California Air Resources Board

Background

Buildings contribute to about one-quarter of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when accounting for fossil fuels consumed onsite, electricity demand, and refrigerants used in air conditioning systems and refrigerators. Fossil gas combustion in residential and nonresidential buildings is responsible for roughly ten percent of total statewide GHG emissions and five percent of statewide nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions.

Most of the fossil gas used in buildings is for space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying. Zero-emission standards for new space and water heaters sold in California would decrease GHG emissions from buildings and are part of California’s climate strategy as laid out in the 2022 Scoping Plan. These standards would also reduce NOx emissions to assist California with meeting State and federal air quality standards and achieving public health benefits. CARB committed to explore developing and proposing zero-emission GHG standards for new space and water heaters sold in California as part of the 2022 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan (2022 State SIP Strategy) adopted in September 2022. 

Single-family homes tend to have more predictable space configurations, building uses, and equipment options, with data available to assess retrofit needs,[1]^, [2] costs, and incentives.[3] In contrast, nonresidential buildings, multi-family housing, manufactured homes, and mobilehomes have more complex configurations and equipment needs, with limited comparable research and data available.

Although previous CARB-funded contracts have assessed nonresidential retrofit needs based on modeled data (23STC006), have prioritized nonresidential building types for further study (21STC023), and will collect data and feedback on experiences with nonresidential building decarbonization projects through focus groups (24STC019), there is a lack of research that validates these findings through site visits to real-world buildings. The California Energy Commission’s (CEC’s) “California Building Performance and Decarbonization Field Study” (RFP 400-24-001) will collect data from four real buildings greater than 50,000 square feet and develop a model plan to retrofit them to zero carbon by 2045. Additionally, the following related work has been completed at other agencies:

1. The decarb healthcare website, developed through a CEC grant, provides guidelines on decarbonizing healthcare buildings and energy benchmark values for hospitals in the pacific northwest and international hospitals.
2. Frontier Energy has prepared a series of restaurant decarbonization case studies on their website in collaboration with the Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

Through this contract, the contractor will plan and execute site visits to help CARB assess the real-world challenges of and opportunities for transitioning emissive equipment used in select building types to zero-emission equipment. CARB will also use the findings to validate internal analytical assumptions about building configurations, retrofit needs, and cost impacts used to develop and implement the Zero-Emission Space and Water Heater Standards.

Objective

This study will examine a variety of real-world existing buildings and identify how installing zero-emission equipment in these buildings has impacted or would impact building owners. Through site visits and consultation with those involved in building maintenance and operations, the contractor will gather data on project challenges – such as electrical service capacity, space constraints, business disruptions, funding strategies, and cost impacts – and how such challenges were or could be addressed.

Key objectives include reviewing past decarbonization case studies to identify research gaps, collecting data from building owners to document existing conditions and industry perspectives, and developing a framework to support future data collection. This data will help CARB validate assumptions used in internal analyses and support policymakers, researchers, and other public agencies in understanding the decision-making processes for building decarbonization projects.

Scope of Work

Task 1: Site visit planning (Quarters 1-2)

A. Review previous work

The contractor will review the existing literature on building decarbonization projects with a focus on the building types listed in Task 1B and the data categories outlined in Task 2. The literature review shall cover existing data collection efforts, decarbonization plans, and case studies (including building type, utility providers, building vintage, and climate zone) and summarize challenges encountered on building decarbonization projects, what kind of data has been collected, what data gaps remain, opportunities for addressing the identified challenges, and which building types are the least and most challenging to retrofit. The contractor shall also review the progress to date on the related state-funded contracts:

1. CARB 21STC023: Equitable Electrification of Existing Buildings, UCLA
2. CARB 23STC006: Nonresidential Building Readiness, TRC Engineers
3. CARB 24STC019: Bottom-up Assessment of Retrofits, UCLA
4. CEC RFP 400-24-001, Task 3: California Building Performance and Decarbonization Field Study, ADM Associates

B. Identify sites

The contractor will identify a targeted sample of at least 15 building sites for data collection and site visits. The site selections should include buildings that have and have not replaced emissive equipment with zero-emission equipment. A few examples of approaches to site selection are described below:

• Site visits could focus entirely on buildings that plan to install zero-emission equipment for pre- and post-assessments, providing insights on equipment options and the decision-making process.
• A mix of buildings that have and have not replaced emissive equipment with zero-emission equipment could be selected to identify existing barriers and opportunities.
• CARB staff will also consider other approaches that meet the intent of this contract.

The contractor should clearly outline their approach and specify the expected ratio of proposed site visit buildings that (a) have already replaced emissive equipment with zero-emission equipment, (b) plan to replace emissive equipment with zero-emission equipment, (c) wanted to replace emissive equipment, but were unable to, or (d) have not and do not currently plan to replace emissive equipment with zero-emission equipment. CARB staff are most interested in buildings that fall under categories (a) and (b), but where buildings in those categories are limited, CARB staff recognize that category (c) and (d) buildings can still be informative.

Sites should vary by business size, building type, utility providers, building age, climate, and end uses with zero-emission equipment (as applicable). The primary focus should be on zero-emission space and water heaters, but CARB staff are also interested in pool heating, clothes drying, and cooking end uses. Some of the building types (and associated challenges) that CARB would like to target in this study are listed below, but CARB is open to other building types and suggestions on which we should focus and why:

1. Affordable housing buildings: May face funding constraints, aging infrastructure, challenges for low-income occupants, landlord/tenant split incentive, and a complex system of stakeholders.
2. Buildings occupied by small businesses: Small businesses may face financial constraints, limited access to incentives, landlord/tenant split incentives, and disruptions to operations. 
3. Commercial laundry facilities: Laundry facilities may face unique challenges related to their need for steam generation, high hot water demands, and energy-intensive clothes drying processes.
4. Hospitals and lab buildings: Many hospital and lab buildings have highly specialized equipment, critical energy backup requirements, and strict health and safety regulations that need to be considered when installing zero-emission equipment. Buildings with hydronic heating systems are also of interest.
5. High-rise buildings: May have limited outdoor space for zero-emission equipment due to low roof-to-floor area ratios and difficulty coordinating work across multiple tenants or owners.
6. Manufactured homes, mobilehomes, especially in mobilehome parks: May face electrical master meter limitations, water heater closet sizes, and unpermitted exterior installations of water heaters.
7. Pool facilities: Large, heated pools may require extra space and electrical capacity for zero-emission pool heaters.
8. Restaurants: High hot water demands, limited kitchen space, potentially narrow profit margins, and California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health (CCDEH) guidelines for sizing water heaters may pose challenges.
9. Schools and university campuses: May have limited funding, deferred maintenance, fluctuating energy needs, limited time for construction, and a complex system of stakeholders.
10. Strip malls or retail centers: Shared utility meters and varied tenant needs may complicate a transition to zero-emission equipment.

While these examples may serve as guidance, the contractor should develop their site selections in collaboration with CARB and based on findings from Task 1A. The contractor is responsible for identifying and working with site visit partners, as described in Task 1C, to obtain permission to access the proposed sites and to gather the requested documentation.

C. Recruit site visit partners and schedule site visits

The contractor will develop a recruitment plan and conduct outreach to potential site visit partners (building owners, building managers, construction team members, project managers, engineers, or other team members) who can participate in interviews and/or attend the site visits. CARB is particularly interested in outreach to small businesses, non-profits, and public agencies. To the extent possible, the contractor should plan for CARB staff to attend all site visits with the contractor and site visit partners, where CARB staff can tour the site and ask specific questions about the project.

Interim Deliverables

1. Literature review summary: Summary describing existing case studies, what kind of data has been collected, and what data gaps remain.
2. Recruitment plan: Workplan that outlines how the contractor will conduct outreach to target a diverse range of buildings and entities for inclusion in the site visit studies.
3. Draft site visit and site visit partner list: List of at least 15 potential sites and site visit partners with site descriptions, addresses, and reasonings for the site selections.
4. Final site visit and site visit partner list: The final site visit list with confirmed site visit partners, timelines for each site visit, and written permission for access to each site. The contractor should also include a brief discussion of building types that were omitted from the final list and should be prioritized in future related work.

Task 2: Data collection (Quarters 3-4)

Before executing the site visits, the contractor will gather as much of the below data as possible on the selected buildings. Below are examples of data CARB staff are interested in obtaining in Tasks 2 and 3. The contractor is encouraged to modify or supplement the list below in collaboration with CARB based on findings from Task 1. Relevant data could be collected from project specifications, equipment cut sheets, blueprints, photos, interviews with the building owner, or other forms of project documentation. Any data gaps remaining after Task 2 should be prioritized for data collection in the Task 3 site visits through further interviews or on-site observations.

Data for projects that have recently replaced emissive equipment with zero-emission equipment (projects in progress or completed):

1. Pre- and post-installation
   1. Electrical panel sizes, average peak energy loads by season, monthly energy consumption and energy bill costs, transformer upgrades (if applicable)
   2. Equipment specifications such as dimensions, capacity, refrigerant type and charge size, ventilation needs, location, and design considerations for redundancy
   3. Technology availability and constraints for specialized equipment
   4. Energy efficiency measures, such as upgrades to wall and ceiling insulation, air sealing, and window performance
   5. Structural system and upgrades needed to support zero-emission equipment
   6. Electrical rewiring or rerouting needed to support zero-emission equipment
   7. Plumbing additions or rerouting needed to support zero-emission equipment
   8. Mechanical ductwork space and upgrades needed to support zero-emission equipment
   9. Electrical and mechanical room size and configuration
   10. Other space available in the building to house or relocate zero-emission equipment
2. California Electrical Code load calculations based on site data
3. Other zero-emission equipment and retrofit options that were considered with estimated costs (if available)
4. Actual costs for equipment, retrofits, design and engineering fees, permitting fees, business interruptions, and other associated costs
5. Owner and/or tenant experience with above-listed upgrades such as descriptions of:
   1. Unexpected installation/retrofit barriers
   2. End of life treatment for replaced equipment
   3. Challenges with electrical service capacity or physical space constraints
   4. Permitting process
   5. Tenant impacts
   6. Business disruptions
   7. Funding strategies
   8. Identified/implemented solutions
   9. Other experiences and lessons learned
6. Funding sources, incentives utilized, and funding procurement timelines
7. Project duration
8. Other data as determined by the contractor and CARB staff

Data for projects that have not installed or plan to install zero-emission equipment:

1. The existing buildings’:
   1. Electrical panel sizes, average peak energy loads by season, monthly energy consumption and energy bill costs
   2. Equipment specifications such as dimensions, capacity, refrigerant type and charge size, ventilation needs, location, and design considerations for redundancy.
   3. Technology availability and constraints for specialized equipment
   4. Energy efficiency measures, such as wall and ceiling insulation, air sealing, and window performance.
   5. Electrical and mechanical room size and configuration
   6. Other space available in the building to house or relocate zero-emission equipment
2. Potential zero-emission equipment and retrofit options with itemized cost estimates and identified sources
3. California Electrical Code load calculations based on site data
4. Other data as determined by the contractor and CARB staff

Interim Deliverables

1. Data collection instrument: The contractor will develop an instrument that allows for consistent requests, documentation, and tracking of project data collected across sites. This could be through structured surveys, an app, or other methods.
2. Project data summary: The contractor shall share the data collected for each site in Task 2 and provide a memo summarizing key takeaways, remaining data gaps, and how the contractor will address those gaps through the site visits in Task 3. The format for the delivered data will be determined by the contractor and CARB depending on what data can be collected in Task 2.

Task 3: Site visits (Quarters 3-6)

The contractor will conduct site visits to collect any remaining data not obtained in Task 2 (see the Task 2 data collection example list above). Based on lessons learned from the site visits, the contractor will develop a site visit toolkit that contains the necessary steps and templates for planning site visits, reaching out to site visit partners, collecting data, interviewing the project team, and executing the site visits in a consistent and structured manner. This toolkit will help CARB and other organizations replicate the process for future site visits.

Interim Deliverable

1. Data reported from at least 15 completed site visits: Any remaining data, as outlined in Task 2, shall include project documentation, interviews, and observations collected from site visits and shall be input into the data collection instrument developed in Task 2.
2. Final site visit toolkit: The contractor shall deliver a site visit toolkit, including revised templates for a recruitment plan, site visit planning list, and data collection instrument.
3. Site visit report: The report shall describe key takeaways from the data collection effort and site visits. It may include common methods for preparing different building types for zero-emission equipment installation, decision-making processes, challenges encountered, and solutions applied.

Task 4: Sensitivity analysis (Quarters 6-7)

The contractor shall conduct a sensitivity analysis for one-third of the sites to be agreed upon by the contractor and CARB to help CARB staff understand the range of costs associated with different equipment options across the limited sample of selected buildings. For sites adopting or considering zero-emission equipment, the contractor will explore alternative approaches considered, associated costs, and reasoning for the selected approach. Similarly, for projects without zero-emission equipment, the contractor shall describe potential design approaches, estimated costs, and pros and cons for each approach.

Interim Deliverable

1. Sensitivity analysis: The analysis should outline other potential approaches, associated costs, and reasoning for the selected approach.

Task 5: Final Report (Quarter 8)

The contractor will synthesize their findings from Tasks 1 – 4 in a final report. The final report should also provide policy recommendations and identify the knowledge gaps that remain across different building categories based on the literature review and site visits.

Interim Deliverable

1. Draft final report
2. Final report
3. Final seminar

Minimum Expectations and Application Process and Requirements

Information on required material and process during the preproposal phase and expectations on the contract are found on the Solicitation landing page.

Timeline

This project is anticipated to be completed in 24 months from the start date. Cost shall not exceed $500,000.

Scoring Criteria

Responsiveness to the goals and objectives outlined in the pre-proposal solicitation(15 points)

Proposers should demonstrate a clear understanding of the policy objectives and research needs that CARB aims to address with this project while highlighting their expertise on the subject. The pre-proposal should consider various aspects of the need and identify or acknowledge any potential biases. It should outline, in sufficient detail, the proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the Solicitation. The pre-proposal must detail work that aligns with the objectives outlined in the Contract Solicitation:

Through site visits and consultation with those involved in building maintenance and operations, the contractor will gather data on project challenges – such as electrical service capacity, space constraints, business disruptions, funding strategies, and cost impacts – and how such challenges were or could be addressed. Key objectives include reviewing past decarbonization case studies to identify research gaps, collecting data from site visits and project teams to document existing conditions and industry perspectives, and developing a framework to support future data collection.

Policy relevance/benefits to the state(10 points)

Does the pre-proposal describe how the project will provide data, information, and/or products to support CARB in achieving its mission?

This project is intended to support CARB’s Scoping Plan building decarbonization strategies and CARB’s Zero-Emission Space and Water Heater Regulation development.

Previous work (15 points)

Do the researchers have relevant experience in this area? Is the team composed of a multi-disciplinary team of experts? Do they discuss how they will build on previous relevant work funded by CARB, other state agencies, and any other appropriate organizations (e.g. the U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of Energy)? If community engagement is included, the relevant contractor should describe prior experience in community engagement and provide letters of support, references or a community impact statement detailing how their previous work has benefitted communities. Five points will be reserved for project teams that meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The project team is multi-disciplinary.
2. The project team includes members from various universities, non-academic institutions, or community-based organizations.
3. The project team includes one or more members who will contribute significantly to the project (e.g., a principal investigator, co-principal investigator, or co-investigator, contributing 25% or more of their time) who have not worked with CARB in the past 5 years.

Technical merit (25 points)

Describe the technical strengths and/or weaknesses of the pre-proposal. Proposers should demonstrate the logic and feasibility of the methodology and technical approach, outline the sequence and relationships of major tasks, and explain how the work will be carried out. The proposal should also explain how the proposed methods are robust and how the results will be validated. Consider how well the draft proposal addresses these areas:

1. Is the proposed measurement approach appropriate? Are the technologies being considered suitable, and will the proposed analysis yield relevant results?
2. Does the proposed work address all the deliverables outlined in the “Deliverables” section? If not, the proposal should not be considered for funding.
3. The review team will select only one pre-proposal for development into a full proposal. If this pre-proposal shows potential, what areas or topics should be prioritized or further explained in the full proposal?

Level and quality of effort to be provided(15 points)

Does the pre-proposal allocate time and resources effectively to ensure the study objectives are met? Is the supervision and oversight sufficient to keep the project on schedule? Is the distribution appropriate for activities such as research, evaluation, analysis, data reduction, computer simulation, report preparation, meetings, and travel?

Cost effectiveness (20 points)

Is the cost appropriate for the proposed work? Does the proposed work appear feasible within the requested budget? Projects that include co-funding should be evaluated more favorably.

Scoring Criteria Scoring Guidance

91-100 points. Exceptionally strong. The submission is technically strong, meets stated research objectives, is cost-effective, and has a high potential to be successfully completed.

81-90 points. Strong. The submission is technically sound.

71-80 points. Mixed. The submission has either strong technical merit or strong policy significance, but not both.

61-70 points. Weak. The submission is not sufficiently linked to the needs of the Board and offers limited technical merit.

60 points or below. Unacceptable. The submission is not linked to the interests or needs of the Board and lacks technical merit.

[1] Fournier, Eric Daniel, Robert Cudd, Samantha Smithies, and Stephanie Pincetl. “Quantifying the Electric Service Panel Capacities of California’s Residential Buildings.” Energy Policy 192 (September 2024): 114238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114238.

[2] Laube, Sandy, Jim Frank, and Derek Okada. “California Single-Family Housing Electrification Readiness.” Energy Solutions, June 2024.

[3] TECH Clean California. “TECH Clean California Contractor Pilot Data,” May 2024. https://techcleanca.com/heat-pump-data/download-data/.