​I’ve lived with a single bill from my electricity provider for transportation and home energy use for a few years now.  It is wonderfully convenient to run your entire household off a single utility – the electricity from the grid and in part provided by your own solar panels.  This is in contrast to the way we all grew up, with separate providers of gasoline for transportation, electricity for our homes, and gas for our homes.
This concept of total household cost of energy was first presented at a conference a few years ago and I’ve been thinking about it ever since.  So I thought I’d redo the analysis now with today’s utility costs, lower compensation rates for exported solar power (NEM3), and what I know about living with EVs.

​I’ll detail the assumptions next, but let’s go to the results first.  A traditional household has total energy and transportation costs of about $8,000 a year.  If that same household switches their home energy source to all-electric and their vehicle(s) to EVs, their total costs drop to just over $6,000, a savings of 25%.  If they put solar panels on their house too, their total household cost of energy drops below $5,000 a year, a savings of 40% compared to the traditional multi-fuel household.  Plus, they have the convenience of paying a single bill for all of it (except the occasional vehicle maintenance).

I. Transportation costs​
For transportation costs, I used 20,000 miles a year.  For the traditional gasoline household, that amounted to $2,746 a year based on 33.5 miles per gallon and $4.60 prices at the pump.  Maintenance was based on $0.101 per mile[1] for the gasoline household or $2,020 a year.  That seemed reasonable for a typical household having two cars.
The Electric+EV household scenarios used the same 20,000 miles traveled in a year, 3.5 miles per kWh, and $0.25 cost per kWh to charge at home.  That came out to $1,429 in “fuel” per year, almost half as much as the gasoline cost.  Maintenance was based on $0.061 per mile[1] or $1,220 a year.  Our experience with driving EVs for 9 years now bears this out.  So transportation comes out way ahead when electric by over $2,000 a year.  Note we used the Southern California Edison TOU-D-PRIME off-peak rate of $0.25/kWh for EV charging, since it’s so simple to program your car to start charging after peak period has passed and still be fully charged in the morning.

II. Home Energy Costs
For home energy costs, I used the California Energy Commission’s prototype 2-story home and modeled it first as a mixed fuel home, then the same home all-electric, and finally the all-electric home with a 12-panel PV system (4.8 kW).  I assumed the home was in Southern California’s Inland Empire, Climate Zone 10 to simulate some real weather.  I plugged the hourly gas and electricity usage of each home into our proprietary utility cost calculator, assuming today’s rates and NEM3 compensation rates for exported solar energy, in the case of the PV scenario.  I assumed code-minimum efficiency gas furnaces and water heaters and code minimum heat pumps, just what’s widely available on the market today for no extra cost.  I also assumed it had a nothing-special building envelope, such as was typical for 1980s construction – R-11 walls, R-19 ceilings, and old windows and doors.
The models came up with a typical gas bill of $795 a year and typical electric bill of $2,638 a year (3,433 total).  The all-electric scenario estimated household energy costs just slightly higher at $3,711, but no monthly minimum gas charges.  Add the 12-panel PV system, and household energy costs were estimated to be $2,133, savings of 38%.


[1] U.S. Department of Energy, June 14, 2021, https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1190-june-14-2021-battery-electric-vehicles-have-lower-scheduled#:~:text=The%20estimated%20scheduled%20maintenance%20cost%20for%20a,vehicle%20(ICEV)%20totals%2010.1%20cents%20per%20mile.

I really like this way of looking at the decision whether to electrify one’s home.  With real savings like shown here, how can you NOT do it?  The energy cost for the typical home is $8,199 a year and it’s $4,757 a year for the all-electric home with EVs and PV.  That’s savings of over $3,400 a year or 42%.  Even if the PV costs you $15,000 up-front (assuming no federal tax credit and ~$3/watt), that investment pays off in 5 years. 

Another way of looking at this is energy burden.  Several presenters I’ve seen have looked at energy costs this way and it stuck with me.  Those recurring energy costs we pay every month have to be met before we can invest in our good ideas, pay off credit cards, and before we can have any fun.  Energy burden is total household energy costs as a percent of household income.  For many households, energy costs are a force dragging them toward poverty.  I used California median income of $106,605 for this calculation.  Looked at this way, a traditional household has 7.7% energy burden, an all-electric household has a 6.0% energy burden, and the all-electric plus PV household cuts it to 4.5%.  That’s income they can do better things with.

A third way of looking at this is Carbon emissions.  If you aren’t convinced to go all-electric-plus-EVs-and-PV based on convenience and 42% cost savings, maybe the Greenhouse Gas comparison will change your mind.  The all-electric household has 33% lower GHG emissions than the multi-fuel one, and the all-electric-plus-PV household comes in at 57% lower than multi-fuel.  So when a household goes all-electric, gets EVs they charge at home, and puts on a PV system, they save 42% on energy costs, drop their energy burden to 4.5%, and cut their GHG emissions 57%.  This is how I’m going to start presenting it to my clients; I think it will be more compelling than the comparison for the home alone or the EV alone.

​All over California, I hear skepticism about switching from gas to heat pumps. 
 

• “Do Heat Pumps Even Work?”
• “Gas is MUCH cheaper than electricity”
• “I don’t want to put all my eggs in one basket [the electric grid]”
• “Electricity mostly comes from gas-fired power plants anyway so what are you even saving by running your home on electricity?”

 
So, I decided to do it myself.  2024 was the first full year when our 3-bedroom 2,000 square foot home in Long Beach was All-Electric.  Let’s see what our utility usage says about electrification.

​While on gas, our house used 5,750 kWh of electricity and 250 therms of gas with the most efficient gas systems money could buy: a 95% efficient tankless gas water heater and a 95% efficient 2-stage gas furnace.  As an energy consultant, I knew that heat pumps were more efficient than gas appliances, with COPs above 3.0 (300% efficiency).  My energy modeling software predicted the energy use for heat pumps in my climate zone, but you never really know until you try it and measure the results.
 
With heat pumps replacing the last two gas appliances in my home, we used 6,415 kWh of electricity and no gas in 2024.  That’s an increase of only 685 kWh (about 12%).  We even had the utility come and remove the gas meter completely, which eliminated our gas bill.  How could we switch all of our space and water heating from gas to electricity and see such a small increase in electricity usage?  

Heat Pumps Really Are That Efficient

1. Water Heating

 
With gas, I wasn’t able to determine the exact usage attributable to space heating versus water heating. Assuming that my hot water usage stayed relatively constant each month, looking at my summer gas usage gave me a good estimate of my monthly water heating usage, with the increase in monthly gas use during the winter attributable to space heating.  So I estimated my gas usage to be 50 therms for water heating and 200 therms for space heating per year. 
 
In 2023, we installed a Rheem 50-gallon heat pump water heater to replace the tankless gas water heater.  It’s installed in a well-ventilated closet on the side yard, so it pulls heat from the outside air.  We chose a 120-volt unit, since there was already a 120-volt outlet in place from the gas tankless system.  Note that most HPWH units installed in California are the 240-volt variety that come with backup electric resistance elements for really cold days or when the heat pump can’t keep up with the hot water demand. Installing a 240-volt unit would have required bringing out an electrician to run a new circuit. We calculated that 50 gallons would be enough hot water to supply up to 4 consecutive showers, since we have efficient shower heads (1.8 gallons per minute) and our climate never falls below the heat pump cutoff temperature (about 38 degrees).  That has proven true.
 
The data from my home energy monitoring system shows that in 2024, our family used 432 kWh to heat water, averaging 1.2 kWh per day or 36 kWh per month. Assuming an average electric rate of $0.35/kWh, I estimate we are paying ~$12 a month to run the heat pump water heater.  In comparison, the 4-5 therms of gas we used with the tankless water heater cost us ~$10 per month (at ~$2.00-$2.50/therm), so let’s call water usage a push on utility costs.  Plus, I can’t tell you the satisfaction taking a shower with hot water you know was produced without burning gas – a cleaner feeling all around!   By scheduling the heat pump to avoid peak hours (4-9 pm) and using hot water during the day when solar panels are active, your showers can feel even cleaner.

​“Heat pump water heaters don’t have the same capacity as gas models”, true or false? 
Answer: False-ish.  A 50-gallon tank water heater has the same capacity, whether it’s heat pump, electric, or gas.  But the statement is true if we’re talking about “heat rate” – the speed at which the water heater can replenish hot water as it’s used.  We’ve never run out of hot water, though for most of the year, it’s just my wife and I using it.  The holidays gave us a chance to put the water heater to the test.
 
 
The chart below shows daily electricity usage on our water heating circuit in December, 2024.  Note that there are some other receptacles drawing power on this circuit, but it’s mostly water heating.  The beginning of the month shows usage with just my wife and me at home, down around 1 kWh per day.  Then our two daughters came home and we were making hot water for 4-6 showers a day instead of two, so our water heating usage went up to 3 kWh per day some days.  That’s the holidays for you.  I made it a point to shower last on the day when we needed six showers and that was the first time I noticed our hot water had cooled a bit.  It was still a good hot shower, but our 50 gallon tank ran low at that point.  That made me feel more confident recommending heat pump water heaters to my clients.  Install a 240V model with back-up resistance elements and you’ll be better off than we are with our 120V unit with no back-up.

          2. Space Heating 
My energy modeling runs over the years had shown there to be significant energy and utility bill savings possible by switching from gas furnaces to minisplit heat pumps.  But the modeling world and the real world are two different things.  Would my utility bills go up heating our home with an electric heat pump?  Do they even work, as the skeptics have been asking?  There was only one way to find out…
 
We had a ducted gas furnace in the attic and an air conditioner, often called a split system because the furnace was used for heating and the air conditioner for cooling.  The simplest change-out for a ducted split system like this is to replace the furnace and air handler with a heat pump, keeping the existing ductwork, supply, and return registers.  We installed a Mitsubishi “multi-position air handler” with similar dimensions to the old unit.  This connected to a new outdoor unit (see earlier photo captioned “My Heat Pumps Have Been Very Good This Year”) with refrigerant lines.  The 240-volt, 30 amp circuit that served the old air conditioner now serves both the new indoor and outdoor units, freeing up the 120-volt circuit previously used by the old air handler in the attic, reducing panel space usage.
 
The old system used energy in three different ways: gas for the furnace, electricity for the air conditioner, and electricity for the air handler.  My energy monitoring system counted 1,434 kWh and our gas bill showed 200 therms to run all three pieces of the HVAC system.  The air conditioner was about 1,000 kWh in summer and the air handler was about 430 kWh running all year for heating and cooling.
 
The heat pump uses a single circuit, but how much higher would its energy use be handling heating and cooling year-round, compared to the 1,434 kWh with the old system not providing heating — Double? Triple?  Based on my energy models, I knewthat heating use in Long Beach is higher than people think, but I expected HVAC electricity use to double, even with the efficient variable capacity inverter driven heat pump we installed.  These are able to purr along at low-load throughout much of the year, which is a big part of where they get their high efficiency from.
 
The answer at the end of the year shocked me – the electricity usage for HVAC went up only 31%, and the old system was efficient, how was this possible?  Was the weather different in 2024 from the year I collected the data on the old gas furnace split system?  Some digging was in order…

     3. The Digging Confirms that Minisplits are Very Efficient 
Question #1: “Was the weather different and does that explain why electricity usage only went up 31% with the heat pump?”
Answer:  Nope.  Daily average temperatures are shown in the chart below; they were very similar for the two data collection periods.  The mean was 1.2 degrees cooler in 2023 with the gas furnace.   Measured in total heating and cooling degree-days, 2023 was 2,525 and 2024 was 2,252.  The weather certainly doesn’t explain why the heat pump was able to do the same job as the old gas system without using much more electricity.

 As a side note, we also installed a ductless minisplit heat pump system in our all-electric ADU, which we completed in 2023.  It used only 544 kWh to heat and cool the ADU last year, which is 576 square foot and 1 bedroom.  So both our heat pumps have been very good this year.

Question #2: “Was the heat pump’s higher efficiency the reason? Was it more efficient at heating or cooling?”
Answer:  Yes, YES, and Yes.
 
To evaluate this, we looked at cooling energy use per cooling degree-day.  This accounts for weather variations and allows us to measure efficiency across different conditions. 
 
Heat pump cooling electricity usage per cooling degree-day: 1.00
Old air conditioner cooling electricity usage per cooling degree-day: 1.47
 
The old air conditioner had two stages, one for mild days and the second one kicked in when needed for hotter days.  It had a 16 SEER rating, better than code minimum. However I was shocked to learn it used 47% more electricity to cool our house than the heat pump!  In fact, 2024 had 20% more cooling degree-days than 2023, meaning that equivalent weather years would have shown the heat pump outperforming the air conditioner by well over 50%, maybe even 60%.
 
Heating is tougher to compare since the furnace used gas and the heat pump uses electricity.  However. analysis of the old system shows it used 200 therms of gas plus 242 kWh of electricity for air movement during the heating season.  If we convert the 200 therms to theoretical kWh using a factor of 29.3 kWh per therm, we can compare the heating energy use of both systems.  The new heat pump used only 911 kWh of electricity in heating season.
 
Heat pump heating electricity usage per heating degree-day: 0.71
Old furnace heating energy usage per heating degree-day: 3.57

 This comparison highlights the heat pump’s efficiency and the real-world meaning of its 300% efficiency. The furnace was using 5X more energy to heat our house than the heat pump!  Perhaps that 300% efficiency figure was an underestimate.  The year we measured the gas furnace had 34% more heating degree-days than the year with the heat pump.  But we’ve accounted for that in the metrics above.  Perhaps our heat pump would have used ~1,200 kWh in heating mode if it were to go through another year like 2023.  Even so, we would still be very satisfied with that, especially compared to the old gas system.

      4.  What About Cooking and Laundry? 

Cooking electricity usage, 2024:  436 kWh
Washer & Dryer electricity usage, 2024:  550 kWh
 
We have a 4-circle (can’t call them burners) induction cooktop and electric oven for cooking.  We cook most nights, using ~500 kWh per year. In late 2023, we added a countertop air fryer, which we use occasionally instead of the oven or cooktop, reducing our 2024 cooking usage by ~125 kWh.  At an average cost of $0.40/kWh, 500 kWh costs about $200 per year for cooking electricity usage, not bad.  Note that I used a higher per-kWh rate for cooking, as it’s typically done in the evening when electricity rates are highest and our solar panels are no longer producing.
 
We have a stacked Miele washer and heat pump clothes dryer for laundry.  They used about the same amount of electricity as our cooking: 484 kWh in 2023 and 550 kWh in 2024.  When we had a gas dryer, electricity usage was 258 kWh, so the heat pump dryer added about 230 kWh per year. For an electric resistance dryer, it would have been 3X that amount. The difference in utility costs for laundry is that we can run it during the day on solar power from our roof.  I bet that half of our laundry usage costs us nothing, thanks to solar power.  

     5.  Actual Utility Bills 
You won’t believe this, but our utility bills were much lower all-electric.  I’ll bottom-line it for you. 
 
2024 utility bills (all-electric): $1,400***
2023 utility bills (mixed fuel): $763 electric + $637 gas = $1,400

*** EV charging usage was 1,055 kWh higher in 2024 than 2023
 
If you exclude the extra ~1,000 kWh used to “fuel” our EVs, our 2024 all-electric utility bills were much lower than our utility bills with gas, probably about $400 lower per year!
 
I say “probably about $400 lower” because calculating utility bills in California is really complicated these days.  There are multiple layers of complexity:
 

• Time of use rates change the cost of electricity by the hour and season
• Solar panels “erase” a varying amount of electricity usage from what the electric utility meter sees
• Updated net metering rules in California have changed the rate that exported electricity is valued on customers’ bills
• Different rate plans have different rates, baselines, and periods

 
We paid $1,400 in electricity bills this year, with our home converted to all-electric and a 4.4 kW solar system (now 9 years old) on the roof.  For the first 4 years our total annual electric bill was $0, but since then we’ve added two electric vehicles which we charge at home, and we’ve faced rate increases in California.
 
In addition to our home’s operating costs, the $1400 annual electricity bill also covered almost all of our transportation costs.  We used 2,800 kWh of electricity to “fuel” our two EVs – a 2019 Chevy Bolt and a 2023 Kia Niro.  That’s 11,200 miles worth of travel at 4 miles per kWh, covered by our $1,400 electric bill.  We also charged occasionally at public stations during road trips, and probably drove 15,000 miles in total this year. 
 
To have a single bill cover the cost of operating your house and your cars is really convenient.  I estimate we would have spent about $1,500 on gas for 11,200 miles of travel this year (30 mpg @ $4.00 per gallon), so our utility bills of $1,400 mostly covers transportation.  Our house operates for next to nothing, thanks to efficient heat pumps, solar panels, and good building envelope.  And we no longer have the gas bill coming to our email inbox, which cost us $637 in 2023, the last year we used gas.

     6.  Key Takeaways 
My family is very satisfied with our switch from gas to electric.  The house operates trouble-free and keeps us comfortable.  Here’s the executive summary of results:
 

1. We use around 6,400 kWh to power our all-electric home, and produce about 6,000 kWh with our rooftop solar system
2. Heating and cooling with the heat pump used 1,880 kWh
3. Heating and cooling electricity usage increased only 31% with the variable-capacity heat pump compared to our gas system, saving about 200 therms of gas
4. Water heating electricity usage increased by about 432 kWh per year, saving about 50 therms of gas
5. Total electricity use for home and transportation was about 9,250 kWh offset by 6,000 kWh of solar production, with an electric bill of $1,400 this year.
6. Laundry uses about 500 kWh per year
7. Cooking uses about 500 kWh per year
8. About half of our home electricity usage falls under “Other,” including lighting, computers, and other things that plug in.

APPENDIX: For Energy Modeling Enthusiasts

My business is energy modeling.  We use computer models of buildings to optimize their energy efficiency and verify compliance with the California Energy Code, also known as Title 24.  But we rarely get to compare actual energy usage to modeled.  I modeled my actual house with every feature from insulation to windows and I modeled it before we electrified and after.  Here's what I found.
  


 
 




​The modeling software (Energy Pro v9 for 2022 energy code compliance) overestimated energy use in the mixed fuel home by 18% on electricity and 26% on gas.  The overestimate was much larger in the all-electric home: the modeling software estimated energy use would be 50% higher than it actually was!  The table below shows the actual usage versus the modeled usage by end use.  The biggest over-estimates by the model were in the all-electric heating (+163%), water heating (+102%), and cooling (+49%).  In the mixed fuel model, the software also over-estimated water heating gas usage (+112%), but other estimates were much closer.  Judging by our family’s actual usage, the modeling software gives over-estimates of energy use and larger over-estimates for all-electric homes.  This suggests that the savings for electrification are larger than the software predicts, which makes electrification a more attractive proposition than we had assumed based on the software’s predictions.  This is one home with one family and should not be assumed to be consistent across California, but it is one useful data point to try to understand electrification's benefits.

NBC Nightly News got it wrong about California’s solar situation with their July 8 segment titled “California’s Unexpected Energy Challenge: Too Much Solar.” Correspondent Liz Kreutz used these provocative but completely inaccurate visuals and spoke of California “losing” or “wasting” energy.  How our national media could get this so wrong was shocking – so much so that I was motivated to write this piece.  Unexpected? No, the challenge of managing supply and demand of electricity with increasing renewables is a known issue called “The Duck Curve” that California has devoted extensive research to.  Too Much Solar?  No, we’re going to need more solar, more wind, and more batteries to store it as we move toward an emission free electric grid by 2045, as required by the SB-100 bill passed in 2018 by the California legislature and signed by the Governor.

At one point, correspondent Liz Kreutz asks Eliot Mainzer, CEO of CAISO, California’s main grid operator, if curtailment means “throwing solar power away.” He disagrees, explaining that curtailment involves sending dispatch instructions to reduce generation. But Mr. Mainzer missed the chance to deliver a full-throated defense of clean energy.  Curtailment is not waste; it’s an inescapable truth of generating electricity from renewables.  There are times when we have more power than we need and times when we need to turn to other sources like battery storage and gas power plants. Saying that we are “throwing solar power away” is like saying buffet restaurants need to be banned because they sometimes make more food than customers want to eat.  The point that the national news missed is that, even factoring in the times when solar power plants make electricity we can’t use, solar power plants are less expensive ways of growing our electric grid than all other options.  Growing our grid is what we’re going to be doing for the next few decades to supply EV charging and all-electric buildings with cleaner and cleaner power.  When we pair solar generating facilities with battery storage, we have a more cost-effective source of new electricity than building new gas power plants, and solar plus battery is just as reliable!  

​In the homes we grew up in, we all happily ran our homes and businesses on tank water heaters.  We found room for them in interior and exterior closets and the corner of the garage.  But then came tankless water heaters and their promise of never-ending hot water.  You could bolt them to the wall too and take up no floor area.  The 2013 California energy code gave us such a big compliance credit for putting a gas tankless water heater in our designs that high-performance walls and -attics were the standard but completely avoidable.
 
Ever notice that tankless water heater manufacturers have Japanese names?  Rinnai, Takagi, Noritz… That’s because tankless water heaters were created in Japan to solve a very Japanese problem – no space for a tank of water in dense city apartments.  Once Americans saw them, they had to have them too; we suddenly acquired a new-found need for unlimited hot water.  They were marketed smartly as energy savers [look, there’s no wasted energy keeping that tank full of water hot!], but at 200,000 btu/hr, they are like taking a machine gun duck hunting – overkill.  The past few years in California, gas tankless water heaters have been the standard in new homes and remodels.
 
Enter climate change and the need to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.  Our modeling software proves that HWPHs have 80% lower GHG emissions and 50% lower energy use than gas tankless.[1]  This is the single biggest thing you can do to bring down overall home GHG emissions.  We now realize that heating our homes and our water with gas is a luxury we can no longer afford.  California has appropriately realized that electric heat pump water heaters are the right system for almost every project – efficient, quiet, and more than capable of supplying all the hot water a family might need.  There’s just one catch – they are tank water heaters, and require a 3’ square footprint. 

[1] Modeling based on new code-compliant 2-story 4 bedroom home in Inland Empire Southern California (CZ10) on 2022 CBECC-RES software comparing typical efficiency gas tankless (uef 0.81) and typical efficiency HPWH (3.5 COP) in garage.

Are you a builder or developer who is working on a new construction project? If so, the Energy-Smart Homes All-Electric or Mixed Fuel Residential Programs could help you lower your project costs. These programs were created to support California’s energy efficiency policy goals and help mitigate climate change.


Energy-Smart Homes Program At A Glance
​

• Incentive program to encourage building better than code minimum
• Requires a Certified Energy Analyst (CEA) do your Title 24 energy modeling (like us!)
• Incentives are designed to encourage electric buildings
• Incentives also for other elements that save energy
• Incentives based on Efficiency Energy Design Rating (EDR) score that our energy modeling calculates for you
• Base incentive for All-electric new home completed in 2022 is $3,500 and for Mixed fuel new home is $800
• Incentives can cover any added cost of electric appliances with some left over for other upgrades
• Incentives also available for additions and alterations (more information on these incentives coming soon)

What are the eligibility requirements?

Both programs serve new single-family residences and duplexes, manufactured housing, multifamily low-rise buildings (three stories or less), and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Participants must be customers of SDG&E, PG&E, SCE, or SoCal Gas and the builder/developer must pay the Public Purpose Program Charge. All new construction projects are required to install communicating thermostats, segregated circuits, battery storage readiness, thermostatic mixing valves, and electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure pre-wiring in accordance with CALGreen Building Code EV ready requirements.

All new construction projects must also achieve an efficiency EDR of greater than or equal to one EDR point above standard in their Title 24 compliance for the All-Electric program and two points above standard for the Mixed Fuel program. There are no incentives for solar measures, so eligibility is determined by efficiency EDR only. To satisfy this eligibility requirement your Title 24 compliance must be completed by a CEA. If you are interested in this program and in need of a Title 24 consultant, contact us! We are CEA certified and happy to help you with the compliance process.

​
What kinds of incentives are there?

Incentive amounts differ depending on the type of project and year of completion. The incentives are paid on an escalating scale with a bonus incentive for each additional 0.01 EDR above the entry requirement. Base incentives de-escalate 10% annually based on completion year in the All-Electric program. Incentive amounts for new construction in the All-Electric program are listed below.

​The incentive amounts for new construction in the Mixed Fuel program are listed here:

Case Study: All-Electric New Construction

To see what kinds of incentives a project would be eligible for, we will look at a real, all-electric, new construction project. Our case study is a 2,000 sq ft single family home in Climate Zone 11. It has a central split heat pump, a heat pump water heater, and all-electric appliances.

The project has a Title 24 compliance delta efficiency EDR of 4.1, meaning that it surpasses the required 1-point difference. Assuming this project is to be completed in 2022, it would receive $3,500 in incentives, plus $10 for each 0.1 EDR points over the required delta of 1. This means it would receive $3,500 + ($10 x [3.1/0.1]) or $3,810 total.

​
How do I apply?

Before you start the application process, make sure your project meets all the eligibility criteria. Part of that is getting your Title 24 compliance done by a CEA (like us)! Contact us and we will get back to you with a quote.
​
Once you have determined you are eligible, you can start the application process by logging in to the participant portal (https://CAenergysmarthomes-OLA.Capturesportal.com) and setting up an account where you can submit application documents and a program participation agreement. If needed, you can also contact Energy-Smart Homes staff at [email protected] and they will assist you with your application or complete the inquiry form at www.caenergysmarthomes.com to have an Energy-Smart Homes representative follow up with you.

​The problem was this … the building energy usage was modeled with this R-9 continuous insulation layer, for a wall U-factor of 0.070 with 8" and 12” thick concrete blocks.  The insulation helped the building comply with the energy code by reducing energy usage to compensate for energy used elsewhere in the building.  So the team building the gym could not substitute out another wall system with a higher U-factor and still meet the energy code.

When we met all together to discuss the issue, the builder, architect, plasterer, and HVAC engineer were all present.  We defined the problem and proposed alternative wall systems that would meet the same U-factor.  Metal Z-furring was proposed to provide a mounting mechanism for the plywood and stucco over the foam.  But the wall would have leaked energy through the Z-furring, and this would not meet the specification for a continuous layer of R-9 insulation.  We found that R-9 between Z-furring would have produced a U-factor of 0.384, which is not even close to the U-factor used for compliance.

So we turned to the ideal wall system for continuous insulation … EIFS.  EIFS is an adhesively attached system, so fastening into the concrete block is not necessary, and the stucco is adhered directly to the foam board.  We found that an EIFS system with R-9 or greater insulation would meet the overall U-factor used in the modeling, whether it used Polyiso at 1.5” or Graphite EPS at 2”.

How did we end up with this problem?  The energy code has become complex enough that energy consulting is a specialized job with an association in California to govern the industry, CABEC.  But many projects ask the mechanical engineer to handle the Title 24 paperwork.  What they don’t realize is that the Title 24 energy code provides for many alternatives to comply, and allows for tradeoffs between insulation, windows, mechanical systems, water heating, etc.  So to ask the mechanical engineer to run the energy models is unrealistic and probably limits design options today for any project with any complexity.  And that’s what happened on this project. 

Gymnasium buildings need ventilation for full occupancy.  To accomplish this requires large fans, which use more energy than the commercial standards allow for.  So these type of buildings require energy savings in other parts of the building in order to reach compliance.  In this case, higher insulation values in the walls were used to save on heating and cooling to compensate for ventilation energy.