20240315Attachment 1 DSM 2023 Annual Report Supplement 2.pdf

2023
ANNUAL REPORT
MARCH 15, 2024
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT
SUPPLEMENT 2: EVALUATION
RECEIVED
2024 MARCH 15, 1:29PM
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION
Printed on recycled paper
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Evaluation and Research Summary ................................................................................................ 1
Evaluation Plan................................................................................................................................ 3
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Notes ........................................................................................ 5
NEEA Market Effects Evaluations.................................................................................................. 39
Integrated Design Lab ................................................................................................................... 43
Research/Surveys ........................................................................................................................ 201
Evaluations .................................................................................................................................. 231
Other Reports ............................................................................................................................. 489

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 1
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH SUMMARY
Idaho Power considers program evaluation an essential component of its demand-side
management (DSM) operational activities. The company contracts with third-party contractors
to conduct impact, process, and other evaluations on a scheduled and as-required basis.
Third-party contracts are generally awarded using a competitive bid process managed by
Idaho Power’s Corporate Services. In some cases, research and analysis is conducted internally
and managed by Idaho Power’s Research and Analysis team within the Customer Relations and
Energy Efficiency (CR&EE) department.
Idaho Power uses industry-standard protocols for its internal and external evaluation efforts,
including the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency—Model Energy Efficiency Program
Impact Evaluation Guide, the California Evaluation Framework, the International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP), the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources,
and the Regional Technical Forum’s (RTF) evaluation protocols.
The company also supports regional and national studies to promote the ongoing validation of
energy savings and demand reduction, and the efficient management of its programs.
Idaho Power considers primary and secondary research, potential assessments, impact and
process evaluations, and customer surveys as important resources in providing accurate and
transparent program savings estimates. Recommendations and findings from evaluations and
research are used to continuously refine and improve Idaho Power’s DSM programs.
In 2023, Idaho Power contracted with ADM Associates and Tetra Tech to conduct program
evaluations for the Home Energy Audit (impact and process, ADM Associates), Residential New
Construction (impact, Tetra Tech), Shade Tree Project (impact, Tetra Tech), Small Business
Direct Install (impact, ADM Associates), and Irrigation Efficiency Rewards (impact,
Tetra Tech) programs.
AM Conservation Group conducted a program summary analysis of Student Energy Efficiency
Kits and Commercial Energy Savings Kits programs. Harris Utilities conducted a summary
analysis for the Home Energy Report Program. The company also conducted internal analyses
for the A/C Cool Credit, Flex Peak, and Irrigation Peak Rewards programs.
In 2023, Idaho Power administered surveys regarding energy efficiency programs to measure
customer satisfaction. Some surveys were administered by a third-party contractor;
other surveys were administered by Idaho Power either through traditional paper and
electronic surveys or through the company’s online Empowered Community. An evaluation
schedule and final reports from all evaluations, research, and surveys listed above are included
in this Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report, Supplement 2: Evaluation.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 3
EVALUATION PLAN
Energy Efficiency 2010–2023 Program Evaluation Plans
Program Evaluation Schedule 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Educational Distributions ............................................................. I I/P
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program ......................................... I/P
Home Energy Audit ...................................................................... I/P
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program ........................................
Rebate Advantage ....................................................................... I/P I
Residential New Construction Program ....................................... I I/P
Shade Tree Project....................................................................... I O O
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers .................... O O
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers ......................... O O
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits .................................................... I/P
Custom Projects ........................................................................... I/P I/P I
New Construction ........................................................................ I/P I
Retrofits ....................................................................................... I/P I
Small Business Direct Install ........................................................ I P
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Programs
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards ....................................................... I I/P
Demand-Response Programs
A/C Cool Credit ............................................................................ O O O I O I O
Flex Peak Program ....................................................................... O O O I/O O O O
Irrigation Peak Rewards ............................................................... O O O I/O O O O
Evaluation Type: I = Impact, P = Process, O = Other
Program not yet in existence:

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Program Evaluation Schedule 2017 2016 20151 2014 2013 2012 2011
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Educational Distributions ........................................................
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program .................................... I/P P I
Home Energy Audit ................................................................. I P
Multifamily Energy Savings Program ......................................
Rebate Advantage .................................................................. I/P I
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative .................. O
Residential New Construction Program ..................................
Shade Tree Project.................................................................. P
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers ............... O P I
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers .................... O P I
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits ............................................... P
Custom Projects ...................................................................... P I/P I
New Construction ................................................................... P I I
Retrofits .................................................................................. I P I
Small Business Direct-Install ...................................................
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Programs
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards .................................................. I/P P/O P/I
Demand-Response Programs O
A/C Cool Credit ....................................................................... O I I O P O
Flex Peak Program .................................................................. O I/O I/O P/O O
Irrigation Peak Rewards .......................................................... O I/O I/O O O
Evaluation Type: I = Impact, P = Process, O = Other
Program not yet in existence:
1 Energy efficiency programs evaluated in 2015 have since been combined with another program or eliminated

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 5
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP NOTES
The following pages include notes from EEAG meetings held on February 8, May 10, August 17,
and November 8, 2023.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG)
Wednesday, February 8, 2023
Idaho Power CHQ Auditorium

Present:
Alexa Bouvier – Office of Energy & Mineral
Resources
Brad Heusinkveld – Idaho Conservation League
Connie Aschenbrenner – Idaho Power
Diego Rivas – Northwest Energy Coalition
Don Strickler – Simplot
Ken Robinette – Community in Action
Partnership Association of Idaho
Jim Hall – WaFd Bank
Quentin Nesbitt* – Idaho Power
Taylor Thomas – Idaho Public Utilities
Commission
Tina Jayaweera – Northwest Power &
Conservation Council
Wil Gehl – City of Boise

Not Present:

Sid Erwin – Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Nick Sayen – Public Utility Commission of Oregon

Guest and Presenters*:
Andrea Simmonsen – Idaho Power
Annie Meyer* – Idaho Power
Billie McWinn* - Idaho Power
Cassie Cormier – WaFd Bank
Chellie Jensen* - Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli – Idaho Power
Curtis Willis – Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz – Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys – Idaho Power
Jason Talford – Idaho Public Utilities
Commission
Jonathan Guynes – Idaho Power
Julie Rosandick – Idaho Power
Kathy Yi – Idaho Power
Kimberly Bakalars* – Tetra Tech
Krista West – Idaho Power
Laura Conilogue – Idaho Public Utilities
Commission
Landon Barber – Idaho Power
Mark Bergum* – Tetra Tech
Michelle Toney – Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen – Idaho Power
Russ Weedon* – Idaho Power
Shelley Martin – Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite – Idaho Power
Theresa Drake – Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell – Idaho Power
Zack Thompson – Idaho Power

Note Takers: Michelle Toney and Kathy Yi – Idaho Power

Meeting Facilitator: Quentin Nesbitt

9:35 A.M. Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Quentin introduced a new member, Ken Robinette. Ken represents Community in Action Partnership
Association of Idaho.

9:43 A.M. 2022 Financials & Savings—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the overall preliminary savings and costs by sector and program for both EE and DR
programs for 2022 and showed the history of prior years. He reviewed and updated the group on plans for
future evaluations and noted the multifamily program ending, therefore the recommendation is to not
evaluate that program in 2023.
Discussion
One member asked if future NEEA savings are included in the Potential Study savings used for the IRP.
Quentin answered that they are included, however the Potential Study only considers “known” future
codes or standards.
Another member asked what happened in 2013 regarding DR program numbers. Quentin said that at that
time the IRP showed the company was surplus on resources. Therefore, the company filed with the
commission requesting to suspend 2 of 3 DR programs for the summer of 2013. After holding workshops
with interested parties, a settlement was reached to modify the programs starting the following program
season, which was approved by the Idaho and Oregon Commissions.
A member pointed out that prior to 2013 there was more capacity in the programs. Quentin explained that
in 2012 the incentives were higher and after 2013 the incentives were reduced. The drop in participation
was related to the incentive reduction and the lack of marketing the programs.
One member asked if the SBDI impact evaluation turned out positive would Idaho Power change the
plans to end the program. Quentin advised the contract is ending and the contractor will not move forward
at the current price and a higher price is not cost-effective.
Another member asked if the DR programs will be evaluated externally in 2025 and wants to know the
benefits between internal & external evaluations. Quentin answered yes and the benefit is making sure
internal evaluations are in line with how an external party would evaluate the programs. Also in the past,
third-party evaluators have produced tools as part of the evaluation that Idaho Power has used internally
to conduct future review.

9:58 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented the 2022 highlights, preliminary savings, and participation by program. She then
provided specific updates for, Brio (marketplace transformation pilot), the potential Marketplace program,
Multifamily, asked for specific feedback on AC Cool Credit marketing, and brought up the potential
expansion of the AC Cool Credit program with a smart thermostat option.
Residential Program Savings
One member asked if Home Energy Audits and Weatherization savings were affected by COVID in 2022
as they are barely noticeable on the savings slide. Billie answered it is because these programs have
smaller savings overall as compared to the larger programs.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Another member asked if Home Energy Audit program savings are low because of resource constraints
due to COVID. Billie responded that the program has caught up with the pipeline of projects left from
suspending in-home work during COVID, but the savings are still small.
The member asked why there was a savings increase in the Home Energy Reports program and a decrease
in participation. Billie said that even as the participant count decreases due to attrition, the savings per
home increases as people continue to get more reports, so the overall savings increases, however the
company expects savings to stabilize now as the program is reaching maturation. Denise added that
attrition is also sometimes a result of a customer opting out of the program, in which case they would stop
getting the report but still be included in the overall savings.
One member asked about why Residential New Construction savings decreased while participation
increased. Kathy said that new building code adoptions reduced the savings potential per home.
Brio Market Transformation Pilot
There was discussion about the differences between NEEA and Brio. Billie indicated the main difference
is in the target markets. For example, NEEA sees ductless heat pumps as an already-transformed market,
but conditions are different in Idaho Power’s service area. Idaho Power and Avista hired Brio to take a
targeted approach in recognition of the unique conditions in Idaho. The member then asked about how the
effort moves the market and how it is measured. Billie answered that the approach is like NEEAs, and a
market baseline is established to measure actual sales changes. Quentin added that NEEA looked at the
overall northwest regional market. Brio’s focus is just on Idaho and is only a pilot. While like the
approach NEEA uses, the pilot will determine if another approach could be more effective in Idaho.
Another member asked how the program is different. Billie said that it follows NEEAs model and works
upstream. In this case, the primary work has been done with distributors involved in the market.
Marketplace
One member asked how a Marketplace program works and if it is solely online. Billie explained the
concept is that a Marketplace program would compare energy savings potential for products while
potentially showing Idaho Power rebates. The member then asked about the timing of the new RFP. Billie
said the RFP will be sent out soon.
Another member asked if it would drive participation to existing programs. Billie replied that this would
be designed as a new program with incentives on products not currently offered. The member then asked
if the savings were claimed and how free ridership is handled. Billie said the savings would be claimed
based on deemed amounts and incentives would be set with free ridership in mind.
One member asked about the prior Marketplace RFP not meeting the original objectives. Billie replied
that through developing the program with the selected vendor, it became clear there were objectives that
could not be met.
Multifamily
One member asked about savings opportunities for windows. Billie and Kathy indicated the savings from
cooling are low due to the low number of cooling hours in the year. Currently, the summer hours are the
highest value hours.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

There was a question about whether there are other facilities that could have participated in the now-
ended multifamily program. Billie indicated the market had been saturated.
One member asked about the proposed Multifamily program if the assumption for pools is that they have
electric heating. Kathy responded that the assumption is the pool has some form of electric heat.
Another member asked about forecasted multifamily building stock, particularly with the percentage that
will have electric heating and cooling. Billie responded there are not specific projections yet. The member
then asked with the proposed Multifamily program, whether the incentives and the offering would be the
same for gas or electric. Billie said the incentives would only be available on electric savings.
A member asked about the modeling of a facility’s energy use going forward. Billie responded the
company plans to use a deemed savings approach. Quentin said with New Construction it is not possible
to compare it to what was there because it is new, whereas with retrofits you know what is there and you
can calculate the difference.
Another member asked if the marketing will be targeted to property owners or tenants/residents. Billie
answered for retrofits the company works with the owner/operator of the property. For new construction,
the engagement is with developers/builders.
One member asked if low-e storm windows are included. Kathy indicated if the RTF had those numbers,
those would have been relied on. The member pointed out the RTF focuses on low-rise multifamily
facilities. Kathy said these numbers are a blend of both low-rise and high-rise. Under residential code,
low-rise is 3 stories or less.
A member asked if self-installs will be considered for retrofits. Chellie answered that installs of certain
measures would need to be in accordance with manufacture and industry standards as well as local code
authorities. Some measures such as spa covers may be ok for self-installs.
AC Cool Credit
One questioned the lack of participation, noting that though the incentive is important it is lack of
knowledge or fear that the home will get too hot, and likes offering a higher incentive. Billie clarified the
company does not anticipate increasing the ongoing incentive, just offering a signup incentive for new
participants.
Another member asked about the lifespan of AC Cool switches and if the company knows when they fail.
Billie answered that the company is aware of them but has not seen an unreasonable number of failures.
The member then asked whether the switch is transferred when someone gets a new AC unit. Billie said
generally not, a contractor will reinstall the switch.
Another member asked about heat pumps eligibility. Mindi answered that the switches are not always
compatible due to complicated control systems on heat pumps.
One member asked if heat pumps have lower savings. Quentin noted heat pumps have the same load in
the summer as similar sized AC units.
Another member asked if the company knows how often a switch is updated on new units. Billie replied
that the switch stays the same and is only updated if there is known failure.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

One member asked what the need is behind extra marketing for AC Cool Credit. Billie answered that the
intent is to increase the program capacity and that is achieved by increasing enrollment.
Another member asked if AC Cool Credit is just for electric homes. Billie responded no, but it is for
summer air conditioning, which most gas heated homes have.
One member asked if there is a need for increased marketing. Billie said the company plans to keep up the
marketing to grow the program and to keep up with natural attrition.
AC Cool Credit – Bring Your Own (smart) Thermostat Option (BYOT)
One member mentioned the DR potential study and how the potential study gave preference to AC Cool
Credit potential and therefore the BYOT costs per kW from the study might not fully reflect actual cost
assumptions. Quentin commented that this is one of the reasons the company issues a RFP.
11:07 A.M. – Break

11:21 A.M. Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation Programs—Chellie Jensen
Chellie presented Commercial, Industrial and Irrigation 2022 highlights, preliminary participation,
savings, and updates for each program.
Retrofits
One member asked why the kWh savings were up when projects were lower. Chellie answered that the
difference is the size of the projects. There were less projects, but some large projects in 2022 caused the
overall savings to be higher.
Custom Projects
One member asked if the company is marketing DR programs to those C&I customers that are
participating in the custom projects. Chellie indicated the Customer Projects engineers to do combined
customer assessments of EE & DR opportunities to help identify DR capabilities that customers may be
overlooking.
Commercial Energy Saving Kits (CSK)
One member asked if CSKs were cost effective prior to the savings changes. Kathy responded the largest
driver is the installation rates of items in the kits. Based on past survey results on those installations, the
program appeared cost-effective, however the evaluation found those installation rates were lower. Also,
with the lighting savings going away, cost-effectiveness will be a challenge.
Another member asked if the remaining kits will be distributed before June. Chellie answered the kits are
produced as ordered and there is no backlog of inventory.
Campus Cohort
One member said this cohort is a good idea and that many college-aged students may be more responsive
participants. Chellie said depending on which type of customers sign up, this can be like our school
cohort where students are engaged.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Another member asked if multiple buildings must be in one area or can they be in different cities. Chellie
stated this cohort is for where the buildings are in the same area.
Flex Peak
One member then asked with the automated option for Flex Peak how the switches will function and if
the company is looking to just turn off or to turn down equipment. Chellie answered that a signal is sent
to the device to activate a relay, and it is up to the customer to control their systems. Some customers
might integrate the switch to their system with software that initiates a customer's programed load shed
sequence.
Another member asked how participants who might participate in the automatic Flex Peak program will
differ from irrigation customers. Chellie said that while the device is the same, primarily the incentive
structure, baseline and some of the program parameters are different.

12:08 P.M. – Lunch

12:46 P.M. Marketing—Annie Meyer
Annie presented an overview of program marketing. She went over marketing information that has gone
out to customers including bill inserts, DR marketing, winter contest, EE tips, what is new in 2023, and
what is coming soon (Good Energy).

1:00 P.M. C&I New Construction and Retrofits Evaluations—Tetra Tech, Kimberly
Bakalars and Mark Bergum
Kimberly presented the C&I Energy Efficiency Retrofits and New Construction program process
evaluation. She discussed program background, market actors, evaluation methodology, process results,
and recommendations
Mark presented the C&I Energy Efficiency Retrofits and New Construction program options impact
evaluation results and discussed the recommendations by program option. He then wrapped up his
presentation with comments on the expected future reduction in lighting savings due to updated codes.
Impact Evaluation New Construction
One member had a question on how baseline code years are selected for each project for the New
Construction Program option. Mark answered that that the code used is based on the official building
code in place at the beginning of that project’s design. The member then asked how the company would
move forward or what would happen to the program if the state reduced or removed the code. Quentin
answered that this program looks at how far a building exceeds code, if such a code reduction were to
happen the company would likely still draw a line that represents the code. The member asked if codes
regress, would the company keep the 2018 standards. Quentin said the company would evaluate what to
do if that happened. Mark added that other states implement new construction programs where codes are
different, and just make their program standards above the code.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

1:40 P.M. Education & Outreach with Customers—Russ Weedon
Russ Weedon discussed how Idaho Power engages communities highlighting what the Education and
Outreach Energy Advisors roles are. He showed how the team is connecting with the community through
energy education with presentations at schools, organizations, and other event participation.
Discussion
One member asked about Idaho Power’s clean energy goals. Russ stated the decision for the 2045 goal is
broad and will require technological changes to make the goal attainable.

2:12 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Member Comments:
The presentations were interesting. Excited to see how things are changing with lighting going away.
Thank you for all your hard work and pushing through these dynamic times. I am looking forward to
seeing how things you are working on turn out.
I appreciate everyone’s time. It is good to see everyone and meet in person.
It is so nice to be back in person. It feels good to be in a room with people who care. This meeting took
time, hard work, with one thing in mind, Idaho Power customers.
I have a huge amount of appreciation for doing things in person you are always easy to work with. Glad
to see the presentations. In-person meetings are better, thank you.
It is great to be back. It is so hard for me to do these meetings virtually. We’re using those incentives for
lighting. It is neat what you are doing in schools.
I enjoy in-person meetings, it is good to be back. I would encourage you to think about greenhouse gases
and what impact EE has on that as we get into renewables. Renewables are a dream for everyone.
Sorry I am not there in person. Thank you for accommodating us who are virtual.
We enjoy Idaho Powers quarterly updates its helpful to our operations.
I encourage meetings to be in person. There’s better dialog and the level of participation is higher.
Quentin mentioned the plan for the rest of the 2023 meetings are to be virtual. However, we are open to
changing that. Our next meeting is May 10th. We had lots of discussion and Idaho Power appreciates the
dialogue and questions. We find value in the in-person meetings, but we do have people out of the area. It
is not easy for Oregon staff to travel so it is nice to try and find balance.

2:19 P.M. Meeting Adjourned

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group
(EEAG) Wednesday, May 10, 2023
Virtual meeting Via-WebX
Present:
Alexa Bouvier – Office of Energy and Mineral
Resources
Ken Robinette – Community in Action Partnership
Association of Idaho
Brad Heusinkveld – Idaho Conservation League Peter Kernan – Public Utility Comm ission of Oregon
Connie Aschenbrenner – Idaho Power Quentin Nesbitt – Idaho Power
Diego Rivas – Northwest Energy Coalition Sidney Erwin – Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Don Strickler – Simplot Taylor Thomas – Idaho Public Utilities Comm ission
Wil Gehl – City of Boise Tina Jayaweera - NW Power & Conservation Council
Not Present:
Jim Hall – WaFd Bank
Guests and Presenters*:
Andee Morton – Idaho Power
Alexis Freeman* – Idaho Power
Annie Meyer* – Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell – Idaho Power
Billie McWinn* - Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen* - Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli – Idaho Power
Curtis Willis – Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz – Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys – Idaho Power
Jason Talford – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Kathy Yi – Idaho Power
Krista West – Idaho Power
Laura Conilogue – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Landon Barber – Idaho Power
Michelle Toney – Idaho Powe
Nathan Black – Idaho Power
Shelley Martin – Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite – Idaho Power
Ray Short – Idaho Power
Theresa Drake – Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell – Idaho Power
Note Takers:
Michelle Toney (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Quentin Nesbitt
9:35 A.M. Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin started the meeting and went over the agenda and then introductions. There were no questions or
comments regarding February notes.
Connie mentioned the company filed its annual DSM prudence request in Idaho, on March 15th, along with the
DSM report for 2022 program operations. The link to the DSM report is available at idahopower.com.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

2

9:45 A.M. 2023 YTD Financials & Savings—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the YTD 2023 expenses and savings by program. He discussed the evaluations and went over a
change with the impact & process evaluation s for the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. The company plans
to move this impact & process evaluation from 2024 to 2025.
Discussion
One member asked why there were no Process Evaluations for the DR programs. Quentin answered they have
been performed, but it was prior to 2018. Quentin mentioned that it is something the company will consider
including in 2025 when a third-party Impact Evaluation is planned.
A member asked about the category of “Other Evaluations.” Quentin responded that it is to designate that the
evaluation was completed internally and not by a third-party.
9:55 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented the YTD savings, changes, and participation by program. She then provided specific updates for
the Heating & Cooling program, the Lighting Buy-down program, Welcome Kits, AC Cool Credit (ACCC) and
the new multifamily program exploration.
Discussion
Heating & Cooling Program
One member stated there will be an uptick with Heat Pump applications because of th e federal money coming in
and asked if the company is tracking that or receiving feedback. Billie responded that the company is tracking
trends and availability of those funds.
One member asked if the ductless heat pump (DHP) incentives are different depending on the number of heads.
Todd Greenwell answered that the incentive is the same regardless of the number of heads. The member
suggested looking at the impact of head counts.
One member asked how much the savings differ on heat pump water heater (HPWH) between retrofits and new
construction. Kathy Yi responded that it's complicated because there are so many different application
combinations. As an example, the new construction HPWH savings can be up to 10% lower or higher than the
similar existing home application, depending on the situation.
One member asked how the company will educate the public about the new federal efficiency standards. Todd
Greenwell responded that there is a regionally accepted plan between the old ratings and the new ratings that will
be used to assist the public in understanding the new standards and that both the old and new rating requirements
are on the incentive program’s website and application forms. The member added that there is some questioning
about that plan. Todd replied that the plan was to use multipliers created by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency
using data from manufacturers who tested products to both the old and new test methods prior to the January 2023
effective date of the new standards. Todd agreed with the EEAG member that the RTF may end up doing
additional testing to obtain their own empirical data to potentially tweak t hose multipliers if necessary.
One member asked if the company has any information on the number of customers in specific areas with
propane, oil, or natural gas heating that can be used for marketing the ducted ASHP measure. Kathy answered that
the company has end-use data on this, but it is not perfect. Billie stated that in 2020 a probable list of those
customers was created, and the company marketed the heat pump incentives directly to about 6,300 customers
that likely heat with propane/oil. Billie also mentioned the company can look to refresh that list to be able to
market this new incentive level.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

3

Lighting Buydown
One member commented that they appreciate the company’s efforts to stay on top of the lighting program
changes and making the transition smooth.
Welcome Kits
One member asked if the new kits are cost effective. Billie replied that the kits are not cost-effective, but they are
intended to increase energy efficiency knowledge and awareness of Idaho Power incentive programs as an
educational item.
AC Cool Credit (ACCC)
One member asked about the marketing plan and suggested increasing the incentive. Billie answered that it is
something the company regularly reviews.
One member asked if residential customers could enroll anytime. Billie answered yes.
Bring Your Own Thermostat (BYOT)
One member asked what kind of system and tracking would be in place for BYOT & ACCC overlap. Billie
answered that a plan would be created that ensures customers are allowed to participate in one program or the
other, but that would not encourage customers to switch programs.
One member thanked the team for looking into BYOT and asked how the energy efficiency incentive for a smart
thermostat would be aligned with BYOT participation. Billie said incentives are being evaluated separately
because customers can use a smart thermostat regardless of whether they participate in BYOT. Also, the energy
efficiency incentive applies to a broader list of manufacturers of smart thermostats that do not offer DR capability.
Another member asked if the BYOT is expected to be a different incentive than ACCC because of the different
costs associated with it. Billie answered that the plan would be to offer the same incentive on an annual basis.
However, an enrollment incentive for BYOT would likely be offered, whereas the company has not offered the
same for ACCC due to the cost of the switch.
One member asked if the company would capture the energy efficiency savings from BYOT participants. Billie
answered that energy efficiency savings would be claimed if the customer applied for an incentive through the
Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) program. The company could, however, market both the H&CE program
smart thermostat incentive and the DR program incentives together to customers that do not already have a smart
thermostat.
One member asked if the company would account for BYOT program opt outs. Billie responded that the vendor
would provide data showing the total number of people opting out and this would influence load reduction results.

10:32 A.M. – Break
10:44 A.M. Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation Programs—Chellie Jensen
Chellie presented year-to -date updates, participation and savings numbers, changes, and challenges for the
commercial, industrial, and irrigation programs. She also provided an update on Peak Rewards & Flex Peak
enrollment and what actions the company is taking to encourage enrollment.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

4

Discussion
Retrofits
There were several questions related to why the company is proposing to continue to offer the LED screw in
incentive through 2024 when in July 2023 people can only buy LEDs. Chellie responded that it is to encourage
early replacement of inefficient lighting. Kathy added that the company is adjusting the cost effectiveness to
reflect a one-year measure life based on the remaining useful life of the existing, inefficient bulb.
One member asked how the participation is different between TLEDs vs retrofit kits. Chellie replied that the
TLEDs do offer an opportunity for a lower cost option. Shelley Martin added that the incentive is structured
towards a ‘good, better, best’ approach with options for TLEDs, kits, and fixtures.

11:30 A.M. Marketing—Annie Meyer & Alexis Freeman
Annie presented Idaho Power’s new energy efficiency add campaign that will be used to promote energy
efficiency. The new campaign is called “Good Energy” and will replace the “Joulie & Wattson” theme. Annie
showed the new commercials associated with the campaign.
Alexis presented an overview of the residential and commercial, industrial & irrigation program marketing. She
went over marketing information that has been sent to customers including bill inserts, My Account popups, event
participation and DR specific marketing.
There were no questions or comments.

12:00 P.M. – Lunch
1:02 P.M. NEEA Evaluation—Melissa Kosla, Adam Thomas, & Heather Polonsky ADM
Quentin introduced the third-party evaluation completed for the company’s participation in the NW Energy
Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and introduced Melissa Kosla, Adam Thomas, Heather Polonsky from ADM who
conducted the evaluation .
Melissa presented the overall evaluation approach, showed evaluation results, overall findings, and ADM
recommendations.
Discussion
One member asked if the report will be public and if there will be more information on how ADM performed
their quantification. Quentin answered yes, it will be a supplement to the company’s Idaho prudence filing and
will be publicly available at that time.
One member stated one of ADMs conclusions is that the funder share is not appropriate and asked ADM about
those conclusions and how does it work to switch to the utility service territory allocation method . Melissa
responded that the service territory share allocation is already being done for some other funders, and it is a more
accurate representation of energy savings coming back to Idaho.
One member commented that if some funders use service territory allocation and others use funder share
allocation then the overall savings will not add up, especially when most do funder share. Melissa agreed and
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

5

added that NEEA may need to make some adjustments, but ADM was only looking at Idaho and that it would be
good issue to bring up with NEEA and understand how that would be handled.
One member asked how the evaluation looked at code and standard improvements that have spillover benefits in
other states and how did ADM calculate the impact of that . The member also stated as the market transforms in
larger population centers in the west the transformation would then move east. Melissa answered that main factor
for quantifying benefits was to use manufacturer sales data to partition the total benefits by state and service
territory. If that level of detail is not present in the data, then ADM re commends using another type of allocation
but not nesesarily default to funder share. Melissa added, ADM tried to to determine the benefits being accru ed in
Idaho, specifically for each year, which is a different perspective than what NEEA uses. They assume a more long
term effort and aggregate all the benefits and costs for the entire region, ADM was focused on estimating the
actual accrued cost and benefits for each year within the state of Idaho.
Adam Thomas added that the suggestions in the evaluation are ultimately to help realign NEEA ’s reporting to
specifically show benefits to Idaho.
One member asked if the market is expected to see a jump at some point from NEEA influence in an EE measure
as a percentage of the total market. Melissa said yes and that NEEA wants efforts on measures to hopefully lead
to a standard being integrated. She added that the evaluation saw a large percentage of NEEA savings being
derived from standards, and the NEEA goal is that standards are incorporated in each state and when that happens,
NEEA claims savings from a percentage of sales in that state. The rate of that change is not known, but it is
assumed to happen over time, which again highlights the perspective that NEEA uses versus the perspective that
utilities use for cost-effectiveness.
One member asked if NEEA’s responses to the report will be part of the filing. Connie said that the plan is to
incorporate NEEA’s feedback into Idaho Power’s response for each of the recommendations. Theresa added the
company conducted the evaluation through an outside party, which has been what Melissa shared here as she
went through the findings and results, it is the responsibility of the company to respond to the commission based
on what they asked of us.

1:49 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Member Comments:
I really appreciate the information shared and look forward to your updates and seeing what changes are made to
the programs and to see those kinds of impacts over the next months. I appreciate everyone’s preparation and
information.
Thanks for the meeting and I appreciate you bringing in ADM to speak about the NEEA evaluation. I’ve been
curious about it for a while and look forward to what’s coming.
I appreciate the meeting today and ADM’s presentation, insightful feedback and appreciate everyone’s insight.
Thank you.
I very much appreciate these EE and DR efforts. They are much more important than what some of the public
sees in them. Maybe it’s because of my own involvement in many facets of the programs. I may be a little more
aware than most, but if we want to keep electric rates reasonable, we need to continue to do important things with
stepping up to the plate with both DR and EE.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

6

I look forward to reading through the materials. I was struck by the range of cost eff ectiveness that came through
with NEEA’s programs.
I echo those EE and DR effort comments. We are also seeing a rate increase, which with the size of our facility, is
quite a bit. So it does help us prioritize looking at ways to save on our side and reduce costs with DR and EE.
Thanks everybody, good meeting. I will also echo those EE and DR comments. It’s important the region faces the
questions of resource adequacy and reliablitlity and cost .
I am happy to be here and hear from everyone. I realize how important DR is today and going forward. There are
strong results from the company so far. I encourage you to see the potential there. As the region maintain s both
resources and transmission contraints, there is a lot of optimism that the DR programs can grow.
Thank you again for this meeting. I always look forward to these quarterly meetings. I learned quit e a bit of
information. I want to make a friendly reminder of the fed eral funding in relation to the Inflation Reduction Act.
OEMR is actively speaking to the DOE regarding program implementation which is expected to be released
midsummer. So, if you are receiving phone calls, please refer customers to OEMR.
Connie thanked everybody for their advocacy and advisory support towards keeping the programs running.
Quentin thanked everyone for their participation. Stated that the next meeting is August 17th and 4th quarter
meeting is November 8th.

2:00 P.M. Meeting Adjourned

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG)
August 17, 2023

Present
Alexa Bouvier – Office of Energy and Mineral
Resources
Brad Heusinkveld – Idaho Conservation League
Connie Aschenbrenner – Idaho Power
Diego Rivas – Northwest Energy Coalition
Jim Hall – WaFd Bank
Ken Robinette – South Central Community
Action Partnership
Quentin Nesbitt – Idaho Power
Sidney Irwin – Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association
Taylor Thomas - Idaho Public Utilities
Commission
Wil Gehl – City of Boise Public Works

Not Present
Don Strickler – Simplot
Tina Jayaweera – NW Power & Conservation Council
Peter Kernan – Public Utilities Commission of Oregon

Guests and Presenters*
Amanda Richards – Honeywell
Annie Meyer – Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell – Idaho Power
Billie McWinn* – Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen* – Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli – Idaho Power
Chris Pollow – Idaho Power
Curtis Willis – Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz – Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys – Idaho Power
Jared Hansen* – Idaho Power
Jason Talford – Idaho Public Utilities Comm.
Jonathon Guynes – Idaho Power
Julie Rosandick* – Idaho Power
Kathy Yi* – Idaho Power
Krista West – Idaho Power
Laura Conilogue – Idaho Public Utilities Comm
Landon Barber – Idaho Power
Michelle Toney – Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen – Idaho Power
Nathan Black – Idaho Power
Ray Short – Idaho Power
Shelley Martin – Idaho Power
Theresa Drake – Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell – Idaho Power
Zack Thompson – Idaho Power

Note Takers
Michelle Toney (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Quentin Nesbitt

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
9:30 A.M. Welcome & Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin started the meeting and went over the agenda and introductions. There were no questions or
comments regarding the May meeting notes.
One member stated that they have a program with USDA Rural Development and celebrated the 100th
energy efficient home and thanked Idaho Power for their support of the celebration.

9:33 A.M. 2023 YTD Financials & Savings —Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the DSM financial, savings and evaluation plans. He discussed the YTD expenses and
savings. Quentin then went over the evaluations including the 2024 plans and proposed to add an impact
evaluation for Rebate Advantage. Quentin also mentioned NEEA’s future business plan and the approval
process timeline.
Discussion
Financials
One member asked if the spending level was below average for this time of year. Quentin answered yes,
incentives and savings are down , but there are some large projects in the pipeline.
Evaluations
One member stated there are a lot of impact and process evaluations done together for commercial and
industrial programs and asked if there is a reason both evaluations are done separately in residential.
Quentin said it is preferred to do it simultaneously for cost savings, but if there is no t a process change for
the program, there is less need to do the process evaluation . The member asked, when evaluations are
done together, does one type inform the other. Quentin answered not necessarily, but it could if there is a
better process that is identified and gets more participation, then there would be more savings, but the
focus of two evaluation types is different.
One member asked if there were evaluations on the weatherization program. Quentin answered that the
last evaluation was a billing analysis. The company has little control over operation of the weatherization
program, but the company wants to ensure it is claiming the right savings.
One member stated that there is a new state audit tool called ECOS, then mentioned that the problem with
weatherization is that it includes everything: windows, doors, insulation, health, and safety, all of which
can impact total savings. Quentin added that a billing analysis gives a broad look. The member
commented that they are trying to make the home comfortable for the customer, and sometimes that may
not result in actual energy savings. Quentin said the billing analysis does not get the value increase to the
customer. The member added the value is captured when the quality of life is improved, or kids don't
have to go to the hospital because of air quality.
One member suggested an internal review of the weatherization program process because there have been
changes to the tool.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
NEEA
One member asked if there is any ability for the company to shape the NEEA business plan. Quentin
answered that Theresa Drake is on the NEEA board, and her involvement can have an impact, but one
person on the board has a limited amount of influence.
One member stated they appreciate the company's participation in NEEA.
Another member said the value of what NEEA brings to the region is important, and it is great to see the
company attempting to work with them and encourages the company to keep doing so.

9:54 A.M. Cost Effectiveness/Avoided Costs—Kathy Yi
Kathy provided a preview of the cost effectiveness for ea ch energy efficiency program. She dove deeper
into two programs, Heating & Cooling Efficiency and Rebate Advantage programs, and discussed the
cost-effectiveness challenges and next steps for the programs. Kathy then discussed avoided costs and
how avoided costs are used in cost -effectiveness. She provided a background on the current methodology
of using avoided costs from acknowledged IRPs. Kathy presented Idaho Power’s plan to change the
methodology to using avoided costs from filed IRPs going forward.
Discussion
Weatherization
One member asked if Oregon weatherization was cost -effective. Kathy answered the company does not
perform cost-effectiveness on the program in the same manner due to it being a statutory program the
company is required to do .
Heating & Cooling Efficiency
One member asked what the plans for future changes are. Kathy listed off the changes, including
incentive levels for ducted and ductless heat pumps and heat pump water heaters. The member then asked
if these changes would be difficult to roll back. Billie answered these changes were designed in a way that
will not set back the program’s ability to adapt to future situations.
One member asked if avoided cost impacts the Heating and Cooling program and if the program will
remain cost-effective. Kathy said the re will be an impact and expects it to be cost -effective in 2024.
One member asked about the interplay between the BRIO pilot on the Ductless Heat Pumps and Heating
& Cooling programs. Quentin answered that BRIOs activities have impacted the market and is currently
being evaluated as part of the pilot . The member said assessing both programs in tandem would be a good
idea because BRIO might be driving some participation.
Rebate Advantage
One member asked why the program is not cost-effective this year, but it is expected to be cost -effective
next year. Kathy answered that this is due to new avoided costs from the 2023 IRP.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Avoided Costs
One member asked about what would happen if the IRP is not acknowledged. Quentin said it would
depend on why the IRP was not acknowledged. Sometimes, falling back to the previous IRP’s numbers
could be necessary.
One member asked if the measures with year-round savings will get a boost under the new avoided cost’s
winter capacity. Kathy answered yes.
One member asked what the peak hours are and associated dollar values. Quentin answered that the hours
come from the IRP and represent highest risk or need for energy and that the dollar values for capacity are
derived from the alternate capacity resource and that the capacity value is only added to the high -risk
hours.
Another member said they expect the capacity value should be more valued in the winter in the Northwest
because the region is winter peaking. Therefore, in the summer market purchases win over building new
resources. Quentin said the energy price is an output from the IRP analysis and reflects regional costs
impacts before the company adds capacity value to certain hours.
One member asked about the winter peak months. Connie answered they are December through February.
Quentin added that it is now being thought of as “high need or risk” hours rather than strictly “peak”
hours.
One member asked for clarification on the idea that the capacity was shifting and why it is not simply an
additive process of new hours. Connie answered that the highest risk hours have been assessed as both
adding and shifting to different hours. In particular, given the nature of other resources, the highest risk
hours are not necessarily the peak demand hours but the hours when available resources are most strained.
Another member stated they assume winter DR programs are the next step. Quentin said the planning and
energy efficiency teams are looking at various options and that the DR potential study from 2022 is being
used to guide some of these decisions. Quentin added that one possibility is the previously discussed
Bring Your Own Thermostat program (BYOT), which could operate in both summer and winter. He said
that water heater programs are also on the radar. He added that one difficulty in assessing these programs
is identifying the comparable alternate resources and ensuring that DR resources are be ing valued
properly.
One member asked about the hours shifting and the turn-around/lifecycle of a DR program. For example,
if in the next IRP there is a change where winter hours are no longer high risk, possibly due to load or
resource changes. Quentin answered that this change to recognizing winter peak has been expected for a
while and is believed to be the new nature of the system.

10:48 A.M. – Break

11:00 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented on the savings & participation for each residential program and updated the group on
recent activities with the Market Transformation pilot, the new Multifamily program, AC Cool Credit,
and WAQC Re-Weatherization.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Discussion
Residential Program Savings & Participation
One member stated in relation to WAQC that numbers are up, but some contractors still have labor issues.
They know they will have additional federal funding soon. The member asked if re-weatherization
numbers will be reported separately. Billie said yes, they will be. In relation to Solutions the member said
the pipeline of projects is getting smaller. In reference to the Easy Savings HVAC tune -up coupon
program, the member said contractors are happy with the payments from the program but that they
supported the discontinuation of the distribution of some of the energy savings items because contractors’
involvement required them to make an upfront purchase of inventory, and they were taking on the risk of
being unable to dispose of that product or the program shutting down.
Home Energy Audit
One member asked if participants would be eligible for federal tax credits. Kathy an swered that there is
an evaluation this year, and the company ha s asked the evaluators to see if participation in program
qualifies or if the program would need to be altered.
AC Cool Credit
One member is concerned about how expensive it is to market to ne w customers and install devices. The
member would like the company to look at the cost of new switches and push more toward BYOT
because the customer has more control. Billie acknowledged that BOYT does give customers more
control to opt out of events and alleviates some of the issues with homes getting too warm.
One member said BYOT also sets the company up for winter DR and suggested pushing BYOT sooner
rather than later. Billie said BYOT is being evaluated to see if it can be cost effective.
Another member asked if there has been any consideration between older homes and newer subdivisions
with more efficient units. Billie noted the program is for demand reduction, not for energy savings and
Quentin added that there is a wide diversity of unit sizes within the program, based on the size of the
home, and even though efficiency can affect the size of units, there is already a lot of variation in size.
Another member asked if there is any way to run targeted marketing, given that some customers prefer
older thermostats and are not interested in smart thermostats. Billie answered that yes, there are ways to
target marketing .
One member said surveys are a great way to reach out and raise awareness and become an excellent
learning opportunity for customers. Billie agreed, stating the company has seen non-participant surveys
cause a spike in participation.
Another member suggested the company work with younger children in schools to market to p arents.
Billie said the company has student kits and informs school children about company programs.
One member encourages the company to explore the survey idea for customers, then added that BYOT
should be less expensive for the company so encourages movement in that direction. Quentin said the cost
of the BYOT program is something the company is evaluating. The company has done an RFP and has
determined that a BYOT offering is not necessarily less expensive. Even though there are no equipment
costs, there are costs associated with the manufacturer and vendor relationships to utilize smart
thermostats. He also added that with BYOT, the load reduction is less per participant.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
One member commented that they appreciate the company’s efforts in trying to get more participation. As
for the incentive, the $25 gift card doesn’t seem to be working very well. There isn’t enough motivation.
The member suggested a marketing approach where a customer has the option to put in for a drawing on a
big item to win, rather than the $25 enrollment incentive, may encourage additional participation .
WAQC Re-Weatherization
One member stated that they see a $14 -16K heat pump cost upgrade from baseboard/ceiling resistance
heat to ducted heat. The member added that a serious backlog of homes is already waiting for
weatherization. He said that including already -weatherized homes will add to this list. He said that his
agency, and likely many others, have only a handful of certified contractors who can do this work. The
member asked if the 14 years was a moving target. Billie said technically it could be a rolling 14 years,
but the more recent years will not see the same need because mo re recently heat pumps have become
commonplace, so the potential projects are really a finite number of already weatherized homes. .
One member asked how much was spent. Cheryl answered the company has spent $136k so far, and two
more are coming in that will bump it to $150k. The member asked if the company would spend most of
the carry forward by 2025. Cheryl answered that it depends on the agencies.

11:57 A.M. Marketing—Julie Rosandick
Julie presented the quarterly Energy@Work newsletter for commercial, industrial, and irrigation then
discussed the new residential campaign. She went over the summer savings contest, sports sponsorships,
upcoming H&C marketing, and active summer EE education.
Discussion
One member asked about the education component, given that the tips are the same every year, and if the
company thinks it is getting returns on that messaging over the years. Annie answered that the tips do
revolve around seasons. Julie added that the frequency of exposure to the messaging helps. Denise also
commented that it is important to have messages out there for when customers are interested. The
marketing reaches the customer when they are ready.
Another member asked for more information about sports sponsorships and the Good Energy campaign.
Julie said Good Energy is the branded message for energy efficiency for residential customers. Annie
added that it will have signage but not as an Idaho Power brand. It is the Good Energy message that
promotes energy efficiency.
Another member asked if ads are all the same exact messaging. Julie said the marketing is different
depending on the sporting event. Annie added it depends on what type of package the schools present to
the company. BSU has a jumbotron for 15-second commercials, and CSI has a banner (signage).

12:03 P.M. – Lunch

1:03 P.M. Integrated Resource Plan Update – Jared Hansen
Jared presented an IRP update highlighting the IRPAC meeting progression and reasons for the IRP
extension. He provided the preliminary review of the preferred portfolio, described different scenarios
that were reviewed and advised the report will be publicly available on Idaho Power’s website.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Discussion
Energy Efficiency Potential
One member asked if this was a base case. Jared answered that energy efficiency is in every portfolio.
The energy efficiency numbers were built in as a decrement to the load forecast.
DR Potential
One member asked about Time of Use (TOU) identified in the DR potential study and if it is different
than the current TOU program. Connie answered that they are the same, but the potential study modeled
an expanded version of a program. She added the company understands there is an opportunity to modify
the current TOU structure.
Another member commented about TOU being an optional program that needs quantifying. Quentin
answered that the estimated cost and savings is based on regional averages seen by the evaluator. The DR
potential study modeled the program based on market prices and capacity -based benefits. Customers
could be more attracted to TOU with a larger rate differential in the time periods identified.
One member asked about the technology for the 100 -hour storage. Jared answered the tech nology is still
in development and that, currently, the round -trip efficiency of these units is low at around 70%, whereas
current four-hour batteries are around 90%.
Another member asked about how the new winter peak needs will impact r esource planning. Jared
answered that winter planning is a particular focus of this IRP compared to previous IRPs.
One member asked if there was a specific time frame when the winter peak surpasses summer. Jared
answered that the forecasted load includes a significant increase in industrial load in the next decade and
that both winter and summer loads will continue to grow over the next five to ten years, he added
that winter peaks are by nature more difficult to meet due to constrained availability of res ources
such as solar.

1:23 P.M. Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation Programs —Chellie Jensen
Chellie presented DR season updates and planned changes to Flex Peak, overall commercial, industrial,
and irrigation program performance and updates for quarter two. She then discussed the company’s plans
for the 2023 training schedule.
Discussion
Flex Peak Proposed Changes
One member asked about the responses to DR marketing. Chellie answered that commercial customers
require continued engagement for effective marketing. The program has seen success with having
engineers and Key Account Advisors aid with this outreach.
One member asked if the pattern of over-nominating is typical and why these customers weren’t more
sophisticated. Chellie answered that some do great and turn off equipment to match nominations and
other participants load reductions are more challenging to be accurate with their nominations if they are
more behavior based, such as raising temperature set points. Jonathon added that it depends on the
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
participant's involvement in monitoring their nomination amount. The member asked if performance is
better on larger customers versus smaller customers. Jonathon said it depends more on the customer and
type of loads being controlled and how they change nominations as their business changes. They need to
notify the company about the change in nomination by Thursday of the preceding week .
One member asked how the proposed incentive method works on a medium participant versus high
performance. Chellie answered that the new structure will help provide more fair incentives and
encourage participation for the typical participant. There will be little difference under the new structure
for participants who are already high performers. Quentin added that the goal is to get people to nominate
properly, and this structure still does that.
One member asked if payments would differ based on the season average rather than the per -event
average. Quentin answered th at the new structure does look at the season as a whole, whereas the current
structure looks at weekly performance.
Another member said it might help their organization decide which building to nominate because HVAC
is variable and harder to predict. The member asked if it was a big risk not to get that nomination and if
there was a way to opt out. Chellie answered yes, they can opt out the week before, so the company can
provide an accurate nomination to the Load Serving Operators.
One member asked if there is evidence that the longer a participant is in the program, the nominations
become more accurate. Chellie answered anecdotally that it is the case, but largely the customers are
participating manually which requires them to initi ate action for an event and they might not be able to
perform to their nomination on the day of the event for multiple reasons. There is a possibility that a
facility manager or responsible party might change even for a long -term or high performing participant
and knowledge transfer doesn’t happen .
Another member asked if the Flex Peak payment is capped for over-performance and if removing the cap
was a consideration in the proposal. Quentin answered that yes over-performance is capped at 120% and
removing this cap would eliminate the incentive for a participant to provide a nomination accurately.

2:08 P.M. – Break

2:23 P.M. Off ice of Energy and Mineral Resources Programs—Alexa Bouvier
Alexa introduced OEMR's mission and focus and then discussed the responsibilities of their staff. Alexa
presented OEMR's collaboration with Idaho Strategic Energy Alliance and current programs: State
Energy Loan Program, Idaho Awards for Leadership in Energy Efficiency, Government Leading by
Example, National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, and Energy Resiliency Grant Program. She
then discussed future programs funded by the federal Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act; K-
12 Public School Energy Efficiency Program, Home Efficiency Rebates, and Home Electrification and
Appliance Rebates.
Discussion
State Energy Loan Program
One member asked if the application was online. Alexa answered yes, and it is also available by
contacting the OEMR office.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
One member asked about the interest loan program and how interest rates are set. Alexa answered that
applicants can choose between 3%, 5%, or 7% interest rates depending on the payback term.
Government Leading by Example
One member asked who OEMR works with from the University of Idaho’s - Integrated Design Lab.
Alexa stated they work with Damon Woods, the director of the lab.
K-12 Public School Energy Efficiency Program
One member asked if there is a plan to do new audits or rely on old ones from prior programs. Alexa
answered that the audits are 10 -15 years old, and they are looking at a way to do both. OEMR is meeting
with the Division of Public Safety to see if the updated reports will help them better understand what
needs to be addressed. OEMR’s objective is to utilize funding directly on the retrofits versus an audit.
Chellie commented that the company has assessments on many buildings and would like to work
together. Alexa said that would be great. Their funding is focused on retrofits and making that money last
for schools.
One member asked if there was a specific budget and for how long. Alexa said yes there will be a specific
budget, but the timeline is unknown. It is still in development.
Energy Resiliency Grant
One member asked if the grant was for the same type of project as loans. Alexa answered yes but focused
on immediate needs.
One member said resiliency is hard to measure and asked how that is done. Alexa said they ask for
different reports from utilities to get resiliency levels on their proposed projects.
Home Efficiency Rebates
One member asked if the measure was an audit or a deemed measure. Alexa said she believes an audit
would support that but will seek clarification.
Home Electrification & Appliance Rebates
One member asked if the money is distributed throughout the state or on a first come or first serve. Alexa
answered that it is still up for debate but anticipates the latter.
One member asked if the area's average median income is for counties or communities. Alexa answered
that it is based on counties.
One member asked if OEMR plans to add staff as a result of increased funding. Alexa answered that there
are four policy analysts; she is one of them, and they are looking to add another. There is also a legal
team, a finance team, and a program manager. Each analyst will be issued a program to ensure staff is not
overwhelmed.
One member asked if there is a way for 501 CS to get involved. Alexa said their outreach is essential,
especially in rural areas.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2:58 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Member Comments:
I look forward to these meetings and find them highly informative. I appreciate all of your hard work.
I enjoyed the updates and ability to give feedback , it is interesting to look at what is happening with C&I
and Demand Response. It will be interesting t o see how they evolve over the next year. It just feels like a
lot of balls in the air.
For me, I always enjoy these. I get schooled every time I come, a lot of information was shared. These
meetings help me connect the dots.

3:05 P.M. Meeting Adjourned

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG)
November 8, 2023

Present
Alexa Bouvier – Office of Energy and Mineral
Resources
Brad Heusinkveld – Idaho Conservation League
Connie Aschenbrenner – Idaho Power
Diego Rivas – Northwest Energy Coalition
Don Strickler – J.R. Simplot
Ken Robinette – South Central Community
Action Partnership
Quentin Nesbitt – Idaho Power
Sidney Irwin – Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association
Jason Talford – Idaho Public Utilities
Commission
Wil Gehl – City of Boise Public Works

Not Present
Taylor Thomas - Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Peter Kernan – Public Utilities Commission of Oregon
Jim Hall – WaFd Bank

Guests and Presenters*
Alexis Freeman – Idaho Power
Annie Meyer* – Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell – Idaho Power
Billie McWinn* – Idaho Power
Bill Trent – Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen* – Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli – Idaho Power
Chris Pollow – Idaho Power
Curtis Willis – Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz – Idaho Power
Dave Thornton* – Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys – Idaho Power
Jared Hansen – Idaho Power

Kathy Yi* – Idaho Power
Krista West – Idaho Power
Laura Conilogue – Idaho Public Utilities
Commission
Landon Barber – Idaho Power
Michelle Toney – Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen – Idaho Power
Nathan Black – Idaho Power
Ray Short – Idaho Power
Shelley Martin – Idaho Power
Theresa Drake – Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell – Idaho Power
Zack Thompson – Idaho Powe

Note Takers
Michelle Toney (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power) and Landon Barber (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Quentin Nesbitt

9:35 A.M. Welcome & Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Quentin opened the meeting. There were no questions or comments about the August notes. He
recognized Tina Jayaweera’s passing and mentioned her significant participation and contribut ions to
EEAG over the years. He then announced Theresa’s retirement in early December. Quentin added that he
will be replac ing Theresa on the NEEA (North west Energy Efficiency Alliance) board.

9:40 A.M. 2023 YTD Financials & Savings—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the DSM (Demand Side Management) financials, savings showing YTD expenses, and
savings through September 2023. He then reviewed the evaluations in 2023 and those planned for 2024
for all sectors.
Discussion
One member had a question about expenses changing from Rider to Non-Rider. Quentin answered that
the only change expected is labor, which was proposed to be moved from Rider to Rate Base as part of
the company’s general rate case filing. He noted the company will still track and report costs for program
cost -effectiveness.
Another member asked why the ACCC (AC Cool Credit) program costs are fund ed by both the Rider and
Non-Rider O&M . Quentin said the Idaho DR (Demand Response) incentives are paid out of base rates
(non -rider) and trued up through the annual PCA. All other program costs beyond incentives are charged
to the Rider, such as labor, materials, etc.
One member asked about the special accounting entries. Kathy answered that , in general , they are the
annual accruals and reversals.
Another member noted the $54 charge to C&I overheads categorized as O&M. Quentin commented that
the company will revie w and ensure it is correct.

9:52 A.M. Cost-Effectiveness/Avoided Costs—Kathy Yi
Kathy presented a Cost-Effectiveness training refresher. She explained the Company’s plan to implement
use of the DSM avoided costs from the 2023 IRP (Integrated Resource Plan) and shared impacts of how
that change would impact cost-effectiveness evaluation. She then went over the 2024 preview of cost-
effectiveness for each of the programs.
Discussion
One member asked about the cumulative lifetime savings and why those are not used for reporting. Kathy
explained that cumulative totals are used for the IRP and are included in the potential study. For
reporting, only the first -year savings are used.
Another member mentioned the number of years for the stream of benefits and costs and then asked if the
discount rate is use d to account for inflation or time value of money. Kathy answered that the company
uses a discount rate for the benefit side. She explained that the stream of bene fits is discount ed using the
discount rate determined from the weighted average cost of capital for the company and the same number
the company uses for other resources in the IRP. As for the cost side, most of the programs have one-time
costs that are not ongoing, so there is no cost stream to discount.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
One member asked why the avoided costs are projected to decline according to the Aurora outputs in the
future. Jared Hansen explained that many renewables are exp ected to come onto the grid, and they have
production tax credits and do not have a fuel component. M odels show there will be oversupply at certain
times, bring ing the overall average cost down. There are many market changes and resource availability
factors involved.
The member then asked if costs relating to avoided transmission are contained within avoided costs. Jared
said yes, transmission costs are contained within avoided cost values. He said that one key is the kinds of
costs you are avoiding depends on what the market looks like, and that is why there can be differences
between IRPs.
The member asked if using less means less needed transmission to move energy and if it is a component
of avoided cost s. Jared responded that we see transmission as necessary to integrate renewables. Even if
demand is brought down, there is still a need for added transmission as we transition our energy supply so
that energy can be brought in from different areas.
The member questioned why the IRP model projects a jump in avoided costs around 2027. Jared
responded that there are some lumpy resource acquisitions, including converting coal resources to natural
gas.
Another member asked about the energy efficiency modeling in the IRP. Jared explained that the
company modeled buckets of energy efficiency at their associated estimated costs and that Aurora could
select those incrementally , and if selected , the savings would continue through the life span of the
measures. Quentin added that most of the energy efficiency included in the IRP was subtracted from the
initial load forecast, so a lower load forecast was used in the IRP Aurora model. The model could only
select additional energy efficiency opportunities not initially deemed cost -effective.
One member asked if the process is using cost s levelized over the range of the years or if the company
uses the actual number from that year. Kathy answered that t here is a table for avoided costs, and the
numbers used are for a specific year. Then , it is all added and brought back to today’s dollars using the
present value calculation.
One member asked if the drop-off in avoided costs starting around 2035 would impact the cost -
effectiveness of the DSM programs. Kathy answered that it depends on the measure. Some measures have
a shorter measure life, so they will not see the drop-off. Other measures have a long life and are affected .
Another member asked if the company considers carbon emissions because of the energy savings in
“Other” benefits and if those are included in the avoided costs. Kathy responded that a carbon cost is
embedded in the avoided costs. Jared added that a carbon price adder was used in the IRP. It was added to
the fuel cost and starts a few years in, then carries on through the rest of the plan, so it does pass through
to avoided costs.
One member asked if “Risk” as in loss of load factor as it pertains to avoided costs, refers to loss of load
probability or some other metric. Jared answered that the loss of load expectation was used to determine
the block of hours that are the highest risk to serve.
One member asked about the terminology change and if “Peak ” is now “High Risk.” Quentin answered
that terminology has changed recently due to the necessity of accounting for variable resources within the
system. What we now consider high -risk or highest cost -to-serve hours are not necessarily during our
peak load.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
One member asked if the Aurora Model looks at what really happens versus what is predicted and if it
does a better job at predicting. Jared answered that this is something utilities are struggling with. There
are unexpected weather events and other things that are different from what is seen in the models based
on planned conditions. The company developed a separate tool that does a statistical analysis with six
historical years of weather and load data.
Another member asked what is considered a holiday on the hourly chart. Kathy answered that holidays
are defined in Idaho Power’s tariff. Jared clarified that the definition is based on lower energy use on
those holidays.
The member then asked why Sundays are not peak when Saturdays are. Quentin answered that this is
because system load s related to irrigation and industrial are lower on Sunday s.
One member asked if part of the winter risk is due to electric heating. Jared responded that it was not the
specific cause. There is now significant growth in industrial load, which has a high load factor that strains
demand. Additionally, accounting for an increased portfolio of renewable resources has impacted
resource availability.
One member asked if the avoided costs included capacity. Kathy answered yes; capacity costs are added
to the avoided cost of energy in high -risk hours starting in the first year of a capacity deficiency.
The member asked if the company has investigated power factor measures that do not strictly save energy
but reduce peak load at a site and if incentives are considered. Quentin said it has come up before , and
Idaho Power has not paid incentives. Connie added that there is a power factor adjustment in rates for
industrial customers who measure less than a 90 percent power factor.
Another member asked , how in the Aro ura model, the risk is divided between winter and summer peaks
and if the risk comes from other dual-peaking utilities in the region impacting the market. Jared answered
that the model does include a regional look. He also clarified that the risk hours are a snapshot and will
change over time.
One member asked how the IRP team arrived at the summer to winter risk allocation percentages. Jared
indicated it was based on probability of resources not being able to meet load.
One member asked why the peak seasons do not align with the demand response season windows.
Quentin answered that the company did look into that, but the difference in dates at the start of the
seasons did not have enough risk to justify changes.

11:10 A.M. – Break

11:20 A.M —Theresa’s Tenure
Quentin, Billie, and Chellie did a presentation honoring Theresa’s time and contributions to the
company’s customers through her work supporting energy efficiency and demand response.

11:28 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented the residential programs’ savings and participation. She also went into specific detailed
updates on the Marketplace program investigation, Market Transformation Pilot results, and the
Multifamily program launch.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Discussion
Shade Tree
One member asked about the shade tree program not being in the participation change table from 2022 to
2023. Billie answered that it was removed because the savings were unavailable, but she will consider
including the participation or total tree count in the future. Kathy explained that shade tree savings start
when the trees get a little older, so current participation does not relate to current savings.
Marketplace
One member asked if any Marketplace program vendors meet all the criteria that the company is looking
for. Billie answered that they are not.
One member asked which criteria were most difficult for current Marketplace vendors to offer. Billie
answered that the most challenging requirement was for the vendor to accommodate local retailers.
Market Transformation Pilot
One member asked if it had been decided if some version of the Ductless Heat Pump (DHP) pilot would
continue. Billie answered that no decision had been made , and the results were still being examined.
The member then asked if there is still potential for DHP adoption in the area as it is not saturated . Todd
Greenwell answered that the current market saturation is extremely low and there is room for expansion.
Multifamily
One member asked what the expected timeline is for the multifamily program. Billie answered that the
program is fully launched, but participation will take time. Kathy added that the company is anticipating a
significant lag between application time and project completion dates since it’s expected that most
participation will be in New Construction.

11:51 A.M. DR Response—Quentin Nesbitt, Chellie Jensen, & Billie McWinn
Quentin , Chellie, and Billie presented the DR Response Season Wrap-Up, including the C&I Flex Peak
program, residential AC Cool Credit, and Irrigation Peak Rewards season results. The presentation
included events, participation, max capacity and performance, and then concluded with a look to the
future for DR .
Discussion
One member asked why AC Cool Credit does not run on Saturdays. Quentin answered that the program
rules do not include Saturdays, because the system need is typically lower, and with residential AC, the
company determined if Saturdays were included it would jeopardize customer enrollment.
One member commented on the consistent savings for Irrigation Peak Rewards and then asked if there
were any differences between the dispatch group s. Quentin replied that the program intentionally tries to
balance the groups to have similar reduction potential. Chellie added that each group is typically a
different region, except group D.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
One member asked if the DR programs look at the avoided energy amount instead of just capacity and
compare it to the market price. Quentin responded that the company has looked at this in the past; the
energy value has been small , and the value is in the avoided capacity.
Another member commented that there is a long -term value. The short -term value of DR is difficult to
quantify because it is the last marginal resource that exists for avoiding inherently rare peak events .
One member said that sometimes industrial DR event reductions are difficult to quantify. The incentive
structure is complex to follow. Quentin agreed and responded that we have filed for changes to the
program that will make it simpler to understand.

12:15 P.M. – Lunch

1:00 P.M. Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation Programs—Chellie Jensen
Chellie presented the overall commercial, industrial, and irrigation energy efficiency program savings and
participation through the third quarter of the year. She also highlighted individual program activities and
trainings.
Discussion
Cohorts
One member asked if there are specific industries that struggle to find energy savings. Chellie answered
that it depends more on the facility than the industry.
The member then asked if any facilities had left the cohort due to needing help to implement the energy
changes. Chellie answered that some facilities have left due to time commitment issues or having
achieved all reasonable energy goals.
The member then asked how long customers stay in the cohorts. Chellie answered that some stay five
years, others one year. Chellie added that Idaho Power uses a one-year measure life.
One member asked if the program would quantify the energy savings of a non-energy measure, such as
wastewater reduction, by ten percent. Chellie responded that a production normalized energy model looks
at the cumulative energy savings from any change, or we look at bottoms-up energy calculations or
energy intensity. For instance, if a participant gets their water from the city and if they reduce water use,
they save wastewater pumping energy. If they provide their water from wells, saving water would save on
water production energy. Reducing water may or may not reduce loading on the wastewater plant’s
aeration system, but we could include it if it does.
One member asked if there is any cap on the size of a cohort. Chellie responded that there is no cap;
however, an ideal size is typically six or seven participants, but some cohorts have been as large as 16.
Another member commented about the incentive covering all the costs, and they liked the saving s. The
member question ed that if there is an electric boiler, there are additional gas savings that would not be
included in the k Wh savings number.
The member also inquired if the company or consultants do the tune-ups. Chellie responded that the
company offers a detailed assessment to determine and quantify the opportunity, and a third party does
the tune-up. She added that the company engages with several professional energy-efficiency firms.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
The member then commented on the benefit o f t rainings, after attending the refrigeration t raining, and
said he received emails from other employees asking about ways they can save.
1:36 P.M. Marketing—Annie Meyer
Annie p resented the marketing overview for all sectors. She showed how the company celebrated Energy
Awareness month in October and the awareness campaign ads that will run through November. Annie
then went over the updates for the fall efficiency guide and discussed the success of the Shade Tree event
and the Multifamily program marketing tactics. She presented Energy @Work and shared a commercial
customer success story.
Discussion
One member asked if customers could still check out or rent the Kill A-Watt Meters at the lib rary. Annie
responded that customers can check them out.
1:44 P.M. Energy Advisor Presentation—Dave Thornton
Dave presented the role of the company’s Energy Advisors and their approach, who they are, who they
work with, and how they help customers.
2:05 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Member Comments
Thank you, everyone. It was a great meeting. I appreciate the informative numbers.
I like the format of doing in-person meetings along with an online meeting. The programs are
working great and are well managed. I look forward to seeing how those go in the future. I want to
address the impact of rate changes by the company and across the state.
Thank you for the meeting. I also appreciate the numbers. It is an interesting time with a lot of added
information coming in.
I look forward to these meetings and am interested in more details on the stacked incentive
information from Billie’s presentation. Hearing the advisors are out there and talking to customers is
encouraging. The lack of customer knowledge is vast.
Great meeting! I do prefer the in-person meeting. Congratulations Theresa.
Thank you, everyone, for the time and preparation that went into the meeting. The changes in the IRP
results, particularly the emerging dual peak, will present interesting challenges in the future.
I like the format of in-person meetings and the option to join in remotely. Thanks for your hard work and
diving into the nitty gritty of numbers. Making energy efficiency work in the new world, we are
transitioning to.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Thank you, Theresa, for your efforts over the years. I have also heard many accounts from people whom
suppliers have misled. I have also been approached by about half a dozen older people who were told that
if they installed rooftop solar, they would get a tax incentive, but they have no income.
Thank you for the participation.
2:15 P.M. Meeting Adjourned

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 39
NEEA MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By
Study
Manager
2015 Battery Charger Standard Evaluation for NEEA’s
Non-Adoptive States
Residential TRC Energy Services NEEA
2022 Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Incremental
Cost Study
Commercial Energy Solutions NEEA
2022 Review of Key Assumptions for Luminaire Level
Lighting Controls
Commercial Cadmus Group NEEA
Assessment of NEEA’s Approach to the Evaluation of Market
Transformation Programs
Residential and
Commercial
Pointed Arrows Consulting NEEA
Central Heat Pump Water Heaters for Multifamily
Supply-Side Assessment Study
Residential New Buildings Institute NEEA
Commercial Secondary Windows Field Observations and
Decision-Maker Interviews Report
Commercial Energy 350 NEEA
Commercial Secondary Windows Field Test Commercial Energy 350 NEEA
Commercial-Sector Adjustable-Speed Drive Market
Research Study
Commercial Johnson Consulting Group NEEA
Cost Benefit Model Analysis for Heat Pump Water Heaters Residential Larson Energy Consultant NEEA
CSA EXP07: Ongoing Progress, Lessons Learned, and Future
Work in Load-based Testing of Residential Heat Pumps
Residential Purdue University NEEA
Draft 2025-2029 NEEA Strategic + Business Plans Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Dual Fuel and Gas Heat Pump Market Research Residential Lieberman Research Group NEEA
Ductless Heat Pumps 2022 Long-Term Monitoring and
Tracking Report
Residential Johnson Consulting Group NEEA
Extended Motor Products Variable Load Baseline and
Constant-Load to Variable Load Savings Key
Assumptions Review
Commercial Apex Analytics NEEA
Fan Manufacturer Regional Market Share Research Commercial DNV Energy Insights NEEA
Heat Pump Water Heater Market Progress Evaluation
Report #7
Residential NMR Group NEEA
Heat Pump Water Heater Market Research: Challenging
Installations Scenarios
Residential Optimized Thermal Systems NEEA
High-Performance Windows Baseline Review Residential Cadmus Group NEEA
Hydrogen-Ready Appliances Assessment Report Residential Cadeo Group NEEA
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls: Market Progress
Evaluation Report #2
Commercial Cadmus Group NEEA
Manufactured Homes Transition Market Progress
Evaluation Report
Residential Apex Analytics NEEA
Modulating Gas Valve for Commercial Dryer Study Residential GTI Energy NEEA
NEEA 2024 Operations Plan Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 40 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By
Study
Manager
NEEA Dryer Test Procedure Version 2.0 – Summary of
Changes and Rationale
Residential Kannah Consulting NEEA
NEEA Energy Efficiency Test Procedure for Residential
Clothes Dryers
Residential NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q1 2023 Quarterly Report Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q4 2022 Codes, Standards and New Construction
Newsletter
Residential NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q4 2022 Market Progress Report Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q4 2022 Quarterly Report Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Oregon and Washington High CRI Bulb and Commercial
Kitchen Equipment State Standards Evaluations
Residential Michaels Energy NEEA
Prosaris Compressed Air Leak Detection Initial Field Tests Commercial Energy 350 NEEA
Q1 2023 Codes, Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q1 2023 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q1 2023 Market Progress Report Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q1 2023 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q2 2023 Codes, Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q2 2023 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q2 2023 Market Progress Report Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q2 2023 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q2 2023 Quarterly Report Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q3 2023 Codes, Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential NEEA NEEA
Q3 2023 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q3 2023 Market Progress Report Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q3 2023 Market Research and Evaluation
Quarterly Newsletter
Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q3 2023 Quarterly Report Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q4 2022 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 41
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By
Study
Manager
Q4 2023 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q4 2023 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Retail Product Portfolio Market Progress Evaluation
Report #2
Residential TRC Engineers NEEA
Study of High-Performance Windows Incremental
Manufacturing Cost
Residential Stephan Selkowitz
Consultants
NEEA
Variable Speed Heat Pump Baseline and Key
Assumptions Review
Residential Cadmus Group NEEA
Washington Residential Code Evaluation Residential TRC NEEA
Titles appearing in blue are links to the online versions of the reports. A PDF of this supplement can be found at
idahopower.com/ways-to-save/energy-efficiency-program-reports/.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 42 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 43
INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB
Report Title Sector
Analysis
Performed By
Study
Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2023 Task 1: Foundational Services—
Summary of Projects
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and Education
2023Task 2: Lunch and Learn—Summary of
Effort and Outcomes
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Training and Education
2023 Task 3: BSUG—Summary of Effort
and Outcomes
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Training and Education
2023 Task 5: Energy Resource Library—
Summary of Effort and Outcomes
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and Education
2023 Task 7: Fan Savings from UV Lamps Commercial IDL Idaho Power Research
2023 Task 8: Digital Design Tools—Summary of
Effort and Outcomes
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Research

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 44 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Report Number: 2023_001-01

2023 TASK 1: FOUNDATIONAL SERVICES
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT

January 15, 2024

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Damon Woods

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
ii

This page left intentionally blank.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
iii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E. Front St., Suite 360, Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Damon Woods

Author:
Damon Woods

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
IPC KIT # 8112

Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2023). 2023
TASK 1: Foundational Services – Summary of Projects
(2023_001-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
iv

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been
reviewed for technical accuracy and are believed to be
reasonably accurate, the findings are estimates and actual
results may vary. All energy savings and cost estimates
included in the report are for informational purposes only and
are not to be construed as design documents or as
guarantees of energy or cost savings. The user of this
report, or any information contained in this report, should
independently evaluate any information, advice, or direction
provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO
REPRESENTATIONS, EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF
ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
RECOMMENDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED IN
THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY
DISCLAIMS ALL OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE
PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE
UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS), ARISING OUT
OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANUFACTURE,
USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED
BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL
RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S),
SERVICE(S), OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR
MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION
WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
v

This page left intentionally blank.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2. Project Summary .................................................................................................................... 1
3. Appendix – Project Reports .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
DOAS Dedicated Outdoor Air System
EMS Energy Management System
EUI Energy Use Intensity [kBtu/ft2/yr]
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
IR Infrared
LED Light Emitting Diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
RTU Rooftop Unit
UI University of Idaho
UVGI Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
VAV Variable Air Volume
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2023 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-01)

1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) provided technical design
assistance in 2023 for energy efficiency building projects through the Foundational
Services task. This program, supported by Idaho Power (IPC), offered three phases of
assistance from which customers could choose. A marketing flyer shown in Figure 1
outlines the three phases. Phase I includes projects with budgets less than $2,000,
Phase II is limited to projects from $2,000 to $4,000, and Phase III is any project with a
budget greater than $4,000.

Figure 1: Foundational Services Flyer Outlining Phases
Information on the Foundational Services program was provided at each Lunch
and Learn and BSUG presentation. Advertising for the program was also offered over
the course of the year to local government officials, developers, and the architects and
engineers who interacted with IDL.
2. PROJECT SUMMARY
The IDL worked on over 18 Foundational Service projects in 2023. Projects
ranged from commercial to municipal and the IDL worked with both architecture and
engineering firms within Idaho Power Service territory. Most project intake came
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2023 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-01)

through a phone call or email to the IDL. A tab is also available on the IDL website for
people to submit requests for technical support through the foundational services
program.
Projects consisted of email responses, personal trainings, technical reports, and
memos. In total, there were 15 Phase I projects, three Phase II projects, and zero
Phase III projects. The full list of projects is shown in Table 1 below.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2023 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-01)

Table 1: Summary of 2023 Foundational Services Projects
Type Phase Notes Retro/New Ft2 Location
Office 1 Load diversification New 32,000 Boise
Warehouse 1 Roof membrane savings Retro 100,000 Twin Falls
Retail 1 Refrigeration control
optimization Retro 500 Meridian
Education 1 Commissioning luminaire level
lighting controls Retro 54,700 Boise
Office 2
Design charette for
daylighting and HVAC
efficiency options
New 20,000 Boise
Commercial 1 Energy benchmarking
assistance Retro NA Boise
Education 1 Insulation dewpoint
investigation Retro 25,000 Pocatello
Mixed-Use 1 Energy efficiency certification
roadmap New 50,000 Pocatello
Healthcare 1 Quantifying air filter savings
from new design Retro 75,000 Boise
Education 1 Energy audit and walkthrough Retro 30,000 Midvale
Office 1 Luminaire Level Lighting
Control commissioning New NA Nampa
Education 1 Energy audit and walkthrough Retro 29,313 Cambridge
Commercial 1
Literature review on
commercial infiltration
assumptions for load sizing
New NA NA
Commercial 2
Identify potential energy
saving features in hospitality
projects
New 45,668 Jerome
Civic 2
Minimizing operational
energy and help identifying
annual energy baseline
New 12,000 Ketchum
Commercial 1 Technical assistance for
energy modeling New NA Boise
Commercial 1 Ground loop design assistance New 74,000 Star
Civic/education 1
Estimating savings from EE
upgrades across a campus of
buildings
Retro NA Idaho

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Report Number: 2023_002-01

2023 TASK 2: LUNCH AND LEARN
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 22, 2023

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Dylan Agnes

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
ii

This page left intentionally blank.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
iii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E Front Street, Suite #360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Damon Woods

Authors:
Dylan Agnes

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
IPC KIT #8112

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D., (2023). 2023 TASK
2: Lunch and Learn – Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2023_002-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
iv

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed
for technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably
accurate, the findings are estimates and actual results may
vary. All energy savings and cost estimates included in the
report are for informational purposes only and are not to be
construed as design documents or as guarantees of energy or
cost savings. The user of this report, or any information
contained in this report, should independently evaluate any
information, advice, or direction provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS,
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS
ALL OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF
UNIVERSITY FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS’ AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF
THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF
SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE
INFORMATION, RESULT(S), PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND
PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER
ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER DISPOSITION
BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR (PROCESSES)
INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
v

This page left intentionally blank.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 2023 Summary and Cumulative Analysis ................................................................................ 9
2. Session Summaries ................................................................................................................. 14
2.1 Session 1: The Architects Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(04/20/2023) .......................................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Session 2: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (05/25/2023) ........................................ 14
2.3 Session 3: The Future of Lighting Controls (05/31/2023) ............................................ 15
2.4 Session 4: HVAC Load Calculations – Tips & Tricks (06/14/2023) .............................. 16
2.5 Session 5: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(06/20/2023) .......................................................................................................................... 16
2.6 Session 6: Daylighting Multipliers (07/19/2023)........................................................... 17
2.7 Session 7: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (08/30/2023) ........................................ 18
2.8 Session 8: ASHRAE Standard 209 Energy Modeling (08/31/2023) ............................. 18
2.9 Session 9: High Performance Classrooms (09/13/2023) ............................................. 19
2.10 Session 10: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (09/14/2023) ................................ 19
2.11 Session 11: Daylighting Multipliers (09/27/2023) ...................................................... 20
2.12 Session 12: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(10/04/2023) .......................................................................................................................... 20
2.13 Session 13: High Performance Classrooms (10/11/2023) ........................................ 21
2.14 Session 14: HVAC Load Calculations – Tips & Tricks (10/12/2023) ......................... 22
2.15 Session 15: ASHRAE Standard 209 Energy Modeling (11/17/2023) ........................ 22
2.16 Session 16: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (11/28/2023) ................................ 23
2.17 Session 17: High Performance Classrooms (11/29/2023) ........................................ 24
2.18 Session 18: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(12/06/2023) .......................................................................................................................... 24
2.19 Session 19: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (12/12/2023) ................................ 25
2.20 Session 20: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(12/14/2023) .......................................................................................................................... 25
3. Future Work.............................................................................................................................. 27
4. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.1 Session 1: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(04/20/2023) ...................................................................................................................... 28
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

vii

4.1.2 Session 2: Luminaire Level Lighting CONTROLS (05/25/2023) ............................ 29
4.1.3 Session 3: Future of Lighting Controls (05/31/2023) ............................................ 30
4.1.4 Session 4: HVAC Load Calculations – Tips & Tricks (06/14/2023) ....................... 32
4.1.5 Session 5: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(06/20/2023) ...................................................................................................................... 33
4.1.6 Session 6: Daylighting Multipliers (07/19/2023).................................................... 34
4.1.7 Session 7: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (08/30/2023) ................................. 35
4.1.8 Session 8: ASHRAE Standard 209 Energy Modeling (08/31/2023) ...................... 36
4.1.9 Session 9: High Performance Classrooms (09/13/2023) ...................................... 38
4.1.10 Session 10: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (09/14/2023) ......................... 39
4.1.11 Session 11: Daylighting Multipliers (09/27/2023) ............................................... 40
4.1.12 Session 12: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance MOdeling
(10/04/2023) ...................................................................................................................... 41
4.1.13 Session 13: High Performance Classrooms (10/11/2023) ................................. 42
4.1.14 Session 14: HVAC Load Calculations – Tips & Tricks (10/12/2023) .................. 43
4.1.15 Session 15: ASHRAE Standard 209 Energy Modeling (11/17/2023) ................. 44
4.1.16 Session 16: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (11/28/2023) ......................... 46
4.1.17 Session 17: High Performance Classrooms (11/29/2023) ................................. 47
4.1.18 Session 18: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(12/06/2023) ...................................................................................................................... 48
4.1.19 Session 19: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (12/12/2023) ......................... 49
4.1.20 Session 20: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(12/14/2023) ...................................................................................................................... 51

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

viii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
Arch Architect(ure)
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BCGCC Boise Green Building Code
BESF Building Energy Simulation Forum (Energy Trust of Oregon)
Bldg. Building
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
CSI Construction Specifications Institute
Cx Customer Experience
DOE Department of Energy
Elec. Electrical
EUI Energy Use Intensity
GSHP Ground Source Heat Pump
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBOA Intermountain Building Operators Association
IBPSA International Building Performance Simulation Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IECC International Energy Conservation Code
IES Illuminating Engineering Society
IPC Idaho Power Company
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
LED Light Emitting Diode
M&V Measurement and Verification
Mech. Mechanical
Mgmt. Management
NCARB National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
PoE Power over Ethernet
TBD To Be Determined
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

9

1. 2023 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Table 1: 2023 Lunch and Learn Summary
Date Title Presenter Group / Location Attendees
1 4/20 The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling Dylan AO1 2
2 5/25 Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Dylan OS1 5
3 5/31 Future of Lighting Controls Dylan EF1 9
4 6/14 HVAC Load Calculations – Tips & Tricks Damon EF1 11
5 6/20 The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling Dylan AF1 8
6 7/19 Daylighting Multipliers – Increasing Daylighting Harvesting Efficiency Dylan AF2 18
7 8/30 Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Dylan EF1 13
8 8/31 ASHRAE Standard 209 Energy Modeling Damon AF1 8
9 9/13 High Performance Classrooms Damon AF2 10
10 9/14 Air Infiltration and Passive Systems Damon EF2 7
11 9/27 Daylighting Multipliers – Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency Dylan AF3 6
12 10/4 The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling Dylan AF3 5
13 10/11 High Performance Classrooms Damon AF4 6
14 10/12 HVAC load Calculations – Tips & Tricks Damon EF2 9
15 11/17 ASHRAE Standard 209 Energy Modeling Damon EF3 13
16 11/28 Air Infiltration and Passive Systems Damon AF5 8
17 11/29 High Performance Classrooms Damon SO1 12
18 12/06 The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling Dylan SO1 10
19 12/12 Air Infiltration and Passive Systems Damon AF6 7
20 12/14 The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling Dylan AF4 5
Total Attendees 172

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

10

Table 1 on the previous page summarizes all Lunch and Learn presentations given in 2023. The statistics in this
section are cumulative for the 20 presentations. At each presentation participants were asked to sign in and fill out an
evaluation form. Presentations were judged on a scale of 1 to 5, (see table 2). All lunch and learn presentations given in 2023
were in-person presentations.

Table 2: Evaluation Form Scale
Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5
In general, today’s presentation was: Not Useful Somewhat Useful Very Useful
The content of the presentation was: Too Basic About Right Too Advanced
Please rate the following parts of the presentation:
Organization, Clarity, Opportunity for Questions, Instructor’s Knowledge
of Subject Matter, and Delivery of Presentation
Needs Improvement Good Excellent

Table 3: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 79 Electrician: 0
Engineer: 33 Contractor: 0
Mech. Engineer: 9 Other: 32
Elec. Engineer: 0 None Specified: 18
Total (In-Person): 165
Total (Online): 7
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

11

Figure 1: Attendee Profession
Arch
46%
Engineer
19%
Mechanical
Engineer
5%
Other
19%
None
Specified
11%
Profession of Attendee Breakdown
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

12

Figure 2: Attendee Count by Title and Number per Session

2
5
9
11
18
8
10
7
8
13
9
6
13
6
8
5
12
7
10 5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Training
The Future of Lighting Controls
HVAC Load Calculation - Tips and Tricks
Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
ASHRAE Standard 209 Energy Modeling
High Performance Classrooms
Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

13

Figure 3: Average Evaluations by Session Title

Figure 4: Overall Averages of Evaluations for all Sessions
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
The Architects
Business Case
for Energy
Modeling
Luminaire
Level Lighting
Controls
Training
The Future of
Lighting
Controls
HVAC Load
Calculation -
Tips and Tricks
The Architects
Business Case
for Energy
Modeling
Daylighting
Multipliers
Increasing
Daylight
Harvesting
Efficiency
Luminaire
Level Lighting
Controls
Training
ASHRAE
Standard 209
Energy
Modeling
High
Performance
Classrooms
Air Infiltration
and Passive
Systems
Daylighting
Multipliers
Increasing
Daylight
Harvesting
Efficiency
The Architects
Business Case
for Energy
Modeling
High
Performance
Classrooms
HVAC Load
Calculation -
Tips and Tricks
ASHRAE
Standard 209
Energy
Modeling
Air Infiltration
and Passive
Systems
High
Performance
Classrooms
The Architects
Business Case
for Energy
Modeling
Air Infiltration
and Passive
Systems
The Architects
Business Case
for Energy
Modeling
In general, today's presentation was:Rate organization:Rate clarity:Rate opportunity for questions:Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter:Rate delivery of presentation:The content of the presentation was:
4.55 4.66 4.61 4.75 4.86 4.68
3.39
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
In general,
today's
presentation was:
Rate
organization:
Rate clarity:Rate opportunity
for questions:
Rate instructor's
knowledge of the
subject matter:
Rate delivery of
presentation:
The content of
the presentation
was:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

14

2. SESSION SUMMARIES
After each lunch and learn session, an evaluation form was handed out to
participants. The feedback will be used to improve future sessions. The feedback received
from participants is generally constructive criticism used to keep sessions updated but also
to propose future potential topics and questions to the Integrated Design Lab.
2.1 SESSION 1: THE ARCHITECTS BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(04/20/2023)
Title: The Architects Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models and
simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect with an iterative
process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore
the value-add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:

Date: 04/20/23

Location: AO1 – Pocatello, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 2 Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer: Other:

Elec. Engineer: None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 2

2.2 SESSION 2: LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS (05/25/2023)
Title: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
Description: LLLCs have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled
remotely or on a case-by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or
illumination levels without replacing the fixtures. In conventional lighting systems, lighting zones are defined as
a collective unit and thus are centrally controlled. LLLCs however, incorporate sensors into each fixture, such
as occupancy, daylight, temperature or receive/broadcast signals. Each fixture has the potential to become a
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

15

semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to small changes in the area under each fixture.
Furthermore, individual fixtures can communicate with other fixtures, using wireless or infrared signals, to
share data for an even greater potential to increase energy savings and user satisfaction. Some LLLCs can be
connected by gateway to transfer information collected. This data is analyzed, usually through the
manufacturer’s software, to provide a user interface different from a typical text editor. From there users are
able to identify trends in occupancy and lighting energy consumption that can then be used to refine the
building schedules for occupancy and lighting and, if applicable, for the buildings’ HVAC schedule
programming.
Presentation Info:

Date: 05/25/23

Location: OS1 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 4
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 1
Total (In-person): 5
*Other included: Property director, Property manager, Manager, Boise electric
2.3 SESSION 3: THE FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (05/31/2023)
Title: The Future of Lighting Controls
Description: Although LEDs have shown, they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower
lighting power density is not the only area of value when considering lighting. We can further increase savings
from these highly efficient lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to
create an evolving feedback loop that seeks peak system operation. While LLLC’s (Luminaire Level Lighting
Control) use this feature, they still use the same infrastructure as the lighting and control system that have
come before it, which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and integration to other building
systems. We believe the internet of things (IoT) will change the lighting and controls industry, providing an
excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform. Why? Where there are people, there are lights;
where there are people, there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls
provide a means to deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.
Presentation Info:

Date: 05/31/23

Location: EF1 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

16

Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer: 1 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 8
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 9
*Other included: Electrical designer (x8).

2.4 SESSION 4: HVAC LOAD CALCULATIONS – TIPS & TRICKS (06/14/2023)
Title: HVAC Load Calculations – Tips & Tricks
Description: Load calculations are one of the key logistics to designing a high performing building. But, how
does one capture the nuance of today’s post-covid hybrid office environments? What about conference rooms
that are full in the mornings, but empty in the afternoons? For those in the Treasure Valley, ASHRAE’s design
temperatures have changed – we have hotter summers and milder winters than 20 years ago. The IDL will
share updated weather data sources and several load calculation tools freely available to engineers.
Participants will learn the distinction between ASHRAE’s different load calculation methods – (90.1 vs 183).
The lecture will cover how to use energy modeling tools to predict loads in different scenarios and apply
ASHRAE 55’s thermal comfort standard during the design process. Practitioners will be able to use these tools
to add dynamic loads to their designs and conduct robust post-occupancy evaluations to ensure energy
efficient operation and client satisfaction.
Presentation Info:

Date: 06/14/23

Location: EF1 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer: 7 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 3
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 11
*Other included: Drafter (x3)

2.5 SESSION 5: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(06/20/2023)
Title: The Architect's Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

17

Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models
and simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect with an iterative
process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore
the value-add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.

Presentation Info:

Date: 06/20/23

Location: AF1 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:

Architect: 6 Electrician:

Engineer: 2 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 8
2.6 SESSION 6: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS (07/19/2023)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers
Description: This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the
efficiency of daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building, such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and
material specification. Furthermore, we will explore the rate of return, the ranges of efficiency, and appropriate
uses between daylighting strategies and multipliers.

Presentation Info:

Date: 07/19/23

Location: AF2 - Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 12 Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 6
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 18
*Other included: Interior Designer (x4), Office manager, Market manager.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

18

2.7 SESSION 7: LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS (08/30/2023)
Title: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
Description: LLLCs have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled
remotely or on a case-by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or
illumination levels without replacing the fixtures. In conventional lighting systems, lighting zones are defined as
a collective unit and thus are centrally controlled. LLLCs however, incorporate sensors into each fixture, such
as occupancy, daylight, temperature or receive/broadcast signals. Each fixture has the potential to become a
semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to small changes in the area under each fixture.
Furthermore, individual fixtures can communicate with other fixtures, using wireless or infrared signals, to
share data for an even greater potential to increase energy savings and user satisfaction. Some LLLCs can be
connected by gateway to transfer information collected. This data is analyzed, usually through manufacturer’s
software, to provide a user interface different from a typical text editor. From there users are able to identify
trends in occupancy and lighting energy consumption that can then be used to refine the building schedules
for occupancy and lighting and, if applicable, for the buildings’ HVAC schedule programming.
Presentation Info:

Date: 08/30/23

Location: EF1 - Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer: 1 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 7
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 8
*Other included: Electrical Designer (x7)
2.8 SESSION 8: ASHRAE STANDARD 209 ENERGY MODELING (08/31/2023)
Title: ASHRAE Standard 209 Energy Modeling
Description: Learn about ASHRAE’s recommendations for energy simulation aided design. This lecture will
cover methods of integrating modeling into the design process to meet aggressive energy savings targets.
Learn how to implement load-reducing modeling cycles early in the design process. Quantify the energy impact
of design decisions in real time. And, use post-occupancy modeling to enhance building performance. Whether
trying to achieve LEED, tax credits, or efficiency incentives, energy modeling can help improve the bottom line
for both designers and clients.

Presentation Info:

Date: 08/31/23

Location: AF1 – Boise, ID
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

19

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect: 12 Electrician:

Engineer: 1 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 13

2.9 SESSION 9: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (09/13/2023)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description: Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten
years and at least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand. This
session will cover a variety of issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom
environment. A quick look at the state of the last 50 years of school design will give an introduction to the
problems faced by designers. This session will highlight several case studies of high performance schools in
the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical systems. Each passive
strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
Presentation Info:

Date: 09/13/23

Location: AF2 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect: 8 Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 2
Total (In-Person): 10

2.10 SESSION 10: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (09/14/2023)
Title: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings
according to a 2021 study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort
and energy costs in Idaho’s buildings. Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to
design for passive strategies including stack and cross-ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

20

doing so. The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to manage in Idaho due to the health
impacts of wildfire smoke, which can infiltrate a leaky building. The main takeaway is to design buildings that
deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:

Date: 09/14/23

Location: EF2 – Meridian, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer: 5 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 2
Total (In-Person): 7
2.11 SESSION 11: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS (09/27/2023)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers
Description: This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the
efficiency of daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building, such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and
material specification. Furthermore, we will explore the rate of return, the ranges of efficiency, and appropriate
uses between daylighting strategies and multipliers.
Presentation Info:

Date: 09/27/23

Location: AF3 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 5 Electrician:

Engineer: 1 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 6

2.12 SESSION 12: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(1 0/04/2023)
Title: The Architect's Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

21

Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models and
simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect with an iterative
process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore
the value-add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.

Presentation Info:

Date: 10/04/23

Location: AF3 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 5 Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 5

2.13 SESSION 13: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (10/11/2023)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description: Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten
years and at least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand. This
session will cover a variety of issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom
environment. A quick look at the state of the last 50 years of school design will give an introduction to the
problems faced by designers. This session will highlight several case studies of high performance schools in
the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical systems. Each passive
strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.

Presentation Info:

Date: 10/11/23

Location: AF4 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect: 4 Electrician:

Engineer: 1 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 1
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

22

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 6
*Other included: Project manager.

2.14 SESSION 14: HVAC LOAD CALCULATIONS – TIPS & TRICKS (10/12/2023)
Title: HVAC Load Calculations – Tips & Tricks
Description: Load calculations are one of the key logistics to designing a high performing building. But, how
does one capture the nuance of today’s post-covid hybrid office environments? What about conference rooms
that are full in the mornings, but empty in the afternoons? For those in the Treasure Valley, ASHRAE’s design
temperatures have changed – we have hotter summers and milder winters than 20 years ago. The IDL will
share updated weather data sources and several load calculation tools freely available to engineers.
Participants will learn the distinction between ASHRAE’s different load calculation methods – (90.1 vs 183).
The lecture will cover how to use energy modeling tools to predict loads in different scenarios and apply
ASHRAE 55’s thermal comfort standard during the design process. Practitioners will be able to use these tools
to add dynamic loads to their designs and conduct robust post-occupancy evaluations to ensure energy
efficient operation and client satisfaction.

Presentation Info:

Date: 10/12/23

Location: EF2 – Meridian, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer: 8 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 1
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 9
*Other included: Designer.

2.15 SESSION 15: ASHRAE STANDARD 209 ENERGY MODELING (11 /17 /2023)
Title: ASHRAE Standard 209 Energy Modeling
Description: Learn about ASHRAE’s recommendations for energy simulation aided design. This lecture will
cover methods of integrating modeling into the design process to meet aggressive energy savings targets.
Learn how to implement load-reducing modeling cycles early in the design process. Quantify the energy impact
of design decisions in real time. And, use post-occupancy modeling to enhance building performance. Whether
trying to achieve LEED, tax credits, or efficiency incentives, energy modeling can help improve the bottom line
for both designers and clients.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

23

Presentation Info:

Date: 11/17/23

Location: EF3 – Nampa, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer: 1 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 5
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 7
Total (In-Person): 6
Total (Online): 7
*Other included: Estimator, Division Manager (x3), Designer.

2.16 SESSION 16: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (11/28/2023)
Title: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings
according to a 2021 study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort
and energy costs in Idaho’s buildings. Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to
design for passive strategies including stack and cross-ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of
doing so. The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to manage in Idaho due to the health
impacts of wildfire smoke, which can infiltrate a leaky building. The main takeaway is to design buildings that
deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.

Presentation Info:

Date: 11/28/23

Location: AF5 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect: 4 Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 4
Total (In-Person): 8

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

24

2.17 SESSION 17: HIGH PERFORMANCE CL ASSROOMS (11 /29 /2023)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description: Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten
years and at least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand. This
session will cover a variety of issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom
environment. A quick look at the state of the last 50 years of school design will give an introduction to the
problems faced by designers. This session will highlight several case studies of high performance schools in
the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical systems. Each passive
strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.

Presentation Info:

Date: 11/29/23

Location: SO1 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect: 6 Electrician:

Engineer: 3 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 3
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 12
*Other included: Project manager (x3).

2.18 SESSION 18: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(12/06/2023)
Title: The Architect's Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models and
simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to
increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore the value-
add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.

Presentation Info:

Date: 12/06/23

Location: SO1 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

25

Attendance:

Architect: 5 Electrician:

Engineer: 2 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 1
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 2
Total (In-Person): 10
*Other included: Interior designer.

2.19 SESSION 19: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (12 /12/2023)
Title: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings
according to a 2021 study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort
and energy costs in Idaho’s buildings. Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to
design for passive strategies including stack and cross-ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of
doing so. The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to manage in Idaho due to the health
impacts of wildfire smoke, which can infiltrate a leaky building. The main takeaway is to design buildings that
deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.

Presentation Info:

Date: 12/12/23

Location: AF6 – Meridian, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect: 5 Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 2
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 7
*Other included: Project manager (x2).

2.20 SESSION 20: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSI NESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(12 /14 /2023)
Title: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models and
simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

26

increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore the value-
add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.

Presentation Info:

Date: 12/14/23

Location: AF4 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 5 Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 5

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

27

3. FUTURE WORK
Feedback was gathered from the 119 Lunch and Learn evaluations received throughout 2023. The
comments from these were valuable in defining possible future Lunch and Learn topics. The IDL will propose
new topics for lectures based on this feedback for 2024.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

28

4. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SESSION SUMMARIES
At the conclusion of each lunch and learn session, an evaluation form was requested from each
participant. The feedback will be used to improve future sessions. Below are summaries of session
information, attendance counts, and the feedback received from the evaluation forms. It should be noted that
comments recorded from evaluations have not been edited in most cases, many appear exactly how the
participant entered them online or how they were interpreted for translation from hand-written forms.
4.1.1 SESSION 1: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(04/20/2023)
Title: The Architect's Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models and
simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect with an iterative
process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore
the value-add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:

Date: 04/20/23

Location: AO1 – Pocatello, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 2 Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer: Other:

Elec. Engineer: None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 2
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

29

Evaluations:
Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 5.0 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• N/A
• Dylan did an excellent job, no changes.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Good share of knowledge to what we can be doing.
• Opportunity for discussion on energy modeling.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA (x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Any by IDL.
4.1.2 SESSION 2: LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS (05/25/2023)
Title: The Future of Lighting Controls
Description: LLLCs have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled
remotely or on a case-by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or
illumination levels without replacing the fixtures. In conventional lighting systems, lighting zones are defined as
a collective unit and thus are centrally controlled. LLLCs however, incorporate sensors into each fixture, such
as occupancy, daylight, temperature or receive/broadcast signals. Each fixture has the potential to become a
semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to small changes in the area under each fixture.
Furthermore, individual fixtures can communicate with other fixtures, using wireless or infrared signals, to
share data for an even greater potential to increase energy savings and user satisfaction. Some LLLCs can be
connected by gateway to transfer information collected. This data is analyzed, usually through the
manufacturer’s software, to provide a user interface different from a typical text editor. From there users are
able to identify trends in occupancy and lighting energy consumption that can then be used to refine the
building schedules for occupancy and lighting and, if applicable, for the buildings’ HVAC schedule
programming.

Presentation Info:

Date: 05/25/23

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

30

Location: OS1 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 4
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 5

*Other included: Property director, property manager, manager, Boise electric.
Evaluations: Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 5.0 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 4.0 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Excellent Job.
• None.
• Everything was good.
What attendees found most valuable:
• New technology.
• Most advance info.
• Everything.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• Orchard Commons LLC (x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.

4.1.3 SESSION 3: FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (05/31/2023)
Title: Future of Lighting Controls
Description: Although LEDs have shown, they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower
lighting power density is not the only area of value when considering lighting. We can further increase savings
from these highly efficient lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

31

create an evolving feedback loop that seeks peak system operation. While LLLC’s (Luminaire Level Lighting
Control) use this feature, they still use the same infrastructure as the lighting and control system that have
come before it, which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and integration to other building
systems. We believe the internet of things (IoT) will change the lighting and controls industry, providing an
excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform. Why? Where there are people, there are lights;
where there are people, there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls
provide a means to deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.

Presentation Info:

Date: 05/31/23

Location: EF1 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer: 1 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 8
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 9

*Other included: Electrical designer (x8).

Evaluations: No evaluations were collected for this webinar. Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.6 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.3 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Interactive lecture style.
• Perhaps work on the flow of speech.
• Read off slides less/less text on slides.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Human algorithms – dynamic data harvesting.
• Knowing where the future of lighting is headed, I had no idea.
• It was very interesting to learn about this new technology.
• POE/IOL.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

32

• No comments were made.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• User interface options.
• Residential applications of PoE/IoL.

4.1.4 SESSION 4: HVAC LOAD CALCULATIONS – TIPS & TRICKS (06/14/2023)
Title: HVAC Load Calculations – Tips & Tricks
Description: Load calculations are one of the key logistics to designing a high performing building. But, how
does one capture the nuance of today’s post-covid hybrid office environments? What about conference rooms
that are full in the mornings, but empty in the afternoons? For those in the Treasure Valley, ASHRAE’s design
temperatures have changed – we have hotter summers and milder winters than 20 years ago. The IDL will
share updated weather data sources and several load calculation tools freely available to engineers.
Participants will learn the distinction between ASHRAE’s different load calculation methods – (90.1 vs 183).
The lecture will cover how to use energy modeling tools to predict loads in different scenarios and apply
ASHRAE 55’s thermal comfort standard during the design process. Practitioners will be able to use these tools
to add dynamic loads to their designs and conduct robust post-occupancy evaluations to ensure energy
efficient operation and client satisfaction.

Presentation Info:

Date: 06/14/23

Location: EF1 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer: 7 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 3
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 11
*Other included: Drafter (x3)
Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.3 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

33

The content of the presentation was: 3.2 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Short example of a service.
• Provide live demonstration of other calculation tools.
• More project examples.
• Speak a bit louder, eh!
What attendees found most valuable:
• The ability to use the IDL’s resources.
• The IDL tool repository.
• The tools the IDL has available.
• The resources and tools that are available for load calculations.
• Lot of valuable references.
• Notification of design tools.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• ASHRAE (x3), ASME, NSPE, ASPE.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Heatpump water heaters.
• Load calcs variation for very cold climates.
• More detailed information concerning building modeling.

4.1.5 SESSION 5: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(06/20/2023)
Title: The Architect's Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models and
simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect with an iterative
process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore
the value-add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.

Presentation Info:

Date: 06/20/23

Location: AF1 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 6 Electrician:

Engineer: 2 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

34

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 8

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 5.0 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• No comments were made.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• No comments were made.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• What different energy modeling software is available with pros and cons of each levels 1,2,3.

4.1.6 SESSION 6: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS (07/19/2023)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers
Description: This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the
efficiency of daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building, such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and
material specification. Furthermore, we will explore the rate of return, the ranges of efficiency, and appropriate
uses between daylighting strategies and multipliers.

Presentation Info:

Date: 07/19/23

Location: AF2 - Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 12 Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other: 6
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

35

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 18

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.3 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.4 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced

Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Great Job!
• Touch-in on some basic definitions occasionally as reference.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Great refresher on things I learned in school.
• Explanation of which aspects of daylight are most useful and what to focus on + when.
• Demonstration of principles and strategies in-use.
• Calculation daylight, daylight strategies.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA, NCARB.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Passive vs mechanical design strategies.

4.1.7 SESSION 7: LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS (08/30/2023)
Title: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
Description: LLLCs have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled
remotely or on a case-by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or
illumination levels without replacing the fixtures. In conventional lighting systems, lighting zones are defined as
a collective unit and thus are centrally controlled. LLLCs however, incorporate sensors into each fixture, such
as occupancy, daylight, temperature or receive/broadcast signals. Each fixture has the potential to become a
semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to small changes in the area under each fixture.
Furthermore, individual fixtures can communicate with other fixtures, using wireless or infrared signals, to
share data for an even greater potential to increase energy savings and user satisfaction. Some LLLCs can be
connected by gateway to transfer information collected. This data is analyzed, usually through manufacturer’s
software, to provide a user interface different from a typical text editor. From there users are able to identify
trends in occupancy and lighting energy consumption that can then be used to refine the building schedules
for occupancy and lighting and, if applicable, for the buildings’ HVAC schedule programming.

Presentation Info:

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

36

Date: 08/30/23

Location: EF1 - Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer: 1 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 7
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 8

*Other included: Electrical designer (x7).
Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.4 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.3 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Volume was quiet low at times.
• Speak louder.
• Soft suggestion to offer a recording of presentation or just do a TED talk, would be interesting.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Economic benefits and graphs.
• What makes a smart building, market application plus savings % of LLLC vs w/o LLLC.
• Data and statistics of the actual functionality.
• Visual aids.
• Less regarding LLLC capabilities.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• No comments were made.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.

4.1.8 SESSION 8: ASHRAE STANDARD 209 ENERGY MODELING (08/31/2023)
Title: ASHRAE Standard 209 Energy Modeling
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

37

Description: Learn about ASHRAE’s recommendations for energy simulation aided design. This lecture will
cover methods of integrating modeling into the design process to meet aggressive energy savings targets.
Learn how to implement load-reducing modeling cycles early in the design process. Quantify the energy impact
of design decisions in real time. And, use post-occupancy modeling to enhance building performance. Whether
trying to achieve LEED, tax credits, or efficiency incentives, energy modeling can help improve the bottom line
for both designers and clients.

Presentation Info:

Date: 08/31/23

Location: AF1 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 12 Electrician:

Engineer: 1 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 13

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 5.0 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.6 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• More real world project examples.
• Passing around the 5 page resource tool would be nice for people to see while presenting.
• Great pace, seemed very comfortable in the content.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Up to date information.
• Presentation was well organized and enjoyed video.
• Attending to be more aware.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA (x2), LEED, NCARB.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

38

4.1.9 SESSION 9: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (09/13/2023)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description: Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten
years and at least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand. This
session will cover a variety of issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom
environment. A quick look at the state of the last 50 years of school design will give an introduction to the
problems faced by designers. This session will highlight several case studies of high performance schools in
the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical systems. Each passive
strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.

Presentation Info:

Date: 09/13/23

Location: AF2 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 8 Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 2
Total (In-Person): 10
Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.4 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.1 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Broaden to other project types.
• Love the ay case studies keep them current as new schools continue to be built with new
technology.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Metrics to communicate benefits of better design to clients.
• Discussion on thermal comfort.
• Studies defining the need for ventilation, daylight, etc…
• “the why?” I think that made the presentation a lot better.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

39

• The data from local classrooms.
• Fact sheets that we can use w/ our clients.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA (x4), NCARB.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Measuring acoustic levels.
• Specific daylighting strategy dealing w/glare.
• Alternative building methods, workshops, photovoltaics.
• Any, love what you offer to our community.

4.1.10 SESSION 10: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (09/14/2023)
Title: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings
according to a 2021 study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort
and energy costs in Idaho’s buildings. Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to
design for passive strategies including stack and cross-ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of
doing so. The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to manage in Idaho due to the health
impacts of wildfire smoke, which can infiltrate a leaky building. The main takeaway is to design buildings that
deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.

Presentation Info:

Date: 09/14/23

Location: EF2 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer: 5 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 2
Total (In-Person): 7

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.5 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

40

Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Mostly was about the fact. Would like more on what an engineer could do.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Conuersian and software.
• It was nice to see a scientific data collection approach on how to design.
• Graphics and visuals.
• Good info, very relevant, well presented.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• ASHRAE
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.

4.1.11 SESSION 11: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS (09/27/2023)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers
Description: This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the
efficiency of daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building, such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and
material specification. Furthermore, we will explore the rate of return, the ranges of efficiency, and appropriate
uses between daylighting strategies and multipliers.

Presentation Info:

Date: 09/27/23

Location: AF3 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 5 Electrician:

Engineer: 1 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 6

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.2 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.2 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

41

The content of the presentation was: 3.4 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Graphs.
• Optimizing design with daylighting.
• Too much.
• Data heavy but a good thing.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA (x2), USGBC, NCARB
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Using software that is seamless with Archicad.
• HVAC, VRF Energy Efficiency.

4.1.12 SESSION 12: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(10/04/2023)
Title: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models and
simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect with an iterative
process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore
the value-add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.

Presentation Info:

Date: 10/04/23

Location: AF3 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 5 Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 5
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

42

Evaluations: No evaluation were handed out

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.4 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.4 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Good content, could ‘dumb’ down some of the tech terms.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Good graphs/graphics and examples.
• How exactly I involve energy modeling into my workflow.
• The fact that you remembered that we use ArchiCad and related part of the presentation towards the software.
• Energy analysis simulator software and knowledge.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA, NCARB (x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• HVAC and Daylighting.
• Mechanical equipment selection.

4.1.13 SESSION 13: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (10/11/2023)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description: Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten
years and at least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand. This
session will cover a variety of issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom
environment. A quick look at the state of the last 50 years of school design will give an introduction to the
problems faced by designers. This session will highlight several case studies of high performance schools in
the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical systems. Each passive
strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
Presentation Info:

Date: 10/11/23

Location: AF4 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 4 Electrician:

Engineer: 1 Contractor:

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

43

Mech. Engineer:

*Other: 1
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 6

*Other included: Project manager.
Evaluations: No evaluations were handed out

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.5 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.2 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 3.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.2 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.2 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• None. It was great!
• Opportunities for interactive questions, more case students.
• Example slides of solvtrons/recommendations.
• Nope – good to go.
What attendees found most valuable:
• The local school examples and researched/study results.
• Metrics for measuring data within classrooms.
• Breakdown.
• Classroom ventilation discussion and glazing option.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA (x4)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Daylighting.
• More mechanical and HVAC building solutions for new renovation projects.
• Ventilation solutions.

4.1.14 SESSION 14: HVAC LOAD CALCULATIONS – TIPS & TRICKS (10/12/2023)
Title: HVAC Load Calculations – Tips & Tricks
Description: Load calculations are one of the key logistics to designing a high performing building. But, how
does one capture the nuance of today’s post-covid hybrid office environments? What about conference rooms
that are full in the mornings, but empty in the afternoons? For those in the Treasure Valley, ASHRAE’s design
temperatures have changed – we have hotter summers and milder winters than 20 years ago. The IDL will
share updated weather data sources and several load calculation tools freely available to engineers.
Participants will learn the distinction between ASHRAE’s different load calculation methods – (90.1 vs 183).
The lecture will cover how to use energy modeling tools to predict loads in different scenarios and apply
ASHRAE 55’s thermal comfort standard during the design process. Practitioners will be able to use these tools
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

44

to add dynamic loads to their designs and conduct robust post-occupancy evaluations to ensure energy
efficient operation and client satisfaction.

Presentation Info:

Date: 10/12/23

Location: EF2 – Meridian, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer: 8 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 9

*Other included: Designer
Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.8 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.3 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• How to better assume loads for buildings.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• No comments were made.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.

4.1.15 SESSION 15 : ASHRAE STANDARD 209 ENERGY MODELING (11/17/2023)
Title: ASHRAE Standard 209 Energy Modeling
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

45

Description: Learn about ASHRAE’s recommendations for energy simulation aided design. This lecture will
cover methods of integrating modeling into the design process to meet aggressive energy savings targets.
Learn how to implement load-reducing modeling cycles early in the design process. Quantify the energy impact
of design decisions in real time. And, use post-occupancy modeling to enhance building performance. Whether
trying to achieve LEED, tax credits, or efficiency incentives, energy modeling can help improve the bottom line
for both designers and clients.

Presentation Info:

Date: 11/17/23

Location: EF3 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect:

Electrician:

Engineer: 1 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer: *Other: 5
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 7
Total (In-Person): 6

Total (Online): 7
*Other included: Estimator, Division Manager (x3), Designer.
Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.8 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.4 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• N/A
What attendees found most valuable:
• Additional resources were provided.
• Potential resources for energy modeling.
• How to define and display the data.
• Energy modeling resource information.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

46

• NCARB.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.

4.1.16 SESSION 16 : AIR INFILTRATI ON AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (11 /28 /2023)
Title: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings
according to a 2021 study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort
and energy costs in Idaho’s buildings. Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to
design for passive strategies including stack and cross-ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of
doing so. The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to manage in Idaho due to the health
impacts of wildfire smoke, which can infiltrate a leaky building. The main takeaway is to design buildings that
deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.

Presentation Info:

Date: 11/28/23

Location: AF5 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect: 4 Electrician:

Engineer: Contractor:

Mech. Engineer: Other:

Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 4
Total (In-Person): 8

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.5 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.5 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• More picture, more demonstration of programs.
• Display a model or example implementation.
• Great job!
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

47

What attendees found most valuable:
• Explanation of tools.
• Implementation of local laws and regulations.
• Intro to online tools.
• Available tools, clarify of material.
• Use of online tools.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA (x3), USGBC.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Passive systems, low cost energy options.

4.1.17 SESSION 17 : HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (11 /29 /2023)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description: Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten
years and at least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand. This
session will cover a variety of issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom
environment. A quick look at the state of the last 50 years of school design will give an introduction to the
problems faced by designers. This session will highlight several case studies of high performance schools in
the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical systems. Each passive
strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.

Presentation Info:

Date: 11/29/23

Location: SO1 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect: 6 Electrician:

Engineer: 3 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer: *Other: 3
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 12

*Other included: Project manager (x3).
Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.7 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

48

Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.7 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• N/A
• Good presentation.
• Did a great job!
• When addressing light in classrooms, talk to best color temps for optimal learning.
• Very professional and informative.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Data and solutions.
• Interesting in what k-12 does but state higher education is different.
• Seeing the statistics – very general and easy to comprehend, retain.
• Everything.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• N/A
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Any for higher education or commercial building design.
• See this education study with higher ed. facilities or universities.
• Commissioning, review of different systems, priorities for tight budgets.

4.1.18 SESSION 18 : THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(12/06/2023)
Title: The Architect's Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models and
simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to
increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore the value-
add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.

Presentation Info:

Date: 12/06/23

Location: SO1 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

49

Attendance:

Architect: 5 Electrician:

Engineer: 2 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 2
Total (In-Person): 10

*Other included: Interior designer.
Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.7 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.9 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Excellent job fitting within time constraints.
• N/A
What attendees found most valuable:
• Design tools available.
• Process.
• Understanding moves and responsibilities between design professionals.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• No comments were made.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Other design aspects.

4.1.19 SESSION 19 : AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (12 /12/2023)
Title: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings
according to a 2021 study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort
and energy costs in Idaho’s buildings. Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to
design for passive strategies including stack and cross-ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of
doing so. The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to manage in Idaho due to the health
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

50

impacts of wildfire smoke, which can infiltrate a leaky building. The main takeaway is to design buildings that
deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.

Presentation Info:

Date: 12/12/23

Location: AF6 – Meridian, ID

Presenter: Damon Woods

Attendance:

Architect: 5 Electrician:

Engineer: Contractor:

Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 7

*Other included: Project manager (x2)
Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 3.7 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.2 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.3 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• More explanation of acronyms.
• None.
• None, thank you.
• The calculations were a bit difficult to understand. I appreciate that there is a calculator on your
website.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Tools available for loan.
• Examples and discussion about projects we are currently working on.
• Sharing of available resources.
• Making suggestions for available resources.
• Solutions, diagrams.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• IIDA, ICA, NCARB, AIA (x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

51

• Materials used for solutions and how to better on details for construction.

4.1.20 SESSION 20: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(12 /14 /2023)
Title: The Architect's Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models and
simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect with an iterative
process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore
the value-add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.

Presentation Info:

Date: 12/14/23

Location: AF4 – Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 5 Electrician:

Engineer: Contractor:

Mech. Engineer: Other:

Elec. Engineer: None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 5

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.3 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.8 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Intro/explanation of Autodesk insight.
• Insisut knowledge.
• N/A.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

52

What attendees found most valuable:
• Great presenter, useful info.
• Who models and how and why (LEED compliance, etc.).
• LEED Applicability.
• Overall.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA (x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

53

APPENDIX B: LUNCH AND LEARN 2023 TOPICS OFFERED
High Performance Classrooms (Topic 2001)
Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the
next ten years and at least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to
meet this demand. This session will cover a variety of issues facing the design of an
efficient, healthy, and productive classroom environment. A quick look at the state over the
last 50 years of school design will introduce the problems faced by designers. This session
will highlight several case studies of high-performance schools in the Northwest to address
daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical systems. Each passive
strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.

Ultraviolet Germicidal Air Irradiation (Topic 2203)
With the arrival of COVID, there has been a surge of interest in Ultra Violet Germicidal
Irradiation. During our research, the IDL found that UV systems can actually save on
operational costs by reducing fan energy. Attendees will learn about the different UV
technologies available, the strength needed to kill pathogens in air streams, and how to
minimize the energy used to run these systems. This lecture will draw from leading
researchers such as William Bahnfleth, who chaired ASHRAE’s Epidemic Task Force. By
installing UVGI systems in front of cooling coils, these can help prevent microbial growth and
ensure better airflow throughout the building. With building occupants increasingly mindful
of airborne contaminates, it’s important for architects and engineers to be aware of these
systems and how they can be integrated into a building.

Thermal Energy Storage Systems (Topic 2202)
Thermal Energy Storage Systems (TES) are gaining popularity as a way to mitigate peak
energy use. This lecture will explore the use of things like ice-storage and ponds to minimize
chiller and boiler use. This technology can be paired with ground-source heat pumps, radiant
systems, and natural ventilation. Idaho typically has large temperature swings between the
high and low temperatures (sometimes up to 30 F), which makes our state especially suited
to shifting when heating and cooling equipment should operate. By understanding more
about TES, engineers and architects alike can design unique configurations that can
increase efficiency and enhance resiliency in their buildings.

LED Technology’s Impact on Savings and Efficiency (Topic 2201)
We will examine the effect LED technology has had on energy savings, control strategies,
and future implications with continued efficient lighting technology. As lighting technology
becomes more efficient it will adjust codes, incentives from utilities, and energy efficiency
standards. More importantly, it will change the cost benefit analysis regarding lighting,
control strategies, and occupant comfort. The LED revolution for lighting is not done and, in
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

54

this lecture, we will discuss the current state of LEDs as well as the direction we are going
and what we might find when we arrive.

OPENSTUDIO – PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS TOOL (TOPIC 2002)
This session will cover the parametric analysis tool (PAT) within OpenStudio. PAT removes
the need to hand edit each model to try out different architectural design, energy efficiency
measures, or mechanical systems. Participants will learn the fundamental concepts of
measure writing for OpenStudio, simulation parameters, running a simulation with PAT, and
how firms can utilize this feature to inform early design decisions in regards to building
performance.

DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS – INCREASING DAYLIGHT HARVESTING EFFICIENCY (TOPIC 2003)
This session will cover the role that daylighting multipliers play when trying to increase the
efficiency of daylight harvesting in a building through design applications, such as, light
shelves, manufactured glazing, and material specification. Participants will learn about the
rate of return and energy efficiency cost effectiveness for daylighting strategies, building
form, location, and multipliers. The class will explain how the layers of daylighting/electric
lighting strategies and control systems and how they add or subtract to the overall efficiency
of the design.

FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (TOPIC 1901)
Although LEDs have shown, they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm;
lower lighting power density is not the only area of value when considering lighting. We can
further increase savings from these highly efficient lighting systems by introducing control
systems that collect data and user input to create an evolving feedback loop that seeks
peak system operation. While LLLC’s (Luminaire Level Lighting Control) use this feature,
they still use the same infrastructure as the lighting and control system that have come
before it, which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and integration to
other building systems. We believe the internet of things (IoT) will change the lighting and
controls industry, providing an excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT
platform. Why? Where there are people, there are lights; where there are people, there will
also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls provide a means to
deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.

THE ARCHITECTS’ BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING (TOPIC 1902)
Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more
models and simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands
when and how to support the process and how to utilize the output. A building energy
model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness
of energy systems within a building. This session will explore the value-add of energy
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

55

modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in advocation for energy performance modeling.

Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (LLLCs) (Topic 1904)
LLLCs have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled
remotely or on a case-by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming
criteria or illumination levels without replacing the fixtures. In conventional lighting systems,
lighting zones are defined as a collective unit and thus are centrally controlled. LLLCs
however, incorporate sensors into each fixture, such as occupancy, daylight, temperature or
receive/broadcast signals. Each fixture has the potential to become a semi-autonomous
zone that is capable of responding to small changes in the area under each fixture.
Furthermore, individual fixtures can communicate with other fixtures, using wireless or
infrared signals, to share data for an even greater potential to increase energy savings and
user satisfaction. Some LLLCs can be connected by gateway to transfer information
collected. This data is analyzed, usually through manufacturer’s software, to provide a user
interface different from a typical text editor. From there users are able to identify trends in
occupancy and lighting energy consumption that can then be used to refine the building
schedules for occupancy and lighting and, if applicable, for the buildings’ HVAC schedule
programming.

LEED V4.1 DAYLIGHTING CREDITS (TOPIC 2101)
LEED Daylighting credits are one of the most difficult to achieve and requires an early
investment for validation. However, investigating daylight opportunities for a project will
assist in other aspects of energy efficiency, such as, estimating heating and cooling loads or
integrating a building’s control systems. As such, any time spent in the early design phase
investigating if a project should invest in daylighting is applicable to facets of energy efficient
design that is often required for LEED projects. In this lecture we will discuss the changes
from LEED V4 to V4.1 Daylighting Credits, which options work best for project types,
incorporating early energy/simulation modeling into the design process, and how to run a
cost-benefit analysis to determine if you should invest in daylighting.

ASHRAE STANDARD 209 – ENERGY SIMULATION-AIDED DESIGN (TOPIC 2102)
Learn about ASHRAE’s recommendations for energy simulation aided design. This lecture
will cover methods of integrating modeling into the design process to meet aggressive
energy savings targets. Learn how to implement load-reducing modeling cycles early in the
design process. Quantify the energy impact of design decisions in real time. And, use post-
occupancy modeling to enhance building performance. Whether trying to achieve LEED, tax
credits, or efficiency incentives, energy modeling can help improve the bottom line for both
designers and clients.

HVAC LOAD CALCULATIONS – TIPS & TRICKS (TOPIC 2302)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

56

The best equipment can still run terribly if it’s not controlled well – like a sports car in the
hands of a clueless driver. Don’t let that happen to your design. Get the latest guidelines on
sequences of operation for common HVAC sequences. Take advantage of Idaho Power’s
incentives on HVAC energy management controls. Get a refresher proper start-up and shut
down sequences for air handling units including VAVs, rooftop units, and heat pumps.
Ensure that controls are in compliance with indoor air quality standards for ASHRAE 62.1
compliance and COVID mitigation. Participants will learn functional tests they can perform
that can confirm that proper sequences are in place.

AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (TOPIC 2301)
The best equipment can still run terribly if it’s not controlled well – like a sports car in the
hands of a clueless driver. Don’t let that happen to your design. Get the latest guidelines on
sequences of operation for common HVAC sequences. Take advantage of Idaho Power’s
incentives on HVAC energy management controls. Get a refresher proper start-up and shut
down sequences for air handling units including VAVs, rooftop units, and heat pumps.
Ensure that controls are in compliance with indoor air quality standards for ASHRAE 62.1
compliance and COVID mitigation. Participants will learn functional tests they can perform
that can confirm that proper sequences are in place.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Report Number: 2023_003-01

2023 TASK 3: BSUG
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 26, 2023

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Dylan Agnes

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

This page left intentionally blank.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E Front Street, Suite #360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu

IDL Director:
Damon Woods

Author:
Dylan Agnes

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
IPC KIT #8112

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2023). 2023 TASK 3:
BSUG – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (2023_003-01).
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate,
the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as
design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The
user of this report, or any information contained in this report,
should independently evaluate any information, advice, or
direction provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS,
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF THE UNIVERSITY
FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’
AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES
OR COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE
UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR
OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR
(PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

This page left intentionally blank.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 1
1. Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 2
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
3. 2023 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 3
2023 Attendance ......................................................................................................................... 4
2023 Evaluations ......................................................................................................................... 5
4. Session Summaries ..................................................................................................................... 6
Session 1: Semhub Energy Management Tool and Resources (3/29/23) ................................... 6
Session 2: Eliminating the two week turn around by using Pollination (04/26/23) ................... 6
Session 3: High Performance Warehouse Design (05/24/23) .................................................... 7
Session 4: Using the ERL to Benchmark Buildings (08/23/23) .................................................... 8
Session 5: Controls Panel Discussion – ASHRAE Panel (09/20/23) ............................................. 8
Session 6: CBECS 2018 – Idaho Power Climate Region (10/25/23) ............................................ 9
5. Website Maintenance and Statistics ........................................................................................ 11
6. Other Activities and Suggestions for Future Improvements .................................................... 11
7. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 13
Appendix A: BSUG 2023 Evaluations ......................................................................................... 13

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
1. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
App Application
ARUP London based multi-discipline firm
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BCVTP Building Controls Virtual Test-Bed
BEMP Building Energy Modeling Professional
BESF Building Energy Simulation Forum (Energy Trust of Oregon)
BIM Building Information Modeling
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
BSME Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
BSUG Building Simulation Users’ Group
CBECS Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
Comm Commercial
Elec. Electrical
HePESC Heat Pump Energy Savings Calculator
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBPSA International Building Performance Simulation Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
LLLC Luminaire Level Lighting Control
M. Arch Masters of Architecture
ME Mechanical Engineer(ing)
Mech. Mechanical
MEP Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing
MS Arch Masters of Science Architecture
NCARB National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
RDA Revit Daylighting Analysis
TMY Typical Meteorological Year
UDC Urban Design Center
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2. INTRODUCTION
The 2023 Idaho Power scope of work for the Building Simulation Users’ Group (BSUG) task included planning, organization
and hosting of six meetings, recording attendance and evaluations, archiving video of the presentations, and maintaining the BSUG
2.0 on the IDL website which can be found here: (http://www.idlboise.com/content/bsug-20).
3. 2023 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
In 2023, six sessions were coordinated and hosted. Sessions are summarized below with details in the following sections.
Table 1: Overall Summary of Sessions
Presenter
Company
RSVPs Attendees
Date Title Presenter In-person Online In-person Online
03/29 Semhub Energy Management Tool & Resources Josh Pellham NEEA 8 30 9 10
04/26 Eliminating the two week turn around by using
Pollination Mostapha Roudsai Ladybug 4 103 3 35
05/24 High Performance Warehouse Davind & Simran SSOE 11 20 11 5
08/23 Using the Erl to Benchmark Buildings Dylan Agnes IDL 5 17 5 10
09/20 Controls Panel Discussion Panel ASHRAE - - 42 12
10/25 CBECS 2018 – Idaho Power Climate Region Dylan Agnes IDL 10 19 8 5
38 189 78 77
227 155
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2023 Attendance

Figure 1: Attendee Count by Session and Type

Table 2: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 13 Electrician: 0
Engineer: 71 Contractor: 1
Mech. Engineer: 8 Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: 0 None Specified: 60
Total (In-Person): 78
Total (Online): 77
Total (Combined): 155

9
3
11
5
42
8
10
35
5
10
12
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Semhub Energy Management Tool and Resources
Eliminating the two week turn around by using Pollination
High Performance Warehouse Design
Using the ERL to Benchmark Buildings
Controls Panel Discussion - ASHRAE
CBECS 2018 - Idaho Power Climate Region
Number of Attendees In-Person Online

Figure 2: Attendee Profession Breakdown

Figure 3: Attendee Type Breakdown
Arch
8%
Engineer
46%
Mechanical
Engineer
5%
Contractor
1%
Other
1%
None
Specified
39%
Total
(In-
Person)
50%
Total
(Online)
50%
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2023 Evaluations

Figure 4: Average Evaluations by Session

Figure 5: Average Evaluation Scores for All Sessions
0
1
2
3
4
5
Semhub Energy Management
Tool and Resources
Eliminating the two week
turn around by using
Pollination
High Performance
Warehouse Design
Using the ERL to Benchmark
Buildings
Controls Panel Discussion -
ASHRAE
CBECS 2018 - Idaho Power
Climate Region
In general, today's presentation was:Rate organization:Rate clarity:
Rate opportunity for questions:Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter:Rate delivery of presentation:
3.94 4.40 4.29 4.72 4.68 4.44
3.33
0
1
2
3
4
5
In general, today's
presentation was:
Rate organization:Rate clarity:Rate opportunity for
questions:
Rate instructor's
knowledge of the
subject matter:
Rate delivery of
presentation:
The content of the
presentation was:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
4. SESSION SUMMARIES
Session 1: Semhub Energy Management Tool and Resources (3/29/23)
Title: Semhub Energy Management Tool and Resources
Date: 03/29/23
Description: During this session, program managers for NEEA’s BetterBricks and Strategic Energy
Management (SEM) programs will provide insight into the commercial building case studies, white
papers, and other resources available on betterbricks.com. The session will also include an overview and
live demonstration of the alliance’s Energy Management Assessment tool and insight into upcoming
plans for its use in the market.
Presenter: Josh Pellham

Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 8 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 10
Total (In-Person): 9
Total (Online): 10
*If 'Other' was noted: Energy Modeler

Session 2: Eliminating the two week turn around by using Pollination (04/26/23)
Title: Decarbonized Building and District Energy Systems
Date: 04/26/23
Description: Has the quality of your project ever suffered because you didn’t have the right information
at the time you had to make a decision? Have you ever had an energy modeling consultant send you a
report two weeks after you gave them design documents and all you can say is “great but the design is
completely different now?”. Have you been that consultant? If so, you are not alone and you’re just
experiencing an issue that persistently plagues today’s building industry.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
In this presentation, Mostapha will examine the root causes of the “two-week turnaround” problem
starting from the biggest reasons why environmental building performance modeling takes so long and
moving down the list of challenges that make collaboration over building simulation difficult. He will
show how workflows with the Pollination CAD plugins and cloud platform can mitigate these challenges
and ultimately eliminate the two-week turnaround altogether.
Presenter: Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari
Attendance:
Session 3: High Performance Warehouse Design (05/24/23)
Title: High Performance Warehouse Design
Date: 05/24/23
Description: This 1-hour presentation provides a brief overview of a LEED Platinum Net-Zero Energy
Warehouse designed for the National Institute of Health in North Carolina and certified (v2009) in
October 2018. Using current analysis and simulation tools, David will look to validate the project’s
design decisions to reduce energy use, and Simran will demonstrate how performing a Lifecyle
Assessment (LCA) can be used to balance embodied carbon, cost, and performance targets on projects.
As a retrospective on a project designed over 5 years ago, David and Simran will summarize whether the
analysis suggests design improvements that would be beneficial to implement if designed today.
Presenter: Simran Bajaj & David Johnson
Attendance:
Architect: 7 Electrician:
Engineer: 4 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 5
Total (In-Person): 11
Total (Online): 5
*If 'Other' was noted:
Architect: 4 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 8 *Other: 8
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 18
Total (In-Person): 3
Total (Online): 35

*If 'Other' was
noted:
Energy modeler, PhD student, Principal, VP, Building performance,
Designer, Professor (x2)

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8

Session 4: Using the ERL to Benchmark Buildings (08/23/23)
Title: Using the ERL to Benchmark Buildings
Date: 08/23/23
Description: Benchmarking is a method for measuring a building’s energy efficiency by comparing its
energy use to other buildings with similar functions (commercial office, school, warehouse, etc…).
Benchmarking allows owners to take a snapshot of how their building is currently performing regarding
energy consumption and then compare the performance to other buildings to infer if improvements can
be made. However, not everyone knows where to start or the tools they will need to gather the
necessary data to calculate a building’s performance. The Integrated Design Lab has an Energy Resource
Library where hundreds of diagnostic tools are available for check-out to support your next energy
efficiency project. In this lecture we will be reviewing how to conduct a walk-through/audit using the
ERL and additional resources from ASHRAE.
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 4 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 10
Total (In-Person): 5
Total (Online): 10
*If 'Other' was noted:

Session 5: Controls Panel Discussion – ASHRAE Panel (09/20/23)
Title: Controls Panel Discussion - ASHRAE Panel
Date: 09/20/23
Description: Local HVAC controls engineers will share their insights on what makes for a successful and
streamlined project testing and turnover. They will discuss the opportunities and challenges with project
team communication, HVAC specifications and best practices, and other challenges. The discussion will
also include what trends in the controls industry are gaining traction and what other members on the
project team need to know as the technology evolves.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
Presenters: Wes Stanfield, Casey Crown, Edward Rebman
Attendance:

Architect: Electrician:

Engineer: 42 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer: *Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 12
Total (In-Person): 42
Total (Online): 12

*If 'Other' was noted:

Session 6: CBECS 2018 – Idaho Power Climate Region (10/25/23)
Title: CBECS 2018 – Idaho Power Climate Region
Date: 10/25/23
Description: Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company, the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab
(UI-IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how four different building types
consume energy on both a regional and national level. The data used to create them has been gathered
from The Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), which is a national-level sample
survey of commercial buildings and their energy suppliers conducted quadrennially by the Energy
Information Administration (EIA).
The survey collects key benchmark information on U.S. commercial buildings, their characteristics, and
how they consume energy. It is used by private and public stakeholders to track industry progress and
gain a high-level understanding of how similar buildings compare and inform policy decisions.
Architects and engineers can also use this information for goal setting and prioritizing energy efficiency
measures within the integrated design process for high performance projects. These infographics make
detailed consumption data per building type easily accessible to design teams without having to filter
the CBECS database themselves. Information from CBECS is reported on the EIA’s website in the form of
summary tables, which provide tabular breakdowns of high-level energy consumption statistics based
upon general building characteristics.
The information is also available as public use microdata spreadsheets that can be downloaded, filtered,
and organized with much more flexibility than the summary tables. These spreadsheets contain much
more detailed information from the building characteristics survey in its entirety and served as the
origin of information for this series of infographics.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10

This lecture will focus on the emerging trends from the 2018 survey as well as comparing and
contrasting trends identified in the 2012 survey. Specifically, the data examined from the 2012 and 2018
survey focuses on climate region 1 & 2, more commonly known as 6B & 5B ASHRAE climate zones.
Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:

Architect: 1 Electrician:

Engineer: 5 Contractor: 1
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 5
Total (In-Person): 8
Total (Online): 5

*If 'Other' was noted: Estimator

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11

5. WEBSITE MAINTENANCE AND STATISTICS
The Google site “BSUG 2.0” was retired in 2020 and has been integrated into the new
idlboise.com website. Each month, details about the upcoming presentations were posted to
the ‘EVENTS and NEWS’ pages. These pages also included links to both webinar and in-person
registration. Monthly emails linked to these pages as well as directly to the registration sites are
sent out to users subscribed to our mailing list. If the monthly session included a webinar
recording, the video was edited and posted to the YouTube channel with a link from the BSUG
2.0 video archive. The IDL developed a blog section within the BSUG content where we post on
past topics, emerging technologies, and simulation software workflows.
6. OTHER ACTIVITIES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
A round table meeting was held on December 7th, 2023, to provide feedback on topics
presented this year as well as suggestions for 2024 lecture topics. The feedback is summarized
below.
• Passive vs Mechanical Design Strategies: Identify what is passive and mechanical,
but also, why. How to use climate analysis to inform passive design.
• Heatpumps for cold climates: Types and conditions.
• HVAC, VRF Energy Efficiency: How to maximize technology and use parameters
in OpenStudio, Reheat, and the current stock curves are not reliable anymore.
(ASHRAE Joint Session)
• High Performance Building Envelope Design: Using software, TBD.
• Introduction to Parametric Modeling and Analysis using Grasshopper & Ladybug.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
• Performance modeling for early design process: Present fundamentals (pulling
from analysis to define variables) with a list of applicable software programs.
• Electrification in Cold Climates
• Embodied Carbon: Looking at different wall assemblies to understand
performance, but also, what the lower carbon swaps (products, etc.) are that
perform the same or better.
• OpenStudio Scripting: New version of OpenStudio will have python compatibility.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
7. APPENDICES
Appendix A: BSUG 2023 Evaluations
Summaries of evaluations for each of the 6 sessions are recorded below. It should be
noted that comments typically collected with evaluation are unavailable due to restriction from
the ZOOM platform.
Session 1 (03/29/23): Semhub Energy Management Tool and Resources
Presentation Info:

Date: 03/29/2023

Location: Boise, ID

Presenter: Josh Pellham – NEEA

Attendance:

Architect: Electrician:

Engineer: 8 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 10
Total (In-Person): 9
Total (Online): 10

*If 'Other' was noted: Energy modeler.
Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 3.4 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful

Rate organization: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate clarity: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

The content of the presentation was: 2.7 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• More detail on application would be helpful.
• More interaction with audience rather than just lecture.
• Show some before/after results plus case studies.
What attendees found most valuable:
• The available resources.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• ASHRAE (x2), ASME
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• Energy efficiency auditing tools.

Session 2 (04/26/23): Decarbonized Building and District Energy Systems
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/26/2023
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: Mostapha Roundsair – Ladybug

Attendance:
Architect: 4 Electrician:
Engineer: 8 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 8
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 18
Total (In-Person): 3
Total (Online): 35

*If 'Other' was noted: Energy modeler, PhD student, Principal, VP, Building performance,
Designer, Professor (x2)

Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.4 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 4.0
1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
Advanced

Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• No comments were made.
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• ASHRAE (x2), USGBC
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• No comments were made.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
Session 3 (05/24/23): High Performance Warehouse Design
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/24/2023
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: David and Simran – SSOE

Attendance:
Architect: 7 Electrician:
Engineer: 4 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 5
Total (In-Person): 11
Total (Online): 5 *If 'Other' was noted:
Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 3.5 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 3.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.5
1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
Advanced

Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• More pictures, less analysis – more best practices.
• Include some economic comparison information.
• Was expecting a little more on design strategy and whys of the design.
What attendees found most valuable:
• IMPs are better than precast.
• Interesting to see the technical tools available for calculations and comparison for efficiency.
• Materials for warehouse design that were useful for energy efficiency design.
• Software available to analyze design.
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• AIA (x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• More indepth presentation on specific aspects of sustainable and energy efficiency design.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
Session 4 (08/23/23): Using the ERL to Benchmark Buildings
Presentation Info:

Date: 08/23/2023

Location: Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes – IDL

Attendance:

Architect: 1 Electrician:

Engineer: 4 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

*Other:

Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 10
Total (In-Person): 5
Total (Online): 10

*If 'Other' was noted:

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 0.0 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful

Rate organization: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate clarity: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate opportunity for questions: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate delivery of presentation: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

The content of the presentation was: 0.0 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
Advanced
Comments: No evaluations were filled out.
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• No comments were made.
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• No comments were made.
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• No comments were made.

Session 5 (09/20/23): Controls Panel Discussion – ASHRAE Panel
Presentation Info:

Date: 09/20/2023

Location: The Creative Space

Presenters: Wes Stanfield, Casey Crown, Edward Rebman – ASHRAE Panel
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
Session 6 (10/25/23): CBECS 2018 – Idaho Power Climate Region
Presentation Info:

Date: 10/25/2023

Location: Boise, ID

Presenter: Dylan Agnes – IDL

Attendance:

Architect: 1 Electrician:

Engineer: 5 Contractor: 1
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified: 5
Total (In-Person): 8
Total (Online): 5

*If 'Other' was noted: Estimator
Attendance:

Architect: Electrician:

Engineer: 42 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer: *Other:

Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 12
Total (In-Person): 42
Total (Online): 12

*If 'Other' was noted:

Evaluations: No evaluations were collected

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 0.0 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful

Rate organization: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate clarity: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate opportunity for questions: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate delivery of presentation: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

The content of the presentation was: 0.0 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
Advanced
Comments: No evaluations were collected.
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• No comments were made.
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• No comments were made.
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• No comments were made.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 18

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.4 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful

Rate organization: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate clarity: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate opportunity for questions: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

Rate delivery of presentation: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

The content of the presentation was: 3.1 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced

Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Some of the numbers were not clear what they were representing.
• Good info, we understand your analysis isn’t quite done, but good info!
What attendees found most valuable:
• Resources available.
• Love splitting up CBECS into regional analysis.
• Tons of useful data!
• Info graphics.
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• ASHRAE (x2), AEE
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• Energy modeling.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Report Number: 2023_005-05

2023 TASK 5: ENERGY RESOURCE LIBRARY
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 16, 2023

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Dylan Agnes

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
ii

This page left intentionally blank.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
iii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E Front St. Suite 360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Damon Woods

Authors:
Dylan Agnes

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
IPC KIT #8112

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2023). 2023 TASK
5: Energy Resource Library – Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2023_005-05). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
iv

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed
for technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably
accurate, the findings are estimates and actual results may
vary. All energy savings and cost estimates included in the
report are for informational purposes only and are not to be
construed as design documents or as guarantees of energy or
cost savings. The user of this report, or any information
contained in this report, should independently evaluate any
information, advice, or direction provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS,
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS
ALL OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF
UNIVERSITY FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS’ AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF
THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF
SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE
INFORMATION, RESULT(S), PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND
PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER
ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER DISPOSITION
BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR (PROCESSES)
INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
v

This page left intentionally blank.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

vi

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 8
2. Marketing ................................................................................................................................... 9
3. New Tools & Tool Calibration Plan .......................................................................................... 12
4. 2023 Summary of Loans ........................................................................................................ 14
5. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 19

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

vii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AC Air Conditioning
AIA American Institute of Architects
AHU Air Handling Unit
Amp Ampere
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
BSU Boise State University
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CT Current Transducer
Cx Commissioning
DCV Demand Control Ventilation
EE Energy Efficiency
EEM(s) Energy Efficiency Measure(s)
fc Foot-Candle
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IAC Industrial Assessment Center
IBOA Intermountain Building Operators Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
Int. International
IPC Idaho Power Company
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt-Hour
M&V Measurement and Verification
OSA Outside Air
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PPM Parts Per Million
RPM Rotations Per Minute
RTU Rooftop Unit
ERL Energy Resource Library
TPS Third Party Service
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
Verif. Verification
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
3P Third Party

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

1. Introduction
The Energy Resource Library (ERL) is a resource supported by Idaho Power Company
(IPC) and managed by the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL). The ERL at the
UI-IDL is modeled after the Lending Library at the Pacific Energy Center, which is supported
by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E).
The primary goal of the ERL is to help customers with energy efficiency (EE) needs,
through the use of sensors and loggers deployed in buildings of various types. Loans are
provided to individuals or businesses at no charge to the customer. Over 900 individual
pieces of equipment are available for loan through the ERL. The equipment is focused on
measuring parameters to quantify key factors related to building and equipment energy use,
and factors which can affect worker productivity.
The loan process is started when a customer creates a user account. Then the user
has access to submit a resource questionnaire and fill out a form describing their intent and
project information. Customers can also add tools to their “cart” and complete a checkout
process if they don’t require the IDL assistance. When completing a resource questionnaire
or the checkout process, the customer includes basic background information, project and
data measurement requirements, and goals. When a request is submitted, UI-IDL staff
members are alerted of a request via email. The customer and a staff member
communicate to verify and finalize equipment needs. An approval email is sent, and tools
are picked up at the UI-IDL or shipped at the customer’s expense.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

2. Marketing
Marketing for the ERL was done at various UI-IDL and IPC activities throughout 2023,
as well as on the idlboise.com website. The flyer layout was retired during 2019 and
replaced with a brochure format. The brochure for the ERL, Figure 1 and 2, reflects the
changes to the ERL overall structure for checking out tools and new categories/organization.
In addition, a catalog was created that contains the full directory of tools available for check
out as well as information about other Idaho Power sponsored programs. It has been
distributed at various lectures so firms would have an on-hand reference for the ERL, but
also, has been made available as a pdf for download and viewing on the idlboise.com
website. You can find the catalog here: http://www.idlboise.com/content/erl-catalog-2020
The ERL was promoted in presentations given by the UI-IDL staff, including the Lunch
and Learn series and lectures to professional organizations such as the American Institute
of Architects (AIA), ASHRAE, and the City of Boise.
The ERL flyer and program slides direct potential users to the ERL website for more
information about the library. The main UI-IDL website hosts the ERL portal where customers
can submit a resource questionnaire for assistance or a request for specific tools, all online.
In 2023, the ERL home page had 5,220 visitors. Changes and progress on the ERL
homepage can be found in Appendix C. (http://www.idlboise.com/about-erl)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

F IGURE 1: ERL BROCHURE FRONT
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

Figure 2: ERL Brochure Back
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

3. New Tools & Tool Calibration Plan
In 2023, sixteen new tools were added to the ERL to replace old data logging models,
current transformers, and air quality sensors to fill gaps in tool kits, and add accessories for
kits.
Equipment in the tool loan program typically has a guaranteed calibration period
between 1 and 3 years from the manufacturer. While many items may remain within
recommended tolerances for years after the guaranteed calibration period ends, verifying
the item is properly calibrated after initial and subsequent periods is recommended.
Calibration services are available on most tools, sometimes from the manufacturer, and
from certified calibration services nationwide.
Third party (3P), certified tool calibration is ideal, but an extensive 3P calibration
program would be expensive. Based on research and pricing from quotes, formal calibration
would be cost prohibitive for much of the library tools. In several cases, cost of calibration
can exceed 30% or more of the item’s original cost. As a certified calibration is typically only
valid for 1-2 years, an alternative measurement and verification plan for most sensors and
loggers is recommended. The management of the ERL has been adapted to integrate the
measurement and verification method of calibration. However, a few exceptions to this must
be made on a case by case basis to allow for factory calibration of items that cannot be
compared or tested in any other way. An example of one item in this category would be the
Shortridge Digital Manometer or the Air-Data Multimeter which would have to be
recalibrated by the manufacturer.
The IDL performs the following to ensure items are within specified calibration
tolerances:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

1. Equipment is cross-checked against new equipment of the same type for
accuracy in a test situation where data is logged. The IDL cross-checks older
items against multiple newer items at the end of each calibration period (i.e.
every two years) to ensure readings are within specified tolerances.
2. Those items found to be out of tolerance will be assessed for factory re-
calibration or replacement.
Calibration tracking has been added to the inventory spreadsheet, which allows the
IDL to determine which items are due for calibration testing. Updates to calibration and
references to testing data is maintained in the inventory spreadsheet and has been
expanded to include tool use, quotes, and budget estimates.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

4. 2023 Summary of Loans
In 2023, loan requests totaled 30 with 29 loans completed, 1 loan is on-going. The
second and third quarters had the highest volume of loans at 9 total. Loans were made to 9
different locations and 14 unique users and 4 new ERL users. A wide range of tools were
borrowed, as listed in Figure 8. The majority of tools were borrowed for principal
investigations or audits, although loans were also made for determining baselines before
EEMs were implemented. Tools were borrowed to verify these EEMs as well.
Due to Covid-19 and the associated restrictions there was a decrease in loans over
the past two and a half years. Continuing into 2023, IDL devoted resources to marketing the
ERL to potential users in order to return to normal frequency of use. More details about the
ERL marketing strategy can be found in the 2023 scope of work. The cutoff date for the
report is December 15th, 2023. All loans made between December 15th to December 31st,
2023, will be reported at the kickoff meeting for 2024.
Table 1 and the following figures outline the usage analysis for ERL in 2023. The
cutoff date for the report is December 15th, 2023. All loans made between December 15th to
December 31st, 2023, will be reported at the kickoff meeting for 2024.
TABLE 1: PROJECT AND L OAN SUMMARY
Request Date Location Project Type of Loan
# of
Tools
Loaned
1 1/18/2023 Eagle ID Company 65 Post-Implementation 1
2 2/8/2023 Eagle ID Company 65 Post-Implementation 1
3 2/24/2023 Grangeville ID University 1 Identify EEMs 21
4 2/21/2023 Idaho City ID University 1 Identify EEMs 15
5 3/7/2023 Meridian ID Company 2 Identify EEMs 1
6 4/3/2023 Garden City ID Company 10 Post-Implementation 1
7 4/13/2023 Boise ID Company 134 Pre-Implementation 1
8 4/5/2023 Star ID Company 20 Identify EEMs 2
9 5/15/2023 McCall ID Company 2 Pre-Implementation 1
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

10 5/18/2023 Boise ID University 1 Identify EEMs 1
11 5/22/2023 Boise ID Company 266 Identify EEMs 22
12 6/12/2023 Boise ID Company 101 Pre-Implementation 1
13 6/22/2023 Boise ID University 3 Identify EEMs 1
14 6/30/2023 Boise ID University 3 Identify EEMs 1
15 7/6/2023 Boise ID University 3 Identify EEMs 1
16 9/7/2023 Boise ID University 1 Identify EEMs 1
17 9/11/2023 Boise ID Company 14 Pre-Implementation 1
18 9/19/2023 Boise ID Company 134 Post-Implementation 1
19 10/5/2023 Boise ID Company 99 Pre-Implementation 1
20 9/18/2023 Boise ID Company 12 Identify EEMs 3
21 9/8/2023 Boise ID University 1 Identify EEMs 1
22 9/15/2023 Boise ID University 1 Identify EEMs 3
23 9/29/2023 Boise ID University 1 Identify EEMs 1
24 10/14/2023 Boise ID University 1 Identify EEMs 1
25 8/22/2023 Boise ID Company 99 Identify EEMs 1
26 11/17/2023 Boise ID Company 199 Pre-Implementation 1
27 11/20/2023 Boise ID Company 2 Post-Implementation 1
28 11/29/2023 Boise ID Company 2 Post-Implementation 1
29 12/1/2023 Boise ID University 1 Identify EEMs 1
30 12/6/2023 Payette ID Company 99 Identify EEMs 1
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

F IGURE 3: LOANS BY T YPE FIGURE 4: NUMBER OF L OANS PER QUARTER
F IGURE 5: NUMBER OF LOANS PER MONTH
3 2
5
3 1
7
1 1
3
2 2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1. Preliminary
Investigation / Audit /
Study to Identify Energy
Efficiency Measures
(EEMs)
2. Pre-implementation /
Baseline Measurements
of Particular EEMs
3. Post-implementation /
Verification Measures of
Particular EEMs
Loans by Type
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
5
9 9
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Number of Loans per Quarter
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1
3
1
3 3 3
1 1
7
2
3
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of Loans per Month
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

FIGURE 6 : N UMBER OF L OANS BY LOCATION
F IGURE 7: NUMBER OF LOANS BY USER
0 5 10 15 20 25
Boise
Eagle
Garden City
McCall
Meridian
Star
Idaho City
Grangeville
Payette
ID
Loans by Location
2023
4
9
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
Company 2
University 1
Company 10
Company 12
University 3
Company 14
Company 20
Company 65
Company 134
Company 266
Company 101
Company 99
Company 199
Tool Summary
2023
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 18
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

TOTAL TOOLS LOANED: 90 Q1=39 Q2=31 Q3=13 Q4=7
FIGURE 8: SUMMARY OF TOOLS LOANED
3
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
5
5
2
1
1
6
3
2
1
1
29
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Capture Hood Kit
Carbon Dioxide and Temperature Monitor
CO2 Logger
Digital Air Pressure Monitor
Digital Pressure Transducer
Dwyer Magnehelic Differential Pressure Gage
Extech Thermo-Anemometer
FLEXIM Ultrasonic Flow Meter
FLIR C2 Portable Thermal Imaging Camera
FLIR C3 Portable Thermal Imaging Camera
FLIR E50bx
Fluke Energy Logger
Fluke Infrared Thermometer
Fluke Power Quality Analyzer
GE Sensing Flow Meter
HOBO Current Transformer 100 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 200 Amp
HOBO Statepulse Logger
HOBO U12 Outdoor
HOBO U12-006 Data Logger
HOBO U12-012 Data Logger
Light Meter w/ Data Logging
MX1104 Data Logger
MX1105
MX1105
Plug Load Data Logger
Smoke Pen
State Pulse Run-Time Data Logger
Temperature Sensor
Tool Summary
2023
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 19
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

FIGURE 9: LOANS PER QUARTER SINCE 2019
8
7
4
7
6
5
2222
3
7
2
5
4
5
9 9
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Loans per Quarter
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 20
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

5. Appendices
APPENDIX A: Equipment List
The equipment in the library is tracked via excel, website, and in ERL Catalog. The
website inventory is organized through several webpages, but a complete listing can be
found here: http://www.idlboise.com/erl
In addition, the ERL Catalog can be found on the idlboise.com website and is
available for download here: http://www.idlboise.com/content/erl-catalog-2020
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 21
2023 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_005-05)

APPENDIX C: Website Progress
The majority of work has shifted to maintenance for website development.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Report Number: 2023_001-07

2023 TASK 07: FAN SAVINGS FROM UV
LAMPS

IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT

January 15, 2024

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Damon Woods
Farnaz Nazari

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

iii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E. Front St., Suite 360, Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Damon Woods

Authors:
Damon Woods
Farnaz Nazari

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
IPC KIT # 5277

Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. and Nazari,
F. (2023). 2023 TASK 7: Fan Savings from UV Lamps
(2023_001-07). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

iv

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been
reviewed for technical accuracy and are believed to be
reasonably accurate, the findings are estimates and actual
results may vary. All energy savings and cost estimates
included in the report are for informational purposes only and
are not to be construed as design documents or as
guarantees of energy or cost savings. The user of this
report, or any information contained in this report, should
independently evaluate any information, advice, or direction
provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO
REPRESENTATIONS, EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF
ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED IN THIS
REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS
ALL OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF
UNIVERSITY FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE
UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY
OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS), ARISING OUT
OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANUFACTURE,
USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED
BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL
RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S),
SERVICE(S), OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR
MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION
WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

v

This page left intentionally blank.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7
2. Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 7
3. Appendix – Project Reports ................................................................................................. 12

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
DOAS Dedicated Outdoor Air System
EMS Energy Management System
EUI Energy Use Intensity [kBtu/ft2/yr]
HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air Filter
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NBPI Needle Point Bi-Polar Ionization
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Lab
RTU Rooftop Unit
UI University of Idaho
UVGI Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
VAV Variable Air Volume
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2023 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-07)

1. INTRODUCTION
In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the University of Idaho Integrated Design
Lab (UI-IDL) examined the energy impacts of various indoor air quality devices. The IDL
used the energy modeling software, EnergyPlus to estimate the effects of adding
higher-rated filters, in-room HEPA filters, Ultraviolet Irradiation, ionization devices, and
increasing the percentage of outdoor air. Reviewing the simulation results, the IDL
found that there could be energy savings through adding in-duct Ultraviolet Irradiation.
This was the only technology that reduced energy consumption, while increasing the
equivalent air change rates. Ultraviolet Lamps have been shown to reduce fan energy
by keeping the evaporative coil clear of mold and mildew. William Bahnfleth et al. have
conducted studies showing up to a 20% reduction in pressure drop across the coil. The
goal of this task is to investigate the effectiveness of adding UV lamps to new or existing
HVAC units in IPC territory and monitor the energy consumption over the course of a
year using tools from the Energy Resource Library. The goal is to find several sites
where two identical HVAC units (such as RTUs with similar zones) that could be used
as case studies. The IDL team will record the fan energy over time while taking velocity
and airflow measurements. By measuring performance, the IDL will learn the extent of
savings in climate 5B for UV installation.

2. WORK SUMMARY
2.1 Comparing the mitigation strategies
The IDL work began with conducting a literature review of existing UV technology and
studies. The team also examined the impact of ASHRAE Standard 241, which was
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2023 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-07)

released this summer. ASHRAE 241 specifies how buildings are to adjust their
operations during a pandemic and increase “Equivalent Outdoor Air Exchange Rates”.
UltraViolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) qualifies as a method of increasing the
equivalent air exchange rate without introducing more outdoor air.
2.1.1 Using Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
In-duct UVGI prevents microbial growth on cooling coils, which can reduce fan
energy and can result in net energy savings depending on the building type and airflow.
Sizing and layout of the UV lamps greatly impacts performance. Proper installation is
necessary to ensure effective air disinfection and cooling coil maintenance. An
irradiance of at least 1,000 mW/cm2 and an exposure time of 0.25 seconds or longer is
needed to properly kill viruses in the airstream.
In-room UVGI units often include an additional HEPA filter to remove particulates
as well as sanitize the air. This is a powerful method of disinfection, which requires
significant capital and operational costs. In-room UVGI units are well-suited for
healthcare facilities and spaces with higher sanitation requirements. In other settings,
an in-room HEPA filter is often a more suitable alternative. In-duct UVGI is estimated to
add a plug load of 1 Watt/50 CFM and reduce pressure drop across the cooling coil by
20%. The capital and operating costs from last year’s study are available in Table 1.
Table 1: Capital and Operating Costs of In-Duct UVGI
Technology Capital Costs
(Equipment +
Installation)
Operating Costs Maintenance Cost
(including filter
replacement)
[$/1000cfm] [$/1000cfm] [$/1000cfm]
UVGI (in duct) $83.82 $74.25 $100.00

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2023 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-07)

2.1.2 Reviewing current literature on Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
Building on our literature review from last year, we continued to explore the
benefits of UVGI technology, aiming for a balance between air purification and energy
conservation. This area is a focal point of active research at IDL, with a primary
emphasis on leveraging UV-C lamps for both coil cleansing benefits in addition to
frequently sought-after germicidal purposes. UVGI, in contrast to traditional filters like
MERV, excels at eradicating pressure drops and reducing the burden on fans while
delivering germicidal effectiveness. Notably, it prevents bacteria growth, especially on
cold coils, a common breeding ground due to moisture. By ensuring a clean coil, UVGI
maintains optimal airflow, free from hindrance caused by fungal growths.
Given the intricate challenges in modeling biological growth, quantifying the
impacts of UVGI on energy conservation becomes a complex endeavor. As a result, our
emphasis lies in extracting valuable insights from diverse studies, regardless of their
primary focus. Here is a summary of the key findings gleaned from existing research:
 Bahnfleth's field study affirms the advantages of UVGI in reducing air pressure
drop and enhancing heat transfer coefficient by inhibiting fungal growth on coils.
The reported improvements are substantial, with a 22% boost in air pressure
drop and a 15% increase in the heat transfer coefficient. Nevertheless, the study
highlights that the impact varies significantly by location. The most pronounced
effects are observed in hot and humid climates, such as Tampa, FL, and
Singapore, while cold, temperate, and dry climates show comparatively negligible
impacts. (Bahnfleth 2017)
 Ryan et al.'s experiment further validates the substantial sanitizing impact of
enhanced UVGI installed in hospital HVAC units. This installation led to a notable
reduction in the requirement for antibiotics among patients undergoing antibiotic
treatment, observed after a two-week timeframe. (Ryan et al. 2011)
 Nicas and Miller report that UVGI provides 10- 25 equivalent air changes per
hour (ACH). (Nicas and Miller 1999)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2023 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-07)

 In Truffo et al.'s study, a comparative analysis of various air purification
techniques reveals both positive and negative aspects of UV radiation treatment.
While highlighting several benefits, the study draws attention to a potential
drawback: a high degree of photo-oxidative degradation in polymers and plastic
components. This aspect warrants careful consideration in the design of UVGI
systems. (Truffo et al. 2022)
 Pirouz et al provide a literature review and essential data on the required UV
dosage to halt bacterial activity, UVGI effectiveness depends primarily on the UV
intensity and exposure time. They mention the dosage values to achieve 99.9%
disinfection for SARS family viruses under controlled lab conditions are 10 to 20
mJ/cm2 with direct UVC in a wavelength of 254 nm. (Pirouz et al. 2021)
 Similarly, IUVA(International Ultraviolet Association) mentions required dosage of
1000 and 3000 mJ/cm2 for the same disinfection impact in office or classroom
settings. The latter dosage is higher since all contaminated particles might not be
in direct UVC light. (“IUVA UV Disinfection for COVID-19” 2020)
 It's noteworthy that repeated exposure to UV intensifies results Lower doses with
longer exposure times may achieve similar effects to higher doses with shorter
exposure times. . However, quantifying this impact requires further study. N𝑡 /N𝑡0 = exp(–NEff Dt) = exp(–k ´ Dose) (1)
Equation (1) illustrates the exponential decay in the number of living organisms
as a constant level of UV-C exposure continues. (“ASHRAE 185.1-2020: Method
of Testing UV-C Lights for Use in Air-Handling Units or Air Ducts to Inactivate
Airborne Microorganisms” 2020)
While UV light theoretically disrupts bacterial replication by interacting with their DNA,
the practical application of UV-C lamps necessitates addressing several key
parameters:
 Organism Susceptibility: Variations in susceptibility to UV inactivation exist
among organisms, with vegetative bacteria being highly susceptible and
fungal spores showing lower susceptibility. This disparity influences the
required exposure dose (j/m2) and time (s). Appendix A includes a table
featuring some members from each category. (“ASHRAE Handbook for
HVAC Systems and Equipment Chapter 17: Ultraviolet Lamp Systems” 2020)
 UV-C Lamps: The effectiveness of UV systems is influenced by the source of
UV light, with UV-C wavelengths ranging from 200-280nm proving most
effective for germicidal control, reaching optimal efficiency at 265nm. There is
a rapid decline in efficacy if the wavelength deviates from this optimal range.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2023 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-07)

Commercially, UV-C lamps are mainly low-pressure mercury lamps emitting
UV energy at 253.7 nm.
 Design Considerations: ASHRAE's design guidance recommends
incorporating UV in the supply air section. The handbook also includes
Upper-Air UVC and In-Duct UVC Systems. It is important to note that the
latter two options lack a coil-cleansing impact, limiting their benefits primarily
to air sanitization effects. Figure 1 in Appendix A illustrates the potential
application of UV-C lamps. (“ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications
Chapter 62. Ultraviolet Air and Surface Treatment” 2023)
 Maintenance: UV lamps should be replaced at the end of their useful life,
typically 9000 hours of continuous operation for a typical low pressure
mercury lamp, therefore it is advisable to replace lamps annually (equivalent
to 8760 hours of continuous operation). Although lamps may continue
operating beyond this point, their performance significantly diminishes.
It’s noted that the impact of dirt or cleaning on lamp efficiency remains
understudied.
Addressing these considerations is crucial for optimizing the effectiveness of UVGI
technology for air purification and energy conservation.
2.1.3 Next Steps for 2024 – Implementation at a site
The research team tested data logging of a rooftop unit in spring, but the Dent Power
logger data came back with only a few sporadic readings. The team found they required
more technical support for a robust installation of power loggers on high voltage
systems, without ready access to a 120V outlet (e.g. on a roof). Therefore in 2024, IDL
will engage an external firm for technical support at the sites. An equipment
representative is standing by and ready to install the lights once the technical expertise
and sites are secured. The IDL worked with several schools in 2023, which were all
interested in applying the technology to their existing rooftop units including two rural
school districts. Since no physical installations were made, part of the 2023 budget
remains unspent. This task will continue in 2024 to conclude the physical
measurements that were planned under the funding that was given in 2023.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2023 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-07)

3. APPENDIX – WORKS CITED AND ADDITIONAL FIGURES

Appendix A: Bibliography:
“ASHRAE 185.1-2020: Method of Testing UV-C Lights for Use in Air-Handling Units or Air Ducts
to Inactivate Airborne Microorganisms (ANSI Approved).” 2020. ASHRAE.
“ASHRAE 185.2-2020: Method of Testing UV-C Lights for Use in Air-Handling Units or Air Ducts
to Inactivate Airborne Microorganisms (ANSI Approved).” 2020. ASHRAE.
“ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications Chapter 62. Ultraviolet Air And Surface Treatment.”
2023. ASHRAE.
“ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Systems and Equipment Chapter 17: Ultraviolet Lamp Systems.”
2020. ASHRAE.
ASHRAE. “ASHRAE Epidemic Task Force.” Core Recommendations for Reducing Airborne
Infectious Aerosol Exposure, 2021, Accessed 2021.
ASHRAE. “Filtration and Air Cleaning Summary.” ASHRAE, 25 May 2021, [e-mail].
Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
ASHRAE Handbook-HVAC Systems and Equipment. 2016, pp. 29.2-29.12.
Bahnfleth, William P. 2017. “Cooling Coil Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation.”
Bean, Meghan, et al. 2020, Air Cleaner Specification and Baseline Assessment Review.
Firrantello, Joseph, and William Bahnfleth. “Simulation and Monetization of Collateral Airborne
Infection Risk Improvements from Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation for Coil
Maintenance.” Science and Technology for the Built Environment, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017, pp.
135–148., https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2017.1409267.
Formusa, Brian, and Tim Ross. “Covid_10 Recommendations for Facilities.” Hailey, ID, June
2020.
"Fundamentals of UVGI." ASHRAE, 12 May 2021, Online Webinar
HVAC Engineering. “Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Lamps Can Help Clean Coils and Improve
Indoor Air Quality .” UVGI Design Basics for Air and Surface Disinfection , Department of
Architectural Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University , 2000, Accessed 2021.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2023 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-07)

“IUVA UV Disinfection for COVID-19.” 2020. 2020. 2020. Available online: https: //iuva.org/iuva-
covid-19-faq.
Kowalski, Wladyslaw J. Immune Building Systems Technology. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
2003.
Lee, Bruno. “Effects of Installation Location on Performance and Economics of in-Duct
Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Systems for Air Disinfection .” RAPID, 2013.
Luo, Hao, and Lexuan Zhong. “Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) for in-Duct Airborne
Bioaerosol Disinfection: Review and Analysis of Design Factors.” Building and
Environment, vol. 197, 2021, p. 107852., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107852.
Luongo, Julia C., et al. “Ultraviolet Germicidal Coil Cleaning: Impact on Heat Transfer
Effectiveness and Static Pressure Drop.” Building and Environment, vol. 112, 2017, pp.
159–165., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.022.
Nicas, Mark, and Shelly L. Miller. 1999. “A Multi-Zone Model Evaluation of the Efficacy of
Upper-Room Air Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation.” Applied Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene 14 (5): 317–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/104732299302909.
Pirouz, Behrouz, Stefania Anna Palermo, Seyed Navid Naghib, Domenico Mazzeo, Michele
Turco, and Patrizia Piro. 2021. “The Role of HVAC Design and Windows on the Indoor
Airflow Pattern and ACH.” Sustainability 13 (14): 7931.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147931.
Ryan, R M, G E Wilding, R J Wynn, R C Welliver, B A Holm, and C L Leach. 2011. “Effect of
Enhanced Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation in the Heating Ventilation and Air
Conditioning System on Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in a Neonatal Intensive Care
Unit.” Journal of Perinatology 31 (9): 607–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2011.16.
Tawfik, Aly, et al. Fresno, CA, 2020, COVID-19 Public Transit Bus Air Circulation Study .
Truffo, Davide, Josè Miguel Peña Suarèz, Juan Bandera Cantalejo, Marìa Del Carmen Gonzalez
Muriano, Francisco Garcias Vacas, and Francisco Fernandez Hernàndez. 2022.
“Comparative Study of Purifications Technologies and Their Application to HVAC
Systems.” Edited by C. Zilio and F. Busato. E3S Web of Conferences 343: 03005.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234303005.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2023 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-07)

“Ultraviolet Air and Surface Treatment .” 2019 Ashrae Handbook: Heating, Ventilating, and Air-
Conditioning Applications, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 2011, pp. 62.1–62.17, Accessed 2021.
Appendix B: Simulation Results

Figure 1: Energy use increase for each of the technologies averaged for the eight building types studied

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
2023 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-07)

Figure 2:Potential Applications of UVC to Control Microorganisms in Air
and on Surfaces from ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications
chapter 62. Ultraviolet Air and Surface Treatment
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
2023 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-07)

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
2023 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2023_001-07)

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Report Number: 2023_003-01

2023 TASK 8: DIGITAL DESIGN TOOLS
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY INTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

January 15, 2023

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Dylan Agnes

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

This page left intentionally blank.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E Front Street, Suite #360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu

IDL Director:
Damon Woods

Author:
Dylan Agnes

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
IPC KIT #8112

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2023). 2023 TASK 8:
Digital Design Tools – Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2023_003-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise,
ID.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate,
the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as
design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The
user of this report, or any information contained in this report,
should independently evaluate any information, advice, or
direction provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS,
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR
COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE
UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR
OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR
(PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

This page left intentionally blank.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 1
1. Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 3
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
3. Design Tools ................................................................................................................................ 4
2023 Summary of Work .............................................................................................................. 5
2023 New Design Tools ............................................................................................................... 6
2018 – CBECS Data Visualization ................................................................................................. 6
2018 – CBECS Micro Master ........................................................................................................ 6
2012 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics ............................................................................... 7
2012 CBECS Micro Master v2 ...................................................................................................... 7
Weather Normalization ............................................................................................................... 8
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator ............................................................................................... 8
LM-83 Three-Phase Daylight Simulation Script ........................................................................... 9
Infiltration Equations & Conversions .......................................................................................... 9
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool Sets ........................................................................ 11
Climate Design Resources – 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets ..................................................... 11
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST) ................................................................................. 12
Construction Insulation Value Calculator.................................................................................. 13
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits ..................................................................................... 13
Daylight Pattern Guide .............................................................................................................. 14
COVID Impact Modeling ............................................................................................................ 15
IPC Meter Analysis Template .................................................................................................... 15
4. Design Tools Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 16
IPC Meter Analysis Template .................................................................................................... 16
2018 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics ............................................................................. 16
2018 CBECS Micro Master ......................................................................................................... 16
2012 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics ............................................................................. 16
2012 CBECS Micro Master v2 .................................................................................................... 16
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
Weather Normalization ............................................................................................................. 16
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator ............................................................................................. 16
LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script......................................................................... 17
Infiltration Equations & Conversions ........................................................................................ 17
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool ................................................................................ 17
Climate Design Resources - 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets ................................................... 17
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST) ................................................................................. 17
Construction Insulation Value Calculator.................................................................................. 17
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits ..................................................................................... 17
Daylight Pattern Guide .............................................................................................................. 17
5. Design Tools Statistics ............................................................................................................... 18
6. Future Work & Design Tools ..................................................................................................... 19
Developing Guides/How-to for Design Tools ............................................................................ 19
Indoor Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 19
CBECS 2018 Data Visualization .................................................................................................. 19
CBECS 2018 Microdata .............................................................................................................. 19
CBECS 2012 Data Visualization .................................................................................................. 19
CBECS 2012 Microdata .............................................................................................................. 20

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
1. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
App Application
ARUP London based multi-discipline firm
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BCVTP Building Controls Virtual Test-Bed
BEMP Building Energy Modeling Professional
BESF Building Energy Simulation Forum (Energy Trust of Oregon)
BIM Building Information Modeling
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
BSME Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
BSUG Building Simulation Users’ Group
CBECS Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
Comm Commercial
Elec. Electrical
HePESC Heat Pump Energy Savings Calculator
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBPSA International Building Performance Simulation Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
LLLC Luminaire Level Lighting Control
M. Arch Masters of Architecture
ME Mechanical Engineer(ing)
Mech. Mechanical
MEP Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing
MS Arch Masters of Science Architecture
NCARB National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
RDA Revit Daylighting Analysis
TMY Typical Meteorological Year
UDC Urban Design Center
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2. INTRODUCTION
Over the years, the Integrated Design Lab has developed several digital design tools to
assist local firms. These include ventilation calculators, daylighting methodologies, thermal
envelope calculators, and climate visualization assistants. These tools have been collected and
hosted on the IDL website in 2021 but some require updating. IDL is working to update these
tools to the latest design temperatures (which have increased over time) and link to other tools
available to designers so that the IDL website can serve as a one-stop resource for local
engineers and architects for early design considerations.
3. DESIGN TOOLS
In 2023, seventeen design tools were available for use and download. The Design Tools
are summarized below and are current as of December 15th, 2023.
Table 1: Design Tools
# Status Priority Name
1 Proposed Medium CBECS Data Visualization Infographics 2012
2 Proposed Medium CBECS Micro Master v2 2012
3 Review/Feedback Low Weather Normalization
4 Review/Feedback Low EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
5 N/A None LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script
6 N/A None Infiltration Equations & Conversions
7 N/A None The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool
8 N/A None Climate Design Resources - 1st & 2nd Generation Tool
Sets
9 N/A None Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST)
10 N/A None Construction Insulation Value Calculator
11 N/A None Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits
12 N/A None Daylight Pattern Guide
13 N/A None COVID Impact Modeling (New)
14 N/A None IPC Meter Analysis Template (New)
15 High High Indoor Air Quality Tool
16 High High CBECS Data Visualization Infographics 2018
17 High High CBECS Micro Master 2018
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2023 Summary of Work
Design tools were assigned a priority during the initial proposal of the task. A design
tool’s priority determines the probability of receiving an update for the current year. In the
future, a design tool’s priority level will be assessed in the kick-off meeting for the project task.
For 2023, high priority was assigned to two design tools: CBECS Data Visualization Infographics
and CBECS Micro Master v2. Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) 2018
data was expected to be released in 2020, however, the COVID-19 pandemic has continually
delayed the release of data from the study. An update in August 2022 indicated that the
complete study, including micro data, would be released to the public in the fourth quarter of
2022. All available public data for the CBECS 2018 study was downloaded in December 2022
and January 2023. The IDL converted the Excel sheet format and added column headers to
identify areas of study more readily. Then we combined three separate Excel sheets with the
following information, general building information and energy end uses, heating and cooling
equipment, and lighting, equipment, and conservation features into one master Excel
spreadsheet. This master Excel sheet was treated as the master file that all data was extracted
from to develop graphics based on specific building type and size. The four building types were
given preference in 2023, Office, Retail, Education, and Lodging. These were given preference
based on the 2012 CBECS visualization project. The IDL thought it was crucial to connect the
2018 study to the 2012 study. However, it was discovered that the 2012 study/project was
intended to have a total of eight categories but only four categories were completed due to
budget. Therefore, preparations were made so that the data could be used to develop an
additional four categories with the 2018 project/study.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2023 New Design Tools
2018 – CBECS Data Visualization
Priority: High
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/cbecs-data-visualization-infographics
Description: Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company, the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how four different building types consume
energy on both a regional and national level. The data used to create them has been gathered from The
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), which is a national-level sample survey of
commercial buildings and their energy suppliers conducted quadrennially by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA). The survey collects key benchmark information on U.S. commercial buildings, their
characteristics, and how they consume energy. It is used by private and public stakeholders to track
industry progress and gain a high-level understanding of how similar buildings compare and inform
policy decisions. Architects and engineers can also use this information for goal setting and prioritizing
energy efficiency measures within the integrated design process for high performance projects. These
infographics make detailed consumption data per building type easily accessible to design teams
without having to filter the CBECS database themselves. Information from CBECS is reported on the
EIA’s website in the form of summary tables, which provide tabular breakdowns of high-level energy
consumption statistics based upon general building characteristics. The information is also available as
public use microdata spreadsheets that can be downloaded, filtered, and organized with much more
flexibility than the summary tables. These spreadsheets contain much more detailed information from
the building characteristics survey in its entirety and served as the origin of information for this series of
infographics.
Currently, there are five double-sided 11x17" infographics. The first is an introduction to the project and
the CBECS database. The next four delve specifically into the office, retail, education and lodging
building type.
Last updated: New
2018 – CBECS Micro Master
Priority: High
Link: N/A
Description: This file contains a good portion of the CBECS microdata, which can be filtered for
benchmarking and goal setting functions.
Last updated: New
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2012 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics
Priority: Medium
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/cbecs-data-visualization-infographics
Description: Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company, the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how four different building types consume
energy on both a regional and national level. The data used to create them has been gathered from The
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), which is a national-level sample survey of
commercial buildings and their energy suppliers conducted quadrennially by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA). The survey collects key benchmark information on U.S. commercial buildings, their
characteristics, and how they consume energy. It is used by private and public stakeholders to track
industry progress and gain a high-level understanding of how similar buildings compare and inform
policy decisions. Architects and engineers can also use this information for goal setting and prioritizing
energy efficiency measures within the integrated design process for high performance projects. These
infographics make detailed consumption data per building type easily accessible to design teams
without having to filter the CBECS database themselves. Information from CBECS is reported on the
EIA’s website in the form of summary tables, which provide tabular breakdowns of high-level energy
consumption statistics based upon general building characteristics. The information is also available as
public use microdata spreadsheets that can be downloaded, filtered, and organized with much more
flexibility than the summary tables. These spreadsheets contain much more detailed information from
the building characteristics survey in its entirety and served as the origin of information for this series of
infographics.
Currently, there are five double-sided 11x17" infographics. The first is an introduction to the project and
the CBECS database. The next four delve specifically into the office, retail, education and lodging
building type.
Last updated: 2021

2012 CBECS Micro Master v2
Priority: Medium
Link: N/A
Description: This file contains a good portion of the CBECS microdata, which can be filtered for
benchmarking and goal setting functions.
Last updated: 2021
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
Weather Normalization
Priority: Low
Link: http://www.idlboise.com/content/weather-normalization
Description: This spread sheet was created in order to aid with the processing and analysis of building
energy usage. In order to operate this spread sheet you will need the following bills for each month in
the period you wish to analyze:
• Natural Gas
• Electricity
• Geothermal (if applicable)

In addition, weather data for the location of project is needed. This information can be obtained from
the provided link with the instructions below.
• NOAA National Weather Service
• Select the nearest data center.
• Go to the NOWData Tab and refine the location if needed.
• Under the "Product" select "Monthly Summarized Data".
• Input the desired range of years.
• Set the "variable" drop down to either CDD or HDD.
• Click go and copy data to the Data Entry tab of this file.

The sheet will automatically calculate actual and expected energy usage and create graphs that can be
found in the "Output Figures" tab. More detailed analysis can be found in the "Calculated Values" and
"Regression Visualization" tabs.
Last updated: 2021
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
Priority: Low
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/energyplus-fan-energy-calculator
Description: This spreadsheet was created in order to aid with determining the fan inputs into
EnergyPlus via equations from ASHRARE 90.1 Appendix G (for baseline systems) and fan specifications
(for proposed systems). Three key inputs are needed in EnergyPlus:
• Supply Fan Total Efficiency
• Supply Fan Delta Pressure {Pa}
• Supply Fan Motor Efficiency

In order to calculate these inputs, this spreadsheet will lead you through a series of steps, depending on
the system type required for your building type. The tabs of this spreadsheet are as follows:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
• Introduction
• Systems 1 & 2
• Systems 3 & 4
• Systems 5 - 8
• Proposed System
• Resources

Colored cells signify inputs, outputs, links, and instructive text.
Last updated: 2021

LM-83 Three-Phase Daylight Simulation Script
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/lm-83-12-three-phase-daylight-simulation-script
Description: Annual simulation of dynamic/complex fenestration systems under LM-83 guidelines. This
script will generate its own folder structure beyond the starting directories required, which are outlined
below.
Version 1.2.0 (August 25, 2017)
Author: Alen Mahic, Ery Djunaedy (Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory University of Oregon;
Integrated Design Lab University of Idaho) This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit GPL v.3
In plain English: you are free to use this script, distribute it, make changes to it, as long as (1) you
acknowledge Alen Mahic, Ery Djunaedy and the Integrated Design Lab as the original authors, and (2)
you acknowledge that the script is provided as-is with absolutely no warranty, and that the authors and
the University of Idaho are not liable to anything that happens or does not happen in relation to the use
of this script.
Radiance 5.0+ is required.
Last updated: 2022

Infiltration Equations & Conversions
Priority: Low
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/infiltration-equations-conversions-0
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
Description: A key factor in building heat gain and loss may be the infiltration rate, or the rate at which
outdoor air is exchanged with conditioned interior air through the envelope. This spreadsheet tool
outlines a set of simplified equations aimed at converting typical, real world infiltration measurements
into metrics that can be input into EnergyPlus. In using methods outlined in the document Infiltration
Modeling Guidelines for Commercial Building Energy Analysis by the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, we were able to convert common metrics of I75 and ACH50, into ones that could be
conveniently input into an Energy Plus Model (Idesign and ACHnat).
NOTE: At this time, this calculation tool does not take into account infiltration from stack pressure, only
horizontal wind pressure.
Key Definitions
• ACH50-The number of complete air changes that occur within an hour when the building is
pressurized at 50 Pascals. This metric is usually used in residential infiltration measurement.
• ACHnat-The number of natural air changes that occur with an hour when the building is
naturally pressurized.
• I75- The infiltration flow rate of air in cubic feet per minute per square foot of exterior exposed
surface area when the building is pressurized at 75 Pascals. This metric is more commonly used
in commercial infiltration measurement.
• Idesign- The infiltration flow rate of air in cubic feet per minute per square foot of exterior
exposed surface area when the building is naturally pressurized.

Spreadsheets
• Spreadsheets 1 and 2 can be used to convert I75 into Idesign. Spreadsheet "1. I75 to Idesign
Text," explains the method and equations for the conversion. "2. I75 to Idesign Calculations," is
an interactive spreadsheet that takes your project's input and provides an output that can be
used in EnergyPlus.
• Spreadsheets 3 and 4 can be used to convert ACH50 into ACHnat. As in spreadsheets 1-2, "3.
ACH50 to ACHnat Text," explains the method and equations for the conversion. "4. ACH50 to
ACHnat Calculations," is an interactive spreadsheet that takes your project's input and provides
an output that can be used in EnergyPlus.
• Spreadsheets 5 and 6 are for comparing ACH50 into Idesign metrics. As in spreadsheets 1-4, "5.
Compare ACH and I Text," explains the method and equations for the conversion. "6. Compare
ACH to I Calculation," is an interactive spreadsheet that takes your project's input and provides
an output of comparisons between the different metrics.
• Spreadsheet 7 is a provides a reverse calculation. "7. Reverse Calcs" allows you to convert from
an EnergyPlus input into I75.
• Spreadsheet 8 is a reference tab. "8. Appendix" contains useful reference charts for
spreadsheets 1-7.

Last updated: 2021

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool Sets
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/climate-responsive-design-web-tool
Description: The Climate Responsive Design web tool is designed to graphically illustrate the feasibility
and potential energy benefits of several climate responsive design strategies. The tool is intended to
help designers and owners make correct early decisions that will result in buildings that are more energy
efficient. The output of the tool are graphic data plots designed to illustrate not only conventional
climate data, such as temperature and relative humidity, but also more complex interactions of these
raw weather data with building specific user input data and a rule set for various energy efficient design
strategies.
The Climate Responsive Design web tool requires viewing in Firefox internet browser.
Last updated: 2021
Climate Design Resources – 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/ui-idl-climate-design-resources-1st-2nd-generation-tool-sets
Description: The Idaho Power Company funded the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) to
produce a series of climate design resources to help assist in the conceptual and early design of passive
strategies. Through their support, the UI-IDL has developed two generations of spreadsheet calculators
that are capable of analyzing building loads and energy consumption impacts of a range of different
design strategies over three reference cities. You can download the tools and both the 1st and 2nd
generation research reports at the bottom of this webpage. The reports provide insight into the
methodology of the research used to develop the tools as well as information on how to use them most
effectively. Currently, there are seven different calculation spreadsheets that span across two different
generations of tool development:
FIRST GENERATION TOOLS
• Heat Gain Calculations
• Cross Ventilation
• Stack Ventilation
• Night Ventilation Thermal Mass

SECOND GENERATION TOOLS
• Balance Point Calculation
• Passive Solar
• Earth Tube
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12

Each spreadsheet contains multiple tabs and a step-by-step process that directs the user to define the
critical baseline and performance parameters of the building. These factors are linked to pre-defined
equations within the spreadsheet that automatically provide the peak cooling loads, cooling capacities,
and describe other critical design criteria. Charts, line graphs, and other forms of graphic information
also automatically populate the workspace to provide rich visual feedback to the user. The spreadsheets
also contain a reference tab that consolidates a myriad of textbook, code, and other sources needed to
complete the step-by-step instructions. Additionally, a variety of weather data, including hourly
information from TMY weather files, are embedded into the calculations based upon three different
reference cities within the Idaho Power Company service territory. Once each tab is filled out, the
results pages of the spreadsheets contains all of the important outputs needed to evaluate how much
the passive design measure can contribute to the peak loads or energy savings of the building. Changes
to the building parameters are instantaneous, making the Climate Tools Package an ideal instrument
used to explore different design iterations and how they might facilitate passive design strategies.
Goals
The ultimate goal of the Climate Tools Package is to reduce the loads and energy consumption of a
building through passive design measures. This happens mainly by embedding, early in the design
process, the analysis of the performance capabilities of different passive cooling and heating strategies.
Once a performance capacity is calculated and compared against peak loads of a building, a qualitative
decision can be made whether or not to pursue more detailed analysis. If certain passive strategies are
proven to meet some or all of the peak load, this may warrant further development. Potential next steps
could involve more advanced analysis such as building simulation to quantify annual energy savings
based on actual weather data.
Last updated: 2021
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST)
Priority: None
Link: http://www.idlboise.com/content/thermal-energy-savings-tabulator-test
Description: This tool aims to provide designers, engineers, and manufacturers a quick and easy way to
calculate energy savings from the application of different heat pump HVAC technologies early in the
design process. Specifically, the tool supports analysis of air-source heat pumps (ASHP), water-source
heat pumps (WSHP), and variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems. The spreadsheet was developed by the
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) with funding from Idaho Power Company. To learn
more about the development of the tool, please visit the UI-IDL’s website here - idlboise.com.
The tool provides the means for detailed input of a custom building, geometry, and program, while
using pre-cooked, whole-building simulations to aid in HVAC energy calculations. The tool always
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
compares a baseline condition to a proposed condition. The baseline condition can represent a new
construction code baseline, or could be used to define an existing building.
The spreadsheets contain color coded cells that represent different functionalities. All cells, except for
those that require user input, are locked to avoid confusion. However, the cells can be unlocked without
a password for custom manipulation or for further insight into equations used for calculations. See
below for the various cell's color-coded instructions and their specific descriptions:
Last updated: 2021

Construction Insulation Value Calculator
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/construction-insulation-value-calculator
Description: This spreadsheet is designed to calculate insulation values of individual material layers and
whole constructions of EnergyPlus objects.
Last updated: 2021

Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/sustainable-design-practice-benefits
Description: Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company, the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate sustainable design & practice Benefits of five
different building types for their bottom line impact on efficiency for each building type. Architects and
engineers can also use this information to make early design decisions with compelling numbers for
additional non-energy benefits of energy efficient design. Currently, there are five printable, single-sided
8.5X11" infographics describing specific benefits and strategies for Grocery, Hotel, Multi-family Housing,
Office, and Retail building types.
EXPECTED BENEFITS
• Broadening the scope of sustainable design effectiveness beyond simple utility cost payback
gives a more accurate picture of the financial benefits available through sustainable design
• Strategies for specific occupancy types highlight the solutions that are most effective and easiest
to achieve for each unique set of needs. Efficiency tips for additional building types can be found
at Idahopower.com/business
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
• Better information during the design phase means a more accurate prediction of a building’s
performance, avoiding costly changes down the road
• Readily available and easily understandable information means increased participation in
efficiency programs by designers, employees, and users of a space
• Energy strategies that go beyond building design and highlight savings opportunities in day to
day operation mean greater energy savings with minimal cost
• Sustainable design and responsible energy consumption can increase a user’s comfort and
appreciation, leading to more positive user experiences and an increase in community support
and interaction
• Power companies offer financial incentives to help offset the costs of implementing sustainable
design strategies. Available for new construction, retrofits, custom projects, and flex peak
programs, Idaho Power helps to make it more affordable than ever to incorporate sustainable
and energy-efficient design decisions into your project. Additional information on Idaho Power
incentive programs can be found at Idahopower.com/business

Energy and cost savings attributed to efficiency measures are well documented. However, with
additional opportunities to increase comfort, efficiency, community involvement, and customer
satisfaction, sustainable design and practice could have an impact on your bottom line far beyond
reduced utility bills.
Last updated: 2021

Daylight Pattern Guide
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/cbecs-data-visualization-infographics
Description: The Daylighting Pattern Guide is the newest offering in the Advanced Buildings suite of
tools and resources to help design teams create high performance commercial buildings. This no-cost,
interactive design tool uses a combination of real-world built examples and advanced simulation to set
the stage for substantial reductions in lighting power consumption and overall building energy use. It
was developed through a partnership between New Buildings Institute (NBI), University of Idaho and
University of Washington.
High quality daylighting design has the potential to increase user satisfaction and productivity and save
substantial energy. However, successfully designing daylighting into buildings in a manner that supports
high ratings of visual comfort while also saving energy can be a complex and challenging process.
The Daylighting Pattern Guide presents 19 prime examples of well-designed daylit spaces around the
United States. Each project was photographed, physically measured and simulated using the Radiance
simulation tool. Sensitivity analysis of key design variables was conducted on each project to
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
demonstrate whether the outcome was optimized and to illustrate the impact of multiple ‘alternate
design decisions’ on the daylighting performance.
Key daylight patterns, or variables including orientation, glazing layout, area, shading strategies,
furniture layout, ceiling height, that contribute to the success or failure of a daylighting design were also
identified. This information allows users to differentiate between good built examples of daylit space,
the information generated by design analysis tools, and the ‘rule of thumb’ guidelines that designers
commonly apply.
Project types included in analysis are offices, schools, libraries, laboratories, museums, industrial
facilities, and recreational facilities across a diverse set of regional climates.
Last updated: 2021
COVID Impact Modeling
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/covid-impact-modeling
Description: Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company, the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how COVID-19 has brought the issue of
indoor air quality to the forefront of building science. Virus mitigation strategies range in effectiveness,
efficiency, and costs depending on the building type, use types, and local climate. Using Open Studio and
Energy+, the IDL examined the energy and cost impacts of six different mitigation strategies for
commercial buildings in the Treasure Valley.
Last updated: 2022
IPC Meter Analysis Template
Priority: None
Link: http://www.idlboise.com/content/idaho-power-company-meter-analysis-template
Description: This spreadsheet is designed to handle meter data provided in the Idaho Power format. IPC
provides hourly kW data in a table where each row is a day and each column is an hour. This
spreadsheet will format that information so it can be more easily graphed or summed. This should help
to analyze seasonal behavior and the building's hourly profile. In order to use this spread sheet, copy
and past the information you need over the IPC data sheet. Be careful that your data set is formatted
the same way it appears in the current IPC data sheet in this workbook. Also be sure to delete the
information currently in this workbook's IPC data sheet, so you don't mix the two sets of data. Once you
are sure that information in the spreadsheet you receive from the Idaho Power representative is the
same as what appears in the IPC data sheet.
Last updated: 2023
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
4. DESIGN TOOLS MAINTENANCE
IPC Meter Analysis Template
Added in November 2023 there is no maintenance currently planned.
2018 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics
Added in December 2023 this tool will be expanded to include additional building types
in 2024.
2018 CBECS Micro Master
Added in December 2023 this tool will be expanded to include additional building types
in 2024.
2012 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics
Cataloged in 2023, ready for updates. Data will be reorganized and presented in a
manner that allows it to better correlate to the 2018 data.
2012 CBECS Micro Master v2
Cataloged in 2022, ready for updates. Data will be reorganized and presented in a
manner that allows it to better correlate to the 2018 data.
Weather Normalization
Cataloged in 2022, ready for updates.
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
Cataloged in 2022, ready for updates.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script
Cataloged in 2022, no updates needed.
Infiltration Equations & Conversions
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Climate Design Resources - 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST)
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Construction Insulation Value Calculator
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Daylight Pattern Guide
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 18
5. DESIGN TOOLS STATISTICS
We saw a total of 2,396 visits to the home/landing page for the digital design tools
(http://www.idlboise.com/content/design-tools). The table below shows the number of visits
to a design tools page as of December 15th, 2023.
# Name Page Visits
1 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics 2012 334
2 CBECS Micro Master v2 2012 0
3 Weather Normalization 167
4 EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator 379
5 LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script 132
6 Infiltration Equations & Conversions 166
7 The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool 224
8 Climate Design Resources - 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets 157
9 Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST) 162
10 Construction Insulation Value Calculator 152
11 Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits 245
12 Daylight Pattern Guide 311
13 COVID Impact Modeling (New) 133
14 IPC Meter Analysis Template (New) 11
15 Indoor Air Quality Tool 0
16 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics 2018 0
17 CBECS Micro Master 2018 0
Total 2,573

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 19
6. FUTURE WORK & DESIGN TOOLS
Developing Guides/How-to for Design Tools
While most design tools include an introduction or instructions to assist users with using
the tool, we don’t have any examples or tutorials they can reference. An example or tutorials
would include using the tool, when to use the tool, and when not to use the tool.
Indoor Air Quality
Energy efficient indoor air quality tool that utilizes data and research accumulated
through the 2021 IAQ task. This tool will have drop - down menus for baseline and proposed
methods along with manual entry fields as needed to reasonably estimate kWh/yr usage and
costs for the most popular configurations. The tool will utilize current IPC rate schedules to
provide potential bill savings and payback years.
CBECS 2018 Data Visualization
The IDL will continue to work with CBECS data to develop an additional four building
types, food service, public assembly, public safety, and warehouse (non-refrigerated).
CBECS 2018 Microdata
The IDL will continue to work with CBECS data to develop an additional four building
types, food service, public assembly, public safety, and warehouse (non-refrigerated).
CBECS 2012 Data Visualization
The IDL will reorganize the data and add additional categories that were not tracked in
2012 but were available and are currently being used in the 2018 data visualization. This will
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 20
allow users to better understand the changes that occurred between the 2012 and 2018 CBECS
study.
CBECS 2012 Microdata
The IDL will reorganize the data and add additional categories that were not tracked in
2012 but were available and are currently being used in the 2018 microdata. This will allow
users to better understand the changes that occurred between the 2012 and 20 18 CBECS study.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 201
RESEARCH/SURVEYS
Report Title Sector
Analysis
Performed By
Study
Manager
Study/Evaluation
Type
2023 A/C Cool Credit Non-Participant Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2023 Commercial Energy Savings Kits Survey Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2023 Idaho Power Weatherization Assistance
for Qualified Customers Program Survey
Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2023 Idaho Power Weatherization Solutions
for Eligible Customers Program Survey
Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2023 Retrofits Program Survey Results Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2023 SBDI Program Customer Satisfaction
Survey Reponses
Commercial/Industrial DNV DNV Survey
2023 Shade Tree Program Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 202 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
Own 523 92.08%
Rent 45 7.92%
Total 568
Do you have a central air conditioner?
Answer Response Percent
Yes 481 84.53%
No 88 15.47%
Total 569
Answer Response Percent
222 46.44%
188 39.33%
70 14.64%
164 34.31%
10 2.09%
52 10.88%
706 n=478
Answer Response Percent
Very interested 54 11.25%
Somewhat interested 194 40.42%
Not very interested 122 25.42%
Not interested at all 110 22.92%
Total 480
Don't want my air conditioner interrupted
Didn't fully understand the program
Incentive for participating is too low/not enough
Don't have an air conditioning system that qualifies
2023 A/C Cool Credit Non Participant Survey Results
Do you own or rent your home?
Our records indicate that you do not currently participate in the A/C Cool Credit Program. Which of the
following would best describe why you do not participate in the program?
How interested are you in participating in the A/C Cool Credit Program?
(Check all that apply)
Other (please specify)
Total
Wasn't aware of the program
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
241 50.95%
64 13.53%
72 15.22%
42 8.88%
54 11.42%
473
95 20.39%
56 12.02%
133 28.54%
87 18.67%
95 20.39%
466
134 29.07%
28 6.07%
103 22.34%
61 13.23%
135 29.28%
461
Answer Response Percent
59 12.27%
41 8.52%
44 9.15%
144 29.94%
184 38.25%
179 37.21%
248 51.56%
112 23.28%
144 29.94%
53 11.02%
1,208 n=481
Concerned about possible change to indoor home temperature during events
Concern the device may affect A/C unit
Don't want a device installed on property
Other (please specify)
Total
4
5 - Very motivating
Total
Select the top three reasons why you would NOT be interested in participating in the A/C Cool Credit
program in the future. (Check up to three)
Total
Number of events per week
Number of events per season
Length of season (June 15 - September 15)
Event times (sometime between 3 pm and 11 pm)
Length of events (up to 4 hours)
Incentive amount ($5/month)
Helping the environment
No cost to participate
1 - Not very motivating
2
3
1 - Not very motivating
2
3
4
5 - Very motivating
Total
The monthly $5 bill credit
On a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 means "not very motivating" and 5 means "very motivating"), please rate
how much the following items would motivate you to participate in the A/C Cool Credit program.
1 - Not very motivating
2
3
4
5 - Very motivating
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
376 66.31%
19 3.35%
107 18.87%
64 11.29%
43 7.58%
30 5.29%
5 0.88%
11 1.94%
655 n=567
Answer Response Percent
160 28.67%
56 10.04%
148 26.52%
57 10.22%
31 5.56%
369 66.13%
53 9.50%
7 1.25%
881 n=558
Answer Response Percent
Before 1950 61 10.76%
1950-1959 34 6.00%
1960-1969 23 4.06%
1970-1979 67 11.82%
1980-1989 38 6.70%
1990-1999 83 14.64%
2000-2009 103 18.17%
2010-2019 82 14.46%
2020-present 58 10.23%
Don't know 18 3.17%
Total 567
Total
How would you prefer Idaho Power communicate with you about energy efficiency programs?(Check
all that apply)
Promotional material in Idaho Power bill
Letter or postcard in the mail
Website
Social media (i.e., Facebook and Instagram)
Email
Text
Other (please specify)
Total
When was this residence originally built?(Select when the building was originally constructed. Not
when it was remodeled, added to, or converted.)
Newsletter
No, I do not recall seeing any advertisements.
Yes, in an email
Yes, in a letter
Yes, online
Yes, on a radio commercial
Yes (please specify)
Yes, in an insert in my power bill
Do you recall seeing or hearing any advertisements for the A/C Cool Credit program?(Check all that
apply)
Yes, in a television commercial
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
146 25.80%
390 68.90%
8 1.41%
1 0.18%
16 2.83%
5 0.88%
566
Answer Response Percent
Under 18 0 0.00%
18-24 1 0.18%
25-34 50 8.82%
35-44 100 17.64%
45-60 144 25.40%
Over 60 272 47.97%
Total 567
Fuel oil
Wood
Other (please specify)
Total
Which of the following best describes your age?
Propane
What one fuel is most often used to heat this residence?
Electricity
Natural gas
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
42 66.67%
2 3.17%
18 28.57%
7 11.11%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
1 1.59%
Total 70 n=63
Answer Response Percent
45 71.43%
18 28.57%
Total 63
Answer Response Percent
Yes 45 71.43%
No 18 28.57%
Total 63
Answer Response Percent
Yes 33 52.38%
No 30 47.62%
Total 63
Answer Response Percent
Yes 25 39.68%
No 38 60.32%
Total 63
Other (please specify)
Of the items included in the Energy-Saving Kit you received, which of the following have you installed
at your business:
8 Watt LED lamp #1
Yes
No
8 Watt LED lamp #2
8 Watt BR30 reflector LED lightbulb #1
8 Watt BR30 reflector LED lightbulb #2
Other business owner
2023 Commercial Savings Kit Survey Results
How did you learn about the Energy-Saving Kit program?(Check all that apply)
Idaho Power email
Idaho Power employee
Idaho Power newsletter
Idaho Power My Account
LinkedIn
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
Yes 10 15.87%
No 53 84.13%
Total 63
Answer Response Percent
Yes 27 42.86%
No 36 57.14%
Total 63
Answer Response Percent
Yes 28 44.44%
No 35 55.56%
Total 63
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 39 86.67%
Somewhat satisfied 3 6.67%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1 2.22%
Somewhat dissatisfied 1 2.22%
Very dissatisfied 1 2.22%
Total 45
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 39 86.67%
Somewhat satisfied 3 6.67%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1 2.22%
Somewhat dissatisfied 1 2.22%
Very dissatisfied 1 2.22%
Total 45
8 Watt LED lamp #1
8 Watt LED lamp #2
How satisfied are you with the item(s) that you installed?
LED retrofit kit for exit signs
Kitchen Aerator
Bathroom Aerator
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 27 81.82%
Somewhat satisfied 4 12.12%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1 3.03%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 1 3.03%
Total 33
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 20 80.00%
Somewhat satisfied 3 12.00%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1 4.00%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 1 4.00%
Total 25
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 5 50.00%
Somewhat satisfied 3 30.00%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1 10.00%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 1 10.00%
Total 10
Kitchen Aerator
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 17 62.96%
Somewhat satisfied 5 18.52%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3 11.11%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 2 7.41%
Total 27
8 Watt BR30 reflector LED lightbulb #1
8 Watt BR30 reflector LED lightbulb #2
LED retrofit kit for exit signs
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 23 82.14%
Somewhat satisfied 2 7.14%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3 10.71%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 28
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 46 73.02%
Somewhat satisfied 10 15.87%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 6 9.52%
Somewhat dissatisfied 1 1.59%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 63
Answer Response Percent
Yes 19 30.16%
No 44 69.84%
Total 63
Overall, how satisfied are you with the Energy-Saving Kit program?
Since receiving the Energy-Saving Kit, have you gone to Idaho Power’s website to look for information
about energy efficiency programs or to find other ways to save?
Bathroom Aerator
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Metro Community Services 17 14.91%
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership 0.00%
El Ada Community Action Partnership 77 67.54%
South Central Community Action Partnership 16 14.04%
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency 0.00%
Community Connection of Northeast Oregon 0.00%
Community in Action 4 3.51%
Total 114
Agency/Contractor flyer 13 10.32%
Idaho Power employee 9 7.14%
Idaho Power web site 4 3.17%
Friend or relative 59 46.83%
Letter in mail 4 3.17%
Other (Please specify)32 25.40%
none listed 5 3.97%
Total 126
by phone
HVAC Contractor
My wife friend or info through ID Power
Heard about program
Bill Stuffer
bill stuff
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
El-Ada
social worker
El-Ada
Idaho Power bill
got a call
done in Oregon
KNOWLEDGE
Neighbors
friend
left blank
neighbors
used El Ada in the past
El Ada
have used utility assistance before
Other Option [Other (Please specify)]
How did you learn about the weatherization program?
2023 Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Program Survey
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
internet
phone call from El Ada
left blank
left blank
Landlord
Dad
I've had this before, weatherization called me
El Ada
left blank
neighbor
El Ada called me
El Ada
left blank
online search
left blank
left blank
Reduce utility bills 92 42.79%
Improve comfort of home 43 20.00%
Furnace concerns 40 18.60%
Water heater concerns 14 6.51%
Improve insulation 17 7.91%
Other (please specify)9 4.19%
Total 215
AC
ceiling heat quit-had no heating system, using space heaters and windows and no AC
el calenton, no forcincbo, 4 vent estance rotes
Five
fix window
heat pump
home safety
landlord refused to pay for new heating unit
window replacement
Completely 105 85.37%
Somewhat 17 13.82%
Not at all 1 0.81%
Total 123
Other Option [Other (please specify)]
What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how well was the equipment's
operation explained to you?
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
How air leaks affect energy usage 74 20.39%
How insulation affects energy usage 62 17.08%
How to program the new thermostat 56 15.43%
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 40 11.02%
How to use energy wisely 70 19.28%
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 61 16.80%
Other (Please specify)0 0.00%
Total 363
they were all amazing!
the importance of properly insulating our home
about bathroom fan
none
Very likely 83 70.94%
Somewhat likely 31 26.50%
Not very likely 1 0.85%
Not likely at all 2 1.71%
Total 117
All of it 71 59.17%
Some of it 25 20.83%
None of it 1 0.83%
N/A 23 19.17%
Total 120
Very likely 46 41.44%
Somewhat likely 33 29.73%
Somewhat unlikely 2 1.80%
Very unlikely 2 1.80%
N/A 28 25.23%
Total 111
If you shared the energy use information with other members of your household, how likely do you think household
members will change habits to save energy?
How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your household?
Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how likely are you to change your
habits to save energy?
Other Option [Other (Please specify)]
Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization process? (Check all that
apply)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Washing full loads of clothes 72 17.14%
Washing full loads of dishes 47 11.19%
Turning off lights when not in use 84 20.00%
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 55 13.10%
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 76 18.10%
Turning the thermostat down in the winter 80 19.05%
Other (please specify)6 1.43%
Total 420
already do it
it varies depending on how cold it is in winter
N/A
shower length
staying aware of potential air flow issues and water conservation
we did all the things listed but teaching them about insulation and getting a better bathroom vent is
Significantly 105 88.98%
Somewhat 9 7.63%
Very little 2 1.69%
Not at all 2 1.69%
Total 118
Excellent 113 94.96%
Good 6 5.04%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 119
Excellent 109 90.83%
Good 9 7.50%
Fair 2 1.67%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 120
Excellent 109 90.83%
Good 9 7.50%
Fair 2 1.67%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 120
Explanation of work to be performed on your home
Professionalism
Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
Courteousness
How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home?
Other Option [Other (please specify)]
What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save energy? (check all that apply)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Excellent 109 91.60%
Good 7 5.88%
Fair 1 0.84%
Poor 2 1.68%
Total 119
Yes 73 62.39%
No 44 37.61%
Total 117
Very satisfied 111 91.74%
Somewhat satisfied 10 8.26%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 121
Improved 103 84.43%
Stayed the same 19 15.57%
Decreased 0 0.00%
Total 122
0 36 29.51%
1 30 24.59%
2 21 17.21%
3 12 9.84%
4 8 6.56%
5 5 4.10%
6 or more 10 8.20%
Total 122
Less than 1 year 0 0.00%
1-10 years 18 14.75%
11-25 years 48 39.34%
26 years or more 56 45.90%
Total 122
How many people, beside yourself, live in your home year-round?
How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization program?
Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor
How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Under 25 2 1.61%
25-34 11 8.87%
35-44 21 16.94%
45-54 16 12.90%
55-64 22 17.74%
65-74 30 24.19%
75 or older 22 17.74%
Total 124
Less than High School 18 8.57%
High School graduate or GED 53 25.24%
Some College or Technical School 29 13.81%
Associate Degree 40 19.05%
College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate degrees)70 33.33%
Total 210
Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have attained:
Please select the category below that best describes your age:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Home Energy Management 11 100%
Total
Agency/Contractor flyer 3 27.27%
Idaho Power employee 0 0.00%
Idaho Power web site 1 9.09%
Friend or relative 3 27.27%
Letter in mail 2 18.18%
Other (Please specify)2 18.18%
Total 11
Bill stuffer
Bill stuffer
Reduce utility bills 4 30.77%
Improve comfort of home 6 46.15%
Furnace concerns 0 0.00%
Water heater concerns 0 0.00%
Improve insulation 3 23.08%
Other (please specify)0 0.00%
Total 13
Completely 2 18.18%
Somewhat 0 0.00%
Not at all 9 81.82%
Total 11
How air leaks affect energy usage 10 18.18%
How insulation affects energy usage 10 18.18%
How to program the new thermostat 2 3.64%
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 11 20.00%
How to use energy wisely 11 20.00%
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 10 18.18%
Other (Please specify)1 1.82%
Total 55
Hot tub
Other Option [Other (Please specify)]
Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization process? (Check all that
apply)
If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how well was the equipment's
operation explained to you?
2023 Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers Program Survey
How did you learn about the weatherization program?
What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Other Option [Other (Please specify)]
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Very likely 7 63.64%
Somewhat likely 3 27.27%
Not very likely 1 9.09%
Not likely at all 0 0.00%
Total 11
All of it 7 63.64%
Some of it 2 18.18%
None of it 2 18.18%
N/A 0 0.00%
Total 11
Very likely 3 27.27%
Somewhat likely 5 45.45%
Somewhat unlikely 1 9.09%
Very unlikely 0 0.00%
N/A 2 18.18%
Total 11
Washing full loads of clothes 2 9.52%
Washing full loads of dishes 2 9.52%
Turning off lights when not in use 1 4.76%
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 7 33.33%
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 1 4.76%
Turning the thermostat down in the winter 2 9.52%
Other (please specify)6 28.57%
Total 21
Other Option [Other (please specify)]
already does
Already does these
already does these items
Already practice these
customer already does these
practice these already
How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home?
Significantly 10 90.91%
Somewhat 1 9.09%
Very little 0 0.00%
Not at all 0 0.00%
Total 11
How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your household?
Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how likely are you to change
your habits to save energy?
What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save energy? (check all that apply)
If you shared the energy use information with other members of your household, how likely do you think household
members will change habits to save energy?
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Excellent 11 100.00%
Good 0 0.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 11
Excellent 11 100.00%
Good 0 0.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 11
Excellent 11 100.00%
Good 0 0.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 11
Excellent 11 100.00%
Good 0 0.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 11
Yes 11 100.00%
No 0 0.00%
Total 11
Very satisfied 11 100.00%
Somewhat satisfied 0 0.00%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 11
Improved 4 36.36%
Stayed the same 7 63.64%
Decreased 0 0.00%
Total 11
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor
Explanation of work to be performed on your home
Professionalism
Courteousness
Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization program?
Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
0 3 27.27%
1 6 54.55%
2 1 9.09%
3 0 0.00%
4 1 9.09%
5 0 0.00%
6 or more 0 0.00%
Total 11
Less than 1 year 0 0.00%
1-10 years 1 9.09%
11-25 years 4 36.36%
26 years or more 6 54.55%
Total 11
Under 25 0 0.00%
25-34 0 0.00%
35-44 1 9.09%
45-54 1 9.09%
55-64 4 36.36%
65-74 3 27.27%
75 or older 2 18.18%
Total 11
Less than High School 0 0.00%
High School graduate or GED 1 9.09%
Some College or Technical School 5 45.45%
Associate Degree 4 36.36%
College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate degrees)1 9.09%
Total 11
How many people, beside yourself, live in your home year-round?
Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have attained:
Please select the category below that best describes your age:
How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Responses Percent
10 14.49%
39 56.52%
11 15.94%
3 4.35%
6 8.70%
Total 69
Answer Responses Percent
58 84.06%
8 11.59%
0 0.00%
3 4.35%
0 0.00%
Total 69
Answer Responses Percent
59 85.51%
8 11.59%
2 2.90%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
69
Answer Responses Percent
62 89.86%
5 7.25%
2 2.90%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
Total 69
2023 Retrofit Simple Survey
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
How did you learn about the Retrofits program?
Idaho Power employee
Contractor
Equipment supplier
Other business owner
Other (please specify)
Overall, how satisfied are you with the Idaho Power Retrofits incentive program?
How satisfied are you with the contractor that you hired to install the equipment?
How satisfied are you with the equipment that was installed?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Total
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
46 96%
2 4%
0 0%
0 0%
Total 48
Answer Response Percent
45 94%
2 4%
1 2%
0 0%
Total 48
Answer Response Percent
44 94%
3 6%
0 0%
0 0%
Total 47
Answer Response Percent
44 92%
4 8%
0 0%
0 0%
Total 48
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not likely at all
2023 SBDI Evaluation Results
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Very easy
Somewhat easy
Somewhat difficult
Very satisfied
How easy was it to participate in the program?
Very difficult
Based on your experience with this Direct Install program, how likely are you to recommend this
program to other small businesses?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the program?
How satisfied are you with the equipment that was installed?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
44 92%
3 6%
1 2%
0 0%
Total 48
Answer Response Percent
10 21%
1 2%
1 2%
31 65%
3 6%
0 0%
2 4%
Total 48
Answer Response Percent
29 62%
18 38%
0 0%
Total 47
Answer Response Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 2%
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 3 6%
Manufaturing 0 0%
Mining 0 0%
Public Administration 0 0%
Retail Trade 5 11%
Services 26 55%
Transportation, Communications, Electric, Gas & Sanitary Services 0 0%
Wholesale Trade 0 0%
Other (please specify)12 26%
Total 47
How did you learn about Idaho Power's Small Business Direct Install Program?
How satisfied are you with the customer service provided by the company installing the equipment?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Which of the following best describes your business?
Idaho Power Energy Advisor
Idaho Power Customer Service
Email from Idaho Power
Postal Mailing from Idaho Power
Vendor or Contractor
Idaho Power Website
Other Business Owner or Employee
How, if at all, has your opinion of Idaho Power changed since participating in this program?
More favorable opinion of Idaho Power
No change in opinion of Idaho Power
Less favorable opinion of Idaho Power
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
205 39.12%
147 28.05%
31 5.92%
25 4.77%
76 14.50%
71 13.55%
Total 555 n=524
Answer Response Percent
72 13.74%
90 17.18%
90 17.18%
80 15.27%
112 21.37%
62 11.83%
18 3.44%
Total 524
Answer Response Percent
82 15.65%
320 61.07%
46 8.78%
76 14.50%
Total 524
Answer Response Percent
154 29.39%
357 68.13%
13 2.48%
Total 524
How did you hear about Idaho Power's Shade Tree Project(Check all that apply)
Lack of knowledge
Cost
Time
Other (please specify)
Where would you typically purchase a new tree?(Mark one)
Garden section of do it yourself store
Nursery/garden store
Other (please specify)
2023 Shade Tree Survey Results
What was the primary reason you participated in the program?(Mark one)
What kept you from planting a tree prior to the Shade Tree Project?(Mark one)
Tree was free
Home too warm in the summer
Reduce energy bill
Improve landscape/property value
Wanted a tree
Help the environment
Other (please specify)
Email from Idaho Power
Friend or relative
Neighbor
Utility employee
Letter
Other (please specify)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
320 61.30%
159 30.46%
32 6.13%
11 2.11%
Total 522
Answer Response Percent
379 72.47%
120 22.94%
19 3.63%
5 0.96%
523
Answer Response Percent
One 96 18.32%
Two 428 81.68%
Total 524
Answer Response Percent
35 36.46%
40 41.67%
9 9.38%
11 11.46%
1 1.04%
96
How long did you spend on the online enrollment tool? (Mark one)
10 minutes or less
11-20 minutes
21-30 minutes
31 minutes or more
Overall, how easy was it for you to use the online enrollment tool?
How many trees did you receive from the Shade Tree Project?
When did you plant your shade tree?
Very easy
Somewhat easy
Somewhat difficult
Very difficult
Total
Ordered One Tree
Same day as the tree pickup
1-3 days after the tree pickup
4-7 days after the tree pickup
More than 1 week after the tree pickup
Did not plant the tree
Total
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
North 7 7.37%
South 17 17.89%
Northeast 1 1.05%
Southwest 12 12.63%
East 15 15.79%
West 28 29.47%
Southeast 7 7.37%
Northwest 8 8.42%
Total 95
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percent
35 36.84%
54 56.84%
6 6.32%
0 0.00%
Total 95
How many shade trees did you plant?
Answer Response Percent
18 4.21%
405 94.63%
5 1.17%
428
Answer Response Percent
2 11.11%
6 33.33%
7 38.89%
3 16.67%
18
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
20 feet or less
21-40 feet
41-60 feet
More than 60 feet
One
Received Two Trees
When did you plant your shade tree?
Two
Did not plant the trees
Total
Same day as the tree pickup
Ordered Two Planted One
1-3 days after the tree pickup
4-7 days after the tree pickup
More than 1 week after the tree pickup
Total
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
North 2 11.11%
South 2 11.11%
Northeast 1 5.56%
Southwest 2 11.11%
East 5 27.78%
West 4 22.22%
Southeast 1 5.56%
Northwest 1 5.56%
Total 18
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percent
6 33.33%
9 50.00%
2 11.11%
1 5.56%
Total 18
When did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percent
Tree 1
67 16.54%
206 50.86%
74 18.27%
58 14.32%
405
Tree 2
62 15.31%
204 50.37%
80 19.75%
59 14.57%
405
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
20 feet or less
21-40 feet
41-60 feet
More than 60 feet
Same day as the tree pickup
1-3 days after the tree pickup
4-7 days after the tree pickup
Ordered Two Planted Two
More than 1 week after the tree pickup
Total
Same day as the tree pickup
1-3 days after the tree pickup
4-7 days after the tree pickup
More than 1 week after the tree pickup
Total
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percent
Tree 1
North 29 7.16%
South 67 16.54%
Northeast 18 4.44%
Southwest 48 11.85%
East 59 14.57%
West 137 33.83%
Southeast 17 4.20%
Northwest 30 7.41%
Total 405
Tree 2
North 24 5.93%
South 69 17.04%
Northeast 17 4.20%
Southwest 61 15.06%
East 55 13.58%
West 133 32.84%
Southeast 26 6.42%
Northwest 20 4.94%
Total 405
Answer Response Percent
Tree 1
137 33.83%
204 50.37%
43 10.62%
21 5.19%
Total 405
Tree 2
101 24.94%
210 51.85%
69 17.04%
25 6.17%
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
20 feet or less
21-40 feet
41-60 feet
More than 60 feet
20 feet or less
21-40 feet
41-60 feet
More than 60 feet
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Total 405
Answer Response Percent
3 12.50%
1 4.17%
0 0.00%
20 83.33%
Total 24 n=24
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 442 84.35%
Somewhat satisfied 77 14.69%
Somewhat dissatisfied 5 0.95%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 524
Answer Response Percent
Planting depth 284 54.51%
Circling roots 81 15.55%
Staking 49 9.40%
Watering 75 14.40%
Other (please specify)32 6.14%
Total 521
Answer Response Percent
Strongly agree 481 91.97%
Somewhat agree 36 6.88%
Somewhat disagree 5 0.96%
Strongly disagree 1 0.19%
Total 523
I am satisfied with the Shade Tree Project pick up event
How satisfied are you with the information you received on the planting and care of your
shade tree?
What information did you find most valuable?
How much do you agree with the following statements:
Why did you not plant your Tree?(Check all that apply)
Changed my mind
Did not like the tree
Did not have time
Other (please specify)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Answer Response Percent
Strongly agree 420 80.31%
Somewhat agree 82 15.68%
Somewhat disagree 17 3.25%
Strongly disagree 4 0.76%
Total 523
Answer Response Percent
Strongly agree 433 83.27%
Somewhat agree 84 16.15%
Somewhat disagree 1 0.19%
Strongly disagree 2 0.38%
Total 520
Answer Response Percent
Strongly agree 503 95.99%
Somewhat agree 20 3.82%
Somewhat disagree 1 0.19%
Strongly disagree 0 0.00%
Total 524
Answer Response Percent
Strongly agree 486 92.75%
Somewhat agree 35 6.68%
Somewhat disagree 3 0.57%
Strongly disagree 0 0.00%
Total 524
I am satisfied with the tree(s) I received from the Shade Tree Project
It was easy to plant my shade tree(s)
I would recommend the program to a friend or relative
I am satisfied with my overall experience
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 231
EVALUATIONS
Report Title Sector
Analysis
Performed By
Study
Manager
Study/Evaluation
Type
Impact and Process Evaluation of Idaho Power Company
PY2022 Home Energy Audit Program
Residential ADM Idaho Power Impact and
Process Evaluation
Impact Evaluation of Idaho Power Company PY2022 Small
Business Direct Install Program
Commercial,
Industrial
ADM Idaho Power Impact Evaluation
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation (PY2022) Irrigation Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact Evaluation
Residential New Construction Program PY2022 Evaluation Residential Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact Evaluation
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation Residential Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact Evaluation

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 232 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Impact and Process
Evaluation of
Idaho Power Company
PY2022 Home Energy
Audit Program
ADM Associates, Inc
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
916-363-8383
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702
208-388-2200

SUBMITTED TO: IDAHO POWER COMPANY
SUBMITTED ON: NOVEMBER 3, 2023
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Tables of Contents and Tables ii
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Home Energy Audit Program ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Savings Results............................................................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Conclusions & Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 7
2. General Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Summary of Approach .............................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.1 Database Review ................................................................................................................................. 12
2.1.2 Verification Methodology .................................................................................................................... 12
2.1.3 Impact Evaluation Methodology .......................................................................................................... 14
2.1.4 Process Evaluation Methodology ......................................................................................................... 15
3. Impact Evaluation Results .................................................................................................................. 17
3.1.1 Database Review ................................................................................................................................. 18
3.1.2 Lighting Evaluation Results .................................................................................................................. 18
3.1.3 Smart Strip Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................. 19
3.1.4 Pipe Insulation Evaluation Results ....................................................................................................... 19
3.1.5 High-Efficiency Showerhead Evaluation Results .................................................................................. 19
3.1.6 Survey Responses & ISR ....................................................................................................................... 20
4. Process Evaluation Results ................................................................................................................. 21
4.1 Staff Interviews ......................................................................................................................................... 21
4.1.1 Program Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.2 Program Design ................................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.3 Auditors ................................................................................................................................................ 22
4.1.4 Marketing & Outreach ......................................................................................................................... 23
4.1.5 Program Referrals ................................................................................................................................ 23
4.1.6 Data Tracking ....................................................................................................................................... 23
4.2 Auditor Interviews .................................................................................................................................... 24
4.2.1 Program Design ................................................................................................................................... 24
4.2.2 Direct Install Measures ........................................................................................................................ 25
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

The Evaluatorsenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iii
4.2.3 Satisfaction .......................................................................................................................................... 25
4.3 Participant Surveys ................................................................................................................................... 26
4.3.1 Program Awareness ............................................................................................................................. 26
4.3.2 Program Participation .......................................................................................................................... 27
4.3.3 Direct Install Measures ........................................................................................................................ 29
4.3.4 Program Satisfaction ........................................................................................................................... 30
4.3.5 Respondent Characteristics.................................................................................................................. 32
4.4 Nonparticipant Surveys ............................................................................................................................ 33
4.4.1 Experience with Energy Efficiency Equipment ..................................................................................... 34
4.4.2 Program Awareness ............................................................................................................................. 36
4.4.3 Interest in HEA Program ...................................................................................................................... 38
4.4.4 Respondent Characteristics.................................................................................................................. 39
4.5 Program Tracking Review ......................................................................................................................... 40
4.5.1 Uplift Due to Program .......................................................................................................................... 41
4.6 Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit ............................................................................................ 42
5. Appendix A: Participant Survey .......................................................................................................... 43
5.1 Pre-Defined Variables ............................................................................................................................... 43
5.2 Email Survey Message .............................................................................................................................. 43
5.3 Survey ....................................................................................................................................................... 44
6. Appendix B: Nonparticipant Survey ................................................................................................... 80
6.1 Pre-Defined Variables ............................................................................................................................... 80
6.2 Email Survey Message .............................................................................................................................. 80
6.3 Survey ....................................................................................................................................................... 81

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

The Evaluatorsenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iv
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Measure Summary ....................................................................................................................... 5
Table 1-2: Home Energy Audit Verified Impact Savings by Measure ........................................................... 6
Table 2-1: Survey Sample Plan by Measure ................................................................................................ 13
Table 2-2: Home Energy Audit Impact Analysis Methodology by Measure ............................................... 14
Table 3-1: Home Energy Audit Program Participation by Measure Type ................................................... 17
Table 3-2: Home Energy Audit Program Lighting Measure Total Verified Savings ..................................... 18
Table 3-3: Home Energy Audit Program Smart Strip Measure Total Verified Savings ............................... 19
Table 3-4: Home Energy Audit Program Pipe Insulation Measure Total Verified Savings.......................... 19
Table 3-5: Home Energy Audit Program High Efficiency Showerhead Measure Total Verified Savings ..... 20
Table 3-6: Distribution of Measure Type by Survey Respondents ............................................................. 20
Table 3-7: Summary of In-Service Rates by Measure ................................................................................. 20
Table 4-1: Reasons for Not Implementing Improvements ......................................................................... 29
Table 4-2: Efficient Improvements Respondents Would Be Interested In ................................................. 29
Table 4-3 Direct Install Measures ............................................................................................................... 30
Table 4-4: Participant Demographic and Residential Characteristics ......................................................... 32
Table 4-5: Space Heating Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................. 33
Table 4-6 Perceived Largest Household Energy Consumer ........................................................................ 34
Table 4-7: Air Conditioning Characteristics ................................................................................................. 35
Table 4-8: Space Heating Characteristics (n=29) ........................................................................................ 36
Table 4-9: Awareness of IPC Incentives and Programs (n=14) ................................................................... 36
Table 4-10: Reasons for Not Participating in IPC Programs ........................................................................ 38
Table 4-11: Non-Participant and Participant Demographic and Residential Characteristics ..................... 40
Table 4-12: Summary of HEA Impacts Towards Other Programs ............................................................... 41
Table 4-13: Summary of HEA Participants That Completed Additional EE Projects ................................... 41

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Tables of Contents and Tables 5
1. Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the 2022 program year (PY2022) Home Energy Audit (HEA) Program
Impact Evaluation for Idaho Power Company (IPC) in Idaho. The evaluation was administered by ADM
Associates, Inc. (herein referred to as the “Evaluators”).
The Evaluators found the impact evaluation results for the Home Energy Audit Program to align with
similar Home Energy Audit programs offered. The impact evaluation resulted in savings of 28,801 kWh
at a realization rate of 102%.
The Evaluators conclude that the program is running smoothly and delivers sufficient energy efficiency
options to Idaho Power customers. However, the Evaluators provide recommendations for providing
additional information to program participants about other Idaho Power Company program offerings
in order to remove customer barriers and increase throughput towards other programs.
1.1 Home Energy Audit Program
IPC’s Home Energy Audit Program was designed to provide residential customers with a home energy
audit conducted by a certified, third-party home performance specialist. The specialist identifies areas of
concern and provides specific recommendations to improve the efficiency, comfort, and health of the
home. The audit includes a visual inspection of the crawlspace and attic, a health and safety inspection,
and a blower door test to identify and locate air leaks. The home specialist also collects information on
types and quantities of appliances and lighting in each home, then determines which available energy
efficiency measures are appropriate.
While the specialist is in the customer’s home, direct install measures are offered to be installed for the
customer. Homeowners and/or landlords approve all direct-install measures prior to installation. The
direct install measures available include up to 20 LED lightbulbs, one high-efficiency showerhead, pipe
insulation from the water heater to the home wall (approximately 3 feet), and a Tier 2 advanced power
strip. The following table outlines the measures offered through this program.
Table 1-1: Measure Summary
Measures End Use
LED general purpose
Lighting LED globe
LED high wattage
LED reflector
High-efficiency showerhead Hot Water Pipe insulation
Tier 2 advanced power strip Miscellaneous
In the 2023 program year, the Tier 2 advanced power strips will no longer be offered.1

1 Idaho Power will keep offering power strips until backstock is cleared.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 6

1.2 Savings Results
The Evaluators conducted an impact evaluation for IPC’s Home Energy Audit Program during PY2022. In
PY2022, Idaho Power completed and provided incentives for residential measures in Idaho under the
Home Energy Audit Program. The claimed savings in this report represent direct install measures only;
any additional upgrades are claimed through native programs.
The Home Energy Audit Program verified savings amounted to 28,801 kWh with a 101.59% realization
rate for the measures overall. The Evaluators summarize the program verified savings in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2: Home Energy Audit Verified Impact Savings by Measure
Measure
Total Claimed
kWh Savings
by Measure
Total Verified
kWh Savings
by Measure
Realization
Rate
14-Watt LED - canned. 250 - 1049 lumens. High use and
outdoor use. Product must be ENERGY STAR certified 1,784.16 1,784.16 100.00%
15-Watt LED - high wattage. 1490 to 2600 lumens. High or
moderate use. 881.02 875.44 99.37%
8-Watt LED - globes. 250 - 1049 lumens. Moderate use. Product
must be ENERGY STAR certified. 1,329.13 1,329.13 100.00%
9-Watt LED - general purpose. 250 - 1049 lumens. High or
moderate use. 15,004.56 15,004.56 100.00%
Smart Strip 2,502.08 2,502.08 100.00%
Pipe insulation 6,849.00 7,305.60 107.00%
Showerheads (electric water heating) 0 0 -
Showerheads (gas water heating) 0 0 -
Total 28,349.95 28,800.97 101.59%
The Evaluators conducted the following evaluation tasks for the PY2022 Home Energy Audit Program
impact evaluation:
 Database Review
 Survey verification
 Measure-level savings application review
The Evaluators conducted the following evaluation tasks for process evaluation:
 Staff interviews
 Auditor interviews
 Participant surveys
 Nonparticipant surveys
In the following sections, the Evaluators summarize the findings and recommendations resulting from
our evaluation activities.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 7

1.3 Conclusions & Recommendations
The Evaluators provide the following impact evaluation conclusions and recommendations regarding
Idaho Power’s Home Energy Audit Program:
 Conclusion #1: The Evaluators verified 28,801 kWh savings at a 102% realization rate for the
Home Energy Audit Program. The Evaluators verified savings and assumptions using a deemed
savings approach for the measures included in the program in addition to verifying in-service
rates.
 Conclusion #2: The Evaluators reviewed all tracking data as well as the project data and
confirmed that project-level measure details were tracked accurately and that the RTF
equations and assumptions were utilized correctly to calculate expected savings.
 Conclusion #3 & Recommendation #1: Realization rates differ from 100% for the 15W LED high
wattage, 1490 to 2600 lumens, high or moderate use due to a unit energy savings value
application issue. The Evaluators recommend updating the unit energy savings value for this
measure to correct manual entry errors.
 Conclusion #4: The Evaluators found that the realization rate for pipe wraps is above 100% due
to the application of a household-level cap in pipe wrap savings. The Evaluators determined that
the 3-foot household level cap in savings is not necessary to apply for households in which two
or more pipe wraps were installed. This change led to additional savings for the measure.
 Conclusion #5: The Evaluators found that the high-efficiency showerhead is a deactivated RTF
measure and there are a few values that cannot be assumed. For these reasons, this measure
was not eligible to claim savings, which matched Idaho Power’s expectation of the measure.
 Conclusion #6 & Recommendation #2: Upon completion of survey efforts, the Evaluators
reviewed in-service rate (ISR) results compared to RTF assumed in-service rates for each
measure. The in-service rates demonstrated in the table above are well within reasonable
comparability to the in-service rates included in the RTF UES. Therefore, the Evaluators
recommend that IPC continue to use the in-service rates assumed by the RTF for this program in
future cycles.
 Conclusion #7: The HEA Program continues to be helpful for IPC customers and customers
communicate satisfaction with the program, including interactions with the auditors and the
reports they received. However, among the respondents who indicated the audit was not helpful
(13.5%), participants noted they did not learn anything new from the audit, wanted more personal
recommendations for energy usage improvement, or wanted more information about other IPC
programs that promote energy efficiency.
 Conclusion #8 & Recommendation #3: The majority of respondents made at least some
improvements (81.1%). To date, the program does not track how many HEA participants enroll in
other IPC offerings. The Evaluators recommend that IPC start tracking whether HEA participants
enroll in other IPC offerings within one to two years of completing the energy audit. This effort
will help IPC staff determine whether home energy audits are producing increased participation
in other programs, and which programs and measures are popular among HEA participants.
 Conclusion #9 & Recommendation #4: Over a quarter of HEA participant respondents (30.6%)
chose “don’t know” when asked about their satisfaction with the follow-up call with their
auditor. This data point may indicate that respondents do not remember the call with their
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 8

auditor, or the call did not occur. Due to the strong emphasis program staff place on this call as
an additional touchpoint between the utility and customer, the Evaluators recommend program
staff consider reiterating the importance of these follow up calls to the auditors.
 Conclusion #10 & Recommendation #5: Currently, in the HEA Program, the auditors provide an
official audit report within two business days and follow up with the customer within a week via
phone to answer any questions. However, auditors and participants desire more information from
IPC about the various energy efficiency incentives and rebates offered in order to recommend
programs to customers when they can. The Evaluators recommend that IPC provide additional
program information to auditors, so they better understand the program offerings available to
customers. The evaluators also recommend program staff more strongly encourage auditors to
share additional program offering information to customers.
 Conclusion #11 & Recommendation #6: Interviewed auditors and survey respondents alike
requested having suggested contractors available to customers in order to help them implement
the home energy audit recommendations. Although the program currently aims to remain
contractor neutral, the Evaluators recommend that allow the auditors to provide customers
recommendations for contractors based on recommended energy efficiency upgrades. The
Evaluators also recommend IPC provides auditors training regarding how to appropriately
recommend contractors related to the suggested energy efficiency improvements made to the
customer. This will provide the customer with additional information towards next steps and will
remove barriers to additional energy efficiency improvements.
 Conclusion #12 & Recommendation #7: Interviewed auditors mentioned that customers with
newer homes seem eager to participate, but ultimately there are not many improvements that
can be made to a home that is less than 10-15 years old. The Evaluators recommend that IPC
incorporate house vintage to target homes for participation in the program that are more than
10-15 years old to target for home energy audits. These homes are more likely to benefit from
audits and are more likely to be recommended energy conservation projects with returns within
a decent timeframe for the homeowner or tenant.
 Conclusion #13: The time it took to schedule the audit had one of the highest rates of
dissatisfaction among residents (21.6%). During staff interviews, the program specialist
acknowledged the long program waitlist that grew during the pandemic and indicated they are
working to reduce wait times to no more than two months. The HEA Program strives to manage
waitlist times and ensure all interested customers receive an audit in a timely manner, but delays
due to COVID continue to affect customer scheduling.
 Conclusion #14: The most common direct install measures installed by both interviewed auditors
were pipe insulation and LEDs. The auditors rarely installed power strips or low-flow
showerheads, as customers either did not understand how they worked or did not have
showerhead mounts conducive to them. One auditor suggested IPC consider adding door sweeps
as a direct install measure. The RTF provides door sweep UES measure savings for the region. In
addition, customers in the area would benefit from the added weatherization and seem to
communicate interest in the measure. IPC indicated that this inclusion is unlikely due to extended
installation duration, contractor trainings, and cost issues that have been previously evaluated by
the team. However, the Evaluators recommend reassessing this measure for inclusion.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 9

 Conclusion #15 & Recommendation #8: Although interviewed auditors were happy with
participation in the program, both auditors also communicated difficulty using the software
program, Snugg Pro, used to build the home energy reports. They indicated that although Snugg
Pro provides a train yourself video, they would like a training session from IPC staff and learn how
the software calculates energy savings, since they need to rely on those calculations in their
communications with the customers. The Evaluators recommend that IPC include Snugg Pro as
part of the regular training sessions with auditors and provide additional guidance and
clarification on quality control practices and outputs from the software.
 Conclusion 16 & Recommendation #9: Customers that participate in Idaho Power’s Home Energy
Audit Program are eligible to receive a nonrefundable tax credit of 30% of the total cost of the
home energy audit performed, up to $150 total, through the Inflation Reduction Act. In order for
IPC customers to remain eligible for claiming the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit for
home energy audits, the Evaluators recommend that Idaho Power require each home energy
auditor is certified by one of the qualified certification Programs listed on the Department of
Energy certification programs for the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit (Section 25C)
and provide the written home energy audit report to customers with the required information
(qualified home energy auditor’s name and EIN, an attestation that the qualified home energy
auditor is certified by a qualified certification program, and the name of such qualified
certification program).

2. General Methodology
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation for each of the measures included in Idaho Power
Company’s Home Energy Audit Program. Our general approach for this evaluation considers the cyclical
feedback loop among program design, implementation, and evaluation. Our activities estimate and
verify annual energy savings, identify whether the program is meeting its goals, and provide
recommendations for improving savings estimates and program design and implementation. The
Evaluators summarize the research objectives for the impact and process evaluation for this program
below:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 10

1. Review the program tracking database to determine and verify the energy (kWh) impacts
attributable to the 2022 program year;
2. Complete the file reviews and verification of project specific assumptions with a ±10% precision
at a 90% confidence interval (90/10);
3. Develop credible and reliable program energy and non-energy impact estimates and ex-post
realization rates through the 2022 program year; and
4. Deliver a report with findings, observations, and recommendations that enhance the
effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of
program savings.
The Evaluators used the following approaches to accomplish the impact-related research goals listed
above and to calculate energy impacts defined by the International Performance Measurement and
Verification Protocols (IPMVP)2 and the Uniform Methods Project (UMP)3:
 Simple verification (web-based surveys)
 Database review
 Application of deemed savings with verified inputs
The Evaluators also conducted a process evaluation in this work. The key process evaluation objectives
include the following:
 Evaluate program design to ensure use of industry best practices.
 Evaluate program implementation including quality control, operational practice, and outreach.
 Review program documentation (including forms, manuals, marketing, and materials) and
interview staff to understand program goals, rules, and processes.
 Evaluate program administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation, and reporting.
 Survey program participants about their experiences, including satisfaction with the program and
details related to their decision-making.
 Survey nonparticipants to reveal the level of program awareness and identify barriers to
participation.
The M&V methodology is determined by previous IPC evaluation methodologies as well as the
appropriate rigor considering program contributions to overall portfolio. The Evaluators reviewed
relevant information on infrastructure, framework, and guidelines set out for EM&V work in several
guidebook documents that have been published over the past several years. These include the
following:
 Northwest Power and Conservation Council Regional Technical Forum (RTF)

2 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31505.pdf
3 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70472.pdf
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 11

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), United States Department of Energy (DOE) The
Uniform Methods Project (UMP): Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific
Measures, April 2013.4
 IPMVP maintained by the Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO) with sponsorship by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE)5
The Evaluators kept data collection instruments, calculation spreadsheets, and interview and survey
data available for Idaho Power records.
2.1 Summary of Approach
This section presents our approach to accomplishing the impact evaluation of Idaho Power’s Home
Energy Audit Program. This chapter is organized by evaluation objective. Section 3 describes the
Evaluators’ measure-specific impact evaluation methods and results in further detail. Section 4 describes
the Evaluators’ process evaluation efforts, results, and conclusions.
The Evaluators outline the approach for verifying, measuring, and reporting the program impacts as well
as summarizing staff, auditor, and customer satisfaction and potential program improvements. The
primary objective of the impact evaluation is to determine ex-post verified net energy savings. On-site
verification and equipment monitoring was not conducted during this impact evaluation, however, the
Evaluators deployed verification surveys for a sample of projects to gather additional information from a
representative sample of projects.
Our general approach for this evaluation considered the cyclical feedback loop among program design,
implementation, and impact evaluation. Our activities during the evaluation estimated and verified
annual energy savings and identified whether the program is meeting its goals. These activities are
aimed to provide guidance for continuous program improvement and increase cost effectiveness for
future program years.
The Evaluators define one major approach to determining net savings for each of the measures offered
in Idaho Power’s Home Energy Audit Program:
 A deemed savings approach: The deemed savings approach involves using stipulated savings for
energy conservation measures for which savings values are well-known and documented.
Deemed savings values for all measures considered were systematically reviewed. Wherever
possible, evaluated results included the impact of housing type and delivery mechanism on
equipment operation, as defined by the RTF.
The Evaluators accomplished the following quantitative goals as part of the impact evaluation:
 Verified annual energy savings with ±10% precision at the 90% confidence level.

4 Notably, The Uniform Methods Project (UMP) includes the following chapters authored by ADM. Chapter 9 (Metering Cross-
Cutting Protocols) was authored by Dan Mort and Chapter 15 (Commercial New Construction Protocol) was Authored by Steven
Keates.
5 Core Concepts: International Measurement and Verification Protocol. EVO 100000 – 1:2016, October 2016.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 12

 Used verified results to determine ex post realization rates.
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for each measure based on the RTF UES or appropriate
workpapers in combination with the results from document review. The Evaluators also verified in-
service rates (ISRs) and from verification surveys for measures which exceeded 90/10 precision
requirements from survey responses.

2.1.1 Database Review
At the outset of the evaluation, the Evaluators reviewed the program database to ensure that the
program tracking database conforms to industry standards and adequately tracks key data required for
evaluation.
Measure-level net savings were evaluated by reviewing measure unit energy savings (UES) and values in
the tracking system to assure that they were appropriately applied deemed savings estimates defined by
a third party for the relevant region. The Evaluators then aggregated measure-level energy savings to
estimate PY2022 kWh reductions due to the program.
2.1.2 Verification Methodology
The Evaluators verified a sample of participating households for verification of measure installation
through web-based surveys. Participants received $20 in incentives as a thank you for completing this
verification survey. The Evaluators used the following equations to estimate survey completion
requirements for the program to achieve 10% precision at the 90% confidence level. Required number
of responses were estimated as follows:
Equation 2-1: Sample Size for Infinite Sample Size 𝑛𝑛= �𝑍𝑍× 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑�2

Equation 2-2: Sample Size for Finite Population Size 𝑛𝑛0 = 𝑛𝑛1 +�𝑛𝑛𝑁𝑁�
Where,
Reported
Savings
Database
Review
Document
Review
Survey
Verification
Evaluated
Savings
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 13

 𝑛𝑛 = Sample size
 𝑍𝑍 = Z-value for a two-tailed distribution at the assigned confidence level.
 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = Coefficient of variation
 𝑑𝑑 = Precision level
 𝑁𝑁 = Population
For a sample that provides 90/10 precision, Z = 1.645 (the critical value for 90% confidence) and d = 0.10
(or 10% precision). The remaining parameter is CV, or the expected coefficient of variation of measures
for which the claimed savings may be accepted. Sample sizes were adjusted for smaller populations via
the method detailed in Equation 2-2.
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s methodology for conducting survey-based verification.
2.1.2.1 Survey-Based Verification
The Evaluators created a target response goal by measure in order to distribute verification surveys at
the 90/10 confidence precision, displayed in Table 2-1. Survey data collection involved verifying
equipment operability (installation and functionality) and also provided residents with the opportunity
to provide feedback on the measures and program.
The Evaluators conducted surveys that fulfilled the impact and process evaluation needs for each
measure (collecting measure installation and functionality rates, heating and cooling equipment, and
water heating equipment configuration for impact, and program feedback for process). This survey was
important for program savings verification because direct install measures that are not currently
operating or installed do not qualify for energy savings and therefore must be removed from
calculations.
Table 2-1: Survey Sample Plan by Measure
Measure Description Project
Population
Total kWh
Claimed
Savings
Planned
Sample
Size
9-Watt LED - general purpose. 250 - 1049 lumens. High
or moderate use. 156 15,004.56 35
8-Watt LED - globes. 250 - 1049 lumens. Moderate use. 69 1,329.13 5
15-Watt LED - high wattage. 1490 to 2600 lumens. High
or moderate use. 35 881.02 3
14-Watt LED - canned. 250 - 1049 lumens. High use and
outdoor use. 70 1,784.16 5
Pipe insulation 142 6,849.00 17
Smart Strip 31 2,502.08 8
2.0 GPM Showerhead on electric water heater 8 0.00 2
2.0 GPM Showerhead on gas water heater 7 0.00 2
Total 518 28,349.95 77
Once this data was collected, a realization rate across responding households was estimated by measure
and applied to the population of projects completed. In addition, the Evaluators reviewed in-service rate
(ISR) results compared to RTF assumed in-service rates for each measure.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 14

2.1.3 Impact Evaluation Methodology
The Evaluators employed a deemed savings approach to quantify program impacts for the Home Energy
Audit Program. The Evaluators completed the steps outlined below to complete the impact evaluation for
the program.
1. Deliver a detailed data request outlining the information we require for each project and
measure.
2. Complete a thorough and comprehensive summary of calculated savings.
3. Validate that appropriate inputs to expected savings were used for each measure.
4. Apply observed adjustments based on verification survey.
5. Verify the gross energy (kWh) savings that are a result of the program.
6. Summarize and integrate the impact evaluation findings into the final report.
The following table summarizes the methodology used to evaluate each measure type offered in the
HEA Program
Table 2-2: Home Energy Audit Impact Analysis Methodology by Measure
End Use Measure Impact Analysis Methodology
Lighting LED general purpose RTF Residential Lighting v9.4
Lighting LED globe RTF Residential Lighting v9.4
Lighting LED high wattage RTF Residential Lighting v9.4
Lighting LED reflector RTF Residential Lighting v9.4
Hot Water High-efficiency showerhead No Savings Claimed
Hot Water Pipe insulation Idaho Power Energy Efficiency
Potential Study
Miscellaneous Tier 2 advanced power strip RTF Residential Advanced Power
Strips v3.1

In the following subsections, the Evaluators provide further details for the following impact evaluation
steps:
 Program tracking data review;
 Validate expected savings;
 Verify gross savings; and
 Verified energy impact calculations.
2.1.3.1 Program Tracking Data Review
As a first step in the impact evaluation activities, the Evaluators reviewed program tracking data
provided by IPC. The Evaluators reviewed provided documents to verify measure quantity per project,
measure equipment installed per project, and project costs match IPC expectations for the program.
2.1.3.2 Validate Ex-Ante Savings
Energy savings claimed for lighting measures and pipe wrap measures are sourced from the current RTF
workbook for residential lighting and Idaho Power’s Energy Efficiency Potential Study, respectively.
Energy savings claimed for the pipe wrap measure was sourced from the Energy Efficiency Potential
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 15

Study, which estimates 76 kWh savings per year for pipe wrap measures. The Evaluators also verified,
through participant verification surveys, the water heater saturation for customers who received pipe
wrap installation.
The Evaluators understand that the RTF has deactivated the low-flow showerheads and advanced power
strips in 2020 and 2021. The Evaluators worked with Idaho Power to estimate savings through these
measures using appropriate savings sources relative to the program and region.
The Evaluators also included gas savings for gas water heater households by converting verified kWh
savings from electric home pipe wrap measures to Therms.
2.1.3.3 Verify Gross Savings
Gross savings were evaluated primarily using the appropriate RTF UES workbooks and relevant Energy
Efficiency Potential Study. The Evaluator team ensured appropriate savings values were applied by
reviewing project documentation and equipment efficiencies. The Evaluator team calculated verified
gross savings by summing deemed kWh savings per measure.
The Evaluators used the RTF savings values in effect during the time budgets and goals were established
for each program year. Table 2-2 in the section above summarizes the savings value sources the
Evaluators used for the evaluation of the Home Energy Audit Program.
2.1.3.4 Integrate Participant Survey
The Evaluators administered a survey to customers who participated in 2022. The objective of the
survey was to collect data on the following components:
 Sources of program awareness and motivations for participating;
 Customer experiences with the program and overall satisfaction; and,
 In-service rate and operation of equipment.
The survey was administered online, and customers were recruited by email in June 2023. Each customer
received up to three emails asking them to complete the survey. Customers were offered a $20 electronic
gift card to complete the survey. Customers with inactive IPC accounts and customers that had previously
requested not to receive communications were excluded from the survey sample.
The Evaluator developed the survey guide in conjunction with Idaho Power staff to address objectives
described previously through various questions to the participating customers. The survey questions are
provided in Appendix A and Appendix B.
2.1.4 Process Evaluation Methodology
The Evaluators performed a process evaluation to meet the objectives outlined previously. The process
evaluation primarily focused on documenting how home energy audits encouraged installation of
energy efficient measures or influenced customers to make energy-efficiency decisions.
2.1.4.1 Key Researchable Issues
The research questions the Evaluators investigated for the process evaluation include:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 16

 What are current industry best practices for home energy audit programs?
 Does current program design and implementation allow for optimal quality control, operational
practice, and outreach?
 Is the current tracking system effective for supporting and documenting home energy audit
completion and measure installation?
 Are the current marketing strategies effective?
 Are customers satisfied with their home energy audits?
 Do the audits cover all the essential energy savings measures? Should other measures be
included?
 How can the program improve oversight, staffing, management, training, documentation, and
reporting to allow for optimal administration and efficiency?
 What are the primary obstacles to participation among non-participants?
 What actions can the program take to increase engagement?
The Evaluators synthesized the process findings into a report section and provided recommendations for
program improvement. Specifics regarding process evaluation implementation by task are presented
below.
2.1.4.2 Program Tracking Data Review
The Evaluators analyzed program data to understand IPC’s processes when collecting individual home
energy audit information, tracking project-level status, and organizing program-level data. It was also
valuable to assess the degree to which audit recipients subsequently participate in other residential
programs offered by IPC by linking participation records across the two data sets. For this reason, the
Evaluators reviewed additional program tracking data to determine which customers participated in
other programs after having completed a home energy audit with IPC.
2.1.4.3 Program Staff Interviews
The Evaluators met with the IPC program lead or manager, and worked with them to identify additional
staff and any key external partners who should be included in the interviews. The in-depth interviews
took about an hour to complete and additional follow-up calls with staff were made to discuss topics in
greater detail.
2.1.4.4 Auditor Interviews
The Evaluators met with two of the four auditors partnering with IPC to complete the home energy
audits for this program. The in-depth interviews took about an hour to complete and discussed subjects
such as flow of work, customer satisfaction, customer barriers to completing additional energy efficiency
upgrades, and auditor satisfaction with the program and IPC overall.
2.1.4.5 Participant and Non-Participant Surveys
Participant surveys were used to obtain feedback from customers on their experience with the program,
to assess their awareness of other IPC efficiency program offerings and measures, and to understand
their decisions (and key factors affecting those decisions) to implement the efficient equipment. We
designed the survey instrument to address evaluation research questions. We administered the surveys
online.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 17

3. Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Idaho Power’s Home Energy Audit (HEA) Program to
verify program-level and measure-level energy savings for PY2022. The following sections summarize
findings for the electric impact evaluation in the program in the Idaho service area. The Evaluators used
data collected from participant surveys, industry standard baseline wattage assumptions, efficient
wattages, and annual hours of operation to evaluate savings. The Evaluators found the Home Energy Audit
Program resulted in 28,800.97 kWh of verified savings, displaying a 102% realization rate against Idaho
Power’s expected savings for the program. The Evaluators provide verified savings and realization rates
by measure type in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Home Energy Audit Program Participation by Measure Type
Measure
Total
Number of
Projects
Total
Claimed kWh
Savings by
Measure
Total
Verified
kWh Savings
by Measure
Realization
Rate
14-Watt LED - canned. 250 - 1049 lumens. High
use and outdoor use. Product must be ENERGY
STAR certified
70 1,784.16 1,784.16 100%
15-Watt LED - high wattage. 1490 to 2600 lumens.
High or moderate use. 35 881.02 875.44 99%
8-Watt LED - globes. 250 - 1049 lumens.
Moderate use. Product must be ENERGY STAR
certified.
69 1,329.13 1,329.13 100%
9-Watt LED - general purpose. 250 - 1049 lumens.
High or moderate use. 156 15,004.56 15,004.56 100%
Smart Strip 31 2,502.08 2,502.08 100%
Pipe insulation 142 6,849.00 7,305.60 107%
Showerheads (electric water heating)* 8 - - -
Showerheads (gas water heating)* 7 - - -
Total 503 28,349.95 28,800.97 102%
*No savings claimed for these measures
The Evaluators have verified and applied the RTF Residential Lighting measure UES for the direct install
LED measures installed through the Home Energy Audit Program. The Evaluators found that all
measures returned a 100% realization rate except for the 15-Watt LED which was due to a potential
database issue. For the pipe insulation measure, the Evaluators have reviewed and applied the Idaho
Power Energy Efficiency Potential Study measure savings developed by AEG and found that the
realization rate of 107% was due to the removal of a household-level cap in pipe wrap savings.
Due to the deactivation of the RTF Commercial and Residential Showerheads UES measure in June 2020,
the Evaluators concluded that this measure was not eligible to claim savings. Although the RTF
deactivated the Residential Advanced Power Strips UES measure in November 2021, Idaho Power
freezes savings assumptions for the upcoming program year at the time of budgeting which occurred in
Fall 2021. Due to limited data, low regional interest, and no new research forthcoming, the Evaluators
provided verified savings for this measure in PY2022 using the last RTF workbook prior to the measure’s
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 18

deactivation. The Home Energy Audit Program will install the remaining inventory; however, it will not
claim smart strip savings in future program implementation.
3.1.1 Database Review
As a first step to this work, the Evaluators reviewed the HEA Program database. This is conducted to
ensure that all proper variables are tracked to properly estimate expected savings for each measure type
and facility type. This is also completed to ensure that proper quality assurance and quality control
procedures are implemented by the IPC team. The Evaluators found that there might be an improper
expected savings value during this review for the 15-Watt LED measure as the last two decimal values
look to be interchanged. The Evaluators verified that all other inputs were correct to ensure savings
calculations were feasible.
3.1.2 Lighting Evaluation Results
This section summarizes the HEA Program verified impact savings for the lighting measure. Verification of
gross savings was accomplished through a systematic review of program tracking data, verification of
claimed savings, and calculations of verified gross savings impacts for each project in the sample. Table
3-2 displays the expected kWh savings and verified kWh savings for these measures.
Table 3-2: Home Energy Audit Program Lighting Measure Total Verified Savings
Measure n Projects Claimed
kWh
Verified
kWh
Realizati
on Rate
14-Watt LED - canned. 250 - 1049 lumens. High use and
outdoor use. Product must be ENERGY STAR certified 70 1,784.16 1,784.16 100.00%
15-Watt LED - high wattage. 1490 to 2600 lumens. High or
moderate use. 35 881.02 875.44 99.37%
8-Watt LED - globes. 250 - 1049 lumens. Moderate use.
Product must be ENERGY STAR certified. 69 1,329.13 1,329.13 100.00%
9-Watt LED - general purpose. 250 - 1049 lumens. High or
moderate use. 156 15,004.56 15,004.56 100.00%
Total 330 18,998.87 18,993.29 100.00%
The lighting measures displayed a realization rate of 100% compared to claimed IPC savings, with verified
savings for the program totaling 18,993.29 kWh. The evaluators also found that there was potentially a
manual error in expected savings for the 15-Watt LED measure UES as the last two decimal values were
interchanged in the RTF data (14.21 was listed instead of 14.12). The UES value of 14.12 would change
the realization rate to 100% across all the measures listed above.
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for a sample of the population. This was calculated using verified
measure life and verified IPC values. The Evaluators found no adjustments were recommended or
required when verifying each sampled project input. In addition, savings calculations were applied
properly, as displayed by the 100% realization rate across all lighting measures.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 19

3.1.3 Smart Strip Evaluation Results
This section summarizes the HEA Program verified impact savings for the smart strips measure. Table 3-3
displays the expected kWh savings and verified kWh savings for this measure.
Table 3-3: Home Energy Audit Program Smart Strip Measure Total Verified Savings
Measure n Projects Claimed
kWh
Verified
kWh
Realization
Rate
Smart Strip 31 2,502.08 2,502.08 100.00%
Total 31 2,502.08 2,502.08 100.00%
The smart strip measures displayed a realization rate of 100% compared to claimed IPC savings, with
verified savings for the program totaling 2,502.08 kWh. The Evaluators calculate verified savings for the
population. This was calculated using verified quantity and verified UES values. The Evaluators found no
adjustments were recommended or required when verifying each sampled project input. Savings
calculations were applied properly, as displayed by the 100% realization rate across the smart strip
measure and therefore have no recommendations for this measure.
3.1.4 Pipe Insulation Evaluation Results
This section summarizes the HEA Program verified impact savings for the Pipe Insulation measure. Table
3-4Table 3-2 displays the expected kWh savings and verified kWh savings for this measure.
Table 3-4: Home Energy Audit Program Pipe Insulation Measure Total Verified Savings
Measure n Projects Claimed
kWh
Verified
kWh
Realization
Rate
Pipe insulation 142 6,849.00 7,305.60 107.00%
Total 142 6,849.00 7,305.60 107.00%
The pipe insulation measure displayed a realization rate of 107% compared to claimed IPC savings, with
verified savings for the program totaling 7,305.60 kWh. The realization rate is above 100% primarily due
to the application of a household-level cap in pipe wrap savings in the expected savings estimates. The
Evaluators determined that the 3-foot household level cap in savings is not necessary to apply for
households in which two or more pipe wraps were installed. This change led to additional savings for the
measure.
3.1.5 High-Efficiency Showerhead Evaluation Results
The Evaluators found that the high-efficiency showerhead is a deactivated RTF measure and there are a
few values that cannot be assumed such as the baseline GPM used and whether consumers decide to
take longer showers due to the GPM reduction. For these reasons, the Evaluators decided that this
measure was not eligible to claim savings, as summarized in the table below. This matched IPC’s
expectations for this measure.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 20

Table 3-5: Home Energy Audit Program High Efficiency Showerhead Measure Total Verified Savings
Measure n Projects Claimed
kWh
Verified
kWh
Realization
Rate
Showerheads (electric water heating) 8 0 0 -
Showerheads (gas water heating) 7 0 0 -
Total 15 0 0 -

3.1.6 Survey Responses & ISR
The Evaluators present participation experience, program satisfaction, communication, firmographics,
and additional lessons learned from survey responses gathered during this evaluation work.
The survey effort received 148 total survey completions. Table 3-6 compares the distributions of measures
installed at participating households to those who completed the survey. As shown, the survey sample
was fairly representative of the participant population in terms of measure type and number of responses.
Table 3-6: Distribution of Measure Type by Survey Respondents
Measure Population
Proportion of
Measure
Type
Number of
Survey
Responses
Proportion of
Survey
Responses
9-Watt LED - general purpose. 250 - 1049
lumens. High or moderate use. 156 30% 46 30%
8-Watt LED - globes. 250 - 1049 lumens.
Moderate use. 69 13% 16 10%
15-Watt LED - high wattage. 1490 to 2600
lumens. High or moderate use. 35 7% 8 5%
14-Watt LED - canned. 250 - 1049 lumens. High
use and outdoor use. 70 14% 22 14%
Pipe insulation 142 27% 44 28%
Smart Strip. Infrared sensing advanced power
strip for home entertainment electronics 31 6% 14 9%
2.0 GPM Showerhead on electric 8 2% 3 2%
2.0 GPM Showerhead on gas 7 1% 1 1%
Total 518 100% 148 100%
The Evaluators calculated in-service rates using survey responses by subtracting removal rate from 100%.
The removal rate is the number of instances in which a respondent indicated the measure was removed
from the home divided by the total number of measure installs. The verified in-service rates (ISR) for each
measure in the program are summarized in the table below.
Table 3-7: Summary of In-Service Rates by Measure
Measure Description n Responses ISR Precision at
90% CI
9-Watt LED - general purpose. 250 - 1049 lumens.
High or moderate use. 46 96%
±5.56 8-Watt LED - globes. 250 - 1049 lumens. Moderate
use. 16 100%
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 21

15-Watt LED - high wattage. 1490 to 2600 lumens.
High or moderate use. 8 100%
14-Watt LED - canned. 250 - 1049 lumens. High use
and outdoor use. 22 96%
Pipe insulation 44 100%
Smart Strip 14 73%
2.0 GPM Showerhead on electric water heater 3 67%
2.0 GPM Showerhead on gas water heater 1 100%
Total 146 -
The precision for the in-service rates exceeds 90/10 precision goals, with precision at 5.56% at the 90%
confidence interval. The in-service rates demonstrated in the table above are well within reasonable
comparability to the in-service rates included in the RTF UES. Therefore, the Evaluators recommend that
IPC continue to use the in-service rates assumed by the RTF for this program in future cycles.
4. Process Evaluation Results
The Evaluators also completed a process evaluation of the Home Energy Audit Program to evaluate
program implementation, program goals, program barriers, and overall customer satisfaction. The
following sections summarize findings for the process evaluation in the program in the Idaho service area.
The Evaluators used data collected from staff interviews, auditor interviews, participant surveys, and
nonparticipant surveys to form conclusions and recommendations for improving program design,
outreach, and implementation.
In the following sections, the Evaluators detail responses and findings for each of the data collection
efforts completed for this evaluation.
4.1 Staff Interviews
As a first step, the Evaluators interviewed the previous and current HEA program specialist to gain
insight into the history and current design of the program. Each interview was conducted using
Microsoft Teams and lasted about one hour. The previous program specialist indicated they had been
involved in the program since its inception through August 2022, while the current program specialist,
who had a long tenure at IPC, took over the HEA Program in the Fall of 2022.
The HEA Program has been part of IPC’s energy efficiency portfolio for several years. The program began
as a pilot project for the City of Boise which then expanded across the Idaho service area once the pilot
proved successful and effective. While the pilot and subsequent expansion program originally focused
on electric-only homes, the program has since expanded to include electric, gas, and mixed fuel homes.
Currently, program staff consists of the program specialist, staff from the software platform used to
conduct the audits, and four home energy auditors who conduct the audits across the state.
In the following subsections, the Evaluators provide further details for the following staff process
evaluation efforts:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 22

 Program goals
 Program design
 Auditors
 Marketing & outreach
 Program referrals
 Data tracking
4.1.1 Program Goals
The purpose of the HEA program is to promote other energy efficiency programs offered by IPC. Unlike
IPC’s other energy efficiency programs, the HEA Program is considered an educational program and
therefore does not have specific energy impact-related savings goals nor cost effectiveness standards.
Over the past few years, the program has sought to engage approximately 425 homes per year across
the service territory. Although formal program recruitment halted during the COVID-19 pandemic,
customers were still able to sign up for the waitlist for a home energy audit. During this time, the waitlist
grew considerably. Therefore, much of the program’s focus over the past two years has been managing
the waitlist and reducing wait times to less than two months post sign up. Program staff noted that wait
times have reduced considerably since the pandemic. In addition, customer interest continues to grow.
4.1.2 Program Design
The HEA Program targets single-family stick-built homes (up to four units); mobile, and manufactured
homes do not qualify. Although landlords and renters with landlord permission can participate in the
program, the majority of participants are homeowners. Audits cost $99 for all electric home customers
and $149 for gas and/or mixed fuel home customers. There is no sliding scale for income-qualified
customers, however income-qualified customers are referred to IPC’s Low-Income Weatherization
Programs, as these programs provide similar services free of charge.
Once customers sign up for an audit, their information is routed to the HEA Program specialist who
assigns each customer to one of the four participating auditors. The auditors then reach out to
customers to schedule the audits. Customers are encouraged, but not required, to join the auditor
during the walkthrough. Following the audit, the auditor provides customers recommendations verbally,
as well as a formally written report via email within a week of the completed audit. Auditors also reach
out to customers after they send the official report to see if customers have any follow up questions or
concerns.
The audits serve as an opportunity for customers to get personalized feedback about their home’s
energy performance, as well as learn about the various energy efficiency offerings provided by IPC.
Auditors will leave behind packets of information about other programs. The auditors will also
recommend customers to specific programs when applicable.
4.1.3 Auditors
Four auditors are enrolled to conduct home energy audits through the program. Program engagement
across the four auditors varies, with one auditor conducting audits across the state full-time, one auditor
focusing solely on Eastern Idaho, and two auditors conducting audits across the state part time. All four
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 23

auditors are considered independent contractors but go through a vetting system to ensure they are a
good fit for the program. Both the previous and current program specialist noted they value quality
work and strong customer service skills in their auditors – “I want someone I can send to my mom’s
house.” The program specialist is hoping to bring on an additional auditor to focus on Idaho’s Sun Valley
region but noted it can be difficult to find quality personnel. The HEA Program specialist trains each
auditor on the requirements of the program when they first engage and also provides programmatic
updates and training to all auditors annually. Recently, all the auditors completed a training course for
the new software platform.
When assigning jobs to the auditors, the program specialist considers auditors’ geographic preferences
and workload capacities. Once assigned a group of jobs, auditors schedule nearby jobs concurrently to
avoid extra travel time. Auditors receive a flat fee for each audit and are reimbursed for any travel over
30 miles; they also receive a hotel stipend if they conduct four to five out-of-town audits.
4.1.4 Marketing & Outreach
IPC performs all program marketing and outreach for the HEA Program. The primary marketing outlets
include bill inserts, direct mail, emails, and a website banner; staff minimize marketing efforts to
manage waitlist times and ensure all interested customers receive an audit in a timely manner.
Marketing efforts focus on different regions throughout the year to minimize cross-state travelling.
4.1.5 Program Referrals
The most popular audit recommendations include air sealing and insulation, followed by heating and
cooling equipment upgrades, duct sealing, and smart thermostats. Although IPC’s Heating & Cooling
Efficiency Program provides some incentives for the HVAC-related updates, no incentives are currently
offered for air sealing and insulation for non-low-income customers. Program staff noted that one of the
program obstacles seems to be the lack of discounted measures offered by IPC. In years past, auditors
were able to recommend window and insulation-based programs, however these programs have since
been retired due to cost effectiveness issues. Relatedly, staff indicated that one shortfall of the program
is that although some customers can afford the audit, they cannot always afford all the changes
recommended by the auditor during the review. Auditors will recommend all relevant upgrades specific
to the home, regardless of whether IPC has a specific program incentive. However, auditors indicated
that they believe they are unable to recommend specific contractors, as the program strives to stay
contractor neutral.
4.1.6 Data Tracking
The HEA manager tracks program participation data including application data, customer name,
customer account number, customer city, auditor assignment, audit completion date, and audit invoice.
To date, the program does not track how many HEA participants enroll in other IPC offerings. The
Evaluators recommend that IPC start tracking whether HEA participants enroll in other IPC offerings
within one to two years of completing the energy audit.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 24

4.2 Auditor Interviews
In addition to staff interviews, the Evaluators interviewed two of the four participating auditors for the
HEA Program. Both auditors have been involved with the HEA program since its inception; they have
also both partnered with IPC on other programs for the past 15-20 years. One of the interviewed
auditors has a background in construction management while the other auditor is also an HVAC
contractor. Both auditors were initially drawn to the HEA Program and continue to partner with the
program because they enjoy helping people save energy and money.
In the following subsections, the Evaluators provide further details for the following auditor process
evaluation efforts:
 Program design
 Direct install measures
 Satisfaction
4.2.1 Program Design
As outlined in the staff interview, all project leads for the auditors are provided by IPC staff through IPC
marketing efforts. Auditors receive 15-30 leads at a time and schedule the audits based on customer
availability. One of the interviewed auditors focuses on Eastern Idaho specifically and did not have
substantial feedback on the scheduling process. The other auditor, who travels across the state for the
audits, noted that scheduling can often be a pain point for the program. This auditor explained that it
can be difficult to schedule all the neighboring audits in one trip based on customers’ availability, but
that in order to make this travel cost effective and reimbursable, five audits would need to be scheduled
and completed each hotel night. This auditor noted they use a mapping tool they created to get a better
picture of where all the jobs are located. Therefore, this auditor will wait until there are enough leads in
a geographic region before scheduling appointments for those homes. This auditor has also streamlined
their scheduling processes by initially sending out automated bulk emails.
The auditors indicated that some, but not all, customers join them on the walkthrough of the home.
Although the auditors provide a written report of the findings to the customer after the audit is
completed, both auditors noted that they prefer when the customer joins them, as they can point out
potential issues and provide recommendations in the moment. The auditors explained they fill out a
form based on the audit findings, the results are relayed to IPC, and the HEA program specialist sends
the official audit report out to customers within two business days and that they try to follow up with
the customer via phone call to answer any questions.
Both interviewed auditors noted that they focus their recommendations on realistic updates that are
most likely to result in savings for the customers.
“I talk to them about money. I look at it from a practical point of view. There’s a line there for
how much they should spend. It’s killing the customer because we're draining their funds on
things they'll never get back in their lifetime.” –Auditor
In general, auditors most commonly recommend completing duct work, installing insulation, and
installing door sweeps, as well as incorporating behavioral changes like adjusting the thermostat and
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 25

closing shades and blinds. They noted that “windows are a big wildcard”; most customers do not have
the funds to replace all their windows, but poor windows also drain energy, as a result, the auditors
often recommend replacing the biggest and/or north facing windows as they will yield the most savings.
Both auditors mentioned that customers with newer homes seem eager to participate, but ultimately
there are not many improvements that can be made to a home that is less than 10-15 years old.
Recognizing that the financial value of recommendations does not always “pencil out”, the auditors
often emphasize the comfort improvements, as well as the financial savings in their recommendations
pitch. The Evaluators recommend that IPC incorporate house vintage to pinpoint homes that are more
than 10-15 years old to target for home energy audits. These homes are more likely to benefit from
audits and are more likely to be recommended energy conservation projects with returns within a
decent timeframe for the homeowner or tenant.
Both auditors requested more information from IPC about the various energy efficiency incentives and
rebates offered. They indicated they promote other programs when they can, but they do not always
feel as though they are up to date on what is offered. One auditor also thought the program could
benefit from having suggested contractors they could connect the customers to in order to help them
implement the recommendations. The Evaluators note that IPC provides a list of participating
contractors on its website for additional home energy improvement projects6. The Evaluators
recommend that IPC provides auditors training regarding how to appropriately recommend contractors
related to the suggested energy efficiency improvements made to the customer. This will provide the
customer with additional information towards next steps and will remove barriers to additional energy
efficiency improvements.
4.2.2 Direct Install Measures
The most common direct install measures installed by both interviewed auditors were pipe insulation
and LEDs. The auditors rarely installed power strips or low-flow showerheads, as customers either did
not understand how they worked or did not have showerhead mounts conducive to them. One auditor
suggested IPC consider adding door sweeps as a direct install measure. The RTF does provide savings for
door sweeps, and customers in the area would benefit from the added weatherization and seem to
communicate interest in the measure. IPC indicated that this inclusion is unlikely due to extended
installation duration, contractor trainings, and cost issues that have been previously evaluated by the
team. However, the Evaluators recommend reassessing this measure for inclusion.
4.2.3 Satisfaction
As evident by their long tenure with the HEA Program, the interviewed auditors were extremely satisfied
with the program. They appreciate the steady flow of work without needing to worry about advertising
and outreach. Additionally, although they do not always have robust recommendations for every home,
they feel as though that they are making a difference and helping people save energy and money.
Although interviewed auditors were happy with participation in the program, both auditors also
communicated difficulty using the software program, Snugg Pro, used to build the home energy reports.
They indicated that although Snugg Pro provides a train yourself video, they would like a training session

6https://www.idahopower.com/energy-environment/ways-to-save/savings-for-your-home/rebates-and-offers/heating-and-
cooling-efficiency-program/participating-contractors/
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 26

from IPC staff and learn how the software calculates energy savings, since they need to rely on those
calculations in their communications with the customers. The Evaluators recommend that IPC include
Snugg Pro as part of the regular training sessions with auditors and provide additional guidance and
clarification on quality control practices and outputs from the software.
4.3 Participant Surveys
As part of the process evaluation, the Evaluators conducted a participant survey asking respondents to
provide feedback on their program awareness, home energy audit experience, and satisfaction of the
program and the utility overall.
The survey was administered via email in June and July 2023. 369 customers received an initial outreach
email; two reminder emails were sent out to customers. In total, 111 respondents completed the survey
with a response rate of 30.0%.
In the following subsections, the Evaluators provide further details for the following participant process
evaluation efforts:
 Program awareness
 Program participation
 Direct install measures
 Program satisfaction
 Respondent characteristics
4.3.1 Program Awareness
Participants most commonly learned about the HEA Program via bill inserts or utility mailers (44.1%),
utility website (28.8%), or an email from IPC (17.1%) (Figure 4-1). Participating respondents were
interested in participating in the program because they wanted to reduce their home’s energy
consumption (79.3%), reduce their monthly utility costs (69.4%), and learn about how their home uses
energy (55.0%) (Figure 4-2).
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 27

Figure 4-1: Sources of Awareness for the HEA Program (n=111)
*Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.
Figure 4-2: Motivations for Participation (n=111)

4.3.2 Program Participation
One quarter of respondents indicated they planned to get a home energy audit prior to learning about
the program (24.3%). More than three-quarters of respondents indicated that the process of scheduling
the home energy audit was “easy” or “very easy" (79.3%) (Figure 4-3). Respondents who indicated
difficulties with the scheduling process (11.7%) referenced program delays due to COVID-19.
1.8%
1.8%
0.9%
1.8%
2.7%
2.7%
7.2%
9.9%
17.1%
28.8%
44.1%
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%
Don't know
Other
Radio or television ad
Contractor
Social media
Digital advertisements
Utility representative
Word-of-mouth
Email from utility
Utility website
Bill inserts or utility mailer
9.9%
14.4%
18.9%
49.5%
55.0%
69.4%
79.3%
Become as energy efficient as my friends or
neighbors
Get energy saving improvements installed at
no additional cost
Get a discounted energy audit
Conserve energy/protect the environment
Learn how my home uses energy
Reduce my monthly utility costs
Learn how to reduce my home's energy
consumption
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 28

Figure 4-3: Ease of Scheduling Home Audit (n=111)

Two-thirds of respondents indicated the home energy audit was helpful (67.6%). The majority of
respondents noted that the auditor asked them if there were specific issues they wanted to address
during the audit (86.5%) and discussed potential energy savings they could achieve from making the
recommended improvements (94.6%). Additionally, 39.6% of respondents noted that the auditor
installed some energy saving improvements during the audit. Among the 15 respondents who indicated
they audit was not helpful (13.5%), eight noted they did not learn anything new from the audit, six
wanted more personal recommendations for energy usage improvement, and one wanted more
information about other IPC programs that promote energy efficiency.
The degree to which respondents followed through on the recommendations made during the audit
varied, however, the majority of respondents made at least some improvements (80.2%) (Figure 4-4).
Figure 4-4: Improvements Made (n=111)

The most common reasons for not making the recommended improvements, included cost (60.6%),
plans for future implementation (58.6%), and not having time to make the improvement (23.2%) (Table
4-1).
4.5%7.2%9.0%26.1%53.2%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%
1 - Very difficult 2 3 4 5 - Very easy
1.8%18.0%71.2%9.0%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Don't know Have not made any Made some but not all Made all
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 29

Table 4-1: Reasons for Not Implementing Improvements
Response
Percent of
Responses
(n=99)
Cost 60.6%
Still planning to implement in the future 58.6%
Do not have time 23.2%
Waiting for current equipment to fail 14.1%
Do not feel they need to be done/will not save energy 13.1%
Did not like the equipment 4.0%
Need more information 3.0%
Can't find a contractor 2.0%
Do not own the property 1.0%
Other 3.0%
Don't know 2.0%
Three-quarters of respondents (75.7%) indicated that they are interested in making additional energy
efficiency improvements based on their experience with the HEA. Among this sub sample, the most
popular improvements respondents were interested in included wall/floor/attic insulation (29.8%),
efficient windows/doors (25.0%), and space heating equipment (14.3%) (Table 4-2).
Table 4-2: Efficient Improvements Respondents Would Be Interested In
Response
Percent of
Responses
(n=84)
Wall insulation, floor insulation, attic insulation 29.8%
Efficient windows/doors 25.0%
Space heating equipment 14.3%
Water heating equipment 9.5%
Smart thermostats 4.8%
A/C tune-up 2.4%
Advanced power strips 2.4%
Efficient refrigerator 2.4%
Efficient induction stove 2.4%
Energy efficient washer/dryer 2.4%
Lighting 1.2%
Other 7.1%

4.3.3 Direct Install Measures
As part of the program, auditors were able to install certain measures during the audit. These measures
included LED bulbs, efficient showerheads, advanced power strips, and pipe insulation. Based on
program data, LEDs were the most commonly installed measure, followed by pipe wrap insulation (Table
4-3). While the majority of respondents who received LEDs, advanced power strips, and showerheads
remember receiving these products, less than one-fifth (17.4%, n=4) remember receiving pipe
insulation. Almost half of advanced power strip receiving respondents removed their power strips after
the audit (40%, n=4).
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 30

Table 4-3 Direct Install Measures
Efficient Measure Received
measure (n)
Remember receiving
measure (n)
Measure removed
since install (n) Reason for removal
LED bulbs 33 31 2 Brightness; malfunction
Pipe wrap insulation 23 4 0 NA
Advanced power strip 10 10 4 Power turned off
Efficient showerhead 4 4 1 Low flow
Three quarters of respondents were satisfied with the measures they received during the audit (Figure
4-5).
Figure 4-5: Satisfaction with Measures (n=73)

4.3.4 Program Satisfaction
Overall, respondents were mostly satisfied with the program (Figure 4-6); 81.1% of respondents
reported satisfaction with the program overall. Respondents were most satisfied with the interactions
they had with the auditor (92.8%) and the energy report they received (86.4%).
The time it took to schedule the audit had one of the highest rates of dissatisfaction among residents
(21.6%). During staff interviews, the program specialist acknowledged the long program waitlist that
grew during the pandemic and indicated they are working to reduce wait times to no more than two
months. Satisfaction with savings on their utility bill also witnessed higher levels of dissatisfaction than
the other categories listed (25.2%).
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 31

Figure 4-6: Program Satisfaction (n=111, unless otherwise noted)

Of note, 30.6% of respondents chose “don’t know” when asked about their satisfaction with the follow-
up call with their auditor. This data point may indicate that respondents do not remember the call with
their auditor or the call did not happen. Due to the strong emphasis program staff place on this call as
an additional touchpoint between the utility and customer, program staff may consider reiterating the
importance of these follow up calls to the auditors. Additionally, the Evaluator recommends that IPC
staff also follow up with the customer to provide additional details about other program offerings and
incentives available to complete the recommended energy improvements.
Regarding satisfaction with the savings on energy bills, a high number of respondents gave a neutral
rating of 3 on a 5-point scale (28.8%), and 20.7% responded with “Don’t know”. Together, these neutral
responses combined to almost half of overall respondents. This could indicate that these groups of
respondents have not compared their energy bills before and after the audit, or that they have not
noticed savings on their bill.
The majority of respondents are satisfied with IPC as their utility company (79.3%) (Figure 4-7).
Figure 4-7: Satisfaction with IPC (n=111)

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 32

4.3.5 Respondent Characteristics
The participant survey collected information on demographics and residential characteristics from
respondents. Most respondents own their home (98.2%), live in a single-family home (92.8%), and more
than half of respondents’ homes were built in or after 1990 (56.8%). Most respondents reported the
area of their homes within the range between 1,000 and less than 3,000 square feet (81.1%). More than
half of respondents are aged 55 or older (54.1%) (Table 4-4)
Table 4-4: Participant Demographic and Residential Characteristics
Response Percent of
Responses
Home Ownership (n=110)
Own 98.2%
Rent 0.9%
Own but to rent to someone else 0.9%
Don’t know/refused 0.9%
Residence Type (n=111)
Single-family home 92.8%
Duplex or townhome 3.6%
Other 3.6%
Don’t know/refused 0.0%
Home Construction Year (n=111)
Before 1960 12.6%
1960 to 1969 5.4%
1970 to 1979 18.0%
1980 to 1989 6.3%
1990 to 1999 21.6%
2000 to 2009 19.8%
2010 or later 15.3%
Don’t know/refused 0.9%
Home Square Footage (n=111)
Less than 1,000 square feet 2.7%
1,000 to 1,999 square feet 39.6%
2,000 to 2,999 square feet 41.4%
3,000 to 3,999 square feet 9.9%
4,000 square feet or more 3.6%
Don’t know/refused 2.7%
Age (n=111)
18 - 24 0.0%
25 - 34 7.2%
35 - 44 18.0%
45 - 54 17.1%
55 - 64 22.5%
65 - 74 22.5%
75+ 9.0%
Don’t know/refused 3.6%
More than half of respondents have a gas furnace (58.6%) and central air conditioning (64.9%) (Table
4-5).
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 33

Table 4-5: Space Heating Demographic Characteristics
Response
Percent of
Responses
(n=111)
Space Heating Fuel Type
Natural gas 57.7%
Electricity 31.5%
Propane 4.5%
Wood pellets 0.9%
Oil 0.9%
Geothermal 0.9%
Don’t know/refused 2.7%
Space Heating System Type
Gas Furnace 58.6%
Heat Pump 13.5%
Electric furnace 11.7%
Mini-Split (ductless heat pump) 3.6%
Wood or pellet stove 3.6%
Electric Resistance (i.e. baseboard) 2.7%
Boiler 2.7%
Fireplace 2.7%
Geothermal 0.9%
Don’t know/refused 0.0%
Air Conditioning System Type
Central AC 64.9%
Heat Pump 14.4%
Mini-Split (ductless heat pump) 2.7%
Wall, window mounted, or portable air conditioning unit 3.6%
Don’t have AC 12.6%
Don’t know/refused 1.8%

4.4 Nonparticipant Surveys
The Evaluators conducted a nonparticipant survey to ask IPC customers who had not participated in the
HEA Program about their interest in energy efficiency improvements, program awareness, and
satisfaction with IPC as an energy provider.
The survey was administered via email in June and July 2023. 326 customers received an initial outreach
email; two reminder emails were sent out to customers. In total, 32 respondents completed the survey
with a response rate of 9.8%.
In the following subsections, the Evaluators provide further details for the following nonparticipant
process evaluation efforts:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 34

 Experience with energy efficiency equipment
 Program awareness
 Interest in HEA Program
 Respondent characteristics
4.4.1 Experience with Energy Efficiency Equipment
Three-quarters of respondents (75.0%) indicated that they had replaced or made upgrades to electrical
equipment in the past three years. The most common equipment upgrades were A/C tune-up, lighting,
and water heating equipment (Figure 4-8).
Figure 4-8: Previous Electrical Equipment Upgrades (n=24)

Two-thirds of respondents believed HVAC equipment was the largest energy consumer in their home
(65.5%) (Table 4-6).
Table 4-6 Perceived Largest Household Energy Consumer
Response
Percent of
Responses
(n=29)
HVAC (heating/cooling equipment) 65.5%
Lighting 10.3%
Computer/entertainment equipment 3.5%
Refrigeration 3.5%
Washer/dryer 3.5%
Electric Vehicle 3.5%
Don't know 10.3%
Most respondents knew what type of lights were installed in their home (82.8%). Although the majority
of these respondents indicated they had LEDs in their homes (87.5%), more than half of the respondents
had other types of lighting equipment (incandescent, fluorescent, halogen), in addition to the LEDs
(58.3%).
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 35

Most respondents reported having an air conditioner in their home (86.2%). Across these respondents,
the air conditioning equipment were most commonly central air conditioners (80.0%), less than 10 years
old (68.0%), and had been serviced within the last three years (72.0%) (Table 4-7).
Table 4-7: Air Conditioning Characteristics
Response
Percent of
Responses
(n=25)
Air Conditioning Type
Central AC 80.0%
Heat Pump 12.0%
Mini-Split (Ductless Heat Pump) 4.0%
Wall or window mounted AC unit 4.0%
Age of Air Conditioning
Less than 10 years old 68.0%
10 - 20 years old 12.0%
More than 20 years old 16.0%
Don't know 4.0%
Time Since Last AC Service
Less than 1 year 48.0%
1 - 3 years 24.0%
More than 3 years 12.0%
Never been serviced 12.0%
Don't know 4.0%
Just under three-quarters of respondents used natural gas to heat their home (72.4%). Two-thirds of
respondents had gas furnaces (65.5%), heating equipment that was less than 10 years old (69.0%), and
heating equipment that had been serviced in the last three years (72.4%) (Table 4-8). The majority of
respondents (79.3%) had a smart (37.9%) or programmable thermostat (41.4%).
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 36

Table 4-8: Space Heating Characteristics (n=29)
Response Percent of
Responses
Heating Fuel Type
Natural gas 72.4%
Electricity 20.7%
Propane 3.5%
Pellet Stove 3.5%
Heating System Type
Gas Furnace 65.5%
Heat Pump 13.8%
Electric furnace 10.3%
Wood or pellet stove 6.9%
Mini-Split (Ductless Heat Pump) 3.4%
Age of Heating System
Less than 10 years old 69.0%
10 - 20 years old 10.3%
More than 20 years old 10.3%
Don't know 10.3%
Time Since Last Heating System Service
Less than 1 year 41.4%
1 - 3 years 31.0%
More than 3 years 10.3%
Never been serviced 10.3%
Don't know 6.9%

4.4.2 Program Awareness
Half of respondents (50.0%) were aware that IPC provides incentives for energy efficiency equipment
purchases and upgrades. Specifically, these 14 respondents reported being aware of heating and cooling
incentives, new construction incentives, and the home energy audit program (Table 4-9). Respondents
indicated that they learned about these offerings through a variety of avenues including bill
inserts/mailers, brochures, IPC’s website, and email blasts/newsletters (Table 4-9).
Table 4-9: Awareness of IPC Incentives and Programs (n=14)
Response Percent of
Responses
Incentives for heating and cooling equipment 71.4%
Incentives to incorporate energy efficiency into new construction designs 50.0%
Low-cost Home Energy Audit for Idaho Power Company customers 21.4%

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 37

Figure 4-9: Program Awareness Source (n=14)

All but one respondent had full (86.2%) or partial authority (10.3%) to make changes to their home.
Across these 28 respondents, the most popular reasons for not participating in IPC’s program included
being unaware of the programs, incentives not being high enough to offset cost of equipment, and
changes not being “worth the trouble” (Figure 4-10). Among the respondents who were aware of the
programs but chose not to participate, the most common reasons for not participating included
incentives not being high enough to offset cost of equipment (38.5%), changes not being “worth the
trouble” (30.8%) and required financial assistance to make improvements (30.8%).
Figure 4-10: Reasons for Not Participating (n=28)

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 38

Table 4-10: Reasons for Not Participating in IPC Programs
Response
Percent of
Overall
Responses
(n=28)
Percent of
Aware
Responses
(n=13)
Percent of
Unaware
Responses
(n=15)
Did not know enough about the programs and incentives 64.3% 23.1% 100.0%
Incentives are not high enough to offset the cost of high
efficiency equipment (compared to standard equipment) 21.4% 38.5% 6.7%
Energy savings from the equipment replacements or
upgrades was not worth the trouble 17.9% 30.8% 6.7%
Too much time or trouble required to received incentives 14.3% 7.7% 20.0%
I am financially able to make the upgrades without
assistance 14.3% 30.8% 0.0%
Other 10.7% 15.4% 6.7%
Prefer not to deal with utility 3.6% 7.7% 0.0%

4.4.3 Interest in HEA Program
When presented with a description of the HEA program, about one-quarter of respondents were
interested in receiving an energy audit (24.2%) (Figure 4-11). Respondents who were not interested in
receiving an energy audit (58.6%, n=17) cited a variety of reasons for their disinterest including: they did
not know enough about the program (n=7), they were unlikely to replace equipment (n=8), they did not
want someone in their home (n=7), they did not want to go through the trouble of scheduling (n=5),
they did not want to pay for it (n=4), they are moving and/or remodeling their home (n=2), their
landlord is not interested (n=1), and/or their home is new (n=1).
Figure 4-11: Interest in Participating in Home Energy Audit Program (n=29)

About half of respondents were interested in learning about other IPC energy efficiency programs
(48.3%). Respondents were most interested in lighting, efficient windows/doors, space heating
equipment, and water heating equipment related offerings (Figure 4-12).

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 39

Figure 4-12: Interest in Energy Efficient Upgrades (n=14)

4.4.4 Respondent Characteristics
The nonparticipant survey collected information on demographics and residential characteristics from
respondents (Table 4-11). The majority of respondents own their own (82.8%) and live in single family
homes (93.1%). More than half of the homes were built after 1990 (62.1%) and between 1,000-1,999
square feet.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 40

Table 4-11: Non-Participant and Participant Demographic and Residential Characteristics
Response
Percent of Non-
Participant
Responses
(n=29)
Home Ownership
Own 82.8%
Rent 13.8%
Own but to rent to someone else 0.0%
Don’t know/refused 3.5%
Residence Type
Single-family home 93.1%
Duplex or townhome 6.9%
Other 0.0%
Don’t know/refused 0.0%
Home Construction Year
Before 1960 3.5%
1960 to 1969 10.3%
1970 to 1979 10.3%
1980 to 1989 6.9%
1990 to 1999 20.7%
2000 to 2009 27.6%
2010 or later 13.8%
Don’t know/refused 6.9%
Home Square Footage
Less than 1,000 square feet 3.5%
1,000 to 1,999 square feet 62.1%
2,000 to 2,999 square feet 34.5%
3,000 to 3,999 square feet 0.0%
4,000 square feet or more 0.0%
Don’t know/refused 0.0%
Age
18 - 24 3.5%
25 - 34 10.3%
35 - 44 13.8%
45 - 54 13.8%
55 - 64 17.2%
65 - 74 27.6%
75+ 13.8%
Don’t know/refused 0.0%

4.5 Program Tracking Review
The Evaluators assessed the degree to which HEA participants subsequently participated in the other
residential programs offered by IPC. This enabled the Evaluators to assess whether the HEA Program
effectively accomplishes its primary goal: to encourage customers and remove educational barriers to
participate in other energy efficiency programs that would be beneficial to reducing their household
energy consumption. For this reason, the Evaluators reviewed additional program tracking data to
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 41

determine which customers participated in other programs after having completed a home energy audit
with IPC.
4.5.1 Uplift Due to Program
The Evaluators reviewed other program tracking data to summarize the likely impacts of uplift in other
residential programs due to customer participation in the HEA Program. The Evaluators accomplished
this by determining the number of projects completed, total energy savings, and average project savings
for each of the HEA Program participants and nonparticipants in other programs offered by IPC. The
following table summarizes the results of this analysis.
Table 4-12: Summary of HEA Impacts Towards Other Programs
Measure HEA Participants HEA Nonparticipants
Total Households 12 2,000
Total Projects 14 2,099
Total Savings 11,661.94 1,397,226.32
Total Projects per Household 1.16 1.05
Average Savings per Household 971.83 698.61
The Evaluators found that 12 of the 2,000 participants in the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program and
Shade Tree Project Program had also participated in the HEA Program in PY2022. At the household level,
HEA Program participants completed more projects and accomplished greater energy savings than
nonparticipants, as displayed in the table above. HEA Program participants were observed to install
connected thermostats (3), ductless heat pumps (2), air source heat pump conversions (1), storage tank
water heaters (1), whole house fans (1), and shade trees (6).
In terms of proportion of HEA Program participants that participated in other programs, the Evaluators
found that less than 3% of customers who completed home energy audits with IPC ended up completing
additional energy efficiency upgrades through IPC, as displayed in the table below.
Table 4-13: Summary of HEA Participants That Completed Additional EE Projects
Description Value
Total HEA participants 12
HEA participants participating in other projects 425
Percent of HEA participants participating in other programs 2.82%
Although HEA Program participants are inclined to save additional energy through projects per
household compared to nonparticipants, the throughput of customers who completed home energy
audits towards completing energy efficiency upgrades could be improved. As seen through the auditor
interviews and participant survey responses, there is additional opportunity for IPC staff to recommend
and follow up with home energy audit customers to learn about current IPC incentives and connect
customers with contractors to streamline home projects and remove customer barriers to additional
participation. The Evaluators recommend that IPC track HEA Program participant participation in other
IPC programs in tandem with scheduled follow ups between IPC staff and IPC HEA customers.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 42

4.6 Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 created several clean energy credits, a non-refundable Energy
Efficient Home Improvement Credit7 for the purchase and installation of certain energy efficient
improvements in taxpayers’ principal residences. This credit amount is equal to 30 percent of the total
amount that taxpayers pay during the year for:
 Qualified energy efficiency improvements installed during the year
 Residential energy property expenditures, and
 Home energy audits
Therefore, customers that participate in Idaho Power’s Home Energy Audit Program are eligible to
receive a nonrefundable tax credit of 30% of the total cost of the home energy audit performed, up to
$150 total. The Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit is a non-refundable credit, meaning that it
can only reduce the amount of tax you owe and will not create a refund. In order for customers to claim
the credit through 2023, the home energy audit must satisfy the following criteria:
1. Include a written report and inspection that identifies the most significant and cost-effective
energy efficiency improvements with respect to the home, including an estimate of the energy
and cost savings with respect to such improvement, and
2. Be conducted and prepared by a home energy auditor
Starting in 2024, the following additional requirements must be met:
1. The inspection must be conducted by a qualified home energy auditor, defined as an individual
who is certified by one of the qualified certification Programs listed on the Department of Energy
certification programs for the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit (Section 25C)8 at the
time of the audit, or under the supervision of a qualified home energy auditor;
2. The written report must be prepared and signed by a qualified home energy auditor, be consistent
with industry best practices, and include:
a. The qualified home energy auditor's name and relevant employer identification number
(EIN) or other type of appropriate taxpayer identifying number, if the auditor does not
have an EIN;
b. An attestation that the qualified home energy auditor is certified by a qualified
certification program; and
c. The name of such qualified certification program
In order for IPC customers to remain eligible for claiming the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit
for home energy audits, the Evaluators recommend that Idaho Power require each home energy auditor
is certified by one of the qualified certification Programs listed on the Department of Energy certification

7 https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/energy-efficient-home-improvement-credit
8https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/us-department-energy-recognized-home-energy-auditor-qualified-certification-
programs
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 43

programs for the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit (Section 25C)9 and provide the written
home energy audit report to customers with the required information (qualified home energy auditor’s
name and EIN, an attestation that the qualified home energy auditor is certified by a qualified
certification program, and the name of such qualified certification program).
5. Appendix A: Participant Survey
This section provides a copy of the survey sent to participants of the Home Energy Audit Program.
5.1 Pre-Defined Variables
Prepopulated variables are shown in all caps enclosed in brackets, e.g., [PREDEFINED VARIABLE]

Variable Definition
CONTACT Customer Name
ADDRESS Home Locations
EMAIL Email address on file for contact
LINK In-line customer-specific link to online survey
URL URL for customer-specific link to online survey
LED Dummy variable for LED direct installation
SHOWERHEAD Dummy variable for showerhead direct installation
PIPE Dummy variable for pipe wrap direct installation

5.2 Email Survey Message
Subject: Invitation to provide feedback on Idaho Power’s Home Energy Audit Program.
Dear [NAME],
Idaho Power is conducting a survey regarding your participation in the Home Energy Audit Program,
through which it provides free home energy audits to its customers, providing information on home
energy usage, as well as recommendations and tips for reducing your home’s energy use.
Idaho Power has hired ADM Associates to contact program participants, like you, for feedback on your
experience as it relates to the Home Energy Audit Program. The feedback that you provide will be used to
help improve the program in the future. As a thank you for completing the survey we will provide a $20
electronic gift card. Please take a few minutes to complete the online survey.
[LINK TO ONLINE SURVEY]
We will treat all data collected in this study confidentially. If you have questions about how we treat
collected data, please see ADM’s privacy policy at https://www.admenergy.com/privacy. If you have
questions about this research, please feel free to contact me by return email

9https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/us-department-energy-recognized-home-energy-auditor-qualified-certification-
programs
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 44

([e-mail]) or at 971-339-8774. You may also contact Michelle Toney at Idaho
Power at 208-388-2221 or by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Heather Polonsky
ADM Associates (contractor of IPC)

5.3 Survey
Start of Block: Screening
Q1 Welcome! Thank you for taking this survey to tell us about your experience with Idaho Power’s
Home Energy Audit Program. Your feedback is very important to us and will help us improve programs
for customers like you. This survey should take 10-15 minutes. Your responses are confidential and will
be used for research purposes only.

The feedback that you provide will be used to help improve the program in the future. As a thank you
for completing the survey we will provide a $20 electronic gift card. Please complete the survey to the
last question, where we will verify your email to ensure that you receive your gift card.

We will treat all data collected in this study confidentially. If you have questions about how we treat
collected data, please see ADM’s privacy policy at https://www.admenergy.com/privacy. If you have any
questions regarding this survey request, please contact Idaho Power customer service at 208-388-2323
or 1-800-488-6151. You may also contact Michelle Toney at Idaho Power at 208-388-2221 or by email at
[e-mail].

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 45

Q2 Program records indicate that you received a Home Energy Audit through Idaho Power’s Home
Energy Audit Program at ${e://Field/ADDRESS}. Is this correct?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 46

Display This Question:
If Q2 = 2
Or Q2 = 98

Q3 Is there someone else we should speak with that might know about the Home Energy Audit you
received?
o Yes – please provide their name and email address or phone number (1)
__________________________________________________
o No (2)

Skip To: End of Survey If Q3 = 2
End of Block: Screening
Start of Block: Program Awareness

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 47

Q4 How did you learn about the Home Energy Audit Program? (Select all that apply) ▢ Contractor (1) ▢ Utility representative (2) ▢ Word-of-mouth (3) ▢ Bill inserts or utility mailer (4) ▢ Email from utility (5) ▢ Social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.) (6) ▢ Digital advertisements (7) ▢ Radio or television ad (8) ▢ Retailer (9) ▢ Utility website (10) ▢ Other - please describe (96)
__________________________________________________ ▢ ⊗Don’t know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 48

Q5 Why did you decide to participate in the Home Energy Audit Program? (Select all that apply) ▢ Learn how my home uses energy (1) ▢ Learn how to reduce my home’s energy consumption (2) ▢ Conserve energy/protect the environment (3) ▢ Reduce my monthly utility costs (4) ▢ Become as energy efficient as my friends or neighbors (5) ▢ Get a discounted energy audit (6) ▢ Get energy saving improvements installed at no additional cost (7)

End of Block: Program Awareness
Start of Block: Home Energy Audit

Q6 Were you planning on having a home energy audit BEFORE you learned the program?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 49

Q7 On a scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means “very difficult” and 5 means “very easy”, how would you
rate the process of scheduling your home energy audit?
o 1 - Very difficult (1)
o 2 (2)
o 3 (3)
o 4 (4)
o 5 - Very easy (5)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 50

Display This Question:
If Q7 = 1
Or Q7 = 2

Q8 You indicated some difficulty in scheduling your home energy audit, why do you say that?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 51

Q9 When you had your home energy audit, did the auditor do any of the following?
Yes (1) No (2) Don't know (98)
Ask you if there were any
specific issues with your
home you wanted to
address (1) o o o
Discuss with you the
energy savings you might
achieve by making the
recommended
improvements (2)
o o o
Install energy saving
improvements on the day
of the audit (3) o o o

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 52

Q10 On a scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means “not at all helpful” and 5 means “very helpful”, how
helpful was the home energy audit to you?
o 1 - Not at all helpful (1)
o 2 (2)
o 3 (3)
o 4 (4)
o 5 - Very helpful (5)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 53

Display This Question:
If Q10 = 1
Or Q10 = 2

Q11 Why was that audit not helpful to you?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 54

Q12 Since the home energy audit, would you say you have made all of the recommended energy
efficiency improvements, made some of them, or not made any?
o Made all (1)
o Made some but not all (2)
o Have not made any (3)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 55

Display This Question:
If Q12 = 3
Or Q12 = 2

Q13 What were the main reasons for not making those recommended improvements? (Select all that
apply) ▢ Cost (1) ▢ Do not have time (2) ▢ Waiting for current equipment to fail (3) ▢ Do not feel they need to be done/will not save energy (4) ▢ Do not own the property (5) ▢ Need more information (6) ▢ Still planning to implement in the future (7) ▢ Other – please describe (96)
__________________________________________________ ▢ ⊗Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 56

Q14 Are you interested in making additional energy efficiency improvements?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 57

Display This Question:
If Q14 = 1

Q15 What additional improvements are you most interested in?
o Lighting (1)
o Space heating equipment (2)
o A/C tune-up (3)
o Smart thermostats (4)
o Low-flow faucet aerators (5)
o Low-flow showerheads (6)
o Water heating equipment (7)
o Advanced power strips (8)
o Efficient refrigerator (9)
o Efficient induction stove (10)
o Wall insulation, floor insulation, attic insulation (11)
o Efficient windows/doors (12)
o Energy efficient washer/dryer (13)
o Other – please describe (96) __________________________________________________

End of Block: Home Energy Audit
Start of Block: Measure Verification
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 58

Display This Question:
If LED >= 1

Q16 Do you remember the Home Energy Audit contractor installing LED bulbs in your home during the
audit?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Received bulbs but contractor did not install (3)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 59

Display This Question:
If Q16 = 1

Q17 Have any of the LED bulbs been removed?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 60

Display This Question:
If Q17 = 1

Q18 Why were the LED bulbs removed? (Select all that apply) ▢ They were too bright (1) ▢ They were too dim (2) ▢ They stopped working (3) ▢ They flickered (4) ▢ Didn’t like the color of the light (5) ▢ Other – please describe (96)
__________________________________________________

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 61

Display This Question:
If SHOWERHEAD >= 1

Q19 Do you remember the Home Energy Audit contractor installing an efficient showerhead during the
audit?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Received an efficient showerhead but contractor did not install it (3)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 62

Display This Question:
If Q19 = 1

Q20 Has the showerhead been removed?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 63

Display This Question:
If Q20 = 1

Q21 Why was the showerhead removed? (Select all that apply) ▢ Not enough water came out (1) ▢ Did not like the way it looked (2) ▢ Damaged/did not work right (3) ▢ Other – please describe (96)
__________________________________________________

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 64

Display This Question:
If PIPE = 1

Q25 Do you remember the Home Energy Audit contractor installing pipe wrap insulation during the
audit?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Received pipe wrap insulation, but contractor did not install it (3)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 65

Display This Question:
If Q25 = 1

Q26 Is the pipe wrap insulation still installed?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 66

Display This Question:
If Q26 = 2

Q27 Why was the pipe wrap removed? (Select all that apply) ▢ Was not installed properly (1) ▢ I installed a different one myself (2) ▢ Other – please describe (96)
__________________________________________________

End of Block: Measure Verification
Start of Block: Satisfaction

Q28 Do you remember receiving a home energy report either by mail or email?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 67

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 68

Q29 Using a scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means “very dissatisfied” and 5 is “very satisfied”, how would
you rate your satisfaction with the following?
Display This Choice:
If Q28 = 1
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 69

Time it took
to schedule
the home
audit (2)
o 1 -
Very
dissatisfied
(1)
o 2
(2)
o 3
(3)
o 4
(4)
o 5 -
Very
satisfied
(5)
o Don't
know
(98)
Interactions
you had with
the audit
contractor
(3)
o 1 -
Very
dissatisfied
(1)
o 2
(2)
o 3
(3)
o 4
(4)
o 5 -
Very
satisfied
(5)
o Don't
know
(98)
The
measures
you received
during the
audit (4)
o 1 -
Very
dissatisfied
(1)
o 2
(2)
o 3
(3)
o 4
(4)
o 5 -
Very
satisfied
(5)
o Don't
know
(98)
Display This
Choice:
If Q28 =
1
The home
energy
report you
received (5)
o 1 -
Very
dissatisfied
(1)
o 2
(2)
o 3
(3)
o 4
(4)
o 5 -
Very
satisfied
(5)
o Don't
know
(98)
The follow
up call with
the auditor
1-2 weeks
after the
audit to go
over the
report (6)
o 1 -
Very
dissatisfied
(1)
o 2
(2)
o 3
(3)
o 4
(4)
o 5 -
Very
satisfied
(5)
o Don't
know
(98)
The savings
on your
monthly
utility bills
(7)
o 1 -
Very
dissatisfied
(1)
o 2
(2)
o 3
(3)
o 4
(4)
o 5 -
Very
satisfied
(5)
o Don't
know
(98)
The
information
learned
about your
home from
the audit (8)
o 1 -
Very
dissatisfied
(1)
o 2
(2)
o 3
(3)
o 4
(4)
o 5 -
Very
satisfied
(5)
o Don't
know
(98)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 70

The program
overall (9)
o 1 -
Very
dissatisfied
(1)
o 2
(2)
o 3
(3)
o 4
(4)
o 5 -
Very
satisfied
(5)
o Don't
know
(98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 71

Display This Question:
If Q29 [ 1 ] (Count) >= 1
Or Q29 [ 2 ] (Count) >= 1

Q30 Why were you dissatisfied with those aspects of the program?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 72

Q31 Using the same scale, how satisfied are you with Idaho Power as your electricity provider?
o 1- Very dissatisfied (1)
o 2 (2)
o 3 (3)
o 4 (4)
o 5 - Very satisfied (5)
o Don't know (98)

End of Block: Satisfaction
Start of Block: Demographics

Q32 Please answer the following questions about your household and residence. Your responses are
completely confidential and will be used to assess how well this program is serving Idaho Power’s
customer population. It is okay to not answer any of these questions.

Do you rent or own your home?

o Own (1)
o Rent (2)
o Own but to rent to someone else (3)
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 73

Q33 Which of the following best describes your home?
o Single-family home (1)
o Duplex or townhome (2)
o Other – please describe (96) __________________________________________________
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 74

Q34 Approximately when was your home built?
o Before 1960 (1)
o 1960 to 1969 (2)
o 1970 to 1979 (3)
o 1980 to 1989 (4)
o 1990 to 1999 (5)
o 2000 to 2009 (6)
o 2010 or later (7)
o Don’t know (98)
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 75

Q35 About how many square feet is your home? If you’re unsure, an estimate is okay.
o Less than 1,000 square feet (1)
o 1,000 to 1,999 square feet (2)
o 2,000 to 2,999 square feet (3)
o 3,000 to 3,999 square feet (4)
o 4,000 square feet or more (5)
o Don’t know (98)
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 76

Q36 What is the main fuel used for heating your home?
o Natural gas (1)
o Electricity (2)
o Propane (3)
o Other - please describe (96) __________________________________________________
o Don’t know (98)
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 77

Q37 What type of heating system do you currently use in your home?
o Electric Resistance (i.e. baseboard) (1)
o Gas Furnace (2)
o Electric furnace (3)
o Heat Pump (4)
o Mini-Split (ductless heat pump) (5)
o Wood or pellet stove (6)
o Other - please describe (96) __________________________________________________
o Don’t know (98)
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 78

Q38 What type of air conditioning do you currently have in your home?
o Central AC (1)
o Heat Pump (2)
o Mini-Split (ductless heat pump) (3)
o Wall or window mounted air conditioning unit (4)
o Don't have AC (5)
o Other - please describe (96) __________________________________________________
o Don’t know (98)
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 79

Q39 What is your age?
o 18 – 24 (1)
o 25 – 34 (2)
o 35 – 44 (3)
o 45 – 54 (4)
o 55 – 64 (5)
o 65 – 74 (6)
o 75+ (7)
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 80

Q40 Thank you for taking the time today to complete this survey. As stated in the email, we are
providing a $20 electronic gift card as a thank you for your responses. The email address we have on file
for you is ${e://Field/Email}, please confirm this information.
o Yes, please send my electronic gift card to the above email address (1)
o No, please send my electronic gift card to the following email address (2)
__________________________________________________

End of Block: Demographics

6. Appendix B: Nonparticipant Survey
This section provides a copy of the survey sent to participants of the Home Energy Audit Program.
6.1 Pre-Defined Variables
Prepopulated variables are shown in all caps enclosed in brackets, e.g., [PREDEFINED VARIABLE]

Variable Definition
CONTACT Customer Name
ADDRESS Home Locations
EMAIL Email address on file for contact
LINK In-line customer-specific link to online survey
URL URL for customer-specific link to online survey

6.2 Email Survey Message
Subject: Invitation to provide feedback on Idaho Power’s Energy Efficiency Programs.
Dear [NAME],
Idaho Power is conducting a survey with their customers to better understand awareness of energy
efficiency programs. Idaho Power is looking to better understand barriers to program participation as well
as interest and awareness of other energy efficiency programs they provide.
Idaho Power has hired ADM Associates to contact their customers like you for feedback. Your responses
will be kept completely confidential and the feedback that you provide will be used to help improve the
program in the future. As a thank you for completing the survey we will provide a $20 electronic gift card.
Please take a few minutes to complete the online survey.
[LINK TO ONLINE SURVEY]
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 81

We will treat all data collected in this study confidentially. If you have questions about how we treat
collected data, please see ADM’s privacy policy at https://www.admenergy.com/privacy. If you have
questions about this research, please feel free to contact me by return email
([e-mail]) or at 971-339-8774. You may also contact Michelle Toney at Idaho
Power at 208-388-2221 or by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Heather Polonsky
ADM Associates (contractor of IPC)

6.3 Survey
Start of Block: Screening
Q1 Welcome! Thank you for taking this survey to tell us about your knowledge and awareness of Idaho
Power’s energy efficiency programs. Your feedback is very important to us and will help us improve
programs for customers like you. This survey should take 10-15 minutes. Your responses are confidential
and will be used for research purposes only.

The feedback that you provide will be used to help improve the program in the future. As a thank you
for completing the survey we will provide a $20 electronic gift card. Please complete the survey to the
last question, where we will verify your email to ensure that you receive your gift card.

We will treat all data collected in this study confidentially. If you have questions about how we treat
collected data, please see ADM’s privacy policy at https://www.admenergy.com/privacy. If you have any
questions regarding this survey request, please contact Idaho Power customer service at 208-388-2323
or 1-800-488-6151. You may also contact Michelle Toney at Idaho Power at 208-388-2221 or by email at
[e-mail].

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 82

Q2 According to our records, Idaho Power Company (IPC) provides electricity service to your home at
${e://Field/ADDRESS}. Is that correct?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (98)

Skip To: End of Survey If Q2 = 2
Skip To: End of Survey If Q2 = 98

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 83

Q3 To the best of your knowledge, have you replaced or upgraded equipment that requires electricity in
the last three years? This could have been for lighting, refrigeration, computers, insulation, duct sealing,
windows, or space heating/cooling equipment.
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 84

Display This Question:
If Q3 = 1

Q4 What types of equipment did you upgrade or replace in the last three years? (Select all that apply) ▢ Lighting (1) ▢ Space heating equipment (2) ▢ A/C tune-up (3) ▢ Smart thermostats (4) ▢ Low-flow faucet aerators (5) ▢ Low-flow showerheads (6) ▢ Water heating equipment (7) ▢ Advanced power strips (8) ▢ Efficient refrigerator (9) ▢ Efficient induction stove (10) ▢ Wall insulation, floor insulation, attic insulation (11) ▢ Efficient windows/doors (12) ▢ Energy efficient washer/dryer (13) ▢ Other – please describe (96)
__________________________________________________

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 85

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 86

Display This Question:
If Q3 = 1

Q5 Did you receive an incentive or rebate from IPC for any of that equipment?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Skip To: End of Survey If Q5 = 1

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 87

Q6 Have you ever had a home energy audit conducted on your home? A home energy audit provides
residential customers with recommendations to improve the efficiency, comfort, and health of a home,
and is conducted by a certified third-party specialist.
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Skip To: End of Survey If Q6 = 1
End of Block: Screening
Start of Block: End Uses

Q7 What do you think is the largest energy consumer in your home?
o Computer/entertainment equipment (TV, stereo, video game consoles) (1)
o Refrigeration (2)
o HVAC (heating/cooling equipment) (3)
o Lighting (4)
o Cooking appliances (5)
o Washer/dryer (6)
o Other – please describe (96) __________________________________________________
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 88

Q8 Are you aware of the type of lighting (LED, incandescent, fluorescent, halogen, etc.) currently
installed in your home?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 89

Display This Question:
If Q8 = 1

Q9 Which of the following lighting technologies is currently installed? (Check all that apply) ▢ Incandescent (1) ▢ Halogen (2) ▢ Fluorescent (i.e. CFL bulbs or fluorescent tubes) (3) ▢ LED (4) ▢ Other – please describe (96)
__________________________________________________

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 90

Q10 Does your home have an air conditioner?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 91

Display This Question:
If Q10 = 1

Q11 What type of air conditioning do you currently have in your home?
o Central AC (1)
o Heat Pump (2)
o Mini-Split (Ductless Heat Pump) (3)
o Wall or window mounted air conditioning unit (4)
o Other – please describe (96) __________________________________________________
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 92

Display This Question:
If Q10 = 1

Q12 Approximately how old is the air conditioning system?
o Less than 10 years old (1)
o 10 – 20 years old (2)
o More than 20 years old (3)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 93

Display This Question:
If Q10 = 1

Q13 When was the last time your air conditioner was serviced?
o Less than 1 year (1)
o 1 – 3 years (2)
o More than 3 years (3)
o It’s never been serviced (4)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 94

Q14 What is the main fuel used for heating your home?
o Natural gas (1)
o Electricity (2)
o Propane (3)
o Other – please describe (96) __________________________________________________
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 95

Q15 What type of heating system do you currently use in your home?
o Electric Resistance (i.e. baseboard) (1)
o Gas Furnace (2)
o Electric furnace (3)
o Heat Pump (4)
o Mini-Split (Ductless Heat Pump) (5)
o Wood or pellet stove (6)
o Don’t heat the home (7)
o Other – please describe (96) __________________________________________________
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 96

Q16 Approximately how old is the heating system?
o Less than 10 years old (1)
o 10-20 years old (2)
o More than 20 years old (3)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 97

Q17 When was the last time your heating system was serviced?
o Less than 1 year (1)
o 1 – 3 years (2)
o More than 3 years (3)
o It’s never been serviced (4)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 98

Q18 What type of thermostat do you use?
o Manual (1)
o Programmable (2)
o Smart thermostat (3)
o Don't know (98)

End of Block: End Uses
Start of Block: Awareness

Q19 Before taking this survey, were you aware that Idaho Power Company provides incentives for
energy efficiency equipment purchases and upgrades, and a discounted Home Energy Audit?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 99

Display This Question:
If Q19 = 1

Q20 Which of the following types of programs or incentives were you aware of? (Select all that apply) ▢ Incentives to incorporate energy efficiency into new construction designs (1) ▢ Incentives for heating and cooling equipment (2) ▢ Low-cost Home Energy Audit for Idaho Power Company customers (3) ▢ Other – please describe (96)
__________________________________________________

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 100

Display This Question:
If Q19 = 1

Q21 In the past year, from what sources have you gotten information about the energy efficiency
incentives from IPC? (Select all that apply) ▢ From a contractor/equipment vendor/energy consultant (1) ▢ From an IPC account representative (2) ▢ From an internet search engine (3) ▢ From an IPC program representative (4) ▢ Received an email blast or electronic newsletter (5) ▢ Received an informational brochure in the mail (6) ▢ Bill inserts or utility mailer (7) ▢ From Idaho Power Company’s website (8) ▢ Word of mouth (family, friends, colleagues, neighbors, etc.) (9) ▢ Other – please describe (96)
__________________________________________________ ▢ ⊗Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 101

Q22 We understand that it is not always possible to make improvements and energy efficiency upgrades
to your home. Which of the following best describes your authority to make decisions?
o No authority – as a renter I am not permitted to make any repairs, improvements or upgrades
(1)
o Some authority – as a renter I am permitted to make some improvements or upgrades (2)
o Full authority – I am the owner (3)
o Full authority – as part of my rental agreement I am required to maintain/repair the home (4)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 102

Display This Question:
If Q22 != 1

Q23 Why haven’t you participated in any of IPC’s programs? (Select all that apply) ▢ Did not know enough about the programs and incentives (1) ▢ Energy savings from the equipment replacements or upgrades was not worth the
trouble (2) ▢ Too much time or trouble required to received incentives (3) ▢ Prefer not to deal with utility (4) ▢ Not interested in what IPC is offering (5) ▢ Incentives are not high enough to offset the cost of high efficiency equipment
(compared to standard equipment) (6) ▢ I am financially able to make the upgrades without assistance (7) ▢ Other – please describe (96)
__________________________________________________ ▢ ⊗Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 103

Display This Question:
If Q3 = 1

Q24 Earlier you mentioned you replaced or upgraded equipment that required electricity in the past
three years. Did you work with a contractor to complete these replacements or upgrades?
o Yes, worked with a contractor (1)
o No, self-installed the equipment (2)
o Both (3)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 104

Display This Question:
If Q24 = 1
Or Q24 = 3

Q25 Do you recall the name of the contractor/company you worked with?
o Yes - please provide their name (1)
__________________________________________________
o No (2)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 105

Q26 IPC’s Home Energy Audit program offers a discounted home energy audit by a certified energy
performance specialist to identify areas of concern and provide recommendations to improve the
efficiency, comfort, and health of the home. The audit also includes direct-install measures, which the
contractor will install in your home free of charge, including LED lightbulbs, high efficiency showerheads,
and pipe insulation.

Using a scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means “not at all interested” and 5 means “very interested”, how
interested are you in participating in the Home Energy Audit Program?
o 1 - Not at all interested (1)
o 2 (2)
o 3 (3)
o 4 (4)
o 5 - Very interested (5)
o Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 106

Q27 What might prevent you from participating in IPC’s Home Energy Audit Program? (Select all that
apply) ▢ Don’t know enough about the program (1) ▢ Unlikely to replace any equipment (2) ▢ Too much time or trouble required to schedule the home audit (3) ▢ Not interested in having someone in my home (4) ▢ Other – please describe (96)
__________________________________________________ ▢ Don't know (98)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 107

Q28 Are you interested in learning more about other IPC energy efficiency programs or equipment
upgrades?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 108

Display This Question:
If Q28 = 1

Q29 What types of programs and upgrades are you interested in? (Select all that apply) ▢ Lighting (1) ▢ Space heating equipment (2) ▢ A/C tune-up (3) ▢ Smart thermostats (4) ▢ Low-flow faucet aerators (5) ▢ Low-flow showerheads (6) ▢ Water heating equipment (7) ▢ Advanced power strips (8) ▢ Efficient refrigerator (9) ▢ Efficient induction stove (10) ▢ Wall insulation, floor insulation, attic insulation (11) ▢ Efficient windows/doors (12) ▢ Energy efficient washer/dryer (13) ▢ Other – please describe (96)
__________________________________________________

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 109

End of Block: Awareness
Start of Block: Demographics

Q30 Please answer the following questions about your household and residence. Your responses are
completely confidential and will be used to assess how well this program is serving Idaho Power’s
customer population. It is okay to not answer any of these questions.

Do you rent or own your home?

o Rent (1)
o Own (2)
o Own but rent to someone else (3)
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 110

Q31 Which of the following best describes your home?
o Single-family home (1)
o Manufactured or mobile home (2)
o Duplex or townhome (3)
o Apartment or condominium (4)
o Other – please describe (96) __________________________________________________
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 111

Q32 Approximately when was your home built?
o Before 1960 (1)
o 1960 to 1969 (2)
o 1970 to 1979 (3)
o 1980 to 1989 (4)
o 1990 to 1999 (5)
o 2000 to 2009 (6)
o 2010 or later (7)
o Don't know (98)
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 112

Q33 About how many square feet is your home? If you’re unsure, an estimate is okay.
o Less than 1,000 square feet (1)
o 1,000 to 1,999 square feet (2)
o 2,000 to 2,999 square feet (3)
o 3,000 to 3,999 square feet (4)
o 4,000 square feet or more (5)
o Don’t know (98)
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 113

Q34 What is your age?
o 18 – 24 (1)
o 25 – 34 (2)
o 35 – 44 (3)
o 45 – 54 (4)
o 55 – 64 (5)
o 65 – 74 (6)
o 75+ (7)
o Prefer not to answer (99)

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 114

Q35 Thank you for taking the time today to complete this survey. As stated in the email, we are
providing a $20 electronic gift card as a thank you for your responses. The email address we have on file
for you is ${e://Field/Email}, please confirm this information.
o Yes, please send my electronic gift card to the above email address (1)
o No, please send my electronic gift card to the following email address (2)
__________________________________________________

End of Block: Demographics

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Impact Evaluation of
Idaho Power Company
PY2022 Small Business
Direct Install Program
ADM Associates, Inc
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
916-363-8383
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702
208-388-2200

SUBMITTED TO: IDAHO POWER COMPANY
SUBMITTED ON: JUNE 26, 2023
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Tables of Contents and Tables ii
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Small Business Direct Install Program ........................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Savings Results............................................................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Conclusions & Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 7
2. General Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Summary of Approach .............................................................................................................................. 10
3. Impact Evaluation Results .................................................................................................................. 16
4. Appendix A: Participant Survey .......................................................................................................... 26
5. Appendix B: Verified Savings by Measure .......................................................................................... 41

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iii
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Measure Summary ....................................................................................................................... 6
Table 1-2: Small Business Direct Install Verified Impact Savings by Industry ............................................... 6
Table 2-1: Document-Based Verification Stratified Sampling Table ........................................................... 12
Table 2-2: Survey-Based Verification Stratified Sampling Table ................................................................. 13
Table 2-3: Impact Analysis Methodology by Measure ................................................................................ 14
Table 2-4: Distribution of Facility Type by Survey Respondents................................................................. 15
Table 3-1: Small Business Direct Install Program Participation by Facility Type ........................................ 16
Table 3-2: Small Business Direct Install Program Verified Impact Savings by Lighting Type ...................... 17
Table 3-3: Simple Verification Survey Response Rate ................................................................................ 18
Table 3-4: Assumed vs. Verified ISR by Facility Type .................................................................................. 19
Table 3-5: Assumed vs. Verified Annual Hours of Operation by Facility Type ............................................ 19
Table 3-6: Small Business Direct Install Program Verified Impact Savings by Stratum .............................. 20
Table 3-7: Satisfaction with Lighting Program (n = 20) ............................................................................... 22
Table 3-8: Facility Description (n=19) ......................................................................................................... 24
Table 3-9: Facility Operations ..................................................................................................................... 24

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iv
List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Helpfulness of Project Proposal (n=16) .................................................................................... 21
Figure 3-2: Reasons for Removing Bulbs Installed Through the Program (n=4) ......................................... 21
Figure 3-3: Program Satisfaction (n = 20) ................................................................................................... 22
Figure 3-4: Satisfaction with IPC (n=20) ...................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3-5: Business Type (n=20) ................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 3-6: Additional EE Improvements (n=20) ......................................................................................... 25
Figure 3-7: Best Method of Communication (*n=35) ................................................................................. 25
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Tables of Contents and Tables 5
1. Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the 2022 program year (PY2022) Small Business Direct Install (SBDI)
Program Impact Evaluation for Idaho Power Company (IPC) in the Idaho and Oregon service area. The
evaluation was administered by ADM Associates, Inc. (herein referred to as the “Evaluators”). This
program is no longer running and was closed on March 31, 2023.
The Evaluators found the impact evaluation results for the Small Business Direct Install Program to
align with similar Small Business Direct Install programs offered. The impact evaluation resulted in
100% realization rate.
In addition, the Evaluators found almost all responding customers (95%) were satisfied or very
satisfied with the program and less than half of respondents were interested in learning more about
other energy efficiency opportunities through Idaho Power (38%). The Evaluators conclude that the
program ran smoothly and delivers sufficient energy efficiency options to Idaho Power customers.
The Evaluators provide recommendations for providing additional information to program
participants about other Idaho Power Company program offerings.
1.1 Small Business Direct Install Program
IPC’s Small Business Direct Install (SBDI) Program targets hard-to-reach small business customers in Idaho
who use less than 25,000 kWh annually. The program provides eligible customers with a free lighting
assessment, recommendations on energy-saving lighting equipment and with the customers agreement,
free direct installation of qualifying lighting equipment.
Idaho Power pays the full cost of a lighting assessment and the full cost of installation of eligible measures
for the participants. In program year 2021, IPC’s SBDI program achieved 2,422 MWh of savings from 452
projects. In program year 2022, IPC’s SBDI program achieved 3,228,365 kWh of savings from 680 projects.
The remainder of this report details the results of the impact evaluation for the SBDI program in PY2022.
1.2 Savings Results
The Evaluators conducted an impact evaluation for IPC’s Small Business Direct Install Program during
PY2022. In PY2022, Idaho Power completed and provided incentives for commercial lighting measures in
Idaho and Oregon under the Small Business Direct Install Program.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 6

Table 1-1: Measure Summary
Measures
A19 LED
A23 LED
BR LED
Can
Corncob Lighting
Entry
Exit
Flood
Globe
High Bay
Kit Lighting
LED Candelabra
LED Strip
MR16 LED
PAR LED
RLRB
TLED
Wall Pack
The Small Business Direct Install Program verified savings amounted to 3,228,367 kWh 1 with a 100%
realization rate for the lighting measures overall. The Evaluators summarize the program verified savings
in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2: Small Business Direct Install Verified Impact Savings by Industry
Program Claimed Savings
(kWh)
Verified Savings
(kWh) Realization Rate
Small Business Direct Install 3,228,365 3,228,367* 100%
*The sum of the measure-level verified savings is 2 kWh larger than the program-level claimed savings due to rounding.
The Evaluators conducted the following evaluation tasks for the PY2022 Small Business Direct Install
Program impact evaluation:
 Database Review
 Survey verification
 Measure-level savings application review
In the following sections, the Evaluators summarize the findings and recommendations resulting from
our evaluation activities.

1 The sum of the measure-level verified savings is 2 kWh larger than the program-level claimed savings
due to rounding.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 7

1.3 Conclusions & Recommendations
The Evaluators provide the following impact evaluation conclusions and recommendations regarding
Idaho Power’s Small Business Direct Install Program:
 Conclusion #1: The Evaluators verified 3,228,367 kWh savings at a 100% realization rate for the
Small Business Direct Install Program. The sum of the measure-level verified savings is 2 kWh
larger than the program-level claimed savings due to rounding. The Evaluators verified savings
and assumptions using the industry-standard lighting engineering algorithm for the lighting
measures included in the program in addition to verified baseline wattage and facility annual
hours of operation inputs. Verified savings were calculated for a sample of projects, stratified to
meet 90/10 precision, with final precision estimates at ±7.61% at 90% confidence.
 Conclusion #2: The Evaluators reviewed all tracking data as well as a sample of project data and
confirmed that project-level measure details were tracked accurately and that engineering
algorithms were utilized correctly to calculate expected savings. The Evaluators have no
recommendations for revising the calculation of expected savings for the program.
 Conclusion #3: The current tracking data does not summarize measure-level expected savings.
Rather, project-level expected savings are summarized.
 Recommendation #1: The evaluators recommend that the Small Business Direct
Install Program tracking database, and other programs moving forward, include
the measure-level expected savings details in addition to the project-level
details to compare verified savings more efficiently and accurately as well as
improving quality control/analysis. However, due to the program’s close on
March 31, 2023, this recommendation may not lead to any necessary action by
Idaho Power.
 Conclusion #4: The Evaluators deployed verification surveys to investigate in-service rates and
customer satisfaction among participants. This effort received 20 responses, leading to ±11.01%
precision at 90% confidence. Of the 19 responses received through survey verification efforts,
16 indicated that all lighting equipment remained installed while three customer respondents
indicated that one light bulb had been removed either due to the bulb flickering or due to the
brightness of the lamp. The Evaluators therefore estimated in-service rates across the program
at 100%. This value matches in-service rates assumed in Idaho Power expected savings
calculations. The Evaluators therefore recommend no adjustments to ISR values.
 Conclusion #5: The Evaluators estimated annual hours of operation from survey responses,
however, due to lack of precision by facility type, the Evaluators recommend that Idaho Power
continue to use documented annual hours of operation in future program cycles.
 Conclusion #6: All survey respondents remembered having lighting measures installed in their
place of business. Almost all respondents (95%) were satisfied with the lighting project and
indicated that it was completed to their satisfaction. One respondent was not satisfied because
their outside patio lights were not replaced despite it being listed on their project proposal.
 Recommendation #2: The Evaluators recommend IPC consider additional
supervision and/or QA/QC during direct installs to ensure thorough replacement
of equipment listed on the project proposal.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 8

 Conclusion #7: The Evaluators asked survey participants if installing contractors had left behind
any lighting equipment uninstalled. One hundred percent of respondents indicated that the
contractors did not leave behind any spare equipment. Three respondents indicated they
removed one bulb installed through the program because they were either too bright (n=1), they
flickered (n=1) or stopped working(n=1). These responses were considered but were not used
towards further adjustment in impact analysis in-service rates due.
 Conclusion #8: Survey respondents were asked about their level of interest in learning more
about additional energy efficiency improvements. Twelve respondents indicated they were
interested in additional improvements, with the majority interested in lighting controls and
smart thermostats for business.
 Recommendation #3: The Evaluators recommend Idaho Power consider
including lighting controls and smart thermostats for businesses in IPC’s
nonresidential program offerings, if not already included.
 Conclusion #9: Most survey participants (34%) prefer email as the best way to communicate
information on programs and energy efficiency upgrades; followed by in-person communication
(23%).
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 9

2. General Methodology
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation for each of the lighting measures included in Idaho
Power Company’s (IPC) Small Business Direct Install Program (SBDI). Our general approach for this
evaluation considers the cyclical feedback loop among program design, implementation, and impact
evaluation. Our activities estimate and verify annual energy savings and identify whether the program is
meeting its goals. This is aimed to provide guidance for continuous program improvement. The
Evaluators summarize the research objectives for the impact and process evaluation for this program
below:
1. Review program tracking database to determine and verify the energy (kWh) impacts
attributable to the 2022 program year.
2. Complete the file reviews and verification of project specific assumptions with a ±10% precision
at a 90% confidence interval (90/10);
3. Develop credible and reliable program energy and non-energy impact estimates and ex-post
realization rates through the 2022 program year; and
4. Deliver a report with findings, observations, and recommendations that enhance the
effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of
program savings.
The Evaluators used the following approaches to accomplish the impact-related research goals listed
above and calculate energy impacts defined by the International Performance Measurement and
Verification Protocols (IPMVP)2 and the Uniform Methods Project (UMP)3:
 Simple verification (web-based surveys)
 Document verification (review project documentation)
 Engineering algorithm with verified inputs
The M&V methodologies are determined by previous Idaho Power evaluation methodologies as well as
industry best practices for a direct install program evaluation. The Evaluators reviewed relevant
information on infrastructure, framework, and guidelines set out for EM&V work in several guidebook
documents that have been published over the past several years. These include the following:
 Northwest Power & Conservation Council Regional Technical Forum (RTF)4
 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), United States Department of Energy (DOE) The
Uniform Methods Project (UMP): Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific
Measures, April 2013 5

2 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31505.pdf
3 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70472.pdf
4 https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures
5 Notably, The Uniform Methods Project (UMP) includes the following chapters authored by ADM. Chapter 9 (Metering Cross-
Cutting Protocols) was authored by Dan Mort and Chapter 15 (Commercial New Construction Protocol) was Authored by Steven
Keates.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 10

 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) maintained by the
Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO) with sponsorship by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE)6
The Evaluators kept data collection instruments, calculation spreadsheets, programming code, and
survey data available for Idaho Power records.
2.1 Summary of Approach
This section presents our approach to accomplishing the impact evaluation of Idaho Power’s Small
Business Direct Install Program. This chapter is organized by evaluation objective. Section 3 describes
the Evaluators’ measure-specific impact evaluation methods and results in further detail.
The Evaluators outline the approach for verifying, measuring, and reporting the program impacts as well
as summarizing potential program improvements. The primary objective of the impact evaluation is to
determine ex-post verified net energy savings. On-site verification and equipment monitoring was not
conducted during this impact evaluation, however, the Evaluators deployed verification surveys for a
sample of projects to gather additional information used towards verification.
Our general approach for this evaluation considers the cyclical feedback loop among program design,
implementation, and impact evaluation. Our activities during the evaluation estimate and verify annual
energy savings and identify whether the program is meeting its goals. These activities are aimed to
provide guidance for continuous program improvement and increased cost effectiveness for future
program years.
To complete impact evaluation activities for the program, consisting of lighting measures only, the
Evaluators define one major approach to determining net savings for Idaho Power’s Small Business
Direct Install Program:
 Engineering algorithm approach: Involves using the actual pre and post wattage values as well
as the annual hours of use and interactive effects for each facility type by project. These savings
values may also include an adjustment for certain measures, such as adjustments for lighting
measures in which verified annual hours of operation may differ from expected values.
The Evaluators accomplished the following quantitative goals as part of the impact evaluation:
 Verify savings with 10% precision at the 90% confidence level;
 Cross-verify customer-reported survey values tracking data values; and,
 Where appropriate, apply the more appropriate baseline wattage values to verify lighting
measure impacts.
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for each measure based on the RTF UES or Arkansas TRM in
combination with the results from document review. The Evaluators also verified in-service rates (ISRs)
and annual hours of operation from verification surveys for measures which exceeded 90/15 precision
requirements from survey responses.

6 Core Concepts: International Measurement and Verification Protocol. EVO 100000 – 1:2016, October 2016.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 11

2.1.1 Database Review
At the outset of the evaluation, the Evaluators reviewed the program database to ensure that the
program tracking database conforms to industry standards and adequately tracks key data required for
evaluation.
Measure-level net savings were evaluated primarily by reviewing measure algorithms and values in the
tracking system to assure that they were appropriately applied using industry-standard engineering
equations and appropriate assumptions for the applications being evaluated. The Evaluators then
aggregated measure-level and program-level energy savings to estimate PY2022 kWh reductions due to
the program.
The Evaluators reviewed program documents including savings source workbooks and inputs and
assumptions used towards expected savings to verify the tracking data accurately represents the
program measures, project details, total participants, and expected savings for each measure and
project.
2.1.2 Verification Methodology
The Evaluators verified a sample of participating facilities for verification of measure installation through
document verification and web-based surveys. Participants received $50 in incentives as a thank you for
completing this verification survey. The Evaluators used the following equations to estimate survey
completion requirements for the program in order to achieve 10% precision at the 90% confidence level.
Required number of responses were estimated as follows:
Equation 2-1: Sample Size for Infinite Sample Size 𝑛𝑛= �𝑍𝑍× 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑�2

Equation 2-2: Sample Size for Finite Population Size 𝑛𝑛0 = 𝑛𝑛1 +�𝑛𝑛𝑁𝑁�
Where,
Reported
Savings
Database
Review
Document
Review
Survey
Verification
Evaluated
Savings
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 12

 𝑛𝑛 = Sample size
 𝑍𝑍 = Z-value for a two-tailed distribution at the assigned confidence level.
 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = Coefficient of variation
 𝑑𝑑 = Precision level
 𝑁𝑁 = Population
For a sample that provides 90/10 precision, Z = 1.645 (the critical value for 90% confidence) and d = 0.10
(or 10% precision). The remaining parameter is CV, or the expected coefficient of variation of measures
for which the claimed savings may be accepted. Sample sizes were adjusted for smaller populations via
the method detailed in Equation 2-2.
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s methodology for conducting survey-based verification
and virtual verification.
2.1.2.1 Document-Based Verification
The Evaluators developed a sampling plan, stratified by total magnitude of project-level savings, that
achieves a sampling precision of ±7.61% at 90% statistical confidence – or “90/10 precision” – to
estimate the percentage of projects for which the claimed savings are verified or require some
adjustment.
The Evaluators developed the samples for the program’s document verification and survey efforts using
Equation 2-1 and Equation 2-2. The Evaluators ensured representation for each measure.
Table 2-1: Document-Based Verification Stratified Sampling Table
Stratum Project
Population
Total kWh
Claimed
Savings
Precision at
90% CI
Sample
Size
Savings ≤ 2,000 kWh 126 162,757 ±24.37% 7
2,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 4,000 kWh 221 661,727 ±10.73% 8
4,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 9,000 kWh 249 1,440,810 ±15.49% 6
9,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 15,000 kWh 74 804,131 ±7.80% 7
15,000 kWh < Savings 10 158,942 ±3.29% 3
Total 680 3,228,365 ±7.61% 31
*Assumes sample size of 68 for an infinite population, calculated CV (coefficient of variation),
d (precision) = 10%, Z (critical value for 90% confidence) = 1.645.
The Evaluators reviewed documentation for a total of 31 participating customers to verify project
information details, such as quantity of bulbs, type of bulbs, and installation of bulbs are accurately
tracked and documented in IPC and implementer databases. The table above represents the stratified
number of customers sampled in the Idaho and Oregon territories combined.
2.1.2.2 Survey-Based Verification
In addition to document-based verification, the Evaluators conducted survey-based verification for the
Small Business Direct Install Program. The Evaluators surveyed participating customers to verify
installation as well as gather customer satisfaction with the equipment, program, and utility in general.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 13

The table below represents the stratified number of customers the Evaluators received responses for in
the Idaho and Oregon territories combined.
Table 2-2: Survey-Based Verification Stratified Sampling Table
Stratum Project
Population
Total kWh
Claimed
Savings
Precision at
90% CI N Sample
Savings ≤ 2,000 kWh 126 162,757 ±24.37% 7
2,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 4,000 kWh 221 661,727 ±15.32% 4
4,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 9,000 kWh 249 1,440,810 ±19.05% 4
9,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 15,000 kWh 74 804,131 ±15.12% 2
15,000 kWh < Savings 10 158,942 ±3.29% 3
Total 680 3,228,365 ±9.89% 20
*Assumes sample size of 68 for an infinite population, calculated CV (coefficient of variation),
d (precision) = 10%, Z (critical value for 90% confidence) = 1.645.
The primary purpose of conducting a verification survey is to confirm that the participant had indeed
participated in the program, that the lighting measures were installed, that the measure is still currently
operational, and that the annual hours of operation of the business is reflected accurately in the tracking
database.
The Evaluators used the sample plan provided previously in Table 2-2 for the program simple verification
task. The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieved a sampling precision of ±9.89% at 90%
statistical confidence for annual hours of operation estimates, stratified by facility energy consumption
brackets.
The Evaluators implemented a web-based survey to complete the verification surveys. The findings from
these activities served to confirm participation and verify annual hours of operation for a sample of
participants, sampled by industry type. These findings were calculated to consider as adjustments to
participation, number of measures, or annual hours of operation within verified savings calculations.
Findings toward annual hours of operation and ISR were summarized and applied by measure and
facility type in Section 3.1.3.
2.1.3 Impact Evaluation Methodology
The Evaluators employed an engineering algorithm with verified inputs approach to quantify program
impacts for the Small Business Direct Install Program. The Evaluators completed the steps outlined below
to complete the impact evaluation for the program.
1. Deliver a detailed data request outlining the information we require for each project and
measure.
2. Complete a thorough and comprehensive summary of calculated savings.
3. Validate that appropriate inputs to expected savings and engineering algorithms were used for
each measure.
4. Apply observed adjustments based on verification survey.
5. Verify the gross energy (kWh) savings that are a result of the program.
6. Summarize and integrate the impact evaluation findings into the final report.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 14

The following table summarizes the methodology used to evaluate each measure type offered in the
SBDI Program.
Table 2-3: Impact Analysis Methodology by Measure
End Use Measure Impact Analysis
Methodology
Lighting
A19 LED

Engineering algorithm
with verified inputs
A23 LED
BR LED
Can
Corncob
Entry
Exit
Flood
Globe
High Bay
Kit Lighting
LED Candelabra
LED Strip
MR16 LED
PAR LED
RLRB
TLED
Wall Pack
2.1.3.1 Validate Expected Savings
The Evaluators completed the validation for specific measures across each program using an industry
standard lighting engineering algorithm, defined below.
Equation 2-3: Retrofit Lighting kW Reduction Calculation 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠=���𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓(𝑠𝑠)× 𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓(𝑠𝑠)1000 �𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝−�𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓(𝑠𝑠)× 𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓(𝑠𝑠)1000 �𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓�× 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶× 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷

Equation 2-4: Retrofit Lighting kWh Savings Calculation 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘ℎ𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠=���𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓(𝑠𝑠)× 𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓(𝑠𝑠)1000 �𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝−�𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓(𝑠𝑠)× 𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓(𝑠𝑠)1000 �𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓�× 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴× 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸

Equation 2-5: Therms Penalty Calculation 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑝𝑝𝑓𝑓𝑝𝑝=𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘ℎ𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠× 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐶𝐶𝐺𝐺

Where, 𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓(𝑠𝑠) = Post-retrofit # of fixtures of type i
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 15

𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓(𝑠𝑠) = Rated wattage of post-retrofit fixtures of type i 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = Peak demand coincidence factor 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = Annual operating hours for specified building type 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷 = Interactive effects factor for demand savings 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 = Interactive effects factor for energy savings 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐶𝐶𝐺𝐺 = Interactive effects factor for gas heating savings
The Evaluators ensured the proper measure unit savings were recorded and used in the calculation of
IPC’s ex-ante measure savings. The Evaluators ensured that proper baseline wattages are reflected and
consistent with expected lighting baseline, efficient lighting wattages are accurately reflected and
properly utilized, and that annual hours of operation are correct for each facility type. The Evaluators
documented any cases where recommended values differed from the specific unit energy savings used
by IPC.
2.1.3.2 Integrate Participant Survey
The Evaluators administered a survey to customers who participated in the 2022 program. The objective
of the survey was to collect data on the following components:
 Sources of program awareness and motivations for participating;
 Customer experiences with the program and overall satisfaction;
 Measure specific questions related to how the installed equipment was utilized; and
 Facility space and hours of operation characteristics.
The survey was administered online, and customers were recruited by email in May 2023. Each customer
received up to three emails asking them to complete the survey. Customers were offered a $50 electronic
gift card for completing the survey. Customers with inactive IPC accounts and customers requested not
to receive communication were excluded from the survey sample.
The survey effort received 20 total survey completions. Table 2-4 compares the distributions of measures
installed at participating sites to those who completed the survey. As shown, the survey sample was fairly
representative of the participant population in terms of facility type and number of responses.
Table 2-4: Distribution of Facility Type by Survey Respondents
Stratum Population Proportion
of Kit Type
Number of
Survey
Responses
Proportion
of Survey
Responses
Savings ≤ 2,000 kWh 126 19% 7 35%
2,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 4,000 kWh 221 33% 4 20%
4,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 9,000 kWh 249 37% 4 20%
9,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 15,000 kWh 74 11% 2 10%
15,000 kWh < Savings 10 1% 3 15%
Total 680 100% 20 100%
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 16

The Evaluator developed the survey guide in conjunction with Idaho Power staff to address the above
objectives through various questions to the participating customers. The survey questions are provided
Appendix A: Participant Survey. In the following section, the Evaluators detail measure-specific impact
evaluation results.
3. Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Idaho Power’s Small Business Direct Install (SBDI)
Program to verify program-level and measure-level energy savings for PY2022. The following sections
summarize findings for the electric impact evaluation in the program in the Idaho and Oregon service
area. The Evaluators used data collected from participant surveys, industry standard baseline wattage
assumptions, efficient wattages, and annual hours of operation to evaluate savings. The Evaluators found
the Small Business Direct Install Program resulted in 3,228,367 kWh of verified savings, displaying a 100%
realization rate against Idaho Power’s expected savings for the program. The Evaluators provide lighting-
type verified savings and realization rates by facility type in Table 3-2.
Table 3-1: Small Business Direct Install Program Participation by Facility Type
Facility Type Customers Verified kWh
Savings
Contribution to
Program Savings
Services 322 1,575,709 48.81%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 116 471,177 14.59%
Retail Trade 84 416,296 12.89%
Construction 45 232,730 7.21%
Manufacturing 32 168,792 5.23%
Transportation, Communications,
Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Service 29 133,893 4.15%
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 22 109,398 3.39%
Wholesale Trade 20 70,703 2.19%
Miscellaneous 7 24,913 0.77%
Mining 2 19,507 0.60%
Public Administration 1 5,247 0.16%
Total 679 3,228,367* 100.00%
*The sum of the measure-level verified savings is 2 kWh larger than the program-level claimed savings due to rounding.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 17

Table 3-2: Small Business Direct Install Program Verified Impact Savings by Lighting Type
Lighting Type n Measures
Installed
Claimed kWh
Savings
Contribution to
Program
Savings
Verified kWh
Savings RR %
RLRB 10,498 1,581,121 49% 1,581,121 100%
Corncob 438 363,877 11% 363,877 100%
Kit Lighting 1,580 342,945 11% 342,945 100%
A19 LED 2,039 331,681 10% 331,681 100%
BR LED 951 173,300 5% 173,300 100%
PAR LED 487 103,421 3% 103,421 100%
Wall Pack 95 68,615 2% 68,615 100%
A23 LED 138 50,334 2% 50,334 100%
Flood 70 47,572 1% 47,572 100%
Exit 182 44,896 1% 44,896 100%
Globe 262 39,548 1% 39,548 100%
Can 495 38,760 1% 38,760 100%
MR16 LED 183 21,488 1% 21,488 100%
LED Candelabra 50 7,045 0% 7,045 100%
High Bay 7 6,824 0% 6,824 100%
Entry 6 4,436 0% 4,436 100%
TLED 18 2,289 0% 2,289 100%
LED Strip 2 215 0% 215 100%
Total 17,501 3,228,365 100% 3,228,367* 100%
*The sum of the measure-level verified savings is 2 kWh larger than the program-level claimed savings due to rounding.
3.1.1 Database Review
As a first step to this work, the Evaluators reviewed the SBDI Program database. This is conducted to
ensure that all proper variables are tracked to properly estimate expected savings for each measure type
and facility type. This is also completed to ensure that proper quality assurance and quality control
procedures are implemented by the IPC team. The Evaluators confirmed during this review that all proper
inputs are documented to ensure savings calculations are feasible.
The Evaluators note, however, that the current tracking data does not include expected measure-level
savings for each facility. Instead, the tracking data tracks project-level savings for each facility. Although
the expected savings were not summarized in the tracking data, the available data necessary to reproduce
total facility savings were provided for each project, and therefore the Evaluators were able to sufficiently
compare expected savings to verified savings by facility and by measure. The Evaluators, however,
recommend that in future program tracking, expected savings are calculated and summarized by measure
level in addition to facility level. This will ensure that future evaluation work can be completed smoothly,
and that total project savings are traceable over time.
3.1.2 Document-Based Verification Results
After conducting an overall database review, the Evaluators reviewed a random sample of facility project
data to ensure that SBDI Program tracking data are sufficient for calculation of savings and summarizes
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 18

the project data correctly and accurately. The Evaluators requested a sample of 31 facility project data, as
demonstrated in our sampling plan in Table 2-1.
For each of the 31 sampled projects, the Evaluators verified that facility addresses matched project
tracking data, proposed measure installations aligned with project tracking data measure completion, and
that project installation dates matched the program database. The Evaluators found no discrepancies in
the program tracking data. The Evaluators have no recommendation for improving program tracking.
3.1.3 Survey-Based Verification Results
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure. The Evaluators surveyed participant customers in May 2023 using a web approach
(online survey). The Evaluators deployed surveys and received responses from 20 unique customers that
participated in Idaho Power’s SBDI Program. The Evaluators summarize the aggregate results of the survey
in Table 3-3. The Evaluators determined whether the provided measures were installed at the business, if
customers were interested in additional efficiency upgrades in the future, and asked customers to
characterize business operation hours.
Table 3-3: Simple Verification Survey Response Rate
Measurement Number of
Project Sites
Population 680
Customers Contacted by Email 68
Survey Responses 20
Response Rate 29.4%
The sections below demonstrate the in-service rates and annual hours of operation calculated using
survey responses for the SBDI Program.
3.1.3.1 In-Service Rates
An annual hours of operation value was determined across respondents in order to compare against
assumptions used in expected savings calculations. Table 3-4 summarizes the assumed ISRs used by Idaho
Power staff in the development of the claimed kWh savings for the program and the verified ISRs gathered
by survey responses, separated by sampling stratum.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 19

Table 3-4: Assumed vs. Verified ISR by Sampling Stratum
Stratum Assumed
ISR
Survey
Responses
Verified
ISR
Precision
at 90% CI
Savings ≤ 2,000 kWh 100% 7 100%
±9.89%
2,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 4,000 kWh 100% 4 100%
4,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 9,000 kWh 100% 4 100%
9,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 15,000 kWh 100% 2 100%
15,000 kWh < Savings 100% 3 100%
Total 100% 20 100%
Of the 20 responses received through survey verification efforts, 16 indicated that all lighting equipment
remained installed. Three customer respondents indicated that one light bulb had been removed either
due to the bulb flickering or due to the brightness of the lamp. The Evaluators therefore estimated in-
service rates across the program at 100%. This value matches in-service rates assumed in Idaho Power
expected savings calculations. The Evaluators therefore recommend no adjustments to ISR values.
3.1.3.2 Annual Hours of Operation
The Evaluators also used survey responses to estimate annual hours of operation by facility type. Table
3-5 summarizes the assumed annual hours of operation used by Idaho Power staff in the development of
the claimed kWh savings for the program and the verified annual hours of operation gathered by survey
responses, separated by facility type.
Table 3-5: Assumed vs. Verified Annual Hours of Operation by Sampling Stratum
Stratum
Assumed
Annual
Hours of
Operation
Survey
Responses
Verified
Annual
Hours of
Operation
Precision
at 90% CI
Savings ≤ 2,000 kWh 2,790 7 1,824
±9.89%
2,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 4,000 kWh 3,027 4 2,418
4,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 9,000 kWh 3,015 4 2,711
9,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 15,000 kWh 2,983 2 2,418
15,000 kWh < Savings 2,996 3 1,889
Total 2,974 20 2,407
Each of the 20 respondents indicated the average hours the facility is in operation per day, along with the
average number of days the facility is in operation per week. From these responses, the Evaluators
estimated, for each sampled stratum, the average annual hours of operation. Across the stratums, the
Evaluators estimated annual hours of operation 19% lower than the assumed values used in expected
savings calculations. However, due to lack of precision by facility type, the Evaluators recommend that
Idaho Power continue to use assumed annual hours of operation from the Idaho Power technical
reference manual to calculate expected savings in future program cycles.
3.1.4 Lighting Evaluation Results
This section summarizes the SBDI Program verified impact savings by measure and facility type.
Verification of gross savings was accomplished through a systematic review of program tracking data,
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 20

verification of claimed savings, development of a statistically representative random stratified sample for
data collection, calculation of verified gross savings impacts for each project in the sample and
extrapolation of project level finds to the stratified populations. Table 3-6 displays the expected kWh
savings and verified kWh savings for each annual energy use stratum defined.
Table 3-6: Small Business Direct Install Program Verified Impact Savings by Stratum
Stratum Claimed kWh
Savings
Verified kWh
Savings
Realization
Rate
Savings ≤ 2,000 kWh 162,757 162,757 100%
2,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 4,000 kWh 661,726 661,726 100%
4,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 9,000 kWh 1,440,810 1,440,810 100%
9,000 kWh < Savings ≤ 15,000 kWh 804,131 804,131 100%
15,000 kWh < Savings 158,942 158,942 100%
Total 3,228,365 3,228,367* 100%
*The sum of the measure-level verified savings is 2 kWh larger than the program-level claimed savings due to rounding.
The lighting measures displayed a realization rate of 100% compared to claimed IPC savings, with verified
savings for the program totaling 3,228,367 kWh. Table 32 summarizes verified savings by measure type.
The Evaluators calculate verified savings for a sample of the population. This was calculated using verified
baseline wattages, verified efficient wattages, verified annual hours of operation in a lighting engineering
algorithm, shown below in Equation 2-4. The Evaluators found no adjustments were recommended or
required when verifying each sampled project input. In addition, engineering algorithms were applied
properly, as displayed by the 100% realization rate across all lighting measures.
The expected savings values used to determine the program-level realization rate were found by
multiplying the savings per measure of the lighting measures offered in the program by the total number
of each measure installed during PY2022. The verified savings were determined by aggregating the
measure-level and facility-level population savings.
The Evaluators found that survey verification reflected 100% in-service rates, equivalent to Idaho Power-
assumed ISR inputs. Therefore, the Evaluators recommend no further adjustments to the expected
savings calculations.
3.1.5 Survey Responses
The Evaluators present participation experience, program satisfaction, communication, firmographics,
and additional lessons learned from survey responses gathered during this evaluation work.
3.1.5.1 Participation Experience
All survey respondents remembered having lighting measures installed in their place of business. Most
survey participants (n=16) confirmed they did receive a project or lighting audit, from the SBDI program
team, and of those 16 respondents, eighty percent said the project proposal was helpful.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 21

Figure 3-1: Helpfulness of Project Proposal (n=16)

One hundred percent of respondents indicated that the contractors did not leave behind any spare
equipment. Respondents were asked if any bulbs have been removed, since participating in the program
and having them installed through the SBDI program. Three respondents indicated they removed one
bulb installed through the program because they were either too bright (n=1), they flickered (n=1) or
stopped working(n=1). The respondent who selected ‘for another reason’ elaborated that they did not
remove any bulbs and must have selected this on accident.
Figure 3-2: Reasons for Removing Bulbs Installed Through the Program (n=4)

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 22

3.1.5.2 Program Satisfaction
Almost all respondents were satisfied with the lighting project and indicated that it was completed to
their satisfaction. One respondent was not satisfied because their outside patio lights were not replaced
despite it being listed on their project proposal. This could indicate that additional QA/QC efforts would
be helpful during direct installations to ensure thorough replacement of lights listed on the project
proposal.
Table 3-7: Satisfaction with Lighting Program (n = 20)
Response Percentage Total
Yes 95% 19
No 5% 1
Total 100% 20
Respondents were most satisfied with the process of scheduling the initial appointment with the SBDI
program, where they received a lighting audit or project proposal. Respondents are least satisfied with
the savings on their monthly utility bills. This could be related to increased energy costs and or indicates
a need to better explain the anticipated savings that will come from the upgraded lighting.
Figure 3-3: Program Satisfaction (n = 20)

Three-fourths of respondents indicated that they are very satisfied with Idaho Power as their electricity
provider and 20 percent indicated they are satisfied. No respondents indicated any dissatisfaction with
IPC as their electricity provider.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 23

Figure 3-4: Satisfaction with IPC (n=20)

3.1.5.3 Firmographics
Twenty-five percent of respondents indicated that their business has to do with construction or
contracting, followed by auto sales, repair, and services. The one respondent who selected ‘other’
indicated their location is a Masonic lodge.
Figure 3-5: Business Type (n=20)

Most respondents (n=16) indicated that their business is their company’s only location, with two
respondents indicating their business is one of several locations. One respondent noted their business
was the headquarter location of their company, which has several other locations.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 24

Table 3-8: Facility Description (n=19)
Response Percentage Total
Your company's only location 84% 16
One of several locations owned by your company 11% 2
The headquarter location of your company with several locations 5% 1
Most survey respondents (n=13) have less than five employees working at their facility, with 13
respondents operating their facility 9 to 12 hours per day. Additionally, a little more than half of
respondents are operating their facility five days per week. Please see Table 39 for additional
information.
Table 3-9: Facility Operations
Response Percentage Total
Number of Employees
Less than 5 65% 13
5 to 10 25% 5
11 to 15 5% 1
16 to 10 5% 1
More than 20 0% 1
Hours in operation per day
Less than 4 hours 16% 3
4 to 8 hours 16% 3
9 to 12 hours 68% 13
More than 12 hours 0% 0
Days in operation per week
1 day 5% 1
2 days 5% 1
3 days 5% 1
4 days 0% 0
5 days 55% 11
6 days 25% 5
7 days 5% 1

3.1.5.4 Additional Lessons Learned
Although this program closed on March 31, 2023, Idaho Power maintains a separate nonresidential
retrofit program that small business customers are still eligible to participate in. Because of this, the
Evaluators also attempted to characterize any lessons learned in the Small Business Direct Install Program
that could help understand and improve barriers to participation, marketing, and communication for this
group of Idaho Power Company customers.
Survey respondents were asked about their level of interest in learning more about additional energy
efficiency improvements. Twelve respondents indicated they were interested in additional
improvements, with the majority interested in lighting controls and smart thermostats for business.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 25

Figure 3-6: Additional EE Improvements (n=20)

*Respondents were able to select multiple responses
Most survey participants (34%) prefer email as the best way to communicate information on programs
and energy efficiency upgrades; followed by in-person communication (23%).
Figure 3-7: Best Method of Communication (*n=35)

*Respondents were able to select multiple responses

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 26

4. Appendix A: Participant Survey
This section provides a copy of the survey sent to participants of the Small Business Direct Install
Program.
4.1 Pre-Defined Variables
Prepopulated variables are shown in all caps enclosed in brackets, e.g., [PREDEFINED VARIABLE]

Variable Definition
CONTACT Customer Name
ADDRESS Business Location
EMAIL Email address on file for contact
LINK In-line customer-specific link to online survey
URL URL for customer-specific link to online survey

4.2 Email Survey Message
Subject: Invitation to provide feedback on Idaho Power’s Small Business Direct Install Program.
Hello [CONTACT],
Thank you for participating in Idaho Power’s Small Business Direct Install Program. Idaho Power is
interested in your feedback about the program and invites you to take an online survey.
The survey should take no more than 10 minutes of your time, and as a thank you, we are providing a
$50 gift card to those who complete the survey.
Follow this link to the survey:
[LINK]
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
[URL]
If you require technical assistance, please contact Heather Polonsky at
[e-mail]. In addition, if you have any question regarding this survey request,
please contact Idaho Power customer service at 208-388-2323 or 1-800-488-6151. You may also contact
Michelle Toney at Idaho Power at 208-388-2221 or by email at [e-mail].
Thank you so much for your time,
Sincerely,
Heather Polonsky
ADM Associates (Contractor of Idaho Power Company)
[e-mail]
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 27

971-339-8774

4.3 Survey
Welcome! Thank you for taking this survey to tell us about your experience with Idaho Power’s Small
Business Direct Install Program. Your feedback is very important to us and will help us improve programs
for customers like you. This survey should take no more than 10 minutes. Your responses are
confidential and will be used for research purposes only.

Page Break

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 28

Q1 Program records indicate that the business at ${e://Field/ADDRESS} received lighting equipment
through Idaho Power's Small Business Direct Install program. Is this correct?
o Yes (1)
o No (3)
o I don't know if we received lighting equipment (2)

Skip To: End of Survey If Program records indicate that the business at ${e://Field/ADDRESS} received lighting
equipment th... = No

Display This Question:
If Program records indicate that the business at ${e://Field/ADDRESS} received lighting equipment th... = I
don't know if we received lighting equipment

Q3 Is there someone else we should speak with that might know about the lighting equipment received
through the Small Business Direct Install Program?
o Yes (please provide their name and email and email address or phone number) (1)
__________________________________________________
o No (2)
o Don't know (3)

Skip To: End of Survey If Is there someone else we should speak with that might know about the lighting equipment
received... = Yes (please provide their name and email and email address or phone number)
Skip To: End of Survey If Is there someone else we should speak with that might know about the lighting equipment
received... = No
Skip To: End of Survey If Is there someone else we should speak with that might know about the lighting equipment
received... = Don't know
End of Block: Screening
Start of Block: Lighting Assessment

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 29

Q4 Did you receive a project proposal through the program? A project proposal may have been provided
if someone from the SBDI program team completed a count of the lighting in your facility prior to
installation.
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (3)

Display This Question:
If Did you receive a project proposal through the program? A project proposal may have been provided... = Yes

Q5 Using the scale below, how helpful was that project proposal to you?
o 1 - Not at all helpful (1)
o 2 (2)
o 3 (3)
o 4 (4)
o 5 - Very helpful (5)
o Don't know (6)

Display This Question:
If Using the scale below, how helpful was that project proposal to you? = 1 - Not at all helpful
Or Using the scale below, how helpful was that project proposal to you? = 2

Q6 Why do you think the project proposal was not helpful?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 30

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q7 Are you interested in making additional energy efficiency improvements?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (3)

Display This Question:
If Are you interested in making additional energy efficiency improvements? = Yes

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 31

Q8 What additional improvements are you most interested in? (Select all that apply) ▢ Lighting controls (1) ▢ HVAC equipment (2) ▢ Smart thermostats for business (3) ▢ Commercial duct sealing (4) ▢ Commercial A/C tune-up (5) ▢ Commercial kitchen equipment (6) ▢ Advanced power strips (7) ▢ Low-flow faucet aerators (8) ▢ Other - please specify (9) __________________________________________________

End of Block: Lighting Assessment
Start of Block: Measure Verification
Q12 Have any of the bulbs been removed after initial installation?
o Yes - how many have been removed? (1)
__________________________________________________
o No (2)
o Don't know (3)

Display This Question:
If Have any of the bulbs been removed after initial installation? = Yes - how many have been removed?

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 32

Q13 Why were the bulbs removed? (Select all that apply) ▢ They were too bright (1) ▢ They were too dim (2) ▢ They stopped working (3) ▢ They flickered (4) ▢ Didn't like the color of the light (5) ▢ For another reason (please describe) (6)
__________________________________________________

Q14 Did the contractors who installed the lighting, leave behind any uninstalled spare equipment (i.e.
lighting, lamps, bulbs, etc.)?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (3)

Display This Question:
If Did the contractors who installed the lighting, leave behind any uninstalled spare equipment (i.e... = Yes

Q28 What kind of uninstalled equipment did they leave behind?
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Measure Verification
Start of Block: Firmographics

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 33

Q15 Which best describes your facility located at ${e://Field/ADDRESS}?
o Your company's only location (1)
o One of several locations owned by your company (2)
o The headquarter location of your company with several locations (3)
o Don't know (4)

Q16 How would you best describe your business?
o Healthcare (1)
o Restaurant (2)
o Auto sales, repair, and services (3)
o Lodging (4)
o Manufacturing (5)
o Government services (6)
o School (7)
o Retail (8)
o Grocery (9)
o Agriculture (10)
o Office or commercial real estate (e.g. legal, insurance banking) (11)
o Other - please specify (12) __________________________________________________

Q17 How many people work at your facility?
________________________________________________________________
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 34

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q18 About how many hours per day is your facility operating?
o Less than 4 hours (1)
o 4-8 hours (2)
o 9-12 hours (3)
o More than 12 hours (4)
o Don't know (5)

Q19 How many days per week is your facility operating?
o 1 day (1)
o 2 days (3)
o 3 days (4)
o 4 days (5)
o 5 days (6)
o 6 days (7)
o 7 days (8)
o Don't know (9)

End of Block: Firmographics
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 35

Start of Block: Satisfaction

Q20 Was the lighting project completed to your satisfaction?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Display This Question:
If Was the lighting project completed to your satisfaction? = No

Q21 What problems did you have with the project?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 36

Q22 Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following?
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 37

1 - Very
dissatisfied
(1)
2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 - Very
satisfied (5)
Don't know
(6)
Interaction
you had with
the SBDI
installation
contractor (1)
o o o o o o
Interaction
you had with
the Idaho
Power staff
(2)
o o o o o o
The lighting
installed in
your business
(3) o o o o o o
The savings
on your
monthly
utility bills (4) o o o o o o
The variety of
lighting types
eligible for
the program
(5)
o o o o o o
The effort
required for
the
application
process (6)
o o o o o o
Scheduling
the initial
appointment
(lighting
audit) (7)
o o o o o o
Overall
experience
with the
contractor (9) o o o o o o
Overall
program
experience
(10) o o o o o o

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 38

Display This Question:
If Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = Interaction you had with
the SBDI installation contractor [ 1 - Very dissatisfied ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = Interaction you had with
the SBDI installation contractor [ 2 ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = Interaction you had with
the Idaho Power staff [ 1 - Very dissatisfied ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = Interaction you had with
the Idaho Power staff [ 2 ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = Interaction you had with
the SBDI installation contractor [ 1 - Very dissatisfied ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = The lighting installed in
your business [ 1 - Very dissatisfied ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = The lighting installed in
your business [ 2 ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = The savings on your
monthly utility bills [ 1 - Very dissatisfied ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = The savings on your
monthly utility bills [ 2 ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = The variety of lighting
types eligible for the program [ 1 - Very dissatisfied ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = The variety of lighting
types eligible for the program [ 2 ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = The effort required for
the application process [ 1 - Very dissatisfied ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = The effort required for
the application process [ 2 ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = Scheduling the initial
appointment (lighting audit) [ 1 - Very dissatisfied ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = Scheduling the initial
appointment (lighting audit) [ 2 ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = [ 1 - Very dissatisfied ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = [ 2 ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = Overall experience with
the contractor [ 1 - Very dissatisfied ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = Overall experience with
the contractor [ 2 ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = Overall program
experience [ 1 - Very dissatisfied ]
Or Using the scale below, how would you rate your satisfaction with the following? = Overall program
experience [ 2 ]
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 39

Q23 Why were you dissatisfied with those aspects of the program you mentioned?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q24 Using the same scale, how satisfied are you with Idaho Power as your electricity service provider?
o 1 - Very dissatisfied (1)
o 2 (2)
o 3 (3)
o 4 (4)
o 5 - Very satisfied (5)
o Don't know (6)

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 40

Q25 How would you recommend that Idaho Power contact organizations like yours to share information
on applicable programs? (Select all that apply) ▢ Email (1) ▢ Phone (2) ▢ In-person (3) ▢ Social media (4) ▢ Newsletters (5) ▢ Other - please specify (6) __________________________________________________

End of Block: Satisfaction
Start of Block: Gift Card Confirmation

Q27 Thank you for taking the time today to complete this survey. As stated in the email, we are
providing a $50 electronic gift card as a thank you for your responses. The email address we have on file
for you is ${e://Field/EMAIL}, please confirm this information.
o Yes, please send my electronic gift card to the above email address (4)
o No, please send my electronic gift card to the following email address (5)
__________________________________________________

End of Block: Gift Card Confirmation

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 41

5. Appendix B: Verified Savings by Measure
This section summarizes the count and total verified savings for each bulb type.
Total Quantity
Installed
List of Unique Measure
Types
Total Verified kWh
Savings by Measure
Total Verified kWh
Savings by Measure
A19 LED
LED A19 Lamp 585 99,639
LED A19/A21 Lamp 114 16,467
V2 LED A19 Lamp 1,290 200,881
V2 LED A19/A21 Lamp 50 14,693
A23 LED
LED A23 Bypass 15 4,847
LED A23 Lamp 9 3,804
V2 LED A23 Bypass 5 3,146
V2 LED A23 Lamp 109 38,538
BR LED
LED BR30 Lamp 357 62,044
LED BR40 Lamp 29 8,105
V2 LED BR30 Lamp 564 102,893
V2 LED BR40 Lamp 1 258
Can
LED Can Retrofit 4-Pin VT 5 308
V2 LED Can Retrofit 2-Pin
HZ 110 7,036
V2 LED Can Retrofit 2-Pin
VT 30 1,517
V2 LED Can Retrofit 4-Pin
HZ 114 8,072
V2 LED Can Retrofit 4-Pin
VT 136 10,292
V2 LED Candelabra Lamp 100 11,536
Corncob
115W Corncob 21 22,585
150W Corncob 2 1,990
36W Corncob 50 35,106
50W Corncob 32 21,266
80W Corncob 68 74,876
V2 100W Corncob 15 14,231
V2 36W Corncob 103 50,253
V2 50W Corncob 14 16,432
V2 80W Corncob 133 127,138
Entry 12W LED Entry Wall Pack 6 4,436
Exit
Exit BBU Green 13 1,799
Exit Combo Red 16 3,385
V2 Exit BBU Green 84 22,401
V2 Exit BBU Red 4 764
V2 Exit Combo Green 50 12,926
V2 Exit Combo Red 15 3,621
Flood
20W LED Flood 7 1,339
45W LED Flood 21 21,004
V2 15W LED Flood 23 10,955
V2 35W LED Flood 19 14,274
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 42

Globe LED 4.5W Globe Lamp 98 15,255
V2 LED 5.5W Globe Lamp 164 24,293
High Bay 150W LED High Bay 5 4,281
V2 150W LED High Bay 2 2,543
Kit Lighting
2L 8ft Kit 3 248
4L 8ft Kit 487 91,530
V2 4L 8ft Kit 319 67,132
V3 4L 8ft Kit 771 184,034
LED Candelabra LED Candelabra Lamp 50 7,045
LED Strip 4ft 23W LED Strip 2 215
MR16 LED
LED MR16 Pin 70 7,523
LED MR16 Twist 7 830
V2 LED MR16 Pin 35 5,012
V2 LED MR16 Twist 71 8,124
PAR LED
LED PAR20 Lamp 119 9,317
LED PAR30 Lamp 86 23,462
LED PAR38 Lamp 103 25,890
V2 LED PAR20 Lamp 40 5,147
V2 LED PAR30 Lamp 14 2,328
V2 LED PAR38 Lamp 125 37,276
RLRB
1L 2ft RLRB 6 293
1L 4ft RLRB 107 10,530
1L 8ft RLRB 4 566
1L T5HO 4ft RLRB 10 952
2L 2ft RLRB 4 302
2L 4ft RLRB 996 132,406
2L 8ft RLRB 80 16,416
2L T5 4ft RLRB 1 90
2L T5HO 4ft RLRB 25 4,493
2L U-Bend RLRB 38 4,514
3L 4ft RLRB 278 35,415
3L T5HO 4ft RLRB 40 9,318
4L 4ft RLRB 1,217 246,596
4L T5HO 4ft RLRB 56 18,814
V2 1L 2ft RLRB 14 623
V2 1L 4ft RLRB 327 17,286
V2 1L T5HO 4ft RLRB 6 666
V2 2L 2ft RLRB 21 1,881
V2 2L 4ft RLRB 1,686 179,462
V2 2L 8ft RLRB 35 5,975
V2 2L T5HO 4ft RLRB 47 9,734
V2 2L U-Bend RLRB 58 5,708
V2 3L 4ft RLRB 494 68,964
V2 3L T5HO 4ft RLRB 27 5,224
V2 4L 4ft RLRB 904 185,680
V2 4L 8ft RLRB 10 4,723
V2 4L T5HO 4ft RLRB 56 20,717
V2 6L T5HO 4ft RLRB 6 3,388
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Evaluation Report 43

V3 1L 4ft RLRB 190 12,238
V3 2L 4ft RLRB 1,852 214,329
V3 3L 4ft RLRB 428 59,876
V3 4L 4ft RLRB 1,475 303,942
TLED
V2 1L 3ft Type A TLED
Retrofit w/ new ballast 3 371
V2 2L 3ft Type A TLED
Retrofit w/ new ballast 12 1,631
V3 1L 3ft Type A TLED
Retrofit w/ new ballast 3 287
Wall Pack
42W LED Wall Pack 11 12,322
V2 12W LED Entry Wall
Pack 1 357
V2 15W LED Entry Wall
Pack 47 22,368
V2 35W LED Wall Pack 36 33,568
Total 17,501 3,228,367*
*The sum of the measure-level verified savings is 2 kWh larger than the program-level claimed savings due to rounding.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
1221 W Idaho St
Boise, ID, 83702

Prepared by:
Tetra Tech, Inc.
6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300
Madison, WI 53719

Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]

www.tetratech.com

Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Evaluation (PY2022)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024

[Tt Cover Title White]
Prepared for:
Client
Address
City, State, Zip

Prepared by:
Tetra Tech, Inc.
6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300
Madison, WI 53719

Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]

www.tetratech.com

[Tt Cover Title Wh it e ]
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
i
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Program Description ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations ...................................................................................... 3
2.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Program Overview ........................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Menu Incentives ..................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Custom Incentives .................................................................................................. 7
2.1.3 Marketing and Outreach ......................................................................................... 8
2.1.4 Tracking and Reporting .......................................................................................... 8
2.2 Evaluation Overview ........................................................................................................ 8
2.2.1 Evaluation Activities ................................................................................................ 9
2.2.2 Sampling .............................................................................................................. 10
3.0 MENU IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS ......................................................................... 11
3.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Menu Incentive Option Results ...................................................................................... 12
3.2.1 Menu Incentive Option Detailed Evaluation .......................................................... 14
3.2.2 Menu Incentive Option Participant Interviews ....................................................... 15
3.2.3 Menu Incentive Option Findings Discussion ......................................................... 16
4.0 CUSTOM IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS .................................................................... 17
4.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Impact Review Results .................................................................................................. 19
4.2.1 Custom Incentive Option Documentation .............................................................. 20
4.2.2 Custom Incentive Option Detailed Results ............................................................ 21
4.2.3 Custom Incentive Option Findings Discussion ...................................................... 27

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
ii
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: MENU INCENTIVE OPTION PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW ............................... 1

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Program Realization Rate ............................................................................................ 3
Table 2. PY2019 Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Recommendations .............................. 5
Table 3. PY2021 and PY2022 Irrigation Efficiency Rewards – Menu Incentives......................... 7
Table 4. PY2022 Irrigation Efficiency Rewards – Custom Incentives .......................................... 7
Table 5. Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Evaluation Activities ......................................... 9
Table 6. PY2022 Irrigation Custom Stratification Summary .......................................................10
Table 7. PY2022 Irrigation Custom Sample Summary ..............................................................10
Table 8: PY2022 Menu Program Realization Rate ....................................................................12
Table 9: Menu Program Sample Project Realization Rate .........................................................13
Table 10: PY2022 Custom Incentive Option Realization Rate ...................................................19
Table 11: PY2022 Evaluation Results for New and Existing Project Types ...............................19
Table 12: Custom Incentive Option Sample Project Realization Rate – Existing retrofit projects
.................................................................................................................................................21
Table 13: Custom Incentive Option Sample Project Realization Rate – New System ................21

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Menu Incentives and Potential Qualifying Custom Projects ......................................... 2
Figure 2. Impact Evaluation Activities ......................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Process for Verifying the Menu Incentive Option ........................................................11
Figure 4: Participant Interview Outcomes ..................................................................................15
Figure 5. Process for Verifying the Custom Incentive Option .....................................................18
Figure 6: Claimed Energy Savings Components of the New System Multi-pump Projects ........25
Figure 7: Claimed Energy Savings Components of the New System Multi-pump Projects ........26

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
iii
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2023 impact
evaluation of the Idaho Power Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program; this evaluation effort
would not have been possible without their help and support.
We would like to specifically thank Nathan Black, Ray Short, Landon Barber, Michelle Toney,
and Quentin Nesbitt of Idaho Power, who provided invaluable insight into the program and
operations. These individuals participated in ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and
discussions and graciously responded to follow-up questions and data and documentation
requests. Idaho Power's regional agricultural representatives (ag reps) were also valuable
sources of information and assistance during the evaluation process.
The Tetra Tech evaluation team was made up of the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars,
Mark Bergum, Mohammed Qandil, Andrew Spista, Graham Thorbrogger, and Laura Meyer.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
1
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with this report covering
the evaluation of 2022 program impacts for the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards (IER) program.
This report section consists of an introduction describing the program, evaluation activities, and
key findings and recommendations. The program's impact evaluation is detailed in a separate
section.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Initiated in 2003, the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program is designed to improve the energy
efficiency of irrigation systems in Idaho Power Company's (IPC) service area through a wide
range of financial incentives and educational methods. It is funded through the Energy
Efficiency Rider on monthly bills to Idaho Power customers, as approved by the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon.
The eligible irrigation sector is comprised of agricultural customers operating water-pumping or
water-delivery systems to irrigate crops or pastures. End-use electrical equipment primarily
consists of agricultural irrigation pumps and center pivots. The irrigation sector does not include
water pumping for non-agricultural purposes, such as the irrigation of lawns, parks, cemeteries,
golf courses, or domestic water supply.
The program is delivered by Idaho Power staff, including a Program Specialist, Irrigation
Segment Technical Consultant/Ag Engineer, and six Agriculture Representatives (Ag Reps).
The program staff works with the customers, vendors, distributors, and installation contractors to
promote the installation of energy-efficient system equipment.
Customers have two options through the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program for minor or
major upgrades to new or existing systems: Menu incentives and Custom incentives.
The Menu Incentive Option is designed for systems in which small maintenance upgrades
provide energy savings. Incentives vary based on specific component replacement. Payments
are calculated on predetermined average kWh savings per component. IPC reviews and
analyzes each proposal for a system or component modification to determine and verify the
energy savings. Customers who apply with supporting invoices within one year of purchase can
receive incentives.
The Custom Incentive Option provides component upgrades and large-scale improvements. To
participate, customers submit a project proposal to Idaho Power before starting a project. The
customer works with an Ag Rep to determine the project's energy savings and applicable
incentive estimate. Custom projects require completed installation one year from the signed
contract date but could be extended with an additional contract agreement between both
parties.
In addition to the irrigation options available through Idaho Power, there is currently a Green
Motors program offered by BPA being utilized by Idaho Power. Green Motors Initiative pays
service centers $2 per horsepower for motors 15 to 5,000 HP, receiving a Green Rewind from a
verified service center. The Green Motors Practices Group certifies the shop is qualified to
perform the green rewind under the guidelines and is eligible for the incentive. $1 goes to the
center and $1 to the customer as a credit on their rewind invoice.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024

Figure 1. Menu Incentives and Potential Qualifying Custom Projects

1.2 METHODOLOGY
The evaluation team conducted several evaluation activities, shown in Figure 2, to address the
evaluation objectives. The evaluation objectives included verifying energy impacts attributable to
the 2022 program, providing estimates of realization rates, and suggesting enhancements to the
savings analysis and program tracking.

Figure 2. Impact Evaluation Activities

ME
N
U
•New flow-control-type nozzles $2.50
•New nozzles for impact, rotating or fixed head sprinklers $0.35
•New or rebuilt impact or rotating type sprinklers $0.50
•New or rebuilt wheel line levelers $1.00
•New complete low-pressure pivot package (per sprinkler head, nozzle and regulator) $8.00
•New drains for pivots and wheel lines $3.00
•New risercaps and gaskets for hand lines, wheel lines or portable mainline $1.00
CU
S
T
O
M
•Enhanced distribution systems to reduce pressure requirements
•Systems designed to better fit the characteristics of field topography
•Replacing a pump with one that is more appropriate for the system
•Lowering the flow rate of a pump through increased application efficiency (savings from reduced acreage does not qualify)
•Installing multiple pumps that can run independently when part of the system is turned off
•Installing a variable speed drive
•Installing high-efficiency motors
Review data and conduct sampling Complete desk reviews Conduct site verifications Verify kilowatt-hour savings
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
3
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The IER program is well-managed with comprehensive support from Idaho Power staff,
including a highly knowledgeable group of ag reps and program staff. The Menu incentive
option of the program is streamlined and easily understood. The Custom incentive option
savings are highly customized and calculated by the ag reps and program engineer. The
approach to the evaluation of recalculating the custom energy savings for the sampled projects
from scratch naturally creates higher variability in the energy savings because of the individual
nature of each project and natural variations in the agricultural production systems. This
evaluation approach results in a higher relative precision and more insightful findings.
In 2022, the IER program had 519 participants with claimed savings of 6,937,855 kWh. The
program's overall realization rate was 97.4 percent, with a relative precision of 5.4 percent at 90
percent confidence.

Table 1: Program Realization Rate
Program
option Projects
kWh Peak kW
Claimed Evaluated
Realization
rate Claimed Evaluated
Realization
rate
Menu 439 2,632,945 2,630,312 99.9% n/a n/a n/a
Custom 80 4,304,911 4,124,660 95.8% 810.9 1,153.6 142.3%
TOTAL 519 6,937,855 1 6,754,972 97.4% 810.9 1,153.6 142.3%
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations
The following impact recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
• Streamline Custom Incentive Option Calculations. The current Custom calculator
has a two-step process to calculate energy savings for most projects. The program can
streamline the calculation to a one-step process to compare improved conditions to
five-year historical usage for existing systems or new system projects by detailing the
baseline and improved conditions and identifying the differences and assumptions
included in the savings calculation. This simplification will support quicker and more
manageable quality assurance and quality control within the program savings
calculations.
• Create a reference for Custom Incentive Option calculation assumptions. The
Custom calculation requires assumptions about operating conditions, additional loads,
hours of operation, and water volume in addition to the pump and motor efficiencies
and hours of operation. The current Custom calculation steps include these
assumptions, but many are included in the calculation in spreadsheet cells. Creating a
reference location for the assumptions and having the equations reference those will
ease quality assurance reviews and reduce the potential for hidden equation errors.

1 Rounding variations leads to a total program energy savings of 6,937,855 kWh. The sum of the rounded
numbers does not match to total.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
4
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
• Review baseline energy consumption for irrigation system projects with multiple
pumps. The baseline energy consumption calculation needs more detail to account for
the baseline pump electrical consumption at varied pump operating points, acres
irrigated, and hours of operation. Develop a baseline energy consumption calculation
that has matching conditions to the proposed system.
• Continue to use meter data to calibrate the Custom baseline energy
consumption. Electric consumption meter data is effectively used within the program
to create more accurate savings. However, this information is used slightly differently
for each calculation. Documenting the use of the AMI data within the calculator will
provide context for the quality assurance and increase transparency of savings
calculation. A specific improvement is to use the AMI data to isolate pumps that will be
removed from the system.
• Continue to organize digital files. The documentation files for the Custom and Menu
incentive options were improved from the previous evaluation. They are consistent and
mostly complete. However, the documentation organization could improve when a
participant has multiple projects over multiple years. The evaluation team found that
the documentation for Menu participants that had multiple projects had overlapping
documentation. A Custom project file did not include the custom calculation for a
project that spanned multiple years. A file organization that can connect documentation
to participants over multiple years can support quality assurance over multiple years
and projects. The organization of digital files was already in process when the
evaluation was completed, and much of this recommendation is being addressed.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
5
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
As part of the impact evaluation, Tetra Tech reviewed Idaho Power's progress against the
recommendations made during the last impact evaluation of the 2019 program. The table below
highlights Idaho Power's actions to address each of the previous impact recommendations.

Table 2. PY2019 Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Recommendations
Category
Key findings and
recommendations PY2022 implementation Status
Project
Documentation

Formalize data collection of
system operating
conditions for custom
projects.
The program made great progress in data
collection and documentation. The checklist
developed supported complete and
consistent documentation. However, many
technical components were collected and
incorporated into the calculation equations
and were challenging to identify.

In progress
Custom
Calculations
Streamline custom
calculations
The custom calculations have been
updated to increase the use of standard
assumptions. The calculation steps can be
further simplified.
In progress
Custom
Calculations
Increase documentation of
critical systems
components
The critical systems were well documented.

Complete
Process Continue to develop the
electronic program manual
The program manual has been expanded
and maintained to current processes. The
program should continue to maintain the
manual.
Complete
Process Continue creating an
electronic filing system for
all project records
The electronic filing system has improved,
and documentation is accessible.

Complete
Process Consider a more
systematic method for
reviewing vendor activity
levels
Vendors were not evaluated during the
PY2022 impact evaluation

Not
evaluated
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
6
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The Irrigation Efficiency Rewards (IER) program is designed to encourage replacing or
improving inefficient irrigation systems and components. It is funded through the Energy
Efficiency Rider on monthly bills to Idaho Power customers, as approved by the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon. The eligible irrigation sector
is comprised of agricultural customers operating water-pumping or water-delivery systems to
irrigate crops or pastures. End-use electrical equipment primarily consists of agricultural
irrigation pumps and center pivots.
Customers have two options for receiving incentives through the IER program: Menu incentives
and Custom incentives. If a customer is repairing or replacing irrigation system parts, they can
apply for incentives on specific components through the Menu incentive option. Customers who
apply with supporting invoices within one year of purchase may receive incentives. The Custom
incentive is for extensive retrofits of existing systems or the installation of new systems. To
participate, customers submit a project proposal to Idaho Power before starting a project. The
customer works with an ag rep to determine the project's energy savings and applicable
incentive estimate.
2.1.1 Menu Incentives
The Menu incentive option pays an incentive for purchasing and installing specific replacement
parts and components for an existing irrigation system. The program refers to the components
as measures. The measures have predetermined cash incentives and kWh savings for each.
Menu measures are limited to two per acre and more than three years between applications for
the same system components. Levelers, drains, and gasket incentives are limited to the
purchase price.
The Menu incentive application process is outlined below:
1. Customers review the sprinkler parts covered by the Menu incentive to determine
which apply to their system. Idaho Power agricultural representatives and program
specialists are available for assistance.
2. Customers purchase and install the parts on their irrigation system.
3. Customers complete the Menu incentive application within one year from the date of
purchase and mail or email it to Idaho Power, including receipts and invoices showing
proof of purchase. The program specialist reviews each receipt and item to verify
applicability.
4. Idaho Power pays customer incentives by check once they have determined that
customers have complied with the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program's terms.
The Incentives in PY2022 are different than the incentives in PY2021, although because of the
lag in submittals, both incentives were applied in the PY2022 program year.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
7
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Table 3. PY2021 and PY2022 Irrigation Efficiency Rewards – Menu Incentives
Measure 2021 Incentive 2022 Incentive
Flow control nozzle $1.50 $2.50
New nozzle (for impact, rotating, or fixed-head sprinklers) $0.25 $0.35
New or rebuilt sprinkler heads $2.75 $0.50
New or rebuilt wheel-line levelers $0.75 $1.00
New pivot sprinkler package (head, nozzle, regulator) $8.00 $8.00
New drains for wheel lines and pivots $3.00 $3.00
Gaskets for wheel lines, hand lines, and portable main lines $1.00 $1.00
Wheel line hubs for Thunderbird wheel lines $12.00 NA
Pivot goosenecks with drop tubes $1.00 NA
Cut and press and weld pipe repair (per joint) $8.00 NA
Center pivot-based boot gaskets $125.00 NA
2.1.2 Custom Incentives
Compared with Menu incentive projects, Custom incentive projects and applications are more
involved. Idaho Power agricultural representatives are available to conduct free energy
evaluations to help customers determine the changes/improvements that can make their system
more energy efficient.
The Custom incentive is based on an estimated annual reduction in energy use. For existing
systems, the incentive is based on the energy savings of the proposed modifications compared
to the historical five-year usage. For new systems, the incentive is based on installing a more
energy-efficient system than the standard. Water source changes to an existing system will be
treated as a new system.

Table 4. PY2022 Irrigation Efficiency Rewards – Custom Incentives
Type of Project
Incentive per kWh
saved annually
Incentive per kW
saved annually Maximum Incentive
Existing System $0.25 $450.00 75% of the project cost
New System $0.25 10% of the project cost
Necessary customer steps for a Custom incentive application include:
1. Customers determine how or if their irrigation system could be more energy efficient.
They can request a system audit or expertise from an Idaho Power Ag Rep in their area.
2. Customers contact an irrigation equipment or pump dealer to obtain an itemized bid to
modify or install the irrigation system.
3. Idaho Power reviews customer bid and support documentation, makes
recommendations, and calculates energy (kWh) and demand (kW) savings to determine
potential incentive estimates.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
8
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4. Qualifying projects receive a contract agreement, which must be signed and returned
to Idaho Power.
5. After the customer installs the system, they submit the invoices and documentation to
support the planned installation.
6. When the installation information has been submitted, Idaho Power Ag Reps will
review all project components and calculate energy and demand savings for the installed
irrigation system.
7. The Ag Reps submit the project to the Irrigation Segment Technical Consultant/Ag
Engineer for final review and approval.
8. Upon final approval, the project is entered into the Upload database, and the incentive
check is generated and mailed to the customer or the Ag Rep for hand delivery.
2.1.3 Marketing and Outreach
Idaho Power utilizes various marketing and outreach methods to inform customers about
Irrigation Efficiency Reward opportunities.
The program offers customer education, training, and irrigation system assessments. IPC
agricultural representatives sponsor, coordinate, conduct, and present educational workshops
for irrigation customers, providing expert information and training across IPC's service area.
Energy audits are provided to prospective customers by IPC agricultural representatives to
evaluate potential savings.
Agricultural representatives from IPC also engage agricultural irrigation equipment dealers in
training sessions, increasing awareness of the program and promoting it through the irrigation
equipment distribution channels. Marketing efforts include direct mailings, advertisements in
agricultural publications, and agricultural trade show participation.
2.1.4 Tracking and Reporting
Idaho Power uses a DSM database system to manage all the applicant's data, create vendors,
and pull reports for all pending and paid projects. Menu savings are prescribed annually, and
the DSM database completes the adjustment calculations to energy savings based on area or
historical energy consumption. There is also a data entry point for a manual adjustment, as
determined by program staff. The DSM database collects similar data for the custom
participants, although the savings calculations are done in a spreadsheet before entry into the
database for tracking.
2.2 EVALUATION OVERVIEW
The goals for the 2022 impact evaluation of the Irrigation Efficiency program include:
• Verify program-tracked savings for Menu measures.
• Identify evaluated savings for Custom and Menu projects with realization rates.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
9
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
• Provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings
analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
• Review the PY2019 evaluation findings to identify related program activities.
2.2.1 Evaluation Activities
The evaluation activities for the IER Program are summarized in Table 5. Researchable issues
and the sampling strategy are also discussed in this section.

Table 5. Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Evaluation Activities
Activity Objective
Program manager interviews Understand key delivery options, how savings are claimed, and how
the program is tracked.
Review other research efforts
already completed
Examine the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) Irrigation Hardware
Research Strategy and other research efforts to inform findings from
primary research and review conducted through this current
evaluation.
Analyze the tracking
database: Menu measures
Review the program tracking system to document participation, data
availability, and savings. This task includes replicating the impacts of
prescriptive measures using the RTF deemed savings for the Menu
measures.
Analyze the tracking
database: Custom measures
Review the program tracking system to document participation, data
availability, and savings. This task will inform the sampling for the
engineering review.
Documentation review and
calculations
Review documentation of Menu project applications and invoices to
comply with Idaho Power and RTF measure requirements and confirm
tracking system inputs.
Engineering review and
calculations
Review Custom measures and engineering assumptions, calculations,
and models to estimate equipment or measure savings. The site-
specific analyses will check them for consistency, accuracy, and
engineering principles in the calculations based on equipment and
documented operating conditions.
Virtual site reviews of Menu
projects
Assess equipment and operating parameters of the irrigation system to
verify equipment installed, program assumptions, and calculation
methods. Identify the non-energy benefits and assess the quantity and
value. Review the application process from the participant's
perspective.
Onsite Visits of Custom
projects
Assess equipment and operating parameters of the irrigation system to
verify equipment installed, program assumptions, and calculation
methods.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
10
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
2.2.2 Sampling
The tracking data 2 were uploaded by Idaho Power and downloaded by Tetra Tech on June 30,
2023. The sampling was conducted separately for Custom and Menu projects to meet the
evaluation goals. Sampling was conducted by the Pump Number for the Menu projects and the
Device Location for the Custom projects.
A random sample was selected for the Menu program. Twenty-one projects covering 24 pump
numbers were selected for documentation review. Calls were made to all sampled customers
for additional verification of reviewed files. After three attempts, we were able to talk with 10
participants.
The Custom program stratum focused on geographic distribution and even distribution between
new and existing projects. The results of the stratification are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. PY2022 Irrigation Custom Stratification Summary
Sampling Stratum
Number of project IDs Total kWh savings percentage
Existing New Existing New
Canyon 6 14 24.52% 29.71%
Capital 7 0 6.85% 0.00%
Eastern 2 0 1.73% 0.00%
Southern 12 11 15.25% 8.42%
Western 8 20 5.07% 8.45%
TOTAL 35 45 53.43% 46.57%
A sample of 15 custom projects was completed for desk reviews, with five receiving a follow-up
site visit. The Canyon region had several large projects responsible for a large portion of the
PY2022 savings. Therefore, this region has more sampled projects than others because of the
large proportion of kWh savings attributed. The Capital and Eastern regions have fewer
projects, all existing, so zero projects are sampled from the new type. The following quantity of
projects were sampled in the stratification groups summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. PY2022 Irrigation Custom Sample Summary
Sampling Stratum
Number of Sampled Project IDs
Existing New
Canyon 2 4
Capital 1 0
Eastern 1 0
Southern 2 2
Western 1 2
TOTAL 7 8

2 Custom Program: ICI_DB_Download_2022_External.xlsx and Menu Program:
IMI_DB_Download_2022_External.xlsx.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
11
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
3.0 MENU IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS
The goals for the impact evaluation of the Menu incentive option included:
• Verify program-tracked savings.
• Identify realization rates.
• Provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings
analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
• Review the PY2019 evaluation findings to identify related program activities.
The Menu incentive option is prescriptive, and most irrigation equipment dealers understand the
requirements of the invoice to claim the menu incentives seamlessly. The documentation
typically included copies of the following:
• Submitted application
• Idaho Power annotated application
• Itemized invoice
• Quality Assurance verification documentation
3.1 METHODOLOGY
The Menu impact methodology consisted of the four primary evaluation activities shown in
Figure 3. Each activity is explained in more detail below.
Figure 3. Process for Verifying the Menu Incentive Option

Program Tracking Review
The first step in evaluating the IER program was to review the program documentation and
energy savings tracking system provided by Idaho Power; Tetra Tech determined that the
tracking data were complete for each project. Idaho Power supplied the tracking system to the
evaluation team in separate Excel spreadsheets for the Menu components and a data
dictionary. The Menu program savings were verified using a census approach to recalculate
savings based on tracking system data. Some projects claimed in PY2022 were based on
calculations from 2021 and some from 2022. The evaluation used the Agricultural Irrigation
Hardware Maintenance V5.3 3 workbook from the RTF as the basis for energy savings.

3 https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/irrigation-hardware
Review program tracking
Verify savings amounts and documentation Inteview Participants
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
12
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Verify Savings and Documentation
An engineer with Tetra Tech reviewed the documentation of 24 claimed projects based on pump
numbers sampled to verify the measures claimed and the applicability of energy savings. The
findings were applied to the sample energy savings to determine the accuracy of the claimed
energy savings.
Interview Participants
Once the documentation verification was complete, the engineers attempted to contact all of the
sampled participants to verify the installation of the equipment in the documentation. The
evaluation interviewed 10 of the participants. Interview information was used to refine evaluated
savings calculations.
3.2 MENU INCENTIVE OPTION RESULTS
The Menu application and savings process are streamlined and prescriptive. The tracking
system review found no systematic concerns about tracked equipment, energy savings, or
adjustment of energy savings. Table 8 shows the overall evaluated energy savings of the Menu
portion of the program with a 99.0 percent realization rate.

Table 8: PY2022 Menu Program Realization Rate
Program Option Participants Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
Menu 439 2,632,945 2,630,312 99.9%

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
13
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Table 9 shows the realization rate of individual projects in the sample. Overall, the savings were
accurate, with just one adjustment identified. IRRM13403 was not used to determine the
realization rate because the project appeared to have incorrect documentation provided to the
evaluator. The participant had several projects in PY2022, which identified a concern for
documentation storage, although it did not impact the savings.

Table 9: Menu Program Sample Project Realization Rate
IRRM Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
13310 1,543.84 1,543.84 100.0%
13096 10,439.53 10,439.53 100.0%
13098 2,100.35 2,100.35 100.0%
13304 5,777.88 5,777.88 100.0%
13355 1,041.30 1,041.30 100.0%
13366 5,411.16 5,411.16 100.0%
13382 5,090.46 4,926.12 96.8%
13401 2,291.02 2,291.02 100.0%
13426 23,413.36 23,413.36 100.0%
13473 520.88 520.88 100.0%
13520 4,017.28 4,017.28 100.0%
13526 3,316.43 3,316.43 100.0%
13509 4,858.30 4,858.30 100.0%
13505 289.43 289.43 100.0%
13499 3,005.85 3,005.85 100.0%
13480 6,413.23 6,413.23 100.0%
13434 4,495.48 4,495.48 100.0%
13336 1,094.15 1,094.15 100.0%
13095 16,830.19 16,830.19 100.0%
13110 10,723.56 10,723.56 100.0%
13127 106.93 106.93 100.0%
13135 3,239.07 3,239.07 100.0%
13159 1,207.87 1,207.87 100.0%
TOTALS 117,228 117,063 99.9%

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
14
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
3.2.1 Menu Incentive Option Detailed Evaluation
The tracking system review found that the tracking system for the Menu incentive option
included all the necessary project information to use the RTF calculation to claim first-year
energy savings and non-energy benefits. Further, the tracking system included the field area,
pump horsepower, historical consumption, and a manual adjustment for the energy savings to
meet the savings adjustments detailed in the program manual. The evaluation team confirmed
that the claimed savings matched the expected RTF energy savings and non-energy benefits
with minimal additional support from Idaho Power. However, the adjusted energy savings that
equals the claimed savings, calculated within the DSM database tracking system, was more
challenging to evaluate from the tracking system alone. The evaluation team completed this
review of the sampled projects.
The PY2022 evaluation of the Menu incentive option included 24 sampled projects that received
detailed documentation review, savings calculation, and savings adjustment review. Overall, the
evaluation team found consistent documentation, and the savings calculation and adjustments
were documented. The claimed savings were conservative because the adjustments based on
acres and historical energy consumption capped the savings at reasonable levels for each
project.
The evaluation team found one project did not have a 100 percent realization rate. The project
had a measure that was removed from the program. Below is the specific description.
13382: The project was a 2021 invoice that included a gooseneck measure. The
gooseneck measure was removed from the program for PY22, although the program
continued to pay rebates to applicants who purchased the equipment before the
removal from the program. The evaluation adjusted the savings to account for the
removal of the measure and agreed that the rebate to the applicant was part of the
program costs in the transition period. This adjustment resulted in an energy savings
realization rate of 97%.
Two other projects had concerns because the documentation did not easily match up to the
project. Each project was with a participant who had multiple projects. The first had what
appeared to be a duplicate project in the tracking system with a slightly different farm name. The
second participant had nine projects submitted in PY2022, and the evaluation received
documentation for a different project; this project was removed from the sample.
• 13355: The project consisted of 72 acres of irrigated land. The project measures and
savings appeared duplicated in project 13493, which was identified as the same meter,
pump, and location, although it had a different name and submittal date. The program
supplied additional documentation to show that the two projects were for identical
irrigation distribution systems on different fields with the same pump, but this could not
be identified from the tracking system.
• 13403: This project had a 30 HP pump irrigating 215 acres of land. However, the
customer participated in the program at nine locations in the evaluation period. The
documentation appears to be for another location from the same customer. The project
measures included wheel line hubs, riser caps/gaskets, pipe presses, new nozzles,
low-pressure sprinklers, levelers, impact sprinklers, and drains. The tracking system
showed that this pump irrigated 450 acres, but it was determined, based on the
documentation, that the project irrigated 215 acres. The project documentation did not
include the wheel line hubs, pipe press, low-pressure sprinklers, levelers, or drains.
The quantities of the riser caps/gaskets, nozzles, and impact sprinklers were adjusted
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
15
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
in the documentation. These adjustments from the project documentation made it
apparent that this documentation did not match the claimed project. These adjustments
were removed from the sample because they identified a deficiency in the
documentation system but not the claimed savings.
3.2.2 Menu Incentive Option Participant Interviews
The evaluation team completed phone
interviews with participants to verify
participation and equipment. The evaluation
included interviews with ten participants
representing 13 of the sampled projects. All
the participants verified the equipment
installed in the application. Figure 4 shows the
interview outcomes, providing interesting
information to support improved
implementation but not identifying components
that will adjust the evaluated savings.
Appendix A includes the complete answers to
the interviews.
The equipment was primarily self-installed,
with only one participant using a vendor to
install it. The primary concern was that one
reported self-install had not yet completed the
equipment installation. The evaluation does
not recommend adjusting energy savings
based on this finding because the price of the
equipment reduces the likelihood of delayed
installation.
The interviews also identified that the typical
maintenance schedules of the participants require the replacement of equipment every five to
eight years. However, two participants identified that equipment was positively replaced on a
maintenance schedule, while four identified the equipment was replaced when it was at least
partially non-functional. The remaining four participants did not answer this question. Further
data collection is warranted to determine the condition of the baseline equipment because it
may be less functional in the participants than in the general irrigation equipment population.
A further interesting finding is that five of the ten participants noticed a reduction in water use,
one adjusted the water pressure, and five noticed a reduction in labor or maintenance
associated with the participating irrigation system. However, none noted that they changed
operations when the equipment was installed, which is a typical response in a program
expected to produce small efficiency improvements through equipment upgrades.

Typical maintenance schedules include replacement every 5-8 years
•4 identified that equipment was non-functional at replacement for this project.
•2 identified that equipment was replaced on schedule.
5 indicated that they noticed a reduction in water use.
•1 identified same volume, but lower pressure
•None identified a need to adjust operating patterns.
•5 identified reduction in maintenance labor.
9 were self installed
•1 was installed by vendor
•1 self install was not complete yet
6 installed additional components
•Hoses and drop tubes
•Pressure regulators
•End Guns
•Only 3 participants had an existing VFD on participating irrigation system.
10 participants interviewed
All Verified Equipment
Figure 4: Participant Interview Outcomes
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
16
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
3.2.3 Menu Incentive Option Findings Discussion
The Menu incentive option evaluation identified findings that can support the implementation
and increased accuracy of the savings calculation.
1. The program tracks the participant name, meter ID, pump ID, and project number, which
is sufficient to uniquely identify projects for participants who complete multiple projects in
the same program year. The evaluation found that one project appeared duplicated, and
one had mismatched documentation for the field. Improvement in the use of the tracking
data to identify duplicate applications and organize supporting documentation will
improve the quality assurance process.
2. The gooseneck measure was removed from the program in PY22, although the program
continued to pay rebates to applicants who purchased the equipment before the removal
from the program. The evaluation adjusted the savings to account for removing the
measure and agreed that the rebate to the applicant was part of the program costs in the
transition period.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
17
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.0 CUSTOM IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS
The goals for the impact evaluation of the Custom incentive option include:
• Verify program-tracked savings.
• Identify realization rates.
• Provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings
analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
• Review the PY2019 evaluation findings to identify related program activities.
Idaho Power has been accommodating and provided a great deal of program documentation to
inform the evaluation. Tetra Tech reviewed the application process and requested
documentation on the selected custom projects, including the following:
• Submitted application
• Project description
• Itemized bid from the supplier for the project4
• Drawing of irrigation system
• Topographical map of the irrigated area with intake/well elevation, critical pressure
locations, and elevations showing mainline pipe lengths, sizes, and pressure ratings
• Aerial photo/map of the irrigated area (acres)
• Make and model of pump
• Irrigation system design (existing and improved)
• Pump Curves
• Project energy efficiency calculations for kWh and Peak kW
• Field Data Collection documentation and photos
• Site verification reports and photos

4 The evaluation will review whether or not itemized supplier bids are necessary for all projects or invoices
are sufficient.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
18
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.1 METHODOLOGY
The Custom impact methodology consisted of the four primary evaluation activities shown in
Figure 5. Each activity is explained in more detail below.
Figure 5. Process for Verifying the Custom Incentive Option

Program Tracking Review
The first step in evaluating the IER program was to review the program documentation and
energy savings tracking system provided by Idaho Power. Tetra Tech determined that the
tracking data were complete for each project. Idaho Power supplied the tracking system to the
evaluation team in separate Excel spreadsheets for the Custom components, along with a data
dictionary.
Verify Savings Amounts and Documentation
Custom savings and documentation were verified by sampling 15 projects for a detailed review
of claimed savings and documentation. The evaluation team reviewed the submitted
documentation to verify the tracking system data entries for participant information, expected
documentation, savings, and other data entry points.
Check Savings Calculations
An engineer with Tetra Tech reviewed the savings calculations for the 15 Custom projects
sampled and recalculated the savings based on the documentation and additional verification
information collected. The engineer examined the project descriptions, drawings, invoices,
calculations, and assumptions. Although the submitted calculations were reviewed, the
evaluated savings reported results from a new calculation using the documentation.
Participant Site Visits
Once the kWh savings were recalculated for each of the 15 sampled Custom projects, the
evaluation team called the participants to schedule site visits for five of the 15 projects. The site
visits confirmed baseline and post-install conditions, operating parameters, and discussion of
the non-energy benefits realized since installation. The evaluation team used the information
from the September 28-30 site visits to refine evaluated savings calculations.

Review program tracking
Verify savings amounts and documentation
Check savings calculations Participant onsite visits
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
19
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS
The Custom incentive option application and savings process are standardized throughout
PY2022 and PY2023 to streamline documentation and calculation processes. This effort
decreases the variability identified in the custom project savings and leads to a more consistent
implementation. Table 10 shows the overall evaluated energy savings of the Custom portion of
the program with a 95.8 percent realization rate for kWh and 142.3 percent realization rate for
peak kW.

Table 10: PY2022 Custom Incentive Option Realization Rate
Participants
Claimed
kWh
Evaluated
kWh
Realization
rate kWh
Claimed
Peak kW
Evaluated
Peak kW
Realization
rate Peak kW
80 4,304,911 4,124,660 95.8% 810.9 1,153.6 142.3%

The tracking system review found that the tracking system accurately reflected the applications
and documentation. Overall, findings from the impact evaluation of the Custom incentive option
show the program savings calculations are overstated for the kWh savings, and the peak kW
estimations are understated. However, the overstatement of kWh savings was concentrated in
one type of project, a new system project that operated a multiple-pump arrangement. This type
of system has the most complicated energy modeling for the proposed approach. Because the
system is a new system, it does not have the operating history to develop a realistic baseline.
Table 12 shows the realization rate results from variations between the existing retrofit and new
system project types used to develop the overall realization rate.

Table 11: PY2022 Evaluation Results for New and Existing Project Types
Program
Option Count
Claimed
kWh
Evaluated
kWh
Realization
rate kWh
Claimed
Peak kW
Evaluated
Peak kW
Realization
rate Peak kW
Existing 35 2,300,035 2,460,613 107.0% 305.8 478.3 156.4%
New 45 2,004,876 1,664,047 83.0% 505.1 675.3 133.7%

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
20
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.2.1 Custom Incentive Option Documentation
The custom project documentation was significantly improved from the PY2019 evaluation. The
most significant improvement was the development of a checklist to support the project's quality
assurance/quality control. Each project included a checklist signed and dated by the program
implementer.
The checklist is added to the front of all the project files to ensure that critical items and dates
are easily determined if they are eligible and accessible within the files. The checklist developed
included.
 Ag Rep
 Pump #
 Date of Signed Application
 Date of signed contract
 Date of Invoice
 Identification of non energy benefits
 Date of project eligibility
 Calculation sheet complete
 Identification of VFD projects
 Letter from power quality engineer
 Life of project
 Verify 2021 usage
 Area irrigated
 Existing system description
 Planned system description
 Mapping
 Pump curve with operating points
 Photos
 Final customer signature
 Identification of rate controls
 Tax ID
 Email notes
 Date of peer approval
 Date of entry into the DSM database
 Backcheck of spreadsheet data link
 Latitude/Longitude
 Sign off date and electronic signature

The documentation package provided to the evaluation team was consistent and generally
included the information identified in the checklist. Some documentation packages did not
include the pump curve or the system's map, but they were generally more straightforward
projects that only had 1-2 pivots served by the pumping, and it was not necessary to determine
evaluated savings.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
21
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.2.2 Custom Incentive Option Detailed Results
The energy savings realization rates for each project are shown in Table 12 and Table 13
below, broken out by existing retrofit and new system projects. The combined realization rate for
the Custom incentive option portion of the program is shown in Table 10. There is a significant
difference in the realized results between the two types of projects; therefore, the results are
stratified below.

Table 12: Custom Incentive Option Sample Project Realization Rate – Existing retrofit projects
ID
Claimed
kWh Evaluated kWh
Realization
rate kWh
Claimed
kW
Evaluated
kW
Realization
rate Peak
kW
2925 55,768 58,224 104.4% -1.3 -1.3 100.0%
2926 153,587 201,106 130.9% 29.2 29.2 100.1%
2943 713,238 713,238 100.0% -38.0 -38.0 100.0%
2971 138,207 148,541 107.5% 79.5 172.0 216.0%
2973 26,009 26,009 100.0% 13.5 13.5 100.0%
2977 46,332 42,554 91.8% 31.5 28.7 91.1%
2990 15,976 15,976 100.0% 8.6 8.6 100.0%
2999 119,440 151,474 126.8% 44.7 49.6 111.0%
Grand Total 1,268,557 1,357,122 107.0% 167.7 262.3 156.4%

Table 13: Custom Incentive Option Sample Project Realization Rate – New System
ID
Claimed
kWh
Evaluated
kWh
Realization
rate kWh
Claimed
kW
Evaluated
kW
Realization
rate Peak kW
2930 86,098 52,252 60.7% 32.5 31.7 97.5%
2939 294,582 200,230 68.0% 73.2 97.7 133.5%
2940 474,112 526,001 110.9% 113.2 153.7 135.8%
2941 288,964 164,428 56.9% 59.5 90.9 152.8%
2954 24,244 16,721 69.0% 10.0 12.0 120.0%
2986 42,066 44,725 106.3% 11.0 19.9 180.9%
2988 23,428 19,076 81.4% 9.9 7.5 75.8%
Grand Total 1,233,494 1,023,433 83.0% 309.3 413.4 133.7%

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
22
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.2.2.1 Custom Calculations
The Custom calculation for both existing and new system projects follows the same standard
custom calculation process. First, the base consumption is determined, then the more efficient
system usage is determined, and savings are calculated to identify the savings from operating a
more efficient upgraded system. If the system only included upgrading the pumps or reducing
pressure, this is the claimed savings.
The second step of the calculation includes enhancements such as VFD or multiple pump
systems. This calculation sets a baseline for a single pump without control to match the
system's various flow and head conditions. This identified the baseline and upgraded conditions
in a simple-to-read table that identifies the various operating conditions, associated
consumption, and irrigation water delivered from each. The evaluation team used a calculation
approach which only used the format of the second step to calculate the whole project savings.
To calculate the base consumption and savings, the first step does several important
calculations by calibrating the baseline consumption to match historical consumption, matching
annual hours of operation to historical consumption, and calculating the energy consumption
associated with the pivot motors and end gun boosters. However, the calculations do not flow
sequentially on the page and include many hidden additions and subtractions within the
calculation cells. Many of the minor evaluation adjustments to energy savings resulted from
changes in equations, which were difficult to identify in the review. Some examples included the
savings associated with removing end guns, reducing pressure through pipe improvements,
converting from horsepower to watts multiple times, or using AMI data in custom ways.
Providing a location where calculation assumptions and components can be easily identified will
reduce the program's quality control/quality assurance needs and create a more transparent
calculation for the irrigation market actor and participants to understand.
The PY2019 evaluation of the program identified many of these areas as opportunities to
improve the program implementation, including developing a single calculation focused on
energy consumption variations, developing standard assumptions, and incorporating AMI data
into baseline development. Significant improvements have been made in developing standard
assumptions and incorporating AMI data into the baseline development. However, the
calculation is still in multiple steps, and it is challenging to identify the key drivers of savings
based on the form. The calculation sheet can also be improved to identify the custom
assumptions included in the calculation and complete internal quality assurance/quality control.
There have been many good improvements in standardizing the calculation since the PY2019
evaluation. The next step to creating a consistently implemented custom irrigation program is
creating a single entry point for assumptions and project information. The equations which use
the information should reference the single data entry point. This system will ease quality
assurance by consistently laying out the assumptions and critical project information. It will also
decrease the risk of hidden equation errors, which can occur when the assumptions or project
information is entered into multiple individual equations. Finally, the reference point

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
23
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.2.2.2 Existing retrofit projects
The evaluation team sampled eight existing retrofit projects and focused on the kWh realization
rate. Three existing retrofit projects in the sample had a realization rate of 100 percent. Three
projects had a realization rate within 10 percent of claimed. The remaining two projects had
realization rates of 127 and 131 percent. These last two projects are the ones that drive the
variability of savings, and each project's results are discussed below.
• 2925: The project installed a VFD to an existing pump to reduce operating pressure on
215 acres of irrigated land. The evaluation team adjusted the hours of operation from
1,541 hours to 1,991 hours to match the proposed condition and better match the AMI
data. This adjustment increased savings slightly to 104 percent realization rate for
kWh. The Peak kW was evaluated at 100 percent realization rate.
• 2926: The project rebuilt a 250-horsepower pump, reduced the pressure requirements
of the nozzles, and installed a VFD. These upgrades reduced the run time of a
supplemental deep well pump and a booster pump to provide flow and pressure for the
irrigation system. The evaluation team found that the deep well pump will operate for
fewer hours than the claimed calculation assumed. This adjustment increased savings
to 131 percent realization rate for kWh. The Peak kW was evaluated at 100 percent.
• 2971: The project retrofitted an existing multi-pump system through improvements to
piping and rebuilt existing pumps. The historical system operations varied the amount
of irrigated land and water provided per year. The claimed energy system assumed an
average operation for multiple meters and adjusted that overall operation to a new
overall operation. The evaluation team increased the detail of the calculation to use
each pump meter individually and determine the adjustment from 2013-2021 baseline
to the proposed annual operation. The evaluation calculation removed the well pump
from the baseline and accounted for the increased water delivered by the other
metered pumps. The increased level of calculation detail for each of the multiple pumps
impacted the energy savings to 107 percent realization rate for kWh. The Peak kW was
evaluated at 216 percent realization rate.
• 2977: The project installed a VFD on an existing pump and upgraded piping to increase
the use of gravity head available on 195 acres of irrigated land. The evaluation team
agreed with the submitted gravity head calculations, although the pump efficiency was
slightly higher than identified in the pump curve. The decreased pump efficiency
resulted in reduced savings to 92 percent realization rate for kWh. The Peak kW was
evaluated at 91 percent realization rate.
• 2999: The project replaced the bowl and assembly of a pump on the irrigation system
for 697 acres of irrigated land. The evaluation team adjusted the baseline kW to match
the AMI meter data from the five-year historical records. This adjustment increased
savings to 127 percent realization rate for kWh. The Peak kW was evaluated at 111
percent realization rate.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
24
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.2.2.3 New system projects
The evaluation sampled seven new system projects and focused on the kWh realization rate.
Five new system projects were similar as they installed systems that had multiple pumps and
multiple fields, and three of the projects were from the same large system conversion to pivot
irrigators. These five multi-pump projects were responsible for most of the savings reduction of
new system projects. The remaining two projects had much smaller savings and better
realization rates of 106 and 81 percent.
• 2986: The project replaced surface irrigation with a pivot system and installed piping to
capture the gravity head, meaning the pump power was unnecessary for much of the
pivot rotation. The evaluated savings calculation found a slight increase in energy
savings because the gravity head provided was slightly greater than assumed. This
adjustment increased savings to 106 percent for kWh. The Peak kW was evaluated at
181 percent.
• 2988: The project installed two pivot systems with pumping, which was more efficient
than a standard installation. In addition, the pumping system provided flow to a solid
set of magpie sprinklers in the four corners. The evaluation team eliminated the
savings for pressure reduction at the magpie guns, which was included in the claimed
calculation. This adjustment decreased savings to 81 percent for kWh. The Peak kW
was evaluated at 76 percent.
Multi-pump new system projects
The multi-pump new system projects resulted in the most significant adjustments to kWh
savings in the evaluation. The evaluation team found that the standard calculation used for the
other new system projects overestimated the baseline energy consumption of the pumping
systems. The evaluation team confirmed the consumption of the installed system for all these
projects except 2930, described below.
The calculations for the Custom projects are standardized to follow a similar format for each
new system project. A base consumption is calculated to identify the usage from operating a
more efficient single pump system. The multi-pump savings were calculated to determine the
consumption and savings associated with changing from an efficient single pump to a multiple-
pump system to match the various operating points based on pivots turned on and off
throughout the irrigation season. Figure 6 shows the claimed savings amount for the multi-pump
new system projects with the savings claimed by each calculation step identified. Each
contributes about 50 percent of the savings for each project.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
25
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Figure 6: Claimed Energy Savings Components of the New System Multi-pump Projects

The evaluation team identified that the new system projects that installed multiple pump
solutions were typically systems that had multiple fields and cycled the pivots regularly. The
claimed savings assumed the base system is a single pump meeting the maximum head and
flow condition for all the hours which does not match the operating conditions for systems with
pivot cycling. The base system is expected to operate to meet the varied head and flow
conditions of the pivot cycling of the project equipment. This generally means an increased
hours of operation and lower pump head and flow which leads to a base system with a lower
energy consumption. The evaluated savings for these five projects in the sample recalculated
the baseline assuming the pivot cycling and single pump. Figure 7 adds the line for the
evaluated savings with the new baseline system consumption calculated for each sampled
project for a combined 80 percent realization rate.

0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
2930 2939 2940 2941 2954
An
n
u
a
l

k
W
h

S
a
v
i
n
g
s
Claimed Base Claimed Multi-pump
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
26
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Figure 7: Claimed Energy Savings Components of the New System Multi-pump Projects

• 2930: The project installed a multi-pump new system and had the baseline adjustment
described above. However, in addition to the adjustment described above, the
evaluation completed an additional calculation adjustment. The equations in the multi-
pump calculation included two conversions from horsepower to watts in the
spreadsheet equations. This conversion decreased energy consumption by a factor of
0.746 for both proposed and baseline conditions. This adjustment is included in the
evaluated savings above.

0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2930 2939 2940 2941 2954
An
n
u
a
l

k
W
h

S
a
v
i
n
g
s
Claimed Base Claimed Multi-pump Evaluated
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
27
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.2.3 Custom Incentive Option Findings Discussion
The custom incentive option evaluation identified findings that can support the implementation
and increased accuracy of the savings calculation.
1. The current Custom calculator has a two-step process to calculate energy savings for
most projects. The program can streamline the calculation to a one-step process to
compare improved conditions to five-year historical usage for existing systems or new
system projects by detailing the baseline and improved conditions and identifying the
differences and assumptions included in the savings calculation. This simplification will
support quicker and more manageable quality assurance and quality control within the
program savings calculations.
2. The use of AMI data to calibrate the baseline conditions is working well. The use of the
AMI data varies between projects, but how it is used for each calculation is not
documented.
3. The baseline energy consumption for new system systems with cycling pump and pivot
operations needs more detail to account for the baseline pump electrical consumption at
varied pump operating points.
4. The claimed custom energy savings calculation does not effectively capture when
pumps are turned off or removed from the system. Isolating the pump baseline operation
to be subtracted in the proposed system and then using the proposed system to provide
the water volume will provide better savings estimates.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
1
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
APPENDIX A: MENU INCENTIVE OPTION PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW
No.
IPC Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards Results Count
1T Can you confirm that you
installed the following
measures:
Yes 7
Yes. He didn't think they had 42 pivots on their
equipment, but he may define the quantities differently. 1
Yes. Vendor installed most of them, some still need to be
installed. 1
replaced 2 complete pivot packages - pressure regulator
- 3 to 4 boxes or units, some nozzles for the wheel. 1
2T Did you install any other
components that did not
receive a rebate at the
same time?
Yes 5
No 5
2.1T (If yes) what components? end gun 1
hoses 2
pressure regulators 1
drop hoses on all pivots 1
3T Do you remember when
the components were
installed?
No 3
Beginning of the season 1
March-August 1
Late fall 2021 -early spring 2022 1
Sep-22 1
2022, some purchased components still need to be
installed. 1
Spring 2022 2
4T Who was the vendor that
sold you the equipment? Slimand & Butler 3
The Sprinkler Shop 1
Butte Irrigation 1
Don's Irrigation 1
Farmore of Idaho 1
Agri-lines 1
Knudsen Irrigation 1
Double M 1
United Distributors 1
5T Did you complete the
install or did the vendor
install?
self-install 9
vendor install 1
6T Were the existing
components before the
replacement:
fully functional 5
fully functional but with significant problems 4
7T Prior to this project, how
long since you last
replaced these
components?
never, existing were original components 3
5 years 2
7-8 years 2
7-8 years on a pivot package. some wells suck sand &
that wears out nozzles faster. 1
17T 2 types - timed & problem related 2
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
No.
IPC Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards Results Count
What is your typical
maintenance schedule, &
why?
service pivots in spring, winterize in fall 1
timed 1
replace when non-functional 2
(empty) 4
8T What type of irrigation
system are the
components installed on?
Center pivot w/ end gun 8
Center pivot w/o end gun 1
Handline 1
9T How many acres are
irrigated? 12-137
10T What crops do you
typically grow? hay 5
barley 2
corn 5
potatoes 6
beans 3
alfalfa 3
sugar beets 3
grain 1
wheat 3
peas 1
11T How many inches of water
do you apply in a typical
year? depends on the crop
11.1T Has the volume of water
decreased with the
installed components?
yes 5
no 3
same volume of water but lower pressure 1
12T Was there a need to
adjust operating controls
or conditions after
installing the new
equipment?
no 9
unknown 1
13T What is the pump
horsepower? 8-250HP
13.1T Is there a VFD on that
pump? yes 3
no 7
14T Do you know the critical
pressure (typically the end
point) you maintain in your
irrigation equipment? 15-85lbs
14.1T (If not) What is the
pressure provided at the
pump? 50-65lbs
15T Has there been any other
benefits or costs with the
new components?
no 5
benefit - better distribution of water 4
cost - labor for installation 1
15.1T Has your maintenance
labor decreased? yes 5
no 5
16T Is there anything else you
would like to share about no comment 7
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
3
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Evaluation. March 5, 2024
No.
IPC Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards Results Count
your experience with the
Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards program or Idaho
Power?
the program works well. 2
the program is no longer worth their time due to reduced
rebates. 1

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
i

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
1221 W Idaho St
Boise , ID, 83702

Prepared by:
Tetra Tech, Inc.
6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300
Madison, WI 53719

Tel [phone]
www.tetratech.com

Residential New Construction
PY2022 Evaluation
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
ii

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Program Description ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations ...................................................................................... 2
2.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Program Overview ........................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Marketing and Outreach ......................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Tracking and Reporting .......................................................................................... 4
2.2 Evaluation Overview ........................................................................................................ 4
2.2.1 Evaluation Activities ................................................................................................ 5
2.2.2 Sampling ................................................................................................................ 6
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS ....................................................................................... 7
3.1 Tracking System Review ................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Model Output Review ...................................................................................................... 7

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Residential New Construction Program Evaluation Activities ........................................ 5
Table 2. PY2022 Residential New Construction Stratification Summary .................................... 6
Table 3. PY2022 Residential New Construction Projects Summary by Home Type ................... 7
Table 4. Sampled Residential New Construction Projects Summary by Home Type .................. 7
Table 5. Calculated Height for Projects with High Conditioned Volume .....................................10

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities ......................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Energy Savings [MWh] for the 24 sampled projects by Savings Source ...................... 8
Figure 3. Heating Savings per Heating Capacity Increase by HSPF for Each Home Type ......... 9
Figure 4. Average Savings [MWh] per Sampled Projects with Water Heater Savings (n=3) ....... 9
Figure 5. Average Savings [MWh] per Sampled Projects with no Water Heater Savings (n=21)
.................................................................................................................................................10

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
iii

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We want to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2023 impact evaluation of
the Idaho Power Residential New Construction program; this evaluation effort would not have
been possible without their help and support.
We want to thank Becky Arte-Howell, Landon Barber, Michelle Toney, and Billie McWinn of
Idaho Power, who provided invaluable insight into the program and operations. These
individuals participated in ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions and
graciously responded to follow-up questions and data and documentation requests.
The Tetra Tech evaluation team was made up of the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars,
Mark Bergum, Najoua Jouini, Graham Thorbrogger, and Laura Meyer.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
1

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with this report covering
the evaluation of 2022 program impacts for the Residential New Construction program. This
report section includes an introduction describing the program, evaluation activities, and key
findings and recommendations. The program's impact evaluation is detailed in a separate
section.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Residential New Construction Pilot Program launched in March 2018, replacing the
ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest Program, and transitioned to a regular program in 2021.
The program offers builders a cash incentive to build energy-efficient, all-electric homes that use
heat pump technology in Idaho Power's Idaho service area. These homes must meet strict
requirements that make them at least 10 percent, 15 percent, or 20 percent more energy
efficient than homes built to standard state energy code.
Builders must contract with a certified rater to ensure the home design meets program
qualifications. The rater works with the builder throughout the project, performs required energy
modeling using REM/Rate modeling software, and completes the necessary tests and
inspections. Idaho Power claims energy savings based on the modeled savings completed by
the raters for each home participating in the program.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
The evaluation team conducted several evaluation activities, shown in Figure 1, to address the
evaluation objectives. The evaluation objectives included identifying program documentation
prepared by raters or reviewers that will streamline delivery, verifying that reported model output
savings and tracked savings match and providing ex-post realization rates for projects finalized
in the program year (PY) 2022, and offering recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of
future ex-ante savings analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities

Review data and conduct sampling Program manager interview IPC tracking system review Model output review
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024
1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In PY2022, the program had 109 participants with claimed savings of 337,562 kWh and a
budget of $235,732.1 The tracking system was well organized and contained information to
support the understanding of projects. The savings from the reported model output and tracking
match, resulting in an overall realization rate of 100.0 percent.
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations
The following impact recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
• Monitor the Primary Heating Rating (HSPF) of installed heating equipment and
discuss equipment selection and modeling practices with builders and raters.
The program savings are predominately achieved through heating. The evaluation
showed that a higher equipment HSPF correlated with higher savings per unit. The
evaluation team recommends following up with the builders and raters to learn more
about their equipment selection recommendations and modeling practices and to
inform them that heating efficiency is the primary driver of the energy savings identified
in participating homes.
• Educate raters on potential savings from water heating. Some detached single-
family homes sampled achieved savings by installing heat pump water heaters. The
program has the opportunity to significantly increase savings by expanding the use of
heat pump water heaters. The evaluation team recommends Idaho Power focus on
opportunities to install heat pump water heaters in detached single-family homes where
the installation is easier. Installing heat pump water heaters in other home types is
more complicated and Idaho Power can educate builders and raters about the benefits
of supporting additional installations.
• Monitor average ceiling height. The model output report included information about
the conditioned area and conditioned volume. The evaluation revealed that the
conditioned volumes for some homes entered in the model were unreasonably high
compared to the conditioned area. Ensuring that the entered conditioned volume is
reasonable compared to the conditioned area will increase the model's accuracy in
calculating savings.

1 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report (idahopower.com)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
3

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The Residential New Construction Pilot Program launched in March 2018, replacing the
ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest Program, and transitioned to a regular program in 2021.
The Residential New Construction program offers builders a cash incentive to build energy-
efficient, all-electric homes that use heat pump technology in Idaho Power's Idaho service area.
These homes must meet strict requirements that make them at least 10%, 15%, or 20% percent
more energy efficient than homes built to standard state energy code.
The Regional Technical Forum (RTF) and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) have
created specific modeling requirements and program guidelines to ensure the program provides
reliable energy savings for utilities across the Northwest. These homes feature
high‑performance HVAC systems, high-efficiency windows, increased insulation values, and
tighter building shells to improve comfort and save energy. Idaho Power claims energy savings
based on each home's individual modeled savings.
Builders must contract with a Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET)-certified rater to
ensure the home design will meet program qualifications. The rater will work with the builder
from the design stages through project completion; perform the required energy modeling using
REM/Rate modeling software; perform site inspections and tests; and enter, maintain, and
submit all required technical documentation in the REM/Rate modeling software and the NEEA-
maintained AXIS database. This data determines the energy savings and the percent above
code information needed to certify the home.
The Washington State University (WSU) Energy Program performs file review and file and field
QA services on home energy ratings performed by the program raters. The university's contract
also includes new rater training, onboarding, and working with current rater technical problems
and issues.
The Idaho energy code increased on January 1, 2021, moving from the 2012 IECC (amended to
2009) to the 2018 IECC, with amendments. Homes initiated before January 1, 2021 were
certified under the 2012 IECC. Homes initiated January 1, 2021 and after are certified under the
2018 IECC.
2.1.1 Marketing and Outreach
Idaho Power uses several marketing and outreach methods to inform customers about
Residential New Construction opportunities. Idaho Power publishes Customer Connection
articles to drive engagement in the Residential New Construction program. In addition, they host
events and a program landing page that contains details about qualifications, incentives, and
program eligibility.
In addition to the various energy efficiency outreach efforts across all programs, Idaho Power
specifically marketed the Residential New Construction program in 2022 through the following
methods:
• Participated in Snake River Valley Building Contractors Association (SRVBCA) and
Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho (BCASWI) Builders' Expos and
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
4

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024
sent marketing materials to the winter and fall Idaho Building Contractors Association
(IBCA) board meetings.
• Supported 2022 Parade of Homes events with full-page ads in the Parade of Homes
magazines of the following BCAs: The Magic Valley Builders Association (MVBA), the
BCASWI, the SRVBCA, and the Building Contractors Association of Southeast Idaho
(BCASEI).
• Included a print ad in the April construction issue of the Idaho Business Review
publication and a digital app ad and company listing as part of the advertising package
with the MVBA.
• Sent a bill insert to 305,714 Idaho customers in May to promote the program.
• Left the program brochure at the City of Boise permitting office as a hard copy handout.
2.1.2 Tracking and Reporting
All Residential New Construction program certification data is retrieved from the regional AXIS
database overseen by NEEA and created and maintained by Pivotal Energy. Idaho Power staff
then verifies that the information in the Utility Report is accurate and addresses any data entry
errors. A checkmark is made as each section of the Utility Report is reviewed. The document is
marked by Idaho Power staff as having been reviewed. The data from the AXIS documentation
is then entered into Idaho Power’s DSM Database and placed into the payment upload for
incentive payment.2
The DSM Database tracks participant information (address and phone) and information about
the project status, home type, square footage, fuel type, builder name, rater name, QA status,
kWh savings, and received incentive. The Utility Reports include more details about the project
that are not included in the DSM Database. However, as mentioned above, Utility Reports are
used by Idaho Power as part of Idaho Power's QA process.
2.2 EVALUATION OVERVIEW
The goals for the 2022 impact evaluation of the Residential New Construction program include:
• Identify program documentation prepared by raters or reviewers that will streamline
delivery.
• Verify reported model output savings and tracked savings match and provide ex-post
realization rates for projects finalized in the 2022 program year.
• Provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings
analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.

2 Residential New Construction Handbook
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
5

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024
2.2.1 Evaluation Activities
The Residential New Construction program evaluation activities are summarized in the table
below. Researchable issues and the sampling strategy are also discussed in this section.

Table 1. Residential New Construction Program Evaluation Activities
Activity Sample Size Objective
Idaho Power staff interview  Understand key delivery options, how savings are
claimed, and how the program is tracked.
DSM Database tracking
system review  Review program tracking system to document
participation, data availability, and savings.
Model output review 24 Review model outputs, claimed savings, and program
guidelines for accuracy and consistency in models to
identify credible and reliable energy impact estimates.
Idaho Power Staff Interview
The evaluation team interviewed Idaho Power staff involved in designing and delivering the
Residential New Construction program on June 19, 2023. The interview provided information on
how the program is delivered, program objectives, and what program staff want to learn from
the evaluation.
Program Tracking System Review
The evaluation team reviewed the program documentation and savings tracking data provided
in Idaho Power’s DSM Database to develop a sampling approach to ensure sufficient
geographic distribution of sampled projects and that each rater has multiple models reviewed.
Data in the DSM Database were verified by sampling 24 projects and comparing the data to the
model output reports provided by Idaho Power (Utility Reports). The evaluation team reviewed
the tracking system data entries for participant information, savings, and other data entry points.
Model Output Review
The evaluation team reviewed the model output reports (Utility Reports) for the 24 sampled
projects. As mentioned above, results of the REM/Rate modeling software are maintained in the
AXIS database. The Utility Reports include AXIS data as well as checkmarks noting that Idaho
Power reviewed the data.
The model output review included combining the data from the 24 reports into one spreadsheet
to identify any inconsistencies or outliers. The evaluation team also compared the data entries
and results across builders, raters, home types, home sizes, and other equipment
characteristics.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
6

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024
2.2.2 Sampling
Sampling was conducted at the Project ID level. Idaho Power uploaded the PY2022 tracking
data 3 to the secure FTP site on June 23, 2023. Tetra Tech reviewed the data and confirmed that
the Project ID provided sufficient comprehensiveness per customer for sampling.
We used probability proportional sampling (PPS) for electric savings to select projects. Several
strata were also identified to ensure sufficient breadth of the sample beyond savings to develop
the recommendations. The sample was constructed to meet the following criteria:
• A minimum of 2 projects from each rater
• A minimum of 2 participants from the combined tracked cities of Hailey & Ketchum
• A minimum of 2 participants from the combined tracked cities of Twin Falls & Buhl
• A maximum of 8 participants from zip code 83686 (Nampa)
The criteria were selected to ensure sufficient geographic distribution of sampled projects and
that each rater has multiple models reviewed. The results of the stratification by rater and
location are summarized in Table 2.
This approach was developed to provide the best opportunity to achieve 90/10 confidence and
precision and offer robust recommendations to the program.
Table 2. PY2022 Residential New Construction Stratification Summary
Rater City Number of project IDs Ex-Ante kWh
Rater A Nampa 53 139,230
Rater B Twin Falls 31 48,768
Rater C Garden City 10 22,199
Rater D Garden City 6 24,850
Rater E Boise 2 2,331
Rater F Hailey 2 30,183
Rater G Parma 1 14,087
Rater H Buhl 1 5,332
Rater I Ketchum 1 34,154
Rater J Boise 1 8,972
Rater K New Plymouth 1 7,456
TOTAL 109 337,562

3 RNC 2022 CLRIS.xlsx
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
7

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS
The total reported savings for the program in PY2022 were 337,562 kWh across 109 projects.
Table 3 outlines the number of projects and reported savings by home type.
Table 3. PY2022 Residential New Construction Projects Summary by Home Type
Home type Number of project IDs Ex-Ante kWh
Attached/Townhouse/Condo 100 226,522.2
Detached single-family 9 111,039.8
Total 109 337,562.0
The evaluation team sampled 24 projects for a detailed review of the modeling parameters. The
24 projects included nine builders, three certification organizations, three rating/verification
companies, and 10 HVAC contractors. Four of the sampled homes received installed heat pump
water heaters. As outlined in Table 4, five homes were detached single-family homes.
Table 4. Sampled Residential New Construction Projects Summary by Home Type
Home type Number of project IDs Ex-Ante kWh
Attached/Townhouse/Condo 19 47,335.7
Detached single-family 5 91,403.7
Total 24 138,739.4
3.1 TRACKING SYSTEM REVIEW
The evaluation team assessed the DSM Database tracking system for accuracy and data
availability. The tracking system parameters include the project status, home type, square
footage, fuel type, builder name, rater name, QA status, kWh savings, and received incentive.
Overall, the evaluation team found that the tracking system was well organized and contained
sufficient information to support the understanding of projects. Reported model output savings
and tracked savings matched, resulting in a realization rate of 100 percent.
3.2 MODEL OUTPUT REVIEW
In addition to reviewing the tracking system, the model output reports were evaluated. The
reports include all variables the rater uses in the REM/Rate modeling software. In addition to the
participant information (project ID, address) and information about the companies involved
(builder, sponsor, certification organization, QA/QC company, rating/verification company, and
HVAC contractor), the model output report included specific information about the home type,
home size (number of bedrooms and stories, conditioned area, and conditioned volume),
building envelope parameters (ceiling and wall R-values and window U-values, infiltration, duct
leakage, and ventilation), and specifications of installed heating, cooling and water heating
systems. The model output reports also include the modeled savings for heating, cooling, smart
thermostats, water heaters, appliances, and utility incentive calculations. The report's last
section shows the inspection checklist and QA/QC notes.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
8

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024
The evaluation team combined the data from the model output reports for the 24 sampled
projects into one spreadsheet to identify any inconsistencies or outliers. The evaluation team
also compared the data entries and results across builders, raters, home types, home sizes,
and other equipment characteristics.
Heating Savings
Figure 2 shows the energy savings distribution for the 24 sampled projects by the source of
savings. It is clear from the figure that program savings are predominately achieved through
heating (over 80 percent), followed by smart thermostats and appliances. Water heating savings
were calculated for only three projects that installed a heat pump water heater.

Figure 2. Energy Savings [MWh] for the 24 sampled projects by Savings Source

The evaluation team analyzed the impact of home and equipment characteristics on heating
savings across builders, raters, and home types. The analysis revealed that the Primary Heating
Rating (HSPF) of installed heating equipment has a significant impact on heating savings,
especially for detached single-family homes; the higher the equipment HSPF, the higher the
savings per capacity of the unit regardless of the other variables, as shown in Figure 3. The
evaluation team noted a set of outliers for the home type Attached/Townhouse/Condo with 9.5
HSPF. The projects were completed by the same builder and were identified as units which may
have had an excessive conditioned volume compared to the conditioned area. However, the
data available in the model output reports was insufficient to identify the reason for these
homes' lower savings. Additional information about the equipment selection recommendations
and modeling practices may provide more insights. Since the finding identified conservative
energy savings, the realization rate was unchanged.
Heating
118.0
Smart Thermostat
10.4
Appliances
5.0
Water Heating*
4.0 Cooling
1.2
*Only three projects that installed a heat pump water heater
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
9

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024
Figure 3. Heating Savings per Heating Capacity Increase by HSPF for Each Home Type

Water Heating
Figure 4 and Figure 5 compare the average calculated savings in MWh for projects with water
heater savings (n=3) and the average calculated savings in MWh for projects with no water
heater savings (n=21). The three projects that have water heating savings are detached single-
family homes that installed a heat pump water heater. The water heater savings ranged
between 1,300 and 1,400 kWh for each home. Based on the number of bedrooms and house
area for Attached/Townhouse/Condo home types, the evaluation team estimates that savings
will be slightly lower than single-family; however, water heater savings are additive to other
claimed savings and could add 25 to 33 percent to the total savings per unit. The challenge is
that installing heat pump water heaters in homes other than the detached single-family can be
more complicated.

Figure 4. Average Savings [MWh] per Sampled Projects with Water Heater Savings (n=3)

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12
He
a
t
i
n
g

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
k
W
h
)
/

P
r
i
m
a
r
y

He
a
t
i
n
g

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
k
b
t
u
h
)
Primary Heating Rating (HSPF)
Attached/Townhouse/Condo Detached Single Family
Heating, 21.7
Smart Thermostat, 0.1 Appliances, 0.4
Cooling, (0.2)
Water Heating, 1.3
Other, 2.0
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
10

Idaho Power Residential New Construction – PY2022 Evaluation Results. January 11, 2024
Figure 5. Average Savings [MWh] per Sampled Projects with no Water Heater Savings (n=21)
Data Entry
Overall, the model output reports were well-organized, complete, and included detailed
inspection for quality assurance processes. The evaluation team identified several items in the
model output reports which may indicate that the building model could be improved, although all
were conservative assumptions, so no adjustment was made to the evaluated savings.
• Ceiling R-values were left blank or set to zero for three projects (RNCP652, RNCP637,
and RNCP656). Based on the available information, it appears that the R-values did
not significantly impact the modeling results, indicating the values were not required for
those specific models.
• One of the four projects that installed a heat pump water heater claimed no water
heater savings (RNCP686).
• No smart thermostat savings were calculated for two projects (RNCP686 and
RNCP631). However, the inspection checklist shows that smart thermostats were
installed in the homes.
• The model output report identified two homes (RNCP627, RNCP598) that were
modeled as single-family homes, but the actual site photographs and the DSM
Database tracking system identified them as Attached/Townhouse/Condo.
• The conditioned volume entered in the model for a set of projects completed by one
builder appeared to be unreasonably high. Table 5 shows the calculated height based
on the model's conditioned area and volume for those projects.
Table 5. Calculated Height for Projects with High Conditioned Volume
Project ID
Conditioned area
(sq ft)
Conditioned volume
(cu ft)
Calculated height
(ft)
RNCP622 1,205 31,640 26.3
RNCP591 1,205 31,640 26.3
RNCP617 1,062 32,875 30.1
RNCP670 1,233 32,875 26.7
RNCP588 1,062 32,875 31.0
RNCP613 1,205 31,640 26.3
RNCP615 1,205 31,640 26.3

Heating, 2.5 Smart Thermostat, 0.5
Appliances, 0.2
Cooling, 0.1
Other, 0.8
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
1221 W Idaho Street
Boise , ID, 83702

Prepared by:
Tetra Tech, Inc.
6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300
Madison, WI 53719

Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]

www.tetratech.com

Shade Tree Project Impact
Evaluation
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

ii
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Program Overview ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Methodology Overview .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Audit Recommendations ......................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Impact Recommendations ...................................................................................... 5
2.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Program Description ........................................................................................................ 6
2.1.1 Claiming Savings .................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Evaluation Overview ........................................................................................................ 8
3.0 AUDIT RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Audit Outcomes ............................................................................................................. 13
3.2 Two Tree Outcomes ...................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Missing Trees ................................................................................................................ 15
3.4 Tree Species ................................................................................................................. 15
4.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS ..................................................................................... 17
4.1 Factors Impacting Verified Savings ............................................................................... 17
4.1.1 Distance from Residence ...................................................................................... 17
4.1.2 Direction from Residence ..................................................................................... 18
4.1.3 Regional Impact Results ....................................................................................... 21
4.2 Savings Adjustments ..................................................................................................... 21
4.2.1 Mortality ................................................................................................................ 21
4.2.2 Electric Heat ......................................................................................................... 24
4.2.3 Tree Growth ......................................................................................................... 25
4.3 Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................. 27
4.3.1 Energy Calculation ............................................................................................... 29
4.3.2 Non-Energy Benefits ............................................................................................. 31

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

iii
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SHADE TREE AUDIT SCREENER TEXT ...................................................... 33
APPENDIX B: SHADE TREE FIELD AUDIT QUESTIONS .................................................... 42
APPENDIX C: IMPACT EVALUATION MODELING REVIEW ............................................... 43

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. PY2022 Program Realization Rate ............................................................................... 4
Table 2. Shade Tree Project Audit and Impact Evaluation Activities ........................................... 9
Table 3. Shade Tree Audit Sampling Summary .........................................................................10
Table 4. Audit Status for Sampled Trees ...................................................................................13
Table 5. Audit Status of Two Trees ...........................................................................................14
Table 6. Cumulative kWh Savings for Identical Modeled Trees with Varied Heat Type .............20
Table 7. Calculated 10-Year Mortality Rate (2014 participants) .................................................21
Table 8. Evaluated Heating Type by Region .............................................................................24
Table 9. PY2022 Shade Tree Realization Rates by Sampling Stratum .....................................28
Table 10. PY2023 Shade Tree Measured Savings by Sampling Stratum ..................................28
Table 11. 2023 Non-Energy Benefit Realization Rate ...............................................................31
Table 12. Shade Tree Non-Energy Realization Rates by Sampling Stratum .............................31
Table 13. Average Price for Non-Energy Benefit .......................................................................32
Table 14. 2023 Non-Energy Benefit Units .................................................................................32
Table 15. Impact Evaluation Tool Comparison ..........................................................................43
Table 16. Unadjusted 2023 Annual Energy Savings Result ......................................................43

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

iv
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Evaluation Activities .................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Planned Incremental Savings for Trees Distributed in 2013-2019 ............................... 7
Figure 3. Total Calculated kWh Benefit of Trees Distributed in 2013-2019 ................................. 8
Figure 4. Sampling Stratum Descriptions ..................................................................................10
Figure 5. i-Tree Design, V7.0 Model Input and Outputs .............................................................12
Figure 6. One Versus Two Trees ..............................................................................................14
Figure 7. Proportion of Missing Trees by Geography and Strata ...............................................15
Figure 8. Measurement and Mortality Rates by Species* ..........................................................16
Figure 9. Cumulative Percent of Audited Tree Distance from Residence ..................................17
Figure 10. Average Annual Cooling Energy (kWh) Reduced by Distance from Residence ........18
Figure 11. Average Annual Potential Cooling and Heating Savings ..........................................19
Figure 12. Average Evaluated kWh Savings Assuming Heat Pump for HVAC ..........................20
Figure 13. Evaluated and Estimated Mortality of 2014 Trees ....................................................22
Figure 14. Evaluated and Estimated Mortality of 2021 trees ......................................................23
Figure 15. Modeled kWh Savings per Event Based on Growing Seasons .................................26
Figure 16. Modeled Annual Average Cooling Energy Impact for Treasure Valley Trees ............27
Figure 17. 2014 Strata Evaluated Measured Savings Adjustments ...........................................29
Figure 18. 2018-2019 Strata Evaluated Measured Savings Adjustments ..................................30
Figure 19. 2018 Trees Evaluated Savings Adjustments in 2027 ................................................30

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

v
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2023 impact
evaluation of the Idaho Power Shade Trees Project; this evaluation effort would not have been
possible without their help and support.
We would like to specifically thank Mindi Shodeen, Landon Barber, Michelle Toney, and Kathy
Yi of Idaho Power, who provided invaluable insight into the program and operations. These
individuals participated in ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions and
graciously responded to follow-up questions and data and documentation requests.
The Tetra Tech evaluation team was made up of the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars,
Mark Bergum, Andrew Spista, Graham Thorbrogger, Christy Meyer, Kevin Williams, and Laura
Meyer.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

1
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with this report covering
the combined audit and impact evaluation results for the Shade Tree Project. This report section
consists of an introduction describing the program, evaluation activities, and key findings and
recommendations. The program's audit results and impact evaluation are detailed in separate
sections.
1.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Idaho Power offers no-cost shade trees to Idaho residents in small geographic areas each
spring and fall. Idaho Power customers enroll using the Arbor Day Foundation’s online Energy-
Saving Trees tool. During enrollment, participants locate their homes on a map in the tool,
select from the available trees, and evaluate the potential energy savings from planting in
different locations. Idaho Power uses its Demand-Side Management (DSM) database to track
participation and screen applicants for eligibility requirements. Participation remains limited to
two trees per address for the life of the program.
Up through 2019, enrolled customers could pick up their trees at specific events. Due to COVID-
19 restrictions, the program was suspended in 2020. To ensure the safety of customers,
employees, and volunteers, Idaho Power partnered with the Arbor Day Foundation for the 2021
events and had the trees shipped directly to customer homes rather than holding in-person pick-
up events. Trees provided through events were typically 3-gallon, and trees delivered were 1-
gallon.
At the tree pick-up events, participants receive additional education on where to plant trees for
maximum energy savings and other tree care guidance from local experts. Customers that
received trees in the mail were emailed a copy of the same Tree Planting Guide made available
at the in-person pick-up events. Each fall, Idaho Power sends participants from the previous two
offerings a newsletter with reminders on proper tree care and links to resources, such as tree
care classes and educational opportunities in the region.
A survey is emailed to participants after each offering. The survey asks questions about
program marketing, tree-planting education, and participant experience with the enrollment and
tree delivery processes. Results are compared, offering to offering, to look for trends to ensure
the program processes are still working to identify opportunities for improvement. Data is also
collected about where and when the participant planted the tree.
1.2 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
The evaluation team conducted several evaluation activities, shown in Figure 2, to address the
evaluation objectives. Activities began with a review of the tracking data, followed by audits of
sampled trees and input of measured tree data into i-Trees.
The goals for the Shade Tree Project audits included 1) sampling trees with various maturities
to understand growth characteristics, tree mortality, and tree location, 2) conducting audits of
sampled tree plantings for the impact evaluation, and 3) providing collected data as input to the
savings calculator.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

2
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
The goals for the Shade Tree Project impact evaluation included 1) reviewing the program
tracking database to determine and verify the energy (kWh) impacts for shade trees handed out
in past events, 2) providing credible and reliable program energy and non-energy impact
estimates and ex-post realization rates, and 3) reporting findings, observations, and
recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analyses and the
accurate and transparent reporting of program savings. 4) Review the feasibility of the current
calculation and recommend options for new program savings calculation.

Figure 1. Evaluation Activities

1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The audit and evaluation identified several key aspects of the Shade Tree Project that impact
the annual calculated savings of the program. Our findings focus on the variations from the
expected annual electricity calculated based on trees planted since 2013 and the following
recommendations focus on opportunities for the Shade Tree Project to increase the impact of
future trees and how to incorporate the findings into current calculations.
The tree mortality rate is higher than estimated.
Sampling 2014 previously audited and alive
trees allowed us better to understand tree
mortality rates after the initial mortality. The
audit found that the mortality of trees after
the first growing season was higher than
estimated.
• The audit identified that the initial
mortality rate in Year 1 is similar to
the estimate of 36 percent.
However, an average 5.4 percent
annual mortality rate was
applicable from Year 2 through the
end of Year 9.
Impact Evaluation
Review audit data Energy impact modeling 2022 & 2023 evaluated savings
Trees Audits
Letters mailed by Idaho Power Screener calls by Tetra Tech Field visits by Tetra Tech
Tracking Data Review
Sampled based on event strata Received contact information Idaho Power flagged movers
Mortality rate
Electric heating
Growth rate
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

3
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
• Smaller trees delivered during the 2021 program had an increased mortality rate that
was about 10 percent higher than the other program years. Idaho Power program staff
already understood the challenges with these smaller trees, and audits confirmed the
initial mortality rate concern.
The current audits found electric heating is more prevalent around Twin Falls.
The audit identified that nearly all residences have air conditioning, and there are various
heating sources, including natural gas, propane, wood, heat pumps, and electric resistance. The
participants in the Treasure Valley were electrically heated for 19 percent of the audit, 10
percent heat pumps and 9 percent electric resistance. The audits identified that as the delivery
region expanded to the Twin Falls area, more heat pumps are used to heat the homes. The
number of audited participants with a heat pump increased to 31 percent of the audited
residences around Twin Falls while the electric resistance heating was 8 percent of residences.
Each heat pump and electric resistance heated home must incorporate the heating energy
savings into the energy impacts of each tree.
• For residences with a heat pump, assuming it provides 100 percent of the heating, the
electricity impact of the average modeled mature tree is nearly zero for trees planted to
provide shade in summer. The most valuable trees for these residences are on the
north side of the home.
• For residences with gas heat, the electricity reduction is still greatest for trees planted
on the south and west sides of the residence.
Tree growth is ahead of schedule for previously audited trees.
Sampling trees from the 2014 participants that had been previously audited and confirmed alive
allowed us to understand better the forecasted impact of trees planted. The forecasted results
for Year 9 of the 2018 and 2019 trees can be compared to the measured impact of Year 9 of the
2014 trees. The measured impact was greater than the forecasted impact, indicating that the
growth of the trees is faster than the model results.
• Forecasted growth between Year 9 and 35 is expected to be approximately four years
ahead of the model, although the maximum potential impact of the mature trees does
not increase.
The existing calculator is providing reasonable savings estimates but is complicated.
The existing impact calculator for the Shade Tree Project was acceptable for determining the
2023 energy savings based on known assumptions. The evaluated savings identified before the
mortality and electric heat adjustments were within 10 percent of the calculated savings for trees
outside Pocatello area.
• The calculator completes annual energy savings through an Excel-based calculator
that estimates energy savings per event for each year of the tree's life based on
species, orientation and distance from home reported by the participant, age, and town.
It then adjusts for mortality and the realization rates calculated in the 2018 Trees
evaluation.
• The evaluated savings were determined using the i-Trees Design V7.0 model for each
tree measured to determine the impact of the average tree living from each program
year. An adjusted mortality rate was used to determine the quantities of trees living in
2023 from each event and an overall electric heat adjustment was applied to the
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

4
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
heating savings modeled. Updating the mortality rate and adjusting for electric heat
results in the majority of the difference between the calculated and evaluated savings.
The adjustments are detailed in Section 4.
Table 1 show the overall realization rate of the trees plated through 2018 which calculated
savings through PY2022. Trees planted in 2019 and later calculate zero savings in PY2022.
Because the first savings calculated for a tree is in the 5th year after planting, Idaho Power plans
to claim savings for the 2019 trees in PY2023.
Table 1. PY2022 Program Realization Rate
Sampling
stratum Trees
Total Annual kWh
(Incremental kWh)1
Total Annual MMBTU
(Incremental MMBTU)
Calculated Evaluated Realization
rate (%) Calculated Evaluated Realization
rate (%)
2013-2018 11,059 189,600
(39,595)
132,720 70 -1,929
(-476)
-1,543 120
2019-2022 6,907 0 0 NA 0 0 NA
1.3.1 Audit Recommendations
As a result of the screening calls and field audits, we have some general suggestions for the
Shade Tree Project to improve participant commitment to the program trees and attempt to
reduce mortality rates.
Provide participants with "browsing" control tips. During the audits, we found that both deer
and goats had reportedly eaten trees. To improve survival chances, Idaho Power could add
some tips to reduce animal damage in their Handout Packet for tree recipients. It is already full
of good information on planting techniques. Idaho Power can check with arborists they currently
work with for specific recommendations, but some of the tips may include using fencing around
new trees or predator scent spray to deter animals.
Consider charging a small fee for each tree. Idaho Power customers who are interested can
pick up two trees at Shade Tree events. However, not everyone plants both their trees, and the
mortality rates are high. It may help with commitment to the trees if they are not completely free.
We found one program that is charging $25 per tree, with a limit of two.2
Consider providing a watering bag with each tree. With dry conditions over the summer,
spring event trees especially require constant watering. Including a watering bag may promote
better watering and reduce mortality rates by making it easier for customers to keep trees
watered. The Shade Tree Project staff could investigate whether they can get a discount on
watering bags if other Idaho Power departments also use them.
Adjust planting guidance for electrically heated homes. Electric heating (heat pumps in
particular) is approximately 20 percent of the market in the Treasure Valley and larger in the
Twin Falls region. A home with a heat pump will gain the most overall value from trees planted

1 The program claims incremental saving each year. A single year evaluation of the shade trees cannot
determine the incremental savings because the overlapping historical measures cannot be reduced to a
single year adjustment.
2 Alliant Energy - One Million Trees Residential Tree Program
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

5
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
on the north side of the home while planting on the south or west side maximizes the electricity
reduction from cooling only. The current Handout Packet focuses planting instructions on
locations most advantageous to cooling savings.
Partnering with residential builders for new construction projects. Getting trees planted
and in the right spot is important, and educating builders can be an efficient way to address
planting opportunities early. As builders focus on electric heat in new construction 3, discussing
advantageous planning locations, including more on the north side of homes, can get program
trees into better positions to maximize savings.
1.3.2 Impact Recommendations
The impact evaluation applied the findings from the audit to provide recommendations to
develop more accurate energy savings for the Shade Tree Project. The following impact
recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
Adjust the mortality rate for the first 10 growing seasons. The audits identified an increased
mortality rate over what was expected for the growing seasons 2 to 10 years after the
participants receive trees. This increased annual rate of 5.4 percent should be applied to the
calculation after the initial mortality rate in the first growing season. The program can implement
strategies to reduce the initial mortality rate and decrease the annual mortality rate through the
first ten growing seasons. The evaluation team recommends keeping the 1.0 percent mortality
rate for Years 10 through 40.
Incorporate electric heating adjustments into calculations. Many Idaho Power customers
are heating their residences with heat pumps. A home with a heat pump will gain the most
overall value from trees planted on the north side of the home while planting on the south or
west side maximizes the electricity reduction from cooling only. Since the previously planted
trees are primarily on the south and west sides of the home, a portion of the negative MMBTU
energy savings should be converted to electricity, which ultimately reduces the electricity saved
by the program.
Adjust energy savings calculations. The existing calculator provides a sufficient calculation of
energy savings estimate before adjusting the mortality rate, electric heat, and tree growth.
These adjustments can be incorporated into the existing calculator or into a new simplified
calculator based on future implementation.
Continue to use the spillover and non-energy benefits calculated. The spillover and non-
energy benefits calculated with the current calculator are conservative and provide an
acceptable estimate of additional benefits.

3 The Idaho Power Residential New Construction Program requires participant homes to be all electric.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

6
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Idaho Power offers no-cost shade trees to Idaho residents in small geographic areas each
spring and fall. Idaho Power customers enroll using the Arbor Day Foundation’s online Energy-
Saving Trees tool. During enrollment, participants locate their homes on a map in the tool,
select from the available trees, and evaluate the potential energy savings from planting in
different locations.
Marketing and Outreach
At the start of the spring and fall campaigns, Idaho Power sends direct-mail letters and emails to
select customers, explaining the benefits of shade trees and encouraging program enrollments.
When necessary, Idaho Power also utilizes social media and issues press releases to promote
the offering.
Up through 2019, enrolled customers could pick up their trees at specific events. Due to COVID-
19 restrictions, the program was suspended in 2020. With the cancellation of the 2020 Shade
Tree events, Idaho Power had compiled a large list of customers who had submitted their
information to be notified of the next Shade Tree offering in their area. Customers on this list
were notified of both the 2021 spring and fall events. Additional email notifications, news briefs,
and Facebook postings increased awareness and interest. To ensure the safety of customers,
employees, and volunteers, Idaho Power partnered with the Arbor Day Foundation for the 2021
events and had the trees shipped directly to customer homes instead of holding in-person pick-
up events.
Since trees were delivered in 2021 and participants could not speak with a tree expert to learn
how to plant and maintain their trees properly, emails were sent to customers with tree
maintenance tips and a copy of a Tree Planting Guide. For the spring event, an email was sent
once the trees were shipped with planting instructions, and a follow-up email was sent a few
weeks later with tips on how to maintain their new trees. For the fall event, the Arbor Day
Foundation sent out the initial "How to plant your tree" email and Idaho Power sent a follow-up
email on how to take care of the trees.
Implementation
Ensuring trees are appropriately planted helps them grow and provides maximum energy
savings. At the tree pick-up events, participants receive additional education on where to plant
trees for maximum energy savings and other tree care guidance from local experts. These local
specialists include city arborists from participating municipalities, Idaho Power utility arborists,
county master gardeners, and College of Southern Idaho (CSI) horticulture students.
Each fall, Idaho Power sends participants from the previous two offerings a newsletter with
reminders on proper tree care and links to resources, such as tree care classes and educational
opportunities in the region.
Idaho Power tracks the program data in its DSM database, which is also used to screen
applicants during enrollment to determine whether participants meet the eligibility requirements
for the project, such as residential status within the eligible counties. Participation remains
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

7
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
limited to two trees per address for the life of the program. Unclaimed trees are donated to
cities, schools, and other non-profit organizations in all program years.
Trees provided through events are typically 3-gallon, and trees delivered are 1-gallon. The trees
delivered through the mail are estimated to be approximately one year younger than those
distributed at the in-person events, which the calculator was based on. To adjust for this, the
year that Idaho Power could begin claiming savings for delivered trees was pushed out a year.
After each offering, a survey is emailed to participants. The survey asks questions about
program marketing, tree-planting education, and participant experience with the enrollment and
tree delivery processes. Results are compared, offering to offering, to look for trends to ensure
the program processes are still working to identify opportunities for improvement. Data is also
collected about where and when the participant planted the tree. This data is used by Idaho
Power to refine energy-saving estimates.
2.1.1 Claiming Savings
The Shade Tree Project claims savings annually for the trees planted in previous program
years. The first savings claimed for a tree is for the 5th year after planting. This savings is
claimed with a 40-year estimated life. For example, first savings are claimed for the 2014 trees
in program year 2018, and the trees distributed in 2015 first claimed savings for program year
2019. Figure 2 shows the first claim for the trees distributed in 2013 through 2019 in grey. This
calculated planned savings is determined after the distribution of trees based on the calculator.
Since the savings is claimed with a 40-year measure life, the initial claim accounts for the base
savings for the trees distributed. There is additional calculated savings annually because of
continued tree growth that is included in annual incremental savings. This is represented by the
blue below. Currently, the incremental savings is a relatively small component of the annual
claimed savings, but in the future, the incremental growth increases as the trees grow. Again,
this savings is planned based on the calculator.
Figure 2. Planned Incremental Savings for Trees Distributed in 2013-2019

-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
5 Year First Claim Additional Growth Savings
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

8
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
It is important to note that the Project did not distribute trees in 2020 and the 2021 Project
included trees delivered by mail. Because the 2021 trees were smaller than previously provided
trees, Idaho Power decided to delay claiming savings by one year. The result of that
implementation means that there will be no first tree claims in 2024 or 2025.
The incremental savings represent the claimed savings per year but is only a portion of the
annual calculated savings generated by the trees because the previously claimed value is
already providing benefit through the measure life component of the benefit cost analysis. The
evaluation will focus on the current year benefit of the trees planted. Figure 3 shows the
calculated total kWh benefit of the shade trees separated by the year distributed. Although each
group only increases slightly after the initial 5-year claim, the total annual benefit is increasing
as more trees pass the 5th year.
Figure 3. Total Calculated kWh Benefit of Trees Distributed in 2013-2019

2.2 EVALUATION OVERVIEW
The goals for the audits for the Shade Tree Project included:
• Sampling trees with various maturities to understand growth characteristics, mortality,
and location.
• Conducting audits of sampled tree plantings and collecting data for the impact
evaluation.
• Providing collected data as input to the savings calculator.
The goals for the impact evaluation of the Shade Tree Project included:
• Reviewing the program tracking database to determine and verify the energy (kWh)
impacts attributable to the 2023 calendar year for shade trees handed out in past
events.
• Providing credible and reliable program energy and non-energy impact estimates and
ex-post realization rates for trees.
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

9
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
• Reporting findings and observations and providing recommendations that enhance the
effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analyses and the accurate and transparent
reporting of program savings.
• Review the feasibility of the current calculation and recommend options for new
program savings calculation.
Tetra Tech conducted the following audit and impact evaluation activities, as summarized in the
table below, to address the objectives for the audit and impact evaluations.
Table 2. Shade Tree Project Audit and Impact Evaluation Activities
Activity Objective
Idaho Power staff interview Understand key delivery options, how savings are
calculated, and how the program is tracked.
Analyze the tracking database Review program tracking system to document available
tracked tree and planting information.
Sample by stratum Sample by event timeframes to enable coverage for
previously audited trees, not yet audited event trees, and
the newest delivered trees.
Outreach Contact all potential sampled customers to alert them of
upcoming audits, screen for deceased trees, and identify
any visit issues.
Audit visits Auditors visit sampled homes to complete audits of
plantings. Audit data were collected electronically and
used to populate the impact analysis.
Impact calculations Analyze the audit data and develop an individual energy
impact model based on individual tree location and
growth. Combine the program energy and non-energy
impacts from the model to determine the stratum's
average annual impact per tree. Provide credible and
reliable program energy and non-energy impact
estimates.

Idaho Power Staff Interview
The evaluation team interviewed Idaho Power staff involved in designing and delivering the
Shade Tree Project on June 13, 2023. The interview provided information on how the program
is delivered, program objectives, and what program staff want to learn from the evaluation.
Program Tracking Review
The first step in evaluating the Shade Tree Project was to review the program documentation
and energy savings tracking system provided by Idaho Power. The tracking data4 were
uploaded by Idaho Power and downloaded by Tetra Tech on June 23, 2023. Tetra Tech
reviewed the data and confirmed that the Order ID provided sufficient comprehensiveness per
customer for sampling. Contact information was not provided until after sampling.

4 ST_Tracking_Data_2014-2021_Names_Removed.xlsx
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

10
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Sampling
Sampling was conducted at the Order ID level representing each residence. To meet the
evaluation goals, the sampling was stratified to ensure completion across three main strata
based on order date: 2014, 2018-2019, and 2021 participants. Tetra Tech sampled trees from
2014 that had previously been audited and were identified as present and alive to collect
sufficient data to understand mortality rates and growth patterns.

Figure 4. Sampling Stratum Descriptions

We targeted an audit of 270 trees through screening phone calls and field audits. The random
sampling within each stratum provided tree species and geographic diversity based on the
sample size for 2018-2019 and 2021 participants. Many sites include multiple plantings, which
resulted in enough trees to reach the goals of audited plantings even if trees could not be
identified or an audit was refused.
Table 4 summarizes the sampling frame of trees per stratum, the number of households
sampled, the target number of trees to audit, and the actual number of trees audited through the
screener calls and field visits.

Table 3. Shade Tree Audit Sampling Summary
Sampling stratum
Sample
Frame
(Order ID)
Sampled
Households
(Order ID)
Target
Trees
Audited
Actual
Trees
Audited
2014 participants 224 5 50 40 57
2018-2019 participants 2,336 120 130 144
2021 participants 1,602 100 100 118
TOTAL 4,162 270 270 319
*Precision of ± 4.4% for audit results at the 90% confidence interval.
Once Tetra Tech sampled each stratum, Idaho Power provided contact information for each
participant and a flag indicating if someone new had moved into the house since the trees were
received.
Screening Calls
On September 18, 2023, before the screening calls, Idaho Power mailed all sampled
participants a letter on Idaho Power letterhead from the Program Specialist alerting the sampled

5 The 2014-2017 strata only included the planted trees that had previously been audited in 2015 and 2017
and were identified as present and alive, this reduces the stratum population from the total population
based on order date equal to 5,111.
2014
•Event trees
•Previously audited
•Previously living
2018-2019
•Event trees
•Not previously audited
2021
•Delivered trees
•Not previously audited
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

11
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
participants of the upcoming evaluation. One version was sent to participants who received the
trees, while an adjusted version was sent to those who moved into a home that had previously
received trees.
Tetra Tech began calling sampled participants on September 20, 2023 and concluded on
September 27, 2023. Tetra Tech attempted to contact the customer at least three times to ask
them questions about their trees, including where they were planted, if they are still alive, to
confirm deceased or gifted trees, and to collect any logistical information needed for the field
visits. Tetra Tech was able to complete calls with 82 participants. We also identified 17 with no
knowledgeable respondents, and 15 more were unreachable. At least 150 did not respond to
the calls but were left three voicemail messages about the evaluation and passed through to the
field visits. The screener can be found in Appendix A.
All screening data were used to inform the field visit list. Any participants who reported
deceased trees or trees that were no longer on their property were considered a completed
audit and excluded from the field visit list.
Field Audits
Results from the screener calls were reviewed with the Tetra Tech audit team in Idaho.
Households eligible for a visit after the screener calls were grouped by geographic area,
including Boise, Pocatello, and Twin Falls, to facilitate travel efficiency and ensure coverage for
different geographies.
The field audit team visited homes to measure existing trees between October 3, 2023 and
October 18, 2023. Any visit preferences collected in the screener calling were followed. Auditors
called locations before visiting and did not access a homeowner's property without permission.
Door hangers were left at each residence if auditors were unable to talk with a homeowner.
During the field audits, the auditors measured various aspects of the tree planting needed to
support the i-Trees analysis. Key measurements included direction from the home, distance
from the home, height of the tree, diameter of the tree, and type of heating and cooling
equipment. A list of data fields collected can be found in Appendix B.
Our target number of audited trees was 270, and between the screener calls and field visits, we
covered 319 trees at 182 households. Screening and audit data were compiled into various
analysis tables and presented in the Audit Results section of this report. Tree measurement
data were used as inputs into i-Trees analysis.
Impact Analysis
The impact evaluation used the data from the audit to complete an impact analysis of energy
savings at the residence, non-energy benefits, and identify future growth of the energy savings.
The evaluation of the energy impact of the trees was determined using the i-Tree6 suite of tools,
specifically, the online version of i-Tree Design, Version 7.0. Additional details on the tool can
be found in Appendix C.

6 https://www.itreetools.org/tools
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

12
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Figure 5. i-Tree Design, V7.0 Model Input and Outputs

The i-Tree modeled results for the current year were averaged to develop a model output per
stratum. Each stratum average was adjusted for electric heat percentage. This value was
multiplied by the number of trees expected to be alive from the stratum to determine the verified
savings.
Because the i-Tree model does not account for heating fuel type, the impact evaluation then
applied an adjustment to convert heating savings in MMBTU to electric savings for homes that
were heated with electric resistance or a heat pump, and adjusted the number of trees alive in
2023 to match the mortality rate found through the audit.
Calculate Program Savings
The average tree savings with the adjustments for heating type was multiplied by the adjusted
number of trees alive based on the audit results to determine the annual kWh and MMBTU
savings in 2022 for each sampled stratum. The realization rate was determined for each stratum
and for the sample as a whole. These realization rates were applied to the Shade Tree Project
claimed savings for 2022 based on the calculator.
Similarly, the non-energy benefits were determined for each stratum and compared to the
claimed benefits for carbon, stormwater, and air pollution. However, the model output the
pounds of carbon and air pollution and the gallons of stormwater. These values were converted
to dollars using the conversion rate inferred in the calculator, so the non-energy benefits
realization rate compared the dollar value of the non-energy benefits.
Savings Analysis
The measurements for the trees were taken at the end of the 2023 growing season; therefore,
the tree measurements and analysis were equal to the PY2023 savings. Although this number
was adjusted to determine the PY2022 evaluated savings, the savings analysis and evaluation
was completed on the trees measured in 2023. The savings analysis is completed using these
values which vary from the evaluated savings for PY2022.
Participant Characteristics
Building, Heating and Cooling present
Building Age
(Pre-1950, 1950-1980, Post-1980)
Building
(outlined on aerial)
Tree Characteristics
Tree species
Location
(ID on aerial)
Diameter (BDH or circumference, Inches)
Tree Condition
(excellent –poor)
Tree exposure to Sunlight (full sun –full shade)
Outputs forecast for 0, 5, 10, 20, 30, & 40 Years
Cooling energy (kWh)
Heating energy (MMBTU)
Carbon (Lbs.)
Stormwater intercepted (Gal.)
Stormwater runoff (Gal.)
Air Pollution (Lbs.)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

13
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
3.0 AUDIT RESULTS
This section outlines results from the screener calls and field audits. We look at mortality rates
and other metrics to understand more about how the program is operating and what is
happening to the trees provided through the Shade Tree Project. These findings support the
Audit Recommendations in Section 1.3.1.
3.1 AUDIT OUTCOMES
We sampled 270 households that received a total of 492 trees and were able to complete
screener calls and field audits with 182 households covering 319 trees. Table 4 shows a
breakdown of the audit status for the 492 trees.
Overall, 22 percent were confirmed to be deceased, and another 26 percent were not on
property. Most of those not on properties were likely deceased, and a few were given to others.
Seventeen percent of the trees were observed and measured, with data used in the impact
evaluation. Households responsible for 17 percent of the trees did not respond to the screener
calls or field audits. Another 12 percent of the trees were inaccessible for measurement.

Table 4. Audit Status for Sampled Trees
Audit Status 2014 2018-19 2021 Total Percent
Sampled Trees 75 226 191 492
Audited Trees (Field audits and
Screener calls)
57 144 118 319 65%
Confirmed deceased 17 40 50 107 22%
Not on Property per field audit 9 51 33 93 19%
Not on property per screener 1 25 10 36 7%
Tree Measured 30 28 25 83 17%
Unresolved Cases 18 82 73 173 35%
No response to screener or audit 5 43 37 85 17%
No access for field survey 12 22 24 58 12%
Alive per screener 1 11 8 20 4%
Customer refused field survey 0 6 4 10 2%

3.2 TWO TREE OUTCOMES
To understand more about potential differences in planting rates between participants who
received one tree and those who received two trees, we looked at measure rates and missing
tree rates for each group.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

14
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
About 18 percent of our sampled participants received one tree through the program. Rates of
missing trees were not much lower for the participants receiving one tree, but the rate of
measured trees was much higher. Just over half of the sampled participants with one tree
received their tree in 2014 and were confirmed to be alive during the previous audit.

Figure 6. One Versus Two Trees

When we look more closely at the households with two trees, we see a good deal of
consistency in the status of both trees. Seventy-seven percent of the audited participants had
the same audit status for both trees. For instance, both trees were alive and measured (13%),
both trees were confirmed deceased (26%), or both trees were missing from the property (38%).
Thirty-four participants (23%) had one living tree and one missing tree reported through the
audit or screener call.
Table 5. Audit Status of Two Trees
Tree Audit Status
Count of
Participants
Percent of
Audited
Percent
Overall
Both trees measured 19 13.0% 8.6%
Both trees confirmed deceased 38 26.0% 17.1%
Both trees missing 55 37.6% 24.8%
1 measured & 1 missing 25 17.1% 11.3%
1 measured & 1 no access 3 2.1% 1.4%

1 alive & 1 missing per screener 6 4.1% 2.7%
Both alive per screener - unconfirmed 7 3.2%

Customer refused audit 5 2.3%
No access to property 24 10.8%
No response to screener or audit 40 18.0%
Total households 222 146 222
1 tree
•48 participants / 48 trees
•40% missing
•35% measured
2 trees
•222 participants / 444 trees
•49% missing
•15% measured
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

15
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
3.3 MISSING TREES
If we add together the confirmed deceased trees and those that were not present, we can
review the trees that are no longer on the property or missing.
With some of the oldest trees, Boise showed the lowest missing rate of the three geographies.
The missing rate for the 2014 trees was also lower than that of more recent program
participants. However, given that the sample for 2014 was all previously confirmed living trees,
the 36 percent missing is higher than expected.

Figure 7. Proportion of Missing Trees by Geography and Strata

Anecdotally, we heard during the audits that a few homeowners had trouble with goats and deer
eating the trees. Field auditors also noticed more landscaping and fencing around vegetation to
deter animals south of Pocatello.
Although we hypothesized that planting in the spring, with dry summers, compared with planting
in the fall may lead to higher mortality rates, a review of the audit results was inconclusive. That
may be due to events held in different geographies during the Spring and fall, affecting any
mortality patterns.
3.4 TREE SPECIES
Idaho Power works closely with arborists in the areas where they provide program trees to
understand the best options for specific geographies. We compared the audit results by tree
species to see if certain species had higher mortality rates.
The graphic below is informative only; we can draw no conclusions from the missing or
measured rates since species are not consistently available across geographies. However, it
does highlight that measurement rates were highest for Worplesdon Sweetgums, followed by
Honeylocust and Frontier Elm. Common Hackberry and Tuliptree had wide variations between
their mortality and measure rates.

38.0%
51.4%
59.1%
48.0%
36.0%
51.3%48.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Boise Pocatello Twin Falls Overall 2014 2018-2019 2021
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

16
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Figure 8. Measurement and Mortality Rates by Species*

*Sampled counts per species in the figure ranged from 74 for Northern Red Oak to 11 for European Beech.

29%
21%
29%26%
44%44%45%50%52%53%55%56%58%60%60%
46%
29%29%
11%
22%16%11%7%
16%21%18%16%11%10%8%
Missing Measured
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

17
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS
This section outlines results from the impact analysis using the data collected in the audit. We
reviewed mortality rate and tree growth and how it impacts the energy efficiency of the
associated residence as measured at the end of the growing season in 2023. These findings
were adjusted to determine the PY2022 evaluated savings in the Impact Recommendations in
Section 1.3.2. The analysis of the savings generation in this section is based on the
measurements taken for PY2023.
4.1 FACTORS IMPACTING VERIFIED SAVINGS
The Shade Tree Project participants typically pick up trees and return to their property to plant
them. The program provides guidance to increase the energy savings of each tree, although the
participant is not required to follow the guidance. When a tree is planted, the direction and
distance from the home impact energy savings available from the growth of the tree. In addition,
the region where the tree is planted also impacts the energy savings potential. The following
sections identify the potential impact at Year 40.
4.1.1 Distance from Residence
The tree's distance from the residence impacts the amount of potential energy savings the tree
can prove from summer cooling. The audit identified the tree's distance from the residence and
found that 66 percent of the trees identified were within 25 feet, and 94 percent were within 70
feet. Figure 7 shows the cumulative percentage of audited trees and the distance from the
residence. The farthest tree identified still on premises was approximately 200 feet from the
residence. Overall, the result shows that the trees are typically planted within an appropriate
distance of the residence to reduce the cooling load of the residence.

Figure 9. Cumulative Percent of Audited Tree Distance from Residence

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

a
u
d
i
t
e
d

t
r
e
e
s
Audited Distance from Residence (FT)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

18
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
The mature tree height and canopy size of the planted tree series impact the potential for each
tree, for example, large trees like River Birch and Elm have a much larger distance from the
residence that impacts the cooling load where smaller trees must be closer. However, the
impact evaluation used the sampled audit results to provide an average cooling savings
reduction based on the distance planted from the residence. Figure 8 shows the average
modeled cooling energy reduced for fully grown trees in the audit regardless of species and
region within groupings.

Figure 10. Average Annual Cooling Energy (kWh) Reduced by Distance from Residence

The trees within 25 feet of the residence provide the most cooling savings, and then the savings
potential drops off beyond 25 feet. Trees between 35 and 70 feet provide about half of the
potential cooling load savings of trees that are closer to residences. Trees beyond 70 feet
provide zero potential benefits to reduce the residence cooling load.
4.1.2 Direction from Residence
The direction of the tree from the residence impacts the potential energy savings provided by
the tree. Trees on the south and west provide the most cooling load reduction and the greatest
heat load increase, while trees on the north side provide a slightly positive heating load
reduction and minimal cooling load reduction. Figure 9 shows the average annual energy
efficiency potential for mature trees based on the direction the tree is from the residence
regardless of species, region, or distance.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

19
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Figure 11. Average Annual Potential Cooling and Heating Savings 7

Cooling (kWh) Heating (MMBtu)

Over half of the audited trees were planted to the south, southwest, or west directions from the
residence. Another quarter of the trees were planted between the northwest and northeast, and
the final quarter of trees were planted east or southeast of the residence.
The increase in heating load and associated heating energy consumption becomes a critical
component of energy savings as heat pumps become more prevalent and the heating load is
provided from electricity. Figure 10 shows the combined average heating and cooling energy
reduction, assuming a heat pump is used to meet both the heating and cooling load. Overall, the
cooling energy savings provided by the trees in the south and west directions are nearly offset
by the winter heating electricity consumption increase from the heat pump. The ideal location to
increase the energy efficiency for a residence with a heat pump is on the north side.

7 The center of the heating graphic is a negative heating load reduction (increase) and no impact is near
the edge.
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50 N
NE
E
SE
S
SW
W
NW
020
4060
80100
120140 N
NE
E
SE
S
SW
W
NW
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

20
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Figure 12. Average Evaluated kWh Savings Assuming Heat Pump for HVAC

The above results are based on the evaluated trees and the average savings for the current
year. The results in Table 6 show the impact of identical Red Maple trees8 and their i-Trees
modeled 40-year cumulative savings. The results in this test are valid to identify variations in
region and direction, but do not incorporate all the variables incorporated into the program
evaluated results.

Table 6. Cumulative kWh Savings for Identical Modeled Trees with Varied Heat Type
Region
North East South West
Cooling
kWh
Heat
Pump
kWh
Cooling
kWh
Heat
Pump
kWh
Cooling
kWh
Heat
Pump
kWh
Cooling
kWh
Heat
Pump
kWh
Treasure
Valley
1,465 2,115 2,646 409 1,642 -1,448 3,696 2,132
Twin
Falls
1,465 2,115 2,646 409 1,642 -1,448 3,696 2,132
Pocatello 1,291 1,863 2,328 253 1,413 -1,346 3,316 1,837
For all tree locations, except the north side of the residence, the savings with a heat pump are
less than the cooling savings. The tree on the north side is the only one that reduces the heating
load, and therefore is the only tree that increases energy savings when the heating is switched
to electric heat pump. The other locations increase the heating load and therefore decrease the
energy savings with an electric heat pump heating, including the tree on the south side which
has a negative electricity savings over the 40-year life.

8 Three-inch diameter in 2023, located 25 feet from the edge of a standard rectangular residence with the
long side on the east and west sides. The tree condition is set to excellent, and exposure is full sun.
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00 N
NE
E
SE
S
SW
W
NW
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

21
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.1.3 Regional Impact Results
The i-Tree model provides the same energy savings for trees in the Boise and Twin Falls area
when they start at identical locations and diameters. Table 6, above, shows the results of a
standard residence in both locations and the results are identical. However, the Pocatello region
results vary between 86 percent to 90 percent of the cooling value in other regions. The heat
pump savings varies more when trees are planted on the east and west sides. The evaluation
recommends using 88 percent of the saving value for trees located in the Pocatello region,
given that few trees are currently planted on the east side of homes.
4.2 SAVINGS ADJUSTMENTS
Based on the findings from the tree audits, the evaluation assessed potential adjustments to
energy savings in three areas: mortality, electric heat, and tree growth.
4.2.1 Mortality
The mortality of a shade tree includes trees that were planted and are no longer alive and those
not planted on the participant's property. The impact evaluation used the findings from the audit
to estimate the number of trees alive during 2023 and to project the energy savings over the 40-
year life of the tree. The impact evaluation split the mortality rate into two parts: the initial
mortality rate and the annual mortality rate after Year 1. For the 2014 stratum, we are
measuring the 10-year mortality rate at the end of Year 9.
The current calculation methodology assigns an initial mortality rate of 29 percent for
participants who received one tree and 38 percent for participants who received two trees,
which is applied at the beginning of Year 5 (end of Year 4). An additional 1 percent mortality
rate is applied annually starting in Year 5. Table 7 shows the current estimate of the annual
mortality rate for the first ten years, which creates a cumulative 10-year mortality between 34
percent and 43 percent at the end of Year 9. The combined estimated 10-year mortality for the
2014 stratum is 41 percent.
Table 7. Calculated 10-Year Mortality Rate (2014 participants)
Tree Age 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Cumm.
10-year
mortality Year 20149 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Annual
Mortality
Rate 29% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
1 Tree
Received 379 269 265 261 257 253 249 34%
Annual
Mortality
Rate 38% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
2 Trees
Received 1,662 1,030 1,013 996 979 962 945 43%

9 2014 tree quantity is collected from the calculator provided to the evaluation team.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

22
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
The evaluation completed an audit of the sample of 2014 trees identified as planted and alive in
the 2015 audit. The current evaluation completed in the Fall of 2023 represented the identified
mortality rate of these trees at the end of Year 9.
The impact evaluation used the results from the previous 2015 audit and measured the trees
identified as alive from that audit in 2023. The 2015 audit identified that 36 percent of the trees
(1,299 trees) were planted on participant properties and alive in 2015. The 2023 audit identified
that 36 percent of those previously audited trees (831 trees) were confirmed dead or not
located. Figure 11 identifies the evaluated trees alive with the audited years outlined for 2015
and 2023. The remaining bars between 2015 and 2023 are estimated and represent a 5.4
percent annual mortality rate in Years 2 through 9. The line above represents the estimated
mortality in the current calculation shown in Table 7.

Figure 13. Evaluated and Estimated Mortality of 2014 Trees

The evaluated 10-year mortality is 59 percent (831 remain from 2,041 distributed). This exceeds
the combined 41 percent mortality estimated in the current calculator. The evaluation
recommends adjusting the annual mortality rate schedule for trees in the 2013 to 2019 program
years. This approach eliminates the differences for participants who received one or two trees
and starts the mortality in Year 1.
1. Year 1 mortality rate = 36%
2. Year 2 through Year 9 annual mortality rate = 5.4%
3. Year 10 through Year 40 annual mortality rate = 1.0%
The previous evaluation identified that mature trees have a limited mortality rate. The evaluation
agrees with that assessment after ten growing seasons and recommends that the 1 percent
annual mortality rate remain unchanged until further data is collected.
1,299
831
2,041
1,299 1,278 1,257 1,236 1,215 1,194
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Evaluated trees alive Estimated Trees Alive
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

23
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.2.1.1 Mortality of 2021 Participant trees
The 2021 participants received trees that were delivered instead of picked up at an event.
These trees are smaller than those typically given to participants at event pick-up in other years.
This audit was completed two years after the initial delivery and there are differences in tree
mortality to incorporate into the future expected calculations. The audit estimates that the 2021
tree mortality rate is 49 percent (1,524 trees). This data point is one year beyond the initial data
point of the recommended mortality pattern, so it is expected to be slightly higher than the actual
initial mortality rate. Figure 12 shows the variation for the 2021 program from the recommended
mortality rate for the 2014-2019 trees. The line above compares the current calculator's
estimated mortality schedule.

Figure 14. Evaluated and Estimated Mortality of 2021 trees

The annual mortality rate was applied to Years 3 through 9 and used to estimate the Year 1
mortality to account for the audit being completed in Year 2. The estimated 10-year mortality for
the 2021 trees is 65 percent (1,031 remain from 2,970 distributed), compared to the 59 percent
mortality rate for the evaluated schedule. It is important to note that the mortality of the 2021
trees may be significantly different than the evaluated schedule in Year 3 through 9. A further
study, which audits the 2021 trees identified as alive in 2028 or later will help determine the
remainder of the 10-year mortality.
1,890
1,210 1,524 1,441 1,363 1,289 1,219 1,153 1,090 1,031
2,970
1,862 1,832 1,802 1,772 1,742 1,712
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Recommended 2014-2019 mortality Evaluated 2021 trees alive Estimated Trees Alive
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

24
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.2.2 Electric Heat
The audit gathered information about the
HVAC equipment for the participants.
The impact evaluation used this data to
adjust the heating and cooling savings
accrued to each tree modeled. The i-
Trees model determined cooling savings
in kWh and heating savings in MMBTU
(converted from therms reported).
However, when residences do not have
cooling, there is no kWh savings, and
when the residences have a heat pump
or electric heat, the heating MMBTU
accrues to electric kWh. Residences
heated with gas or other fuels accrue the
savings attributed to the remaining
MMBTU.
Although electric heat is only a minority portion of the HVAC systems in residences in the Idaho
Power region, heat pumps are being used as the primary heating source more often. The
evaluation found that approximately 20 percent of the homes confirmed to have electric heat;
with two-thirds heat pumps and the remainder electric resistance. The 20 percent overall electric
heat percentage matches a previous survey of participants in the Treasure Valley region. This
evaluation found that 31 percent of the participants in the Twin Falls region had heat pumps
while the percent of electric resistance heat remained at 8 percent; for a total of 39 percent
electric heat. Pocatello had just one electric heat participant in the audit. The variation in heating
fuel will drive significant differences in the benefits of trees to the electric grid. Table 8 shows
the variation in heating types per region in the evaluated sample.
Table 8. Evaluated Heating Type by Region
Region Heat Pump
Electric
Resistance
Non-
Electric
Treasure Valley 10% 9% 81%
Twin Falls 31% 8% 61%
Pocatello 6% 0% 94%
Total 15% 7% 77%
The evaluation found many trees planted in Idaho Power territory have a heating penalty,
meaning that the trees increased the heating load of the residence. The heating penalty
converts to additional winter heating load for participants with electric heat, which reduces the
electricity benefit associated with the trees. Overall, the evaluation determined that 77 percent
of the surveyed properties (95 of 123) had heat provided by sources other than electricity 10. The
remaining 23 percent of participants were split with one-third having electric resistance and two-
thirds with an electric heat pump. The impact evaluation converted heating savings overall
based on these fractions, using assumptions that the electric resistance was 99% efficient, the
heat pump overall COP was 3.0, and the gas heating efficiency was 80%. The resulting

10 There were wood and biomass heated homes identified in the audit.
Heat
Pump, 19
Electric, 9
Non-
Electric, 95
Audit Results for Heating Type (Count)
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

25
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
reduction in evaluated kWh savings per tree in 2023 was 32 percent for 2014 trees and 26
percent for 2018-2019 trees.
Cooling is a critical component of savings. The evaluation identified two residences with no
cooling equipment. The remainder had either window units, mini-split heat pumps, central
conventional air conditioning, or central heat pump systems. The assumption could be made to
slightly adjust the savings per residence based on the equipment identified, but further data
collection would be necessary to determine the impact of varied cooling equipment.
Based on the heating type findings, the evaluation recommends that the Shade Tree Project
adjust energy savings based on the HVAC types. The program may collect individual participant
HVAC types or develop a deemed assumption of the percentage of HVAC types to apply across
the annual savings. The option to collect participant data can then be applied to each tree and
will provide a better estimation of energy savings per participant. However, an assumption
would simplify planning and projections for the program based on consistent participation across
Idaho Power residential customers. The deemed assumption should use the information in this
report as a data point but should incorporate additional data sources across the Idaho Power
DSM residential portfolio.
4.2.3 Tree Growth
The impact evaluation reviewed the modeled cooling electric efficiency based on the growing
seasons since the tree was planted11. For example, the Spring 2018 participants are in Year 5,
but the Fall 2018 and Spring 2019 participants are in Year 4. This was completed to evaluate
the i-Tree model against the actual growth of trees that were planted 5 to 10 years ago and the
forecasted cooling electricity savings.
The graphic below shows each participant event with the line starting with the number of
growing seasons completed in Fall 2023. Beyond this initial point, all the impact is modeled by
the i-Trees software. The expectation is that the modeled average kWh per participant group
should follow a similar trajectory over the 40-year life with slight variations depending on
planting location and species of the trees in the audit. This is evident in Figure 13, the Spring
and Fall 2021 modeled kWh is similar for the first 20 years, then there is a slight separation,
which is based on variations as trees mature.

11 The Shade Tree Project reporting is completed based on calendar year.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

26
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Figure 15. Modeled kWh Savings per Event Based on Growing Seasons

The evaluation noted the difference in the impact of trees from Treasure Valley (Ada, Canyon,
and Gem counties) events compared to other event locations. The trees in the Treasure Valley
are in the Spring 2014, Fall 2018, and Spring 2021 events. The Spring 2014 and Fall 2018
trees, in particular, are modeled to provide much more electricity reduction compared to all other
groups. The model predicts that the trees planted in Treasure Valley impact energy efficiency
more than the other regions.
In the other participant groups, the Fall 2019 group has barely any impact until after Year 20.
This is the only group that includes participants from Bannock County, indicating that the trees
in Bannock County do not provide as much cooling energy value. The participants in the Twin
Falls area in the Spring 2018, Spring 2019, and Fall 2021 participant groups have a slow and
steady growth of impact, but they will grow at a slower rate and have a lower 40-year maximum
impact than the Treasure Valley event trees. The i-Trees model does not identify a specific
reason for the variation. However, the growth and impact of trees are impacted by local climate
forecasts, which are the basis for the model.
In addition to the impact variation by event region, the measured 2023 starting point for each
tree participant group is greater than the modeled savings from trees planted later. This is
apparent by looking at the three event groups from the Treasure Valley: Spring 2014, Fall 2018,
and Spring 2021. Figure 14 shows the forecasted modeled cooling kWh for Treasure Valley
participants in these event groups in the solid lines. The start of each line is the impact from the
audit data in 2023.
Comparing the average Year 9 impact of all three event groups (not including mortality or
electric heat adjustments), the measured start of the 2014 stratum is approximately 55 kWh per
year. The modeled 2018 offering in Year 9 is 37 kWh per year, 33 percent lower.12 Based on
calculations, this variation should be approximately 12 percent. Assuming the growth of the
cooling savings should be similar in the same climate, there is a variation in the growth of the
trees in the model compared to the actual growth identified in the audit.

12 The 2021 trees had a different baseline delivered tree, so that is expected to be lower in Year 9.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

27
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Figure 16. Modeled Annual Average Cooling Energy Impact for Treasure Valley Trees

The evaluation recommends accelerating the growth and associated energy impacts for the
years between Year 9 and Year 35 by four years to address this variation between modeled and
actual growth. The Year 5 and Year 40 impact results should remain as modeled. This
increases how quickly the percent of maximum impact is achieved, but the maximum impact of
the tree remains the same as modeled.
The impact evaluation recommends the following items for consideration in future forecasting of
energy impacts.
• The smaller trees in the 2021 participant groups full maturity energy impacts will lag the
larger trees from the other program years.
• The region where the shade tree is planted impacts the maximum potential for energy
savings. See Section 4.1.3.
• Trees are growing faster than modeled, and the accelerated growth will increase
energy savings to match the impact energy savings of a tree that is four years older
between Years 9 and 35.
4.3 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS
The impact evaluation measured the annual savings associated with the trees from various
project years for PY2023 and adjusted the savings for the trees to determine the evaluated
savings for PY2022. The executive summary presents only the PY2022 savings; however, this
more detailed section identifies both the evaluated savings for PY2022 and the measured
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
An
n
u
a
l

m
o
d
e
l
e
d

c
o
o
l
i
n
g

k
W
h

p
e
r

y
e
a
r
Growing seasons from giveaway
Spring 2014 Fall 2018 Modeled
Fall 2018 augmented Spring 2021 growth adjusted
Spring 2021 growth adjusted
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

28
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
savings from PY2023. The evaluation found that the kWh reduction for the trees in the sample
was overestimated. It also found that the negative value of heating MMBTU are overstated,
meaning that the increased heating by fuels other than electricity required by residences as the
tree grows is less than estimated. Table 9 shows the realization rate by stratum for the
evaluated savings calculated in PY2022 from previously planted trees.

Table 9. PY2022 Shade Tree Realization Rates by Sampling Stratum
Sampling
stratum Trees
Total Annual kWh
(Incremental kWh)13
Total Annual MMBTU
(Incremental MMBTU)
Calculated Evaluated
Realization
rate (%) Calculated Evaluated
Realization
rate (%)
2014
participants
379 41,065
(-45)
32,677 80 -450
(-4)
-411 109
2018
participants
2,092 32,554
(32,554)
18,926 58 -282
(-282)
-171 139
2019
participants
2,063 0 0 NA 0 0 NA
2021
participants
2,970 0 0 NA 0 0 NA
Total 5,441 73,620
(32,509)
51,604 70 -732
(-286)
-583 120

Table 10 shows the realization rate by stratum for the measured savings associated with
PY2023. PY2023 will be the first year of savings for the trees distributed in 2019. The table does
not show the incremental savings.
Table 10. PY2023 Shade Tree Measured Savings by Sampling Stratum
Sampling
stratum Trees
Total Annual kWh Total Annual MMBTU
Planned
Savings
Measured
Savings
Realization
rate (%)
Planned
Savings
Measured
Savings
Realization
rate (%)
2014
participants
379 64,218 30,938 48 -614 -390 137
2018
participants
2,092 32,051 17,020 53 -278 -118 157
2019
participants
2,063 18,566 11,199 60 -159 -38 176
2021
participants
2,970 0 0 0 0
Total 7,504 114,835 59,158 52 -1,051 -546 148

13 The program claims incremental saving each year. The past years claimed savings have a 40-year life.
The majority of the claimed savings each year is the first claimed savings from the trees that were planted
five years ago. The annual savings in this table are the cumulative value of the trees from each event.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

29
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
4.3.1 Energy Calculation
The impact evaluation approached the savings calculation to develop a simplified calculation for
the trees distributed. The evaluation first modeled each tree's energy impacts using the location,
dimension, and characteristics of the shade tree and the participant's residence. The evaluation
team found that modeled savings (verified savings) for the measured trees in PY2023 were
closely aligned with the calculated savings: 105 percent for the 2014 trees and 85 percent for
the combined 2018-2019 trees.
The verified savings per tree assume that the buildings are air conditioned and heated with gas
heat, both with standard efficiency. The model did not incorporate adjustments to the heating
fuel type. The impact evaluation adjusted the verified savings to account for the increasing
number of fully electric homes with either electric resistance or a heat pump to meet the heating
load.
The per-tree average savings from the sample were multiplied by the number of trees living in
each stratum. The mortality rate identified in the audit was applied to the initial number of trees
in each stratum to determine the impact of evaluated savings for the program.
Figure 15 and Figure 16 display the effect of the various components of the impact evaluation
savings for the 2014 and 2018-2019 trees based on the measurement and modeled savings for
PY2023. Each graphic has three separate components.
1. Verified calculated savings: The verified savings are based on the modeled results of
electricity impacts of the average measured tree multiplied by the expected number of
trees alive in 2023 for each stratum.

2. Mortality: The number of trees expected to be alive in each stratum was adjusted to
match the mortality rates from the audit.

3. Electric heat: The electric heat adjustment attributed some of the identified heating
MMBTU and converted it to electricity savings because of electric heat. Because the
shade trees increased the heating load, the electricity savings decreased.

Figure 17. 2014 Strata Evaluated Measured Savings Adjustments

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

30
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024

Figure 18. 2018-2019 Strata Evaluated Measured Savings Adjustments

In addition to the current year's savings, the impact evaluation found that the growth rate of the
2014 trees exceeded estimates at the 10-year mark in the model. This result is why the verified
savings exceed the 2023 calculated savings. The approximate 10-year growth projected from
the 2018-2019 trees planted in the same region showed that the 10-year expected growth is
projected to equal the savings estimate for Year 14. The evaluation recommends using the Year
13 energy savings estimate for Year 9 (10th growing season), to account for the accelerated
growth in future estimating. Figure 17 shows the Year 9 estimated savings with the verified
savings and adjustments for the augmented growth, mortality, and electric heat for the 2018
trees. If an evaluation is completed in 2028, the growth adjustment is expected to be part of the
verified savings result.
Figure 19. 2018 Trees Evaluated Savings Adjustments in 2027

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

31
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
The Shade Tree Project can adjust implementation of the program to impact mortality and tree
placement for new trees distributed, but that will not impact the energy savings for several
years. The evaluation recommends further discussion to coordinate the calculator with
implementation and the application of the growth, regional variation, mortality, and electric heat
factors.
4.3.2 Non-Energy Benefits
The evaluation found that the calculated non-energy benefits associated with the shade trees
installed are conservative. The non-energy benefits appear to be calculated by the current
calculation tool in annual dollars for carbon, stormwater runoff, and air pollution. The evaluation
found that the carbon value is slightly more than calculated, the stormwater benefit is slightly
lower than calculated, and the air pollution benefit is much higher than calculated.

Table 11. 2023 Non-Energy Benefit Realization Rate
Program Years Trees
Total Non-Energy Benefits
Planned Verified Realization
Rate
2013-2019 13,122 $8,522 $12,005 141

Table 12. Shade Tree Non-Energy Realization Rates by Sampling Stratum
Sampling
stratum
Carbon $ (2023) Stormwater $ (2023) Air Pollution $ (2023)
Planned Evaluated RR
(%) Planned Evaluated RR
(%) Planned Evaluated RR
(%)
2014
participant
$1,091 -$264 -24 $712 $167 23 $82 $14 17
2018-2019
participant
$1,162 $2,904 250 $761 $630 83 $113 $1,628 1445
2021
participant
$0 $128 NA $0 $285 NA $0 $164 NA
TOTAL $2,252 $2,768 123 $1,474 $1,082 73 $195 $1,806 926

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

32
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
The evaluation used the i-Trees Design V7.0 to gain a measurement of the current year's
pounds of carbon, pounds of air pollution, gallons of stormwater intercepted, and gallons of
stormwater runoff avoided for each tree modeled. These values were aggregated to determine
the average value of a tree from each stratum. The conversion from the benefit to dollars used
the average price value in the existing tool, shown in Table 12. Table 13 shows the units of non-
energy benefit components attributed to each sampling stratum.

Table 13. Average Price for Non-Energy Benefit
Carbon
$/LB
SW Runoff
$/Gal
Air Pollution
$/LB
Average 0.08522 0.00123 0.79349

Table 14. 2023 Non-Energy Benefit Units
Sampling stratum Trees
Total Non-Energy Benefits (2023)
Carbon
(Lbs.)
Stormwater
Intercepted
(Gal.)
Stormwater
Runoff
(Gal.)
Air
Pollution
(Lbs.)
2014 participants 379 -3,094 122,354 14,187 18
2018-2019 participants 4,155 34,075 480,045 33,790 2,052
2021 participants 2,970 1,499 215,294 17,057 207
TOTAL 7,504 32,480 817,693 65,034 2,276

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

33
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
APPENDIX A: SHADE TREE AUDIT SCREENER TEXT
Idaho Power Shade Trees Audit Screener
New and Existing Homeowners
Key screener objectives:
• Alert customers of upcoming audits
• Screen for deceased trees
• Gather preliminary information on home
• Determine tree location for auditors

Section Items Completes
Introduction INTRO – I1 Full
Tree Confirmation Tintro – T4 Not on property (M1=2, T0=3,4)
Housing Characteristics HC1 – HC3
Visit Details V1 – V2 Refused visit (V1/V2 = 99)

Sample information
CASEID TT assigned identification number
TreeID1 IPC unique Tree identification number for first tree
TreeID2 IPC unique Tree identification number for second tree
VISIT_DATES "in October”
OrderID IPC unique Participant identification number
Contact_Name Name of participating customer
Address Address where equipment was installed or service was performed
City City where equipment was installed or service was performed
State State where equipment was installed or service was performed
Zip Zip where equipment was installed or service was performed
Phone_Num Phone number of participating customer
EMAIL Email address for customer
C_EMALFILLD
0 No
1 Yes

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

34
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
MOVED_FLAG Flag indicating if customer in home received tree or customer moved into
home
0 Original customer who received tree(s)
1 Customer moved into home with program tree(s)

QUOTA Numerical identifier of the quota the case is assigned to during sampling.
1 2014 audited trees Complete target = 50
2 2018-2019 event trees Complete target = 120
3 2021 delivered trees Complete target = 100

GROUP Geographic areas determined by zip codes
10 Boise area
11 Boise area
12 Boise area
13 Nampa
14 Emmett area
15 Kuna area
20 Pocatello
21 Blackfoot
22 Inkom
30 Twin Falls area
31 Gooding/Shoshone
32 Rupert
33 Oakley
34 Buhl area
35 Mountain Home

OFFERING Year and season customer received the tree(s)
Count Number of trees the customer received
1 one tree
2 two trees

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

35
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
Type1 First tree variety (Treepickedup)
LOC1 Direction from house to first tree
(opposite EnrollmentTreeOrientation or AuditTreeOrientation)
FEET1 Number of feet first tree planted from house (AuditDistanceFromHome)
Type2 Second tree variety (Treepickedup)
LOC2 Direction from house to second tree
(opposite EnrollmentTreeOrientation or AuditTreeOrientation)
FEET2 Number of feet second tree planted from house (AuditDistanceFromHome)
C_UTIL_CONT Mindi Shodeen at 208-388-5648

Introduction

VM MESSAGE Hello, we are calling to follow up on the <TYPE1> [IF COUNT=2 show "
and <TYPE2>] that [IF MOVED_FLAG=1 show “the previous homeowner" ELSE show
"you"] received from Idaho Power in <OFFERING>
Idaho Power has hired us to check the growth of trees provided through their Shade
Tree program. We will have staff in your area and would like to ask a few questions
before stopping by to evaluate the tree(s). If you have a few minutes this week, please
call us back at our toll-free number 1-800-454-5070. Having the case ID <CASEID>
available when you call will make the study more efficient.
Again, our number is 1-800-454-5070, and your ID number is <CASEID>.
Thank you for your help and have a wonderful day.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

36
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
INTRO [INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTION: Please dial the phone number <PHONE> and
enter the call result.]
Hello, my name is __________ and I’m calling from Tetra Tech. We are calling to follow
up on the tree(s) that [IF MOVED_FLAG=1 show “the previous homeowner" ELSE show
"you"] received from Idaho Power in <OFFERING>.
Idaho Power has hired us to check the growth of trees provided through their Shade
Tree project. We will have staff in your area and would like to ask a few questions prior
to stopping by to evaluate the tree(s).
[IF MOVED_FLAG=0 SHOW “May I speak with <CONTACT_NAME> or the person who
is familiar with your household's participation with the Idaho Power Shade Trees
program?”]
[IF MOVED_FLAG=1 SHOW “The name I have on record is <CONTACT_NAME>. Or
may I speak with a person familiar about the trees on your property?”

01 Continue [SKIP TO SCREENER1]
02 I'm not knowledgeable about this [SKIP TO OTHER_R]

SCREENER1 Our records show [IF MOVED_FLAG=1 show “the previous homeowner" ELSE
show "you"] received <COUNT> in <OFFERING> through the Idaho Power Shade Trees
program.
The tree(s) received was/were a <TYPE1> [IF COUNT=2 show " and a <TYPE2>"].
Are you familiar with this/these tree(s)?

01 Yes [SKIP TO NEXT
SECTION]
02 Yes, but R had comment [SPECIFY: what's incorrect?] [SKIP TO NEXT
SECTION]
88 I'm not knowledgeable about these tree(s) [SKIP TO OTHER_R]
99 Refused [SKIP TO OTHER_R]

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

37
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
OTHER_R Is it possible that someone else in your household would be more familiar with
the program?
[IF NEEDED: Our records show [IF MOVED_FLAG=1 show “the previous homeowner"
ELSE show "you"] received <COUNT> in <OFFERING> through the Idaho Power Shade
Trees program.
The tree(s) received was a <TYPE1> [IF COUNT=2 show " and a <TYPE2>"].]
01 Yes, there is somebody else [RECORD CONTACT INFO]
02 No, nobody knowledgeable [DOES NOT QUALIFY 81]
03 No, we’ve never participated [DOES NOT QUALIFY 82]
88 Don’t know [DOES NOT QUALIFY 81]
99 Refused [REFUSAL 91]

AVAILABLE_R May I please speak with that person?

01 Yes, R is available [INT01 WITH NEW R]
02 Yes, R is not currently available [SCHEDULE CALLBACK]
03 No [REFUSAL]
88 Don’t know [DOES NOT QUALIFY 81]
99 Refused [REFUSAL 91]

Tree confirmation

[LOOP SECTION FOR THE TWO TREES]
R1 questions refer to TYPE1, LOC1, FEET1
R2 questions refer to TYPE2, LOC2, FEET2

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

38
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
M1 [ASK IF MOVED_FLAG = 1] To confirm, is there a <TYPE> tree planted on your
property?
Our records show, it may be located on the <LOC> side of your home[IF QUOTA = 1
show “ approximately <FEET> feet away”].
01 Yes
02 No [SKIP TO NEXT LOOP]
88 Don’t know [SKIP TO NEXT LOOP]

T0 [ASK IF MOVED_FLAG = 0 AND QUOTA = 2, 3] Was this <TYPE> planted in the
ground on your property, planted in a pot, given to a neighbor or family member to plant,
or not planted anywhere?
01 Planted in the ground
02 Planted in a pot
03 Given to a neighbor / friend / family [SKIP TO NEXT LOOP]
04 Not planted anywhere [SKIP TO NEXT LOOP]
88 Don’t know [SKIP TO NEXT LOOP]

T1 Is the <TYPE> still alive?
01 Yes
02 No [SKIP TO NEXT LOOP]
88 Don’t know [SKIP TO NEXT LOOP]

T4 Is the tree located near any other trees, a fence, or any other markers?
01 Yes [SPECIFY]
02 No
88 Don’t know

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

39
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
T2 Where is the tree located in relation to your house?
Is it…. [READ LIST]
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: The goal is to have the auditors looking at the right tree when
on-site.]
01 In front of the house
02 In back of the house
03 To the left of the house when looking at the house
04 To the right of the house when looking at the house
05 Some other detail [SPECIFY]
88 [DO NOT READ] Don’t know

T3 Approximately how many feet from the house is it located?
Is it… [READ LIST]
01 0 to 10 feet
02 11 to 20 feet
03 21 to 50 feet
04 51 to 100 feet
05 More than 100 feet
88 [DO NOT READ] Don’t know

[END QUESTION LOOP]

Household Characteristics

HC1 Now just a few questions about your house. Was your home built before 1950, between
1950 and 1980, or after 1980?
01 Before 1950
02 1950-1980
03 After 1980
88 Don’t know

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

40
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
HC2 What type of heating does your home have? [READ LIST UNTIL R ANSWERS] (select
all that apply)
01 Gas furnace
02 Electric resistance
03 Electric heat pump
04 Passive heat option
05 Something else [SPECIFY]
77 None
88 Don’t know

HC3 What type of air conditioning does your home have? [READ LIST UNTIL R ANSWERS]
(select all that apply)
01 Central AC
02 Central heat pump
03 Ductless mini split
04 Window AC
05 Something else [SPECIFY]
77 None
88 Don’t know

Visit Details
[SKIP TO INT99 IF ALL TREES TRIGGER M1=2 or T0=3,4,88 or T1=2) (NO_TREES=1)]

V1 Our staff will be in your area <VISIT_DATES> to review a sample of trees provided
through the program. They will be looking at tree growth and overall health.
Our staff will not require your presence to review the trees.
Are there any access restrictions to the trees we would like to view?
01 No
02 Yes [SPECIFY]
99 R does not want a visit

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

41
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
V2 [SKIP IF V1=99] Are there any other issues to be aware of as our staff visit your
property?
01 No
02 Yes [SPECIFY]
99 R does not want a visit

INT99 Thank you for your time.
[IF V1≠99 AND V2≠99 SHOW: “Again, our staff will be in your area <VISIT_DATES>.
After the visit, they will leave a door hanger behind to let you know they were at your
home.“]
Have a nice day.
CP Completed.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

42
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
APPENDIX B: SHADE TREE FIELD AUDIT QUESTIONS

Heading Responses
Tree Count (fill from sample) 1 2 Use for loops through data collection
Type 1 / Species / Direction / Distance/ (fill
from sample)
Type 2 / Species / Direction / Distance/ (fill
from sample)
For each tree
Verification of Previous Collected Info
Is the tree present/identifiable Yes No
o Tree Species Verify Enter if
incorrect
If incorrect, indicate species and
quantity
o Tree Location - Direction Verify Enter if
incorrect
If incorrect, provide tree location
(N,S,E,W, NW, NE, SE, SW of home)
o Tree Location - Distance Verify Enter if
incorrect
If incorrect, provide tree location
(distance in whole feet)
Tree GIS location Capture spatial location with GPS.
Tree Characteristics
o Diameter or circumference Numeric Round to the nearest inch
o Height (approximate) Numeric Round to nearest foot under 15 feet, or
nearest 5' increment.
o Dripline diameter (approximate) Numeric Round to nearest foot under 15 feet, or
nearest 5' increment.
o Relative condition
(excellent/good/poor/dying)
Select Excellent, Good, Poor, Dead, Unsure
o Exposure to sunlight (full/partial/shade) Select Full, Partial, Shade
Planting Characteristics
o Photos Taken Not Verification of tree general size,
condition and distance to house
o Tree ring present Yes No
o Surrounding vegetation (in drip ring) Select Grass, ground plants, shrubs, other
trees, none
o Tree stake present Yes No
o Planting depth Select Correct, Too shallow, Too deep
o Under a Power Line Yes No
o Additional notes about planting
Assessment of anything that doesn't match
condition as entered above.
For example, Damage to trunk, tree
trimmed to one side, etc.
For each property
Household Characteristics (just once)
o House age Verify If incorrect, pick age category
o Heating type Verify
Identify gas exhaust, heat pump
exterior unit, or other indicator.
o Cooling type Verify
Identify AC exterior unit, heat pump
exterior unit for Central, heat pump wall
mounted unit, or window unit
o Was the Customer Present Yes No

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

43
Shade Tree Project Impact Evaluation. March 5, 2024
APPENDIX C: IMPACT EVALUATION MODELING REVIEW
The impact evaluation used the data from the audit to complete an impact analysis of the 2023
energy savings and identify future growth of the energy savings. The energy impact of the trees
was evaluated using the i-Tree 14 suite of tools. One method completed a current year analysis
using a downloaded iTree Eco Version 6; the second used the online version of i-Tree Design,
Version 7.0. Table 15 provides an overview of the requirements and outputs of each tool.
Table 15. Impact Evaluation Tool Comparison
i-Tree tool Eco V6.0 Design V7.0
Program
location
Downloaded to Desktop Online
Energy
Savings
Estimates
Current Year Current year and forecasting
Tree Input
Data
Tree species
Diameter (BDH - Inches)
Height (ft)
Crown Width, North-South (Ft)
Crown Width, East-West (Ft)
Crown Health, percent dieback
Crown Health, percent missing
Tree species
Location (Tree identified on aerial)
Diameter (BDH or circumference - Inches)
Tree Condition (excellent – poor)
Tree exposure to Sunlight (full sun – full shade)

Other input
data
Building Direction
Building Distance
City and County
Building, Heating and Cooling present
Building Age (Pre-1950, 1950-1980, Post-1980)
Building (outlined on aerial)
Benefits estimate - forecast year
Input Data
template
provided
https://www.itreetools.org/documents/754/
Eco_Complete_Inventory_TREE_DataSh
eet_Full.2021.10.28.xlsx
None
Data input Upload template by county Locate each tree/building in an online interface
The i-Tree Eco tool was used to identify the 2023 energy savings estimate. The evaluation team
felt it was a conservative estimate compared to the analysis with the i-Tree Design tool. Table
16 shows the unadjusted model results from the 83 measured trees in the audit.
Table 16. Unadjusted 2023 Annual Energy Savings Result
Program kWh MMBTU
i-Tree Eco result 638 -12
i-Tree Design
result 2,445 -22
The i-Tree Design result was selected for the impact analysis because the input information was
more detailed for both tree and structure locations. I-Tree Design was also able to forecast the
growth of trees and estimate the impacts beyond 2023, which was critical to evaluating results.
The impact evaluation identified each tree and structure in the online i-Tree tool and logged the
results for the current year and the forecast results for 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 years in the future.

14 https://www.itreetools.org/tools
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 489
OTHER REPORTS
Report Title Sector
Analysis
Performed By
Study
Manager
Study/Evaluation
Type
2023 A/C Cool Credit Program End-of-
Season Report
Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
2023 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season
Annual Report
Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
2023 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program
Report
Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Historical DSM Expense and Performance,
2002–2023
Residential,
Commercial/Industrial, Irrigation
Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Idaho Power Corporation Home Energy
Report 2023 Final Program Summary
Residential Harris Harris Other
Multifamily Technical Reference Manual
(online)
Residential/Commercial ADM ADM Other
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program—
School Year 2022–2023 Annual Report
Residential Tinker LLC Tinker LLC Other
* Titles appearing in blue are links to the online versions of the reports.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 490 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

2023 A/C COOL CREDIT ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Program Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Baseline Usage Calculation ......................................................................................................................... 2
Non-Contributing Households .................................................................................................................. 3
Results ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Tables ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Charts .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company

2023 A/C Cool Credit Analysis Page 1

SUMMARY
This report presents an analysis of the demand response events called by Idaho Power’s A/C
Cool Credit program during the summer of 2023. The program called a total of 4 demand
response events that included 18,714 households. The peak realized reduction at the generator
level during this period occurred on August 16th, with a reduction of 1.07 kW per participant
and a total system curtailment of 19.6 MW. In comparison, the maximum potential reduction
for the season was 25.3 MW, based on a generator level reduction of 1.37 kW per participant at
a cycling rate of 65%.

Region

Participant
Count
Peak Realized
Curtailment
Peak Potential
Curtailment
Idaho 18,501 19.4 MW 25.0 MW
Oregon 213 0.2 MW 0.3 MW
Total 18,714 19.6 MW 25.3 MW

PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The A/C Cool Credit program season extends from June 15th to September 15th. Program event
guidelines allow for event duration of up to four hours. In 2023, two of the four events called
spanned four hours, and two events spanned three hours.
Starting in the 2022 season and continuing through the 2023 season, the program enacted a
more flexible approach to event cycling rates. In 2023, two of the four events called were
cycled at 50%—meaning participating A/C units were switched off for 30 minutes out of an
hour—and two of the events were cycled at 55%.
Overall, the changes made to the program have significantly improved its potential
effectiveness for Idaho Power. The extension of the cycling season and incorporation of longer
event spans have allowed the program to respond to a wider range of high -temperature days
and better meet system needs. The more flexible approach to cycling rates has also given the
program greater control over the size and timing of demand reductions, ensuring that it can
effectively reduce energy demand while still maintaining participant comfort. These operational
changes make the program a more reliable and effective tool for managing energy demand and
helping to reduce strain on the power grid.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Idaho Power Company
2023 A/C Cool Credit Analysis Page 2

METHODOLOGY
Idaho Power continues to calculate A/C Cool Credit program savings using the evaluation
framework created by ADM consultants as part of the 2021 impact evaluation. This tool models
demand reductions by using a variety of statistical methods to determine ea ch participant’s
hypothetical usage if there had not been a demand response event that day. Additionally, the
tool evaluates the number of households who did not contribute a statistically significant
demand reduction to each event. This section provides an overview of the model steps; a more
detailed discussion can be found in ADM’s 2021 program impact evaluation in Supplement 2 of
Idaho Power’s 2021 DSM Annual Report.
Baseline Usage Calculation
To model participant energy usage at the household level, the evaluation tool requires four
primary data inputs: a list of participating demand response switches, hourly meter reads for all
participants for the cycling season, hourly weather reads for the service territory, and the date
and time of all demand response events. By integrating these inputs, the tool is able to take
into account the unique energy usage patterns of each household.
Since each household is unique and may exhibit vastly different energy usage patterns, there is
no single statistical model that will perfectly fit every participant. Instead, the evaluation tool
tests five possible models to find the best fit for each household. These models fall into two
categories:
1. A weather-adjusted Linear Fixed Effect Regression (LFER) model. This is a regression
model that controls for variables including Cooling Degree Days, Heating Degree Days,
and hour of the day, and treats each household as an individual fixed effect.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Idaho Power Company
2023 A/C Cool Credit Analysis Page 3

2. A Customer Baseline (CBL) model tuned with various eligibility periods and offset
methods. The possible eligibility periods are 3-of-5 and 3-of-10, the latter of which
would mean that the model looks at the three highest usage days of the last 10 eligible
days. The offset factor determines how the model scales usage based on usage prior to
the event start. The possible methods are additive and multiplicative.
Model performance was assessed based on how well the model predicted the household’s
energy consumption across four proxy days, which represent the hottest non-event days in the
season. Consumption during both proxy days and event days are excluded from the data set
used to train the household models.
The LFER model was the best fit for the largest number of participants. The final reported
savings are derived from a mixed model, which incorporates household level results based on
the best fitting of the five models for each participant. This approach ensures that baseline
estimates are robust to variance in household behavior.
Non-Contributing Households
A separate calculation within the ADM model provides an estimate of Non-Contributing
Households (NCH), or the number of households during each event that did not produce a
statistically noticeable demand reduction. This is an important metric for understanding overall
impacts of demand response efforts and for identifying characteristics of event days and
households that may prompt non-responsiveness. Importantly, NCH is calculated for
informational purposes and is independent of overall savings results, which include all program
participants whether responsive or not.
In some cases, a statistically non-responsive household may indicate a communication, switch,
or A/C unit failure, however there are other factors to consider. For example, occupants may be
away during an event or have temporarily changed the household’s temperature set point. On
event days with cooler weather or lower cycling rates, it is harder for the model to confidently
identify a demand reduction, as a result t he NCH rate tends to be higher.
The model utilizes a three step calculation process to identify NCHs:
1. The first calculation is a Cumulative Sum (CSUM) analysis, which is a technique that
evaluates the slope of a smoothed curve of energy usage data for the hours before and
during the event, and comparing the ratios of these slopes to determine if there is a
significant change in demand due to the event. Devices with a slope ratio less than one
are considered contributing devices.
2. The second calculation is the linear decrease analysis, which involves comparing the
consumption for the hour prior to the event to the consumption during the first hour of
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Idaho Power Company
2023 A/C Cool Credit Analysis Page 4

the event. Devices that do not see a 10% reduction in this step are considered non-
contributing devices.
3. Finally, the model performs a check for signs of a snapback effect, which is the increase
above baseline usage that frequently occurs at the conclusion of a demand response
event as an A/C unit works to return the household to normal set temperature.
Households that were labeled as non-contributing by the first two tests, but show signs
of a snapback effect are reclassified as contributing households.
RESULTS
The following tables and charts display the outputs of the evaluation models. All demand
reduction numbers presented in the text and figures of this report are calculated at the
generator level.
For simplicity, only Treasure Valley temperature data is shown in the charts below. However,
the underlying baseline evaluation model utilizes weather reads from both the treasure valley
region and the Twin Falls / Pocatello region.
Tables
Event
Date
Event
Time
Peak
Temperature
Cycle
Rate
Average
Reduction
Total
Reduction
Jul 6 4-7 p.m. 96°F 55% 0.52 kW 9.5 MW
Jul 21 6-10 p.m. 104°F 50% 0.90 kW 16.6 MW
Aug 14 5-8 p.m. 99°F 55% 0.81 kW 14.9 MW
Aug 16 4-8 p.m. 105°F 50% 1.07 kW 19.6 MW

Event
Date
Non-Contribution
Ratio
Jul 6 19.7%
Jul 21 13.4%
Aug 14 19.7%
Aug 16 21.3%
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

Idaho Power Company
2023 A/C Cool Credit Analysis Page 5

Charts

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

March 6, 2024

2023 Flex Peak Program
End-of-Season Annual Report

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

2023 Flex Peak End-of-Season Report Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... i
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... i
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Program Parameters ................................................................................................................. 2
Program Results .............................................................................................................................. 2
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 2
Committed Load ....................................................................................................................... 3
Meter Data ................................................................................................................................ 4
Load Reduction Analysis ........................................................................................................... 4
Realization Rate ........................................................................................................................ 6
Flex Peak Load Reduction Calculation Definitions .................................................................. 11

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2023 Event Summary Results ............................................................................................ 3
Table 2. 2023 Participant-Level Realization Rates by Event ........................................................... 7

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. 2021-2023 Program Participant Counts by Nomination Size .......................................... 3
Figure 2. 2023 Event Day Actual and Baseline Loads ..................................................................... 5
Figure 3. 2023 Average and Maximum Reduction Achieved per Event (MW) ............................... 6
Figure 4. 2023 Average Realization Rate by Nomination Size Class ............................................... 7

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company
2023 Flex Peak End-of-Season Report Page 1
INTRODUCTION
The Flex Peak Program (program) has been operated by Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power or
company) since 2015. The program is a voluntary demand response (DR) program available to
commercial and industrial customers that can reduce their electrical energy loads for short
periods during summer peak days. This program, along with Idaho Power’s other DR
programs—Irrigation Peak Rewards and the residential A/C Cool Credit program—have helped
delay the need for new supply-side resources.
An overview of program costs, marketing, and operations in 2023 can be found in the
Company’s 2023 Annual DSM Report. This report provides a supplemental analysis on program
results and load reduction calculations.

BACKGROUND
In 2015, the company requested approval to implement the Flex Peak Program as an Idaho
Power operated program. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) approved the
company’s request in Order No. 33292,1 and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC)
accepted the proposal from Advice No. 15-03.2 Prior to 2015, a similar DR program for
commercial and industrial customers was operated by a third -party vendor.
As part of Advice No. 15-03, the OPUC adopted Staff’s recommendation that the company file
an annual end-of-season report with information regarding the program. The company was also
directed by the IPUC in Order No. 33292 to file an annual end-of-season report detailing the
results of the program. In compliance with the reporting requirements, the annual end-of-
season report includes the following:
• Number of participating customers
• Number of participating sites
• MW of demand response under contract
• MW of demand response realized and incented per dispatch
• Percent of nominated MW achieved in each dispatch event by participant
• Number of events called
• Total load dropped for each event
• Event duration

1 In the Matter of Idaho Power’s Company’s Application for Approval of New Tariff Schedule 82, A
Commercial and Industrial Demand-Response Program (Flex Peak Program), Case No. IPC-E-15-03,
Order No. 33292 (May 7, 2015).
2 Schedule 76, Flex Peak Program, Docket No. ADV 7/Advice No. 15-03 (approved April 28, 2015).
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company
Page 2 2023 Flex Peak End-of-Season Report
• Number of customers who failed to meet their load
• Participant attrition
• Changes in baseline methodology taken or anticipated

Program Parameters
The program pays participants a financial incentive for reducing load within their facility and is
active June 15 to September 15, between the hours of 3 p.m. and 10 p.m. on non-holiday
weekdays. Customers with the ability to nominate or provide load reduction of at least 20 kW
are eligible to enroll in the program.
The parameters of the program are in Schedule 763 in Oregon and Schedule 824 in Idaho, and
include the following:
• A minimum of three load reduction events will occur each program season.
• Events can occur any weekday (excluding July 4 and Labor Day) between the hours of 3
p.m. and 10 p.m. and last between two to four hours
• Events can occur up to four hours per day and up to 16 hours per week, but no more
than 60 hours per program season
• Idaho Power will provide notification to participants four hours prior to the initiation of
an event
• If prior notice of a load reduction event has been sent, Idaho Power can choose to
cancel the event and notify participants of cancellation 30 minutes prior to the start of
the event
PROGRAM RESULTS
Overview
The results presented throughout this report are at the generation level and line losses of 7.6%
have been considered. Idaho Power called three load reduction events in 2023. The maximum
realization rate achieved during the season was 86% during the event on August 1st and the
average for all three events combined was 69%. The realization rate is the percentage of load
reduction achieved versus the amount of load reduction committed for an event. The highest
hourly load reduction achieved was 32.9 MW during the August 1st event.

3 Idaho Power Company, P.U.C. ORE. No. E-27, Schedule 76.
4 Idaho Power Company, I.P.U.C. No. 29, Tariff No. 101, Schedule 82.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company
2023 Flex Peak End-of-Season Report Page 3
Table 1. 2023 Event Summary Results
Curtailment
Event
Event
Timeframe
Nominated
Demand
Reduction (MW)
Average Demand
Reduction (MW)
Max Demand
Reduction
(MW)
Realization
Rate*
Aug 1 3-7 p.m. 38.1 32.6 32.9 86%
Aug 15 4-8 p.m. 37.6 20.4 21.2 54%
Aug 17 5-9 p.m. 37.6 25.0 26.3 66%
Average 37.8 26.0 28.8 69%
* Based on average reduction

Committed Load
Program participants are incented based on their committed load nomination and are expected
to meet this reduction whenever an event is called. Program participants are allowed to update
their nomination before each week of the season based on their facility needs and availability.
The program had a total committed load reduction of 31.4 MW in the first week of the program
season and increased to 37.0 MW by the final week of the season. The maximum available
capacity of the program came from a nominated amount in week nine at 38.8 MW.
The program encourages a diverse range of facility types to enroll, so participant loads range
from less than 20 kW to over 1 MW. In 2023, 108 customers participated across 271 sites.
These customers are broken down by nomination range in Figure 1.
Figure 1. 2021-2023 Program Participant Counts by Nomination Size

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company
Page 4 2023 Flex Peak End-of-Season Report
Meter Data
After an event, interval metering data provides Idaho Power the ability to view a history of each
participant’s load before, during, and after events. The metering data was used to calculate the
reduction achieved per site for each event, allowing Idaho Power to provide participants with a
report that showed their hourly baseline, actual usage, and reduction for each event.

Load Reduction Analysis
Participants are incented primarily based on how their actual usage during an event compares
to a calculated baseline usage. The baseline usage is calculated according to a specific
methodology detailed at the end of this report. The program measures its overall event
performance using the same participant-level baseline calculations, aggregated across all
participating sites.
The aggregated program actual and baseline loads during each event in 2023 are displayed in
Figure 2.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company
2023 Flex Peak End-of-Season Report Page 5
Figure 2. 2023 Event Day Actual and Baseline Loads

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company
Page 6 2023 Flex Peak End-of-Season Report
The total reduction achieved for the event is calculated as the difference be tween the total
baseline usage and total actual usage among program participants. Reductions may vary for
each hour of the event, so the program reports the average reduction across all event hours as
well as the maximum hourly reduction during the event. Curtailment tends to remain steady
through the duration of events (Figure 3).
Figure 3. 2023 Average and Maximum Reduction Achieved per Event (MW)

Realization Rate
The realization rate is the ratio of achieved reduction versus expected or nominated reduction.
The program-level realization rate in 2023 was 69%, with a peak realization rate of 86%
occurring on the August 1st event.
Figure 4 represents the realization rate achieved by each nomination group, averaged across all
three events. To calculate the results, each site’s average load reduction (across three events)
was divided by its average nomination across the three events and then grouped by size.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company
2023 Flex Peak End-of-Season Report Page 7
Figure 4. 2023 Average Realization Rate by Nomination Size Class

Table 2 shows the participant-level program realization rates for 2023 based on average
demand reduction per event. Participants are anonymous and presented in no specific order.
Note that some participants have multiple participating sites. Realization rates are capped at
120% in this calculation.

Table 2. 2023 Participant-Level Realization Rates by Event
Participant Number August 1 Event
Realization
August 15 Event
Realization
August 17 Event
Realization
1 2% 6% 0%
2 56% 0% 0%
3 68% 30% 83%
4 120% 113% 120%
5 28% 9% 0%
6 18% 63% 81%
7 52% 28% 55%
8 95% 9% 0%
9 14% 45% 0%
10 0% 120% 25%
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company
Page 8 2023 Flex Peak End-of-Season Report
11 39% 103% 42%
12 23% 14% 32%
13 120% 120% 120%
14 21% 4% 21%
15 11% 1% 0%
16 1% 1% 0%
17 6% 2% 4%
18 120% 120% 120%
19 49% 83% 94%
20 37% 0% 10%
21 39% 76% 98%
22 51% 41% 84%
23 10% 11% 9%
24 41% 99% 1%
25 119% 47% 19%
26 18% 19% 36%
27 107% 96% 44%
28 120% 120% 120%
29 4% N/A N/A
30 103% 34% 70%
31 13% 120% 78%
32 0% 6% 93%
33 120% 120% 120%
34 0% 0% 120%
35 120% 120% 0%
36 15% 1% 31%
37 50% 2% 45%
38 51% 26% 55%
39 20% 15% 45%
40 0% 56% 5%
41 12% 0% 0%
42 N/A N/A N/A
43 0% 0% 0%
44 120% 120% 120%
45 2% 0% 0%
46 35% 120% 22%
47 67% 41% 101%
48 3% 41% 16%
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company
2023 Flex Peak End-of-Season Report Page 9
49 60% 105% 105%
50 115% 66% 109%
51 120% 120% 120%
52 99% 0% 120%
53 120% 64% 101%
54 45% 44% 15%
55 120% 120% 120%
56 0% 0% 0%
57 85% 120% 94%
58 87% 120% 108%
59 1% 74% 16%
60 52% 18% 0%
61 N/A N/A N/A
62 12% 0% 64%
63 11% 0% 33%
64 4% 3% 73%
65 120% 120% 105%
66 67% 7% 0%
67 102% 0% 87%
68 0% 0% 0%
69 117% 89% 120%
70 24% 3% 34%
71 120% 5% 7%
72 32% 58% 75%
73 120% 120% 120%
74 1% 0% 0%
75 120% 28% 14%
76 74% 120% 24%
77 111% 84% 56%
78 97% 54% 0%
79 120% 0% 120%
80 27% 4% 0%
81 23% 0% 13%
82 120% 120% 120%
83 42% 120% 120%
84 69% 97% 68%
85 12% 32% 0%
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company
Page 10 2023 Flex Peak End-of-Season Report
86 95% 48% 11%
87 40% 56% 120%
88 95% 120% 120%
89 10% 1% 20%
90 0% 0% 0%
91 120% 120% 120%
92 2% 1% 4%
93 0% 0% 0%
94 120% 0% 120%
95 65% 2% 62%
96 11% 9% 11%
97 33% 31% 101%
98 120% 120% 120%
99 120% N/A N/A
100 94% 102% 77%
101 0% 29% 0%
102 34% 10% 6%
103 59% 113% 120%
104 53% 120% 104%
105 120% 98% 120%
106 0% 8% 18%
107 N/A N/A N/A
108 101% 120% 57%

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company
2023 Flex Peak End-of-Season Report Page 11
Flex Peak Load Reduction Calculation Definitions

1. Event Day:
The specific day a Flex Peak event is initiated.
2. Eligible Baseline Days:
The sequence of 10 weekdays immediately preceding the Event Day. This excludes holidays and
any days on which other Flex Peak events occur.
3. Eligible Event Hours:
The designated time window during which an event can be initiated, spanning from 3pm to
10pm, as stipulated by the current tariff.
4. Select Baseline Days:
Among the Eligible Baseline Days, these are the three days that register the highest total usage
within the Eligible Event Hours.
5. Unadjusted Baseline:
An average of the load, calculated hourly, derived from the three Select Baseline Days.
6. Adjustment Hour:
The specific hour earmarked for determining day-of adjustments. This is the hour immediately
preceding the hour that the participant received notice of the upcoming event .
7. Adjustment Ratio:
The ratio used to perform a Day-of Adjustment. Calculated individually for each participant and
Event Day. Defined as the Actual kW during the Adjustment Hour divided by the Unadjusted
Baseline kW during the Adjustment Hour.
8. Adjusted Baseline:
This is derived by multiplying the Unadjusted Baseline on the Event Day by the Adjustment
Ratio. This value is applied uniformly across all 24 hours of the Event Day.
9. Capped Baseline:
A modified version of the Adjusted Baseline where value for any hour cannot exceed the peak
observed Actual kW within the Select Baseline Days or within the hours on the Event Day prior
to notification.
10. Incented Reduction
The kW reduction that will be used to determine participant incentives, and for calculating
program load reductions. Calculated for each hour of an event as the Capped Baseline minus
Actual kW.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

2023 Irrigation Peak
Rewards Program Report

January 2024
© 2024 Idaho Power
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company 2023 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... i
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Appendices ............................................................................................................................ ii
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Program Description ....................................................................................................................... 1
Interruption Options ................................................................................................................. 1
Dispatch Groups ........................................................................................................................ 2
Load Reduction Analysis ................................................................................................................. 3
Meter Data ................................................................................................................................ 3
Season Peak Potential Reduction ............................................................................................. 3
Event Load Reduction ............................................................................................................... 4
Load Left On Analysis ................................................................................................................ 5
Load Reduction Results ............................................................................................................. 6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2023 Season Summary Results ......................................................................................... 1
Table 2. 2023 Enrolled MW and Participants by Participation Type .............................................. 2
Table 3. 2023 Enrolled MW and Participants by Dispatch Group .................................................. 2
Table 4. 2023 Season Peak Potential Reduction ............................................................................. 4
Table 5. 2023 Load Reduction by Event and Hour .......................................................................... 5
Table 6. 2023 Load Left On by Event .............................................................................................. 5
Table 7. 2023 Peak Potential Load Left On ..................................................................................... 6

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2023 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. 2023 Total Program Peak Daily Demand ......................................................................... 4
Figure 2. 2023 Actual Event Day Loads by Dispatch Group ............................................................ 7

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. The Demand Reduction Calculation Method
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company 2023 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
The Irrigation Peak Rewards Program (IPR) is a voluntary demand response program available to Idaho
Power’s agricultural irrigation customers since 2004. IPR pays irrigation customers a financial incentive
for the ability to turn off participating irrigation pumps on high energy use days. Idaho Power estimates
future capacity needs through the Integrated Resource Plan and then plans resources to mitigate
shortfalls. IPR is a result of this planning process and the success of the program is measured by the
amount of demand reduction available to Idaho Power during during periods of high energy demand or
for other system needs.
During the 2023 season (June 15 through September 15) events were called on seven different days
spanning a total of 39 hours. Table 1 summarizes the high level results from the season.
Table 1. 2023 Season Summary Results
Region # Enrolled
Sites
Total Enrolled
(MW)
Peak
Potential
Curtailment
(MW)
Peak Realized
Curtailment
(MW)
Idaho 2,380 366.3 246.4 183.5
Oregon 59 10.9 5.7 4.2
Total 2,439 377.2 252.1 187.7

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Interruption Options
IPR is available to all Idaho Power irrigation customers. There are two options for shut off: an automatic
dispatch option and a manual dispatch option. The program is limited to four hours per service location
from 3-10 p.m. (standard option) or for four hours during the period from 3-11 p.m. (extended option).
The program is limited to 16 hours per week and 60 hours per season.
Automatic Dispatch Option
The majority of pumps enrolled in the program participate via the automatic dispatch option, where the
shutoff signal is sent by Idaho Power at the start of an event and minimal engagement is required by the
participant. Sites that participate under this option are expected to reduce demand to zero for the
duration of an event. There are three ways a pump may participate automatically:
• Demand Response Unit (DRU). In this option, a DRU is physically installed on the pump and then
activated by sending a signal through the power line at the start of each demand response
event.
• Cellular Device (cell). In cases where a participant is unable to have a DRU installed, or has a
specific circumstance that would prevent a DRU from receiving a signal, a cell device is instead
installed to the pump.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2023 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 2
• No Device. In cases where a pump is downstream of another pump that has a DRU or cell
device, it would be redundant to attach another device, so these pumps may participate without
the installation of any additional program hardware.
Manual Dispatch Option
Under the manual dispatch option, participants manually control how their pumps are turned off during
a load control event. Manual participants are required to nominate a kW reduction at the beginning of
the season and are expected to meet that nomination when an event is called. Table 2 provides a
summary of participation type for the 2023 season.
Table 2. 2023 Enrolled MW and Participants by Participation Type
Dispatch Option Participation Type Total MW
Enrolled
# Enrolled Sites
Automatic Cell Device 6.3 34
Automatic DRU 301.4 2,290
Automatic No Device 3.6 81
Manual Manual Shutoff 65.9 34
Total 377.2 2,439

Dispatch Groups
Upon enrollment, a participant is placed into one of four dispatch groups: A, B, C or D. When an event is
called, a dispatch signal is sent to all participants of one or more dispatch groups. Event start times may
differ between groups.
Group D consists entirely of late shut-off participants. Most Manual Dispatch Option participants are
placed in dispatch group C. Otherwise, participants are placed into groups in a way that aims to balance
available load reduction. A small number of participants within group C are expected to manually shut
off one hour before the rest of the group (Group C1) or two hours before the rest of the group (Group
C2).
Table 3 displays the size and participant count of each dispatch group. Enrolled kW is displayed at the
meter level.
Table 3. 2023 Enrolled MW and Participants by Dispatch Group
Dispatch Group
Total MW
Enrolled # Enrolled Sites
A 97.5 773
B 87.9 536
C 95.8 339
D 96.1 791
Total 377.2 2,439
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company 2023 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 3
LOAD REDUCTION ANALYSIS
Meter Data
In 2023, 98.6% of the 2,439 service points enrolled in the IPR program had meters capable of
transmitting hourly meter reads. The remaining participants, lacking AMI data, are instead estimated
based on the usage patterns of similar pumps. This estimation factors in the expected rate of DRU
failure during an event.
Among service points that do have hourly read capabilities, it is rare but possible for errors to occur in
the hourly data. This may occur for a variety of reasons including high system noise or issues at a
substation. From June 15 to September 15 of the 2023 season, 99.3% of meter data among IPR
participants was successfully relayed and stored in the company database.
Missing observations were filled in using an interpolation approach if there was only one missing
observation. Otherwise, if a meter had multiple consecutive data points missing, data was filled in via
extrapolation approach, utilizing usage patterns of similar pumps.
Season Peak Potential Reduction
The Peak Potential Reduction is the theoretical load reduction that would have occurred if an all-group
event were called during the peak window of the season. This number takes into account the average
number of device failures, opt-outs, and small load left on determined from actual events (see Load Left
On Analysis, below). This analysis is used to report capacity of the program each year and for cost-
effectiveness reporting on the program.
The total enrolled load will always be higher than the actual season peak due to pumps operating on
different schedules. The Peak Day of the season is the day where the average usage among all program
participants between the hours of 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM is the highest. The realization rate (average
usage for all participants divided by total enrolled load) typically peaks in late June or early July and
fluctuates throughout the season, as demonstrated in Figure 1. In 2023, the peak occurred on July 6th
with a coincident load of 294.9 MW, equating to a realization rate of 78.1% of total enrolled load.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2023 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 4
Figure 1. 2023 Total Program Peak Daily Demand

The Peak Potential Reduction is calculated based on the season coincident peak. It is adjusted to
account for the load that will not be curtailed due to device failures, opt-outs, and small load left on. In
2023, these adjustments represented approximately 11.3% of the enrolled load, or 42.8 MW of load left
on. This equals a final Peak Potential Reduction of 252.1 MW for the 2023 season. Table 4 provides an
overview of key season numbers. Realization rate is based on percentage of total enrolled load.
Table 4. 2023 Season Peak Potential Reduction
Load Type Load Amount Realization Rate Description
Enrolled 377.2 MW 100.0% Combined Load of all enrolled pumps
Season Peak 294.9 MW 78.1% Maximum program coincident peak on July 6th, 2023
Peak Potential Reduction 252.1 MW 66.8% Season peak minus predicted load left on

Event Load Reduction
Calculating the performance of the program requires a comparison between usage before the event
(baseline usage) and usage during the event. See Appendix 1 for the definition of terms and the demand
reduction calculation method. Baseline usage represents the amount of demand that would have
needed to be served in absence of a demand response event. The baseline is calculated using the
average of the first four hours of the five hours before the dispatch group start time. The difference
between the baseline usage and actual load left on during an event represents the realized, actual load
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company 2023 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 5
reduction. Table 5 displays the load reduction results for each event day. The load reduction at
generation level includes a 7.6 percent line loss.
Table 5. 2023 Load Reduction by Event and Hour
Event Date Groups
Hourly Load Reduction (MW)
3–4 p.m. 4–5 p.m. 5–6 p.m. 6–7 p.m. 7–8 p.m. 8–9 p.m. 9–10 p.m.
7/6/2023 A - - - 54.4 53.3 52.7 52.0
7/21/2023 B,C 54.3 59.5 75.4 114.3 59.2 55.1 40.4
7/22/2023 D - - - 46.8 53.4 53.1 51.9
8/1/2023 A,B,C,D 33.1 100.9 143.0 187.7 152.6 86.8 44.9
8/15/2023 A,C 2.6 17.4 85.2 86.1 81.9 67.8 -
8/16/2023 B,D - 42.0 91.2 91.7 91.8 46.1 -
8/17/2023 A,B,C,D - 89.1 127.2 169.3 168.5 79.0 42.0

Load Left On Analysis
Load can be left on during an event for several reasons:
• Device failure. This can occur when a load-controlling device is not functioning properly or
otherwise fails to receive the curtailment signal at the start of the event.
• Opt Outs. Participants may choose to opt out of events, however they will receive a reduction to
their incentive for doing so. Idaho Power monitors the frequency of these opt outs.
• Small Load Left On. Some participants also have small non-pump loads connected to their meter
such as pivots, control panel load from cooling fans or other electronic controls, lights, or
electric fences that are left on during an event.
Table 6 presents a breakdown of the load left on for each event this season. Load is presented as a
percentage of enrolled MW that was left on by each failure type. For example, in the July 6th event,
approximately 12.4 MW of load was left on due to DRU failure, out of an expected dispatched load of
89.9 MW, resulting in a device failure rate of 13.8%. Manual dispatch participants do not have DRUs and
are not obligated to reduce load to zero, so they are excluded from this portion of the analysis.
Table 6. 2023 Load Left On by Event
Event Date Device Failure Opt Out Small Load Left
On Total Left On Average MW On
During the Event
6-Jul 13.8% 5.9% 1.9% 21.6% 18.1
21-Jul 5.5% 1.6% 1.5% 8.6% 9.4
22-Jul 5.7% 2.0% 2.9% 10.7% 9.7
1-Aug 4.4% 0.6% 1.1% 6.0% 17.3
15-Aug 4.4% 0.2% 1.6% 6.3% 6.9
16-Aug 3.2% 0.6% 1.4% 5.2% 8.8
17-Aug 4.0% 1.5% 1.1% 6.7% 18.9
Percentages are based on load left on during event compared to total nominated MW.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2023 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 6
Table 7 presents the Load Left On rates used in calculating the season peak potential. These percentages
represent the expected load that would be left on during a peak-hour event with all dispatch groups
called. The results are based on averages of events called in the 2023 season, weighted by dispatch
group.
Table 7. 2023 Peak Potential Load Left On
Load Left On Type Percentage Peak MW Left On
Device Failures 5.9% 22.2 MW
Opt Out 1.5% 5.5 MW
Small Load Left On 1.7% 6.4 MW
Manual Load Left On 2.3% 8.7 MW
Total 11.3% 42.8 MW

Load Reduction Results
The bar charts in Figure 2 show actual event day loads by dispatch group for the hours leading up to,
during, and after the event. A reduction in demand during the active event period is clearly shown on
the charts. On days when multiple dispatch groups were called, a gradual drop and subsequent rise in
system load is reflected, due to the staggered start/end times for the groups participating. Maximum
demand reduction occurred toward the middle of the event, when all groups were shut down; small
system load shown during the maximum reduction period is attributed to device failures, opt-outs, and
small load left on on during the event. Note that the Y axes are individudually scaled for each event to
improve visual clarity.

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company 2023 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 7
Figure 2. 2023 Event Day Loads by Dispatch Group

RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2023 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 8

Appendix 1. The Demand Reduction Calculation Method
Abbreviations
ADO—Automatic Dispatch Option
AEL—Average Event Load
AMI—Automated Metering Infrastructure
BL—Baseline Load (Baseline Usage)
DR—Demand Reduction
MDO—Manual Dispatch Option
MV-90—Specific Meter Package with Interval Data
Σ—Sum
Automatic Dispatch Option
Load reduction for each event was calculated using hourly data for each pump using the four hours of
each curtailment event was calculated as follows:
DRpump = BLpump – AELpump

The load reduction for all pumps within a dispatch group is the total hourly reduction for each group as
calculated below:
DRgroup = Σ DRpump (groups 1-4) +DR(groups)
DRnominated (groups)
∗Nominated DRpumps with errors

Load reduction for the automatic dispatch option was calculated as follows:
DRADO = Σ DRgroup
Manual Dispatch Option
Data utilized for manual dispatch option participants is AMI hourly usage, MV-90 interval data or data
logger interval metering data.
Load reduction for manual dispatch option was calculated as follows:
DRgroup = Σ DRpump AMI + Σ DRpump MV-90 +DR(groups)
DRnominated (groups)
∗Nominated DR pumps with errors

The total demand reduction for the Manual Dispatch Option was calculated as follows:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company 2023 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 9
DRMDO = Σ DRgroup
The total IPR load reduction was calculated by summing the calculated reduction for the Automatic
Dispatch Option sites and the Manual Dispatch Option sites:
Total Program DR = DRMDO + DRGroup
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Historical DSM Expense and Performance
2002–2023
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 1
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Demand Response
A/C Cool Credit
2003 ����������������������204 $275,645 $275,645 0�0
2004 ����������������������420 287,253 287,253 0�5
2005 ����������������������2,369 754,062 754,062 3
2006 ����������������������5,369 1,235,476 1,235,476 6
2007 ����������������������13,692 2,426,154 2,426,154 12
2008 ����������������������20,195 2,969,377 2,969,377 26
2009 ����������������������30,391 3,451,988 3,451,988 39
2010 ����������������������30,803 2,002,546 2,002,546 39
2011 ����������������������37,728 2,896,542 2,896,542 24
2012 ����������������������36,454 5,727,994 5,727,994 45
2013 ����������������������n/a 663,858 663,858 n/a
2014 ����������������������29,642 1,465,646 1,465,646 44
2015 ����������������������29,000 1,148,935 1,148,935 36
2016 ����������������������28,315 1,103,295 1,103,295 34
2017 ����������������������28,214 936,272 936,272 29
2018 ����������������������26,182 844,369 844,369 29
2019 ����������������������23,802 877,665 877,665 24
2020 ����������������������22,536 765,020 765,020 19
2021 ����������������������20,846 751,989 751,989 27
2022 ����������������������19,127 829,771 829,771 20
2023 ����������������������18,714 1,987,623 1,987,623 20
Total���������������������������$33,401,480 $33,401,480
Flex Peak Program
2009 ����������������������33 528,681 528,681 19
2010 ����������������������60 1,902,680 1,902,680 48
2011 ����������������������111 2,057,730 2,057,730 59
2012 ����������������������102 3,009,822 3,009,822 53
2013 ����������������������100 2,743,615 2,743,615 48
2014 ����������������������93 1,563,211 1,563,211 40
2015 ����������������������72 592,872 592,872 26
2016 ����������������������137 767,997 767,997 42
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2017 ����������������������141 658,156 658,156 36
2018 ����������������������140 433,313 433,313 33
2019 ����������������������145 626,823 626,823 31
2020 ����������������������141 542,480 542,480 24
2021 ����������������������139 501,973 501,973 31
2022 ����������������������159 519,618 519,618 25
2023 ����������������������271 1,076,149 1,076,149 33
Total���������������������������$17,525,118 $17,525,118
Irrigation Peak Rewards
2004 ����������������������58 344,714 344,714 6
2005 ����������������������894 1,468,282 1,468,282 40
2006 ����������������������906 1,324,418 1,324,418 32
2007 ����������������������947 1,615,881 1,615,881 37
2008 ����������������������897 1,431,840 1,431,840 35
2009 ����������������������1,512 9,655,283 9,655,283 160
2010 ����������������������2,038 13,330,826 13,330,826 250
2011 ����������������������2,342 12,086,222 12,086,222 320
2012 ����������������������2,433 12,423,364 12,423,364 340
2013 ����������������������n/a 2,072,107 2,072,107 n/a
2014 ����������������������2,225 7,597,213 7,597,213 295
2015 ����������������������2,259 7,258,831 7,258,831 305
2016 ����������������������2,286 7,600,076 7,600,076 303
2017 ����������������������2,307 7,223,101 7,223,101 318
2018 ����������������������2,335 6,891,737 6,891,737 297
2019 ����������������������2,332 6,771,708 6,771,708 278
2020 ����������������������2,292 6,407,412 6,407,412 292
2021 ����������������������2,235 7,013,315 7,013,315 255
2022 ����������������������2,142 8,503,140 8,503,140 155
2023 ����������������������2,439 8,299,830 8,299,830 188
Total���������������������������$129,319,300 $129,319,300
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 3
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Residential Efficiency
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot
2009 ����������������������96 202,005 451,605 409,180 18 0�031 0�086
2010 ����������������������104 189,231 439,559 364,000 20 0�044 0�103
2011 ����������������������131 191,183 550,033 458,500 20 0�028 0�081
2012 ����������������������127 159,867 617,833 444,500 20 0�024 0�094
2013 ����������������������215 237,575 992,440 589,142 15 0�032 0�132
2014 ����������������������179 251,446 884,211 462,747 15 0�042 0�148
Total���������������������������852 $1,231,307 $3,935,681 2,728,069 15 $0.044 $0.138
Easy Savings : Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education
2015 ����������������������2,068 127,477 127,477 624,536 10 0�021 0�021
2016 ����������������������2,001 127,587 127,587 402,961 9 0�035 0�035
2017 ����������������������2,470 149,813 149,813 280,049 8 0�064 0�064
2018 ����������������������282 147,936 147,936 29,610 3 1�370 1�370
2019 ����������������������430 145,494 145,494 45,150 3 0�885 0�885
2020 ����������������������155 9,503 9,503 10,628 3 0�299 0�299
2021 ����������������������0 145,827 145,827 0 3 n/a n/a
2022 ����������������������267 152,718 152,718 22,755 5 1�448 1�448
2023 ����������������������99 146,232 146,232 46,109 3 1�068 1�068
Total���������������������������7,772 $1,152,586 $1,152,586 1,461,798 9 $0.107 $0.107
Educational Distributions
2015 ����������������������28,197 432,185 432,185 1,669,495 10 0�026 0�026
2016 ����������������������67,065 2,392,884 2,392,884 15,149,605 10 0�016 0�016
2017 ����������������������84,399 3,466,027 3,466,027 21,187,261 11 0�016 0�016
2018 ����������������������94,717 3,180,380 3,180,380 16,051,888 11 0�019 0�019
2019 ����������������������95,528 2,880,467 2,880,467 10,805,474 11 0�025 0�025
2020 ����������������������97,228 3,106,820 3,106,820 9,481,801 11 0�038 0�038
2021 ����������������������47,027 449,790 449,790 2,931,280 10 0�019 0�019
2022 ����������������������49,136 1,086,813 1,086,813 3,741,954 10 0�037 0�037
2023 ����������������������53,028 902,288 902,288 3,960,690 8 0�034 0�034
Total���������������������������616,325 $17,897,653 $17,897,653 84,979,448 11 $0.025 $0.025
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Energy Efficiency Packets
2002 ����������������������2,925 755 755 155,757 7 0�001 0�001
Total���������������������������2,925 $755 $755 155,757 7 $0.001 $0.001
Energy Efficient Lighting
2002 ����������������������11,618 243,033 310,643 3,299,654 7 0�012 0�015
2003 ����������������������12,662 314,641 464,059 3,596,150 7 0�014 0�021
2004 ����������������������n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
2005 ����������������������43,760 73,152 107,810 1,734,646 7 0�007 0�010
2006 ����������������������178,514 298,754 539,877 6,302,794 7 0�008 0�014
2007 ����������������������219,739 557,646 433,626 7,207,439 7 0�012 0�017
2008 ����������������������436,234 1,018,292 793,265 14,309,444 7 0�011 0�013
2009 ����������������������549,846 1,207,366 1,456,796 13,410,748 5 0�020 0�024
2010 ����������������������1,190,139 2,501,278 3,976,476 28,082,738 5 0�020 0�031
2011 ����������������������1,039,755 1,719,133 2,764,623 19,694,381 5 0�015 0�024
2012 ����������������������925,460 1,126,836 2,407,355 16,708,659 5 0�012 0�025
2013 ����������������������1,085,225 1,356,926 4,889,501 9,995,753 8 0�016 0�058
2014 ����������������������1,161,553 1,909,823 7,148,427 12,882,151 8 0�018 0�066
2015 ����������������������1,343,255 2,063,383 4,428,676 15,876,117 10 0�013 0�028
2016 ����������������������1,442,561 3,080,708 10,770,703 21,093,813 11 0�014 0�049
2017 ����������������������1,766,758 4,872,888 11,078,990 37,765,190 12 0�012 0�026
2018 ����������������������1,340,842 2,435,130 3,277,039 18,856,933 14 0�011 0�014
2019 ����������������������1,336,440 2,126,262 2,782,039 16,245,551 14 0�011 0�014
2020 ����������������������1,148,061 1,667,159 3,065,781 13,942,202 14 0�012 0�022
2021 ����������������������0 43,631 43,631 0 14 n/a n/a
2022 ����������������������370,739 534,982 714,445 1,728,352 15 0�030 0�040
2023 ����������������������184,950 294,197 402,523 883,491 15 0�032 0�044
Total���������������������������15,788,111 $29,445,219 $61,856,285 263,616,205 9 $0.015 $0.032
Energy House Calls
2002 ����������������������17 26,053 26,053 25,989 20 0�082 0�082
2003 ����������������������420 167,076 167,076 602,723 20 0�023 0�023
2004 ����������������������1,708 725,981 725,981 2,349,783 20 0�025 0�025
2005 ����������������������891 375,610 375,610 1,775,770 20 0�017 0�017
2006 ����������������������819 336,701 336,701 777,244 20 0�035 0�035
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 5
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2007 ����������������������700 336,372 336,372 699,899 20 0�039 0�039
2008 ����������������������1,099 484,379 484,379 883,038 20 0�045 0�045
2009 ����������������������1,266 569,594 569,594 928,875 20 0�052 0�052
2010 ����������������������1,602 762,330 762,330 1,198,655 20 0�054 0�054
2011 ����������������������881 483,375 483,375 1,214,004 20 0�027 0�027
2012 ����������������������668 275,884 275,884 1,192,039 18 0�016 0�016
2013 ����������������������411 199,995 199,995 837,261 18 0�016 0�016
2014 ����������������������297 197,987 197,987 579,126 18 0�029 0�029
2015 ����������������������362 214,103 214,103 754,646 18 0�020 0�020
2016 ����������������������375 206,437 206,437 509,859 18 0�029 0�029
2017 ����������������������335 183,035 183,035 428,819 16 0�032 0�032
2018 ����������������������280 160,777 160,777 374,484 16 0�032 0�032
2019 ����������������������248 161,894 161,894 309,154 16 0�039 0�039
2020 ����������������������51 46,352 46,352 56,944 16 0�075 0�075
2021 ����������������������11 18,257 18,257 14,985 18 0�105 0�105
2022 ����������������������52 38,163 38,163 54,516 18 0�062 0�062
Total���������������������������12,493 $5,970,354 $5,970,354 15,567,813 19 $0.033 $0.033
ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest (gas heated)
2014 ���������������������� 282 195,372 22
2015 ���������������������� 69 46,872 22
Total���������������������������351 $0 $0 242,244 22
Fridge and Freezer Recycling Program
2009 ����������������������1,661 305,401 305,401 1,132,802 8 0�041 0�041
2010 ����������������������3,152 565,079 565,079 1,567,736 8 0�054 0�054
2011 ����������������������3,449 654,393 654,393 1,712,423 8 0�046 0�046
2012 ����������������������3,176 613,146 613,146 1,576,426 8 0�046 0�046
2013 ����������������������3,307 589,054 589,054 1,442,344 8 0�061 0�061
2014 ����������������������3,194 576,051 576,051 1,390,760 6 0�062 0�062
2015 ����������������������1,630 227,179 227,179 720,208 6 0�048 0�048
2016 ����������������������1,539 257,916 257,916 632,186 6 0�062 0�062
2017 ����������������������2,031 265,942 265,942 498,513 6 0�080 0�080
2018 ����������������������304 33,907 33,907 73,602 7 0�061 0�061
Total���������������������������23,443 $4,088,069 $4,088,069 10,747,000 7 $0.062 $0.062
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
2006 ����������������������17,444 17,444
2007 ���������������������� 4 488,211 494,989 1,595 18 27�344 27�710
2008 ���������������������� 359 473,551 599,771 561,440 18 0�073 0�092
2009 ���������������������� 349 478,373 764,671 1,274,829 18 0�034 0�054
2010 ���������������������� 217 327,669 1,073,604 1,104,497 20 0�025 0�083
2011 ����������������������130 195,770 614,523 733,405 20 0�018 0�056
2012 ����������������������141 182,281 676,530 688,855 20 0�018 0�066
2013 ����������������������210 329,674 741,586 1,003,730 20 0�022 0�050
2014 ����������������������230 362,014 1,247,560 1,099,464 20 0�022 0�075
2015 ����������������������427 626,369 2,064,055 1,502,172 20 0�028 0�092
2016 ����������������������483 594,913 1,404,625 1,113,574 20 0�040 0�040
2017 ����������������������654 597,198 1,433,357 1,138,744 15 0�041 0�099
2018 ����������������������712 585,211 1,686,618 1,556,065 15 0�029 0�085
2019 ����������������������681 499,179 1,512,183 1,412,183 15 0�028 0�084
2020 ����������������������1,019 606,559 1,911,792 1,839,068 14 0�033 0�103
2021 ����������������������1,048 635,182 2,223,826 1,365,825 15 0�044 0�157
2022 ����������������������1,080 666,016 2,414,026 1,310,260 15 0�050 0�180
2023 ����������������������1,035 624,047 1,987,191 1,040,069 16 0�056 0�180
Total���������������������������8,779 $8,289,662 $22,868,350 18,745,936 17 $0.040 $0.111
Home Energy Audits
2013 ����������������������88,740 88,740
2014 ����������������������354 170,648 170,648 141,077 10 0�150 0�150
2015 ����������������������251 201,957 226,806 136,002 10 0�184 0�184
2016 ����������������������539 289,812 289,812 207,249 11 0�163 0�163
2017 ����������������������524 282,809 353,385 175,010 12 0�146 0�182
2018 ����������������������466 264,394 321,978 211,003 12 0�113 0�137
2019 ����������������������421 230,786 282,215 179,754 11 0�122 0�150
2020 ����������������������97 130,546 142,649 31,938 12 0�448 0�490
2021 ����������������������37 70,448 75,461 3,768 11 2�173 2�328
2022 ����������������������425 184,858 239,783 28,350 11 0�771 1�000
2023 ����������������������337 230,011 274,124 11,329 13 2�156 2�570
Total���������������������������3,451 $2,145,129 $2,465,721 1,125,480 11 $0.225 $0.259
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 7
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Home Energy Reports Program
2018 ����������������������23,914 194,812 194,812 3,281,780 1 0�046 0�046
2019 ����������������������24,976 200,406 200,406 8,444,746 1 0�018 0�018
2020 ����������������������127,138 899,203 899,203 10,427,940 1 0�081 0�081
2021 ����������������������115,153 970,197 970,197 15,929,074 1 0�057 0�057
2022 ����������������������104,826 964,791 964,791 20,643,379 1 0�044 0�044
2023 ����������������������96,901 883,505 883,505 17,659,087 1 0�047 0�047
Total���������������������������493,993 $4,112,913 $4,112,913 76,386,005 1 $0.051 $0.051
Home Improvement Program
2008 ����������������������282 123,454 157,866 317,814 25 0�029 0�037
2009 ����������������������1,188 321,140 550,148 1,338,876 25 0�019 0�032
2010 ����������������������3,537 944,716 2,112,737 3,986,199 45 0�016 0�035
2011 ����������������������2,275 666,041 2,704,816 917,519 45 0�038 0�155
2012 ����������������������840 385,091 812,827 457,353 45 0�044 0�093
2013 ����������������������365 299,497 1,061,314 616,044 45 0�025 0�090
2014 ����������������������555 324,717 896,246 838,929 45 0�020 0�055
2015 ����������������������408 272,509 893,731 303,580 45 0�046 0�152
2016 ����������������������482 324,024 1,685,301 500,280 45 0�034 0�177
2017 ����������������������355 166,830 1,345,002 415,824 45 0�021 0�167
2018 ����������������������2,926 2,926
Total���������������������������10,287 $3,830,946 $12,222,915 9,692,418 42 $0.026 $0.084
Multifamily Energy Savings Program
2016 ����������������������196 59,046 59,046 149,760 10 0�040 0�040
2017 ����������������������683 168,216 168,216 617,542 11 0�026 0�026
2018 ����������������������764 205,131 205,131 655,953 11 0�030 0�030
2019 ����������������������457 131,306 131,306 346,107 11 0�036 0�036
2020 ����������������������33 89,829 89,829 28,041 11 0�372 0�372
2021 ����������������������0 68,973 68,973 0 11 n/a n/a
2022 ����������������������97 34,181 34,181 41,959 11 0�096 0�096
Total���������������������������2,230 $756,682 $756,682 1,839,363 11 $0.049 $0.049
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program
2023 ����������������������0 23,974 23,974 0 11 n/a n/a
Total���������������������������0 $23,974 $23,974 0 n/a $n/a $n/a
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page 8 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Oregon Residential Weatherization
2002 ����������������������24 -662 23,971 4,580 25 0�010 0�389
2003 ����������������������-943
2004 ����������������������4 1,057 1,057
2005 ����������������������4 612 3,608 7,927 25 0�006 0�034
2006 ����������������������4,126 4,126
2007 ����������������������1 3,781 5,589 9,971 25 0�028 0�042
2008 ����������������������3 7,417 28,752 22,196 25 0�025 0�096
2009 ����������������������1 7,645 8,410 2,907 25 0�203 0�223
2010 ����������������������1 6,050 6,275 320 30 0�011 0�062
2011 ����������������������8 7,926 10,208 21,908 30 0�021 0�027
2012 ����������������������5 4,516 11,657 11,985 30 0�022 0�056
2013 ����������������������14 9,017 14,369 14,907 30 0�035 0�055
2014 ����������������������13 5,462 9,723 11,032 30 0�028 0�050
2015 ����������������������4 5,808 10,388 11,910 30 0�028 0�050
2016 ����������������������7 3,930 5,900 2,847 30 0�079 0�118
2017 ����������������������7 2,384 3,755 2,154 30 0�063 0�099
2018 ����������������������5 5,507 5,507
2019 ����������������������8 5,982 14,432 2,069 45 0�149 0�360
2020 ����������������������0 5,313 5,313 0 45 n/a n/a
2021 ����������������������0 4,595 4,595 0 45 n/a n/a
2022 ����������������������7 8,825 8,825 0 45 n/a n/a
2023 ����������������������3 7,860 7,860 0 45 n/a n/a
Total���������������������������119 $106,208 $194,320 126,713 28 $0.062 $0.113
Rebate Advantage
2003 ����������������������73 27,372 79,399 227,434 45 0�008 0�022
2004 ����������������������105 52,187 178,712 332,587 45 0�010 0�034
2005 ����������������������98 46,173 158,462 312,311 45 0�009 0�032
2006 ����������������������102 52,673 140,289 333,494 45 0�010 0�027
2007 ����������������������123 89,269 182,152 554,018 45 0�010 0�021
2008 ����������������������107 90,888 179,868 463,401 45 0�012 0�025
2009 ����������������������57 49,525 93,073 247,348 25 0�015 0�029
2010 ����������������������35 39,402 66,142 164,894 25 0�018 0�031
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 9
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2011 ����������������������25 63,469 85,044 159,325 25 0�024 0�033
2012 ����������������������35 37,241 71,911 187,108 25 0�012 0�024
2013 ����������������������42 60,770 92,690 269,891 25 0�014 0�021
2014 ����������������������44 63,231 89,699 269,643 25 0�014 0�020
2015 ����������������������58 85,438 117,322 358,683 25 0�014 0�020
2016 ����������������������66 111,050 148,142 411,272 25 0�016 0�022
2017 ����������������������66 104,996 229,104 214,479 45 0�025 0�055
2018 ����������������������107 147,483 355,115 284,559 45 0�027 0�064
2019 ����������������������109 156,748 355,897 353,615 44 0�023 0�052
2020 ����������������������116 180,422 437,263 366,678 44 0�031 0�075
2021 ����������������������88 173,193 309,790 235,004 45 0�046 0�083
2022 ����������������������97 167,622 402,649 255,541 44 0�043 0�104
2023 ����������������������79 137,100 159,600 214,236 44 0�042 0�49
Total���������������������������1,632 $1,936,254 $3,949,723 6,215,520 39 $0.021 $0.043
Residential New Construction Program (ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest)
2003 ����������������������13,597 13,597 0
2004 ����������������������44 140,165 335,437 101,200 25 0�103 0�246
2005 ����������������������200 253,105 315,311 415,600 25 0�045 0�056
2006 ����������������������439 469,609 602,651 912,242 25 0�038 0�049
2007 ����������������������303 475,044 400,637 629,634 25 0�056 0�047
2008 ����������������������254 302,061 375,007 468,958 25 0�048 0�059
2009 ����������������������474 355,623 498,622 705,784 25 0�039 0�055
2010 ����������������������630 375,605 579,495 883,260 25 0�033 0�051
2011 ����������������������308 259,762 651,249 728,030 32 0�020 0�051
2012 ����������������������410 453,186 871,310 537,447 35 0�046 0�089
2013 ����������������������267 352,882 697,682 365,370 36 0�053 0�104
2014 ����������������������243 343,277 689,021 332,682 36 0�057 0�114
2015 ����������������������598 653,674 1,412,126 773,812 36 0�046 0�099
2016 ����������������������110 142,158 297,518 150,282 36 0�051 0�107
2017 ����������������������277 323,520 603,420 608,292 45 0�029 0�054
2018 ����������������������307 400,912 926,958 777,369 36 0�028 0�064
2019 ����������������������322 534,118 1,411,391 774,597 54 0�035 0�092
2020 ����������������������248 473,504 865,989 649,522 58 0�044 0�081
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page 10 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2021 ����������������������90 247,600 524,876 389,748 61 0�039 0�082
2022 ����������������������109 235,732 578,922 337,562 58 0�045 0�110
2023 ����������������������64 195,296 241,468 234,945 58 0�053 0�066
Total���������������������������5,697 $7,000,429 $12,892,688 10,776,335 37 $0.044 $0.081
Shade Tree Project
2014 ����������������������2,041 147,290 147,290
2015 ����������������������1,925 105,392 105,392
2016 ����������������������2,070 76,642 76,642
2017 ����������������������2,711 195,817 195,817
2018 ����������������������2,093 162,995 162,995 35,571 20 0�307 0�307
2019 ����������������������2,063 147,750 147,750 35,727 30 0�235 0�235
2020 ����������������������0 28,490 28,490 52,662 30 0�038 0�038
2021 ����������������������2,970 184,680 184,680 44,173 40 0�269 0�269
2022 ����������������������1,874 128,856 128,856 39,595 40 0�218 0�218
2023 ����������������������2,462 262,344 262,344 11,199 40 1�571 1�571
Total���������������������������20,209 $1,440,256 $1,440,256 218,927 33 $0.461 $0.461
Simple Steps, Smart Savings
2007 ����������������������9,275 9,275 0
2008 ����������������������3,034 250,860 468,056 541,615 15 0�044 0�082
2009 ����������������������9,499 511,313 844,811 1,638,038 15 0�031 0�051
2010 ����������������������16,322 832,161 1,025,151 1,443,580 15 0�057 0�070
2011 ����������������������15,896 638,323 1,520,977 1,485,326 15 0�034 0�080
2012 ����������������������16,675 659,032 817,924 887,222 14 0�061 0�075
2013 ����������������������13,792 405,515 702,536 885,980 12 0�041 0�071
2014 ����������������������10,061 227,176 302,289 652,129 12 0�031 0�041
2015 ����������������������9,343 139,096 397,898 770,822 10 0�018 0�053
2016 ����������������������7,880 153,784 379,752 577,320 11 0�025 0�063
2017 ����������������������12,556 191,621 484,380 900,171 11 0�020 0�051
2018 ����������������������7,377 90,484 133,101 241,215 12 0�034 0�050
2019 ����������������������5,729 90,499 123,541 271,452 11 0�032 0�043
2020 ����������������������6,894 99,141 98,629 148,404 12 0�073 0�073
Total���������������������������135,058 $4,298,280 $7,308,320 10,443,274 13 $0.044 $0.074
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 11
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
2008 ����������������������16 52,807 52,807 71,680 25 0�057 0�057
2009 ����������������������41 162,995 162,995 211,719 25 0�059 0�059
2010 ����������������������47 228,425 228,425 313,309 25 0�056 0�056
2011 ����������������������117 788,148 788,148 1,141,194 25 0�042 0�042
2012 ����������������������141 1,070,556 1,070,556 257,466 25 0�254 0�254
2013 ����������������������166 1,267,791 1,267,791 303,116 25 0�240 0�240
2014 ����������������������118 791,344 791,344 290,926 25 0�163 0�163
2015 ����������������������171 1,243,269 1,243,269 432,958 25 0�175 0�175
2016 ����������������������147 1,323,793 1,323,793 621,653 25 0�130 0�130
2017 ����������������������164 1,108,862 1,121,071 604,733 23 0�115 0�117
2018 ����������������������141 1,022,471 1,022,471 571,741 23 0�112 0�112
2019 ����������������������129 957,626 957,626 504,988 23 0�119 0�119
2020 ����������������������27 208,715 208,715 47,360 23 0�338 0�338
2021 ����������������������7 57,656 57,656 12,591 30 0�317 0�317
2022 ����������������������27 205,788 205,788 48,233 30 0�307 0�307
2023 ����������������������12 87,719 87,719 18,184 30 0�347 0�347
Total���������������������������1,471 $10,577,964 $10,590,174 5,451,851 24 $0.151 $0.151
Window AC Trade Up Pilot
2003 ����������������������99 6,687 10,492 14,454 12 0�051 0�079
Total���������������������������99 $6,687 $10,492 14,454 12 $0.052 $0.081
Residential—Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC)
WAQC—Idaho
2002 ����������������������197 235,048 492,139
2003 ����������������������208 228,134 483,369
2004 ����������������������269 498,474 859,482 1,271,677 25 0�029 0�050
2005 ����������������������570 1,402,487 1,927,424 3,179,311 25 0�033 0�045
2006 ����������������������540 1,455,373 2,231,086 2,958,024 25 0�037 0�056
2007 ����������������������397 1,292,930 1,757,105 3,296,019 25 0�029 0�040
2008 ����������������������439 1,375,632 1,755,749 4,064,301 25 0�025 0�032
2009 ����������������������427 1,260,922 1,937,578 4,563,832 25 0�021 0�033
2010 ����������������������373 1,205,446 2,782,597 3,452,025 25 0�026 0�060
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page 12 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2011 ����������������������273 1,278,112 1,861,836 2,648,676 25 0�036 0�052
2012 ����������������������228 1,321,927 1,743,863 621,464 25 0�157 0�208
2013 ����������������������245 1,336,742 1,984,173 657,580 25 0�150 0�223
2014 ����������������������244 1,267,212 1,902,615 509,620 25 0�184 0�276
2015 ����������������������233 1,278,159 2,072,901 529,426 25 0�179 0�290
2016 ����������������������234 1,254,338 1,870,481 722,430 25 0�129 0�192
2017 ����������������������196 1,269,507 1,721,632 654,464 30 0�134 0�182
2018 ����������������������190 1,254,630 1,795,301 641,619 30 0�136 0�194
2019 ����������������������193 1,264,767 1,890,584 639,880 30 0�137 0�205
2020 ����������������������115 1,361,163 1,703,879 218,611 30 0�432 0�540
2021 ����������������������161 1,177,366 1,668,566 289,353 30 0�253 0�371
2022 ����������������������147 1,277,717 2,024,735 272,647 30 0�338 0�535
2023 ����������������������162 1,216,848 1,924,928 305,675 30 0�289 0�455
Total���������������������������6,041 $25,512,934 $38,392,023 31,496,635 25 $0.062 $0.093
WAQC—Oregon
2002 ����������������������31 24,773 47,221 68,323 25 0�027 0�051
2003 ����������������������29 22,255 42,335 102,643 25 0�016 0�031
2004 ����������������������17 13,469 25,452 28,436 25 0�035 0�067
2005 ����������������������28 44,348 59,443 94,279 25 0�035 0�047
2006 ����������������������25
2007 ����������������������11 30,694 41,700 42,108 25 0�054 0�074
2008 ����������������������14 43,843 74,048 73,841 25 0�040 0�068
2009 ����������������������10 33,940 46,513 114,982 25 0�023 0�031
2010 ����������������������27 115,686 147,712 289,627 25 0�030 0�038
2011 ����������������������14 46,303 63,981 134,972 25 0�025 0�035
2012 ����������������������10 48,214 76,083 26,840 25 0�133 0�210
2013 ����������������������9 54,935 67,847 24,156 25 0�168 0�208
2014 ����������������������11 52,900 94,493 24,180 25 0�162 0�289
2015 ����������������������10 36,873 46,900 20,595 25 0�133 0�169
2016 ����������������������12 35,471 63,934 23,732 25 0�111 0�199
2017 ����������������������7 37,978 61,052 15,074 30 0�175 0�281
2018 ����������������������3 18,344 24,191 7,886 30 0�161 0�213
2019 ����������������������4 38,960 62,905 9,419 30 0�287 0�463
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 13
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2020 ����������������������0 24,414 24,414 0 30 n/a n/a
2021 ����������������������1 9,473 21,586 1,752 30 0�375 0�854
2022 ����������������������0 3,778 3,778 0 30 n/a n/a
2023 ����������������������5 100,194 190,341 8,585 30 0�839 1�594
Total���������������������������253 $836,843 $1,285,928 1,111,430 25 $0.058 $0.088
WAQC—BPA Supplemental
2002 ����������������������75 55,966 118,255 311,347 25 0�013 0�028
2003 ����������������������57 49,895 106,915 223,591 25 0�017 0�036
2004 ����������������������40 69,409 105,021 125,919 25 0�041 0�062
Total���������������������������172 $175,270 $330,191 660,857 25 $0.020 $0.037
WAQC Total ���������������6,466 $26,525,047 $40,008,142 33,268,922 25 $0.061 $0.092
Commercial
Air Care Plus Pilot
2003 ����������������������4 5,764 9,061 33,976 10 0�021 0�033
2004 ����������������������344 344
Total���������������������������4 $6,108 $9,405 33,976 10 $0.023 $0.035
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits (Commercial Education Initiative)
2005 ����������������������3,497 3,497
2006 ����������������������4,663 4,663
2007 ����������������������26,823 26,823
2008 ����������������������72,738 72,738
2009 ����������������������120,584 120,584
2010 ����������������������68,765 68,765
2011 ����������������������89,856 89,856
2012 ����������������������73,788 73,788
2013 ����������������������66,790 66,790
2014 ����������������������76,606 76,606
2015 ����������������������65,250 65,250
2016 ����������������������
2017 ����������������������
2018 ����������������������1,652 146,174 146,174 442,170 10 0�034 0�034
2019 ����������������������2,629 161,945 161,945 569,594 10 0�029 0�029
2020 ����������������������1,379 103,678 103,678 258,368 11 0�047 0�047
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page 14 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2021 ����������������������906 74,617 74,617 296,751 11 0�029 0�029
2022 ����������������������334 22,770 22,770 48,758 10 0�059 0�059
2023 ����������������������1,117 55,563 55,563 190,827 6 0�054 0�054
Total���������������������������8,017 $1,234,107 $1,234,107 1,806,468 10 $0.086 $0.086
New Construction
2004 ����������������������28,821 28,821
2005 ����������������������12 194,066 233,149 494,239 12 0�043 0�052
2006 ����������������������40 374,008 463,770 704,541 12 0�058 0�072
2007 ����������������������22 669,032 802,839 2,817,248 12 0�015 0�040
2008 ����������������������60 1,055,009 1,671,375 6,598,123 12 0�017 0�028
2009 ����������������������72 1,327,127 2,356,434 6,146,139 12 0�024 0�043
2010 ����������������������70 1,509,682 3,312,963 10,819,598 12 0�016 0�035
2011 ����������������������63 1,291,425 3,320,015 11,514,641 12 0�010 0�026
2012 ����������������������84 1,592,572 8,204,883 20,450,037 12 0�007 0�036
2013 ����������������������59 1,507,035 3,942,880 10,988,934 12 0�012 0�032
2014 ����������������������69 1,258,273 3,972,822 9,458,059 12 0�012 0�037
2015 ����������������������81 2,162,001 6,293,071 23,232,017 12 0�008 0�024
2016 ����������������������116 1,931,222 4,560,826 12,393,249 12 0�014 0�033
2017 ����������������������121 2,433,596 4,265,056 17,353,820 12 0�013 0�022
2018 ����������������������104 2,069,645 5,054,215 13,378,315 12 0�014 0�034
2019 ����������������������168 3,548,476 5,292,835 20,640,334 12 0�015 0�023
2020 ����������������������119 2,383,983 4,175,611 14,565,936 12 0�018 0�031
2021 ����������������������95 2,691,171 4,160,999 17,536,004 12 0�017 0�026
2022 ����������������������88 2,780,507 3,641,930 27,615,777 12 0�011 0�015
2023 ����������������������102 2,168,636 2,990,934 10,642,465 14 0�021 0�029
Total���������������������������1,545 $32,976,287 $68,745,429 237,349,476 12 $0.016 $0.032
Retrofits
2006 ����������������������31,819 31,819
2007 ����������������������104 711,494 1,882,035 5,183,640 0�8 12 0�015 0�040
2008 ����������������������666 2,992,261 10,096,627 25,928,391 4�5 12 0�013 0�043
2009 ����������������������1,224 3,325,505 10,076,237 35,171,627 6�1 12 0�011 0�032
2010 ����������������������1,535 3,974,410 7,655,397 35,824,463 7�8 12 0�013 0�024
2011 ����������������������1,732 4,719,466 9,519,364 38,723,073 12 0�011 0�022
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 15
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2012 ����������������������1,838 5,349,753 9,245,297 41,568,672 12 0�012 0�020
2013 ����������������������1,392 3,359,790 6,738,645 21,061,946 12 0�014 0�029
2014 ����������������������1,095 3,150,942 5,453,380 19,118,494 12 0�015 0�025
2015 ����������������������1,222 4,350,865 7,604,200 23,594,701 12 0�017 0�029
2016 ����������������������1,577 5,040,190 8,038,791 28,124,779 12 0�016 0�026
2017 ����������������������1,137 4,343,835 12,500,303 23,161,877 12 0�017 0�049
2018 ����������������������1,358 5,990,179 16,253,716 34,910,707 12 0�015 0�042
2019 ����������������������1,033 6,281,056 17,700,769 42,674,418 12 0�013 0�037
2020 ����������������������630 3,587,277 11,964,431 20,965,215 12 0�019 0�063
2021 ����������������������787 3,826,750 11,486,766 21,181,022 12 0�020 0�059
2022 ����������������������525 4,870,916 13,402,016 22,890,679 12 0�024 0�065
2023 ����������������������526 3,184,964 9,012,722 14,457,180 12 0�025 0�070
Total���������������������������18,381 $69,091,471 $168,710,161 454,540,883 12 $0.017 $0.041
Holiday Lighting
2008 ����������������������14 28,782 73,108 259,092 10 0�014 0�035
2009 ����������������������32 33,930 72,874 142,109 10 0�031 0�066
2010 ����������������������25 46,132 65,308 248,865 10 0�024 0�034
2011 ����������������������6 2,568 2,990 66,189 10 0�004 0�005
Total���������������������������77 $111,412 $214,280 716,255 10 $0.020 $0.038
Oregon Commercial Audit
2002 ����������������������24 5,200 5,200
2003 ����������������������21 4,000 4,000
2004 ����������������������7 0 0
2005 ����������������������7 5,450 5,450
2006 ����������������������6
2007 ����������������������1,981 1,981
2008 ����������������������58 58
2009 ����������������������41 20,732 20,732
2010 ����������������������22 5,049 5,049
2011 ����������������������12 13,597 13,597
2012 ����������������������14 12,470 12,470
2013 ����������������������18 5,090 5,090
2014 ����������������������16 9,464 9,464
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page 16 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2015 ����������������������17 4,251 4,251
2016 ����������������������7 7,717 7,717
2017 ����������������������13 8,102 8,102
2018 ����������������������0 1,473 1,473
2019 ����������������������11 7,262 7,262
2020 ����������������������2 1,374 1,374
2021 ����������������������3 4,401 4,401
2022 ����������������������12 7,493 7,493
2023 ����������������������7 6,402 6,402
Total���������������������������248 $131,566 $131,566
Oregon School Efficiency
2005 ����������������������86 86
2006 ����������������������6 24,379 89,771 223,368 12 0�012 0�044
Total���������������������������6 $24,465 $89,857 223,368 12 $0.012 $0.044
Small Business Direct Install
2020 ����������������������139 339,830 339,830 780,260 9 0�058 0�058
2021 ����������������������452 1,032,056 1,032,056 2,421,842 11 0�062 0�062
2022 ����������������������680 1,345,429 1,345,429 3,228,366 11 0�049 0�049
2023 ����������������������166 366,674 366,674 791,512 11 0�055 0�055
Total���������������������������1,437 $3,083,989 $3,083,989 7,221,979 11 $0.051 $0.051
Industrial
Custom Projects
2003 ����������������������1,303 1,303
2004 ����������������������1 112,311 133,441 211,295 12 0�058 0�069
2005 ����������������������24 1,128,076 3,653,152 12,016,678 12 0�010 0�033
2006 ����������������������40 1,625,216 4,273,885 19,211,605 12 0�009 0�024
2007 ����������������������49 3,161,866 7,012,686 29,789,304 3�6 12 0�012 0�026
2008 ����������������������101 4,045,671 16,312,379 41,058,639 4�8 12 0�011 0�044
2009 ����������������������132 6,061,467 10,848,123 51,835,612 6�7 12 0�013 0�024
2010 ����������������������223 8,778,125 17,172,176 71,580,075 9�5 12 0�014 0�027
2011 ����������������������166 8,783,811 19,830,834 67,979,157 7�8 12 0�012 0�026
2012 ����������������������126 7,092,581 12,975,629 54,253,106 7�6 12 0�012 0�021
2013 ����������������������73 2,466,225 5,771,640 21,370,350 2�4 12 0�010 0�024
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 17
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2014 ����������������������131 7,173,054 13,409,922 50,363,052 5�6 12 0�013 0�024
2015 ����������������������160 9,012,628 20,533,742 55,247,192 6�3 11 0�016 0�035
2016 ����������������������196 7,982,624 16,123,619 47,518,871 16 0�013 0�026
2017 ����������������������170 8,679,919 17,279,117 44,765,354 16 0�015 0�029
2018 ����������������������248 8,808,512 16,112,540 46,963,690 16 0�014 0�026
2019 ����������������������257 11,879,873 24,590,176 70,433,920 15 0�013 0�027
2020 ����������������������169 18,059,396 41,604,451 94,006,717 15 0�018 0�042
2021 ����������������������135 8,608,903 22,552,383 53,728,267 13 0�017 0�044
2022 ����������������������106 8,919,927 25,715,468 56,157,060 13 0�017 0�049
2023 ����������������������95 11,359,176 26,228,419 60,667,088 14 0�019 0�044
Total���������������������������2,602 $143,740,662 $322,132,764 949,157,032 13 $0.016 $0.036
Green Motors Rewind—Industrial
2016 ����������������������14 123,700 7
2017 ����������������������13 143,976 7
2018 ����������������������25 64,167 7
2019 ����������������������12 117,223 8
2020 ����������������������10 56,012 8
2021 ����������������������4 12,172 20,430 8
2022 ����������������������9 3,424 19,851 8
2023 ����������������������17 11,915 63,538 8
Total���������������������������104 $0 $$27,511 608,896 7
Irrigation
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
2003 ����������������������2 41,089 54,609 36,792 0�0 15 0�106 0�141
2004 ����������������������33 120,808 402,978 802,812 0�4 15 0�014 0�048
2005 ����������������������38 150,577 657,460 1,012,883 0�4 15 0�014 0�062
2006 ����������������������559 2,779,620 8,514,231 16,986,008 5�1 8 0�024 0�073
2007 ����������������������816 2,001,961 8,694,772 12,304,073 3�4 8 0�024 0�103
2008 ����������������������961 2,103,702 5,850,778 11,746,395 3�5 8 0�026 0�073
2009 ����������������������887 2,293,896 6,732,268 13,157,619 3�4 8 0�026 0�077
2010 ����������������������753 2,200,814 6,968,598 10,968,430 3�3 8 0�030 0�096
2011 ����������������������880 2,360,304 13,281,492 13,979,833 3�8 8 0�020 0�113
2012 ����������������������908 2,373,201 11,598,185 12,617,164 3�1 8 0�022 0�110
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page 18 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2013 ����������������������995 2,441,386 15,223,928 18,511,221 3�0 8 0�016 0�098
2014 ����������������������1,128 2,446,507 18,459,781 18,463,611 4�6 8 0�016 0�119
2015 ����������������������902 1,835,711 9,939,842 14,027,411 1�6 8 0�016 0�085
2016 ����������������������851 2,372,352 8,162,206 15,673,513 8 0�018 0�063
2017 ����������������������801 2,475,677 8,382,962 16,824,266 8 0�018 0�060
2018 ����������������������1,022 2,953,706 11,948,469 18,933,831 8 0�019 0�076
2019 ����������������������1,080 2,661,263 10,042,514 10,073,455 8 0�032 0�120
2020 ����������������������1,018 3,401,673 16,857,055 12,847,823 15 0�025 0�125
2021 ����������������������1,019 2,607,200 19,138,043 9,680,497 19 0�023 0�166
2022 ����������������������519 2,080,027 14,083,686 6,937,855 18 0�027 0�179
2023 ����������������������643 1,708,967 14,744,378 4,558,425 12 0�042 0�361
Total���������������������������15,815 $43,410,441 $209,733,819 240,143,917 9 $0.025 $0.119
Green Motors Rewind—Irrigation
2016 ����������������������23 73,617 19
2017 ����������������������27 63,783 19
2018 ����������������������26 67,676 19
2019 ����������������������34 44,705 20
2020 ����������������������23 36,147 20
2021 ����������������������12 87,254 19,352 21
2022 ����������������������6 5,634 16,951 23
2023 ����������������������4 1,911 4,463 21
Total���������������������������155 $0 $$94,799 326,693 20
Other Programs
Building Operator Training
2003 ����������������������71 48,853 48,853 1,825,000 5 0�006 0�006
2004 ����������������������26 43,969 43,969 650,000 5 0�014 0�014
2005 ����������������������7 1,750 4,480 434,167 5 0�001 0�002
Total���������������������������104 94,572 97,302 2,909,167 5 0.007 0.007
Comprehensive Lighting
2011 ����������������������2,404 2,404
2012 ����������������������64,094 64,094
Total���������������������������$66,498 $66,498
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 19
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Distribution Efficiency Initiative
2005 ����������������������21,552 43,969
2006 ����������������������24,306 24,306
2007 ����������������������8,987 8,987
2008 ����������������������-1,913 -1,913
Total���������������������������$52,932 $75,349
DSM Direct Program Overhead
2007 ����������������������56,909 56,909
2008 ����������������������169,911 169,911
2009 ����������������������164,957 164,957
2010 ����������������������117,874 117,874
2011 ����������������������210,477 210,477
2012 ����������������������285,951 285,951
2013 ����������������������380,957 380,957
2014 ����������������������478,658 478,658
2015 ����������������������272,858 272,858
2016 ����������������������293,039 293,039
2017 ����������������������1,759,352 1,759,352
2018 ����������������������1,801,955 1,801,955
2019 ����������������������2,119,820 2,119,820
2020 ����������������������1,811,869 1,811,869
2021 ����������������������2,226,910 2,226,910
2022 ����������������������2,795,885 2,795,885
2023 ����������������������2,511,829 2,511,829
Total���������������������������$17,459,092 $17,459,092
Local Energy Efficiency Fund
2003 ����������������������56 5,100 5,100
2004 ����������������������23,449 23,449
2005 ����������������������2 14,896 26,756 78,000 10 0�024 0�042
2006 ����������������������480 3,459 3,459 19,027 7 0�009 0�009
2007 ����������������������1 7,520 7,520 9,000 7 0�135 0�135
2008 ����������������������2 22,714 60,100 115,931 0�0 15 0�019 0�049
2009 ����������������������1 5,870 4,274 10,340 0�0 12 0�064 0�047
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page 20 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2010 ����������������������1 251 251 0�0
2011 ����������������������1 1,026 2,052 2,028 30 0�035 0�070
2012 ����������������������
2013 ����������������������
2014 ����������������������1 9,100 9,100 95,834 18
Total���������������������������545 $93,385 $142,061 330,160 14 $0.029 $0.044
Other C&RD and CRC BPA
2002 ����������������������55,722 55,722
2003 ����������������������67,012 67,012
2004 ����������������������108,191 108,191
2005 ����������������������101,177 101,177
2006 ����������������������124,956 124,956
2007 ����������������������31,645 31,645
2008 ����������������������6,950 6,950
Total���������������������������$495,654 $495,654
Residential Economizer Pilot
2011 ����������������������101,713 101,713
2012 ����������������������93,491 93,491
2013 ����������������������74,901 74,901
Total���������������������������$270,105 $270,105
Residential Education Initiative
2005 ����������������������7,498 7,498
2006 ����������������������56,727 56,727
2007 ����������������������
2008 ����������������������150,917 150,917
2009 ����������������������193,653 193,653
2010 ����������������������222,092 222,092
2011 ����������������������159,645 159,645
2012 ����������������������174,738 174,738
2013 ����������������������416,166 416,166
2014 ����������������������6,312 423,091 423,091 1,491,225 11
2015 ����������������������149,903 149,903
2016 ����������������������290,179 290,179
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 21
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2017 ����������������������223,880 223,880
2018 ����������������������172,215 172,215
2019 ����������������������160,851 160,851
2020 ����������������������223,731 223,731
2021 ����������������������483,067 483,067
2022 ����������������������300,175 300,175
2023 ����������������������371,316 371,316
Total���������������������������$4,179,844 $4,179,844 1,491,225
Solar 4R Schools
2009 ����������������������45,522 45,522
Total���������������������������$45,522 $45,522
Market Transformation
Consumer Electronic Initiative
2009 ����������������������160,762 160,762
Total���������������������������$160,762 $160,762
NEEA
2002 ����������������������1,286,632 1,286,632 12,925,450
2003 ����������������������1,292,748 1,292,748 11,991,580
2004 ����������������������1,256,611 1,256,611 13,329,071
2005 ����������������������476,891 476,891 16,422,224
2006 ����������������������930,455 930,455 18,597,955
2007 ����������������������893,340 893,340 28,601,410
2008 ����������������������942,014 942,014 21,024,279
2009 ����������������������968,263 968,263 10,702,998
2010 ����������������������2,391,217 2,391,217 21,300,366
2011 ����������������������3,108,393 3,108,393 20,161,728
2012 ����������������������3,379,756 3,379,756 19,567,984
2013 ����������������������3,313,058 3,313,058 20,567,965
2014 ����������������������3,305,917 3,305,917 26,805,600
2015 ����������������������2,582,919 2,582,919 23,038,800
2016 ����������������������2,676,387 2,676,387 24,352,800
2017 ����������������������2,698,756 2,698,756 24,440,400
2018 ����������������������2,500,165 2,500,165 25,666,800
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page 22 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2019 ����������������������2,721,070 2,721,070 18,368,135
2020 ���������������������2,789,210 2,789,210 17,614,323
2021 ����������������������2,977,678 2,977,678 16,818,788
2022 ���������������������2,789,937 2,789,937 24,125,402
2023 1 ��������������������2,726,302 2,726,302 23,914,101
Total���������������������������$48,007,718 $48,007,718 440,338,160
Annual Totals
2002 ����������������������1,932,520 2,366,591 16,791,100 0�0
2003 ����������������������2,566,228 3,125,572 18,654,343 0�0
2004 ����������������������3,827,213 4,860,912 19,202,780 6�5
2005 ����������������������6,523,348 10,383,577 37,978,035 43�9
2006 ����������������������11,174,181 20,950,110 67,026,303 43�6
2007 ����������������������14,896,816 27,123,018 91,145,357 57�9
2008 ����������������������20,213,216 44,775,829 128,508,579 74�3
2009 ����������������������33,821,062 53,090,852 143,146,365 235�5
2010 ����������������������44,643,541 68,981,324 193,592,637 357�7
2011 ����������������������44,877,117 79,436,532 183,476,312 415�2
2012 ����������������������47,991,350 77,336,341 172,054,327 448�8
2013 ����������������������26,100,091 54,803,353 109,505,690 54�5
2014 ����������������������35,648,260 71,372,414 145,475,713 389�7
2015 ����������������������37,149,893 70,467,082 162,533,155 374�5
2016 ����������������������40,499,570 70,984,604 170,792,152 379�0
2017 ����������������������44,828,089 78,799,054 191,471,395 383�0
2018 ����������������������42,926,872 75,797,483 184,078,634 358�7
2019 ����������������������47,390,056 83,661,890 203,301,810 332�5
2020 ����������������������49,354,064 100,230,772 198,432,599 336�0
2021 ����������������������37,056,897 79,194,093 142,920,507 312�8
2022 ����������������������41,456,433 82,964,848 169,565,800 199�7
2023 ����������������������40,935,045 77,886,062 139,683,196 240�2
Total Direct Program ������������������������������$675,815,863 $1,239,199,544 2,891,001,189
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report Page 23
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Indirect Program Expenses
DSM Overhead and Other Indirect
2002 ����������������������128,855
2003 ����������������������-41,543
2004 ����������������������142,337
2005 ����������������������177,624
2006 ����������������������309,832
2007 ����������������������765,561
2008 ����������������������980,305
2009 ����������������������1,025,704
2010 ����������������������1,189,310
2011 ����������������������1,389,135
2012 ����������������������1,335,509
2013 ����������������������$741,287
2014 ����������������������1,065,072
2015 ����������������������1,891,042
2016 ����������������������2,263,893
2017 ����������������������2,929,407
2018 ����������������������1,335,208
2019 ����������������������1,194,640
2020 ����������������������1,202,238
2021 ����������������������1,296,605
2022 ����������������������1,507,146
2023 ����������������������1,044,428
Total���������������������������$23,873,596
Total Expenses
2002 ����������������������2,061,375
2003 ����������������������2,528,685
2004 ����������������������3,969,550
2005 ����������������������6,700,972
2006 ����������������������11,484,013
2007 ����������������������15,662,377
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Page 24 Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2023
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2008 ����������������������21,193,521
2009 ����������������������34,846,766
2010 ����������������������45,832,851
2011 ����������������������46,266,252
2012 ����������������������49,326,859
2013 ����������������������26,841,378
2014 ����������������������36,713,333
2015 ����������������������39,040,935
2016 ����������������������42,763,463
2017 ����������������������47,757,496
2018 ����������������������44,262,080
2019 ����������������������48,584,696
2020 ����������������������50,556,303
2021 ����������������������38,353,503
2022 ����������������������42,963,579
2023 ����������������������41,979,473
Total 2002–2023 ��������$699,689,459
a Levelized Costs are based on financial inputs from IPC’s 2021 Integrated Resource Plan and calculations include line loss adjusted energy savings.
b The Total Utility Cost is all cost incurred by IPC to implement and manage a DSM program.
c The Total Resource Cost is the total expenditures for a DSM program from the point of view of IPC and its customers as a whole.
d Peak Demand is reported for programs that directly reduce load or measure demand reductions during summer peak season.
Peak demand reduction for demand response programs is reported at the generation level assuming line losses of 9.7% before 2023, and 7.6% starting in 2023.
1 Savings are preliminary funder share estimates. Final results will be provided by NEEA in April 2024.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 1 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 5
1. Project Overview 5
2. 2023: Summary of Results and Findings 7
3. Program Attrition 10
1. Program Overview 15
1.1 Team Structure 15
1.2 Objectives 15
1.2.1 Program Objectives 15
1.2.2 Additional Objectives 15
1.3 Eligibility Screening 16
1.3.1 Eligibility Screening 16
1.4 Evaluation, Measurement, & Verification Process 18
1.5 Customer Data Acquisition/Integration 20
1.6 Benchmarking Flags 23
1.7 Overview of Segmentation Used for 2023 Improving Tip Selection 24
1.8 Key Decisions 24
1.9 Vendor History 25
2. 2023 Program Results Detail 26
2.1 Objectives: Findings 26
2.1.1 Energy Savings 26
2.1.2 Year-to-Date average Savings Per Customer By Treatment Group 28
2.1.3 2023 Combined Savings for Expansion Participants (T6) Vs. Pilot Participants (T1234)
28
2.2 Email Reports 29
2.2.1 Delivery, Open, and Bounce Rates 29
2.3 Customer Feedback 29
2.3.1 Customer Service Line Calls and Opt-Out Rates 29
2.4 Additional Metrics 32
2.4.1 My Account Web Activity 32
2.4.2 Attrition Rate Detail 34
3. Process Improvements, Lessons Learned, and Future Considerations 36
3.1 Process Improvements 36
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 2 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
3.2 Lessons Learned 36
3.3 Future Considerations 38
4. Appendices 40
4.1 Appendix A: Sample Home Energy Reports 40
4.1.1 A-1. Sample Print HER — Always-On Tips 40
4.1.2 A-2. Sample Print HER — A/C Tips 41
4.1.3 A-3. Sample Email Report — Always-On Tips 42
4.1.4 A-4. Sample Email Report — A/C Tips 43
4.1.5 A-5. Sample Print Report — Appliances & Lights Tips 44
4.1.6 A-6. Sample Email Report — Appliances & Lights Tips 45
4.1.7 A-7. Sample Print Report — Heating Tips 46
4.1.8 A-8. Sample Email Report — Heating Tips 47
4.1.9 A-9 Samples print report - hot water tips 48
4.2 Appendix B: Quarterly Program Monitoring Reports 48
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 3 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Revision History
Date Version Description Author/Editor
2-12-2023 1.0 Initial Draft Thea Winch
2-26-2023 1.1 v1.1 edits/comments Thea Winch
3-5-2023 1.2 v1.2 additional edits/comments Thea Winch
3-7-2023 1.3 Final Version Thea Winch
Document Approval
This section acknowledges approval of the information presented within. Please use the track
changes feature to indicate any changes necessary before the plan can be approved. When ready
to approve, please indicate the version number being approved and complete the fields below.
This Idaho Power Company Home Energy Report 2023 Final Program Summary, version 1.3,
approved by:
Client Name:
Name, Title:
Signature
Date:
Client Name:
Name, Title:
Signature:
Date:
Utility
Consumer
Analytics, Inc.
Name, Title
Signature:
Date:
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 4 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Executive Summary
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Energy savings due to behavioral changes in the home have traditionally been difficult to measure.
Home Energy Report (HER) programs rely on a randomized controlled trial (RCT) structure to
calculate energy savings and ensure program results are both unbiased and precise. The RCT
approach is the most commonly used approach for implementing HER programs in North America.
With this approach, we identify an eligible pool of customers based on the desired program
outcome and then randomly allocate a subset of customers into the treatment group who will
receive the behavioral intervention (Home Energy Reports) and the remainder into the control
group who will not receive the intervention.
We estimate average customer-level savings from the behavioral program by measuring the
difference in the average energy usage among the treatment group relative to the control group.
Program energy savings are the average customer-level savings multiplied by the number of active
treatment group participants.
Filters applied to identify customers who may participate in the program are based on
recommendations from the vendor, as well as Idaho Power’s experience and pilot learnings. Due to
Oregon’s small customer base, Idaho Power’s (IPC) HER program is currently available only in Idaho.
Program Group refers to customers in the treatment group who are actively being treated with
reports. These customers, by default, are also part of the evaluation group.
Evaluation Group refers to customers in the treatment or control group and is factored into the
savings evaluations. Treatment customers in this group may or may not be actively receiving
reports. Customers in the treatment group but not in the program group remain in the treatment
group to maintain the RCT but are not actively treated for a variety of reasons discussed later in
section 3 of the report.
Customers in the evaluation group are broken into treatment and corresponding control groups. T1
through T5 were onboarded in 2017 and 2018 as part of the pilot. T6 became active in 2020.
●T1:customers with high winter use (electric heating) added in Year One
●T2:customers with high winter use (electric heating) added in Year Two
●T3:customers with high year-round energy use added in Year One
●T4:customers with medium year-round energy use added in Year One
●T5:customers with low year-round energy use added in Year One.
o Note: these customers were removed from the program in 2020 and received their last
report in February 2020
●T6:expansion of customers based on eligibility criteria determined after the pilot
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 5 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
The table below shows the number of customers in the treatment, control, and program groups at
the beginning and end of 2023. Customers are removed from both groups when they move out.
Table 1: 2023 RCT and Program Group Participant Counts
Program Control Treatment
Jan 1 Dec 31 Net
Diff
Jan 1 Dec 31 Net
Diff
Jan 1 Dec 31 Net
Diff
T1 4,400 4,144 256 1,196 1,137 59 4,803 4,509 294
T2 3,680 3,480 200 674 625 49 4,203 3,968 235
T3 4,616 4,377 239 2,916 2,760 156 4,892 4,624 268
T4 2,171 2,073 98 2,158 2,043 115 2,292 2,178 114
T5*42,455 3,639
T6 84,210 78,401 5,809 11,604 10,879 725 85,806 80,214 5,592
Combined
Total
99,077 92,475 6,602 18,548 59,899 1,104 101,996 99,132 6,503
*T5 stopped receiving reports in 2020, so they are no longer in the Program Group. Residual savings
from T5 are still calculated for the PSR, so Treatment and Control counts are still tracked.
The Home Energy Reports included the following elements:
●Customer information:customer
name, address, and account
number
●Household energy-usage
disaggregation:home usage is
separated into four loads (heating,
air conditioning, lights & appliances,
and always-on)
●Targeted message(s): customized
messaging to drive customers to
relevant programs and the My
Account portal
●Social benchmarks: customer’s
home energy use compared to
similar homes and efficient homes, designed to motivate savings
●Personalized savings recommendations:Tips for saving energy based on home
profile attributes, customer segmentation, and season
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 6 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Table 2 – 2023 Report Delivery Schedule by Cohort
2. 2023: SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Main takeaways from 2023 are as follows.
Savings
The total savings calculated for 2023 are 17,737,130 kWh. Collectively, the savings for all waves
combined are statistically significant. Although T-5 did not receive reports after February 2020,
when compared with their control group, they showed persistent savings. Excluding the savings
from T5, the program's overall annual 2023 savings are 17,467,444 kWh.
Using a weighted average calculation without T5 residual savings factored in, the treatment groups
saved 1.24% or 182.92 kWh per customer. With residual savings from T5 included, the weighted
average savings for all treatment groups was 178.92 per customer or 1.24%.
Table 3: 2023 Program Savings by T-Groups
Cohort
Average Energy
Savings in kWh per
Customer
Cumulative Savings
(all months, all
households, kWh)
Percent
Savings
Statistical
Significance
 T1 11.05 49,817 0.05%N
T2 183.89 729,671 0.88%N
T3 249.21 1,152,330 1.69%Y
T4 213.14 464,213 2.04%Y
T5 74.11 269,686 1.04%Y
T6 187.89 15,071,413 1.28%Y
Combined
Groups 178.92 17,737,130 1.24%Y
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 7 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Table 4: 2023 Home Energy Reports Delivered in 2023
Report
Cycle Recipients
# of Email
Only
Recipients
# of Paper
Only
Recipients
# of Both
Email &
Paper
Recipients
# of
Unique
Customers
Receiving
HERs
Total
Reports
Delivered
February T1, T2, T3,
T4, T6
106 57,741 39,054 96,901 135,955
May T1, T2, T3,
T4, T6
137 47,285 47,926 95,348 143,274
August T1, T2, T3,
T4, T6
145 46,490 47,096 93,731 140,827
November T1, T2, T3,
T4, T6
152 45,134 46,845 92,131 138,976
2023 Report Totals 540 196,650 180,921 378,111 559,032
2023 Participants
96,955
Notes on Table 4:
●Total Reports Delivered is calculated by adding email only + paper only + (both email and paper
x 2).
●The participant count is based on the number of reports sent in the first report cycle of the year.
For 2023, the participant count will be 96,901.
Note: An additional 54 customers received at least one report during the year but did not receive
a February report.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 8 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Table 5: Year-Over-Year Home Energy Reports Delivered
Program
Year Recipients Email Only
Reports Sent
Paper Only
Reports Sent
Both Paper
and Email
Reports Sent
# of Program
Participants
Year 1 of
Pilot
(2017-2018)
T1, T3, T4, T5 N/A 149,546 N/A 23,914
Year 2 of
Pilot
(2018-2019)
T1, T2, T3, T4,
T5 N/A 116,087 N/A 24,976
2020 T1, T2, T3, T4,
T5, T6
257 488,545 N/A 127,313
2021 T1, T2, T3, T4,
T6 507 445,334 N/A 115,153
2022 T1, T2, T3, T4,
T6 578 406,587 98,570 104,826
2023 T1, T2, T3, T4,
T6 540 196,650 180,921 96,955
Total
Reports
Delivered
N/A 1,882 1,802,749 279,491 N/A
Notes on Table 5:
●T2 was launched in Year 2 of Pilot
●Email reports launched at the beginning of 2019
●T5 was discontinued in 2020. The last report they received was in February 2020
●T6 launched in May 2020, and customers received the first report in June 2020
●In August of 2022, we expanded email HERs (eHERs) to all customers with an email address.
●IPC pulled Total Reports Delivered data for Year 1 of Pilot (2017-2018) and Year 2 (2018-2019)
●Uplight pulled Total Reports Delivered Data for 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023
Email HER-Specific Statistics
In 2023, 181,461 total emails were sent. Of those, 179,715 emails were successfully delivered, and a
total of 94,451 were opened. This is a 53% open rate, which is stronger than average. The total
clickthrough rate (that is, the rate of clicks on links contained within the emails) was 2.13%.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 9 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Customer Calls fielded by IPC’s Customer Solutions Advisors
The total number of customer calls has steadily decreased from the peak in 2020 when T6 was
launched. In 2023, there was a 6% decrease in the total number of calls compared to 2022. The
reduction in 2023 is especially notable since the total number of reports delivered increased
significantly when eHERs were expanded to all eligible customers in the Program Group in 2022.
The expansion increased the number of eHERs sent from 507 in 2021 to 181,461 in 2023.
Table 6: Year-Over-Year Customer Calls
Year 1 of Pilot
(2017-2018)
Year 2 of
Pilot
(2018-2019)
2020 2021 2022 2023
Total Calls*411 246 1,087 660 409 385
Total Reports
Delivered 149,546 116,087 448,802 445,841 505,735 559,032
% to # of
reports
delivered
0.27%0.21%0.24%0.15%0.08%0.07%
Notes on Table 6:
●IPC pulled Total Reports Delivered data for Year 1 of Pilot (2017-2018) and Year 2 (2018-2019)
●Uplight pulled Total Reports Delivered Data for 2020, 2021, and 2022
3. PROGRAM ATTRITION
Attrition Rates
The attrition rate measures the number of people removed from the HER program due to not
meeting program requirements (as specified below) or because participants chose to opt out. The
permanent attrition rate in 2023 was 4.78%, with a total of 6,445 customers removed. Of these
5,440 were removed due to move-outs (affects both the Program and Evaluation Groups) and 1,005
were permanently removed from the Program Group for one of the following reasons: opting out,
incompatible location type*, incompatible property type**, or unsupported rate code***. This is
down from 2022, when the attrition rate was 6.84%, with 9,228 customers being permanently
removed, and from 2021, when the permanent attrition rate was 7.82%, with 10,546 customers
being permanently removed.
Move-out removals affect the Evaluation Group (both treatment and control). Other types of
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 10 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
permanent removals, including customers who opt out of the program, remain in the evaluation
group to maintain the balance of the RCT even though they no longer receive reports.
*Customers with zip codes outside of the geographic parameters for similar home comparisons or those
categorized as insufficient location benchmarking are verified as incompatible locations.
**Pilot customers whose home types are single-family homes or manufactured homes are eligible to
receive reports. For T6, only customers whose home type is single-family homes are eligible to receive
reports. All other home types are considered incompatible property types.
***Customers whose rate code is I06 (Residential Service On-Site Generation/solar).
Table 7: 2023 Attrition Summary
Permanent Removals Opt-Outs
Count %Count %
T1234 808 3.07 10 0.053
T6 5,637 5.20 59 0.071
Combined 6,445 4.78 69 0.067
Overall
Attrition Rate
4.85%
Notes on Table 7:
●The attrition metrics, including opt-outs, are calculated using the difference between the
participant counts from the last report of the previous year to the last report of the current year.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 11 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Table 8: Year Over Year Attrition
Opt-Out Count Opt-Out %
Overall
Attrition %
2018 172 0.64%12%
2019 66 0.22%15.15%
2020 154 0.1%9.4%
2021 138 0.12%7.82%
2022 106 0.08%6.92%
2023 69 0.05%4.83%
Year Over Year Savings Comparisons
Table 9: Year Over Year Savings Comparisons
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Aggregate
Savings in
kWh
Count of
Evaluation
Group
2018 ____________________N/A 3,281,780 23,914
2019 ____________________N/A 8,444,746 24,976
2020 1,445,666 1,734,800 1,237,313 881,080 67,831 5,017,703 10,427,940 127,138
2021 183,325 981,868 1,378,427 740,448 100,575 13,382,802 16,767,446 115,153
2022 781,761 238,339 1,113,894 612,969 259,616 17,728,033 20,734,611 104,826
2023 49,817 729,671 1,152,330 464,213 269,686 15,071,413 17,737,130 99,132
Aggregate
Savings in
MWh
________________________77,393 N/A
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 12 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Notes on Table 9:
●2018-2019 savings and participant counts were sourced from IPC’s DSM Reports and/or Pilot
Program Summary Reports (PSR). Only the aggregate savings for T1 - T5 were pulled.
●T5 transitioned to residual savings starting in March 2020.
●T6 launched in 2020.
●Note: We noticed swings in aggregate savings for T1 and T2. Uplight is investigating why this is
happening, and if changes are needed moving forward, they will be discussed with IPC.
Figure 1: Yearly Aggregate Savings
Notes on Figure 1:
●T5 savings are present in the chart. The savings are so small compared to T6 that they are barely
visible.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 13 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Figure 2: Yearly Average kWh Savings Per Customer
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 14 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
1. Program Overview
1.1 Team Structure
Since 2017, the IPC Home Energy Report program has been a joint effort between Idaho Power
Company, Utility Consumer Analytics | N. Harris Computer Corporation (formerly Aclara), and
Uplight (formerly Ecotagious). Uplight acquired Ecotagious in July 2019, and in June 2021, N. Harris
Computer Corporation acquired Adaptive Consumer Engagement (ACE) from Aclara Technologies.
1.2 Objectives
1.2.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The following business requirements were captured during an onsite meeting on August 22, 2019,
and documented in the contract as part of the design of this expansion from the pilot project:
●Maximize the total kWh saved, ensuring a UCT of >1 (with a buffer), and maintain high
customer satisfaction levels.
●Meet cost-effectiveness guidelines from a Total Resource Cost (TRC) and UCT perspective.
○>1 UCT + buffer
●Maintain or enhance the current customer satisfaction levels.
○Maintain low opt-out rate
○Drive positive customer interactions
○Maintain low volume of program-related calls to the Customer Interaction Center
●Average annual savings of 1-3%
○So long as savings are detectable and statistically significant
●Encourage customer engagement with energy usage, including utilization of online tools
and lift for other EE programs.
1.2.2 ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES
Monitor persistent savings of the T5 group
In the expansion program, T5 customers were removed from treatment because their overall usage
was low, and they had not achieved statistically significant savings in the pilot program. IPC would
like to continue to monitor their persistent savings going forward to determine if combining them
with the rest of the treatment population could yield additional combined savings. Because the T5
customers received reports through February 2020, the savings calculated using a
difference-in-difference methodology can be attributed to treatment in previous years.
IPC is working with its third-party consultant to identify an appropriate trigger to stop including T5
savings in the aggregate yearly savings estimate.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 15 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
1.3 Eligibility Screening
1.3.1 ELIGIBILITY SCREENING
Eligibility screening for T1, T3, T4, and T5 was initially conducted in year one, and these groups
persisted into year two.
Eligibility screening for T2 was conducted in year one with the T1 group; however, heating source
data for these customers was
unavailable until year two, at
which time they were
re-evaluated for eligibility.
The eligibility criteria applied in
years one and two were also used
in year three to determine the
eligible participants in the T6
group. New criteria were added
based on learnings from the pilot.
For the expansion in 2020, all T5
and C5 customers were removed
from both participation and
eligibility based on savings results
from the two-year pilot. Additionally, a third party (DNV) randomly removed 29,369 customers from
the control groups for Pilot waves 1, 2, 3, and 4 to free them up for possible treatment in the
expansion. The analysis by DNV-GL determined how many customers could be removed from these
control groups while still allowing for statistical significance in calculating savings cumulatively
across all treatment groups.
In April 2020, eligibility screening was conducted to establish a new T6 group from the remaining
Idaho Power customers and those freed up from C1, C2, C3, and C4.
Idaho Power scrubbed the initial count of customers and applied the following filters:
IPC Applied Filters are Shown in Table 9
The criteria for culling customers during eligibility screening are shown in Table 9.
In late 2020, an issue arose where the benchmarking group for several treatment customers fell
below the required threshold of 100 homes. Although adequate benchmarking was part of the
initial criteria, the size of the benchmarking group during eligibility screening had been set too low.
This issue created a situation where customers remaining in the program could potentially receive
sporadic reports and have a negative customer experience. As a result, the vendor and IPC made a
joint decision to remove participants with inadequate benchmarks from active treatment. At this
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 16 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
time, the vendor also confirmed those customers remaining in the treatment had enough homes in
their respective benchmarking groups to provide quality data for subsequent reporting periods.
Table 11: Criteria and Rationale for Culling Customers During Eligibility Screening
[removed table for public version]
Figure 3: Eligibility Funnel for 2020 Expansion
[removed table for public version]
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 17 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
1.4 Evaluation, Measurement, & Verification
Process
The treatment groups' energy savings were evaluated following standard industry-accepted
evaluation practices. The program was set up as a Randomized Control Trial (RCT), with a third
party (DNV-GL) randomly assigning the treatment and control groups. The evaluation employed a
difference-in-differences method, which allows for accurate evaluation of program-driven energy
savings.
Pilot Year One
In year one, appropriately sized treatment and control groups were created for each cohort,
assuming an attrition rate of 10 percent and allowing for statistically significant detection of energy
savings in excess of 1.2 percent in the treatment groups. To achieve this objective, all eligible
customers were placed in either the treatment or control group.
In year one, 27,000 customers were identified as initial program participants. After considering
exclusionary factors such as move-ins/move-outs and removing some potential T1 participants due
to a lack of adequate county benchmarks, the sample size at the time of the first report was 25,677.
Pilot Year Two
In year two, at the time the bimonthly and monthly groups were created, the total number of
customers in treatment groups was down to around 23,000, a net decrease from the previous year.
The changes made to the treatment groups were as follows:
1. The T2 group was added to the study.
2. Move-outs were removed from all EMV treatment groups as a result of ongoing attrition
due to customers moving out over the course of year 1.
3. All groups were optimized to remove households with low savings potential.
The total number of customers in control groups in year two was 110,969 (down from 166,840 in
year one). The same changes made to the treatment groups were applied to the control groups:
1. A new control group was created to accompany the new T2 group.
2. Move-outs were removed from all control groups, the result of ongoing attrition due to
customers moving out over the course of year 1.
3. The control groups were similarly optimized to remove households with low savings
potential.
Households where residents moved out during the evaluation period were taken out of both the
treatment and control groups for the purpose of measuring energy savings. Customers who opted
out or did not receive reports due to being marked non-deliverable by the National Change of
Address database were left in both the treatment and control groups for the purpose of measuring
energy savings.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 18 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2020 Expansion
The treatment customers from the pilot continued treatment (except T5), and a new treatment
group and new control group were created to expand the number of customers in treatment. After
the optimization of the existing treatment groups was complete, a total of 18,492 customers were
identified as pilot participants eligible for treatment in year three. The following changes were
made to the pilot treatment customers:
1. The T5 treatment group was removed from participation because this group showed the
lowest propensity to save energy during the pilot.
2. All remaining treatment customers from the pilot (years one and two) were moved to a
consolidated quarterly treatment schedule.
3. The C5 control group was removed from eligibility for treatment.
The following changes were made to the pilot control groups:
The C1, C2, C3, and C4 control groups were reduced in size significantly. 75,973 customers were
randomly removed from these four control groups to free them up for inclusion in the T6
experimental design—that is freed up to be randomly allocated to T6 and C6 during the 2020
expansion. The number of customers removed from each control group was determined by
DNV-GL with consideration given to the impact their removal would have on the statistical
significance of calculated savings across all treatment groups. See Table 9 for a record of the
changes made to the C1, C2, C3, and C4 control groups.
Table 12: Reduction in Pilot Control Groups
Group Original Control
Group Size
Reduced New
Control Group
Size
C1 12,090 1,450
C2 5,024 800
C3 35,194 3,520
C4 31,995 2,560
In the spring of 2020, a new wave was created, with 108,498 in the treatment group (T6) and 14,744
in the control group (C6) based on eligibility criteria applied to the remaining population.
2022 eHER Expansion
In August of 2022, eHERs were expanded to all customers with email addresses. Customers in this
group received eHERs in addition to their standard paper reports. Before this, only customers who
had opted into eHERs received an eHER only. This substantially increased the number of eHERs
sent to each cycle. In 2021, before the expansion, a total of 507 eHERs were sent in the program
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 19 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
year. In 2022, that number increased to 99,148 (a combination of August and November cycles).
This increased to 181,461 in 2023 (a combination of all four cycles).
1.5 Customer Data Acquisition/Integration
In the 2023 Program year, UCA-Harris planned to upload the “hot water heater likely”flag directly to
My Account using the prioritization below. This did not happen, however, and Uplight continued to
use an ad-hoc process to provide enhanced segmentation for customers with and without electric
water heaters. Here is the methodology for Uplight’s ad-hoc process:
1. If there is no water heater data from My Account for a customer, and there is no data in the
“hot water heater likely”file from Idaho Power, leave it blank.
2. If there is no data from My Account for a customer, but there is data in the “hot water
heater likely”file from Idaho Power, use the hot water heater data from Idaho Power.
3. If there is water heater data from My Account but no data in the “hot water heater likely”file
from Idaho Power, use the hot water heater data from My Account.
4. If there is water heater data from My Account and data in the “hot water heater likely”file
from Idaho Power, prioritize the hot water heater data from My Account.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 20 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Table 13: Data Requirements
Integration
Point Description Format Frequency Initiator Recipient
Public Record
Data
UCA-Harris calls Melissa Data
for the latest property
records for treatment group
customers, selected control
customers, and random
samples for benchmarking.
CSV
batch:
one-time
historical
(performed
year one)
UCA-Harris UCA-Harris
Electric
Customer-Billing
Data
Idaho Power provides electric
customer-billing data for
treatment-group customers,
selected control customers,
and all eligible customers
incrementally each week.
CSV recurring
weekly IPC UCA-Harris
Electric
Customer-AMI
Data
Idaho Power provides
recurring daily AMI updates
of electric AMI data for
treatment group customers,
selected control customers,
and all eligible customers for
benchmarking.
CSV recurring
daily
Idaho
Power UCA-Harris
Action and
Profile Data
UCA-Harris extracts customer
action and profile data from
My Account tools
(EnergyPrism) for treatment
and control group customers.
CSV recurring
weekly UCA-Harris UCA-Harris
Opt-Outs
UCA-Harris provides a weekly
report on all customer calls
and opt-outs to Idaho Power.
CSV recurring
weekly
Idaho
Power UCA-Harris
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 21 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Do Not Contact
(DNC) List
Starting with the August 2022
cycle, Idaho Power provides
an updated DNC list once a
quarter - prior to reports
being sent. Uplight removes
customers on the DNC list
from the eHER mailing list.
CSV recurring
quarterly
Idaho
Power Uplight
Hot Water
“likely list”
Idaho Power provided
account numbers for
customers who are likely to
have electric hot water
heaters. This data was then
used to provide targeted
water usage tips for
customers who are likely to
have hot water heaters.
CSV
one-time
(performed
in
November
2022 as
part of the
eHER
expansion)
Idaho
Power Uplight
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 22 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
1.6 Benchmarking Flags
Benchmarking flags are used to cluster customers based on similar home properties for the
purpose of calculating peer comparisons and identifying how each treatment customer’s usage
compares to the average and efficient homes of similar properties. In the pilot program, the flags
used to identify benchmarking clusters were 1) Home Size (square feet), 2) Home Type, and 3)
County. In the 2020 expansion, two additional flags were added, one for ESH and one for AC.
Figure 4 - Peer Comparison Section
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 23 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
1.7 Overview of Segmentation Used for 2023
Improving Tip Selection
Idaho Power and Uplight are always on the lookout for new ways to keep report messaging
personalized and fresh. This is a good way to drive additional customer engagement with the intent
of increasing program savings and participation. In 2023, the segmentation in Table 14 was used.
Table 14: Segmentation Used for 2023 Quarterly Home Energy Reports
1.8 Key Decisions
Included NCOA group (USPS undeliverables) in Program Group
The inclusion of USPS undeliverables in our Program Group went well in 2022 and is now part of
our permanent process.
Before May 2021, customers flagged as NCOA/USPS undeliverable were moved out of the Program
Group. Since they were retained in the Evaluation Group but no longer received reports, this
created the potential for diluting savings. In April, IPC compared the NCOA list with the mailing
addresses in IPC’s system and found no explicable reason they should have been removed. At IPC’s
request, Uplight developed a solution that allowed us to deliver reports to these participants and
keep them in the Program Group.
From the May report throughout 2021, Uplight paid first-class postage and worked with IPC and the
printer to break these customers into their own send list so they could continue receiving reports.
Immediately after implementing this process, improvement allowed us to treat an additional 128
customers in May 2021. IPC has not received HERs marked “return to sender” in any notable
quantity to date.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 24 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
Report Cycle Segmentation
February Hot Water Heater/Appliances and Lights
May Air Conditioning/Appliances and Lights
August Air Conditioning/Always On
November Electrical Space Heating/Appliances and Lights
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
1.9 Vendor History
Time Period Idaho Power
Contractor
Subcontractor Consulting Support
April 2017 Aclara:
· Receives IPC data
and conveys to
Ecotagious
· Manages timeline
and invoices IPC
Ecotagious:
· Receives data from
Aclara, produces and
disseminates HERs
using proprietary
algorithms
DNV: Craig Williamson
· Advice on C/T sizing,
experimental design,
etc.
· Assigned C/T
groups
November
2019
Uplight acquires
Ecotagious
· Cory Knoll PM
June 2021 UCA Harris acquires
Aclara HER programs
Uplight:
· Thea Winch replaces
Cory as PM
August 2021 DNV: Ken Agnew
· Advice on anything
related to
experimental design
and savings
calculations
May 2023 HERs move to
SilverBlaze, a division of
UCA Harris
January 2024 Uplight:
· Receives IPC data,
produces and
disseminates HERs
using proprietary
algorithms
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 25 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2. 2023 Program Results Detail
2.1 Objectives: Findings
2.1.1 ENERGY SAVINGS
Cumulative Savings During Treatment Period
In total, we saw an average of 182.92 kWh savings per treatment customer. This added up to a total
combined savings of 17,467,444 kWh across all treatment groups as of December 31, 2023. Savings
calculations from T3, T4, and T6 were statistically significant. See Table 3 for 2023 savings per
cohort. The aggregate savings with all treatment groups combined were statistically significant.
Additionally, the T5 treatment group was treated with home energy reports through February 2020
and continued to show persistent savings post-treatment. All treatment customers in 2023,
including the T5 post-treatment period, showed a total combined savings of 17,737,130 kWh and an
average savings of 178.92 kWh per customer. Savings calculations from T5 were statistically
significant. The aggregate savings with all groups combined were also statistically significant.
Table 15: 2023 Cumulative Savings Active by Cohort
T12346 Treatment Period: Jan 1, 2023 - Dec 31, 2023
Cohort
Avg kWh
Savings per
Customer
Average
Savings
Percent
95%
Confidence
Margin of
Error
One-Sided
Null
Hypothesis
P-Value
Cumulative
Aggregate
Savings
(kWh)
Winter
Heating – T1
11.05 0.05%411.90 0.489728 49,817
Winter
Heating – T2
183.89 0.88% 233.85 0.215828 729,671
Year-Round -
T3 249.21 1.69%112.48 0.013359 1,152,330
Year-Round -
T4 213.14 2.04%98.76 0.015459 464,213
Expansion - T6 187.89 1.28%39.66 1.08399E-06 15,071,413
Combined 182.92 1.24%29.95 2.50686E-33 17,467,444
Notes on Table 15:
●In 2021, the decision was made to continue including IO6 customers in our Evaluation Group for
yearly reporting. The data in Table 15 includes IO6 customers.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 26 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Table 16: 2023 Cumulative Savings by T5 (inactive Cohort)
T5 Persistent Period: Jan 1, 2023 - Dec 31, 2023
Cohort
Avg kWh
Savings per
Customer w/
IO6
Average
Savings
Percent w/
IO6
Cumulative
Aggregate
Savings
(kWh) w/ IO6
Year-Round -
T5 74.11 1.04%269,686
Table 17: 2023 Combined cumulative Savings for all Treatment Groups including T5
Cohort
Avg kWh
Savings per
Customer w/
IO6
Average
Savings
Percent w/
IO6
Cumulative
Aggregate
Savings
(kWh) w/ IO6
T123456 178.92 1.237%17,737,130
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 27 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2.1.2 YEAR-TO-DATE AVERAGE SAVINGS PER CUSTOMER BY TREATMENT GROUP
Table 18: Average kWh Savings per Cohort
T1 T2 T3 T4 T6
Jan 2023 115.66 (13.46)23.64 33.87 20.86
Feb 2023 36.79 (15.64)46.73 60.62 39.63
Mar 2023 31.06 5.61 67.95 83.38 54.13
Apr 2023 8.87 50.57 87.29 105.36 61.04
May 2023 4.01 77.46 101.77 123.94 70.61
Jun 2023 10.77 89.31 112.34 138.61 85.62
Jul 2023 33.54 122.69 139.36 159.86 107.34
Aug 2023 33.06 124.56 160.95 184.23 124.01
Sep 2023 31.84 136.45 186.74 178.39 142.10
Oct 2023 15.62 151.21 215.78 184.39 151.20
Nov 2023 4.69 156.14 236.13 192.47 170.44
Dec 2023 11.05 183.89 249.21 213.14 187.89
Notes on Table 18:
●Starting in 2023, we began pulling Year-to-Date Monthly Savings to maintain consistency with the
Quarterly Monitoring Reports.
●Numbers in parentheses represent negative savings for that month.
2.1.3 2023 COMBINED SAVINGS FOR EXPANSION PARTICIPANTS (T6) VS. PILOT PARTICIPANTS (T1234)
The T6 group is much larger than other treatment groups and more closely represents the entire
Idaho Power customer base than any other group. T6 alone accounts for over 80% of the total
treatment group. Savings for T6 have ramped up and are performing well.
Compared to the pilot customer group, an analysis of savings within the expansion participant
group (T6) found that in 2023, T6 saved an average of 187.89 kWh per customer. T3 and T4
continue outperforming T6, while T1 and T2 have underperformed. In aggregate, the active pilot
cohorts saved an average of 156.82 kWh per customer, and T5 had a residual average savings of
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 28 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
74.11 kWh per customer. The combined average savings for T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 was 178.92
kWh per customer.
2023 was the third full year where all waves were on the same report schedule, and thus, we are
beginning to look at the program group more holistically.
2.2 Email Reports
2.2.1 DELIVERY, OPEN,AND BOUNCE RATES
In 2023, a total of 181,461 email reports were sent to Idaho customers and seeds (i.e., IPC
employees receiving an eHER to evaluate it). Of these, 179,715 emails were successfully delivered,
and a total of 94,451 were opened. This resulted in a 53% open rate, which is stronger than
average. The total clickthrough rate (the rate of clicks on links contained within the emails) was
2.13%.
2.3 Customer Feedback
2.3.1 CUSTOMER SERVICE LINE CALLS AND OPT-OUT RATES
Table 19: CSA Calls and Opt-Out Call Rates
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Total Calls 411 246 1,087 660 409 385
Opt-Out Calls 172 66 211 115 93 94
% of Opt-Out
Calls to Total
Calls
42%27%19%17%23%24%
In 2023, IPC customer solutions advisors (CSAs) received 385 calls related to the HER program.
Customers must call in to opt out of paper reports, so it makes sense that opt-outs are a notable
percentage of total calls.
From January to December 2023, CSAs classified each call they received into one of eight categories
as specified in the table below:
●General
●Profile Update
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 29 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
●Opt-Out
●Escalation
●Non-Program-Related
●Switching to Email
●Switch to Paper
●Other
Figure 5: 2023 Calls by Type
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 30 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Table 20: – Reasons for Calls to CSAs in 2023 by Category
Call Reason 2023 Total
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
General 1 30 1 2 25 3 4 37 —6 26 1 136
Profile
Update 1 9 2 3 8 ——10 —2 10 —45
Opt-Out —26 3 2 16 2 —11 —3 30 1 94
Switch to
Email —9 1 —10 ——9 1 —14 —44
Switch to
Paper —1 ——————————1
Escalation ———————1 ————1
Non-
Program-
Related
2 10 8 —8 4 1 13 2 1 12 1 62
Other —4 —1 5 —1 4 —2 ——17
Total
Reasons*4 89 15 8 72 9 6 85 3 14 92 3 400
Total
Calls*4 87 15 8 68 9 6 82 3 14 86 3 385
indicates report month
*Some customers call for more than one reason, which is why the Total Reasons and Total Calls vary.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 31 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Following are some sample notes from CSAs regarding phone calls from customers about the HER
program:
●“Customer prefers to receive information via email”
●“HER report prompted to sign up for home energy audit”
●“Customer wants us to save the cost they have done what they can already.”
●“Inq about the incentives or rebates available since she saw at the bottom of HER Report that
we have some available.
●“I'm requesting to not receive these reports anymore. The high electric bills are depressing
enough without adding the fact my 123 year old house uses half again the amount of energy
an average house uses. I can do nothing about the baseboard and radiant ceiling heat. I
keep the heat in the mid-60s and it's done nothing to change my bill.”
●“says they have done all they are willing to do so report is pointless”
●“Cust could not figure out why it was showing that 39 percent of their energy is for electric
heat when they are not electric. We went over what type a system they have, and it is a heat
pump, educated that runs solely on electricity, she had no idea of this. Recommend Home
Profile to update data to be more specifically tailored.”
●“[Customer] called in regarding last two bills, which were significantly higher than year
before. He installed new heat pump, had a heat pump prior. He wanted to discuss with EA.
Submitted EA SIO. Didn't have a computer that works, so no my account.
●“[Customer] called about report..is on hospice with quite a bit of equipment so the report
made sense to him that they were a little higher than average”
●“[Customer] George emailed that he is happy with his usage and the report”
●“Caller interested in solar, but because of high use HER report. Had in depth solar convo, also
considering getting an EV, looked at TVP. Recommended updating Home Profile for accuracy
and getting Home Energy Audit for increased energy efficiency.”
●“[Customer], HER had just arrived so he used the 800 on the report to call in a trouble order
outage.”
●“Why does my usage compare this way? Profile was marked gas heat instead of electric.
Updated profile.”
2.4 Additional Metrics
2.4.1 MY ACCOUNT WEB ACTIVITY
Since the beginning of the program, the treatment groups have consistently used IPC’s My Account
slightly more than the controls. The treatment group has been an average of 0.10 percent more
active on My Account than the controls since January 2017.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 32 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Figure 6 - My Account Activity Treatment vs. Control Program to Date
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 33 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
2.4.2 ATTRITION RATE DETAIL
HER EXPANSION (T6) ATTRITION RATES
Table 21: T6 Attrition Rates in 2023
T6 Feb May Aug Nov Total
Total Reports Delivered 82,157 80,763 79,360 77,952 320,232
Move-Outs 1,062 1,066 1,126 1,511 4,765
Unsupported Rate Code (I06)289 242 93 174 798
Location —————
Property 5 4 3 3 15
Opt-Outs 12 26 13 8 59
USPS - Non-Deliverables
1 —————
Total Permanent Removals 1,368 1,338 1,235 1,696 5,637
AMI Insufficient/Negative Usage 279 169 317 16 781
Insufficient Benchmarking 64 83 93 99 339
Total Temporary Removals 343 252 410 115 1,120
Total Removals 1,711 1,590 1,645 1,811 6,757
1 USPS – Non Deliverables were temporarily removed from eligibility each month; then those customers regained eligibility
for treatment the following month until after October of 2020. Starting with the November reports, any customer listed as
non-deliverable was permanently removed from the program. In May of 2021 we started treating the undeliverable
customers again which is why you see the USPS-Non Deliverables count drop to 0 starting in May.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 34 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
HER PILOT (T12345) ATTRITION RATES
Table 22: T12345 Attrition Rates in 2023
T12345 Feb May Aug Nov Total
Total Reports Delivered 14,638 14,448 14,220 14,021 57,327
Move-Outs 155 134 172 214 675
Unsupported Rate Code (I06)36 39 17 31 123
Location —————
Property —————
Opt-Outs 3 1 4 2 10
USPS - Non-Deliverables
2 —————
Total Permanent Removals 194 174 193 247 808
AMI Insufficient/Negative Usage 27 27 57 3 114
Insufficient Benchmarking 12 14 19 20 65
Total Temporary Removals 39 41 76 23 179
Total Removals 233 215 269 270 987
2 USPS – Non Deliverables were temporarily removed from eligibility each month; then those customers regained eligibility for treatment the
following month until after October of 2020. Starting with the November reports, any customer listed as non-deliverable was permanently
removed from the program. In May of 2021 we started treating the undeliverable customers again which is why you see the USPS-Non
Deliverables count drop to 0 starting in May.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 35 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
3. Process Improvements, Lessons
Learned, and Future Considerations
3.1 Process Improvements
Revised How Quarterly Progress to Forecast Tracking
IPC noted that forecast numbers didn't always align with the quarter's savings recorded in the QMR.
This is because there was a difference in how the quarterly savings were calculated for QMRs and
the yearly data was pulled for the PSR. Uplight transitioned to pulling the QMR data using the same
method as the Program Summary Report to keep the data consistent.
Implemented Smart Notifications for CSA Escalations
When customers call in with a HER-related escalation, the CSA inputs notes on the call into a CSA
survey. Previously, escalations only surfaced during the weekly CSA Report that captures all CSA
surveys. Escalations need to be responded to quickly. Since the original process relied on a CSA
Report, which is pulled once a week, there was a delay between when a potential escalation call
occurred and when the IPC Program Specialist could act on the escalation.
To address this, UCA-Harris/ Uplight reconfigured the CSA survey with “smart notification” so that
an email is immediately sent to the IPC Program Specialist when an escalation is submitted to Silver
Blaze/Uplight through a CSA survey. This allows the Program Specialist to quickly respond within
one business day to any calls marked as an escalation.
3.2 Lessons Learned
In 2023 there were several lessons learned. These learnings serve as a way to identify future
program improvement opportunities.
Incorporating the Do Not Contact List Quarterly
As part of the eHER expansion in August 2022, we updated the cadence in which a new Do Not
Contact (DNC) list is incorporated. Idaho Power was to provide an updated DNC list once a quarter
before eHERs go out. Uplight then would cross-reference the DNC list with the eHER mailing list and
remove any customers that appeared on both lists. This was to ensure that Program Group
customers who ask to be added to Idaho Power's DNC list are not receiving emails they do not
want.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 36 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
During the 2023 program year, UCA-Harris/Uplight discovered that incorporating an updated DNC
list was missed after the August 2022 report. As a result, treatment customers added to IPC’s DNC
list after August were potentially still receiving reports. To evaluate the impact, Uplight/UCA-Harris
looked at the number of customers in treatment who were to receive an eHER in November 2023
and were added to the DNC list after the eHER expansion in 2023. Only one customer fell into that
category.
Since the impact was low and customers were able to opt out of eHERs and HERs or notify IPC using
other methods, IPC made the decision not to include new DNC lists on a quarterly basis so long as
opt-outs are accounted for, which they are. However, DNC will continue to be an important data
point to consider each time a new communication pattern is considered.
Microsite Engagement Tracking Was Broken
The Home Energy Report (HERs) program has a Microsite that presents an overview of the HERs,
along with Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). The Microsite is available so that customers can
self-serve in answering standard program questions.
In January of 2023, Uplight discovered the Microsite was down and no longer accessible to
customers. UCA-Harris relaunched the Microsite but did not implement engagement tracking. As a
result, there are no Microsite engagement metrics for 2023. Uplight has a plan to address this in
2024. Please refer to section 3.3 Future Consideration,for more information.
Example of Microsite data that was included in 2022 PSR:
Table 23: Microsite Activity by Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Unique
Clicks 96 58 43 18 23 17 18 14 11 22 29 74 423
Total
Clicks 96 58 43 18 23 17 18 14 11 30 29 74 431
Unique
Page
Views
19 45 21 26 43 12 22 66 18 116 41 14 443
Total
Page
Views
19 44 21 28 44 12 28 70 20 141 43 18 488
indicates report month
From January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022, there were a total of 443 unique page views (that is,
people who navigated to the site) and 423 unique clicks within the site.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 37 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Low microsite usage is to be expected, as the site serves only to supplement the HER program and
does not offer extra value to customers beyond answering basic FAQs. It is not a venue for
customers to update their home profiles or opt out of the program; it functions primarily to help
reduce call volumes.
The microsite link —idahopower.com/HomeEnergyReport — is available from HER reports.
Some eHER Customers Did Not Receive a Welcome Note
When eHERs the eHER expansion took place in August 2022, the intention was to only send future
eHERs to customers that were part of the August 2022 eHER cycle and customers that requested to
receive eHERs only. This was because the August 2022 eHER template included a note about the
expansion and why they were receiving the eHER as part of the expansion. IPC wanted to ensure
that customers had either received the eHER Welcome Note, which was only included in the August
2022 eHER template, or requested to be included. The filter was applied for the August 2022 and
November 2022 cycles, but there was a miscommunication about the filter being an ongoing
requirement.
To better understand the impact and determine the next steps, Uplight and IPC looked into data
around customers who received an eHER but did not receive the Welcome Note. They found that
4,981 unique customers received an eHER in 2023 but did not receive a Welcome Note. Of those,
only 11 customers had unsubscribed. IPC and Uoplight identified two paths forward:
Option 1 - keep sending eHERs to everyone regardless of whether or not they received a
welcome letter.
Option 2 - keep sending eHERs to folks that received eHERs up until August 2023. Starting
November 2023, do not send eHERs to new customers unless they ask specifically to be
opted into eHERs.
IPC decided to move forward with option 2. There were three main factors that informed that
decision.
1. Only 11 out of the 4,981 customers had received an eHER in 2023 but did not receive a
Welcome Note.
2. There were no CSA escalations as a result of this miss.
3. Abruptly ending eHERs for the 4,981 customers that received an eHER in 2023 but did not
receive a Welcome Note wouldn’t be a great customer experience that could lead to an
increase in CSA calls and escalations.
3.3 Future Considerations
Based on the findings from 2023, Utility Consumer Analytics/Uplight has the following
recommendations for enhancing the program in 2023 and beyond:
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 38 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Add “electric hot water heater likely” data to My Account
Now that the electric hot water heater likely flag is incorporated, enhanced segmentation for
customers with and without electric water heaters is possible. In November 2022, we used the new
flag to provide money and electricity-saving water tips to customers likely to have electric hot water
heaters.
The next step was to upload the “electric hot water heater likely” directly to My Account with the
above-mentioned prioritization. We started this process in Q2 of 2023, but while creating content
for the February 2024 reports in Q4 2023, Uplight found a variance in the number of
water-heater-likely customers in the new My Account feed and the file that was provided by IPC in
2022. In order to keep February 2024 reports progressing, a workaround was used.
There is still value in including this item as a future consideration because incorporating the data
into My Account will improve customers’ Profiles in My Account and allow us to use the My Account
data export as the source of truth for the water heater type.
Conduct a Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) Survey after the Launch of New Templates
In 2024, the Home Energy Report program will be migrating to a new platform. This migration will
include the launch of new HER and eHER templates. Conducting a CSAT survey after the launch of
the new templates will allow IPC to collect feedback from customers on the new reports.
Address Microsite Engagement Tracking Gap
As covered in section 3.2, Lessons Learned under Microsite Engagement Tracking Was Broken,
Microsite engagement tracking is not available for 2023. To address this, Uplight will launch a new
Microsite in 2024 as part of the Home Energy Report migration efforts. The new site will include
engagement tracking that can be used for quarterly reporting during QMRs and yearly reporting in
the PSR. Site availability tracking is also recommended to ensure that Uplight is informed of
Microsite site downtime so there isn’t another gap in its availability.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 39 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
4. Appendices
4.1 Appendix A: Sample Home Energy Reports
4.1.1 A-1. SAMPLE PRINT HER — ALWAYS-ON TIPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 40 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
4.1.2 A-2. SAMPLE PRINT HER — A/C TIPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 41 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
4.1.3 A-3. SAMPLE EMAIL REPORT — ALWAYS-ON TIPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 42 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
4.1.4 A-4. SAMPLE EMAIL REPORT — A/C TIPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 43 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
4.1.5 A-5. SAMPLE PRINT REPORT — APPLIANCES & LIGHTS TIPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 44 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
4.1.6 A-6. SAMPLE EMAIL REPORT — APPLIANCES & LIGHTS TIPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 45 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
4.1.7 A-7. SAMPLE PRINT REPORT — HEATING TIPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 46 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
4.1.8 A-8. SAMPLE EMAIL REPORT — HEATING TIPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 47 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
4.1.9 A-9 SAMPLES PRINT REPORT -HOT WATER TIPS
4.2 Appendix B: Quarterly Program Monitoring
Reports
Reports on program metrics were reported on a quarterly basis, according to the schedule below.
Report #Date Presented Report Period
Q1 May 31, 2023 January 1, 2023 – March 31, 2023
Q2 August 30, 2023 April 1, 2023 - June 30, 2023
Q3 November 15, 2023 July 1, 2023 - September 30, 2023
Q4 February 21, 2023 October 1, 2023 - December 31,
2023
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 48 of 48
The information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Utility Consumer Analytics,
Inc and shall not be released or disclosed to any third party without prior written approval from
Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
23
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program
Designed and implemented by Tinker LLC
SCHOOL YEAR 2022-2023ANNUAL REPORT
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
Joseph Thrasher
MESSAGE FROM
TINKER LLC
Dear Denise,
We wanted to take a moment to express our gratitude for continuing our
partnership and entrusting us to deliver IPC's Student Energy Efficiency
Kit Program. We enjoyed working with the teachers, students, and
parents within your service area. We truly appreciate your support and
would love to continue our partnership for years to come.
For your reference, enclosed is our school year 2022-2023 report
regarding your program. We hope you are pleased with the outcomes.
Cheerfully,
Joseph Thrasher
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Message from Tinker LLC 2
OVERVIEW
Executive Summary 4
DESCRIPTION
Program Description 6
OPERATIONS
Program Timeline 8
Program Materials 9
Program Content 12
Energy Efficiency Kits 13
Student Competitions 14
Teacher Recruitment 16
OUTCOMES
School Participation 17
Projected Savings 18
Student Assessments 20
Student Pledges 22
Student Survey 23
Teacher Evaluations 26
Continuous Improvement 28
APPENDICES
Appendix A Student Kit Savings Calculations 30
Appendix B Teacher Kit Savings Calculations 37
Appendix C Participation Tables 38
Appendix D Participant Letters 50
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
4
Tinker LLC is pleased to submit this annual report describing the implementation and outcomes
of the Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program ("SEEK"). From August 2022 through June 2023,
Tinker LLC supported the energy efficiency education efforts in Idaho and Oregon through a
partnership with Idaho Power Company ("IPC").
The program was developed to educate students in
IPC's service area about energy efficiency through the
implementation of a locally-based education program within
schools. Tinker LLC and IPC staff developed curriculum that
included lessons, STEM activities, digital program resources,
student contests, teacher grants, and an Energy Efficiency
Kit containing energy-saving devices for each student. The
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program is known and marketed
to the schools as the EnergyWise Program. Program objectives
included the following:
• Leverage classroom teachers from schools within IPC’s
service area to provide their 4th – 6th grade students with
quality, age-appropriate instruction regarding the wise use
of electricity.
• Encourage the wise use of electricity at home by engaging
students and their families in activities that support and
reinforce energy efficiency and conservation concepts.
• Provide age-appropriate tools to facilitate student
participation and incentives to encourage follow through
for all Program participants, i.e., teachers, students, and
parents.
• Cross-market IPC’s other residential energy efficiency
programs as directed by IPC.
• Provide IPC with annual energy savings information in the
form of an annual program summary report based on
student responses.
• Enhance IPC’s brand as a trusted energy advisor.
• Maintain or enhance IPC’s customer satisfaction.
School Year 2022-2023
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
179
schools participated
By the Numbers
342
teachers participated
12,204
students enrolled
230.89
kWh per student kit distributed
169.79
kWh per teacher kit distributed
2,875,810
kWh saved annually
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
5
Tinker LLC managed all aspects of the program design and implementation, including school
recruitment, lesson development, day-to-day program management, and reporting.
Below are the program outcomes:
1. Curriculum. To support educational goals, Tinker worked with IPC staff to develop six lessons
specifically for Idaho Power students. Each lesson included locally-based information, teacher
resources, hands-on activities, and supported Idaho state education standards. Below is the
list of lessons developed:
• Natural Resources
• Electric Energy
• Energy-Water Nexus
• Peak and Off-Peak Time
• Electric Bill
• Efficiency and Conservation
2. School Participation. During the school year 2022-2023, 179 schools, representing 342
teachers and 12,204 students participated in the program. Each of these students received an
Energy Efficiency Kit and access to digital learning resources.
3. Knowledge Retention. To determine the baseline knowledge, students were asked to
complete a 10-question assessment before the program was introduced. After completing
the lessons, they completed a post-program assessment to determine the knowledge gained
through the program. The average pre-assessment test score was 65%. After completing the
lessons, the average test score was 86%--an increase of 21%.
4. Energy Efficiency Kits. A take-home Energy Efficiency Kit was provided to 12,204 students
and 342 teachers. Each contained products that can be used at home to conserve water and
energy. Students work with their parents to use the products and report on their actions.
5. Student Survey. At the close of the program, students are asked to complete a survey
detailing the actions they took and which products from the Energy Efficiency Kit they
installed. Surveys were received from 8,401 students. Based on the reported data, projected
savings from kits can be found below.
Electricity Natural Gas Water
Green House Gas
Reduction
Annual savings per student kit:230.89 kWh 4.43 Therms 1,813 Gals 0.36 Metric Tons
Annual savings per teacher kit:169.79 kWh 3.26 Therms 1,333 Gals 0.30 Metric Tons
Annual program savings:2,875,810 kWh 55,220 Therms 22,581,210 Gals 4,480.64 Metric Tons
Lifetime program savings:23,034,025 kWh 552,198 Therms 225,812,098 Gals 40,743.17 Metric Tons
*The algorithms and data used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A & B
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
6
School Year 2022-2023
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
The Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program is a locally-based curriculum designed to teach
fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade school students about energy and how to use it wisely. Offered as
a completely turnkey program, Tinker managed all aspects of the program implementation.
Tinker designed and customized three lessons appropriate for fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade
students attending schools in IPC's service territory. Next, Tinker contacted fourth-, fifth-, and
sixth-grade teachers using a variety of communication tools to introduce the program and
collect enrollment commitments. Participating teachers, students, and parents were then
provided access to Tinker’s online platform or web application.
Program Delivery
Delivered by classroom teachers, the curriculum fit seamlessly within the current classroom
setting. The curriculum included lessons that were designed to support Idaho and Oregon
state education standards, featured engaging digital content, and included hands-on
activities. Moreover, each lesson included resources such as video streaming content, online
assessments, and more.
Using resources from our web application, teachers delivered the curriculum to their students.
Students and parents were also provided access to the web application, which included portals
designed specifically for each participating
segment.
IPC was provided with its own customized
version of the web application that displayed
its logo at the top of each page and
referenced it throughout the pages.
I really enjoyed the activities and
the incentives for students to do
the lessons.
S. Huckins, Teacher
Henry L. Slater Elementary School
""
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
7
The digital delivery of the program through the web application allowed for:
• Program Tracking. All program actions were tracked and recorded in real-time. The data was
analyzed and used to inform unique actions by program staff and published within an on-line
dashboard. IPC staff was supplied credentials to access the dashboard and encouraged to
follow program progress.
• Additional Engagement Opportunities. Other IPC related programs were promoted within
each relevant portal.
Upon completion of the lessons, students acquired new knowledge of energy efficiency, and
each student was provided an Energy Efficiency Kit containing energy-saving devices. During
the final lesson, students completed exercises using the devices included in the kit, giving their
families an opportunity to immediately and consistently conserve water and energy.
Throughout the program, students completed simple surveys and assessments. This data was
collected, analyzed, and summarized to gauge the curriculum’s impact on students. At the close
of the unit, students and parents
completed a pledge to continue to
conserve energy and water.
At the end of the school year, all
data generated from the lessons
and any predefined success metrics
were collected to present in this Final
Report.
I love that it connects the students to a
real-life application of energy usage and
conservation. Often, I notice that students
often don't think about where the electricity
comes from or where it comes from.
C. Perry, Teacher
Rulon M Ellis Elementary
"
"
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
8
School Year 2022-2023
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROGRAM TIMELINE
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Ph
a
s
e

1
:

L
a
u
n
c
h
Branding information provided
Incentive programs developed
Print & digital materials published
Quality control checks performed
Eligible school information identified
Ph
a
s
e

2
:

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Teachers introduced to
the program
Participation
commitments collected
Access to digital materials
granted
Materials and Kits
shipped
Communication with
teachers
Collection & evaluation of
program data
Ph
a
s
e

3
:

Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Program closed to
participation
Program data compiled
and analyzed
Final report developed
and delivered
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
9
Phase 1: Launch
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROGRAM MATERIALS
During the program, teachers, students, and parents were provided with a variety of resources
expertly designed to educate about energy efficiency and encourage energy efficient behaviors.
These resources, including the web application, a printed teacher guide, parent letter, and online
lesson materials, were customized to feature the IPC logo and brand. Each are described on the
following pages and below.
DIGITAL MATERIALS
Parents of participating students were provided
access to the parent portal through the web
application. The available resources included the
following.
• A parent letter describing the program, its
goals, and the energy efficiency opportunities
available
• Additional energy efficiency resources offered
by IPC
• Program evaluation
PARENT PROGRAM RESOURCES
I really enjoy the online lessons that
are in the program. I also like the
energy kit that gets sent with the
program.
R. Hart, Teacher
Gem Prep Elementary School
"
"
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
10
SUPPORTING PHYSICAL MATERIALS
Participating teachers were provided a printed
Teacher Guide to support the digital resources.
The Teacher Guide included the following:
• Program goals
• Instructions to administer the program
• Unit plan
• Lesson plans
• Contest and mini-grant information
• Answer keys
TEACHER PROGRAM RESOURCES
DIGITAL MATERIALS
Teachers were provided access to the teacher portal
through the web application. The available resources
included the following.
• Instructions to guide teachers through the
administration of the program
• Supported Idaho state education standards
• Letter to parents in English and Spanish
• Lesson materials including:
o Lesson plans
o Digital slides for classroom presentations
o Online resources
o Video content
o Online homework exercises
o Assessments
• Post-program Evaluation
• Student progress reporting
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
11
DIGITAL MATERIALS
Students were provided access to the student
portal within the web application. Resources
available included the following:
• Instructions for installing the products
inside the kits
• Access to digital lessons and assessments
• Video contest information
• The student leader board
• Additional energy efficiency information
STUDENT PROGRAM RESOURCES
SUPPORTING PHYSICAL MATERIALS
Participating students were provided a student
workbook to support the digital resources. The
student workbook included the following:
• Classroom activity worksheets
• Classroom assessments
• The Energy Efficiency Kit product installation
guide and data collection forms
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
12
Phase 2: Implementation
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROGRAM CONTENT
The Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program curriculum was designed to build upon and supplement
fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade science, math, and language arts curriculum. The curriculum included
the following:
Locally-Based Content: To support educational goals, Tinker
worked with IPC staff to develop six lessons specifically for
students. Each lesson included locally-based information and
supported Idaho state education standards. Below is the list of
lessons we developed:
• Natural Resources
• Electric Energy
• Energy-Water Nexus
• Peak and Off-Peak Time
• Electric Bill
• Efficiency and Conservation
• Energy At Home
To support each lesson, Tinker worked with IPC staff to include
teaching resources, video resources, hans-on activities, and
homework exercises in the lessons.
At the conclusion of each classroom lesson, teachers had the option of assigning online homework
exercises that reviewed the content taught in the classroom. Tinker worked with IPC staff to develop
each homework exercise. These exercises included
locally-based video content, interactive activities,
labeled graphics, flash card grids, and more.
The extensive information in each exercise was
designed to be engaging and to maximize the
knowledge retention of the student.
Web Application
I love how well the program
supports our state standard of
identifying properties, uses, and
availability of Earth materials.
C. Young, Teacher
Vale Elementary School
"
"
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
13
Phase 2: Implementation
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT
A take-home Energy Efficiency Kit was provided to 342 teachers
and 12,204 students. Each contained products that can be used
at home to conserve water and energy. Students work with
their parents to use the products and report on their actions.
Each kit contained the following items:
• Showerhead
• Three LED Lightbulbs
• LED Night Light
• Shower Timer
• Digital Thermometer
• Filter Whistle
• Water Flow Rate Bag
• Reminder Stickers and Magnets
• Quick Start Guide
• Water Bottle Decals
Energy Efficiency Kit
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
14
Phase 2: Implementation
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
STUDENT COMPETITIONS
A fun component of the Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program was the student competitions: the
Student Challenge, Video Contest, and Photo Contest.
Student Challenge
Each student that registered for the online activities were automatically entered into the Student
Challenge. As students progressed through the online portion of the program, they earned points for
each activity completed. In the web application, students followed their point progress and competed
with classmates. Below is a sample of these activities:
Action Points Earned
Complete the online homework exercises 4,000
Install the products from the Energy Efficiency Kit 4,000
Complete the student survey 4,000
Submit a video contest entry 1,000
Complete the online pledge 500
The five students that accumlated the most points were awarded prizes.
Photo Contest
Students were given the opportunity to participate in a product
photo contest. Students snapped a photo of a product installed
from their kit for a chance to earn points and win prizes. Photos
were uploaded through the Tinker web application. Thirteen entries
were selected as winners and received prizes.
Photo Contest Submission
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
15
Video Contest
As part of the program, students were given the opportunity
to participate in a video contest. Students could create a short
two- to three-minute video about energy efficiency for a chance
to win. Videos could be uploaded through the Tinker web
application. Five entries were selected as winners and received
prizes.
My favorite thing about the
program was the kit boxes, the
online homework quizzes for the
students, and points awarded.
C. Royse, Teacher
Silver Trail Elementary School
"
"
Video Contest Submission Video Contest Submission Video Contest
Submission
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
16
Phase 2: Implementation
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
RECRUITMENT
Beginning in August 2022, Tinker began the planning and recruitment of eligible teachers. Eligible
teachers were from elementary schools in IPC’s service area based on a list of zip codes and
communities served as provided by IPC. Tinker staff researched school and teacher information as
well as determined eligibility in such a way that students who received a kit at that school in a prior
grade did not have a second opportunity to receive a kit at the same school in a subsequent grade. As
needed, IPC provided written clarification and verification of school and regional assignments.
In September 2022, Tinker commenced active recruitment of
eligible teachers. The program was offered to fourth-, fifth-, and
sixth-grade teachers using a variety of communication tools to
introduce the program and collect enrollment commitments. This
included email templates, phone scripts, a promotional flyer, and
video content. Tinker received commitments from 342 teachers. In
April 2023, Tinker ceased active recruitment activities.
Teacher Recruitment Video
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
17
During the 2022–2023 school year, fourth-, fifth, and sixth-grade teachers were introduced to the
program and asked to participate. Commitments were received from 179 schools, representing
342 teachers and 12,204 students. The table represents participation in each region of IPC's service
territory.
Region State Teachers Students Total Kits
Canyon ID 60 2,007 2,067
Capital ID 138 4,929 5,067
Eastern ID 40 1,271 1,311
Southern ID 65 2,712 2,777
Western ID 27 1,036 1,063
Total Idaho:330 11,955 12,285
Western OR 12 249 261
Total Oregon:12 249 261
*Detailed participation data can be found in Appendix C
Phase 2: Implementation
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PARTICIPATION
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
18
Through the program, 12,204 Energy Efficiency Kits were distributed to students. The kits were
packed with high efficiency products that when installed help to curb household water and
energy usage while reducing green house gas emissions. Students work with their parents
to install the products and report their actions. Using the data collected, we calculated the
projected resource savings. Projections are found below:
Electricity Natural Gas Water
Green House Gas
Reduction
Annual savings per
student kit 230.89 kWh 4.43 Therms 1,813 Gals 0.36 Metric Tons
Annual program savings
student kits 2,817,742 kWh 54,105 Therms 22,125,253 Gals 4,378.20 Metric Tons
Lifetime program
savings student kits 22,568,924 kWh 541,047 Therms 221,252,527 Gals 39,801 Metric Tons
*The algorithms and data used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROJECTED SAVINGS
Through the program, 342 Energy Efficiency Kits were distributed to teachers. Like students,
teachers are asked to install the products. However, unlike students, some teachers received
a kit in a prior school year or prior school years. To best estimate the projected savings from
the teacher kits, Tinker has applied a 25% discount to the kit savings for each year a teacher
previously received a kit. The table below depicts the percentage of savings applied to teacher
kits based on previous program participation.
Participating
Years
Number of
Teachers
Savings Percentage
Applied
1 155 100%
2 83 75%
3 33 50%
4 71 25%
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
19
The factors that Tinker considered to determine the discount percentage were:
1. Energy efficiency products within the kits have changed occasionally year-over-year.
Thus the entirety of the product savings for those products in which teachers have never
received can be counted.
2. Products such as the LED lightbulbs and showerhead can be used in others areas of the
home. Thus savings can be counted for those products.
3. In future program years, we intend to ask the teachers to report specific installation data.
In the absence of data for this year a reasonable discount percentage was applied.
Savings projections for the Teacher Kits are found below:
Electricity Natural Gas Water
Green House Gas
Reduction
Average annual savings
per teacher kit 169.79 kWh 3.26 Therms 1,333 Gals 0.30 Metric Tons
Average annual program
savings teacher kits 58,068 kWh 1,115 Therms 455,957 Gals 102.44 Metric Tons
Average lifetime program
savings teacher kits 465,100 kWh 11,150 Therms 4,559,572 Gals 942.17 Metric Tons
*The algorithms and data used for these calculations can be found in Appendix B
Electricity Natural Gas Water
Green House Gas
Reduction
Annual program savings:2,875,810 kWh 55,220 Therms 22,581,210 Gals 4,480.64 Metric Tons
Lifetime program savings:23,034,025 kWh 552,198 Therms 225,812,098 Gals 40,743.17 Metric Tons
Total projected program savings was derived by adding the projected savings from students and
teachers. The total projected savings is found below:
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
20
To determine the effectiveness of the program, we collected pre- and post-program data to assess
changes in students' knowledge, attitude, and behavior with respect to energy efficiency. The outcome
is provided below.
AFTER PARTICIPATING IN
THE PROGRAM, STUDENTS
INCREASED THEIR TEST
SCORES BY 21%
ON THE AVERAGE
STUDENTS SCORED 86%
ON THE
POST-PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT.
ON THE AVERAGE
STUDENTS SCORED 65%
ON THE
PRE-PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT.
PRE-
ASSESSMENT
POST-
ASSESSMENT 21%
National Average: 66%National Average: 86%National Average: 20%
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
21
At the conclusion of each lesson, students were ask to complete a lesson assessment. The assessment
was designed to measure knowledge growth within the topic as well as the re-enforce the education.
The results are used to determine the effectiveness of each lesson. The table below contains the
average student score within each lesson assessment.
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
LESSON ASSESSMENTS
Lesson Assessment
Natural Resources 95%
Electric Energy 92%
Energy-Water Nexus 87%
Peak and Off-peak Time 86%
Electric Bill 88%
Efficiency and Conservation 92%
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
22
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
STUDENT PLEDGES
As part of the program students are asked to pledge four different ways they will save energy at home.
Below is a sampling of the pledges collected:
"I pledge to save energy by
doing my laundry on the
weekends."
Student
"I pledge to save as much
energy as I can by taking up
good habits about saving
energy."
Student
"I pledge to save energy by
turning my air conditioning
off once in a while."
Student
"I pledge to take short
showers and turn off the
water from the sink when
I'm brushing my teeth."
Student
"One thing I pledge, to do is.
To turn off every light in my
house to save energy."
Student
"I pledge to turn off the
lights when it's daytime
because the sun is giving
light so you don't need it."
Student
"I pledge to save energy by
not being on electronics as
much."
Student
"I pledge by not taking a 30
minute shower."
Student
"I pledge to save energy by
opening the blinds in the
winter for heat."
Student
"I pledge to install all of
the products from your Kit
because thy'ree made to
save energy."
Student
"I pledge to save energy by
unplugging devices that I am
not using currently."
Student
"I pledge to save energy by
teaching people how to save
energy and helping them do
it."
Student
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
23
At the conclusion of the program, students are asked to complete a survey detailing the actions they
took and which products from the Energy Efficiency Kit they install. Surveys were received from 8,401
students. The reported data can be found below.
1 Did you enjoy the program?
It was excellent 38%
Pretty good 46%
Neutral 12%
Not so great 3%
It was terrible 1%
2 Was the online content easy to use?
Yes 87%
No 13%
3 How many people (adults and children) live in your home?
4.78 People
4 Which type of fuel (energy) is used to heat water in your home?
Electricity 62%
Natural gas 29%
Propane 9%
5 Which type of fuel (energy) is does your heater use in the winter?
Electricity 11%
Natural gas 79%
Propane 10%
6 Which type of fuel (energy) is does your air conditioner use in the summer?
Electricity 84%
Natural gas 2%
Propane 9%
We don't have one 5%
7 How many showers are in your home?
1.97 Showers
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
STUDENT SURVEY
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
24
8 Did you install the high efficiency showerhead from your kit?
Yes 46%
No, but I will install 28%
No 26%
9 What was the water flow rate from your previous showerhead?
2.21 G.P.M.
10 What was the water flow rate when you installed the new showerhead from the kit?
1.40 G.P.M.
11 Did you use the shower timer from your kit?
Yes 65%
No, but I will 19%
No 16%
12 Did you install the LED night light?
Yes 79%
No, but I will 19%
No 2%
13 When installing the night light did you replace an existing night light?
Yes 51%
No 49%
14 How many LED lightbulbs did you install?
3 47%
2 69%
1 85%
0 15%
16 What was the wattage of the first lightbulb you replaced with the LED lightbulb?
40.01 Watts
17 What was the wattage of the second lightbulb you replaced with the LED lightbulb?
40.97 Watts
18 What was the wattage of the third lightbulb you replaced with the LED lightbulb?
40.68 Watts
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
25
19 Did you use the digital thermometer?
Yes 52%
No, but I will 26%
No 22%
20 Did you raise or lower your water temperature?
Our water was the perfect temperature. We did not adjust the water heater temperature.
76%
Our water was too hot! We lowered the water heater temperature.
12%
Our water was not hot enough. We raised our water heater temperature.
12%
21 Did you install the furnace filter whistle?
Yes 32%
No, but I will 28%
No 40%
22 Did you use the sticker and magnet pack from your kit?
Yes 68%
No, but I will 19%
No 13%
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
26
At the conclusion of the unit teachers were asked to complete a post-program evaluation. Outcomes
are below:
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
TEACHER EVALUATION
1. Did you enjoy the program?
It was excellent 44.30%
It was pretty good 50.63%
Neutral 4.43%
Not so great 0.63%
It was terrible 0.00%
2. How satisfied were your students with this program?
They thought it was AWESOME! 31.65%
They liked it 54.43%
It was ok 12.66%
They really didn't like it 0.63%
They thought it was terrible 0.63%
3. Did this program support the education standards in your grade level?
Yes 93.04%
No 1.90%
Unsure 5.06%
4. Was the online content easy to use?
Yes 81.01%
No 18.99%
4a. How could the online content be improved?
5. Which lesson was your favorite?
Natural Resources 34.18%
Electric Energy 10.13%
Energy-Water Nexus 10.13%
Peak and Off-Peak Time 17.72%
Electric Bill 8.86%
Efficiency and Conservation 11.39%
Course Review 2.53%
Energy At Home 5.06%
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
27
6. Was the program staff courteous?
Yes 83.54%
No 0.00%
Did not interact with program staff 16.46%
6a. Did the program staff effectively answer all of your questions?
Yes 99.24%
No 0.76%
7. What was your favorite thing about the program?
8. Would you change anything about the program? If so, what?
9. Would you like to see this program continue?
Yes 100.00%
No 0.00%
10. If offered, would you participate again next school year?
Yes 97.47%
No 2.53%
11. Is there anything else you'd like to share about the program?
Yes 26.58%
No 34.18%
Maybe 39.24%
12. To aid in continuous improvement of the program, select teachers serve in an advisory capacity.
Advising teachers are provided a stipend and meet twice per year. If asked, would you be willing to
participate as an advisor?
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
28
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
In addition to successful implementation of the Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program, Tinker LLC
evaluates program outcomes in an effort to continually improve the program. Areas to be enhanced
are identified below:
Content. As identified in this report, students successfully completed the lessons which resulted in a
net knowledge gain. During school year 2023-2024, Tinker LLC plans to enhance the content through:
1. The evaluation and potential redesign of the Energy-Water Nexus lesson.
2. On July 1, 2023 the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) will go into full effect,
significantly impacting the savings Idaho Power is allowed to claim with respect to the three LED
A Lamps included in the Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program. As a result, Tinker LLC with work
with Idaho Power to evaluate the energy efficiency devices included in the Energy Efficiency Kit.
Any changes to the Energy Efficiency Kit contents will impact different segments of the program's
content.
Teacher Program Administration. Based on feedback from participating teachers, Tinker LLC plans
to enhance the following teacher administration tools:
1. Development and publication of a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) page for teachers.
2. Develop and publish a program administration video tutorial for teachers. This video will guide
teachers through each aspect of program implementation.
Teacher Registration. To further enhance teacher registration, Tinker LLC plans to develop and
implement the following updates:
1. On the confirmation page, add a link to easily download a digital version of the Teacher Guide
and embed the new program administration video.
2. Add access to the new FAQs page.
Assessments. Based on feedback from participating teachers, Tinker LLC plans to make some minor
updates to the homework assessments. This includes:
1. Evaluate and potentially adjust the questions to better measure changes in student knowledge,
attitude, and behavior pertaining to energy efficiency.
2. Enhance questions by including the correct answer with an explanation if a student answers the
question incorrectly.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
29
Data Collection. As the program has matured, a deeper analysis of collected program data is required
to further measure program success. Tinker LLC will work with IPC staff to identify desired reporting
metrics and modify the program database to seamlessly provide the subsequent reports.
These enhancements will improve the program while continuing to meet the changing needs of
educators and students. Ultimately these will result in increased knowledge leading to the adoption of
sustainable habits as well as responsible energy use amongst program participants.
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
30
SHOWERHEAD RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Reported Inputs (Exact Numbers Reported)
Average household size: 4.78 people
Showers per home:1.97 showers
Previous showerhead flow rate:2.21 gallons
Retrofit showerhead flow rate:1.40 gallons
Percent of homes with electric water heat:62%
Percent of homes with natural gas water heat:29%
Retrofit showerhead installation rate:46%
Participants using kits:12,204 Kits
Assumed Inputs
Showers per day per person:0.67 showers1
Average length of use:8.2 minutes1
Percent of showerhead water that is heated:73%hot water1
Temperature of incoming cold water:55°1
Temperature of outgoing hot water:120°1
Product life:10 years2
Outcomes
Projected annual water savings for all households:22,125,252.69 Gallons1
Projected annual electric savings for all households:1,802,500.09 kWh4
Projected annual natural gas savings for all households:42,155.24 Therms5
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households:3,595.00 Metric Tons3
Projected lifetime water savings for all households:221,252,526.95 Gallons1
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households:18,025,000.87 kWh1
Projected lifetime natural gas savings for all households:421,552.44 Therms1
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households:35,949.00 Metric Tons3
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
31
SHOWERHEAD RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Step 1
*Equation is divided by full bathrooms per home because we only provide one showerhead
Step 2 gallons saved per day x 365 days = gallons saved per year
Step 3
2 Manufacturer
5 WaterSense® Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. EPA, 2010, Appendix A: Calculations and Key
Assumptions. Note:
o Therms Required to Raise 1 Gallon of Water 65º F
[(1.0 Btu/lbs x º F) (1 Therm/99,976 Btus) / (1 gal/8.34 lbs) x 65º F] / 0.60 = 0.009 Therms/gal
1 WaterSense® Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. EPA, 2010, Appendix A: Calculations and Key
Assumptions. Note:
gallons saved per year x retrofit showerhead installation rate x participants = gallons saved per year program-
wide
[(Previous showerhead flow rate - Retrofit showerhead flow rate) x Average length of use: 8.2min x Showers
per day per person: 0.67 x Average household size] ÷ Full bathrooms per home = gallons saved per day
3 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June. 2023,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
4 WaterSense® Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. EPA, 2010, Appendix A: Calculations and Key
Assumptions. Note:
o KWh Required to Raise 1 Gallon of Water 65º F
[(1.0 Btu/lbs x º F) (1kWh/3,412 Btus) / (1 gal/8.34 lbs) x 65º F] / 0.90 = 0.18 kWh/gal
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
32
LED LIGHTBULB #1 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate:85%
Participants using kits:12,204 Kits
Average watts used by the replaced bulb:40.01 watts
Assumed Inputs
Remaining useful life of replaced bulb:1,000 hours1
Watts used by the LED light bulb:8 watts2
Hours of operation per day:2.1 hours per day3
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households:254,518.27 kWh4
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households:180 Metric Tons5
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households:332,052.53 kWh6
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households:235 Metric Tons5
2 Manufacturer
3 "Regional Technical Forum." ResidentialLighting-v10-0. Lamps_StorageRemoval. General Purpose and Three
Way. 250 to 1049 lumens. Any - Res. Only
4 {[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Hours of operation per day x 365
Days] ÷ 1,000} x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
5 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June. 2023,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
1 Remaining Useful Life (RUL) is 1/3 of useful life. Average Halogen useful life is 3,000 hours. Thus RUL is 1000
hours. (https://www.bulbs.com/learning/arl.aspx)
6 {[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Remaining useful life of replaced bulb]
÷ 1,000} x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
33
LED LIGHTBULB #2 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate:69%
Participants using kits:12,204 Kits
Average watts used by the replaced bulb:40.97 watts
Assumed Inputs
Remaining useful life of replaced bulb:1,000 hours1
Watts used by the LED light bulb:8 watts2
Hours of operation per day:2.1 hours per day3
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households:212,805.28 kWh4
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households:151 Metric Tons5
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households:277,632.46 kWh6
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households:197 Metric Tons5
2 Manufacturer
1 Remaining Useful Life (RUL) is 1/3 of useful life. Average Halogen useful life is 3,000 hours. Thus RUL is 1000
hours. (https://www.bulbs.com/learning/arl.aspx)
3 "Regional Technical Forum." ResidentialLighting-v10-0. Lamps_StorageRemoval. General Purpose and Three
Way. 250 to 1049 lumens. Any - Res. Only
4 {[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Hours of operation per day x 365
Days] ÷ 1,000} x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
5 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June. 2023,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
6 {[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Remaining useful life of replaced bulb]
÷ 1,000} x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
34
LED LIGHTBULB #3 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate:47%
Participants using kits:12,204 Kits
Average watts used by the replaced bulb:40.68 watts
Assumed Inputs
Remaining useful life of replaced bulb:1,000 hours1
Watts used by the LED light bulb:8 watts2
Hours of operation per day:2.1 hours per day3
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households:143,679.32 kWh4
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households:102 Metric Tons5
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households:187,448.56 kWh6
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households:133 Metric Tons5
2 Manufacturer
1 Remaining Useful Life (RUL) is 1/3 of useful life. Average Halogen useful life is 3,000 hours. Thus RUL is 1000
hours. (https://www.bulbs.com/learning/arl.aspx)
3 "Regional Technical Forum." ResidentialLighting-v10-0. Lamps_StorageRemoval. General Purpose and Three
Way. 250 to 1049 lumens. Any - Res. Only
4 {[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Hours of operation per day x 365
Days] ÷ 1,000} x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
5 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June. 2023,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
6 {[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Remaining useful life of replaced bulb]
÷ 1,000} x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
35
LED NIGHT LIGHT RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED night light installation rate:79%
Participants using kits:12,204 Kits
Assumed Inputs
Product life:8 years1
Watts used by the LED night light:0.5 watts1
Average length of use:4380 hours per year
Average watts used by the replaced bulb:4 watts1
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households:147,798.98 kWh3
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households:105 Metric Tons4
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households:1,182,391.86 kWh3
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households:838 Metric Tons4
1 Manufacturer
3 {[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED night light) x Hours of operation per day x 365 Days]
÷ 1,000} x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED night light installation rate
4 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June. 2023,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
36
FILTER WHISTLE RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Reported Inputs
Filter Whistle installation rate:32%
Participants using kits:12,204 Kits
Percent of customers with central air conditioning:84%
Percent of customers using gas heat:79%
Assumed Inputs
Annual energy (electricity) use by a central air conditioner:4467 kWh1
Annual energy (natural gas) use by a central space heating or furnace 421 therms1
Projected increase in efficiency (electricity):1.75%3
Projected increase in efficiency (natural gas):0.92%3
Product life:10 years4
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households:256,439.82 kWh
Projected annual natural gas savings for all households:11,949.49 Therms
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households:245.2 Metric Tons5
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households:2,564,398.21 kWh
Projected lifetime natural gas savings for all households:119,494.85 Therms
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households:2,449 Metric Tons5
2 Idaho Power's 2022 Residential End-Use Study
3 Reichmuth P.E., Howard. (1999). Engineering Review and Savings Estimates for the Filter Restriction Alarm.
4 Provided by manufacturer.
1 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Web site:
http://www.eia.gov/
5 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June. 2023,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
37
TEACHER KIT SAVINGS
Teacher Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX B
No. of Years
Participating
Student Kit
Savings
Savings Percentage
Applied
Number of
Teachers
Total Annual
Savings
1 230.89 kWh 100%155 35,787.44 kWh
2 230.89 kWh 75%83 14,372.7 kWh
3 230.89 kWh 50%33 3,809.63 kWh
4 230.89 kWh 25%71 4,098.24 kWh
Student Kit Savings x Savings Percentage Applied x Number of
Teachers = Total Annual Savings Total:58,068.01 kWh
No. of Years
Participating
Student Kit
Savings
Savings Percentage
Applied
Number of
Teachers
Total Annual
Savings
1 4.43 Therms 100%155 687.17 Therms
2 4.43 Therms 75%83 275.98 Therms
3 4.43 Therms 50%33 73.15 Therms
4 4.43 Therms 25%71 78.69 Therms
Student Kit Savings x Savings Percentage Applied x Number of
Teachers = Total Annual Savings Total:1,114.99 Therms
No. of Years
Participating
Student Kit
Savings
Savings Percentage
Applied
Number of
Teachers
Total Annual
Savings
1 1,812.95 Gals 100%155 281,007.39 Gals
2 1,812.95 Gals 75%83 112,856.19 Gals
3 1,812.95 Gals 50%33 29,913.69 Gals
4 1,812.95 Gals 25%71 32,179.88 Gals
Student Kit Savings x Savings Percentage Applied x Number of
Teachers = Total Annual Savings Total:455,957.15 Gals
Total Annual
Savings
No. of Teacher
Kits Distributed
Average Annual
Savings per Kit
58,068.01 kWh 342 kits 169.79 kWh
1,114.99 Therms 342 kits 3.26 therms
455,957.15 Gals 342 kits 1,333.21 Gals
Total Annual Savings ÷ No. of Teacher Kits Distributed = Average Annual
Savings per Kit
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
38
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
APPENDIX C
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Andrus Elementary 3 86 89
Capital ID Anser Charter School 1 52 53
Capital ID Barbara Morgan Stem Academy 2 85 87
Capital ID Basin Elementary 1 18 19
Capital ID Chaparral Elementary 1 23 24
Capital ID Christine Donnell School Of The Arts 1 85 86
Capital ID Collister Elementary 3 64 67
Capital ID Compass Public Charter School 1 112 113
Capital ID Cynthia Mann Elementary 2 53 55
Capital ID Discovery Elementary 4 96 100
Capital ID Eagle Hills Elementary 2 52 54
Capital ID East Canyon Elementary 0 0 0
Capital ID Falcon Ridge Public Charter 1 34 35
Capital ID Future Public School 1 48 49
Capital ID Garfield Elementary 1 30 31
Capital ID Glenns Ferry Elementary School 2 46 48
Capital ID Glenns Ferry Middle School 2 35 37
Capital ID Grace Jordan Elementary 2 53 55
Capital ID Hacker Middle School 5 137 142
Capital ID Hawthorne Elementary 1 18 19
Capital ID Heritage Middle School 2 345 347
Capital ID Hidden Springs Elementary 1 25 26
Capital ID Highlands Elementary 1 29 30
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
39
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
APPENDIX C
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Hillcrest Elementary School 2 41 43
Capital ID Hillsdale Elementary 4 114 118
Capital ID Hunter Elementary 4 107 111
Capital ID Jefferson Elementary 1 20 21
Capital ID Joplin Elementary 2 50 52
Capital ID Koelsch Elementary 1 26 27
Capital ID Lake Hazel Elementary 3 76 79
Capital ID Lewis And Clark Middle School 2 244 246
Capital ID Liberty Elementary 1 24 25
Capital ID Longfellow Elementary 1 26 27
Capital ID Longfellow Elementary School 1 13 14
Capital ID Maple Grove School 2 66 68
Capital ID Mcmillan Elementary School 1 35 36
Capital ID Meridian Elementary 3 75 78
Capital ID Meridian Middle School 2 190 192
Capital ID Monroe Elementary 3 34 37
Capital ID Morley Nelson Elementary 2 52 54
Capital ID Mosaics Public School 1 59 60
Capital ID North Elementary 3 66 69
Capital ID North Star Charter School 1 84 85
Capital ID Owyhee Elementary School 1 12 13
Capital ID Peace Valley Charter School 1 29 30
Capital ID Peregrine Elementary School 1 45 46
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
40
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
APPENDIX C
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Pierce Park Elementary 1 28 29
Capital ID Ponderosa Elementary School 3 81 84
Capital ID Reed Elementary 5 150 155
Capital ID River Valley Elementary 1 75 76
Capital ID Rolling Hills Public Charter School 1 32 33
Capital ID Ronald Reagan Elementary 3 82 85
Capital ID Rose Hill Montessori 1 2 3
Capital ID Ross Elementary 2 62 64
Capital ID Sage International School Of Boise 1 105 106
Capital ID Seven Oaks Elementary 3 90 93
Capital ID Shadow Hills Elementary 1 60 61
Capital ID Siena Elementary 1 130 131
Capital ID Silver Trail Elementary School 4 108 112
Capital ID Spalding Stem Academy 2 50 52
Capital ID St. Mark's Catholic School 1 40 41
Capital ID St. Mary's Catholic School 1 17 18
Capital ID Star Elementary 4 119 123
Capital ID Summerwind Stem Academy 3 57 60
Capital ID Taft Elementary 1 35 36
Capital ID The Village Charter School 1 19 20
Capital ID Ustick Elementary 1 75 76
Capital ID Valley View Elementary 3 71 74
Capital ID Victory Middle 1 180 181
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
41
APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
APPENDIX C
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID West Elementary 4 95 99
Capital ID Whitney Elementary 3 61 64
Capital ID Whittier Elementary 1 27 28
Capital ID Willow Creek Elementary 2 64 66
138 4929 5067
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
42
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Canyon ID Birch Elementary 4 120 124
Canyon ID Centennial Baptist School 1 22 23
Canyon ID Centennial Elementary 2 56 58
Canyon ID Central Canyon Elementary School 1 26 27
Canyon ID Central Elementary 1 26 27
Canyon ID Desert Springs Elementary 4 118 122
Canyon ID East Canyon Elementary 4 130 134
Canyon ID Franklin D. Roosevelt Elementary 2 71 73
Canyon ID Greenhurst Elementary School 2 45 47
Canyon ID Heights Elementary 1 24 25
Canyon ID Heritage Community Charter School 1 60 61
Canyon ID Iowa Elementary School 1 78 79
Canyon ID Jefferson Middle School 1 100 101
Canyon ID Lake Ridge Elementary 3 88 91
Canyon ID Lewis And Clark Elementary 3 60 63
Canyon ID Melba Elementary School 3 65 68
Canyon ID Middleton Heights Elementary 1 25 26
Canyon ID Mill Creek Elementary 6 146 152
Canyon ID New Horizons Dual Language 1 70 71
Canyon ID Owyhee Elementary School 2 55 57
Canyon ID Park Ridge Elementary 1 75 76
Canyon ID Purple Sage Elementary 1 1 2
Canyon ID Roosevelt Elementary 1 35 36
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Canyon Region
APPENDIX C
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
43
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Canyon Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Canyon ID Sherman Elementary 2 100 102
Canyon ID Thomas Jefferson Charter School 1 34 35
Canyon ID Victory Charter School 1 32 33
Canyon ID Vision Charter School 1 35 36
Canyon ID Washington Elementary School 1 26 27
Canyon ID West Canyon Elementary 1 25 26
Canyon ID West Middle School 3 191 194
Canyon ID Wilder Elementary School 1 18 19
Canyon ID Wilson Elementary School 2 50 52
Total 60 2007 2067
APPENDIX C
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
44
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Eastern Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Eastern ID Aberdeen Middle School 1 50 51
Eastern ID Arbon Valley Elementary 1 11 12
Eastern ID Blackfoot Charter Elementary 1 45 46
Eastern ID Connor Academy 1 65 66
Eastern ID Donald D Stalker Elementary School 1 23 24
Eastern ID Fort Hall Elementary 2 28 30
Eastern ID Gate City Elementary 1 30 31
Eastern ID Gem Prep Pocatello 1 30 31
Eastern ID Grace Lutheran School 1 30 31
Eastern ID Greenacres Elementary 2 51 53
Eastern ID I.T. Stoddard Elementary 1 64 65
Eastern ID Indian Hills Elementary 4 107 111
Eastern ID Inkom Elementary School 1 27 28
Eastern ID J.R. Simplot Elementary School 6 150 156
Eastern ID Lewis And Clark Elementary 3 72 75
Eastern ID Pioneer Elementary School #291 1 50 51
Eastern ID Ridge Crest Elementary 2 41 43
Eastern ID Rulon M Ellis Elementary 3 79 82
Eastern ID Syringa Elementary School 1 22 23
Eastern ID Tendoy Elementary 1 24 25
Eastern ID Tyhee Elementary 1 90 91
Eastern ID Wapello Elementary 2 38 40
APPENDIX C
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
45
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Eastern Region
APPENDIX C
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Eastern ID Washington Elementary 1 30 31
Eastern ID William Thomas Middle School 1 114 115
Total 40 1271 1311
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
46
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Southern Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Southern ID Bickel Elementary 1 24 25
Southern ID Bliss Jr. High School 1 7 8
Southern ID Buhl Middle School 1 106 107
Southern ID Carey School 1 19 20
Southern ID Castleford School District 1 30 31
Southern ID Downey Elementary School 1 25 26
Southern ID Ernest Hemingway Steam School 1 24 25
Southern ID Filer Intermediate School 6 133 139
Southern ID Gooding Elementary School 1 96 97
Southern ID Gooding Middle School 1 98 99
Southern ID Hagerman Elementary School 1 31 32
Southern ID Hailey Elementary School 3 48 51
Southern ID Hansen Elementary School 1 50 51
Southern ID Heyburn Elementary 2 48 50
Southern ID Hilltop Adventist School 1 8 9
Southern ID I.B. Perrine Elementary 1 25 26
Southern ID Immanuel Lutheran School 1 19 20
Southern ID Jerome Middle School 3 327 330
Southern ID Lighthouse Christian School 1 12 13
Southern ID Murtaugh Intermediate School 2 41 43
Southern ID Oakley Elementary 1 28 29
Southern ID Perrine Elementary 1 25 26
Southern ID Richfield School 1 16 17
APPENDIX C
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
47
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Southern Region
APPENDIX C
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Southern ID Robert Stuart Middle School 3 270 273
Southern ID Rock Creek Elementary 2 53 55
Southern ID Sawtooth Elementary 3 70 73
Southern ID Shoshone Elementary School 2 34 36
Southern ID Stricker Elementary 3 81 84
Southern ID Summit Elementary School 12 329 341
Southern ID Vera C. O'Leary Middle School 2 276 278
Southern ID Wendell Middle School 1 80 81
Southern ID West Minico Middle School 2 189 191
Southern ID Wood River Middle School 1 90 91
Total 65 2712 2777
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
48
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Western Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Western ID Barbara Morgan Elementary School 1 76 77
Western ID Cambridge Elementary 1 20 21
Western ID Carberry Elementary School 5 122 126
Western ID Emmett Middle School 1 140 141
Western ID Garden Valley School 1 20 21
Western ID Horseshoe Bend Elementary 1 18 19
Western ID Mccain Middle School 1 115 116
Western ID Park Intermediate 5 113 118
Western ID Parma Middle School 1 77 78
Western ID Riggins Elementary 1 15 16
Western ID Shadow Butte Elementary 1 25 26
Western ID Sweet-Montour Elementary 1 13 14
Western ID Tech Trep Academy 1 1 2
Western ID Treasure Valley Classical Academy 2 55 57
Western ID Weiser Middle School 1 118 119
Western ID Westside Elementary 4 108 112
Total 27 1036 1063
APPENDIX C
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
49
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Western Region
APPENDIX C
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Western OR Aiken Elementary School 1 52 53
Western OR Burnt River School 1 6 7
Western OR Four Rivers Community School 1 30 31
Western OR Henry L Slater Elementary School 3 61 64
Western OR Keating Elementary School 1 9 10
Western OR May Roberts Elementary School 1 23 24
Western OR Rockville Elementary School 1 3 4
Western OR Vale Elementary School 2 44 46
Western OR Willowcreek Elementary School 1 21 22
Total 12 249 261
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
50
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
APPENDIX D
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
51
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
APPENDIX C
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
52
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
APPENDIX D
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
53
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
APPENDIX C
RECEIVED
2023 February 15, 5:04PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION