Skip to main content
Project Info ACTIVE Project Title

Multifamily Hot Water Heating GHG and Costs

Project Number ET24SWG0005 Organization SWG (Statewide Gas ETP) End-use Water Heating/DHW/HPWH Sector Residential Project Year(s) 2024 - N/A
Description
Based on results from a previous modeling study on Dual Fuel Single-Family Heating (ET23SWG0005) where the cost to run an electric heat pump was 68% - 144% more than a gas furnace, the GET team believes that installation of gas absorption heat pump (GAHP) water heaters will save utility costs when compared with condensing gas-fired boilers and electric heat pump water heaters (EHPWHs). Additionally, based upon another GET study (ET23SWG0012) which investigates the sizing of heat pump water heaters, the GET Team believes that EHPWHs may have much larger up front capital costs in a multifamily retrofit due to the large amount of recommended storage tank volume. In many multifamily (MF) buildings, there is not enough space in existing mechanical rooms or boiler enclosures for the additional storage tanks, meaning an expensive roof installation is the only option. This project is a modeling study of domestic hot water (DHW) systems in multifamily buildings using models based upon approved DEER prototypes. MF models used in this study will be the best available prototypes: either DEER models themselves, or DEER models modified to include DHW primary and recirculation loops. This project will model the therm, kW and kWh use of the following technologies: 1. 84% efficient gas-fired boiler 2. Condensing gas-fired boiler 3. Gas absorption heat pump (GAHP) water heater (preheating make-up only and preheating make-up plus reheating recirculation water) 4. Electric heat pump water heater (EHPWH) Technology #1 above (84% efficient gas-fired boiler) will serve as the baseline model. Technologies #2-#4 will serve as the measure-case technologies. The objectives of this project are to compare the following metrics across condensing gas-fired boilers, GAHPs, and EHPWHs technologies for two (2) different MF rate tariffs and all (16) California climate zones: 1. Utility costs 2. Capital costs 3. Return on investment (ROI) 4. Greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts 5. Total system benefit (TSB)
  • Pacific Gas & Electric Company logo
  • Southern California Edison Company logo
  • Southern California Gas Company logo
  • San Diego Gas & Electric Company logo
  • Sacramento Municipal Utility District logo
  • Los Angeles Department of Water and Power logo
  • CEC logo

Copyright © 2024 Energy Transition Coordinating Council. Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All rights reserved.

The ETCC is funded in part by ratepayer dollars and the California IOU Emerging Technologies Program, the IOU Codes & Standards Planning & Coordination Subprograms, and the Demand Response Emerging Technologies (DRET) Collaborative programs under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. The municipal portion of this program is funded and administered by Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.