the residence (2.0 watts
per square foot). Under the policy, the Planning Commission and the City Council would
have the ability to reduce the wattage requirement or waive the solar requirement
altogether, based on site conditions or affordability factors of the proposed housing.
In applying the policy, Planning Services staff would identify the applicability of the policy
in staff reports for discretionary reviews, and would include the requirement for solar
photovoltaic systems in the conditions of approval as appropriate. The Planning
Commission or the City Council would then consider the application of the policy in their
deliberations on the case, and could modify or waive the condition if appropriate.
Cost-Effectiveness Study:
City staff retained a consultant to prepare a cost-effectiveness study for the previous solar
ordinance, which would have been required by the California Energy Commission (CEC)
had the City moved forward in adopting the ordinance. While not required for the adoption
of policies, the cost-effectiveness study provides helpful information in analyzing the costs
and cost recovery timeframes associated with solar systems. The study was prepared
by EcoMotion, a firm that has prepared cost-effectiveness studies for other jurisdictions
who have adopted mandatory solar requirements. EcoMotion determined in its study that
the proposed Palms Springs measures do not inhibit cost effectiveness, and that solar
photovoltaic systems installed on new homes will provide considerable savings for
homeowners over the life of the systems. The study also indicates that even if solar tax
credits are eliminated and other incentives disappear, solar installations will still be cost
effective. The cost-effectiveness study is included as an attachment to this report.
03
City Council Staff Report
January 3, 2018 -- Page 4
Proposed Solar Policy
Future Changes to Energy Efficiency Standards:
The California Energy Commission (CEC) has now begun pre-rulemaking for the 2019
Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as the CEC moves towards its goal to achieve zero
net energy (ZNE) levels by 2020 for residences and by 2030 for nonresidential buildings.
Solar will be required statewide on new construction starting in 2020. Based on a
presentation given by CEC staff in August 2017, the sizing requirements for the climate
zone where Palm Springs is located is likely to be higher than the two watts per square
foot standard that is proposed as part of the solar policy. A copy of the August 2017
CEC Powerpoint presentation is included as an attachment to this report.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION:
The proposed policy is intended to preserve and enhance the environment of the City of
Palm Springs. Accordingly, this policy is categorically exempt under the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") from environmental review pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. There is no possibility that enhancing
environmental conservation efforts would have a significant negative effect on the
environment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed policy will not have a budgetary impact on the City, as the policy will be
implemented as part of an existing discretionary review process. The fiscal impact to
home buyers will be the initial cost of the PV system, which is estimated by the cost-
effectiveness study as being approximately $4.06 per watt (resulting in an approximate
cost of$17,500 for a 2,100 square foot house). However, the study indicates that home
buyers will recoup the initial cost through savings in utility bills, with a payback period for
the average system that varies between 11.7 and 14.2 years.
FI nn Fagg, AICP Marcus L. Fuller, MPA, P.E., P.L.S.
Director of Planning Services Assistant City Manager
David H. Ready, Esq., Ph
City Manager
' ' 04
City Council Staff Report
January 3, 2018-- Page 5
Proposed Solar Policy
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Draft Solar Policy
3. EcoMotion Study prepared for the City of Palm Springs (includes "Local PV
Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study" prepared by Davis Energy Group Inc. as an
attachment)
4. City Council Minutes —Meeting of 10/04/17
5. Subcommittee Report — Sustainability Commission meeting of 12/15/16
6. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes — Meeting of 04/26/17
7. CEC Presentation — Proposed 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
(08/30/17)
05
ATTACHMENT # 1
oG
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE
PROVISION OF SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS AS
PART OF DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS FOR NEW
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
A. The City of Palm Springs General Plan, adopted by the City Council in October
2007, establishes goals to encourage the use of alternative energy sources, incorporate
energy efficiency in building design, and to make the maximum use of solar electric
capabilities.
B. The Sustainability Plan, adopted by the City Council in June 2016, establishes
goals to increase the provision of energy from renewable sources and to require solar-
generated power for new residential buildings.
C. The City Council and the Sustainability Commission held a joint meeting on June
23, 2016, and at that meeting, the City Council directed the Sustainability Commission to
initiate research into the costs, incentives, threshold requirements, and impacts of
mandatory solar requirements.
D. On December 21, 2016, the Sustainability Commission recommended approval of
a draft solar ordinance to the City Council, requiring the provision of solar photovoltaic
systems for new and remodeled residential units.
E. On April 26, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a draft
solar ordinance to the City Council
F. On October 4, 2017, a public hearing on the proposed solar ordinance was held
by the City Council in accordance with applicable law, and at that meeting, after
consideration of the staff report and all testimony presented in conjunction with the item,
the City Council referred the ordinance to subcommittee for further review.
G. On October 12, 2017, the Solar Installation Ordinance Ad Hoc Subcommittee of
the City Council met and concluded that a policy for the installation of solar photovoltaic
systems would provide flexibility in meeting the goals of the General Plan and the
Sustainability Plan, while being mindful of efforts of the State of California to require solar
systems for residential construction in the near future.
H. On January 3, 2018, the City Council conducted a public meeting on the issue of
a solar policy, at which meeting the Council considered the staff report, supporting
documentation, and all testimony offered on the subject.
I. The City Council finds that a solar policy will assist in the implementation of the
following goals of the City of Palm Springs General Plan:
Resolution No.
Page 2
Goal RC8.2: Support and encourage the use of alternative energy sources in the
construction of new buildings.
Goal RC8.3: Encourage and support the incorporation of energy efficiency and
conservation practices in subdivision design and building design.
Goal RC8.13: Make the maximum use of solar electric capabilities.
J. The City Council finds that the solar policy will help achieve the following goals of
the Sustainability Plan:
• Reduce energy use and carbon use from new homes and buildings.
• Supply 50% of all energy from renewable sources by 2030.
• Develop strategies to reduce community-wide contributions to greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the findings and determinations reflected above are true and
correct, and are incorporated by this reference herein as the cause and foundation for the
action taken by and through this Resolution.
SECTION 2. The policy regarding the requirement for solar photovoltaic panels as
part of discretionary approvals for residential development, as contained in Exhibit A, is
hereby approved and shall by implemented by staff, the Planning Commission, and the
City Council in the review of discretionary applications for new residential development.
ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.
David H. Ready, Esq., Ph.D.
City Manager
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC
City Clerk
� g
Resolution No.
Page 3
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, ANTHONY J. MEJIA, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC
City Clerk
v 09
ATTACHMENT # 2
*pALMg
00
Y N
•' �C OR 4� y
C �RRMkO�
P
4�fl:004
City Council Policy Statement
Adopted January 3, 2018
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
In order to achieve the City's goals for energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction
pursuant to the City of Palm Springs General Plan and the adopted Sustainability Plan,
solar photovoltaic systems may be required as part of the discretionary review process
for new residential development in accordance with the provisions listed below.
1. The Planning Commission and/or the City Council may require the provision of
solar photovoltaic systems for new single-family and multifamily residential construction
as a condition of approval of any of the following discretionary application types:
a. Architectural Review application (Major only);
b. Conditional Use Permit application;
C. Development Agreement application;
d. Planned Development District application or a major amendment thereto;
e. Specific Plan application or amendment; or
f. Variance application.
2. The wattage of the required solar photovoltaic system shall generally be equivalent
to two (2) watts times the total square footage of the residential dwelling unit. The
Planning Commission and/or the City Council may reduce the required wattage or
eliminate the requirement for the solar photovoltaic system altogether due to site
conditions, environmental factors, or to meet housing affordability goals.
3. This policy shall not be applicable to the following:
a. Low-income residential housing, as defined in Section 2852(a)(3) of the
California Public Utilities Code if the cost of installation of the system is not fully
funded without recourse to the residents;
Page 1
b. Factory-built housing, as defined by Section 19971 of the California Health
and Safety Code;
C. Accessory dwelling units, when constructed on the same parcel as an
existing single-family residential dwelling;
d. Housing developments which were fully entitled prior to the date of adoption
of this policy; and
e. Housing which is compliant to the development standards of the zoning
district in which it is located and which may be approved as a ministerial action.
; 3:
Page 2 L.
ATTACHMENT # 3
i
EcoMotion -Sustainability Solutions
601 Fifth Street,Suite 650 Los Angeles CA 90071 •(949)450-7155•www.EcoMotion.us
DRAFT 3/6/17 MW
Solar Ordinance Cost-Effectiveness Study
Presented to:
Flinn Fagg
Director of Planning Services
City of Palm Springs
3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs,CA 92262
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Key Assumptions
Impact of Palm Springs's Utility Users Tax (UUT)
Residential Cost scale
Residential Examples
Conclusion
Exhibits
1 ,t
t
Executive Summary
EcoMotion was retained by the City of Palm Springs to validate its proposed Solar Ordinance. The
bottom line is that in all scenarios examined,the Palms Springs ordinance establishing mandatory solar
photovoltaic measures does not inhibit cost effectiveness.
This report updates metrics, assumptions, and conclusions from the 2016 California Public Utilities
Commission study prepared for PG&E and authored by Davis Energy Group, Inc. Enercomp,
Inc.MistiBruceri &Associates, LLC entitled "Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study' (also
attached as Exhibit 2).
While the CPUC/PG&E study covers all regions and sectors of California, the EcoMotion update focuses
only on the City of Palm Springs, the Southern California baseline Region 15 that it occupies, and the
residential rates of the serving utility, Southern California Edison.
Whereas the 2016 CPUC/PG&E study states: 'This report finds the evaluated solar PV ordinance to be
both feasible and cost effective, and reduces energy demand in all 16 California climates zones.",
the EcoMotion update affirms that PV systems will be cost-effective for the residential sector for the
25-year life of the solar measure, even if tax credits and incentives are not present.
The main difference between today's market and the assumptions made for the 2016 CPUC/PG&E
study report is that a multi-year extension of the ITC was granted in 2016, alleviating concerns in the
industry. Solar installation prices have continued to decline while utility rates have continued to
increase, keeping solar even more cost-effective.
This update of 2016 CPUC/PG&E study report cost-effectiveness conclusions focuses on the original
assumptions made, any new assumptions made to support current and continuing conditions, and
focuses on Palm Springs based average consumption (5 kWh per square foot, a number furnished by
SCE) to demonstrate cost-effectiveness.
Key Assumptions
Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of rooftop PV installations for newly constructed buildings is complex
and depends on several variables. The CPUC/PG&E report addresses this complexity by using scenario
analysis and categorizing results by climate zone and broad customer classes. In this report,
EcoMotion uses some assumptions from the CPUC/PG&E report but focuses on scenarios that are most
common in the City of Palm Springs. EcoMotion assumes all solar systems are in Palm Springs (Climate
Zone 15) and accrue benefits over a 25 year economic lifetime.
15
Table l:Prole a Characteristics'*
Single Family Single Family
One-Story Two-Story
Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft' 2,700 ft2
Num.of Stories 1 2
Num.of Bedrooms 3 3
Window-to-Floor Area 20% 20%
Ratio
*2015 CPUC/PG&E study
2016 CPUC/PG&E Report assumptions 2016 EcoMotion Report assumptions
Utility electricity rate structures and Net Given the dramatic impact NEM has on the
Energy Metering(NEM) rules do not change cost-effectiveness of solar, this analysis
significantly throughout the lifetime of assumes Time-of-use rate structures coming
rooftop PV systems with NEM 2.0
Utility rates escalate at 0%(conservative Utility rates escalate at 0%
assumption)
Rooftop PV costs for Climate Zone 15 were Rooftop PV costs continue to decline.
placed at$4.06 per watt(DC) EcoMotion will assume the same cost for
Palm Springs although competitive bidding
may yield lower prices
All systems are roof-mounted All systems are roof-mounted
The CPUC/PG&E study defines cost EcoMotion also defines cost effectiveness as
effectiveness as lifecycle benefits(savings) lifecycle benefits (savings) being greater than
being greater than lifecycle costs.The solar lifecycle costs. EcoMotion uses the more
lifecycle being 30 years conservative lifecycle figure of 25 years
New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP) rebates New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP) rebates
are represented are not represented
Lifecycle cost estimates include the 30%Tax EcoMotion does not include the tax credit
Credit and shows cost effectiveness without it
No specific solar ordinance is referenced EcoMotion assumes the Palm Springs PV
requirement of 2 watts per square foot
Impact of Palm Springs's Utility Users Tax (UUT)
All residential SCE customers pay a 5% Utility Users Tax to the City of Palm Springs.The tax varies city
by city. Some cities charge no tax.The tax is not mentioned in the CEC study. For Palm Springs and
other cities, the UUT has the impact of raising the consumer utility costs by 5%. In terms of solar cost-
effectiveness, it means that avoided utility cost has a 5%greater value and helps the payback term for
solar deals.
Residential Cost Scale
2016 CPUC/PG&E Report 2016 EcoMotion Report
$4.06/watt $4.06/watt
Residential Property Examples
While SCE rate TOU-D-T is the default rate required after July 1, 2017 for new solar installations,
EcoMotion has provided analysis for the two other TOU rate options available in Palm Springs.
Supporting spreadsheets with rate detail are in Exhibit 1.
Residential Cost-Effectiveness with SCE Rate TOU-D-T*
Annual kWh Square Feet Required solar kW size (DC) First Year Bill Payback
use and gross cost Savings
10,500 2,100 4.2 kW $17,052 $1,453 11.7 years
(one story)
13,500 2,700 5.4 kW $21,924 $1,856 1.1.8 years
(two story)
*Assumes 30%of summer use is in"on peak"period
17
Residential Solar Cost-Effectiveness with SCE Rate TOU-D-Option A*
Use assumption of SkW h per square foot for Climate Zone 15 provided by SCE
Annual kWh Square Feet Required solar kW size(DC) First Year Bill Payback
use and gross cost Savings
10,500 2,100 4.2 kW $17,052 $1,2G4 13.5 years
(one story)
13,500 2,700 5.4 kW $21,924 $1,614 13.6 years
(two story)
*Assumes 30%of summer use is in"on peak"period
Residential Solar Cost-Effectiveness with SCE Rate TOU-D-Option B*
Annual kWh Square Feet Required solar kW size (DC) First Year Bill Payback
use and gross cost Savings
10,500 2,100 4.2 kW $17,052 $1,201 14.2 years
(one story)
13,500 2,700 5.4 kW $21,924 $1,544 14.2 years
(two story)
*Assumes 30%of summer use is in"on peak"period
In many cases, the homeowner may elect to exceed the required kW size to maximize return on
investment and lower the payback period.
Conclusion
Solar photovoltaic systems installed on new homes and during major remodels will provide
considerable savings for homeowners over the life of the systems. Solar is cost-effective and pays for
itself with utility bill savings. Solar is cost-effective today and will remain cost-effective into the future
as installation prices decrease while utility rates increase. Even if solar tax credits go away and the all
other incentives disappear, solar installations will still be cost effective.
Exhibit 1
Palm Springs SCE Solar Savings Calculations
(based on SCE rates effective 1/1/17)
PV Size
(kW dc) Solar Generation kWh Estimate SCE TOU-D-T Rate Savings
4.2 Summer Peak 1,296 $ 0.3542 $ 459.04
Summer Off Peak 1,595 $ 0.1813 $ 289.17
Winter Peak 1,424 $ 0.2343 $ 333.64
Winter Off Peak 2,118 $ 0.1752 $ 371.07
Totals 6,433 $ 1,452.93
PV Size
(kW dc) Solar Generation kWh Estimate SCE TOU-D-T Rate Savings
5.4 Summer Peak 1,655 $ 0.3542 $ 586.20
Summer Off Peak 2,038 $ 0.1813 $ 369.49
Winter Peak 1,820 $ 0.2343 $ 426.43
Winter Off Peak 2,707 $ 0.1752 $ 474.27
Totals 8,220 $ 1,856.38
PV Size
(kW dc) Solar Generation kWh Estimate SCE TOU-D-A Rate Savings
4.2 Summer Peak 741 $ 0.3564 $ 264.11
Summer Part Peak 1,823 $ 0.1874 $ 341.71
Summer Off Peak 326 $ 0,0393 $ 12.82
Winter Peak 689 $ 0.2478 $ 170.63
Winter Part Peak 2,520 $ 0.1825 $ 459.94
Winter Off Peak 333 $ 0.0436 $ 14.54
Totals 6,433 $ 1,263.74
PV Size
(kW dc) Solar Generation kWh Estimate SCE TOU-D-A Rate Savings
5.4 Summer Peak 947 $ 0.3564 $ 337.47
Summer Part Peak 2,330 $ 0.1874 $ 436.63
Summer Off Peak 417 $ 0.0393 $ 16.38
Winter Peak 880 $ 0.2478 $ 218.02
Winter Part Peak 3,220 $ 0.1825 $ 587.70
Winter Off Peak 426 $ 0.0436 $ 18.57
Totals 8,220 $ 1,614.78
Exhibit 1 (cont.)
Palm Springs SCE Solar Savings Calculations
(based on SCE rates effective 1/1/17)
PV Size
(kW dc) Solar Generation kWh Estimate SCE TOU-D-B Rate Savings
4.2 Summer Peak 741 $ 0.3351 $ 248.32
Summer Part Peak 1,823 $ 0.1661 $ 302.87
Summer Off Peak 326 $ 0.1308 $ 42.66
Winter Peak 689 $ 0.2266 $ 156.03
Winter Part Peak 2,520 $ 0.1612 $ 406.26
Winter Off Peak 333 $ 0.1350 $ 45.01
Totals 6,433 $ 1,201.15
PV Size
(kW dc) Solar Generation kWh Estimate SCE TOU-D-B Rate Savings
5.4 Summer Peak 947 $ 0.3351 $ 317.30
Summer Part Peak 2,330 $ 0.1661 $ 387.00
Summer Off Peak 417 $ 0.1308 $ 54.52
Winter Peak 880 $ 0.2266 $ 199.37
Winter Part Peak 3,220 $ 0.1612 $ 519.11
Winter Off Peak 426 $ 0.1350 $ 57.51
Totals 8,220 $ 1,534.91
20
Exhibit 2
CA Statewide Codes and Standards Program
Title 24, Part 11
Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
Prepared for:
Marshall Hunt
Codes and Standards Program
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Prepared by:
Davis Energy Group, Inc.
Enercomp, Inc.
Misti Bruceri &Associates, LLC
Last Modified: September 23, 2016
�a.n 21
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility
customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Copyright 2016, Pacific Gas and Electric Company.All rights reserved, except that this document may
be used, copied, and distributed without modification.
Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method,
product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any
privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.
" .' 22
Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................1
2 Methodology and Assumptions..................................................................................................l
2.1 Building Prototypes .........................................................................................................................1
2.2 Energy Simulations..........................................................................................................................2
2.3 PV Sizing Criteria............................................................................................................................3
2ACost Effectiveness............................................................................................................................4
2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions..............................................................................................................6
3 Results ........................................................................................................................................6
3.1 Single Family Results.......—. ...........................................................................................................6
3.2 Multifamily Results .........................................................................................................................8
4 Conclusions& Summary............................................................................................................9
5 References ................................................................................................................................10
Appendix A—Prescriptive Package ................................................................................................11
Appendix B - Utility Rate Tariffs......................................................................................................1
List of Tables
Table 1: Prototype Characteristics............................................................................................I......................2
Table 2: Minimum Percent Reduction of Total Annual TDV Energy Use by Climate Zone..........................4
Table 3: Minimum PV System Size(kWDc)required to meet Solar PV Ordinance by Climate Zone............4
Table 4: LOU Utility Tariffs used based on Climate Zone...............................................................................5
Table 5: Measure Descriptions&Cost Assumptions......................................................................................5
Table 6: Equivalent COz Emissions Factors....................................................................................................6
Table 7: Single Family PV Package Cost Effectiveness Results.....................................................................7
Table 8: Multifamily PV Package Cost Effectiveness Results........................................................................9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Single family cost effectiveness comparison....................................................................................7
Figure 2: Multifamily cost effectiveness comparison......................................................................................8
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
1 Introduction
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6(Title 24) (CEC, 2016a) is
maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies, the California Energy
Commission(Energy Commission)and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition
to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency
ordinances, or reach codes,that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24(as
established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building
Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the
proposed ordinance are cost effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy
than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy
Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC-for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.
The Energy Commission staff approached the statewide Codes and Standards team to provide
inputs on a draft solar photovoltaic model ordinance. The Energy Commission staff asked the
IOU team to review the ordinance language and to suggest recommended solar PV system
sizing based on size of home.
Based on conversations between the Energy Commission, the IOUs and their consultant teams,
the following needs were identified for the proposed PV ordinance:
a. Needs to be simple and easy to implement by the local jurisdiction
b. Must be aligned with the overall vision for energy efficiency and 7_NE driving to a"glide path"to
meet 2020 goals for residential new construction.
c. Must not result in oversized PV systems that may have grid impacts.
This report presents the results from analysis of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of
requiring new low-rise single family and multifamily residential construction to include rooftop PV
systems in addition to meeting the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which become
effective January 1, 2017. The cost effectiveness analysis for all sixteen California climate
zones in this report includes meeting minimum Title 24 efficiency performance targets plus on-
site renewable energy generation sized to offset a portion of the total TDV loads of the building
without risking sizing of the PV system larger than the estimated electrical energy use of the
building. Additional scenarios including both PV and above-code energy efficiency measures
are documented in a report delivered to Pacific Gas and Electric Company'.
2 Methodology and Assumptions
2.1 Building Prototypes
The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. Two single family prototypes and
one multifamily prototype, are used in this analysis and development of the above-code
efficiency packages. Table 2 describes the basic characteristics of each prototype. Additional
1 Title 24,Part 11, Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances—CALGreen Cost Effectiveness Study,
September 2,2016
Page l September,2016
" • ' 24
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
details on the prototypes can be found in the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM)Approval
Manual (CEC, 2016b).
Table 2:Proto a Characteristics
Single Family Single Family Multifamily
One-Story Two-Story
6,960 ft2:
Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 ft2 (4)780 ft2&
(4)960 ft2 units
Num.of Stories 1 2 2
Num.of Bedrooms 3 3 (4) 1-bed &
(4)2-bed units
Window-to-Floor Area 20% 20% 15%
Ratio
Additionally, each prototype building has the following features:
• Slab-on-grade foundation
• Vented attic.High performance attic in climates where prescriptively included(CZ 4, 8-16)with
insulation installed below roof deck. Refer to Table 150.1-A in Appendix A.
• Ductwork located in the attic for single family homes and in conditioned space for multifamily.
• Split-system gas furnace with air conditioner that meets the minimum federal guidelines for
efficiency
• Tankless gas water heater that meets the minimum federal guidelines for efficiency; individual
water heaters in each multifamily apartment.
Other features are defined consistent with the Standard Design in the Alternative Calculation
Method Reference Manual (CEC, 2016c), designed to meet, but not exceed, the minimum
requirements.
The Energy Commission's standard protocol for the single family prototypes is to weight the
simulated energy impacts by a factor that represents the distribution of single-story and two-
story homes being built statewide, assuming 45% single-story homes and 55% two-story
homes. Simulation results in this study are therefore characterized according to this ratio, which
is approximately equivalent to a 2,430 ft2 house 2.
2.2 Energy Simulations
The CBECC-RES 2016.2.0 Alpha23 compliance simulation tool was used to evaluate energy
impacts using the 2016 prescriptive standards as the benchmark and the 2016 time dependent
valuation (TDV)values. TDV is the energy metric used by the Energy Commission since the
2005 Title 24 energy code to evaluate compliance with the Title 24 standards. TDV values
energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day,
and season.TDV was developed to reflect the"societal value or cost" of energy including long-
term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of
demand and other societal costs such as projected costs for carbon emissions. Electricity used
2 2,430 ft2 =45% * 2,100 ftZ+55%*2,700 ft2
3 On June 14,2016 the Energy Commission approved CBECC-Res 2016.2.0 Version of the software.The
version used for this study is nearly identical to the approved version with the exception of minor changes
that do not affect the cost effective analysis of the measures evaluated.
Page 2 September, 2016
b: 1. ,
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness ectiveness Study
(or saved) during peak periods of the summer has a much higher value than electricity used (or
saved) during off-peak periods (Horii et al, 2014).
The methodology used in the analyses for each of the prototypical building types begins with a
design that precisely meets the minimum 2016 prescriptive requirements (0% compliance
margin). Standards Table 150.1-A, included in Appendix A lists the prescriptive measures that
determine the base design in each climate zone.
2.3 PV Sizing Criteria
The minimum PV system size required by the proposed ordinance is determined using a
performance-based (simulation)approach. There is a prescriptive sizing option that yields
minimum system capacities equivalent to the performance option. The intent of the PV sizing
assumptions is to size PV to offset building electricity use while minimizing the risk of requiring
PV system sizes that produce significantly more than the building total electricity use on an
annual basis.The following considerations were used for sizing the PV systems:
1. Solar PV capacities proposed in the ordinance are the minimum sizes required. A builder
or homeowner may install larger systems.
2. Solar PV sizing is based on percent of total building TDV energy use. Initial calculations
were conducted such that PV system size is equivalent to offsetting 80% of total building
estimated electricity use for a typical gas/electric home built to the minimum 2016 Title
24 requirements.
3. The performance option is based on offsetting a certain percentage of total TDV energy
use. System sizes calculated in Step 3 above were adjusted to reference a percentage
of TDV energy use, and grouped into three bins depending on system size and climate
zone (see Table 3). The sizing is fuel agnostic since it based on TDV and designed such
that builders designing homes more efficient than 2016 code are not forced to install PV
systems larger than the building's projected annual electricity use. The performance
section of the ordinance uses TDV which needs to be incorporated into CBECC-Res
software making the review process for building departments similar to that for regular
Title 24 compliance review.
4. Based on these calculations, prescriptive PV capacity tables were developed for each
climate zone (see Table 4) for single family buildings with conditioned floor areas less
than 4,500 square feet. Larger homes must use the performance approach. Homes
smaller than 4,500 square feet may comply either with the prescriptive or the
li performance path.
5. PV system values shown in Table 3 and Table 4 were calculated using the following
methodology:
• PV size was estimated based on percent of total building TDV for each climate
zone and reflects a value that does not exceed 80% of total building electricity
use.
• Calculations are based on specs for a 2016 code compliant building and both
TDV and electricity use were calculated using CBECC-Res software.
• HVAC energy use (cooling, heating, IAQ fans) are based on per square foot
energy using a weighted average of the 2,100 single-story and 2,700 2-story
single family prototype buildings and assuming gas appliances. Values specific to
each climate zone.
Page 3 September,2016
* k. . 26
Local PV Ordinance Cosl Effectiveness Study
• Water heating energy use assumes a standard gas tankless water heater and is
adjusted based on number of bedrooms consistent with the rules in the
Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Reference Manual (GEC. 2016c). Hot
water usage capped at 5 bedrooms per ACM.
• Plug load, lighting, and appliance energy use based on algorithms developed
from 2016 CASE report and used in CBECC-Res. Values are adjusted based on
# of bedrooms and floor area. Values capped at 4,150 square feet and 7
bedrooms per ACM.
• PV production based on specific PV production for each climate zone, using PV
modeling in CBECC-Res (PVWatts methodology). Assumes standard PV
efficiency and assumptions consistent with the NSHP California Flexible
Installation (CFI) criteria(170 degree azimuth, 5:12 roof pitch), along with a 96%
efficiency inverter and standard system losses.
Table 3: Minimum Percent Reduction of Total Annual TDV Energy Use by Climate Zone
(Performance A roach
Climate Zone %Total TDV
CZs 14, 16 35%
CZs 1, 2, 4, 9-13, 15 45%
CZs 3, 5-8 55%
Table 4:Minimum PVSystem Size(kWnc)required to meet Solar PV Ordinance by Climate Zone
Conditioned CZ1 CZ2 CZ3 CZ4 CZ5 CZ6 CZ7 CZ8Fczg
Fczie
CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16
Space(U)
Lessthan 16 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.3 2.1 1.3
1000
1000-1499 2.D 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.8 17 1.7 2.2 1.9 2.3 1.6 2.B 1_6
1500-1999 2.4 1 2.0 2.1 1 1.8 1.9 1 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 1 2.7 2.3 2.8 2.0 3.5 1 1.9
2000-2499 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.4 2,3 2.3 3.2 2.7 3.4 2.3 4.2 2.3
2500-2999 3.2 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.3 21 2.6 2.7 3.7 3.1 3.9 2.7 4.9 2.6
3000-3499 3.6 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.5 3.0 2.9 3.0 4.2 3.4 4.4 3.0 5.6 3.0
3500-3999 3.9 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.9 3.2 2.7 3.3 3.2 3.3 4.7 3.8 4.9 3.4 6.3 3.3
4000-4499 4.3 3,5 3.5 3.2 3.1 1 3.4 2.9 3.6 3.5 3.6 5.1 4.2 5.4 3.7 7.0 3.8
2.4 Cost Effectiveness
A customer based approach to evaluating cost effectiveness was used based on past
experience with reach code adoption by local governments. The current residential utility rates
at the time of the analysis were used to calculate utility costs for all cases and determine cost
effectiveness for the proposed packages. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly
electricity and gas output from CBECC-Res and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 5
and included in Appendix C. The standard residential rate (E1 in PG&E territory, D in SCE
territory, &DR in SDG&E)was applied to the base case and all cases without PV systems. The
Page 4 September,2016
27
Local PV Ordinance Cost Efjectiveness Study
applicable residential time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases with PV systems.' Any
annual electricity production in excess of annual electricity consumption is credited to the utility
account at the applicable wholesale rate based on the approved NEM tariffs for that utility. The
net surplus compensation rates for the different utilities are as follows:
• PG&E: $0.043/kWh
• SCE: $0.02981 kWh'
• SDG&E: $0.0321 1 kWh'
Table 5:IOU Utili Tariffs used based on Climate Zone
Climate Zones Electric/Gas Electricity Electricity Natural Gas
Unlit Standard (Time-of-use)
1-5, 11-13, 16 PG&E E1 E-TOU,Option A 01
6,8-10, 14, 15 SCE/SoCat Gas D TOU-D-T GR
7 SDG&E DR DR-SES GR
Table 6 below summarizes the incremental costs applied in this analysis. A range of PV pricing
was evaluated. Case 1 assumes that the installed cost is reduced by the current NSHP
incentive. Case 2 assumes no NSHP incentive in the cost. The 30%federal solar investment tax
credit is applied in both cases.
Table 6:MeasureDescri tions& Cost Assumptions
Incremental Cost
Case Single Mle—Per
Family Unit Source&Notes
Average installed system costs in California from Go Solar
1) Includes current $3.35/ $3.03/ California (http://wvAv.qosolarcaliforria,ca.gov/)reduced by
NSHP incentive W DC W DC $0.50/Watt to reflect NSHP incentives &30%for the solar
investment tax credit.'
2) No NSIIP $3.70/ $3.38/ Same assumptions as above but without the $0.5DNVatt
Incentive W DC W DC NSHP incentive
Cost effectiveness is presented according to lifecycle customer benefit-to-cost ratio. The
benefit-to-cost ratio is a metric which represents the cost effectiveness of energy efficiency over
a 30-year lifetime taking into account discounting of future savings and financing of incremental
costs. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the
incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on
investment. The ratio is calculated as follows:
Lifecycle Customer Benefit-Cost Ratio =
Under NEM rulings by the CPUC (D-16-01-144, 1/28/16),all new PV customers shall be in an
approved TOU rate structure.As of March 2016,all new PG&E net energy metering(NEM)customers
are enrolled in a time-of-use rate. (httu:l/www.pee.comien/myhome/saveenergymoney%plans/toulindex.paee?).
5 SCE net surplus compensation rate based on 1-year average September 2015—August 2016.
'SDG&E net surplus compensation rate based on I-year average August 2015—July 2016.
7 Avg.system cost for systems< IOkW(for the last 12 months)of$5.2WWatt for single family
(hnp:;;www.gosolarcalifornia.ca yov,-).For multi-family systems,an average of the< 10 kW and> IOkW system
cost($4.37/Watt)was used;systems are expected to be typically greater than 10 kW,although not as large as some
commercial systems reported on in the database.
Page 5 September,2016
�. r: 28
Local PU Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
(Annual utility cost savings "Lifecycle cost factor)/(First incremental cost"Financing
factor)
The lifecycle cost factor is 19.6 and includes the following assumptions:
• 30-year measure life&utility cost savings
• 3%real discount rate
• No utility rate escalation(conservative assumption)
The financing factor is 1.068 and includes the following assumptions:
• 30-year financing terra
• 4.5%loan interest rate
• 3%real discount rate
• 20% average tax rate(to account for tax savings due to loan interest deductions)
Simple payback is also presented and is calculated using the equation below. Based on the
terms described above the lifecycle cost-to-benefit ratio threshold of one is roughly equivalent to
a simple payback of 18 years.
Simple payback=First incremental cost/Annual customer utility cost savings
2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Equivalent 002 emission savings were calculated using the following emission factors.
Electricity factors are specific to California electricity production.
Table 7.E uivalent CO2 F_missions Factors
Source
Electricity 0.724 lb.CO,-e/kWh U.S.Environmental Protection a enc 's 2007 eGRID data.
Natural Gas L 1.7 lb.CO,-e/Therm Emission rates for natural gas combustion as reported by the
U.S.Environmental Protection agency's GHG Equivalencies
Calculator.
3 Results
3.1 Single Family Results
A comparison of cost effectiveness for each climate zone, with and without the NSHP incentive,
is presented in Figure 1. Table 8 provides the results in tabular form for the case without the
NSHP incentive, along with energy and greenhouse gas (GHG)savings. The lifecycle benefit-
to-cost ratio threshold of one is roughly equivalent to a simple payback of 18 years.
The PV system capacity is sized based upon the values in Table 4 to provide approximately
80% of estimated annual kWh consumption with capacities ranging from 2.2 kW DC in mild
climate zone 7 to 4.6 kW DC in hot climate zone 15. The solar package demonstrates cost
effectiveness in all climate zones with a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 1.18 to 1.59 with the
NSHP incentive and 1.07 to 1.44 without the NSHP incentive. Greenhouse gas(GHG) savings
range from 25.7%to 63.8%.
s https://ww-w.epa.gov/energy;ghg-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references
hops://www.epa gov/energy/grectihouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator
Page 6 September,2016
M ,: 29
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
Figure l:Single family cost effectiveness comparison
2.0
1.8
1.6 + +
+ }
O e + +
a 1.4 + } + + + +
e e
e e + n e + a n
�j 1.2 + + e
e e e
W 1.0
ra
m
0.8
v
L6 0.6
J
0.4
0.2 + w/NSHP Incentives a w/o NSHP Incentives -Cost Effectiveness Threshold
0.0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
U U V U U U N N U U U N N N N N N U U U U U U U U
CLIMATE ZONE
Table 8:Single Fa mly PV Packa a Cost Effectiveness Results
PV Elec % utility Lifecycle
Climate Capacity Savings Carbon Package Cost Simple Benefit-
Zone (kW) (kWh) Savings' Cose Savings Payback Cost Ratio
CZ1 3.0 4,041 30.4% $12,301 $719 17.1 1.07
CZ2 2.5 3,857 33.7% $10,041 $694 14.5 1.27
CZ3 12.6 4,049 42.5% $10,448 1 $732 14.3 1.29
CZ4 2.3 3,647 36.0% $9,226 $688 13.4 1.37
CM 2.3 3,810 41.9% $9,226 $725 12.7 1.44
CM 2.5 3,892 46.8% $10,041 $596 16.9 1.09
CZ7 2.2 3,546 48.4% $8,819 $639 13.8 1.33
CZ8 2.6 4,058 51.7% $10,448 $652 16.0 1.15
CZ9 2.5 4,026 47.1% $10,041 $674 14.9 1.23
CZ10 2.5 4,108 46.1% $10,265 $688 14.9 1.23
CZ11 3.5 5,533 44.9% $14,155 $1,007 14.1 1.31
CZ12 2.9 4,582 40.4% $11,894 $757 15.7 1.17
CZ13 3.7 5,680 47.2% $14,969 $1,040 14.4 1.27
CZ14 2.5 4,528 37.2% $10,255 $796 12.9 1.42
CZ15 4.6 7,670 63.8% $16,676 $1,303 14.3 1.28
CZ16 7.5 4,187 25.7% $10,041 $738 13.6 1.35
Based on CA electricity production and equivalent COZ emission rates of 0.724 IbCOZe/kWh
&11.7 Ib-0O2e/therm.
Z Includes 10% markup for builder profit and overhead.$0.50/W NSHP incentive not applied
Page 7 September,2016
.. 30
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Snidy
PV Elec % I Utility I Ufecycle
Climate Capacity Savings Carbon Package Cost Simple Benefit-
Zone (kW) (kWh) savings' cost Savings Payback Cost Ratio
to package costs
3.2 Multifamily Results
A comparison of cost effectiveness for the multi-family prototype is presented in Figure 2.Table
9 provides the results in tabular form for the case without the NSHP incentive, along with energy
and greenhouse gas savings. All multifamily results are presented on a per dwelling unit basis.
The lifecycle benefit4o-cost ratio threshold of one is roughly equivalent to a simple payback of
18 years.
The solar package demonstrates cost effectiveness in all climate zones with a benefit-to-cost
ratio ranging from 1.16 to 1.59 with the NSHP incentive and 1.04 to 1.43 without the NSHP
incentive. Greenhouse gas(GHG)savings range from 30.8%to 54.9°/a. The required PV
capacity per apartment ranges from 1.3 kW DC in the mild climates to 2.1 kW DC in hot
climates (CZ15). For the multifamily prototype 8-unit apartment building, this is equivalent to
10.4 to 16.8 kW for the building.
Figure 2:Multifamily cost effectiveness comparison
2.0
1.8
O 1.6 + + +
a 1.4 + ° + + + + + + °
+ ° + ° + ° ° ° ° ° ° o
iS 1.2 ° + °
W 1.0 °
z
W
WJJ 0.8
i.!
ij 0.6
W
_LL
J 0.4 I t w/NSHP Incentives ° w/o NSHP Incentives
0.2 —Cost Effectiveness Threshold
0.0
.y n in a N a n N
N N N N N U U N
V U V U V V V N V U V U N N N
V V V
CLIMATE ZONE
Page 8 September,2016
w .,
i
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
Table 9:Multi amil PV Packa a Cost Effectiveness Results
PV Elec % utility Lifecycle
Climate Capacity Savings Carbon Package Cost Simple Benefit-
Zone (kW) (kWh) Savings' Costs Savings Payback Cost Ratio
CZ1 1.6 2,141 35.5% $5,951 $361 16.5 1.11
CZ2 1.4 2,191 39.2% $5,207 $373 14.0 1.32
CZ3 1.5 1 2,368 46.6% 1 $5,579 $361 15.5 1 1.19
CZ4 1.3 2,093 39.8% $4,835 $376 12.9 1.43
CZ5 1.4 2,355 46.9% $5,207 $360 14.5 1.27
CZ6 1.5 2,368 49.5% $5,579 $315 17.7 1.04
CZ7 1.3 2,129 46.2% $4,835 $364 13.3 1.38
CZ8 1.5 2,373 48.9% $5,579 $345 16.2 1.14
CZ9 1.4 2,287 45.4% $5,207 $365 14.3 1.29
CZ10 1.4 2,282 44.3% $5,207 $362 14.4 1.28
CZ11 1.7 2,707 44.2% $6,322 $456 13.9 1.32
CZ12 1.5 2,354 41.1% $5,579 $417 13.4 1.37
CZ13 1.8 2,782 45.9% $6,694 $466 14.4 1.28
CZ14 1.3 1 2,336 38.5% 1 $4,835 $356 1 13.6 1.35
CZ15 1 2.1 3,513 54.9% $7,810 1 $526 14.8 1 1.24
CZ16 1 1.3 2,208 30.8% $4,835 1 $394 12.3 1 1.49
1 Based on CA electricity production and equivalent CO2 emission rates of 0.724 IbCO2e/
kWh&11.7 lb-CO2e/therm.
2 Includes 10%markup for builder profit and overhead.$0.50/W NSHP incentive not
applied to package costs
4 Conclusions & Summary
This report finds the evaluated solar PV ordinance to be both feasible and cost effective, and
reduces energy demand in all 16 California climates zones.
The following describes the recommended PV sizing and requirements for all climate zones.
The PV ordinance requires that all buildings meet code compliance for the 2016 Title 24, Part 6
without the use of the PV compliance credit (PVCC). Projects are also required to install a PV
system based on the capacities shown in Table 3 and Table 4.
Lifecycle benefit-to-cost ratios for adding PV to a 2016 code compliant building are above one,
demonstrating cost effectiveness for both the single family and multifamily prototypes in all
climate zones.
This report has identified that an ordinance that requires compliance with the 2016 building
code, without taking the PV credit, combined with PV systems sized to the values shown in
Table 3 and Table 4 is cost effective for both single family and low-rise multifamily dwellings and
can be adopted by cities and counties within investor-owned utility territories across California
consistent to the requirements of the Public Resources Code (25402.1(h)) and to the benefit of
the jurisdiction, its residents, and the state.
Page 9 September,2016
32
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
5 References
CEC. 2016a. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings. CEG400-2015-037-CMF. June 2015. California Energy Commission.
http://www.enemy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037-CMF.pdf
CEC. 2016b. 2016 Altemative Calculation Method Approval Manual. CEC-400-2015-039-CMF.
June 2015. California Energy Commission. http:/Iwww.energy.ca.gov/2015publicationslCEC-
400-2015-039/C EC-400-2015-039-CM F,pdf
CEC. 2016c. 2016 Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. CEC-400-
2015-024-CMF-REV. June 2017. California Energy Commission.
http://www,energ y.ca.gov/2015 p ublicatio ns/CEC-400-2015-024/CEC-400-2015-024-C M F-
REV.pdf
hiorii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis. 2014. `Time Dependent Valuation of
Energy for Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards."
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title2412016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-07-
09 workshop/2017 TDV Documents)
Page 10 September,2016
33
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
Appendix A — Prescriptive Package
The following presents the residential prescriptive package as printed in the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CEC,
2016a).
TABLE 150.1-A COMPONENT PACKAGE-A STANDARD BUILDING DESIGN
c
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 15 16
m Q'�
NZ y NR NR NR R8 NR NR NR R8 R8 R8 R8 R9 R8 R8 R8 R8
T
° U
0 C 6
C
a v 3 y NR NR NR R6 NR NR NR R6 R6 R6 R6 R3 R6 R6 R6 R6
`m
E
Ga o
C -°
R 38 R 38 R 30 R 38 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 36 R 38 R 38
a V a
O
m
m A NR REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ NR
¢ m
0
Cm o 0 oY i N NR NR NR R18 NR NR NR R18 R18 R18 R18 R18 R18 R18 R!B R18
U
0
W m
:w Q
c NR NR NR R13 NR NR NR R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13
Y
Y
E
C
m W °
C � A
.6 R38 R38 R30 R38 R30 R30 R30 R38 R38 R38 R38 R38 R38 R39 R38 R38
6 U c
C) —
Y .c
w `n NR REQ REQ NR REQ REQ REQ NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
�m
c
�A c Y
w R 38 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 38
V c
t Page 1 I September, 2016
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
� o
Q ° NR: REQ REQ REQ RED REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ RFQ REQ REQ NR
I
TABLE 150.9-A COMPONENT PACKAGE-A STANDARD BUILDING DESIGN(CONTINUED)
Climate Zone
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
E U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U O.D65 U 0.065 U 0.051 U 0,051 U 0,051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U
A0051
LL
0 C2 m 2 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 V 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U
R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 D.059
a - R17
c
m +�
p m n $ U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0,125 U 0.125 U 0A25 U 0A25 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.1025 U 0.125 U
m m 3 w R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 13
e' 3
to
c
ew
9 o q 0 U 0,070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 9.070 U 0.070 U 0,070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U O.D70 U 0.070 U 0.070 U
to a mt9 � R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R.13 R13 R65
a
co m U 0,200 U 0.200 U C.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.20D U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.100 u 0.100 U
m C0 w R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5_0 R5.0 R5.0 R5,0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R10 R10 D.053
Rig
Slab Perimeter NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR U 0.58
R 7.0
V 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U
Floors Reined R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 419 0.037
RID
Concrete U 0.092 U 0,092 U 0269 U 0 269 U0,269 U 0.269 V 0.269 U 0.269 U 0,269 U D.269 U 0.092 U 0.136 U 0.092 U 0.092 U 0A38 U 0.092
Raised R8.0 R8.❑ R0 R0 R0 RO RO RO RO RO R8.0 R 4.0 R8.0 R8.0 R4.0 R8.0
Aged Solar
NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.63 NR 0.63 NR
n Low- Reflectance
do
a o slope Thermal
-0 is0 o. d Emitlance NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.75 NR 0.75 NR
Aged Solar
m W e Steep RMectance NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0,20 0.20 NR
Slope Thermal
_ Emitlance NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR D.75 0 75 0,75 0,75 075 0.75 NR
LL Maximum U-factor 0.32 0,32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
m Maximum SMGC NR 0.25 NR 0.25 NR 0,25 0.25 0.25 0,25 025 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Page 12 September,2016
Local PTAOrdinance Cost Effeciiveness Study
Maximum Total Area 20% 20% 20% 20% 1 20% 1 20% 1 20% 1 20% 1 20% 1 20% 1 20% 1 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Maximum West NR 5% NR 5% NR 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5°k 5% 5% 5% 5%
Facing
TABLE 150.1-A COMPONENT PACKAGE-A STANDARD BUILDING DESIGN(CONTINUED)
Climate Zone
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16
Electric-Resistance Allowet No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
o c
u w It gas,AFUE MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN
m m
x
H Heat Pump,HSPFs MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN
SEER MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN
m Refrigerant Charge
q= Verification or Fault NR REQ NR NR NR NR NR REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ NR
rn$ Indicator Display
u
Whole House Fan' NR NR NR NR NR NR NR REQ REQ RED REQ REQ REQ REQ NR NR
2
w
H m m Central Fan
c y 4 v
Integrated Ventilation REQ RED REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REq REQ REQ RED RED REQ REQ RED REQ
= System Fan Ellicacy
wm
.F m Duct lnsulaWn R-8 R-8 R-6 R-8 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8
da
c
o
§150.1(eJ9A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
w
u
e Ductinsulation R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6
m
I
$ §150.1(c)9R REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ
a
m �
3 = All Buildings System Shall meet Section
150.1(cJ8
F
t�s Page 13 September,2016
Local P v Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
W
_ Page 14 September, 2016
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
Footnote requirements to TABLE 150.1-A:10
I. Install the specified R-value with no air space present between the roofing and the roof deck.
2. Install the specified R-value with an air space present between the roofing and the roof deck. Such as standard
installation of concrete or clay tile.
3. R-values shown for below roof deck insulation are for wood-frame construction with insulation installed
between the framing members.
4. Assembly U-factors can be met with cavity insulation alone or with continuous insulation alone,or with both
cavity and continuous insulation that results in an assembly U-factor equal to or less than the U-factor shown.
Use Reference Joint Appendices JA4 Table 4.3.1,4.3.1(a),or Table 4.3.4 to determine alternative insulation
products to meet the required maximum U-factor.
5. Mass wall has a thermal heat capacity greater than or equal to 7.0 Btu/h-fr'. "Interior denotes insulation
installed on the inside surface of the wall.
6. Mass wall has a thermal heat capacity greater than or equal to 7.0 Btulh-ft'. "Exterior denotes insulation
installed on the exterior surface of the wall.
7. Below grade"interior'denotes insulation installed on the inside surface of the wall.
8. Below grade"exterior'denotes insulation installed on the outside surface of the wall.
9. HSPF means"heating seasonal performance factor."
10. When whole house fans are required(REQ),only those whole house fans that are listed in the Appliance
Efficiency Directory may be installed. Compliance requires installation of one or more WHFs whose total
airflow CFM is capable of meeting or exceeding a minimum 1.5 efmisquare foot of conditioned floor area as
specified by Section 150.1(c)12.
11. A supplemental heating unit may be installed in a space served directly or indirectly by a primary heating
system,provided that the unit thermal capacity does not exceed 2 kilowatts or 7,000 Btulhr and is controlled by
a limelimiting device not exceeding 30 minutes.
12. For duct and air handler location:REQ denotes location in conditioned space.When the table indicates ducts
and air handlers are in conditioned space,a HERS verification is required as specified by Reference Residential
Appendix RA3.1.4.3.8.
10 Single family buildings are modeled with Option B and multifamily buildings are modeled with Option
C.
Page 15 Septetnber=.2016 3
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
Appendix B - Utility Rate Tariffs
Following are the PG&E electricity, both standard and time-of-use, and natural gas tariffs
applied in this study. The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for
the 12-month period ending March 2016.
Page 1 September,.2016
39
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
PaeMcOrwwdBse kCowpwry Rramd Cat.P.0.GSrwetnu. 3670rrE
San Ftwwx CoVam a Covesm PwAsad Cat P.t7G Show No 36410-E
U 39
ELECTRIC SCHEDULE M sheet 1
�(�, RESIDENTIAL SERVICES
APPLM.A .1TY Bk This sA tills is ap{kakis to apple-p~and pa"ineo n i ssniw in
ttawWfp nd in flab offal apwls�lb aapwily mslsfed by POW to 4nWw
�ssr aM peppirs sink in 1,aresn areas of a wadWa dy conlptss(ae 8lweW
Oontalion Sk offal 10 d"4"hNs wd ism swwm an to PasisN apwabd
by rw pwsws w sia m 11 is aynplisd Yw sw o nwiw
The parbions d Sfdwdas S--Slwfmy Swvhm Spaawi Caditua 1 traapb 0"also
apply b arattmws whoes pranip are rainy suppied in pod 8"BW 6+e60b)by
dsttdaic srwrpy imn■ Y safari d soppy. llsea aabrtws gltl Pay��'
fR+iitan dw as apsd'wd under Sacbm 1 d Sdwdule&n sWillonbail
apph:;"Sdwdda E-I duuges See 5perw1 Carfdrcorw,i and 12 d 1h1s rate sdsdite
tw smpkim b dwidby dwges
TERRITORY. Thk IM at**^applies eserpAwe PG&E prayfdes efecm sn irw
RATES TOY brdsd awnos dwpsa we cdcviatea cvrlg sn WW rain below Cum move m
titer sdfsnfis a nlbpd b ter deMwy rrnrrf:>tJ+t Od smofas shown babe ofplMdb Ire
ddtrwy porsm d ter ho()A ID at riftcwrwxn rss Dew owsw gerwrabon raw In
addlim,bW bundrd dWginf 1M ittWde aplA"Ne gerwa iare dwrgm Pw kWh br At
Meares.
Clakwars gu"M a med-M bsedit tllntsarfas dial pay to a ussat of a d 200
1 nwd albswbr ate fair$6 04WO Pw Mh Moe ttan IM appsrabta rate br uvfge In
ssrafw dlg0pwwtd Wsstas. tso portorf d M rsssofpaid a custwrwrs irfal roca+va a
1C.6od BsaaYrfs tttlasence dfaa a used tc over the DYMt God tdwga Fpr a
dYwAllwl,t»Cpwanatrn IrfoerlAva�vsmx?nf is ceiotsbd fe7idudiy board m UnP
tllalralelw the sum Gf Trrao r PuN Pwpow PtaWsm AWA
Swsbw,Dtamharon.GNwte9M PUCK l'tipdee P1a�anw,
Can s to nn Tr4naeerf Chwtss(C T C) Mww 8y0 n+Geasgtgw Chafpsa.r MW a wgy
GM PAmmyAaotnL Cudwms race"atta I I atoearsstM also
Poo"a 90 pwow.fl- w, w the dsheiymbinasn bi OMMA dfaesa below
Laid Aaasss MA)Mal Canw Wfty Ghaos tidfsdfae {fly dwrgN AM be Add
in samedwnas wlh is pwmgrmph In ti tab idabds ttsd%Ira
TOTAL 11111105111
TaW EnwW Roves if per kWh)
Basabn ussta $0 10212
101%-130%d Bawire S024090(11
131%.2w%d Baselare 5024090(R)
201%-30D%d Bas&a SO 39999(I)
ow"300%09 Base" $o 39999 Al
EMbmV ktnn rm&a AmmwM(S Per nwm per day) $0 3285a
Cal#na Chmde Crsdi(Par househAl Per ssar-nsnd
pwprwrd omurre+g n tw Apf il oval Odobw ball cyder) (S28 14)
'Pw Deacon It-12-031 Now System Ca strw Charges are v%ONe, 12012
(Gavirwr*.'zr
AAxsLonerNo 481PE-A ruaedby WSF*d Mav11 2016
Deasaan Ab 15-07-001 and E41K Sam MaiwpM ElkTr,rc lr+ei ` zb
Se VKe prasder4 Resok2m tA-r
Ica Ragutarury Afws
Page 2 September,2016
w %/ . 40
Local X'Ordinance Cost Ejjr ctiveness Siuth,
Pac76c Gas and FJscark Con pwy Renewd Cat PVC Shpw No 36713-E
r s San Frar uo.Car,fyrua Cano#&q Ravmwd Cat PVC Shook No 36500-E
s U 39
ELECTRIC SCHEDULE E-TOU Sheet 2
RESIDENTIAL TIME-OF-USE SERVICE
RATES
Grvo d 1
OPTION A TOTAL RATES
Taal Energy Rates(S per kWh PEA.t c PEAK
5 umner
Total Usage So.403i 7 411 $0 32769 11,
Basetino Credo(A ppi„ed to&sschne
Usage Onty) (SO.17709) (RI ISO 117091 1R)
W+rtN
Total Usage 50 28530 (1) S0 27100 (11
Basel n Credo(Apphed to Baselme
(saga Only) (SO I i 7091 (RI (S(1 117091 (R)
Hwy F4n m Bill Amount(S per motor
pw day) SO 328Ss
Cs4omia Ckmaee Credrt(per household.
pW gerwmuruin paylrtnt occurring in the
AIW wd Octotx loll cycles) (528141
ToWI bundled se xe chafgn ohawn on custor f s Mils are unbinded accordetg b 6w mmp& Asl
rates dwWri below Where the divvy narx Wj amount appi'ea.the cuutims it biI tell nOW
fhe wm d(1)the delivery mirtinura bdl emowd lKus(21 kw txw>t11w¢S servzx,tlsll pMwsI'' raft
Imes fw anther o1 kWh used. For revernw aoeountrnp purposes ero revwelse belrl llle Y
rtlftkraee bill wummist"be asa¢pwd to the Transnessruri Trans+nevgn Rob Aduewwrtfe,
Rekabft Services,Public Purpose Programs Nuc4Nw Or:,amm�ssrarirp,Cargmil don Trwisom
Charges.Energy Cost Reoovery Amount.DWR Bond and New System OwnrWAan Cturgei bawd
m kWh usage brnea the conespordmg unbundled rate coniporr rvt per kVVn tsia say residuaf
revenue avVned to Drstrtmwn
r Per beosron l l 12,031 Now System Generation Charges aae ettvctrve tril20t2
Thm sane assrgr wll of revenues applies to dued access and convTno y chose aWegatnin
customers
(Certbreledl
.lit xe LetM No 4810E-A issued by Elms F bd Ida 31 201E
00,030xn At 1"7401 old E-4M sawn Unkkws Effeca" Jere t t!•
Swwor We 711e34srt Resolufte W
2C9 ReguWr yAOaaa
Page 3 September, ZO16 41
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
POCOO a"wd ow6k ces"My Remed "P U C. Sher Ab 32682-G
s SA"AWKUM Cam cw+mfw Revised Cal P.0 C SAew Ab 32020-G
U�
GAS SCIiEOULE G-1 Sh"t i
RESIDENIWL SERVICE
APPLICABILITY TttiawM schaAle'applsa lhtWaral yas sarvumCcre EN-tke Cuswmerson PGMs
Traa/Ilfbbori ardrOW66MWSyMms To quatty wv"rws:be u irCw4vaUy-
nMIMd�4sgrpaatlra br t*tude^r�aa sse.rcb,6ry asae:r a mtlt�arnJy rorttpte�.
arld b00wt0'r atwa e,a rust/amxy cur;�v.e}ryre$chb6.1e5 GM,
CA ar til Ndj� r comet "A mua<s Ina!we!. ;Mra"m~fd L+y PG&E
ha/a ah op6tal Of FA a dare c r faw ram ttehtr+ade Common~asutnts a�
trace accaaas drat pw k gn aers�e to drraort tqr asais as drbwd in F#A 1
TERRITORY. ScAe"G-I ipoft ww"*e wt*-tna:PGbEs PAU*gas Swvin Tarrlbry
RATES Caahwrwa w On u.hW4t parr a Procwetrmt Chaw atd a Tra"woubw+dtage.Pw
matw n a1- babr.. Tl+r Tfartwata9or•Ctlarpa tdtl M ro bat nan etx Mnrtrs,m
Tw%xxUdPat(hn/a.as bttsas�
50 09863
P: - $a209W— (R) $02 (Ri
t-. f0.61592 fi130547
_ TS C2552 JR) $1.51507 (Ri
F_, 4`ernarrw
Custiltrrn Se:.w w.Y*fws vhecL a we svtwtrl is a gas Pwrk P1F+;�w PmgrMjPPP)
Swth rp under SO"fe G PPPS
See Preinwwwl Sw*w*w Pan B fv Ire Dets h TsO Rafe Cwj. erm
The Prowa"d Chop on Ow attsadttle n iqu'AWA to rse tare shorn on mfM dtr t
Soso"OCP—b& SWW,6 u Ctxa Er6A)m Cum n
BASELAE Th@#*vmdgwRWwdgaa dtban babwanbridat*mI=brb=vkwtm
ouANTnEs
BASEM txlANntES Pr�r Par��1 S
Tasiair"' APr.1.29H Elsi re_Na 1.2015
215-----__ -
0 069 198
A 046 179
s 048 192
T 069 179
Y 060 1 79
w 046 1.09
x 059 198
Y O 85 2.56
�aaa/Maa MafYaMe MMMMewea4 Ylla i
11MAMatraa A�gar4�at MMrar arwara whblM�Milaranar.wty asentia ma�evn svr,w rnawaa rat j
arrar.araraR-
Tae atsaratarartaasr�arsaatt+ru ertaaa�s iab+ra.rw:
t )
aldHtaa Lw1k'W 3"60 ha dkr DA bfid Us 24 2018
VOOM nlla St-1OM a2w-M S1MIrMlhb t 9Atcdw Aral 16
Saab no01"Of" AltaaAslitrt Ms.
xx ftP"MrAYa
Page 4 September,2016
42
Local PV Ordinance Cost I ecfiveness Study
Fallowing are the SCE electricity tariffs, both standard and time-of-use, and SoCalGas natural
gas tariffs applied in this study.
a trltitiv
Souown CaMm"Ednla, PIw4mW CM PUC Of No 5002*-E
PA"" "Cawonw (U 33") Otnolknp ttrw.s W RX as No "mF
Ghost 2
DOMEMMLSEftVIM
C)Mwrnrt a«wx
T4Ci� bnwlt
tnMi CIaY1w S%*A AANW* 11/
0i0*0 ji .
Aulwaa U�>♦QI 100=11
knM+a lr QM10 Pl A emu1
awaarn.OanAY
b11r.lCQl MtLaYna.0r♦n*1w 00MI110I 02"WI)
Man u py}A QI 10 O"t,
W dtiwr0e F1bYlr�4A1
aaraw fM AI.AWn10851110n C o r
a s W.y1 AtaOrawadv� 6116-,
:.spNaaa►11wa��aa1ln Q):Y
Mr.en,f.+Mlw Qbareal�Y• �aaM�
ti+ps1�iAccdwnrdlgn QIV
aaA4r�1 Ata+rvnwawYm Q IN
CAYrN1l Clwub Lllar° Ot U.
yllll TiIT>Wa+awa �Mm N�!!
r4Y�T'e+yap Rf$MF
rY'a'T+a.Yal Y41IaraQ1A yAgl/r11 11 351
alwalaOwy aMMfA•aaeaaa�l AlMl a?MUM\NippICIIM NF�'1R�1arw.wa..wea.,..wr.rw'wMa..wm rrlw
�kv
" TN wlI CP~•Suaft a 1MIIIn M C1m*+ BwMna B*wryf CfWW on bM awaan'11rw crrp w wv•a'tr
WWwwUMuw
•,•to ariysl�Galrpa00sr TlaryOpr GRIN 0�11CI d 111000O)tarm Ya1QanNYb O Wae.OW"W aYowvaa0aln
1 ial/ Tor OtaYOb(f mft iar0 w aPAa ms 4 OIrIFti laMs.t11Aat aw.aa i!IO C'al�rwral'pry.a�w0l1tiw1
aalw•fCTA 001110�1 tlWlMwl tYit0la a 1r1114C#t1a1Mw 9011 ara M aletatt b M tM/IK raw rOrnon�a w tw
AYlaMAY W i1aWa M'M�M�w.Y AWMfYl AT WlaOW tlAt,Mt W' 6 al tt9MOde CGA{K
f o/laMa! no OmwP lalr•w!ataaaaeb uar b rl/'#�O QwIMY KNAbnrit
b OOYtlit•thMM�ewwarr Arw,.r«mvwr e•+rQ.c.a. O5I nrn� In ti(JVVM u1..w c��1a Aa1 Os trwy
GMMIYp Oook"ckvw r1 w m K}ypls
• a0abOaw rl wObt�Al Yt fwwrMfuY trtss�wWv 1w aTe awcr[)�1A1vr MtM 153eFSbrle lu ran aanwwAbi
(C40WAaed)
(To in butrtrif bV im") hcurd M (TO bo Irowlod try cat PUC>
Ad vim Wf-E R O Nana nmsm Fled Oil"2.201E
t]oQNsrr 16034Q30 — Senor Veto Ros4wlt EOGCWI Jun 1,2016
Page 5 September.2016
a. a( 4 t�•�
Local PD'Ordinance Cast Fffeclitrness Stud -
I FQION
SoutwnC+MNm"Edam Ravtow Cal PUG Street NO 59054-E
Ro*wnow,C w mw tU awE1 Rwowd Cal KC Sheet No 5"9 E
Sstutflaie TQU-D•i Stvrat 2
I (Cu�twdl
MTES
I]lwrAY 3I++hF
t♦Jdl70' �
H wv Chia"-sommowdslpqMMAFp ttd�-QIt~
Uwa Y tW t!t}%p Oftwo! 0tovr t". .}+nw0, f
wF'Me eFrM-O "As
CFFr 1 n,P W 1]01.p•tlP�mt) 0 COai}Itf v C'MM ORt V GDC:�,
t*w%rabvP tl Wmftmwrr craw Mw a.C+eem 01; MO=-
wwr salmon Cw~
t�t 11e 1s/WY WWiMw) 4$M30) 004F4%m. co Z'
testes a A"owm tw%e/orrFFrf a taty tot 604141 „ c rOw;.
4
Dow,t:nrva ►ttopmpwP
} aagM.I�eq 1Fasnwe,Ys. 00}t
MA.FEw,Aarovraesan 0024
Nr.xw++l.rWpn' LtrriFOq
MVF FarHry 4cv+Ywmarrn 4]:4P
Idyr FrnFYm AomOAepdM/5 0 ties
Y retFw Gmww Of m ftwa '" tAbr.O"
6FgA,Feery a tar
t Fw.ev acrcnimnnnexwla.: a.wm
4Aecrrdr vlrcow L.'=*
CAMaww Aft+ Fwrro b
rrw}r M . O ,. "K 00•
Prwr tlwm hobs 1rw* to».
rwo Two nr.PtP
rww+wwp trd+,eaQr Nw++ m i pt
i
iPF AIFPrM+CAwyF w mrtirrfre wen Rmr tAmeerb[srvFe i.FFyy C.r¢ irW MmF TcrJ/etr.W,:CTwSI w W r F,s.M
Wwbr C W"
.• o.Mr.ter FtOtr d Iles a«:,wed s,F.+wrr,Fr a anc+sr�F,as swrw mmtec,i�Gv.Ortn w exn:.ctwere
•••"a rs"COMONMttm.F+raenFt CAat1M 6CT c,M{i0 t i 5,W rFrn 0IF[I oa u+w w~
1 fall F TOM bAmP 6MYao'AM"movi M a f1wo+t MKa.0n A+t =aj»•aR C:ertr+amBF';r t 4w",rear
MWM O=A MwF1aFCWNWAN^"DW OA rm MA aeeMrt Cmom~%rF n t&*"I L"LKwfY:.FpF ecnFe+*F*F d 11'e
""AM W mum Ow wo Draw N wodwo 1f DC 4604 olalou M iW+Adw C.C.&c A:
} ommm f a T os„moms a!doommoo M4 w Yd marvow FyrNesrr
5 COMM•omeerve,r at wow mpFMrtw Ow mt Fe w C: _M ww rtlwrPrmme.trn tte oY.w F+wyro cFF,u a es Ow,
C.*.Wftr W. cln l mt Vol Schmem
F AMM m w aMY Past P treFPFFP �o`w^ 01 > Wo ll U CHPMMOms O!W'LhraAl b FW Fp+gWv.
(G'anYrlutW)
(To be w aetlod by ublh1 (To tuiwtbd by Cal PUC)
l4drice 3401{ t7Me Fid U t 2,2914
Omac on 164)3.030 Fvml An 1.2016
Heaahflon
Page 6 September, 2016
44
Local PPOrdinance Cast Effectiveness Study
SOVIHMN CA1.11FAMNIA GAS COd/PANI Kcstscd C-N. I'.1:.r 3RPL74i10 52721:-C7
tf%( Its.I i1 If I*%IN t l4l l I'm, Kcvistd CAC IFAVC SOM wn S2751-C1
k hntulc No fiR Sbcet I
RI MM 111 31,tit Rt'K:I-
l hxludo GR.GR-( and t,t-R Retr,.1
1L I[ AR11 LL' �fTt,
C
The tiR talc is applwabk to natural gas Prusvrcnxnt irn ice 4.,trtdts fdsudls rtxtrrcd rcsnladwl susWcttcn.
I Ix liR-(.crvus- i cr rate.u a cure pru un.mkmt cjxxn far nuht iduall) mcicres!resiiftnwl cirte
I1 wt4p MAIN,.il.tontcrs%Ith annual.cxssutnptxut.ns9 541/!(a)111CM1.a+set liirl)f In 5pr.w1 Cwxlttx n If
f tw I T-R rate as app)tcabke to l tqc Agpcipitxm lratxyitxtatkiu K Al-I W%Icc to ittdlstdwkh mclacd
rcstdrruul cusk.mcn,ai set 6 th m,;Nvtal t.ondnk n I
The(-alilirrnla Alwc lc Rates fur Vncrr) it ARI)dtscaxtni i,I_Iw.,fefl.ttcd a.a separate line om on
tik bill.ii apph.abic to irxvgwliftrd I xkwladda that nwa dx rcyuircrtxtus I.x the C ARL pritgr"
a-wi f..lh in Schcthdc.No.GA ARL
11.RRtl(.JRY
%Pr1wjNC thnwghout IhC xnxc Icmk"
R.4I I S 4R-C Cs7-R
16.J?t+t 164384 1e431Cc
1-of"Sp: c Ifcaling Only`cumontrm.a dad.
I..'usksxr t t"m. aMlMs dunng the%inter JXMA
rrixn NoNcnixt I thnK h Apn)10 73.141k 11,1490 13 lave
Hasehnc Kate.per therm th;i thaw usage dcfmcd in Sr n ul C'cmh(xifss 3 attd�1
Pak unmcnl C hmrc.° 14.53M 34.536t N A 1
T fanuntswun t:harcc Rt 21I(t Ns- -'%(k S'S.7cLu
fatal Da clmc Charge. .,.... _. 91)RIM 90AI6t 55 75nt 1
�;m-ItastlutC Rax.per dw m IusW incaccn of bawhm asal;e$'
pr,%umincm Charge:° ......... -.._._. 3{.53(.c 34.53at N A 1
6_7$W V—TKW b1.75M[
1ita)km-has.Igm(hafgc. ____...__..... 116RIM 116.RIbt 81.75Re I
F;ar At tatttxetr pcnod begimwlg;%tat 1 throuth t)lobo 11.wuh.Dort cacgriirnta-u Vc rill 1c
aocumuLttcd kt At last 20 Cefl I0I1 cubic teat before billing
IFuotnotcs scmlifwc n At part.)
IC rmtirrucdl
av m ssvattwD av vtarsrt fsavcc av rtu arc Mvanwltaa rr cat Put
iklw c cetnw f 49" Dm Skopac mtxt Paso Jul 7-2016
tfEChW�t]M kG .xe rresmsra 101PEC1M Jul 10.2016
.i rf+o.ariry Lt., tsamuTICN wi tip-3351
Page 7 September,2016
45
Lot-ol I'I"(h dinawre Curt EffeelivVness Stmty
Fallowing are the SDG&E electricity, both standard and time-of-use. and natural gas tariffs
applied in this study
�s
i w>nrw cat Ptic Sheet No
a ar..a.C.xv '
a.+o.w Cara.An Cfl-:m,,ii Ca. VUC Show NC .._ 2V 49 E
SCHfOk"DR sn w t
RE SED£NT ft SERVICE
ILua un..c R..��rWa if
APPLiCAB(LRY
4q,butb1 a tv dww6kc service for bgrm" heabng,Cookx1&wow hoNW4 and i>+mItosr,or wn*W lbn Owrrsol.
in"V*unity dwoCagl5.nttw and apat""era3..SepareYly mlakred by Or ttley.a aerv+u used n twrr er m k t
raad.n dial Pur try wa l% in rn»�Po4" &vmEn¢ under Sped C"chian C to any approved
wndx�,Wn uF�rntiel and rorvewdeMial sr el vioe on Ow wells make:wtd b un woodental hwm setvIce der
spec'lal COndm n
T tvz w:haMM le ae b OIa0Tie by do C 00arrls/WS -6 Rehm for Ewpy(CAREt
Program anda �e IMI®rlp lM air MCMar adMOGlr. rrralra I by Ore UbMy,
and may kxkmb Nan{saN GMW Lhkrg F a ard Ood �S ftm* Fadk mts d
na rdu Wow"qualityve ser la mrefvko wow Os kisrrr and crier otr da9drw!<Asms E . llle Maw fa
CAM and fAMKAI Rasa tle taakrrsrs are i hm~in Or reef artAw Lahr ae OR Lt and DR W rates.
regmci dy
Custalws ar mas schedtes mast'abo quaVy for a eerr*4w%rk Cikarse Ckmeb Crmk$417 44)per,ridalrk"
GFKi-ARR
TERRtiL
VKdhn 1M ands Ww Smry emend by the Urey
RATks
Yet Tslar CA a1C iIiCC Brae♦
M.,�eM M elf. Rra a.ae ew Creae are ar
e,raer;
a hear I D
.,,n,,... ,,. .. 0M40 a
srYaTri
.�..«.,.m r....�„.zao, .. .. . •craw 1
saver a D
we TNN 0114101 sit Ue C MII,
or.swva.a owu aw. tu. est. D"eraas T.w aa:
aa�wrr-Cane a.*.
e.wrallMW IKWe) 0Afa39 a S mete l D
ana r sow otrawrw aasm Itc. a ,e a
VANN •err Mean
array rtisw` a lowl I C o. lash I
aas,aa.sts.+ arnra7
"emeomm,so Mean L
AdmA Lo No 4001-E.A D"SkoKe rnarirrs 16
vim F*Nmhwd
Dadenn No I"?-Wt Retaim",Afars ,rrd,Cn N.. E4767
Page A September,2016
4ru'
Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
'
AN me;
Revised Ca P.U.0 StMW No, 20962E
ia.t}e0s 1$ei a E4cYx Caner r
san 0ier0a CNw,ww CAnupng 5nn!d Cy P U C St"No 20906-E_
SCHEDULE DR4E3 Sheet 1
DOMESTIC TIME-OF-USE Ft.)�;tt� J'SEHUIDS WITH SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM
APPLICABILITY
Se cc urrdea this sci,edWe 15 evadable off a.durdary basis For ndivduafly rrem med residential cuslon..n
wlti Solar Energy Systems Setrwce is 191Aed to uldrveduatiy flielered rot:deraiN Customers with a Solar
Energy Sysleni yyit, ckATWsU� seiv,cis Mx hg@rAfny. I`, Wlgr cookeiq waW1 heatrip aril Nowee of
c birrstion thereof P sxyle f Iy dvoiiaocr and flats O ambIr g Caidom,e Allemanve Rates for Enemy
(CARE i custunlers are Oigdile tar service 0ei this�hadute.as i,wtFier di s nbed under Special Conmori R
of this schedule
Custeneis on Mm xheduke nwy giro gaaMv Far a Casbrr,la pPiate C,Pdt $417441 T.
Schelde GHGARR
TERRITORY
ithn tie eri0ru tali 4tuey served by the UWity.
RATES
VeC rely O ae iigC awe,
OeNe11e1ee-*ntea ererw Mae 4 oww Grwt TWer Mae
st< ,
i]r.PVDa_5an.vxr 91;e11 { Ldt+19 7 i,re.,{1 9 1619' R
$eo"Pent-s,e,Pef 0 t30O I Oo rn 1 fi M%W R 94JI00A R
Or.Peer.(P1 0 i]DA I 000)1•i I OC11W R 4. rix R
serM rP -W11,1ee 0f20Y1 1 0,:rw" I owl" R 921033 R
Or-Pear-Mrvh, 9lari" I 0O m 1 0WHOM R 010M R
sowrwr.N ea 3urr� O.flis O
f 1i ilia Wltr,'e+w Pr tCL iaMw OMIiC p pen raorca wlf tlMMl lilt YiYa�Od M4s E,wav OMnm.n i
ciiero n of,rettx retalawmreeCea Oealet koa0a27i M1aedeeaeleae�eMelMrlr. 1
tIr rse w.me.rscwew,e se r aeYern 4er faFe surer►rewr wf eMs aMt eels ia4. 011reeole R Irte ieYie elsi er o�+
4etu.1L uaf Cs^e'v+'!I L'1m a®'SMe^9C4' iw�enw ie Ynr�elMe.rM G.GOM000A.Cef nYOMArer
Ur Ow'q.iC ifta'pe1 U h~iG4)tl Ln�p MNFpriMl,f 21tr1yt+1
r.ex.fee � nww ar ei P" me girt Leo as rue use
rear
i
„x
O,een S✓nmer 00H 3 1 own, R ocitNt I 00owu I 000,00 I ri 0 " 1o00ni1 R OOC<O0 1 omen i
9eP.isee• Of..efur ac» :r 1 ownr R 001241 l owmi i On," I otown Iou0911 It omox 1 0uen 1
Pin S. 002•a11 1 O wool r R 001241 1 0ODOW 1 000160 1 00000e t 0ONII R 00 1 0f"W I
s leas. Meer 002911 t 004fer R 001?a1 1 ONOR2 1 OWAM 1040019 IOW011 R oxam 1 017em 1
0?1sea wmer OOAI> 1 aMter R Oki:ai I I I n000M 10W43 I R 000Q'NO 1 0t]en I
nn,ue ee is 0esi 0 1" 0 rnl
1CaMnsrd!
ice Imiad by Dow Filed Dag 29.2915
A&ze Le No 2840-E D=skoppe E($wuve Jon I.201c
vim Preetderf
oecwm Na Reyrdawy Affairs Rescvutm No
Page 9 September,2016
Local P1'Ordinance Cast Efjectivenay.q Sludv
AW Rruwd Cd P U C Shm No 21g21-G
am t..w o.e a Ewrc eas..r
aa,ones or4lrlNr CaTwetr+q . Cd P U C Stud No
SCHEDULE GO ShOM I_.
RESIVENTLAi NATURAL GAS SERVICE
Ond.rf"Rom•Ica GR.C+R-C Cif CIGIC_A t
APPLICAB1UTY
The GR tale n appicAlde b fteftaat pN pmcu wttenl smite for rnckviduaity tmnrad neltiow6J taaelomers.
The GR-C. crosacovar rs*. A a ogee proetamnwd aptlorl fur aWivduerly meMed rtaademW cure
tratsportaten aslomm V h iWMeN 00fasseloWn OW 50.000 MIwms as Bel foattl in Spcetal Caandibon 10
The OTG'GTCA rate is appFf" b kttraesete gal trtnepmUtion-«vy ssre•vxrs to nowtduary It Iered
resrdenhai CuSINI f/tara.M"lerlf 1n SPOON CarM,n(on t f
Cuslontete se"aavioe UMfir 0*jClledab true,he*6gd)ta for a 20'4 Calvlomla Alternate R,ra Im Erturgy
ICARE)program demat d.IeleoW M e iepMllle frtr nern a+the tne, 41My rnmiay to reGMrP snrrcn utxbbr
the farm and mtdfons of Srhaduiso 0 C.ARE
TEflWCM
W,tm CIe enure W96my served naturaf pas try tfle uVoy
RATE
911L r$i. rrcx:Tr�'
IAI ;wr va m toreMe usage debited on Speuial Conrkewta 3 ad 41
•r'.nargp r $0 34551 $0 34501 1 WA
S125W $175W 1 s0901"
Non-Ba"Aom Rate.Per warn,iu -,go to excess of twAeena usegs3
Pnxuren e"t Charge` $0.34561 SO 34561 1 NA
Transnaer,m Chard. S1 09354 I OSJ54 i$ 08354
Tour Nm-Baaairta Chrge _._ _. $142915 S142915 i st 09354
+ The rate br am �y eull—��r�MfiRRR Wes!t�ta BWp6on of a Wwwo ser xa unun St±eCiAa G`.
tm iB#de 4rty M SatlaVeorrf Rntrs�11rmOrandun Aoaua R(FSPfMMi c*ede s rtnr+nda
The cwps(sappft"to Ufty Pmassenanf Cusbrnas and idfdas ffte GPC rid GFIC-A P+onrenwta Cfurgee
ataeva in Sdetf4a GPC w4wh"BaIpd to dwP mounNy as set Path�Special CoAAw t
Ids Iraued try Osw F4ed Jut 7.2010
Advwa L e No 24WO Gran stapve Ekdr of h!10.2410
vote P"we"
Daeeen No Rrqutaory Alleys ResoYdon No
Page 10 September,2016
48
ATTACHMENT # 4
49
�CQALLMSA
° -.� CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
u OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
c 1F0 P (760) 323-8204
411FORN�
EXCERPTS OF MINUTES
At the City Council meeting of the City of Palm Springs held October 4, 2017, the
City Council took the following action:
5.A. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED MANDATORY SOLAR
INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION:
Director of Planning Services Fagg presented the background information
as outlined in the staff report.
Council discussion ensued.
ACTION:
By consensus, the Council directed staff to bring back an ordinance and
Mayor Moon appointed Councilmember Kors and Councilmember Roberts
to a Solar Installation Ordinance Ad Hoc Subcommittee, with a sunset
date of March 31, 2018.
I, CYNTHIA A. BERARDI, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby
certify that the above action took place at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the 4th day of October, 2017.
r
Cynthia A. erardi, CIVIC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
J i
ATTACHMENT # 5
70 c� off'
iWW
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
SUSTAINABILITY
PRESENTED FOR COMMISSION MEETING DATE: W20/16 SUBMITTED BY: David Freedman
SUBCOMMITTEE NAME:Green Building/Solar(with Planning sue mITTED DATE:12/15/16
Commission Nalson)
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES: 12/21,12/5,12/12,12/15/16 f NEXT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATE:01/12/17
Subcommittee Meeting Goals:
• Meet with Staff to prepare for study session with Planning Commission on proposed solar
mandate(meetings of 11/21,12/S and 12/12116).
• Meetwith Staff to follow up an study session with Planning Commission on proposed solar
mandate and prepare for full Commission meeting(meeting of 12/1S/16).
Summary:
Subcommittee members met with Staff to prepare for and follow up on the study session with the
Planning Commission on a proposed solar mandate that took place on December 14, 2016.
The study session Included a presentation of the Subcommittee's research and proposals by Planning
Commissioner Middleton and Commissioner Freedman,testimony from Invited stakeholders
representing a broad range of views on the topic,public comment,and comments from the Planning
Commissioners and the Director of Planning Services. Based on the input received,the
Subcommittee's recommendations for a proposed solar ordinance are set out below.The Planning
Commission will consider the recommendations at its meeting of January 11,2017.
Recommendation/Request
• Require the installation of a solar electric photovoltaic(PV)system with a nameplate wattage
2.0 times or greater than the square footage of the home(2.0 watts per square foot).
: . Applicable to all new construction of single and multifamily residential dwellings.
• Also applicable to any addition to an existing single-family residential building that Increases
the square footage by 25%or greater,provided that the increase is at least 500 square feet,
and to all single-family residential remodels,alterations or renovations that are made
j involving demolition,remodel or renovation of more than 50%of the structure.
• At the time of submittal of a building permit application for any residential dwelling or retrofit
project meeting the thresholds,an applicant must submit plans and an application for the
52
mandatory solar photovoltaic system.
• Retrofit requirements may be waived or reduced,by the minimum extent necessary,where
production of electric energy from solar panels Is technically infeasible due to lack of available
and feasible unshaded areas.
• Retrofit requirements foradditions not applicable where the addition is an accessory second
unit(e.g.,casita).
• New construction requirements not applicable to affordable housing(as defined in state and
federal standards)if the additional cost Is not fully funded without recourse to the residents,
unless solar Installation Is already mandated by state or federal law.
• For market-rate new construction of less then 1,500 square feet for single-family residences
and less than 1,250 square feet for multifamily residences,the solar requirement may be
satisfied by meeting the requirements to achieve"Green Lear'status under CVAG's Green
Building Program checklist.
ACTION ITEMS REQUEST TO COMMISSION Recommend proposed solar ordinance to City
3 Council for adoption.
ACTION ITEMS REQUEST TO OFFICE OF Assist Department of Planning Services as needed
SUSTAINABIUTY in Its preparation for discussion of proposed solar
ordinance at Its meeting of January 11,2017.If
recommendations are approved by Planning and
Sustainability Commissions,work with relevant
Staff members and City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance,findings resolution and Staff Report
for consideration by City Council.
POTENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT/REQUEST IF ANY: Adoption of a local amendment to the energy
efficiency requirements in the Green Building
Standards Code will require approval by the
California Energy Commission(CEC).A cost
effectiveness study must be submitted to the CEC
as part of the approval process.The cost of that
study is not determinable at this time.
z
5
ATTACHMENT # b
54
FPp�Map�'i CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 26, 2017
To: Planning Commission
From: Flinn Fagg, AICP
Director of Planning Services
Subject: Proposed Mandatory Solar Photovoltaic Measures for Residential Construction
A proposed residential solar strategy has been developed by the Green Building/Solar
Subcommittee of the Sustainability Commission (Freedman, Otto), with input by a liaison from
the Planning Commission (Middleton). The proposal was presented to the Sustainability
Commission on December 20, 2016, and the commission voted to recommend approval of the
proposal.
The proposal was presented to the Planning Commission at a study session on December 20,
2016 (held jointly with members of the Sustainability Commission), and was presented for
discussion at the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 2017. The item was continued
to a date uncertain to allow for additional study materials to be prepared.
After the January 111" meeting, staff retained the firm of EcoMotion to prepare a solar cost-
effectiveness study (see Attachment #2). The study updates general solar metrics for
California Climate Zone 15, which includes the Coachella Valley. In addition, the calculations
provided in the study are based on Southern California Edison's new rate structure, which is
proposed to go into effect on July 1, 2017. The study concludes that photovoltaic systems will
be cost effective for the residential sector, even if tax credits and incentives are not present,
The draft language of the proposed ordinance has been updated to reflect some of the input
received from stakeholder groups and members of the Planning Commission. The following
summary reflects the proposed language that is included as Attachment#1 to this memo:
• Require the installation of a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system with a nameplate
wattage 2.0 times or greater than the square footage of the home (no change from
1/11/17 version).
• Applicable to all new construction of single and multifamily residential dwellings (no
change from 1/11/17 version).
• Applicable to any addition to an existing single-family residential building that increases
the square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the increase is at least 500 square
feet, and to all single-family residential remodels, alterations or renovations that are
made involving demolition, remodel or renovation of more than 50% of the structure (no
change from 1/11/17 version).
• Retrofit requirements for additions not applicable where the addition is an accessory
second unit (no change from 1/11/17 version).
• Requirements not applicable to affordable housing (as defined in state law) if the
additional cost is not fully funded without recourse to the residents, unless solar
installation is already mandated by state or federal law (no change from 1/11/17
version).
• Requirement for solar PV system may be reduced or waived by the Building Code
Appeals Board upon of the following criteria:
1. Price of single-family house will be less than 75% of current median sales
price or less than 50% of current median sales price for multifamily unit; or
2. Site-specific conditions make solar installation infeasible, such as building
site conditions, limited rooftop availability, or shading from nearby
structures or vegetation; or
3. Participation in other certification programs (Green for Life, LEED, Passive
House Institute US) which will result in greater energy savings than Title
24 requirements (revised from 1/11/17 version).
This item is being presented to the Planning Commission as an informational item, as it does
not propose changes to the City's zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission may choose
to forward comments on the draft measures to the City Council. As the proposal may impact
future development proposals, it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to review the draft
measures and provide comments accordingly.
The following documents are provided as attachments to this memo:
1. Proposed Draft— Mandatory Solar Photovoltaic Measures for Residential Construction
2. Solar Ordinance Cost-Effectiveness Study (03/06117)
3. Subcommittee Report--Sustainability Commission (dated 12/20/16)
4. Materials from the Planning Commission Study Session (12114/16)
5. Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 2017
Page 2
56
Draft Ordinance:
Mandatory Solar Photovoltaic Measures for Residential Construction
PSMC Section 8.04.072. California Green Building Standards Code-Amendments
and Deletions.
The California Green Building Standards Code adopted by reference pursuant to
Section 8.04.070 of this Chapter is hereby modified by the following additions:
4.201.2 Residential Solar Photovoltaic -When Required
1. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 apply to:
(a) all newly constructed single-family residential buildings;
(b) all newly constructed multiple-family residential buildings classified in
Residential Groups R-2 and R-3, as defined respectively in Sections
310.4 and 310.5 of the California Building Code adopted by reference
pursuant to Section 8.04.010 of this Chapter;
(c) any addition to an existing single-family residential building that
increases its square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the
increase is at least 500 square feet, except where the addition is an
accessory second unit; and
(d) any remodel, alteration or renovation to an existing single-family
residential building that is made involving demolition, remodel or
renovation of more than 50% of the structure.
2. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 do not apply to low-income residential
housing as such term is defined in Section 2852(a)(3) of the California
Public Utilities Code if the cost of installation of the solar photovoltaic
system is not fully funded without recourse to the residents of such low-
income residential housing,
3. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 do not apply to factory-built housing as
such term is defined in Section 19971 of the California Health and Safety
Code.
4. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 do not apply to any project that was fully
entitled as of the date of entry into effect of such Section.
5. At the time of submittal of a permit application for a residential building
meeting the scoping requirements of subdivision 1 of this Section, an
applicant shall submit plans and an application for a solar photovoltaic
system in accordance with the sizing requirements of subdivision 1 of
Section 4.201.3.
4.201.3 Residential Solar Photovoltaic Installations
1. All residential buildings meeting the scoping requirements of subdivision 1
of Section 4,201.2 shall install a solar photovoltaic system with a minimum
total wattage equal to two (2) watts times the total square footage of the
subject building. The system shall be located on-site.
et
69186 PFIBe of lees than [751% of the Fnedian sales r. : a Of SiRgle fe mil
w
F85i.deFitial having a pFejeeled Felail s.slee orie.e of lens than [60j % of the
FRedian sales pFiee ef single family hernes in Palm SpFings dwOng the
6ar�►. I . "Tmeeting tMe-Kogeiremen. . aehi Lear-ear" status
q�. VPLI i11GV C
t
Pepakment shall ealoulaie the Median sales pAGe of single family hemes
n Palm Springs duFing the pFevious fisGal leaF based eFi data f.m-.FR the
The requirement for installation of a solar photovoltaic system may
waived or the total wattage requirement may be reduced upon a
determination by the Building Code Appeals Board. The board shall
consider one or more of the following criteria in making a determination for
a waiver or reduction:
(a) The residential building(s) will be developed or sold at a price that
is less than 75% of the current median sales price for new single-family
construction or 50% of the median sales price for new multifamily home
construction in Palm Sorings, whichever may be applicable;
(b) Practical challenges make the installation of a solar photovoltaic
system infeasible, such as building site location, limited rooftop
availability, shading from nearby structures, topography, or vegetation: or
(c) Participation in other certification programs (CVAG's Green for Life
program. LEED certification. Passive House Institute US certification, or
similar) which will result in energy savings greater than what would be
required under Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code,
2
58
3. With Fespeat te single f8Mily FesideRtial buildings meeting the seeping
an exemption.
4. Solar energy systems that are leased by the end-use customer (tenant or
owner) or that supply electhclty to the end-use customer through a power
purchase agreement (PPA) may be used to satisfy the requirements of
subdivision 1 of this Section.
5. Newly constructed residential buildings meeting the scoping requirements
of subdivision 1 of Section 4.201.2 shall comply with the 2016 Title 24
Building Energy Code without claiming the solar compliance credit
described in Section 2.2.3 of the 2016 Title 24, Part 6, Residential
Alternative Calculation Method.
3
w. >: . 59
EXCERPT OF MINUTES
At the Planning Commission meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held April 26, 2017, the
Planning Commission took the following action:
313. RECEIVE A REPORT FROM THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
RELATING TO A PROPOSED MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF SOLAR SYSTEMS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION.
(FF)
Vice-Chair Weremiuk said she supports the solar ordinance and did some
research with the largest solar builder in town said that 100% of the purchasers
bought the solar package. She left the Council Chamber at 5:43 pm for the
remainder of the meeting.
Planning Director Fagg provided background information on the proposed solar
ordinance.
Commissioner Middleton said one of the biggest hurdles they faced was trying to
carve out some measure that would allow an exemption for affordable homes.
Ultimately, they came up with a process that allows a developer file an appeal to
the Building Codes Appeal Board for an exemption on their project.
Chair Calerdine said he supports the proposed ordinance; however, he still has
reservations over the affordability issues and does not see this addressed. He
requested a note to the City Council that they remain concerned about the impact
of affordability.
Commissioner Donenfeld said we are in the forefront of a major change
statewide and Palm Springs should be a leader in this area. He is concerned
about affordability but supports the framework as proposed.
ACTION: Receive the report and forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Motion: Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Chair Calerdine and
unanimously carried 6-0-1 on a roll call vote.
I, TERRI HINTZ, Planning Administrative Coordinator for the City of Palm Springs, hereby
certify that the above action was taken by Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs on the 26th day of April, 2017, by the following vote:
� ' 60
Planning Commission Minutes-Excerpt
City of Palm Springs
April 26,2017
AYES: Chair Calerdine, Commissioner Donenfeld, Commissioner
Hirschbein, Commissioner Hudson, Commissioner Lowe,
Commissioner Middleton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Chair Weremiuk (Vice Chair Weremiuk left the meeting before
the vote was taken)
ldl/L
Terri Hintz
Planning Administrative Coordinator
2 w 61
ATTACHMENT # 7
62
DOCKETED
Docket Number: 17-BSTD-01
Project Title: 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards PreRulemaking
TN#: 220969
Document Title: Presentation - Proposed 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards ZNE
Strategy
Description: Presentation by Maziar Shirakh, made at the 8-30-17 Staff Workshop.
Filer: Adrian Ownby
Organization: California Energy Commission
Submitter Role: Commission Staff
Submission 8/30/2017 3:53:13 PM
Date:
Docketed Date: 8/30,12017
I�
I
,•. 63
i
Proposed 2019 Building
Energy Efficiency
• Standards ZNE Strategy
Building Standards Office:
1VMazi Shirakh, PE
ENERGY • + ZNE Lead and Advisor for Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (BEES)
Christopher Meyer
Nlz maoer, Bulldln=, Standards Office
Bill Pennington
Senior Technical and Program Advisor to the
Bui • • Energy Efficiency Division
• Payam Bozogchami, PE
Ena g Project Manager, BEES
Danny Tam
Efficiency
Mechanical Engineer
Standards Countdown to 2020
6
August 30, 2017
s
2019 ZNE Strategy
Content
1. Proposed ZNE Strategy — Parts 6 and 11
2. CBECC-Res Software Tools for ZNE
2019
Standards Goals Path to • Future
i. Increase building energy efficiency cost effectively
2. For Part 6, make progress toward the ZNE goal as possible within the confines of NEM
and life cycle costing rules, while recognizing that Part 6 is an important but not the only
tool for achieving ZNE
3. Contribute to the State's GHG reduction goals
4. Promote self-utilization of the PV generation by encouraging or requiring demand
flexibility and grid harmonization strategies
s. Provide independent compliance path for both mixed-fuel and all electric homes
6. Achieve the above goals while ensuring real benefits for the building occupants with
positive benefit to cost ratios for all efficiency and generation measures
7. Provide the tools for local governments to adopt ordinances to achieve ZNE through Part
11 Reach Codes, and other beyond code practices.
The proposed 2019 Standards strategy will
accomplish all seven goals listed above
rs
3
ZNE Go • Harmonization
Grid harmonization strategies (GHS) must be coupled with
customer owned PV systems to bring maximum benefits to the grid,
environment, and the home owner
GHSs are strategies that maximize self-utilization of
the PV array output and minimize exports back to the
grid; examples of GHS include but are not limited to
battery storage, demand response, thermal storage, and
for some homeowners, EV grid integration.
OHS GOOGIEr YOU'VE
LEARNEP TO WALK
UPRIGHT - NOW WE
CAN TAKE BALLROOM
DANCING LES50NS!
ZNE Goals 2019 Standards Approach
The 2019 Standards will recognize the following priority for efficiency and
generation resources:
1. Envelope efficiency, 2. Appropriately sized PVs, and 3. Grid harmonization
strategies that maximize self-utilization of the PV output and limit exports to the
grid
Further, the standards must be framed in a way to encourage competition,
innovation, and flexibility foster new solutions as, g to luti the rid and 12V 1Q0AH DEEP CYCLE
IITHtUM ION BATTERY
technologies evolve.
Nl
W _
VW YOMtg00f aw. 70+ r..n.
l
Standards
and PV Sizing
• For Part 6, PV is sized to net out the buildings annual kWh; larger PV array may
be installed but will not receive additional compliance credit
• For Part 11 compliance, CBECC allows PV array coupled with a 6 kWh battery
storage system to be oversized by a factor of 1.6; this PV size:
Provides additional flexibility for the grid; the battery enables the increased PV
capacity to be used by the utility to meet high demand during critical peak periods
Promotes self-utilization on peak since PV is coupled with battery storage
Y The 1.6 cap ensures a greater than 1.0 benefit to cost ratio for the building owner even
if hourly exports are compensated only at avoided cost
• CBECC provides a size limit bypass checkbox that PV Solar
once checked allows exceeding the 1.6 times size
limit, with a warning that this option may violate
NEM sizing rules
c� ;
Builds on Commission's ' ' Tool
• Energy Design Rating (EDR) score show how close a home is to the ZNE target
Aligned with RESNET
Reference home is a 2006 IECC compliant home, EDR=100
r A score of zero means the house is a ZNE building . -
More Energy
• CEC's CBECC-Res software has the capability to 150
calculate EDR scores for EE and PV Existing 140
Homes 130
• Builders can use a combination of envelope energy 120
efficiency features, better appliances, PVs, and other 110
Reference strategies to get to the target EDR Home 100
90
&0
0
•
60
Download CBECC-Res here for free: 50
This Home
30
t
http://www.bwilcox.com/BEES/BEES.html 20
to
Zero Energy
Home Do
r� `.�� less Energy
®2013 RESNET
Proposed 2019 StandardsApproach
Energy Design Rating (EDR) targets for each climate zone:
1. An EDR level for energy efficiency features based on 2019 prescriptive
measures — This EDR target can only be met using energy efficiency measures,
i.e., no PV tradeoff
2. An EDR Contribution for the PV system that is sized to displace the home's
annual kWhs
3. Subtract the PV EDR Contribution from the energy efficiency EDR to determine
the final target EDR
Proposed 2019 Standards Approach
1. Maximize envelope efficiency as allowed by LCC and calculate EE EDR
i. HPA to R19 in severe CZs - Currently R13
ii. HPW to 0.043 - 0.046 U-factor in severe CZs - Currently 0.051
iii_ Windows U-factor of 0.30 and SHGC of 0.23 - Currently 0.32 and 0.25
iv. QII as a prescriptive requirement
Establish an Energy Design Rating (EDR) for energy efficiency in each CZ that can
only be met with efficiency measures (no PV tradeoff against EE)
2. Calculate EDR of PV system as follows:
i. Calculate the PV size required to displace the kWh in each CZ
ii. Calculate the EDR contribution of the PV array
3. Subtract the PV EDR contribution from the EE EDR contribution to establish
the final EDR that the building must meet to comply in each CZ
Note: Exaniples are presented in later slides
r°�9
Tar
et EDR's Many Advantages
•
i. A target EDR establishes a performance benchmark that the building must
meet to comply; consistent with the Warren-Alquist Act performance
standards expectation to provide builders with compliance flexibility
2. Target EDR allows the builder to use more efficiency and less PV to get to the
target; such as high performance glazing, Energy Star appliances, and higher
than minimum HVAC systems that we are prevented from requiring because
of preemption issues
3. The EDR concept can be used to right size the PV system for low EDR and
ZNE goals by taking advantage of grid harmonization strategies including j
battery storage, thermal storage, and demand response and flexibility
strategies
4. Target EDR is fully compatible with setting reach codes, local jurisdiction
simply identifies a lower target EDR (or zero) that can be met with a
combination of additional EE, PV, demand response/flexibility, EV integration,
or storage
-5. Target EDR works well with varying building sizes — static PV size does not
10
Target EDR Advantages " Example
Here is an example of how CBECC-Res calculates the Target EDR for both
EE and PV in CZ12 for the 2,700 sf house:
2015 mz 2700r12 -v3o 12 327 G20 M01
Compliance Summary Energy Design Rating tnergy Use Details j
EDR of Proposed Efficiency: 1�d1.9 - EDR of Prop PV + Flexibility: 19.1 = Final Proposed EDR: 22.8
EDR of Standard Efficiency: r 43.2 - EDR of Minimum Required PV°. F 18.5 = Final Std Design EDR: F 24.7
Reference Reference Reference Proposed Proposed Proposed Design Rating
Design Design Design Design Design Design Margin
tnd Use Site (kWh) Site (therms) (kI UVRt`-yr) Site (kVVh) Site (therms) (k I DV/ft*-yr) (kIUVNt -yr)
Space I leating 004 400.0 4G.OJ 107 217.2 19.51 20.G0
Space Cooling 1,729 59,71 317 17.22 42.49
LAC Ventilation 194 1.99 194 1.99 000
Other"VAG 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Heating 176.3 13.03 119.9 8.96 4.17
Phatovoltaics 5,022 -43.51 43.51
Batte ry 0,00 0.00
Inside Lighting 2,615 30.42 616 6.98 23.44
Appl, & Cooking 989 73.4 15.66 1.040 45.1 14.46 1.19
Plug Loads 3,207 35.06 2,371 2c.03 10.03
Exterior 328 3.54 152 1 61 1.93
-OTA.L 9,705 735.7 204.49 - 146 -- 3823 52. 15 152.34
11 Duic
Parallel Paths ;
There will be two parallel prescriptive paths for compliance, one for each of:
1. Mixed Fuel Homes
2. All-Electric Homes
This allows the all-electric and mixed fuel homes to have their own prescriptive paths,
NEEA Tier 3 HPWH models can easily be used to meet or exceed standard design using
the performance path
R
i.
,A
ai
.k.
1
s e
K y{ Y
pryis
Q-1T
All-Electric Homes
GHG
and Goals
Home electrification when combined with PVs and demand flexibility strategies can
result in environmental benefits as well as grid, and occupant benefits
' f
11 .,�� �cEP CYCiE
IT!1=-?s.m ION BATE!—'`
r --
j.
as e
f
��l
Extreme
Efficiency and ZNE
Can extreme energy efficiency regardless of cost achieve full ZNE (EDR of 0)?
• Even if we eliminate all heating, cooling, hot water, and IAQ loads, we'll still end up with
an EDR score of 25-30, the theoretical limit for efficiency EDR!
• That is because in most climate zones plug loads are now the dominant loads and they are
unaffected by efficiency measures, extreme or not
• 2019 Standards efficiency EDRs are in the 43-48 range depending on the CZ
• "Practical" efficiency measures — without renewables and demand flexibility - can move
the EDR score by no more than 7-9 points in severe CZs, less in milder CZs to --34-41 range!
Conclusions:
1. Limited opportunity for regulated
loads to lower EDR in the future
2. Need PV + demand flexibility to
achieve low EDR scores or ZNE
�14
Calgreen
• • Tiers and a • . Scores
• 2016 Standards have efficiency EDR scores in mid 50s in most CZs
• 2016 Calgreen has three tiers
• Tier 1 - 15% better than Part 6
• Tier 2 - 30% better than Part 6
• And a ZNE tier with EDR score of zero
• 2019 Standards final EDR scores including PVs are in mid 20s in most CZs
• No need (room) for three Calgreen tiers anymore; two tiers may be sufficient
• A tier 1 that will get halfway to EDR 0 established based on default battery controls
and PV oversizing factor of - 1.3 or less
• A second tier with EDR score of zero established based on advanced battery
controls and PV oversizing factor of - 1.4 or less
Builders may use a combination of PV, efficiency measures including higher appliances
efficiencies, and demand flexibility measures to reach these target EDRs most cost effectively
y
Note for following slides: each EDR point is -- 170 watts of PV, roughly about half a PV panel
^�15
cn1
Target
Examples Zone
Here is are examples of how Target EDRs might look for different scenarios
2700 sf Prototype, Mixed Fuel
Part 6 Tier 1 Tier 2 )r�imended EDR Scores For
2019 !Part 6 PV 2019 EDR EDR with EDR with EDR with EDR with Tier 2 PV Size Tier S Tier 1 Tier 2
Efficiency ` Site, kW with Part 6 1.3 0S 1.2 OS 1.1 OS LOOS with Adv Factor
EDR DC PV Factor and Factor and Factor and Factor and Battery &
Basic Basic Basic Basic EDR=O, kW
Battery Battery Battery Battery DC
CZ
1 48.0 3.4 26.5 15.5 17.9 4.5 1.3 16.0 0.0
2 44.6 2.9 23.8 13.1 15.1 3.6 L2 12.0 0.0
3 42.7 2.5 22.4 11.8 14.2 2.8 1.1 12.0 0.0
4 43.6 2.9 22.4 9.4 11.5 13.6 3.0 1.0 12.0 0.0
5 40.1 2.3 20.9 10.5 12.1 14.6 2.5 1.1 12.0 0.0
6 48.7 2.9 22.6 6.5 11.8 14.7 3.1 1.1 12.0 0.0
7 47.5 2.7 19.6 4.5 9.6 12.8 2.4 0.9 I2.0 0.0
8 45.2 3.0 20.3 4.2 8.9 11.4 3.0 1.0 12.0 0.0
9 46.4 3.1 23.4 6.2 9.9 12.5 3.6 1.1 12.0 0.0
10 45.3 3.3 1 23.5 4.6 9.3 11.7 3.8 1.2 12.0 0.0
11 42.S 4.0 22.6 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.9 5.2 11.3 12.0 0.0
12 42.7 3.2 24.0 9.0 11.3 13.3 15.4 4.4 1.4 1 12.0 0.0
13 1 43.9 4.1 23.7 7.3 10.1 11.9 5.9 1.4 12.0 0.0
14 44.1 3.5 23.6 7.2 9.7 11.8 5.0 1.4 12.0 0.0
15 46.7 5.8 20.4 1 4.8 1 7.2 10.1 13.1 7.5 1.3 12.0 0.0
16 46.6 2.9 27.8 16.6 ; 11.0 8 16.0 0.0
16
Target
• , Examples by
Climate Zone
Here is are examples of how Target EDRs might look for different scenarios
2100 sf Prototype, Mixed Fuel
Part 6 Tier 1 Tier 2
2019 Part 6 PV 2019 EDR EDR with EDR with EDR with EDR with Tier 2 PV Size Tier 2 OS _ 2
Efficiency Size, kW with Part 6 1.3 OS 1.2 OS 1.1 OS 1.0 OS with Adv Factor
EDR DC PV Factor and Factor and Factor and Factor and Battery &
Basic Basic Basic Basic EDR=O, kW
Cz Battery Battery Battery Battery DC
3 1 47.7 2.2 25.0 13.7 1 16.4 20.1 2.4 1.1 12.0 0.0
7 49.5 2.3 20.7 7.8 11.6 14.1 2.0 0.9 12.0 0.0
10 46.9 2.7 24.5 9.8 12.6 2.7 1.0 12.0 0.0
12 45.0 2.7 25.3 10.5 12.5 3.2 1.2 12.0 0.0
13 46.6 3.5 25.6 6.1 8.8 11.2 15.0 4.4 1.3 12.0 0.0
15 49.9 5.2 1 21.8 0.6 7.4 10.8 &1 1.2 12.0 0.0
16 49.3 2.3 1 30.2 16.9 1.1 .8 16.0 0.0
�� 17
Target , ExamplesClimate Zone
Here is are examples of how Target EDRs might look for different scenarios
2700 sf Prototype, All Electric
r,niend .
Part 6 Tier 1 Tier 2 For
2019 Part 6 2019 EDR EDR with EDR with EDR with EDR with EDR with Tier 2 PV Tier 2 05 Tier 1 Tier 2
Efficiency; PV Size, with Part 1.4 OS 1.3 OS 1.2 OS IA OS LOOS Size with Factor
EDR kW DC 6 PV Factor and,Factor and Factor Factor Factor and Adv
Basic Basic and Basic and Basic Basic Battery &
Battery Battery Battery Battery Battery EDR=O,
kW DC
Cz
3 50.9 2.8 28.8 14.3 17.3 4.0 1.4 14.0 0.0
7 51.3 2.9 23.3 13.2 13.2 16.4 3.0 1.0 14.0 0.0
10 47.3 3.4 26.2 12.3 12.3 15.2 4.3 1.3 14.0 0.0
12 45.6 3.3 27.4 10.4 13.9 16.7 5.1 1.5 14.0 1 0.0
13 46.5 4.3 26.8 1 9.4 11.8 15.0 18.4 6.7 1 1.6 14.0 0.0
15 48.0 6.1 22.4 4.6 10.6 13.8 8.1 1.3 14.0 0.0
16 61.4 3.2 44.3 32.2 34.3 36.9 38.9 40.8 22.0?? 0.0
Note: There may not a cost effective or practical way to get to EDR score of zero in CZ16, especially for all-
electric homes; winters are too cold with too much resistance heating for HP water and space heating. EDR
score of 22 requires a 6.1 kW PV system, an oversizing factor of 1.9, exceeding the 1.6 limit; EDR score of zero
requires oversizing factor of 25!
co- 18
r-�
Target
Here is are examples of how Target EDRs might look for different scenarios
in different CZs for the 2,700 sf Mixed Fuel Homes:
Note: At this time these numbers are examples only and may change as our tools evolve
NEM = Net Energy Metering, GH = Grid Harmonization; Dumb PV= No Battery Storage
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1
Efficiency Target Design PV Sized to Dumb PV PV Size for Zero PV Size for Zero Similar to Col Cal 6 ! Col 7 Col 8
EDR without Rating Score Displace Annual Sized to Zero EDR with Basic EDR with 7 But With 95 to 4 to 4 to 4
PV, based on for Displacing kWh Electric- EDR - Battery Controls- Optimum Battery Furn, 0.95 WH Ratio Ratio Ratio
2019 kWh Elect Cool with NEM, Violates NEM, May Violate NEM, Controls-Cool -Real Cool
Efficiency with PV from not so Cool with Not Cool with OK with GH with NEM and with NEM and
CZ Measures Cot GH GH GH Gfi
1 48.0 26.5 3.4 7.7 6.9 4.6 4.1 2.0 1.4 1.2
2 41.2 18.0 2.9 6.1 S.S 3.1 2.8 1.9 T 1.1 1.0
3 46.9 22.7 2.8 5.8 5.3 3.2 2.9 1.9 1.1 1.0
6 48.D 20.9 2.9 5.3 4.5 2.9 2.8 1.6 1.0 1.0
7 48.0 14.9 2.7 4.6 3.9 2.4 2.3 1.4 0.9 0.9
8 43.0 14.6 2.9 5.3 4.3 2.7 2.6 1.5 ! 0.9 0.9
11 43.3 23.4 3.$ SS 6.5 4.4 4.2 1.7 i 1.2 1.1
12 43.1 24.5 3.1 7.0 5.8 3.8 3.5 1.9 1.2 1.1
13 44.8 22.1 4.0 1 9.0 6.2 4.9 4.6 1.6 1.2 1.2
14 44.6 21.3 3,4 7.4 5.4 4.4 4.1 1.6 1.3 1.2
15 48.0 17.9 5.7 ! 10.5 8.1 6.9 6.8 1.4 1.2 1.2
Owl 16 46.3 27.5 7.6 6.5 4.8 4.3 2.2 1.6 1.4
Its
2. Software Tools
The CBECC-Res Compliance Software May Be Used For:
• Part 6 Compliance, and
• Part 11 (CALGreen, Reach Codes, etc)
The Software can be used to:
a
• Size PV for Part 6 compliance or lower target EDRs M�
for Reach Codes
• Assess the impact of battery storage on lowering EDR
• Assess the impact of precooling and other DR
strategies on lowering EDR
• Assess the impact of HPWH DR on lowering EDR
• And other options
co20
Uj
Software Tools Screens
This screen can be used to specify an EDR target that may be required by
reach codes to size the PV system
2019 CZ12_2100ft2-Unvented -00 12 S21 C20 M01 J
Project Analysis EDR f PV Battery Notes Building Lighting appliances JAQ j Cool Vent j Peopl
i
W Perform Energy Design Rating
9 Specify Target Energy Design Rating - Score: 10 May be superseded by Max PV Gen Ratio of 1 (Battery tab)
Target EDR lengthens analysis runtime
l I
Photovoltaic System(s): Inputs: Detailed� :W1
Sim lifted l
DC System Inverter
Size (k" Module Type Array Orientation and Location Eff. (%)
Standard F CFl? 170* azimuth, 22.6'till (6.0-in-12) 96
I
(l ` Standard W CFl? 96
0 '
1
1
w 21
0K !
Softwarei iScreens
2019-CZ12_2100ft2-unvented -0012 S21 G20 M01 �
Project I Analysis i EDP / PV Battery ( Notes I Building I Lighting ( Appliances ! IAQ ' Cool VentI Peopl ►
Battery Capacity: 1 kWh generation will be capped @ 1.6 x proposed design electric use
i Allow Excess PV Generation EDR Credit for above code programs
Control: IDefault
- s ecif -
Best Case Discharging
Efficiency: 0.95 0.95
Rate: I 5 kW 5 kW
The battery model doesn't currently include energy consumption for cooling
the battery during charging in environments above 77°F or to keep the battery
from freezing in winter if outdoors.
c �22
QK
SoftwareScreens
2019_CZ12_2 00ft2 -v3( 12 S27 620 M01
Project I Analysis I EDP E PV I Battery i Notes Building Lighting ', Appliances I IAO I Cool Vent Peopl
Building Description: CEC Prototype wi-h the roof W Use PreCooling
Air Leakage Status. Ne+n
Air Leakage: F 5 ACH a@ 50Pa
Insul. Construction Quality: I Improved
f— Perform Multip a Orientation Analysis
Front Orentation: 0 deg fw Natural Gas is available at the site
r Single Family <' Multi-family Gas Type: Natural Gas
Number of Bedrooms 4 `, tonal Control Credit (living vs. sleeping)
iv Has attached garag3
CO 2 J
OK
Software Tools Results
For Compliance for Part 6 and Part 1 I
2014_CZ12 .2700k2- v30 12 S27-20 M01
Compliance Summary Energy Desiqn Rating Energy Use Details
EDP of Proposed Efficiency: 41.9 EDP of Prop PV + Flcxibility 19.1 - Finol Proposed EDR: 22.8
EDP of Standard Efficiency: 1 43.2 EDP of Minimum Required PV: I 18 5 = Final Sid Design EDR ! 24 7
Reference Reference Reference Proposed Proposed Proposed Design Rating
Design Design Design Design Design Design Margin
End Use Site (kWh) Site (therms) (kTDV1ft=-yr) Site (kWh) Site (therms) (kTDV/*k yr) (kTDVlft1-yr)
apace I leafing 004 406-0 455.09 1C7 217.2 19.51 2G.50
Space Cooling .729 5971 317 17.22 42.49
IAO Ventilation 194 1.99 194 1 99 0 00 '
Other hN.AC 0_00 0.00 0.00
Water Heating 176.3 13.03 119.9 3.86 4.17
Phutuvuhdic5 -5,022 -43.51 43.51
battery U.UU U.W
Inside Lighting 2,615 30.42 616 6.98 23.44
Appl & Cooking 969 73.4 15.65 1,040 45.1 14.46 1.19
Plrrg I nwk q,2f,7 .3.T, nF ?,171 7!S nn 1n m
F Extonor 329 3.64 162 1.61 1.93
TOTAL 9.705 735.7 204.49 146 382.3 52.15 152.34
co
24
Done
ResultsSoftware Tools
. .
ns
Compliance Pass/Fail
2019_CZ12 2700 rL2-v30 12 S27 G20 MOO
Comphance Summary Encrgy Dcoign Rating , Energy Uoc Dotailo
Energy Design Ratings: Compliance Margins:
Efficiency' Finai2 Efficiency' Finai2
(EDR) (EDR) (EDR) (EDR)
Standard Design 43.2 24.7
Proposed Design 41.9 22.8 1.3 "~ 1.9 -
Rasults: COMPLIES
(not current)
' Ffficianry mvasnrPS inrinrla imprnvemants likr. a hattar hnildinrg Pnvpinpa anti mnrR Pfficiant PryuipmPnt
:Final EDR includes efficiency, photovoltaics and batteries
°Building complies when all efficiency and final margins are greater than or equal to zero
CO
ct�25
Done
e
..tie,
suopsan
TDV ZNE
requires . larger
than Site ZNE
J4 j
Solar production occurs during low TDV hours, and households demand energy
during high TDV hours
PV must be sized larger to reach TDV ZNE vs. Site ZNE (which doesn't account for the
changing value of kWh)
For a 2,100 ft2 home with 1800 PV orientation, TDV ZNE requires 7% - 44% larger PV capacity
than Site ZNE (average: 21%)
Because PV interconnection rules limit sizing to electric kWh, this presentation focuses on that
size
All-Electric Home PV system capacity(kW) Mixed Fuel Home PV System Capacity (kW)
(2,100 sq f ail-electric home, 1800PV orientation) 2100 sf mixed fuel home,1800 orientation
10 3 10
3
8 u 8
m
> fl-
6 6
o E
a �
4 N 4
k 2 CL 2
.ti N rn C' Ln tD n 00 rn O ti ry m mr Ln sD
N fV m Cr Ln l0 r, oor�u.� Q1 0 .-� N M r sit lD N N N N N N N N N
U N lNi N N N U U N N N 9-4 rj U N tV N u u u u v u u u u u V V v v u u W
C! U
■Sizing PV to Offset Electric kWh
■Sizing PV to Offset Electric kWh n Sizing PV to Offset Electric TDV ■Sizing PV to Offset Electric TDV
0 Sizing PV to Offset Electric.Gas TOV(Current Definition of ZNE)
PV Costs
No ITC Assumed - The ITC is scheduled to step down throughout the
2020-2022 building standard cycle ( 26%, 22%, 20% ) and then to
0% for residential systems beginning in 2023
All costs assume a 30-yr panel life and inverter replacements after 10
and 20 years (comprises rv$0.40/W in the costs)
- Price based on NREL 2016 Installer Price
• Low cost case: PV Costs
G 30% cost reduction 2016 - 2020 (GreenTech Media)
• Medium cost case: $400 $3.55
• 18% cost reduction 2016 - 2020 (Bloomberg) $3.50 $2 99
• High cost case: $3.00 $2.61
• No cost reduction 2016 - 2020 0 $2.50
$2,00
3 $1.50
$1.00
$0.50
L-
$0.00
Energy Environmental Economics Low Cost Med Cost ^i;h Cost
solarThree • r - • policies
Average per-kWh compensated value (TDV) of rooftop PV
6 (Mixed fuel home, solar PV sized to electric kWh, 2,100 sq ft home, 1800PV orientation)
rn
0
N 5
v
> 4 _
0
3
0
ri 2
a
z
0 0
m � _
NEM 2.0 AC for Exports AC for All
111 Behind-the-meter Generation N Non-Surplus Export Generation
AC = Avoided Costs
Non-surplus Export Generation are the hourly exports
Energy Environmental Economics 29
Cost-Effectiveness of Offsetting
Elec kWh in a Mixed Fuel Home
Offsetting electric kWh with solar PV is cost-effective except
under the most aggressive NEM reform scenarios
Net Benefit of Offsetting Electric kWh in a Mixed Fuel Home
2700 sf - PV 180' 1 . 2.89
$25,000
2 2.46
• •Low Cost PV�M 2.0 3 2.38
> $20,000 a
4 2.36
CL •Med Cost PV NEM 2.0
•
5 2.22
� $15,000 e • High Cost PV NEM 2.0 6 2.38
$10,000 e • 0 0 0 0 i 0 i e ■Low Cost PV Avoided Cost for 7 2.26
�!} • Exports
i ■ • 8 2.46
■Med Cost PV Avoided Cost for
$5,000 ■ ■ Exports
0J * ■ ■ • • • • High Cost PV Avoided Cost for 10 2.58
• •
■ • , • • • . Exports
m 5 • ` + '• ' i - i •Low Cost PV Avoided Cost for All 11 3.10
+ • 12 2.58
N
Z $(5,000) 13 3.28
14 2.73
5(10,000) 15 4.83
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 2.37
Climate Zone
co
Energy Environmental Economics 30
uoluo:) ueiag 'build AaeuaeZ 'aoiad aallnuS
Z-TOZ 'Z y:)aew
d"d** Cl
- Ad 5uizisJDAO pue sajn�j WIN
s3lwOuo33 jejuaWUOJIAu3 A2'au3
IF
PV Sizing Methods
Electric kWh
PV scaled such that annual generation = annual electric load
Maximize Net Benefits
PV scaled to maximize net TDV benefit to customer
Practically, this is the same capacity as sizing to kWh, i,e., further generation will only
receive Net Surplus Compensation (NSQ
Electric TDV
PV scaled such that annual TDVs generated = annual TDV of
electric load
Zero Net Benefits ( Breakeven Point)
PV scaled to point at which a larger system will not be cost-
effective
Cost of PV system = Revenue from PV generation
-: Enemy Environmental Economics 32
Sizing
Comparison
• Cost PV
PV sized to max net benefits is smaller than sized to electric TDV
1. Sizing to TDV does not reflect lower compensation for exports from NEM 2.0
At sizes beyond max net benefits, incremental kW only receive NSC
Large net benefit and small marginal net cost (PV cost - NSC) at the paint of maximum
net benefits require much larger systems to zero out net benefits
Ratio of
Retail for self-use and exports, NSC for net surplus - NEM2 PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits
PV Sized to Electric kWh
2700 scift, PV18O, NEM 2.0, Mid Cost PV CZ1 1.98
zo CZ2 2.51
1s CZ3 2.49
_ 16 CZ4 2.62
14 CZ5 2.76
Y
CU
12 CZ6 2.42
N_
�, 10 CZ7 2.61
a $ CZ8 2.49
6 ii ff ! t ! ! `` CZ9 2.55
2 CZ10
2.43
a III I � 1 'i� '1� I'I '!' III 1 CZ11 2.65
CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZOS CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 CZ12 2.59
• PV Sized to Electric kWh ■PV Sized to Maximize Net Benefits CZ13 2.43
■ PV Sized to Electric TDV ■PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits
CZ14 2.96
CZ15 2.55
' CZ16 2.61
Energy Environmental Economics 33
ax.
,,..,
Sizing Comparison
AC for • • • Cost '
Valuing export PV generation at avoided cost reduces cost-
effectiveness of PV sized to offset kWh
Smaller net benefits for systems sized to offset kWh means less kW
at marginal net cost are needed to zero out net benefits
Retail for self-use, AC for exports, NSC for net surplus, NEM"3" Ratio of
PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits
2700 Sgft, PV180,Avoided Cost for Exported Energy, Mid Cost PV PV Sized to Electric kWh
20 CZO1 1.21
18 CZ02 1.57
16 CZ03 1.52
Y 14 CZ04 1.64
a 12 CZ05 1.71
N
10 CZ06 1.58
(U 8 CZ07 1.67
U) 6 CZ08 1.67
2 "II �1 t: I lid 1 1 1. idl I' 1111111111111 1 CZ11 ll CZ
1.1.655
�
CZO1 CZD2 CZ03 CZ04 CZOS C206 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 CZ12 1.64
■ PV Sized to Electric kWh «& PV Sized to Maximize Net Benefits CZ13 1.45
■PV Sized to Electric TDV in PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits CZ 14 1.91
c.o CZ 15 1.55
Energy Environmental Economics CZ16 1.60 34
Sizing Comparison
BTM TDV, t Cost PV
BTM TDV means
• All PV production consumed behind-the-meter (BTM) receives full TDV value
• All PV production exported to the grid as well as all net surplus above a system sized to annual kWh receives
net surplus compensation (NSC)
PV sized to electric kWh and electric TDV are unchanged from previous rate structures
+ PV sized to maximize net benefits and PV sized to zero net benefits are substantially reduced
Ratio of
+ Retail for self-use, NSC for exports and annual surplus PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits
2700 sgft, PV180, BTM TDV, Mid Cost PV PV Sized to Electric kWh
20 CZ1 0.74
18 CZ2 1.05
_ 16 CZ3 1.01
� 14
CZ4 1.11
12 CZ5 1.14
10 CZ6 1.04
8 CZ7 1.12
CZ8 1.11
6
`^ 4 CZ9 1.18
z loll 1111 loll 1111 loll loll Imil 111111 loll 1111 I'll 1.111.111.11I2, I CZ11 1.11
CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 C207 CZ08 CZ09 CZ1D CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 CZ12 1.14
CZ13 0.89
■PV Sized to Electric kWh 7 PV Sized to Maximize Net Benefits CZ14 1.30
■PV Sized to Electric TDV ■ PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits CZ 15 0.98
CZ16 1.07
Energy Environmental Economics 35
Storage Overview
E3 analyzed the additional value of a battery storage
system to an existing PV system of a 2700 sf, mixed
fuel home
BTM TDV rate scenario
BTM generation receives full TDV value ( rv$0 . 20/kWh ) ; exported
generation receives net surplus compensation value
( ^; $0 . 03/kWh )
Battery assumptions
14 kWh
5 kW
90% round trip efficiency
$500/kWh fully installed
3G
Energy Environmental Economics
Sizing Comparison
Storage,BTM TDV With Mid Cost '
Installing storage (without accounting for the storage costs)
increases the benefits to the homeowner, allowing them to
install more solar
- The Generous Santa option : Demonstrates how PV value increases if
coupled with storage at no cost
Ratio of
+ Retail for self-use, and NSC for exports and annual surplus PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits
PV Sized to Electric kWh
2700 sgft, PV180, BTM TDV, Mid Cost PV CZ1 2.05
20 CZ2 2.78
is_ 16 storage costs not included 70 CZ4 3.09
3 14 CZ5 3.09
12 CZ6 2.89
10 CZ7 2.97
E s CZ8 3.17
6 CZ9 3.77
4 ` !! _ CZ10 3.75
2 ' � � � ' ' � ' ' ' ! ':•� I ' ' 1 ' 111 � CZ11 3.76
0 CZ12 3.71
CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZC9 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 CZ13 3.66
F�
■PV Sized to Electric kWh �; PV Sized to Maximize Net Benefits CZ14 4.26
CZ15 3.47
■ PV Sized to Electric TDV w PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits CZ 16 3.02
tnergy tnvironmeniai tconomics 37
Sizing Comparison
ZI -
1.y 'si....:
Avoided Cost for i i i Energ
With .'
Storage, Cost PV
Changing the rate structure to avoided cost for exported energy
increases the net benefits of solar + storage and therefore increases the
amount of solar that can be installed before net benefits are reduced to
zero; annual surplus at NSC
* The Stingy Santa option - Demonstrates the impact on the PV if Santa charges
you for the storage
Ratio of
* Retail for self-use, AC for exports, and NSC for annual surplus — NEM"3" PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits
(with Storage Costs)
2700 sgft, PV180,Avoided Costfor Exported Energy, Mid Cost PV PV Sized to Electric kWh
20 CZ1 1.48
is CZ2 2.21
16 CZ3 1.96
Y 14 CZ4 2.71
12 CZ5 2.23
'^ 10 CZ6 1.73
C
Lw CZ7 1.87
6 CZ8 2.29
4
1 7
�S� a
CZ0 2.4
02 CZ11 2.82
CZO1 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 CZ12 2.63
■PV Sized to Electric kWh n PV 5ized to Maximize Net Benefits CZ13 2.49
■PV Sized to Electric TDV ■PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits CZ14 2.73
CZ15 2.33
■ PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits (with Storage Cost) r: PV Sized to Electric + Gas TDV
— CZ16 1.90 38
Energy Environmental Economics
a
Cost/ BenefitPOU PV ■ • keven Analysis
Not cost-effective at any retail rate
For avoided cost only rate structures.
A ♦ ♦ A A ♦ increasing the retail rate does not
increase cost-effectiveness
$0.30
SDG&E
TDV Retail Rate PG&E
..� $0.25 LADWP
�- High Cost PV Avoided Cost for All
(LS (I}
tZ �
$� 20 __, _,___ � ,IC . Mid Cost PV Avoided Cost for All
j ■ SMUD
4— ■ ■ ■ • Low Cost PV Avoided Cost for All
Qj t� - r • • ♦ All • # • • # • •
$0.15 t -• - ------- . — — — — # -- High Cost PV Avoided Cost for Exports
j * # ! ■ Mid Cost PV Avoided Cost for Exports
C7
$0'10 ■ Low Cost PV Avoided Costfor Exports
a) CV
High Cost PV NEM 2.0
0° -- $0.05
0Mid Cost PV NEM 2.0
$0.00 - •Low Cost PV NEM 2.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415 16 IEPR For
Rate Forecast
Climate Zone
A A A • • When solar is cost-effective
♦ ♦ ► ♦ ♦
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ while only being compensated at
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ avoided cost, it is cost-effective
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • regardless of the retail rate level
Cost-effective at any retail rate 39
Energy Environmental Economics
Limited Impact of Standards PV Requirements
Compared to Other Forecasted PV Development
12000
11500
11000
10500 ------
10000 a
95W
9000
� I
8000
a
7500
7000 __.— -------------____.-----__.__-- —Total Statewide Capacity
6500
6000 '4 —Total Residential Retrofit
ssoo - -__ ____ _ __ __._._.. __._.--__._-- Ole
—
5000w_. _ —Total Res New Construction w/o
Standards
asoo —Total Res New Construction w f
a000 ___ _.- ----.__..__._.---_._.-- Standards
3500
3000
2500
2000 — — --
1500
low
500
0 i
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
3nV
% It
2018 BOARD OF DIRECTORS A
PRESIDENT desert valleys builders association
Fred Bell
NobellEnergy Solutions
If VICE PRESIDENT
Deborah McGarey
Southern California Gas Company January 2,2018
2nd VICE PRESIDENT
Tom Dubose
Development Design&
Engineering City of Palm Springs
SECRETARY/TREASURF.R 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Eileen Eske
Pacific Premier Bank Palm Springs,CA 92262
1710E PRESIDENT
OFASSOCIATES
Allan Levin Attn: Flinn Fagg, Director of Planning
Allan Levin&Associates
PAST PRESIDENT
Bruce Maize
Discovery Builders Dear Mr. Fagg,
CHIEF EXECUTI YE OFFICER
Gretchen Gutierrez On behalf of the Desert Valleys Builders Association(DVBA), we would like to thank
you for the opportunity to be engaged with the City of Palm Springs on the Proposed
DIRECTORS Arian Benedetti Solar Policy for new residential construction. While the DVBA is supportive of goals
Brian Benedetti Construction that will create a more sustainable community and meet the requirements for the
lark Benedetti City of Palm Springs Sustainability Plan,the additional burden of solar mandated on
BNIC Select Build
Margaret Drury new residential construction does little to increase or meet those efficiency goals.
Margaret Drun Construction
Mario Gonzales C;HA Companies It is expected with the new 2020 California Building Codes,effective January ill,
Joe Hayes 2020,that all new residential development will be mandated to complete full
First Bank installation of solar to be in compliance with State law.
Todd Hooks
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Dave Lippert Current Title 24 California Building Codes(effective January is`,2017), require that all
Lippert Construction. Inc
Paul kiahoney new residential construction be made solar ready". What does this mean? It
PMA Advcrtisinz means that the new residence is pre-wired (or plumbed as the correct terminology)
Dan Olivier to have everything ready for the final installation of the panels and invertor to make
Nether> A4ueller Olivier
Alan Pace operational. This provides the opportunity for the new resident to best determine
Petra Geotechnical the solar contractor,financing/leasing options, etc.that best work for them.
John Powell,Jr.
Coachella Valley Watcr District Additionally, as referenced throughout the Eco Motion study(s),the return on
Phil Smith investment(cost)of a new system has a minimum of 11+years before there is a
Sunrise Company return cost benefit to the system installation. Any full system installation will be
Patrick Swarthout
I labitat for Humanity, adding to the cost of construction and ultimately to the total sales price of the new
Jeff Wauenbarger residence. While the studies referenced in the staff report do list the proposed cost
Wattenbarger Construction
estimates of installation,the reality of market rate pricing on a typical residential unit
will potentially increase$25K or more, subject to the cost of construction,
installation,carry of financing of system,etc.
75100 Mediterranean • Palm Desert e CA 92211
(760) 776-7001 office • (760) 776-7002 fax
www.thedvba.org
01-03—Z01$
2018 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 3nV A
PRESIDENT desert valleys builders association
Fred Bell
Nobell Eneren Solutions
1"VICE PRESIDENT
Deborah McGarrey
Southern California Gas Company The potential increase of$25K or more to new home purchase pricing will continue
2"d VICF PRESIDENT to further exacerbate the ability of homebuyers to purchase, qualify and acquire
Tom Dubose new housingwithin the City o Palm Springs. Palm Springs alread is the Yd most
Dcvelopntent Design& tY fY
Engineering expensive city within the Coachella Valley in terms of development costs&fees and
SECRET tRYITRFASURER an increase of this type of requirement to new construction will push the City into
Eileen Eske
Pacific Premier Bank the most expensive In the region for development/purchase costs.
VICE PRFSIDENT
AllanLevin SSO ATFs Further, with the upcoming rollout o the Federal Tax Plan and changes to
Allan Levin P g f g
Allan Levin&Associates mortgage deductions caps,21 home deductions, etc., Palm Springs will be hard hit
PAST PRESIDENT for both the new residential and resale buyer markets seeking to acquire a home.
Bruce Maize
Discovery Builders
CHEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER During the year just concluded (2017)the City issued only 119 Single Family Unit
Gretchen Gutierrez permits(most current figures available thru October). The projected number
through year end will most like not match nor exceed 2016 issuances. In 2016 that
DIRECTORS number totaled 137 Single Family Residence permits. This number was only a slight
Brian Benedetti
Brian Benedetti Construction increase from 2015(129 SFD units). Therefore,the incremental energy efficiency
Mark Benedetti savings based solely on new residential construction is minute at best.
BMC Select Build
Margaret Drum
Margaret Drum Construction An Alternative solution for the City should be the expanded promotion and use of
Mario Gonzales the CVAG managed PACE program(Ygrene, Hero,and others). The City of Palm
GHA Companies
Joc Ilayes Springs would see greater efficiency within its Plan with increased promotion and
First Bank assistance to current residences and businesses throughout the city, many of which
Todd Hooks Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians predate the origins of Title 24 Energy Standards implemented in 1978. This can
Dave Lippert make use of a variety of efficiency components,such as new heating and air
Lippert Construction_Inc conditioning units,upgrades in windows and insulation, lighting and plumbing,and
Paul Mahone
PMA Advertising of course,solar installations.
Dan Olivier
Nethery Mueller Olivier Once again,thank you for the opportunity to provide input and comments to the
Alan Pace g Y PP Y P P
Pena Geotechnical proposed recommendations.
John Pokeell.Jr.
Coachella Vailey Water District
Phil smith Best regards,
Sunrise Company
Patrick S�tarthout
Habitat for Humanity
Jeff ttenbarger C
1'�'attenbarger Construction SG
hen Gu ' rrez
uilders Association
75100 Mediterranean • Palm Desert • CA 92211
(760) 776-7001 office • (760) 776-7002 fax
www.thedvba.org
w r '.'•f'1 J
it J A r it r
FOCAmate
2117 JAR, —2 Pal 5.
Actian PS 42
Ourgoah To stop climate change
Council Testimony: Solar Policy
1.3.17
This has been a year of unimaginable loss.
We have seen multiple epic storms, unprecedented rainfall and floods that devastated
major cities and island nations. Warmer waters strengthened storms and warmer air
carried more rain over land. A city in near Houston reported 52 inches of rain from
Harvey. The west was on fire with raging wildfires from British Columbia to Los
Angeles. Ashes from Oregon fires fell on Seattle. People in Montana had trouble
breathing through the smoke. Unprecedented fires have devastated southern California
resulting death and billions of dollars of loss.
This is the face of human caused climate change.
We know that burning fossil fuels causes climate change. We also know that we must
rapidly transition to renewable energy to prevent continued catastrophic events. The
longer we wait, the worse the impacts. Worse droughts, more water shortages, bigger
wildfires and epic storms. Each year we break new records.
What is called for now is meaningful action to cut the emissions that cause climate
change.
The good news is that we have the power here in Palm Springs to address this threat.
We've taken some important steps. Our next priority must be to STOP building new
fossil fueled buildings. Each new fossil fueled building makes climate change worse.
Multiple other California cities have taken the common sense action to require installed
solar on new construction. We have been discussing a similar policy since June 2016.
Nineteen months. At least seven meetings and a variety of studies.
Concerns have been raised about costs of this policy to homebuyers. The current
proposed policy will address this concern by exempting a variety of low-income housing
options. Additionally,your staff report confirms that solar homebuyers will recover the
initial cost in savings from utility bills.
As we consider costs, I would ask you to also consider the costs of climate change. These
will fall most heavily on the poor. We can see the impacts close to home as water
shortages cause the Salton Sea to recede increasing toxicity and respiratory disease in the
east Valley. As the state of California spends increasingly to fight larger fires, how much
will be available for the social services that support people in need?
www.climateactionps.com
P.O. Box 5086, Palm Springs, CA 92263
ll3ll8
We must also consider the benefits that this policy will provide. When we mandate solar
for new construction,we support our local businesses, we help create news jobs for
valley residents and we diversity our tourist economy.
Most important,we create a healthy future for our children and grandchildren. Please
vote YES on the proposed solar policy today.
Ellen Lockert,Founder
Climate Action PS
ellen@climateactionps.com
www.climateactionps.com
P.O. Box 5086, Palm Springs, CA 92263
Your daily average electricity usage(kWh)
2 Years ago: -0.61 Last year:-3.35 This year:2.71
Your monthly usage maybe higher than usual..
23 Based on your historical usage pattern,your monthly
usage is trending higher than normal.As a result,you
7 may notice an increase in your bill. If you would like
information on tips and programs that can help you
•s lower your energy usage and your bill,please visit
www.sce.com/bilthelper.
-zs
Nov Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
'15 '16 '16 '17 '17 '17 '17 '17 '17 '17 '17 '17 '17 '17
Details of your new charges
Your rate:TOU-D-T
Billing period: Nov 717 to Dec 8'17(31 days)
Delivery charges Your Delivery charges include:
Basic charge 31 days x$0.03100 $0.96 *$0.96 distribution charges
Subtotal of your new charges $0.96
Palm Springs UUT $13.01 x 5.00000% $0.65 Your overall energy charges include:
State tax 84 kWh x$0.00029 $0.02 •$0.12 franchise fees
Your new charges $1.63
Additional information:
•Service voltage:240 volts
•Net Surplus Compensation option:
Check
c_
w
t C�
'T7 -
lf}
Things you should know
California Climate Credit Rollover Information
Your electricity bill for this month reflects a credit amount from your last bill, which may be due in part to the California Climate Credit
included in the"Delivery charges"section of last month's electricity bill.
Go aperless at www.sce.com/ebilling. It's fast, easy and secure.
uetaiis of your tru(;Keu c;ndryes
Your rate:TOU-D-T
Billing period: Nov 717 to Dec 8'17(31 days)
Delivery charges
Energy-Winter On Peak Additional information regarding
Lvl 1 (1%to 130%of bsln) 43 kWh x$0.11697 $5.03 your Net Consumption/Generation:.Your cumulative energy Energy-Winter Off Peak charge total
Lvi 1 (1%to 130%of bsin) 127 kWh x$0.11697 $14.86 as of previous month:-$410.32
DWR bond charge 84 kWh x$0.00549 $0.46 •Your current month energy charge
total:$12.05
Generation charges •Your cumulative energy charge
SCE Year-to-Date:-$398.27
Energy-Winter On Peak •Your cumulative kWh Year-to-Date:
Lvl 1 (1%to 130%of bsln) 43 kWh x$0.11031 -$4.74 -444 kWh
Energy-Winter Off Peak •Your winter Level I allowance:
Lvl 1 (1%to 130%of bsin) 127 kWh x$0.05121 $6.50 330.00kWh
Energy Charge Total $12.05 - 25.29%applied to On-Peak
- 74.71%applied to Off-Peak
Things you should know
What's on your bill?
This statement reflects your non-energy and nonbypassable charges, which are due and payable monthly. Your year-to-date
Cumulative Energy Charge is also provided to keep you updated, but is not actually billed under the end of your Net Energy Metering
(NEM)Relevant Period. If you have a credit balance in your Cumulative Energy Charge,you are currently a net generator and may not
owe any energy charges at the end of your Relevant Period. However,if your Cumulative Energy Charge is positive,you are currently a
net consumer of energy and you will be required to pay any Cumulative Energy Charges at the end of your Relevant Period.
Nonbypassable charges(NBCs), which are comprised of DWR Bond Charge(DWRBC), Competition Transition Charge(CTC), Nuclear
Decommissioning Charge(NDC), and Public Purpose Programs Charge(PPPC)are assessed on the kWh consumed in each metered
interval of the current billing period and billed monthly. For more information,please refer to your rate tariff sheet available on SCE.com.
Thank you for your participation in SCE's NEM program.
_(:•r n
2018 JAN -3 PM 6: 48
SIERRA
CLUB
FOUNDED 1892
Palm Spring City Council
January 3,2018
Item 5E: Support Proposed Palm Springs Solar Policy
The Sierra Club is the largest grass roots environmental organization in the United States. Our top
priority is the need to address the known risks associated with climate change. We believe that Palm
Springs has a chance to continue its environmental leadership and branding as a sustainable city while
helping to mitigate climate change.
In addition, moving ahead with a solar requirement on new residential building will save new
homeowners money in the intermediate term as energy saving offset the solar installation cost. We also
expect that the new CVAG CCA operation will be looking to purchase locally generated energy from
homeowners and others and, moving ahead of the state's 2020 requirement will give our local
developers and builders a head start on absorbing these changes in planning and construction.
We support a clearly stated policy of preference for installed solar for all discretionary residential
projects recognizing that limited exceptions may be appropriate for low income housing or other
specific situations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kim F Floyd
Conservation Chair
San Gorgonio Chapter Sierra Club
44579 Sorrento Court
Palm Desert, CA 92260