20240801Exhibit No. 1 - Avista 2022 Idaho ACR.pdf

= v
x }/{
YU
OWN
-- ,rr �-` _ `4 it � •S,. - � � . .
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
July 31, 2023

All product and company names contained within this document are either trademarks(TM)or registered(0)trademarks of their respective holders.Use of them does
not imply any affiliation with or endorsement by them.All specifications are subject to change without notice.
All forward-looking statements contained in this document are based on underlying assumptions(many of which are based,in turn,upon further assumptions).These
statements are subject to a variety of risks,uncertainties,and other factors.Most of these factors are beyond our control and may have a significant effect on our
operations,results of operations,financial condition,or cash flows,which could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in our statements.
Such risks,uncertainties,and other factors include,among others,those in our most recent annual report on Form 10-K,or quarterly report on Form 10-Q,filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.Those reports are available on our website at avistacorp.com.
Bayview,Lake Pend Oreille,Idaho

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
TariffRider Balances ............................................................................................................................................... 2
IdahoAchievements............................................................................................................................................... 2
ProgramImpacts................................................................................................................................................. 3
PortfolioTrends................................................................................................................................................... 3
VerifiedSavings................................................................................................................................................... 5
Expenditures....................................................................................................................................................... 6
EvaluationApproach.............................................................................................................................................. 7
Evaluation Methodology and Activities................................................................................................................ 8
Impact Evaluation Results, Portfolio................................................................................................................... 10
Cost-Effectiveness................................................................................................................................................. 10
Commercial/Industrial Sector............................................................................................................................... 12
Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
Marketing ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Business Partner Program............................................................................................................................ 20
Impact Evaluation Commercial/Industrial Sector................................................................................................. 21
Performance and Savings Goals .................................................................................................................. 21
Cost-Effectiveness............................................................................................................................................. 22
Program-by-Program Summaries....................................................................................................................... 23
Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program................................................................................................ 23
Description........................................................................................................................................... 23
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 23
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 24
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 26
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Programs .................................................................................. 27
Description........................................................................................................................................... 27
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 27
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 30
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................ 31
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 32
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 32
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 32
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Programs........................................................................... 33
Description........................................................................................................................................... 33
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 35
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 36
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................ 39
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 39
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 40
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 40
ResidentialSector.................................................................................................................................................42
Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 43
Marketing ...................................................................................................................................................... 43
AtHome with Lisa ...................................................................................................................................... 51
Impact Evaluation Residential Sector.................................................................................................................. 54
Performance and Savings Goals .................................................................................................................. 55
Cost-Effectiveness............................................................................................................................................. 56
Program-by-Program Summaries....................................................................................................................... 57
ResidentialHVAC Program.......................................................................................................................... 57
Description........................................................................................................................................... 57
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 57
ProgramMarketing .............................................................................................................................. 59
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 59
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 59
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 60
ResidentialShell Program............................................................................................................................ 60
Description........................................................................................................................................... 61
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 61
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 61
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................ 61
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 62
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 62
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 62
Residential Water Heating Program............................................................................................................. 63
Description........................................................................................................................................... 63
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 63
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................ 64
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 64
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 64
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 64
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

Residential ENERGY STAR/NEEM Manufactured Homes Program ................................................................. 65
Description........................................................................................................................................... 65
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 65
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 66
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 66
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 66
Residential Multifamily/Small Home Program............................................................................................... 67
Description........................................................................................................................................... 67
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 68
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 68
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 68
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 68
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 69
ResidentialAppliances Program................................................................................................................... 69
Description........................................................................................................................................... 69
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 70
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 70
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 70
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 71
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 71
Residential Fuel-Efficiency Program.............................................................................................................. 72
Description........................................................................................................................................... 72
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 72
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 72
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................ 73
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 73
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 73
Low-Income Sector............................................................................................................................................... 74
ProgramSummary............................................................................................................................................ 75
Low-Income Program.................................................................................................................................. 75
Description........................................................................................................................................... 75
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 76
CustomerOutreach.............................................................................................................................. 77
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................ 78
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 83
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 83
Cost-Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................ 84
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 84
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

PilotPrograms ......................................................................................................................................................86
Program-by-Program Summaries....................................................................................................................... 87
ActiveEnergy Management........................................................................................................................ 87
Residential Home Energy Audit Pilot Program.............................................................................................. 88
Description........................................................................................................................................... 88
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 88
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 88
AeroBarrier Pilot Program............................................................................................................................ 89
Small Business Lighting Direct Install ........................................................................................................... 90
Description........................................................................................................................................... 90
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 90
ProgramEligibility................................................................................................................................. 90
Plansfor 2023...................................................................................................................................... 90
Regional Market Transformation......................................................................................................................... 92
Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 93
Electric Energy Savings Share............................................................................................................................. 94
NaturalGas Energy Savings Share ..................................................................................................................... 94
Brio Eastside Collaborative Market Transformation ............................................................................................ 95
Glossaryof Terms.................................................................................................................................................. 96
Appendicesand Supplements............................................................................................................................ 108
LIST OF TABLES
Table1 —Tariff Rider Activity ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Table 2 — Electric Energy Savings(kWh)...................................................................................................................... 3
Table 3 — Natural Gas Energy Savings (Therms)........................................................................................................... 3
Table 4— Energy Efficiency Savings by Sector— Electric............................................................................................... 5
Table 5— Energy Efficiency Savings by Sector— Natural Gas........................................................................................ 5
Table 6—Annual Conservation Plan Budget to Actual Expenditures Comparison ........................................................ 6
Table 7— Programs with Highest Impact on Expenditure Variance............................................................................... 6
Table 8— Electric Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness Results................................................................................................ 10
Table 9— Natural Gas Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness Results......................................................................................... 10
Table 10—Commercial/Industrial Verified Savings by Program.................................................................................. 13
Table 11 —Commercial/Industrial Electric Cost-Effectiveness Results.......................................................................... 22
Table 12 —Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas Cost-Effectiveness Results.................................................................. 22
Table 13—Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Metrics................................................................................ 23
Table 14—Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Impact Findings— Electric..................................................... 24
Table 15—Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies .................................. 25
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

Table 16—Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Impact Findings— Natural Gas.............................................. 26
Table 17—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Metrics.................................................................... 27
Table 18—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Changes.................................................................. 30
Table 19—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Impact Findings— Electric......................................... 32
Table 20—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Metrics ............................................................ 33
Table 21 —Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Rebate Changes............................................... 36
Table 22 —Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Impact Findings— Electric ................................ 39
Table 23—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Impact Findings—Natural Gas.......................... 40
Table 24— Residential Savings by Program................................................................................................................ 43
Table 25— Residential Programs Verified Electric Savings .......................................................................................... 55
Table 26— Residential Programs Reported Natural Gas Savings................................................................................. 56
Table 27— Residential Electric Cost-Effectiveness Results .......................................................................................... 56
Table 28— Residential Natural Gas Cost-Effectiveness Results................................................................................... 56
Table 29— Residential HVAC Program Metrics.......................................................................................................... 57
Table 30— Residential Shell Program Metrics............................................................................................................ 60
Table 31 — Residential Water Heating Program Metrics............................................................................................. 63
Table 32 — Residential ENERGY STAR Homes Program Metrics.................................................................................. 65
Table 33— Residential Multifamily/Small Home Program Metrics............................................................................... 67
Table 34— Residential Appliances Program Metrics................................................................................................... 69
Table 35— Residential Fuel-Efficiency Program Metrics.............................................................................................. 72
Table 36— Low-Income Program Metrics.................................................................................................................. 75
Table 37— Low-Income Program Evaluated Savings.................................................................................................. 76
Table 38— Low-Income Program Approved Measure List.......................................................................................... 76
Table 39— Low-Income Program Qualified Rebate Measure List................................................................................ 77
Table 40— Low-Income Program Outreach Event and LED Bulb Distribution Summary.............................................. 78
Table 41 — Low-Income Program Electric Cost-Effectiveness Results.......................................................................... 84
Table 42 — Low-Income Program Natural Gas Cost-Effectiveness Results................................................................... 84
Table 43—Actual Savings and Associated Costs for Idaho........................................................................................ 93
Table 44— Eastside Collaborative and Ductless Heat Pump Pilot Phase I Summary..................................................... 95
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 — Electric and Natural Gas Service Areas........................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2 — Electric Savings Portfolio............................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 3 —Natural Gas Savings Portfolio..................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4—Commercial/Industrial Increase Energy Efficiency in Your Schools Letter.................................................... 14
Figure 5—Commercial/Industrial Avista Utilities Energy Solutions Email.................................................................... 15
Figure 6—Commercial/Industrial Harvester Restaurant Print Advertorial.................................................................... 16
Figure 7—Commercial/Industrial Harvester Restaurant Broadcast............................................................................. 17
Figure 8—Commercial/Industrial Mead School District Broadcast.............................................................................. 17
Figure 9—Commercial/Industrial Mead School District Print Advertorial.................................................................... 18
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

Figure 10—Commercial/Industrial Multifamily Direct Install Flyer, COVID-19 Temporary Modifications...................... 19
Figure 11 —Commercial/Industrial Business Partner Program Letter........................................................................... 20
Figure 12 —Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Incentive Dollars by Measure.............................................. 24
Figure 13 —Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Savings by Month .................................................. 28
Figure 14—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Exterior Lighting Program kWh Savings by Measure........................... 28
Figure 15—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Interior Lighting Program kWh Savings by Measure ........................... 29
Figure 16—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Incentive Dollars by Measure— Electric............ 35
Figure 17—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Incentive Dollars by Measure—Natural Gas..... 36
Figure 18— Residential Rebates Summer Bill Insert ................................................................................................... 44
Figure 19— Residential Energy-Efficiency Print Ads................................................................................................... 44
Figure 20— Residential Beat the Heat Stay Cool and Save Energy this Summer Email................................................ 45
Figure 21 — Residential Summer Bill Facebook Post................................................................................................... 46
Figure 22 — Residential July 2022 Connections Newsletter........................................................................................ 46
Figure 23 — Residential Winter Bill Insert................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 24— Residential November 2022 Connections Newsletter.............................................................................. 47
Figure 25— Residential Winter Bill Google Display Ads ............................................................................................. 48
Figure 26— Residential Winter Bill Video.................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 27— Residential Winter Bill Print Ad, Spanish................................................................................................. 49
Figure 28— Residential Winter Bill Google Display Ads, Spanish................................................................................ 50
Figure 29— Residential Winter Bill Video, Spanish..................................................................................................... 50
Figure 30— Residential At Home with Lisa Google Display Ads................................................................................. 51
Figure 31 — Residential At Home with Lisa Monthly Avista Newsletter Email ............................................................. 52
Figure 32 — Residential At Home with Lisa Bill Insert................................................................................................. 53
Figure 33 — Residential At Home with Lisa Facebook Posts ....................................................................................... 53
Figure 34— Residential At Home with Lisa Video Series............................................................................................ 54
Figure 35— Residential HVAC Program Incentive Dollars by Measure— Electric.......................................................... 58
Figure 36— Residential HVAC Program Incentive Dollars by Measure—Natural Gas .................................................. 58
Figure 37— Low-Income Program Home Energy Savings Kit Brochure....................................................................... 79
Figure 38— Low-Income Program Weatherization Flyer............................................................................................ 79
Figure 39— Low-Income Energy Use Guide .............................................................................................................. 80
Figure 40— Low-Income Bill Assistance Flyers........................................................................................................... 81
Figure 41 — Kids Can Save Energy Too Coloring and Activity Book............................................................................ 82
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

LIST OF APPENDICES AND SUPPLEMENTS
Appendix A—2022 Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation Report
Appendix B—2022 Idaho Natural Gas Impact Evaluation Report
Appendix C —Cost-Effectiveness Tables
Appendix D—Energy Efficiency Expenditures by Program
Appendix E—Energy Efficiency Activity by Program
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

INTRODUCTION
�c •
�, R�I,1x ~� rr�•, � ' �, a lr
R _
,
-
^d - a 49- r a`
Amok-
a
, a
._ - `lr 1t ` - .fir,. ..�-\'.: —"M`.•w\
Spokane River,Post Falls Dam,Idaho

INTRODUCTION
For more than four decades, Avista has served its communities by developing and implementing reliable and cost-
effective energy-efficiency programs. This 2022 Annual Conservation Report provides a summary of the company's
efforts to support customer energy needs. Avista's efficiency programs help customers discover innovative ways to
conserve energy, live more comfortably, and save money—all while continuing to be a least-cost resource for the
company.
Throughout 2022, the lingering effects of COVID-19 continued to impact customers, as well as Avista's electric
and natural gas conservation achievements. Customers and contractors alike reported supply chain constraints and
labor shortages, both of which affected efficiency project decisions and timelines. As in 2021 and years prior, Avista
programs focused on affordability and flexibility so that opportunities remained available to customers who wished to
pursue efficiency in their homes or business. Although overall conservation achieved in 2022 continued to be affected
by lower participation rates, the company maintained proactive outreach efforts and took steps to ensure customers
stayed connected. These efforts are discussed in more detail in this report.
In addition to a portfolio of programs implemented both by the company and third-party contractors, Avista continues
to support regional market transformation efforts through the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance(NEEA). Reported
conservation energy savings, cost-effectiveness, and other related data, however, are specific to local programs unless
otherwise noted.
FIGURE 1 — ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS SERVICE AREAS
s
Kettle Falls•
Sandpoint
•NoXon MONTANA
Spoka Coeur d'Alene
•
lr�x4SHINGTON
Olympia Missoula
•Othello • Fleleoa
JacksonNatural
Prairie Pullman Moscow •
Natural Gas Storage
Clarkston• •Lewiston
Avista Stevenson Goldendale
• •
•Grangeville
Electric and 1 Penland
1 La Grande•
•
Salem
NaturalService � IDAHO
OREGON
reas
a
•Roseburg
Electric ■
Natural Gas ■ Medford
Electric and Natural Gas ■ larnath Falls
-
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 1

TARIFF RIDER BALANCES
At the start of 2022, the Idaho electric and natural gas (aggregate)tariff rider balances were underfunded by nearly
$1.3 million. During the year, approximately $10.4 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund energy
efficiency, while nearly $6.7 million was expended to operate energy-efficiency programs. The $3.7 million excess
of collections over expenditures contributed to a decrease in the underfunded balance of the gas tariff rider and an
increase on the overfunded balance of the electric tariff rider. Overall, the overfunded balance across both tariff riders
was close to $5 million by year-end.
Table 1 illustrates the 2022 tariff rider activity by fuel type.
TABLE 1 —TARIFF RIDER ACTIVITY
Electric Natural Gas
Beginning Balance(Underfunded)/Overfunded $ 3,362,295 $ (2,067,047) $ 1,295.248
Energy-Efficiency Funding $ 8,382,325 $ 1,975,977 $ 10,358,303
Net Funding of Operations $ 11,744,620 $ (91,069) $ 11,653,551
Energy-Efficiency Expenditures $ 4,931,758 $ 1,732,766 $ 6,664,524
Ending Balances(Underfunded)/Overfunded $ 6,812,862 $ (1,823,835) $ 4,989,027
IDAHO ACHIEVEMENTS
Electric Conservation: For 2022, Avista's electric Energy-Efficiency Program achieved 14,927,335 kWh of
conservation from local programs.
• Natural Gas Conservation: For 2022, Avista's natural gas Energy-Efficiency Program achieved 306,330
therms of conservation from local programs.
• NEEA Conservation:An additional 5,694 MWh were conserved through the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA) program, resulting in overall electric savings of 20,621 MWh; an additional 282,088 therms
led to an overall natural gas savings of 588,418 therms.
Note: This Annual Conservation Report is intended to provide information on Avista's local programs and therefore
will consistently refer to the local achievement of 14,927,335 kWh for electric and 306,330 therms for natural gas.
m.__
Pg 2 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �JFV1Sra®

Program Impacts
COVID-19 continued to have multiple and far-reaching impacts on Avista's customers in 2022, although those impacts
were significantly different from 2020 and 2021. Lingering barriers prevented certain businesses from fully returning
to non-pandemic business practices. Generally, the job market has continued to make a strong recovery following
the pandemic, and the region's economy is now experiencing a labor shortage. Contractors have faced increasingly
challenging hiring conditions, resulting in longer turnaround times for many efficiency projects. Businesses have also
continued to experience increasingly prevalent supply chain problems—further contributing to delays and longer
turnaround timelines for efficiency projects—while also navigating higher interest rates, which, in some cases, have
caused businesses to delay or cancel planned efficiency projects. Avista continued to help customers navigate these
new challenges as they participated in energy-efficiency programs.
Portfolio Trends
Avista's energy savings achieved in 2022 were higher than in 2021 (14,927,336 kWh vs 13,509,604 kWh). This gain
was due mainly to savings through the Site-Specific Program, which increased 32 percent between 2021 and 2022
and comprised 48 percent of overall program savings.
TABLE 2— ELECTRIC ENERGY SAVINGS (KWH)
Customer Segment 2021 2022
Residential(including Low-Income Programs) 1,566,738 1,219,172
Commercial/Industrial 11,942,866 13,708,164
Total 13,509,604 14,927,336
As shown in Table 3, Avista's natural gas portfolio also increased in savings in 2022 compared to the prior year. While
residential program savings decreased slightly, commercial/industrial program savings increased by 83 percent.
TABLE 3 — NATURAL GAS ENERGY SAVINGS (THERMS)
Customer Segment
Residential(including Low-Income Programs) 279,274 268,369
Commercial/Industrial 20,726 37,961
Total 300,000 306,330
/IIW_-
�4rifESra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 3

Of Avista's overall electric portfolio, the commercial/industrial Prescriptive Lighting and Site-Specific Programs obtained
92 percent of the savings in 2022. All other programs combined achieved the remaining 8 percent(see Figure 2).
FIGURE 2— ELECTRIC SAVINGS PORTFOLIO
48%Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific
43%Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting
8% Residential(including Low-Income)
1%Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-lighting
Of Avista's overall natural gas savings portfolio, residential HVAC Programs obtained 72 percent of the savings in 2022
(see Figure 3).
FIGURE 3— NATURAL GAS SAVINGS PORTFOLIO
71% Residential HVAC
9% Residential Water Heat
7% Residential Shell
7%Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific
6%All Other Programs
AIII Pg 4 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Verified Savings
Avista's targets are set through the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) process. Targets for 2022 were 12,725 MWh and
522,441 therms.
For the 2022 electric target, Avista chose to use the conservation potential assessment(CPA) obtained from its
2021 electric IRP as the basis for its Annual Conservation Plan (ACP)savings goals and targets. The company's 2022
conservation acquisition target identified in its IRPwas 12,725 MWh of qualifying energy efficiency in Idaho.
The 2022 natural gas target of 522,441 therms was identified in the 2021 natural gas IRP and was used to establish
the targets for each program in the natural gas portfolio.
In 2022, the electric energy-efficiency portfolio achieved first-year annual energy savings of 14,927 MWh (20,621
MWh inclusive of NEEA) and natural gas savings of 306,330 therms(588,418 therms inclusive of NEEA). Based on the
target established in the electric and natural gas IRPs, Avista achieved 117 percent(162 percent inclusive of NEEA) of
the electric savings target and 59 percent(126 percent inclusive of NEEA)of natural gas.
Table 4 shows 2022 savings by fuel and sector. The Idaho electric portfolio achieved an overall 101 percent realization
rate.
TABLE 4— ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS BY SECTOR— ELECTRIC
Reported Savings Evaluated Savings Realization Rate
Commercial/Industrial 13,412,681 13,708,164 102%
Residential 1,276,249 1,133,532 89%
Low-Income 87,986 85,639 97%
Total 14,776,916 14,927,335 101%
The Idaho natural gas portfolio achieved an overall realization rate of 111 percent, as shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5- ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS BY SECTOR- NATURAL GAS
Reported Savings Gross Evaluated 1� Realization Rate
(Therms) Savings(Therms)
Commercial/Industrial 27,507 37,961 109%
Residential 243,753 266,415 101%
Low-Income 1,942 1,954 138%
Total 273,202 306,330 111%
/IIW_-
�4rif§Sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 5

Expenditures
As part of Avista's annual business planning process, the company sets an expectation for operational planning,
pursuing all cost-effective measures under Tariff Schedules 90 and 190. Since customer incentives are the largest
component of expenditures, customer demand can easily affect the funding level of the tariff riders. Table 6 provides
a detailed comparison of budgeted to actual energy-efficiency expenditures by fuel type.
TABLE 6—ANNUAL CONSERVATION PLAN BUDGET TO ACTUAL EXPENDITURES COMPARISON
Electric Natural Gas
Projected 2022 Expenditures
Incentives Budget $ 5,007,009 $ 2,243,064
Non-Incentives and Labor $ 1,734,268 $ 284,526
NEEA,CPA,EM&V $ 1,394,232 $ 133,500
Total Budgeted Expenditures $ 8,135,509 $ 2,661,090
Actual 2022 Expenditures
Incentives $ 3,703,159 $ 1,601,304
Non-Incentives and Labor $ 1,251,770 $ 248,654
Market Transformation,CPA,EM&V, R&D,Pilot Programs $ 1,880,512 $ 113,651
Total Actual Expenditures $ 6,835,441 $ 1,963,608
Variance $ (1,300,068) $ (697,482)
Table 7 illustrates the top five programs with the highest impact on the expenditure variance.
TABLE 7— PROGRAMS WITH HIGHEST IMPACT ON EXPENDITURE VARIANCE
.. Variance Percentage
Residential Prescriptive—Natural Gas $ 2,108,793 $ 1,361,548 $ 747,244 35%
Residential Multifamily/Small Home
$ 401,487 $ 8,618 $ 392,869 98%
Weatherization—Electric
Fuel Conversions $ 458,695 $ 93,200 $ 365,495 80%
Residential Multifamily/Small Home
$ 361,301 $ 8,618 $ 352,682 98%
Weatherization—Natural Gas
Residential Multifamily Direct Install—
$ 327,508 $ 17,528 $ 309,980 95%
Electric
/III Pg 6 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

EVALUATION APPROACH
Because evaluation is a critical component of any successful energy conservation program, Avista employs evaluation,
measurement, and verification (EM&V) protocols to validate and report verified energy savings related to its energy-
efficiency measures and programs. Those protocols represent the comprehensive analyses and assessments necessary
to supply useful information to both management and stakeholders. (EM&V includes impact and process, and, taken
as a whole, is analogous with industry standard terms such as portfolio evaluation or program evaluation.)Avista also
incorporates recommendations to improve program performance, enact changes to programs, and make decisions to
phase out programs and measures.
Program evaluations are generally conducted by third-party EM&V firms, selected on a biennial basis through a
competitive bidding process managed by Avista's supply chain management group. Scope of work for selected
evaluators is defined and managed by the company's planning and analytics team. Third-party evaluators provide
recommendations pertaining to specific programs and related processes in impact and process evaluation report
outputs; Avista tracks those recommendations and uses them to inform the annual business planning process.
For 2022, Avista retained the firm ADM to conduct impact and process evaluations of electric and natural gas
programs in the utility's Idaho program portfolio. Evaluations took a portfolio-wide evaluation approach to provide a
benchmark to compare against future years. Impact and process evaluations for most programs were also completed
at the program level to better define the customer experience and understand realization rates.
Several guiding EM&V documents are maintained and published to support planning and reporting requirements.
These include the Avista EM&V framework, an annual EM&V plan, and EM&V contributions within other DSM and
Avista corporate publications. Program-specific EM&V plans are created to inform and benefit the demand side
management(DSM)activities. These documents are reviewed and updated as necessary to improve the processes and
protocols for energy-efficiency measurement, evaluation, and verification.
EM&V efforts are also used to evaluate emerging technologies and applications when considering their inclusion
in Avista's energy-efficiency portfolio. In its electric portfolio, the company may spend up to 10 percent of its
conservation budget on programs whose savings impacts have not yet been measured if the overall conservation
portfolio passes the applicable cost-effectiveness test. These programs may include educational, behavioral
change, and other investigatory projects. Specific activities can include product and application document reviews,
development of formal evaluation plans, field studies, data collection, statistical analysis, and solicitation of user
feedback.
Both Avista and its customers benefit from activities and resources for energy efficiency and conservation. To
contribute to regional efforts, Avista participates in the Regional Technical Forum (RTF)—the advisory committee to
the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and a primary source of information regarding the standardization of
energy savings and measurement processes for electric applications in the Pacific Northwest. One Avista employee has
a voting role and a second has a corresponding member role in the forum. The RTF knowledge base provides Avista
with energy-efficiency data, metrics, non-energy benefits, and references for inclusion in the company's Technical
Reference Manual(TRM) relating to acquisition planning and reporting. Avista also works with other Northwest
utilities and NEEA in a number of pilot projects and subcommittee evaluations; portions of the energy-efficiency
savings acquired through the latter's regional programs are attributable to Avista's portfolio.
/IIW _
�IIIVESra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 7

Evaluation Methodology and Activities
An impact evaluation was performed on each program in the Idaho portfolio that achieved savings in 2022.
Evaluators used the following approaches to calculate energy impact as defined by the International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocols (IPMVP)' and the Uniform Methods Project(UMP)z:
• Simple verification (web-based surveys supplemented with phone surveys)
• Document verification (review project documentation)
• Deemed savings(RTF UES and Avista TRM values)
• Whole facility billing analysis(IPMVP Option Q
Evaluators completed these tasks for each electric and natural gas impact from projects completed in Avista's Idaho
service territory.
The EM&V methodologies are program-specific and determined by previous Avista evaluation methodologies, as well
as the relative contribution of a given program to the overall energy-efficiency impacts. In addition to drawing on
IPMVP, evaluators also reviewed relevant information on infrastructure, framework, and guidelines for EM&V work as
defined by several guidelines that were published in recent years. These documents include the following:
• UES Measures from the Northwest Regional Technical Forum'
• The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures from
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL) of the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE), April 20134
• International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol maintained by the Efficiency Valuation
Organization (EVO)with sponsorship by the U.S. Department of Energy5
Evaluators kept data collection instruments, calculation spreadsheets, and monitored/survey data available for Avista
records.
The primary objective of the impact evaluation is to determine ex-post verified net energy savings. This evaluation
considers the cyclical feedback loop among program design, implementation, and impact evaluation. Evaluation
activities estimate and verify annual energy savings and identify whether a program is meeting its goals. These
activities are aimed at providing guidance for continuous program improvement and increased cost effectiveness for
future program years.
Evaluators defined three major approaches to determining net savings for Avista's programs:
• A Deemed Savings approach uses stipulated savings for energy conservation measures where savings values
are well-known and documented. These prescriptive savings may also include an adjustment for certain
measures, such as lighting measures in which site operating hours may differ from RTF values.
1) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31505.pdf
2) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fyl8osti/70472.pdf
3) https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures
4) Notably,The Uniform Methods Project(UMP)includes the following chapters authored by ADM:chapter 9,"Metering Cross-Cutting Protocols,"by Dan Mort,and
chapter 15,"Commercial New Construction Protocol,"by Steven Keates.
5) Core Concepts:International Measurement and Verification Protocol.EVO 100000—1:2016,October 2016.
Allf Pg 8 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report JiIIFV13FT,&

♦ A Billing Analysis approach estimates energy savings by applying a linear regression to utility meter billing
data for measured participant energy consumption. Billing analyses include billing data from nonparticipant
customers. This approach does not require on-site data collection for model calibration, and it aligns with the
IPMVP Option C.
♦ A Custom approach, used for the Site-Specific Program, selects the appropriate IPMVP option to apply to
the specific measure or project. As most projects in the program are lighting retrofits, this is typically Option
A. However, Options B, C, and D are also employed, depending upon the project. Specific methods are
discussed in each site report.
Evaluators accomplished the following quantitative goals as part of the impact evaluation:
♦ Verified savings with 10 percent precision at the 90 percent confidence level.
♦ Applied the RTF to verify measure impacts, where appropriate.
♦ Conducted billing analysis with a suitable comparison group to estimate measure savings, where available
data exists.
♦ Used IPMVP analysis methods for custom projects.
For each program, evaluators calculated adjusted savings for each measure based on the Avista TRM and results from
the database review. They calculated verified savings for each measure based on the RTF UES, Avista TRM, or billing
analysis in combination with the results from document review. For the HVAC, Water Heating, Fuel-Efficiency,
Multifamily/Small Home Weatherization, and Appliances Programs, evaluators also applied in-service rates (ISR)from
verification surveys.
D. ] cument Evaluated
:Do
Review Savings Review Savings
Evaluators assigned a level of methodological rigor for each measure and program, based on its contribution to the
portfolio savings and availability of data.
They analyzed billing data for all electric measure participants in the HVAC and Low-Income Programs. Billing analysis
results determined evaluated savings only for measures where savings could be isolated—that is, where enough
participants who installed only that measure could be identified. Program-level realization rates for the HVAC, Water
Heating, and Fuel-Efficiency Programs incorporate billing analysis results for some measures.
/IIW _
�IIIVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 9

Impact Evaluation Results, Portfolio
As a result of the impact evaluation performed, the following realization rates were achieved in the Idaho program
portfolio:
Electric: 101 percent realization rate and 14,927,335 kWh in annual verified savings.
Natural Gas: 111 percent realization rate and 306,330 therms in annual gross savings.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Before implementing any new program, Avista conducts analyses to determine whether that program is cost-effective
both from the company's and from customers' perspectives. Avista uses four metrics to evaluate cost-effectiveness:
the utility cost test(UCT), the total resource cost(TRC), the participant cost test(PCT), and the ratepayer impact test
(RIM). For Idaho programs, the UCT is the most important. Avista's cost-effectiveness goal for both the electric and
natural gas program portfolios is to have a UCT above 1.00, which indicates that the benefits to the utility exceed the
costs of implementing the program. In 2022, the UCT benefit/cost ratios were 1.28 for electric and 1.37 for natural
gas.
TABLE 8— ELECTRIC PORTFOLIO COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 17,127,964 $ 9,597,254 1.78
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 6,508,365 $ 5,078,273 1.28
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 15,213,059 $ 8,199,774 1.86
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 6,466,695 $ 16,610,540 0.39
TABLE 9— NATURAL GAS PORTFOLIO COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits _F Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 2,510,353 $ 3,704,474 0.68
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 2,510,352 $ 1,838,898 1.37
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 6,141,666 $ 3,417,110 1.80
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 2,470,584 $ 6,429,030 0.38
Pg 10 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

(This page intentionally left blank.)
/IIW__
�IuV1STA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 11

1
X-
All
ammif
411,
Coeur d'Alene,Idaho

COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
Overview
The commercial/industrial energy-efficiency market is served through a combination of prescriptive and site-specific
programs. Any savings measure not offered through a prescriptive program path —and/or that does not meet its
parameters— is automatically eligible for treatment through the Site-Specific Program path, subject to the criteria for
participation in that program.
The prescriptive program paths are selected for simple, straightforward equipment installations that generally have
similar operating characteristics(such as lighting, simple HVAC systems, food service equipment, and variable
frequency drives).
The Site-Specific Program path is reserved for more unique or complex projects that require custom savings
calculations and technical assistance from Avista's energy engineers (such as compressed air, process equipment and
controls, and comprehensive lighting retrofits). In certain instances, a performance basis approach is used. Total sector
achievements in 2022 are as follows:
• 857 commercial/industrial electric projects in 2022:Total savings of 13,708 MWh.
• 35 commercial/industrial natural gas projects in 2022:Total savings of 37,961 therms.
TABLE 10— COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL VERIFIED SAVINGS BY PROGRAM
Program
Prescriptive Lighting 6,416,285 —
Natural Gas HVAC — 5,082
Green Motors 9,822 —
Motor Control HVAC(VFD) 14,308 —
Shell 4,490 260
Food Service Equipment 10,537 12,910
Grocer 36,468 —
Site-Specific 7,216,254 19,709
Commercial/Industrial Total 13,708,164 37,961
/IIW_-
�IuVFSTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 13

Marke tin g
Avista revisited its approach to commercial and industrial energy efficiency marketing for 2022. The company's
regional account executives manage business customer projects and play a large role in spreading awareness and
increasing engagement. This customer segment holds significant energy savings potential. New tactics and refreshed
creative were developed to engage this audience and increase program awareness and participation.
Avista purchased business customer lists to enable targeted direct outreach via email, zeroing in on useful information
and program promotion for specific business types. A direct email and postal letter were also sent to school districts
that may benefit from federal funding through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act or Inflation Reduction Act
in combination with Avista's energy-efficiency incentives. A follow-up message was also sent to these recipients in
early 2023.
FIGURE 4—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN YOUR SCHOOLS LETTER
School Name
Address
City,State,Zip
Current Date
Dear(School Name(,
As your trusted energy partner,Avmta wants to make sure you're aware of a potential
new funding source for energy efficiency projects your school district may be
n.idering.Capital improvements and equipment upgrades—of any sort—can be resource
and
time-intensive.when the Infrastroctura Investment and Jobs Act(IIJA)was signed into law
by President Bide,on November 15,2021,we took note and have been following updates to
better understand how the law may benefit customers like you.
For publlc school dls riod.In Avista's service territory,federal grant options In a handful
of categories may be-.liable and of particular Interest to you and your planning,
imnsportation,facilities antl maintenance teams.IIJA.k..$1.2 hillion available for
transportation and Infrastructure spending,with$550 billion ofihalallo b d for"new"
investments and programs.Categories could include(but are not limited to):
Energy efficiency In schools and educational Instltuflons
ElLic vehicles and buses
Broadband deployment and access
To team more about IIJA grant funding antl how to apply,visa lMreatrodure Investment and
Jobe Act(IIJA)Imolementaflon Resources(afoa.oml or Building a Seger America I The White
Rouse(Sec.40541).
In anchor,the Inflation Red,ction Act(IRA)was signed into law on August 16,2022,making
$1 billion available for the eI,ctnfi,,t,,n of sp,,,f,d fleets,inclutling class 6 antl 7 school
buses.To Team more about IRA funding,visit Electric School Bus Initiative Wodo Resources
Ina i ute twri.am)
Avi"'a energy¢ffich ncy rebate programs,which you may combine with IIJA and IRA grant
funding,can help to further reduce costs in projeda you may be considering.Monetary
hoaMlves ere avallable for eneyy efficient process Improvement and equipment upgrades.
Loam mom about these options at mvavista.comlbusiness.
If you have any questions about our energy-efficiency or elacti,rands programs,please
ct conta me directly at kimb,ri-casev®'N'Wopm.com or(208)79&1405.
Avian,values all you do to support your community and looks forward to providing
you with additional services and opportunities made available through these federal
garb,
Sincerely,
Kimberley Casey
Raghm.fAccount&x Wa
AIIf_
Pg 14 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �JFV1.5TAW

FIGURE 5-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AVISTA UTILITIES ENERGY SOLUTIONS EMAIL
At
Angela Kokar
(50914959057
content me dlreetly
A lesson in energy efficiency. '
Mead School District is one of the fastest-
growing school districts in the state of
F.�r.c m i nn i.i-,nq tv.r>t
Washington,serving over 10,000 students
across 15 schools and five support facilities.
As the district expands,its director of
maintenance and operations,Travis Bown,
has looked to Avista for ways to save energy
and manage operational costs.In less than six
years,Bown has helped the district complete
over 200 energy efficiency projects with
Avista,reducing annual operational costs by
over$200,000 and demonstrating how
focusing on energy savings can prove
valuable.
Do You Have an Energy Plan for 2023?
An energy management plan is your road map to
"-term energy savings in 2023 and beyond.
-
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 15

Post-COVID, the company revisited in-person outreach in June 2022. Commercial and industrial trade ally vendors
and contractors were invited to an energy efficiency program open house, where attendees were greeted by Avista's
program managers, energy engineers, and account executives. Energy efficiency rebate programs and services were
discussed and shared, with the intention that trade allies would further their participation on their customers' behalf.
Avista partnered with two business customers to develop new a new storytelling case study campaign as well. A rural
small business, Harvester Restaurant, shared their success with lighting upgrades. Mead School District, a trusted
efficiency partner for Avista, shared about its focus on energy efficiency in its business model and how Avista's rebate
programs have helped it achieve operational goals. The campaign ran in the spring, from February to March—across
Avista's Idaho and Washington service territory—via broadcast and cable networks, as well as print publications. It
ran again in the fall, from September through November, with the addition of digital ads. Prior to the digital launch,
average webpage views to the business energy advice webpage that the ads pointed to hovered around 317 per
month. Post launch, average page views jumped to an average of over 2,000 per month. The fall campaign topped
5,840,000 impressions.
FIGURE 6- COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL HARVESTER RESTAURANT PRINT ADVERTORIAL
"They're very busy people,"she explains,'so theydon't They installed a new energy-efficient natural Be,fryer and
have time to consider how adopting energy-saving received a$1,000 rebate.
canimprove their bottom line.That's why we do it
for them through or Business Partner Progra
"The fryer ended up being like a third the cost,"she says.
s o
Avista's Business Partner Program provides energy-efficiency
expertise and financial resources to rural communities in
it's Washington and Idaho service territories.The program
identifies available Avista rebates to help business owners
pay for specific energy efficiency upgrades.
1 In Melissa's and Brent',tase,the Harvester had very
outdated lighting.Avista reached out to them and
N-Wivesilmg
explained how mKhing to energy-efficient LED lighting The vendor completed the lighting upgrades over three
.Id greatly reduce the energy use at their business, days.Incandescent and CFL bul bs were changed to LEDs in
The Bozarths also qualified for a Washington State grant, the lounge,dining room and banquet room,as well as in
vailable at the time,whichm ant that,combined with the kitchen and bathrooms.The vendor also retrofitted the
Avista's energy-efficiency rebates,the lighting upgrades HarveAe B f.ot eA,ri.r sign to use LEDs and changed out
would be free. one parking-lot canopy.
_ "It turned ootamazing,"says Melissa."It made a huge
difference in the atmosphere in here.I even had customers
come in and ask if we remodeled."
Fs According to Koker,the project not only improved the
restaurant's lighting but reduced electric usage by
30,081 kWh annually.
Small businesses in.all towns can always urea helping The couple also shares in family duties,taking care of "The energy efficiency we helped to achieve lowered their
hand.Avista created its Business Partner Program for just their two boys.Every other day,one parent manages the bill by an average of f500 a month,"says Koker."That's
that reason.The program brings the cost-saving benefit, restaurant while the exactly what we like tosee."
of ene,,.ffid.n,impro e to busy proprietors like other could
t
ns the home "Who say no to that?"says Melissa.
ssa Meli and Brent B.zarth emnu front.Both kids also are Melissa agrees."The savings are a huge help to the
at the restaurant often With the Bozarth's approval,Avista had a local certified restaurant,especially with labor and food costs going up.We
Melissa and Brentot,n,,wn operatnnine the Harvrnonity locoed and are even assigned rghting vendor visit the rest aura.to complete a lighting areso grateful that Avista has been such an amazing business
in Spangle,Washington,asmall farming community located simple jobs on Sundays, audit.The vendors proposal for upgrades included interior, partner for us."
just south of Spokane a long Highway 195.The Bozarths like ffee and extenor and sign lighting at a total cost of E),92li
purchased the business in 20M and have been happily r.nning the to
n breakf.A,lunch and dinner to locals and n9 the toaster. The upgrades qualified for in energy-efficiency
rvi g passing For more information,visit
travelers ever since. "There'salabor shortage rebates b from Avista and.E3,323 grant from the state. ysta.com/bizmbates
hem to work Once the Bozarths paid for the lighting rhanges,the would mya or
"The Harvester reminds y of Mali,- soweputt be rIf.nd.d the entire bill. y call your account representative.
know a lot of customers by name,and half the time,even Young,"laughs Melissa."I
what the're to order when the the door." guess that makes us a real Melissa says they also saved money,n a separate project
y going y come in family-run business."
under Avista's Food Service Equipment rebate program.
To keep the busayhelp their smoothly,the Bozarths wear Accordingto Aunt
a lot of hats.They help their employees wai<tables,cook Regional Account Executive Angola Koker,many small-
orders,wash dish.,on the register and take tare of business owners are jurt like the Bozarths.
anything else that needs attention.
�II�_
Pg 16 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �7honsra®

FIGURE 7-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL HARVESTER RESTAURANT BROADCAST
Harvester Restaurant
Spangle, WA
FIGURE 8- COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL MEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT BROADCAST
Alltop
l �
—= u
• • School
� 1 1
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 17

FIGURE 9—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL MEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT PRINT ADVERTORIAL
srl I-
/*AW
A 10son
ar
"If
in energy
..........L IIT
eff idency.
Partnering with Avista to help improve schools.
As director maintenancemaintenanceand operation,for the Mead ...rgy-w rg block heart—for buses with the district's School D=i,North Spoken,,Travis Bown i,responsible transportation t....
for lighting,heating and cooling,ventilation,security .10 pgado, ,,od—d y p costsryrtems..d rho,—.,that are critical to positive by-er$210,NO. ly,�aid B—,'and that i,o,
school environments.
For Bow,and his team,that,,big job.The Mead School
,,xtd i,..e of theschool di.d.,i.the
State of Washington.The diStd.serves over 10,000 students
with 15 schools and five support facilities that er—p-
1—.1.5 illi.n q...e feet of building space more. he.450
ores of gro.nds.
According to Mi-Energy Solutions Engineer BryceE.h.rlb.c!,.,Bown b_,he consummate idea 9.y-be,—
he continually strives to
find new and better waysto improve
,ch..l environments.When his idea,involve energy,he relies
on Ait,for feedback. top of receiving$392,00D i,Awl-rebate,A,part of my
—rte,ic approach,1'.now built lighting upgrades into my
..ihtan.rc.Fl.--
According to E,h-b,,h,r.Bow,he,also be,,,big help
to Avi..—the y....
"He has allowed.s to use his buildings baseline for
are rgy ,:to—d-many year-long pilot studies,"says
Bhorlb.cho,"including...nf—for an energy-saving
boiler
additive."
Currently,AA.a is measuring theenergy-efficiency
F..,..nc..flh..n.wMe.dsch..I—.i,hl.nd
Avista Account Executive Kim Vollan adds,"He is really Middle School(via their new Energy J.Index pilot
f—,,d on 9 maximumenergyi ,energy efficiency within and his program)and Skyline ek,id.Elementary
budget.Th:pro-ichia,ihve conversations we had 1,,helped (�w their New CConstructionSite Specific
him make informed decisions about whirl,of his idea, A. re'program).The better these ch..1,perform
,on,,to leverage elsewhere in the DiWid." ag
ain. models,the and
or,Av A.rebates
Bown graft.—1,ta does,really great job of eftirg state gran.the d i.riR wil I be a,,gible to receive.
project..d:i.9 y.0 what the imple payback will be." "What we Sam from Travis and what he gain,f us
—
Bown's of ad.nood control��—s for-VAC hd make it the pert-.—hip,-.y V.11—
lighting a,well as other customization idea,has put him
years.h.d of.—in,WashingtonWashingtonStatal new clean For more information,
buildings andartis(House bill 1257).Currently,over half of visit nryavista.cohnibizirebates
the school district's buildings are in—pil-te. or-11(800)936-6629.
In—th.n six a—,Bown he,helped—plat.2133
..d School District protects with Awi—n everything
f—LED lighting and c—,--1 systems to
—T111—T
Pg 18 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

FIGURE 10-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL MULTIFAMILY DIRECT INSTALL FLYER, COVID-19 TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS
i�
FREE Energy Conservation Devices for Multifamily Units!
Avista is once again providing energy-saving equipment that can help lower utility bills in multifamily housing:
• LEDs provide better lighting and have a longer life while using less energy.
■ FAUCET AERATORS can save both water and energy in bathroom and kitchen sinks.
• VENDING MISERS*can significantly reduce energy consumption for each cold beverage vending machine.
Be sure to get your freer items before the program ends.
Safety Information
Our field installers are taking extra precautions for the safety of all,including:
• ABIDING by Avista's latest COVID-19 guidance and requirements.
• WEARING masks and/or getting vaccinated,testing daily,and quarantining as necessary.
■ FOLLOWING all state governmental guidance and requirements.
• PROVIDING tenants the opportunity to opt out of the program at any time.
"Covered by 5-year warranty.Email USA Technologies at custome,[e-mail] with the model number
and a short explanation regarding the unit problem.
t Free installation based on existing equipment eligible for replacement.If n&satisfied,any items can be
removed free of charge within 30 days of installation. I
I'
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 19

Business Partner Program
The Business Partner Program (BPP) began in fall 2019 as an outreach effort designed to target small business
customers in Avista's rural service territories. The BPP brings awareness of Avista's services to rural small business
customers in Idaho and Washington, and includes information on energy audits, budget billing plans, energy-
efficiency rebates, and, most recently, COVID-19 related information.
In 2022, Avista continued to offer the Trade Ally Bid Program, in which the company arranges for various vendors
(e.g., lighting, HVAC, window, and insulation)to provide cost estimates to customers for energy-efficiency upgrades
to their facilities.
Avista has collaborated with trade ally partners to help customers identify energy conservation projects by performing
audits, walking through the efficiency incentive process, and helping customers obtain bids for projects. The Trade
Ally Bid Program has enabled Avista to educate and empower small business customers who may not have the time,
budget, or access to contractors to make efficiency improvements. By the end of 2022, the program provided cost
estimates to six small business customers in Idaho.
FIGURE 11 —COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARTNER PROGRAM LETTER
Small Business Name
Address
City,State,Zip
Current Data
Dear(Customer Name),
Did you know that increasing efficiency is one of the easiest ways for a business to reduce its
operating expenses?Do you have an energy-efficient upgrade you've been wanting to install?
Avada can help make that project a reality through our Business Partner Program.
The Business Partner Program include,a dedicated team ready to assist as you operate and
expand your business—we offer suppod by Identifying potential energy-efficiency improvements
to help lower your energy use.
If you already have a project in mind and need a bid to determine the cost of the work,we can
also send a licensed contractor to estimate the cost for the installation,at no coal to you.In
addition,your project may be eligible for an Incentive through Avista.Some of our current
rebates Include improvements to LED lighting,HVAC equipment upgrades,and adding
msulation.
Avesta has a variety of business services available to help you understand and manage your business'
energy consumption.These include but are not limited W.
• Usage history report,
• Budget billing plans
If you're Interested in any of the services listed above,please contact me directly at 509495
2873 or email Lori.Kindaina—stacom.com.
You can also contact our dedicated Business Support team at 509495 717 or email
businessaccuunWanivi ctocoro.com.For assistance with your bill or other requests.
For all other inquides,contact your Avesta Regional Account Executive,Kimberley Casey at
Kimberlev.Casevl�avislacoro.com or 208-798-1405.
We value you as a customer—and hope to provide you wkh additional services and
opportunities that will enhance the operation of your business.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Lord Kirstein
Business partner Program,Manager
Avesta
AIIf Pg 20 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Impact Evaluation: Commercial/Industrial Sector
Although some individual project results varied, particularly within the Prescriptive Exterior Lighting Program, the
overall commercial/industrial sector performed strongly in 2022 relative to reported savings. Most projects that ADM
sampled for the evaluation were well-documented and matched findings from the remote project verifications.
Savings realization rates were as follows:
• Electric:Total verified savings of 13,708 MWh, with a combined realization rate of 102 percent.
• Natural Gas:Total verified savings of 37,961 therms, with a combined realization rate of 138 percent.
Performance and Savings Goals
The commercial/industrial sector exceeded the combined prescriptive and site-specific program paths' electric goal of
9,643 MWh, with the programs achieving 142 percent of the overall goal. For natural gas programs, the commercial/
industrial sector fell short of the annual therm savings goal for combined prescriptive and site-specific programs,
achieving 32,879 therms (46 percent of the combined prescriptive and site-specific program paths' natural gas savings
goal of 72,243 therms).
A11W -
�IuVFSTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 21

Cost-Effectiveness
Tables 11 and 12 show the commercial/industrial sector cost-effectiveness results by fuel type.
TABLE 11 —COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 14,139,361 $ 7,151,402 1.98
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 5,252,230 $ 3,794,061 1.38
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 12,033,816 $ 6,444,122 1.87
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 5,252,230 $ 12,741,096 0.41
TABLE 12—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NATURAL GAS COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 225,395 $ 208,108 1.08
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 225,395 $ 196,271 1.15
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 477,453 $ 85,622 5.58
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 225,395 $ 599,939 0.38
As noted above, the UCT benefit-to-cost ratio for the commercial/industrial sector was 1.15 in 2022. As compared
to 2021, the 2022 program had an increase in therm savings and in participation. Because the program's cost-
effectiveness is sensitive to participation rates, this increase in savings was enough to move the program from a 0.64
UCT in 2021 to a 1.15 UCT in 2022.
mf
Pg 22 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Program-by-Program Summaries
Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program
TABLE 13—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM METRICS
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 31
Overall kWh Savings 7,216,254
Incentive Spend $ 1,561,657
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 391,495
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 1,953,152
Participation, Site-Specific Program Summary—Natural Gas
Conservation Projects 2
Overall Therm Savings 19,709
Incentive Spend $ 32,395
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 62,849
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 95,244
Description
The commercial/industrial energy-efficiency market is delivered through a combination of prescriptive and site-specific
offerings. Any measure not offered through a prescriptive program is automatically eligible for treatment through the
Site-Specific Program, subject to the criteria for participation in that program. Avista's account executives work with
commercial/industrial customers to provide assistance in identifying energy-efficiency opportunities. Customers receive
technical assistance in determining potential energy and cost savings as well as identifying and estimating incentives
for participation. Site-specific projects include appliances, compressed air, HVAC, industrial process, motors(non-
prescriptive), shell, and lighting, with the majority being HVAC, lighting, and shell.
Program Activities
Electric:Savings of 7,216,254 kWh, or 48 percent of the overall electric savings. The largest percentage of
incentives went to lighting projects(61 percent).
Natural Gas: Savings of 19,709 therms.
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 23

Measure type and savings are shown in Figure 12.
FIGURE 12 —COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE
4
$296,761 Site-Specific Lighting
$ 1,264,896 all other measures
Impact Evaluation
Table 14 shows reported and evaluated electric energy savings for Avista's commercial/industrial Site-Specific Program
path for the year. The overall Site-Specific Program path had a 104 percent realization rate for electric measures.
TABLE 14—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM IMPACT FINDINGS— ELECTRIC
Program Path Reported Savings Evaluated Savings I Realization Rate
Site-Specific 6,920,801 7,216,254 104%
Unlike other commercial/industrial programs, completing a census review of all site-specific projects is not feasible.
To ensure accurate verified savings estimates, evaluators developed a sample of representative sites to inspect using
a stratified random sampling procedure, which is detailed in Appendix A and B. Of 12 projects in the final design
sample, evaluators identified minor discrepancies in five, based on information gathered from in-person site visits
as well as project documentation review. Table 15 summarizes the reasons for discrepancies between reported and
evaluated savings.
m.__
Pg 24 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �4rVESra®

TABLE 15—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM EVALUATION SUMMARY OF DISCREPANCIES
Project Type Number of Savings Reason(s)for Discrepancy
Occurrences Impact
Evaluators were unable to fully reconstruct all claimed savings calculations,but it
1 + appears that HVAC interactive effects were omitted.These effects were included
in verified savings calculations,leading to a slightly high realization rate.
Site-Specific Lighting Evaluators were unable to recreate expected savings for(14)2L F96T12HO-E
to(21)76W LED strips.Verified savings were calculated using actual fixture
1 y wattages,verified lighting hours of operation,and deemed HVAC interactive
factors specific to the building type and HVAC configuration(Medium Office,ID,
>2006 vintage).This resulted in slightly reduced kWh savings.
The ex-ante assumed only one pump was running and just used north pump
data as it was the primary pump during the monitoring period.This assumption
is reasonable because the customer reported that only one runs at a time.There
were,however,a few instances when the north pump stopped,and the south
pump took over and their operation overlapped briefly(which is occasionally
expected).Evaluators used the summed percentage amps instead of the north
Replacement of two pump percentage amps,which reduced savings slightly(1 percent).The ex-ante
fixed speed pumps and 1 also subtracted the standard deviation of the post average power from the overall
two VFD controlled kW demand reduction,which lowered the realization rate. Evaluators used the
pumps average kW values when calculating the kW demand reduction.
The kWh realization rate was also affected by the annual operation hours.The
ex-ante assumed annual hours of 8,500,but according to the customer on a
site visit,the facility has at least one pump running 24 hours a day,seven days
a week. Evaluators therefore used 8,760 annual hours,which increased the
realization rate by 3 percent.
The ex-ante calculations treated the new agitator as part of the project.The
evaluator didn't include the new agitator in the savings calculations since it isn't
part of a VFD system upgrade.These changes reduced the overall savings and
realization rate.
The power factors for the baseline and as-built systems were different in the ex-
ante and ex-post analyses.The ex-ante used a 0.772 baseline power factor,based
Replacement of on the assumption that the baseline motor is a DC motor controlled by a DC VFD.
two pulp agitator 1op
The evaluator assumed a constant speed motor baseline with a power factor of
motors with new VFD 0.85.The ex-ante assumed a 0.98 power factor for the post-install motors,while
controlled motors the evaluator used the motor nameplate power factor.These changes reduced
the overall savings and realization rate.
The final difference in calculation parameters was the annual hours of operation.
The ex-ante assumed 8,500 hours while the evaluator used 8,652 hours,based
on the customers'testimony during an on-site visit.This change increased the
overall savings and realization rate.The net effect of these discrepancies was
essentially balanced,only raising the realization rate by 1 percent.
Older style of log mill The ex-ante analysis assumed the 2021 levels of production,while evaluators
line with a new highly 1 used an average of the 2018 and 2021 production.Since the 2021 production
efficient log line was higher than 2018 production,the realization rate was high.
/IIW_-
�IuVFSTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 25

In addition to the discrepancies noted previously, ex-ante calculations for all lighting projects assumed an 80 percent
chance that lighting would operate during times of peak demand. Evaluators found that multiple projects have
lighting fixtures that run continuously, so there is a 100 percent chance of operating during the peak period. The
coincidence factor, therefore, was adjusted from 80 to 100 percent for these measures.
For natural gas measures in the Site-Specific Program, evaluators arrived at a realization rate of 213 percent. Because
there were only two site-specific gas projects in Idaho in 2022, both were included in the impact evaluation review.
Evaluators reviewed all project-related documentation, including Spec sheets, building characteristics, calculators,
invoices, project photos, and trending data.
TABLE 16—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM IMPACT FINDINGS— NATURAL GAS
Program Path Reported Savings Evaluated Savings Realization Rate
(Therms (Therms)
Site-Specific 9,256 19,709 213%
Of the two projects evaluated, the first, a pool cover install project for a public recreation facility, achieved a realization
rate of 100 percent. The second project, a replacement of two inefficient boilers with one efficient boiler, had a
realization rate of 284 percent, based on a weather-optimized billing analysis over one year of pre-project billing data
and one year of post-project billing data. Measured savings were significantly higher than ex-ante predictions.
Plans for 2023
Avista plans to continue to offer the Site-Specific Program path in Idaho for both electric and natural gas customers in
2023 and will assess the current measurement and verification process to determine whether process improvements
need to be made. The company continues to offer the Business Partner Program (BPP), which is designed to reach a
larger percentage of small- and medium-sized business customers in our rural service territory, reminding them about
the availability of basic scoping energy audits, budget billing plans, and energy-efficiency rebate programs. As part of
the BPP, the Trade Ally Bid Program will also continue in 2023. The Trade Ally Bid Program is a collaboration between
Avista and its trade ally partners to offer bid assistance for energy-efficiency upgrades.
m.Pg 26 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Programs
TABLE 17—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramPrescriptive Lighting
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 865
Overall kWh Savings 6,416,285
Incentive Spend $ 1,422,501
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 356,610
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 1,779,111
Description
The commercial/industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program is intended to prompt commercial electric customers to
increase the energy efficiency of their lighting equipment through direct financial incentives. The program indirectly
supports the infrastructure and inventory necessary to ensure that the installation of high-efficiency equipment is a
viable option for the customer.
To streamline the process and make it easier for customers and vendors to participate, Avista developed a prescriptive
approach in 2004. This program provides for many common retrofits to receive a predetermined incentive amount,
which is calculated using a baseline average for existing wattages and the average replacement wattages from the
previous year's project data. Energy savings are calculated based on actual customer run times and qualified product
lighting data.
This simplified approach makes program participation more accessible, especially for smaller customers and vendors.
The measures included in the Prescriptive Lighting Program include fluorescent, incandescent, and HID lamps and
fixture retrofits to more energy-efficient LED light sources and controls.
Program Activities
Savings for prescriptive lighting were 6,416,285 kWh, or 51 percent of commercial/industrial electric savings, a slight
increase in savings compared to 6,403,076 kWh in 2021.
The increase in exterior lighting projects seen during COVID-19 receded as interior projects, specifically the 4-foot T12/
T8 LED lamp replacement measure, achieved a high level of kWh savings in 2022. Although sign lighting, an exterior
lighting measure that has generally performed well, saw much lower throughput than in the past, traditionally strong
measures continued to achieve a majority of savings again in 2022. Apart from July and September, monthly goals
were met and annual savings targets were reached.
A11W -
�IuVIIIISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 27

FIGURE 13 —COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM SAVINGS BY MONTH
1,000,000
900,000
800,000 '
700,000
600,000 '
500,000
400,000
300,000 '
200,000 '
100,000
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 2022
Interior Exterior
FIGURE 14— COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROGRAM KWH SAVINGS BY MEASURE
70-89W HID Fixture to 25W or less LED
90-100W HID Fixture to 30W or less LED
150W HID Fixture to 50W or less LED
175W HID Fixture to 100W or less LED
175W HID Fixture to 100W or less LED(NC)
250W HID Fixture to 140W or less LED
25OW HID Fixture to 140W or less LED(NC)
320W HID Fixture to 160W or less LED
320-40OW HID Fixture to 160W or less LED(NC)
40OW HID Fixture to 175W or less LED
575W HID Fixture to 30OW or less LED
750W HID Fixture to 30OW or less LED
1000W HID Fixture to 40OW or less LED
Sign Lighting ;;;7
100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000
inf Pg 28 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

FIGURE 15—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE INTERIOR LIGHTING PROGRAM KWH SAVINGS BY MEASURE
Four Pin Base CFL to 17W or less Plug-in LED
TLED to TLED with 5W or more reduction
2-Foot T12/T8 to 13W or less T8 LED
3-Foot T12/1­8 to 17W or less T8 LED
4-Foot T12/T8 to 23W or less T8 LED
8-Foot T12/T8 to 45W or less T8 LED
U-Bend T12/T8 to 23W or less T8 LED
4-Foot T5 to 18W or less T5 LED
4-Foot T5HO to 29W or less T5HO LED
T12/T8 Fixture to 40W or less 2x2 LED Fixture
T12/T8 Fixture to 40W or less 1x4 LED Fixture
T12/T8 Fixture to 60W or less 2x4 LED Fixture
T12/T8 Fixture to 90W or less 8-Foot LED Fixture
20-50W MR16 to 9W LED MR16 LED
75-100W Incandescent Can to 20W LED Retrofit
4-Lamp T5HO Fixture to 135W or less LED Fixture
6-Lamp T5HO Fixture to 160W or less LED Fixture
250W HID Fixture to 140W or less LED
40OW HID Fixture to 175W or less LED
1000W HID Fixture to 40OW or less LED
Occupancy Sensor Controls
LLLC Fixture Controls
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000
-
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 29

Program Changes
Avista made the following changes to the program in 2022.
TABLE 18-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM CHANGES
2022 Changes to Commercial Lighting Rebates 2021 2022
Exterior Lighting
Replacement HID Lighting(Pole,Wallpack,or Canopy)
Requires at Least 4,288 Hours of Use per Year-Must be DLC or ENERGY STAR-Rated
70-89W HID Fixture to<25W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 70.00 $ 75.00
90-100W HID Fixture to<-30W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 100.00 $ 100.00
150W HID Fixture to<50W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 150.00 $ 160.00
175W HID Fixture to<- 100W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 155.00 $ 160.00
250W HID Fixture to 5 140W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 200.00 $ 200.00
320W HID Fixture to< 160W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 270.00 $ 250.00
400W HID Fixture to< 175W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 325.00 $ 330.00
575W HID Fixture to<300W LED Fixture or Lamp Site Specific $ 350.00
750W HID Fixture to<_300W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 575.00 $ 660.00
1000W HID Fixture to<400W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 820.00 $ 825.00
New Construction Fixtures HID Lighting '
Requires at Least 4,288 Hours of Use per Year-Must be DLC or ENERGY STAR-Rated mini
175W Code HID Fixture to< 100W LED Fixture $ 150.00 $ 150.00
250W Code HID Fixture to< 140W LED Fixture $ 175.00 $ 195.00
320W Code HID Fixture to< 160W LED Fixture $ 220.00 $ 220.00
Sign Lighting Retrofit-Requires at Least 4,288 Hours of Use per Year
T12 to LED Sign Lighting-per square foot $ 10.00 $ 11.00
/IIN Pg 30 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

2022 Changes to Commercial Lighting Rebates1
Interior Lighting
Replacement Lamps-Must Be DLC-Rated
T12/T8 Fluorescent to< 13W T8 2-Foot TLED $ 15.00 $ 7.50
T12/T8 Fluorescent to< 17W T8 3-Foot TLED $ 15.00 $ 10.00
T12/T8 Fluorescent to<23W T8 4-Foot TLED $ 13.50 $ 12.50
T12/T8 Fluorescent to<45W T8 5-Foot TLED $ 12.00 $ 23.00
T12/T8 Fluorescent to<23W T8 U-Bend TLED $ 16.00 $ 13.50
T5HO Fluorescent to<29W T5HO 4-Foot TLED $ 22.00 $ 25.00
T5 Fluorescent to< 18W T5 4-Foot TLED Site Specific $ 14.00
T8/T5 TLED to TLED(>_5W reduction) $ 4.00 $ 4.00
Four Pin-Base CFL to Four Pin Plug-in LED Site Specific $ 15.00
20-50W MR16 to<9W MR16 LED $ 8.50 $ 8.50
Replacement Fixtures-Must Be DLC-Rated
T12/T8 to<60W 2X4 LED Fixture $ 45.00 $ 55.00
T12/T8 to<40W 2x2 LED Fixture $ 30.00 $ 30.00
T12/T8 to<40W 1x4 LED Fixture $ 30.00 $ 35.00
T12/T8 to<90W 8-Foot LED Site Specific $ 55.00
4-Lamp T5HO Fluorescent to< 135W LED Site Specific $ 85.00
6-Lamp T5HO Fluorescent to< 160W LED $ 215.00 $ 185.00
250W HID to< 140W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 195.00 $ 235.00
400W HID to< 175W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 250.00 $ 285.00
1000W HID to<400W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 565.00 $ 450.00
75-100W Incandescent Can to<20W LED Retrofit Fixture $ 40.00 $ 50.00
Controls
Occupancy Sensor Controls with Built-in Relays(no wall switch) $ 40.00 $ 40.00
DLC Qualified LLLC Fixture $ 150.00 $ 70.00
Marketing
Key to the success of the Prescriptive Lighting Program is clear communication to lighting supply houses, distributors,
electricians, and customers regarding incentive requirements and forms. The Avista website communicates program
requirements and highlights opportunities for customers. In addition, the company's regionally based account
executives play an integral role in delivering the prescriptive lighting program to commercial/industrial customers.
Any changes to the program typically include 120 days' advance notice to allow customers to submit applications for
incentives under the old requirements and/or incentive levels if desired. This usually includes-at a minimum-direct
email communication to trade allies as well as website updates.
A11W -
�4uVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 31

Impact Evaluation
TABLE 19— COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM IMPACT FINDINGS— ELECTRIC
Program Type Reported Saving Evaluated Savings Realization Rate
Prescriptive Lighting 6,416,259 6,416,285 100%
Recommendations
Within the Prescriptive Lighting Program, evaluators recommend collecting space HVAC configuration information and
using interactive HVAC effects factors when calculating prescriptive lighting savings for interior spaces.
Plans for 2023
With the more sophisticated measure-level detail in iEnergy, Avista has been able to update lighting measures annually
to reflect market conditions, including adding new measures that were typically paid for through the Site-Specific
Program. Some refinement to the program is anticipated in 2023 as the company plans to use increased incentive
calculations ($0.26/kWh)for deemed amounts.
Avista will continue to be flexible in making midyear changes as needed to further encourage program participation
and will review the impacts of the new Small Business Lighting Program (see program description on page 90).
Additionally, Avista plans to increase customer self-service by launching a web interface that allows customers to
submit their incentive applications. Finally, Avista will consider collecting space HVAC configuration information to
inform HVAC interactive effects, while considering how to balance the accuracy of savings with the ease of customer
and contractor participation in the program.
m.
Pg 32 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVISra®

Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Programs
TABLE 20—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramPrescriptive Non-Lighting Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 13
Overall kWh Savings 75,625
Incentive Spend $ 11,764
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 2,949
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 14,713
ProgramPrescriptive Non-Lighting i
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 33
Overall Therm Savings 18,252
Incentive Spend $ 41,390
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 80,300
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 121,690
Description
Commercial Food Service Equipment Program—The Commercial Food Service Equipment Program encourages
customers to purchase energy-efficient equipment either as a replacement for existing equipment or as a new product
to support food service activities. To meet eligibility requirements, customers must install equipment that meets
efficiency requirements and utilizes an Avista-provided fuel. For equipment that requires hot water heat, Avista must
provide that heat source for eligibility. This program offers a variety of electric and natural gas food service equipment.
Customers who meet the requirements must submit rebate paperwork within 90 days of project completion.
Incentives are disbursed after receipt of documentation and verification of equipment eligibility.
Compressed Air Line Isolation Program—The Compressed Air Line Isolation Program was developed to offer a
prescriptive path for Avista electric customers with a 15 horsepower(HP) or greater rotary screw compressor. It offers
direct installation of a compressed air leak reduction device. Energy savings are generated by reducing the impact of
compressed air leaks during off-hour periods. Customers can work with compressed air contractors to do a two-week
pre-logging of compressed air systems, install a line isolation device, and complete the project with a two-week post-
logging. After logging is complete, a site report is presented that summarizes the kWh savings and includes photos of
actual installation (including nameplate), invoices, and a completed rebate form. Incentives are paid to the contractor
with no cost to the customer. In mid 2022, a measure was added to this program for compressed air leak detection. A
preliminary acoustic imaging detector audit provides a report of leaks, leaks are repaired, and a second audit is done
to verify that leaks have been repaired. The Leak Q report is submitted with the rebate form and an incentive is paid
for kWh savings.
A11W -
APIIIVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 33

Commercial Natural Gas HVAC—The Commercial Natural Gas HVAC Program encourages Avista commercial
natural gas customers to save energy by choosing to install energy-efficient natural gas furnaces and boilers. It offers
seven different equipment types that customers may select from to best fit their business needs and save energy
dollars. Incentives are paid by the input kBtu and the efficiency of the equipment selected. Customers must submit
rebate forms with proof of purchase invoices and AHRI certificates within 90 days of project completion. Incentives are
disbursed after receipt of documentation and verification of eligibility.
Green Motors Rewind—The Green Motors Rewind Program offers Avista commercial electric customers an instant
rebate on their service center invoice for a green rewind of an existing motor. Qualifying motors must fall between 15
and 5,000 HP and be used in an industrial capacity. The program pays $1 per HP to the service center and another $1
per HP off the invoice for the customer. Green Motors Practices Group is the third party that manages this program
for the region and is paid an administrative fee of $.05 per kWh savings per customer rewind. Program participation is
presented monthly by Green Motors Practices Group in the form of an invoice accompanied by detailed service center
information per project.
Fleet Heat—The Fleet Heat Program is provided to Avista commercial electric customers who use uncontrolled block
heaters to keep fleet engines warm when their vehicles are not running during the colder climate months—typically
from the end of October to the end of March. This program offers a product that provides an engine-mounted
remote thermostat with an ambient temperature thermostat in a Twinstat cord to maximize energy efficiency. Upon
receiving the rebate form, Avista will order cords from Hotstart based on the information provided on the form and
deliver the cords to the customer. The customer is responsible for the installation of the cords and the initial payment
to Hotstart. After installation verification, Avista refunds the customer's Twinstat cord costs.
Commercial Grocer—The Commercial Grocer Program is offered to Avista commercial electric customers with a
range of retrofit energy savings measures associated with commercial refrigeration. The incentives within this program
offer specific measures that can be installed and applied for after project completion. Customers may install any of
the eligible measures—display case lighting, motors, controls, strip curtains, gaskets—and then apply for an incentive
by submitting a rebate form with associated invoicing and providing proof of purchase and installation. Incentives are
disbursed after receipt of documentation and verification of eligibility.
Commercial VFD Retrofit—The Commercial Variable Frequency Drive Retrofit Program offers incentives to
customers to increase the energy efficiency of their HVAC fan or pump applications with a variable frequency drive.
Installing a VFD on an existing unit of equipment enables that equipment to be more energy efficient. This program
is available for Avista commercial electric customers. The incentive is calculated at $200 per HP of the motor the VFD
is installed on. Post-installation verification is required before payment may be issued for all VFD projects. Customers
may apply for this incentive after they install a VFD on an existing piece of eligible equipment and submit required
documentation. Incentive disbursement will be processed after an installation inspection has occurred.
m.
Pg 34 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Commercial Pay for Performance—The Commercial Pay for Performance is an incentive program that pays
customers for actual energy savings at the meter. Energy savings can come from building retrofits and equipment
upgrades as well as from behavioral, operations and maintenance, and retro-commissioning activities. Pay for
Performance pays annual incentives for all electricity/natural gas saved, rather than separate incentives for individual
measures. Qualifying customers who implement whole-building energy retrofits will receive a set incentive rate
for measurable savings that are achieved over the course of three years, with incentive payments made at the
end of each year. Incentives are paid at .08 per kWh and 1.25 per therm. This program is available for any Avista
commercial customers who own or operate buildings with at least 20,000 square feet of heated or cooled space
and have consistent and measurable energy usage. Each building must have stable energy use over the past year
and be metered separately, preferably with interval meters. To be eligible for this program, customers must identify
planned improvements with savings of at least 10 percent of the building's baseline kWh or therm consumption.
Manufacturing/Industrial processes are excluded from this program but may be eligible under the site-specific path.
Customers submit a completed rebate form, and Avista establishes a usage baseline, approves the projects, and sends
a contract for the project. After improvements are implemented, savings are measured against the baseline, and
payments are made annually for three years if savings are met.
Program Activities
Electric: Savings of 75,625 kWh, a decrease of 17 percent compared to 91,163 kWh in 2021.
Natural Gas:Savings of 18,252 therms, a decrease of 12 percent compared to 20,725 therms in 2021.
FIGURE 16-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM
INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE - ELECTRIC
$3,000 Grocer
$2,800 Motor Control HVAC(VFD)
$2,423 Shell
$1,791 Green Motors Rewind
$1,750 Food Services
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 35

FIGURE 17—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM
INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE— NATURAL GAS
$30,200 Food Services
$4,620 HVAC
$1,700 Shell
Program Changes
In 2022, a few changes were made to the Commercial Food Service Equipment Program and several more were
made to the Commercial Grocer Program. Please see Table 21 for changes that occurred as of January 2022. A leak
detection measure was added to the Commercial Compressed Air Program midway through the year. An entirely new
Pay for Performance Program was also added to Avista's prescriptive program offerings for commercial/residential
customers. Launched in the fall, the program saw no completed projects in 2022, but multiple projects are expected
to be completed in 2023.
TABLE 21 —COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM REBATE CHANGES
i
Commercial ... Service Equipment Program
4 Pan Electric and Natural Gas Steamer $ 1,700 $ 1,300 Measure Decrease
6 Pan Electric and Natural Gas Steamer $ 2,600 $ 2,200 Measure Decrease
7-12 Pan Electric and Natural Gas Steamer $ 3,200 $ 2,488 Measure Decrease
Electric Convection Oven $ 220 $ 200 Measure Decrease
Ice Machines 799 Ibs/day and under $ 160 0 Measures Removed
Ice Machines 800 Ibs/day and over New $ 200 Measures Added
ProgramCommercial Grocer
LT Case:T12 to LP LED Inside Lamp $ 10 $ 15 Measure Increase
MT Case:T12 to LP LED Inside Lamp $ 10 $ 15 Measure Increase
T12 to LP LED Outside Lamp $ 7 $ 15 Measure Increase
T8 to LP LED Outside Lamp $ 7 $ 15 Measure Increase
MT Case:2 T8 to 1 High Power LED Inside Lamp $ 18 $ 20 Measure Increase
/III Pg 36 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Rebates2022 Changes to Prescriptive Non-Lighting 1
MT Case 2 T12 to 1 High Power LED Inside Lamp $ 18 $ 20 Measure Increase
LT Case:2 T8 to 1 High Power LED Inside Lamp $ 18 $ 20 Measure Increase
LT Case:2 T12 to 1 High Power LED Inside Lamp $ 18 $ 20 Measure Increase
MT Case:2 T8 to 1 High Power LED Outside Lamp $ 10 $ 15 Measure Increase
MT Case:2 T12 to 1 High Power LED Outside Lamp $ 10 $ 15 Measure Increase
Strip Curtains $ 5 $ 10 Measure Increase
20W ECM replacing 20W Shaded Pole New $ 100 Measure Added
20W ECM replacing 1/20HP Shaded Pole New $ 100 Measure Added
20W ECM replacing 1/15HP Shaded Pole New $ 100 Measure Added
20W ECM replacing 1/20HP Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 100 Measure Added
20W ECM replacing 1/15HP Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 100 Measure Added
1/20HP ECM replacing 1/20HP Shaded Pole New $ 100 Measure Added
1/20HP ECM replacing 1/15HP Shaded Pole New $ 100 Measure Added
1/20HP ECM replacing 1/15HP Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 100 Measure Added
1/15HP ECM replacing 1/20HP Shaded Pole New $ 100 Measure Added
Medium Temp ECM replacing Shaded Pole 9W output power New $ 50 Measure Added
Medium Temp ECM replacing Shaded Pole 10-15W output power New $ 50 Measure Added
Medium Temp ECM replacing Shaded Pole 16-20W output power New $ 50 Measure Added
Medium Temp ECM replacing Shaded Pole 20+W output power New $ 50 Measure Added
Medium Temp ECM replacing Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 50 Measure Added
9W output power
Medium Temp ECM replacing Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 50 Measure Added
10-15W output power
Medium Temp ECM replacing Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 50 Measure Added
16-20W output power
Medium Temp ECM replacing Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 50 Measure Added
20+W output power
Medium Temp PMSM replacing Shaded Pole 9W output power New $ 50 Measure Added
Medium Temp PMSM replacing Shaded Pole 10-15W output New $ 50 Measure Added
power
Medium Temp PMSM replacing Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 50 Measure Added
9W output power
Medium Temp PMSM replacing Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 50 Measure Added
10-15W output power
Low Temp ECM replacing Shaded Pole 9W output power New $ 50 Measure Added
Low Temp ECM replacing Shaded Pole 10-15W output power New $ 50 Measure Added
Low Temp ECM replacing Shaded Pole 16-20W output power New $ 50 Measure Added
Low Temp ECM replacing Shaded Pole 20+W output power New $ 50 Measure Added
.A11W -
�4M Sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 37

2022 Changes to Prescriptive Non-Lighting Rebates I
Low Temp ECM replacing Permanent Split Capacitor
New $ 50 Measure Added
9W output power
Low Temp ECM replacing Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 50 Measure Added
10-15W output power
Low Temp ECM replacing Permanent Split Capacitor
New $ 50 Measure Added
16-20W output power
Low Temp ECM replacing Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 50 Measure Added
20+W output power
Low Temp PMSM replacing Shaded Pole 9W output power New $ 50 Measure Added
Low Temp PMSM replacing Shaded Pole 10-15W output power New $ 50 Measure Added
Low Temp PMSM replacing Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 50 Measure Added
9W output power
Low Temp PMSM replacing Permanent Split Capacitor New $ 50 Measure Added
10-15W output power
Walk-In Cooler Evaporator Fan Motor 20W Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
20W ECM
Walk-In Cooler Evaporator Fan Motor 20W Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
1/20HP ECM
Walk-In Cooler Evaporator Fan Motor 1/20HP Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
20W ECM
Walk-In Cooler Evaporator Fan Motor 1/20HP Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
1/20HP ECM
Walk-In Cooler Evaporator Fan Motor 1/20HP Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
1/15HP ECM
Walk-In Cooler Evaporator Fan Motor 1/15HP Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
20W ECM
Walk-In Cooler Evaporator Fan Motor 1/15HP Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
1/20HP ECM
Walk-In Cooler Evaporator Fan Motor 1/15HP Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
1/15HP ECM
Walk-In Freezer Evaporator Fan Motor 20W Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
20W ECM
Walk-In Freezer Evaporator Fan Motor 20W Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
1/20HP ECM
Walk-In Freezer Evaporator Fan Motor 1/20HP Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
20W ECM
Walk-In Freezer Evaporator Fan Motor 1/20HP Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
1/20HP ECM
Walk-In Freezer Evaporator Fan Motor 1/20HP Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
1/15HP ECM
Walk-In Freezer Evaporator Fan Motor 1/15HP Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
20W ECM
Walk-In Freezer Evaporator Fan Motor 1/15HP Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
1/20HP ECM
/IIf Pg 38 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

2022 Changes to Prescriptive Non-Lighting Rebates I C I
Walk-In Freezer Evaporator Fan Motor 1/15HP Shaded Pole to New $ 100 Measure Added
1/15HP ECM
Evaporator Fan ECM Motor Controller Walk-In Medium Temp New $ 50 Measure Added
>44W—2 or more motors/controller
Evaporator Fan ECM Motor Controller Walk-In Medium Temp New $ 50 Measure Added
24-43W—2 or more motors/controller
Evaporator Fan ECM Motor Controller Walk-In Low Temp>44W— New $ 50 Measure Added
3 or more motors/controller
Evaporator Fan ECM Motor Controller Walk-In Low Temp 24-43W New $ 50 Measure Added
—3 or more motors/controller
Evaporator Fan ECM Motor Controller Walk-In Medium Temp New $ 50 Measure Added
<23W—5 or more motors/controller
Evaporator Fan ECM Motor Controller Walk-In Low Temp<-23W—
New $ 50 Measure Added
7 or more motors/controller
Evaporator Fan ECM Motor Controller Walk-In Medium Temp New $ 50 Measure Added
>44W—1 or 2 motors/controller
Evaporator Fan ECM Motor Controller Walk-In Low Temp>44W—
1 or 2 motors/controller New $ 50 Measure Added
Marketing
Avista account executives market these programs, as do external trade allies. All commercial programs are also
featured on the Avista efficiency website.
Impact Evaluation
Electric:Table 22 shows the reported and evaluated electric energy savings for Avista's commercial/industrial
Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program path, as well as the realization rates between the evaluated and reported savings
for 2022. The overall program path achieved a 100 percent realization rate for electric programs.
TABLE 22-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM IMPACT FINDINGS- ELECTRIC
Program [�eportecl Savings Evaluated S;avings
HVAC 14,308 14,308 100%
Food Service Equipment 10,532 10,537 100%
Grocer 36,468 36,468 100%
Shell 4,490 4,490 100%
Green Motors 9,822 9,822 100%
Commercial/Industrial Total 75,620 75,625 100%
/IIW_-
�4rifESra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 39

Natural Gas: Prescriptive programs also achieved a realization rate of 100 percent.
TABLE 23—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM IMPACT FINDINGS— NATURAL GAS
Program Type Reported Savings Evaluated Savings Realization Rate
(Therms (Therms)
HVAC 5,082 5,082 100%
Food Service Equipment 12,910 12,910 100%
Shell 260 260 100%
Commercial/Industrial Total 18,252 18,252
Recommendations
Evaluators offered the following recommendations to improve realization rates for prescriptive programs:
• Within the HVAC Program, when collecting measure information for boiler measures, evaluators recommend
collecting information about the type of facility where the retrofit is occurring (grocery, restaurant, and
lodging; medical— hospital and outpatient; or all other)to allow for measure savings assessment using RTF
materials.
• Within the Grocer Program, when collecting measure information for energy conservation measures,
evaluators recommend collecting information about the motor power of the baseline motor.
Plans for 2023
Avista will reassess all program measures and incentive levels in 2023 and will consider the above recommendations
as HVAC and Grocer Program measures migrate to the new Midstream Program.
AIIN Pg 40 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

(This page intentionally left blank.)
/IIW__
�IuV1STA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 41

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
P
it 10
r•'�!��ty 1 s.•
IS
;4fPX
w L
.ti t rr � ¢• � 1'',�- •r` 3{�y.. _ s� ��`,j � f'.q�� ` y Cf
Pr j rI .7r: :Alr sZf J� E
L
1 t
x ,�`r ! � .�oj'^.�f��,'�Ire• ;, ^'` ���.i•�
r �i
.r
�y A tM Wu = ,
1wic.
I`P
—7r-
Twin Lakes,
�-" ,h.:•
i
Idaho

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
Overview
Avista's residential sector portfolio is composed of several approaches that encourage customers to consider energy-
efficiency improvements within their homes. Prescriptive rebate programs are the main component of the portfolio
and are augmented by a variety of additional interventions, including select distribution of low-cost lighting and
weatherization materials, direct-installation programs, and a multifaceted, multichannel outreach and customer
engagement effort.
Nearly $2 million in rebates and direct customer benefits were provided to Idaho residential customers to offset the
cost of implementing these energy-efficiency measures in 2022. All programs within the residential sector portfolio
combined contributed 1,134 MWh and 266,415 therms to the annual energy savings.
TABLE 24— RESIDENTIAL SAVINGS BY PROGRAM
Residential Electric Savings I Natural Gas Savings
Water Heating 27,769 28,408
HVAC 517,702 216,236
Shell 137,338 20,360
Fuel-Efficiency 326,625 —
ENERGY STAR Homes 55,400 —
Multifamily/Small Home Weatherization 18,754 955
Appliances 32,467 457
Multifamily Direct Install 17,478 —
Residential Total 1,133,532 266,415
Marketing
Meeting customers where they are, with information that's valuable to them, drives Avista's marketing strategies to
increase awareness of and engagement with its energy-efficiency programs and resources. In 2022, the company's
energy-efficiency campaigns underwent a creative refresh. Existing channels—including bill inserts, print and
electronic newsletters, email, and social media—continued to expand education and program awareness. Digital
tactics were expanded to reach additional audiences.
Over the course of the year, 67 separate posts about energy-efficiency education and programs were shared on
Avista's Facebook page, generating over 175,940 impressions and a reach of over 172,250. Content focused on
energy-saving tips and tools to help customers manage their use. Energy-saving tips and information were also shared
in the company's print and electronic newsletter nine out of 12 months.
A11W -
�IuVESTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 43

Seasonal energy-saving material was shared throughout the year, with summer cooling tips promoted on social media,
in Avista's newsletter, and via direct email outreach. Avista updated its winter heating campaign, providing cold
weather energy-saving tips to customers via bill insert, newsletter, print advertising, social media, direct email, and
digital advertising. Digital ads and website content were translated into Spanish. This campaign exceeded 8,745,000
total impressions.
FIGURE 18- RESIDENTIAL REBATES SUMMER BILL INSERT
---Moo
With Avista rebates,you can get money
back when purchasing high-efficiency
Save in equipment such as a new water heater
reOe or natural gas furnace.Or save energy and
j i ff:
7
'ilmoney when you buy a smart thermostat,
add insulation,or upgrade your home with See our entire list of rebates for ways you is
can save money,reduce your energy use,
new windows.We offer rebates on Energy
ades. Star'washers and dryers,too. and make your home more comfortable.
Would irk. Visit tryantista.com/getreball
FIGURE 19- RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-EFFICIENCY PRINT ADS
Get in the
energy-saving zone
with
I. Avista rebates. '
Pay less for energy-efficient equipment and appliances. f I
Avista rebates will help you save when converting to tS'
new high-efficiency equipment.Also get money back on
/ a smart thermostat,insulation and newwindows.Enjoy
rebates on Energy Star®Certified storm windows,doors,
refrigerators,freezers,washers and dryers,too:
See the full list at myavista.com/getrebates
'Some rertrittions may apply. I'
Build your
energy savings
with Avista rebates.
Whether you're building your dream home or updating your existing
home,Avista rebates can help you pay less for energy-efficient
equipment and appliances.
See the full list at myaviste.com/getrabates
Pg 44 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

FIGURE 20- RESIDENTIAL BEAT THE HEAT STAY COOL AND SAVE ENERGY THIS SUMMER EMAIL
r�
cool.Ways to stay
Read hot e
Dear Custornet,
Summer starts tomorrowl June 21 marks the first official day of the season Now
is a great time to consider how you'll keep your home cool and comfortable
throughout the next few months.Preparing now can help you manage your
summer energy use and avoid surprises.
Start with a few easy DIY's to keep your house more comfortable and use less
energy:
- Use box fans instead of your air conditioner.Fans use about 1%of the
energy that AC's do.
-Switch your ceiling fan's spin direction to counterclockwise.This will push
air downward,so you can feel it.
•Turn ventilation fans off when you don't need them(bathroom,kitchen,
etc.).They pull the cool air from inside your home and push It straight
outside-
Close your blinds and drapes during the day Insulated drapes or shades
can block up to 65%of the sun's heal from passing through your
windows.
Use your microwave instead of the oven.It uses up to 20%less energy
than the oven and won't heat up the house while you're cooking.
Want more energy saving tips to help beat the heal this summer?Discover six
ways to conserve energy and save -.r,.
Ready to take aeon?We have money saving rebates on home improvement
projects Find energy rebates in WA,ID and OR I
Sincerely.
Avista
ar�....•.�•r c.,r..r.i na,wo;
awn mt.:cva...w u:r.
.,.u...i w.-v-o�.w..s..a.+r��v+...r�s.rs a r+...rw.rae�.wnw•���
-
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 45

FIGURE 21 - RESIDENTIAL SUMMER BILL FACEBOOK POST
Ur mtr OEhfiil,1.01 YfRM6fy.NdO .9"W4t0 igW y—ehh.."S,..p 14 YR'.d
uep.ck,dl_V,+i.'r.pfa~lenper.un whrde..sts♦bit rhN.A.rrrrt
Burerdslri l.n brig_g th'O•ORs1-d.etR w we041f fp rab+tn.
I'.Ms/Mw+.myYnVacarV.nMgr-ci�NftMawr✓v.
FIGURE 22- RESIDENTIAL JULY 2022 CONNECTIONS NEWSLETTER
"h-ft
Cent—ea rromlroneBeat the heat
i1IWantmoreenergysvingtpstohepbeatther• nnec • er?Weve qa pu—dwhhskanexpMns
ject In mind?Check out our energy effii re bate options edsee howto sane you somN. _4
mmf°rtaWe Miswmmer doesn't havew mrtalot or be dHfima
Ways to save
It•a homeimpmvement aeaxnhere ; Know what's
intne"°Hnweat. I Do you need helpme f°ralow ,,,bpaying your bill.home's value,butaisoyourfamilys IBug.un uhe,quip...,
ountl wit 1811 at
omfort and enjoyment.Buttheres _ othere M,w11811 a1 We mMerstantl that there may be
another reason to wnsider an upgade or least two businessudays before you stances when wstomers
twn.On average,nearly haHaf re4dential d'g—Wthelaw.Autility p Pntanve fidalhemselvesfadng
of
enegybillsgo ln.hemingandmding will mme maiktheappmumate lkm _ fironcial diffiwlties.Avista
your home.Which means that eaery yourbudetl utility lines.Theservice¢freepartners with community
Improvement yoo make now can haae a for Avista residential customers.Privately ages cies to provide financial
land-term impac[on your energy use. awned linescan be armed forafee. A.- a plusvreofferd1e
help you manage
And whh......9yafficlenry Call 811 before you dig checklist - and pay yrour bill such as Comfort
rebates,you'll save even more.Uke Never dithe ground until p. Level Billing.Preferred Due Date,
getting$4 per square foot bad:on new c npietethese steps' and Payment Arrangements.
vnndrnvs,$400 on a rankles naval gas We re here m help.Pleax call us
ter hemer,a81,000 when ynu swkrh •Use white Pain-mark Mezone If W.damage,hit or nick an electric
yourelectric furnaceto an eir-wurceheat where you plan to dig. or natural gas line,immediately Mt8 thaC]mdilem.ur
.Vw can eam et 8150 WA when •Call 811 and wait for the ul' nW,fy Avista customer service m options with a Customer Service
pump g Bummeris duwn-Wurh,o Nantl the pe yo bi Wplan he W,11 kl rtY Representative or for more Information
W.innall a smart thermastm—one o! be beating down on hoax.Naw is the rfect 6me to Ian how Il keep representatiae.mark the fadines (80o)221A1a�Hyou damages visitm
g your pe p you p elineandnatuml yavina.mm�ssinanm.
fl iest ova did gM a handle on your your home cool and mmfnrtable over Me neat few momhs.Early preparation will help waned by Avista. Pip gas is escaping,
energy use. you manage your energy use and avid surprises on W.,bill. •Maintain and respect these scare narks. DONOTIk FO.ID
OWRTHE PIPE idea
Thereare lotsofw to thewn'sheatout of houce.Slm d rt enh Meleak.Staticchagecanignite he
1.1i you're re ene,ng orlust he ck hiand Ii r nomst do-it keep If ects can makeanoticeabie difference,Getti •If year loaned ticket expires,ynu must gas. than 1911 a d distance
"'I'lgm use lessenergyc",ebte, ryourse&di ng Hanle for a new locate. away,tavuh,,l911 ands,aW
ompltte fnt of energy efFldency rebate started is easy Here are somequirktipsmsave energy: •Hand dig within the 24inditoleance Visit myavirta.omr811 for atltlitional
and tips at mymisU.mMwaytosave. mne m expose the marked utility infdnmation.
•Use bar fans beforewung on your windows.
mnditionar.Fans use aboutl%of .Use W.r mmwae iclnsdadl of the oven.
the energy Matnes do. Buses upmzo%less energythan the Ground mark identification
•Sw h your ceiling fan's spin wren and wasn't hem up Me housevahile Ground markin different wlors to
direction to munterdorkwise.This you're moking. gs are in
will push air dmi,mid,m;,can ® intliwte the I-anions antl types of utility
— feelH •Balioutside.Summer barbeques faciiides buried below.Valid Periods for
are fun ant didn't heat up the inside of ® laate marks an,WA-45 days:ID-21 days.
•Tum remilation fans off when you your house. Ifanyonedigsafterthelistedtimes,theyare
dontneedthem(bathroom,kikhen, ® digging with an iwalid ticket.
[F atJ Thry Wll the cod air from the dindry ave.e rgandbeipl S
k insi)=rhomeand push it straight Me dryorwill save energy and keep your rsr.on.uuanva w.tr
wtside house cooler.
•Set thermmtat at]8'.Eadi •Red
—th wnnn—etrees entities.
•I your R.e.hheamoudnghidtenradngynur
I E degree above Mat can sa�re 3%on home on south-faring sides.Remember
your coding bill. to ra11811 before yoo dig. Connect With us
•Closeyourblindsanddrapesd,Hrg .Checkyourinsulationlereis.Properattic, Mailin Address 1411 E.Mission,FO Bon 3] ,,5
the day lnsuated Ines orshades wall and a awlspam insabtion will keep g pokane,WA 992203]2)
ran Hi up ro 65%MMe sun's T.11 nil(800)W-91e7 1 MbSSztcor�m.n IEmail:ekQnyavist..
-- heat hom passing trough your Oundinued on ball �•Il��.i I�
R
Pg 46 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

FIGURE 23 - RESIDENTIAL WINTER BILL INSERT
cycle,Heating your Your monthly energy
home can —over half your _ I IA
account for o L
1
monthly winter from 27 to 35 days.
energy bill.
hey, - I � 411ril 11
IT 15/r'rM7 Let us help'
Bill Analyzer,as—11 as tips,rebates,and help
C. paying your bill at myavista.com/winterbill
Sid e. ccenercan make a
big difference.
y Whataffect
9a a ad' so you°ur
xto sage ke adjustments
FIGURE 24— RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 2022 CONNECTIONS NEWSLETTER
Continued from front Be alert to
How cold weather impacts home invisible carbon
energy use monoxide
Change furnace fi1al remove Wildup on baseboard hed--Dust and
debds will block hea[transfer,w even if your heater dicks on,your room will not
rm up efficiently Our Furnace Hite,Repi—ent Program can help al—ne you
ever forget to replam yourflter again.
•Adnita'.ermorta[-Set yourthertnos[a[in the winterro6g".Redudng the
Save energy temperz[urebelow that byjus[three degrees ran resuh lna l0%reduction oflim
and money with B energy aaed fit,heating.
rebates mnnntdhl..aterheaterdWtd-men,m�ealrmu'�of a%am roar
y energY use an ryes ption In
Are you mn idering home < roar home.
improvements to help reduce your Seal do fts and leaks-Use items like window plastic,caulk,and weather IF
energy use]We can help offset the sn PPi.q to keep the warm air in and the mid air out.If upgrading your
cost of energy-efficient equipment nsulation,we may have a rebate available b help.
and upgrades that will help you re
stay comfortable and save energy. For mo winter energy-saving tips,visit myavista.mmAvinterbill.
Thinking about new windows,a new t
furnam,or adding insulation]We've
got a rebate for that.Voa can also save
thwater heaters,heat pumps,smart )t_
ermortatsandmore. 1 Do you need help
See all of our energy-bfidency rebates - paying your bill?
at myavista.com getre aces. J
We understand that there may be instanter
when curtemem find themselves facing
1114..ial diffiwhies.Avista partners with
How cold weather impactsunity agencies to provide financial
a{sistance,p uswe offer other services to help
manageandpayyourbill such as ryatural he cleanest
home energy - Comfort Level gllllrg,Prue gas is t
I Dale.and Payment Anangemetsr burning fossil fuel available.
But if natural gas isn't burned
Have you felt the need to bundle up lately? we're here propedy say,because of a faulry
We',call furnace,it canemh carbon
Winter is just around the mrw and ynur house Is feeling that chill,too.When it (goo)3D oxide(CO),a colorless,odorless
_ gets mid outside,W.rh:m hosto use more energy nt slay warm,even if you discuss gasthatcan causefll,-like,,np.-
don'tmuch Rs[hermaswt.Homes use more energythis time of year because with a C and even death.ge alerted when CO
they mot down quicker—much like a cup of coffee. Repres is present.Install a UL-listed carbon
In the summer,a warm cup of coffee will staywarm for quite some time,even monoxide detecto,.
if Pal outside.tl placed outside dudng the winter thi h will cool dorvn We lust want you to be safe.
rather quickly So,as the temperature outside drops and ynur house struggles to Visit us at myavista.comhafery
retain heat,it,heating system has ro run more frequently and ror longer periods for more information.
of dine.This causes its eneM userospike,which you likeodce b ly neMreen
October and February or March.
The tort of heating your home wn account f t,.%to 6o%of your momhly
winter energy bill,but Mere are easy ways to help manage that energy use and
aintain comfort.
Use this handy checklist to get started:
•Chedefireplx dampers-Whenna,nuseadiimnWy hanopen Connect with us
damper can allow up to 26%of Me heated air In ywr houseto escape.
Mailing Address:1411 E.Mission,P06ox 3]TI,Spokane,WA 99320-3]S]
Tol4Free:(81 Web She:myavista.mm Email:ask®rrryavuta.mm g�
eorrti...d on other aide» aao�A�A o:�A„„a m t�oa su ISTA•
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 47

FIGURE 25— RESIDENTIAL WINTER BILL GOOGLE DISPLAY ADS
A home Less The type o/
with daylight heating source_
air leaks increases used can
uses more your winter impact your
energy. energy use. �j�/ ��_ enQ�9Y bl�� Olow,
O
FIGURE 26— RESIDENTIAL WINTER BILL
z
i�YISTA i�i//STA' r i✓/STA
•
001,
68
Pg 48 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

FIGURE 27- RESIDENTIAL WINTER BILL PRINT AD, SPANISH
*�'�
factura de energ(a
invierno?en
�� 40375
Dumnte el invierno,su factura de energia puede
variar de un mes a otro por muchas razones.
Puede producirse una ola de frio repentina que
requiem que su sistema de calefaccidn funcione con
mas frecuencia.Menos horas de luz significa que
las lutes estaran encendidas durante mas tiempo.
El hecho de que los ninos esten en casa durante las
vacaciones escolares y los invitados se queden durante
las fiestas tambien puede afectar la cantidad de
energia que se consume cada mes.
Conozca que otros factores influyen en su factura de
invierno y gestione mejor sus gastos con nuestras utiles
herramientas en linea.lr a myavista.com/winterbill
MMMMM
-
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 49

FIGURE 28- RESIDENTIAL WINTER BILL GOOGLE DISPLAY ADS, SPANISH
Una • .
con fugascle
Dime por que.
dia, se
incrementa
el la luz del de
FIGURE 29- RESIDENTIAL WINTER BILL VIDEO, SPANISH
68 ►
l'
�-y
Pg 50 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

At Home with Lisa
Many Avista customers live in older homes with energy-efficiency challenges. In 2020, the company partnered with
Lisa, an Avista customer who bought her 1910 house because she loved the old-world character—and then quickly
discovered it wasn't very energy-friendly. She attended an Avista energy fair and discovered how easy implementing
some efficiency measures can be. Lisa began writing weekly features sharing her experience with simple do-it-yourself
projects around her house that help improve her energy use and comfort. Most of Lisa's articles focus on low-or no-
cost energy-saving tips that customers can do on their own, regardless of their home's fuel type or heating system.
Titled "At Home with Lisa," her articles are hosted on Avista's website at the Connections blog. They're also shared
on Avista's social media pages.
In 2022, 43 separate "At Home with Lisa" weekly blogs were posted on myavista.com and were viewed 8,922 times.
On social media, Lisa posts were shared during 38 separate weeks, generating over 105,530 impressions and a reach
of over 103,630. After receiving positive reactions from customers about Lisa's content and storytelling, Avista looked
to expand her reach, hoping to influence similar customers to act. Avista expanded the "At Home with Lisa" series
to a digital campaign, utilizing static ads and short videos, as well as a bill insert, social media posts, and a newsletter
article. In the videos, Lisa walks viewers through the simple DIY projects she is completing in her effort to reduce her
home energy use and improve comfort. Projects include everything from thermostat control to mail slot fixes, hot
water heater wrap to window plastic, door sweeps to insulated drapes, and kitchen appliance tips to lighting.
Prior to the digital campaign's launch in late November, Avista's residential energy saving tips webpage averaged 251
page views per month, with a page ranking of around 108 (out of over 600 pages of content on Avista's website).
Post launch, with digital ads and videos directing viewers to this page for additional education and help, page view
averages jumped to over 40,550 per month, with an average page ranking at eight. Page views peaked in December
at 64,501, pushing the page ranking into the top five—an accomplishment, considering transactional (payment,
outage reporting, etc.) pages typically dominate Avista's page rankings. Digital ads proved successful as well, topping
9,578,160 impressions.
The company is continuing to partner with Lisa and identify additional opportunities to leverage interest in receiving
energy saving information through the voice and experience of a fellow customer.
FIGURE 30- RESIDENTIAL AT HOME WITH LISA GOOGLE DISPLAY ADS
doingLisa ins4alled drapes Save energy whe
to save energy.
Show me how DIY with LYsa
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 51

FIGURE 31 - RESIDENTIAL AT HOME WITH LISA MONTHLY AVISTA NEWSLETTER EMAIL
Connections
June 2022 1 Washington•Idaho
No longer interested in receiving this content?Unsubscnbe here.
AW
At Home with Lisa: Taking the
guesswork out of hiring a contractor
Aviste's websrte has a page to help looks in WA,ID,and OR find a contractor
A friend's husband decided he needed some work done on their home.He
gels points for enthusiasm and for starting to find contractors to do the lob.but he
didn't research the company carefully.My friend started getting emails from the
company'hat didn't sit well with her.The phone numbers were never to a direct
line and the folks they signed up with were never available.
She then looked up reviews for the company online.They were not good.The
couple decided to cancel the project,but the company tried to keep them on the
took for a lot of money
The two were finally able to get out from under that company,but the whole
situation made me wonder how to find contractors who are reputable.I do many
projects on my home by myself,but I know that someday 1 will need a trustworthy
contractor to tackle larger projects.
TAN/rt Y�IM
wrr•�al wiewa
Mwr u0b.Un a Hai A.a.&—Val Wet
Yfsrtlller l eava�..n New
otrwwnuneo�aorrsw.rrriwNwr.wrw.wr.rrw..rw�N�+r.�..
�r.rwrs..�rr..rNw rYNtlwrrtwarr.rrrwrr.n�W/wiw�wnrr�..�
�rrrrrow.a..w.•r�...o.r.rrw.e•.r.....ry ww r.+r�Y.wr.�
I�YeYAU/NN a.�
Pg 52 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

FIGURE 32-RESIDENTIAL AT HOME WITH LISA BILL INSERT
Watch my
energy-saving Sealing leaks.
videos online.
hi,I'm Lisa.Do you live in a house or apartment that's not
very energy efficient?Mine wasn't.So I completed a few
low-cost/no-cost energy saving projects on my own.
Let me share how easy it was.Watch my videos on how to
lower your energy use and improve comfort with heat and
-_ - hot water,lighting and much more.
1
Look for"At Home with Lisa" Saving hot
at myavista.aom/energytips. water. avasa•,
f' 1
1 :y A/
FIGURE 33 - RESIDENTIAL AT HOME WITH LISA FACEBOOK POSTS
•ww- . �Mw,ur•. ®....vr.
:a
uw•a xw.•anr.nM[xawlb•yN wyro ro•✓<hbNw•a+n �mM.aeaex vr•wesYab wld lweoaer..r.r!- 0.wrw•wYs•Yr c«.. ..,abYwwg.
1■
M 11•nx xlllr W:Ux•I•n rM yov M'b xq tox M Nome xM U•a Sw•av�Y a•UMxn Wwmr••r
r...v."v n.r. �.0•r.•..r".. ...r...� r.... u _ •r we"v"irn Lev Cs <r••xrub v/walwY mw•w• ....�.�... rr i.. �.. ....ii...u v.�..
.e�.wng n.un nn w.lr bb w 4r•M bmrmd 4w-
h.mUb n M••.'ur[ary rT•brro d11 n 1310.W rrub b.0 nau'gv.mY
law Mll x'Y•rty/xkaa b!w ewn bxn^••w r••rlpb Yx ns�r1M n Y
Ya voFlobrwl.yv'P/+x7b Ixx^7 M vrlr.grYi oYbr9 N n.rcv nox n
�/M•W w lRn'hw.riMdNntwb.?v-.vu.i46{roc_
I
Or lU1 Y+
•.w•yMwn..rn uY
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 53

FIGURE 34- RESIDENTIAL AT HOME WITH LISA VIDEO SERIES
At home
with • •`
Saving energy
at homeAi
;I -
ty
I"M an
•. .
o
The At Home with Lisa video series included 25 short videos that covered topics such as:
♦ window plastic and caulking
♦ insulated drapes and honeycomb shades
♦ outside window shades
♦ weather seals and door sweeps
♦ water heater insulation
♦ water temperature and use
♦ kitchen appliance use
♦ home heating and cooling
Impact Evaluation: Residential Sector
While some individual program results varied, the residential sector performed strongly overall in 2022. Savings
realization rates were as follows:
♦ Electric:Total verified savings of 1,133,532 kWh with a realization rate of 89 percent.
♦ Natural Gas: Evaluated natural gas savings show a realization rate of 108 percent on savings of 266,485
therms.
Complete impact evaluations for electric and natural gas are included as Appendices A and B.
mom__
Pg 54 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �III sra®

Performance and Savings Goals
The electric program portfolio achieved 39 percent of the 2022 savings goal. The Multifamily Direct Install Program
continued to be impacted by COVID-19 restrictions, operating on a limited basis with 10 projects completed in 2022.
The Multifamily/Small Home Weatherization and the Fuel-Efficiency Programs also had lower-than-expected savings,
driven by lower-than-expected participation.
Although the Fuel-Efficiency Program did not meet its target, it still accounted for 29 percent of total residential sector
savings. HVAC measures accounted for 46 percent of savings. The ENERGY STAR Homes Program far surpassed its
kWh saving goal, contributing 5 percent of residential savings.
Table 25 shows savings goals assigned to Avista's residential sector programs for 2022, as well as reported savings and
the goal portion achieved in 2022.
TABLE 25— RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS VERIFIED ELECTRIC SAVINGS
Savings Goals 1� Verified Savings Percentage of Goal
Water Heating 16,324 27,769 188%
HVAC 349,613 517,702 92%
Shell 252,351 137,338 87%
Fuel-Efficiency 2,391,800 326,625 48%
ENERGY STAR Homes 6,630 55,400 1087%
Multifamily/Small Home Weatherization 877,625 18,754 2%
Appliances 4,220 32,467 318%
Multifamily Direct Install 520,289 17,478 3%
Residential Total 2,924,887 1,133,532 39%
The natural gas segment of the portfolio achieved 60 percent of the goal for 2022.
The following shows the percentage of residential evaluated savings provided by each program:
• The HVAC Program accounted for 81 percent of residential natural gas savings.
• The Water Heating Program accounted for 11 percent of residential natural gas savings.
• The Shell Program accounted for 8 percent of residential natural gas savings.
A11W -
APIuVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 55

Table 26 shows savings goals assigned to Avista's residential sector programs for 2022, as well as reported savings and
percentage of goal achieved in 2022.
TABLE 26— RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS REPORTED NATURAL GAS SAVINGS
Savings Goals I Verified Savings Percentage of Goal
(Therms) (Therms)
Water Heating 60,640 28,408 47%
HVAC 278,408 216,236 78%
Shell 44,596 20,360 46%
Multifamily/Small Home Weatherization 62,464 955 2%
Appliances 669 457 68%
Residential Total 446,777 266,415 60%
Cost-Effectiveness
Tables 27 and 28 show the residential sector cost-effectiveness results by fuel type. Note that these values are inclusive
of both the prescriptive programs and the Multifamily Direct Install Program.
TABLE 27 — RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 2,801,050 $ 2,026,982 1.38
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 1,130,938 $ 772,086 1.46
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 2,745,017 $ 1,589,625 1.73
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 1,130,938 $ 3,182,374 0.36
TABLE 28—RESIDENTIAL NATURAL GAS COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 2,223,790 $ 3,292,497 0.68
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 2,223,789 $ 1,445,359 1.54
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 5,491,488 $ 3,198,687 1.72
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 2,223,789 $ 5,585,299 0.40
AIII Pg 56 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESYK

Program-by-Program Summaries
Residential HVAC Program
TABLE 29— RESIDENTIAL HVAC PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramHVAC
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 311
Overall kWh Savings 517,702
Incentive Spend $ 165,112
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 149,834
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 314,946
ProgramHVAC
Participation,
Conservation Projects 3,040
Overall Therm Savings 216,236
Incentive Spend $ 985,291
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 47,082
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 1,032,374
Description
Avista encourages customers to select a high-efficiency solution when making heating upgrades to their homes. Idaho
electric customers who heat their homes with Avista electricity may be eligible for a rebate for converting their electric
straight-resistance space heating to an air-source or ductless heat pump system. Annual energy use in the home
pre-upgrade must show 8,000 kWh or more (and less than 340 therms if natural gas is also available)of heating
use. Idaho residential natural gas customers who heat their homes with natural gas may be eligible for a rebate for
installing a high-efficiency natural gas furnace or boiler. The supporting documentation required for participation
includes, but may not be limited to, copies of project invoices and an Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute(AHRI) certification. The rebate is paid to the customer after the measure has been installed and associated
documentation has been received. Vendors generate participation using the Avista rebate as a sales tool for their
services.
Program Activities
Electric:Savings of 517,702 kWh in 2022, 45 percent of the overall savings achieved in Avista's residential
portfolio. The program achieved 92 percent of its savings goal of 349,613 kWh.
Natural Gas:Savings of 216,236 therms in 2022—81 percent of the overall residential savings. The program
achieved less than its savings goal of 342,173 therms(62 percent of goal).
A11W -
�4uVIIIISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 57

FIGURE 35— RESIDENTIAL HVAC PROGRAM INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE — ELECTRIC
$95,500 Electric to Air-Source Heat Pump
$31,000 Electric to Ductless Heat Pump
$24,000 Ductless Heat Pump with Existing Forced Air Furnace
$9,900 Smart Thermostat Paid-Install with Electric Heat
$4,712 Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat
For the electric HVAC program, electric furnace to air-source heat pump conversions comprised approximately 58
percent of residential HVAC electric incentives. Ductless heat pump incentives comprised approximately 34 percent of
incentives in 2022.
FIGURE 36— RESIDENTIAL HVAC PROGRAM INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE — NATURAL GAS
$790,200 Natural Gas Furnace
$164,707 Smart Thermostat Paid-Install with Natural Gas Heat
$20,034 Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat
$8,550 Natural Gas Boiler
$1,800 Wall Furnace
High-efficiency natural gas furnaces continued to provide the largest portion of natural gas savings in the residential
sector portfolio, comprising 80 percent of Avista's 2022 residential HVAC incentives. Smart thermostats continued to
be popular, with 1,198 installed in the Idaho service territory(1,094 for natural gas HVAC systems and 104 for electric
HVAC systems).
AM
_
Pg 58 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIVESra®

Program Marketing
The program was included in the winter heating campaign to increase awareness and drive program participation. See
pages 43-54. In 2022, Avista program managers kept in contact with trade allies via topical, focused email messages
to notify them of upcoming program changes and deadlines. Engagement with trade allies continues to be an
important marketing strategy for this program.
Impact Evaluation
The ADM impact evaluation team found a 92 percent realization rate for the electric HVAC Program and a 97 percent
realization rate for the natural gas HVAC Program in 2022.
The realization rate for the electric savings in the HVAC Program deviate from 100 percent due to the differences
between the applied Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the true Avista TRM or appropriate RTF UES value.
Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRIM values and verified tracking data to estimate net program adjusted savings. In
addition, they reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values for the electric measures, along with verified tracking
data, to estimate net program verified savings for this measure. For HVAC measures such as ductless heat pumps
and air source heat pumps, RTF savings are dependent on housing type (single family, multifamily, or manufactured
housing). Evaluators verified the home type when applying RTF values to each sampled project, which led to higher or
lower savings than expected, depending on housing type.
The smart thermostat measures realization rates are low because the Avista TRIM uses an average of retail and direct
install savings values as well as an average across heating types, while evaluators assigned the appropriate RTF UES
value for each installation type and heating zone. Appropriate categories in the RTF led to a lower-than-expected
savings for the direct install and retail rebates for this measure. In addition, four of the 23 total smart thermostat
measures were verified to lack requirements in the RTF, and therefore savings for those four smart thermostats were
removed. The measure-level ISRs were also applied to these savings values, which did not affect the realization rate, as
the ISRs displayed were 100 percent for all measures in the HVAC Program.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Water Heating Program was 97.40 percent with 28,407.84
therms saved. Evaluators found two instances where expected savings differed from verified savings: one project for
the 50 gallon natural gas water heater and another for the natural gas tankless water heater. Since these projects
did not meet minimum equipment efficiency requirements, their savings were verified to be zero therms. Evaluators
recommend verifying equipment efficiency prior to fulfilling rebates for this program. These two adjustments are the
only adjustments that led to the 97.40 percent realization rate.
Recommendations
ADM offered the following recommendations for Avista's residential HVAC Program:
Evaluators note instances where the web-based rebate data indicates that the household has electric space
heating, but all other sources (project data and document verification) indicate natural gas space heating, and
vice versa. They recommend updating data collection standards so that all sources of information reflect the
same values as the project documentation.
AIL--
�IIIV�sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 59

♦ A number of smart thermostat rebates included equipment that did not meet RTF measure specifications to
receive verified savings through the RTF workbooks, which the Avista TRM values are drawn from. Evaluators
recommend providing a qualified product list for customers to ensure that purchased smart thermostats meet
program requirements. In addition, evaluators recommend that Avista verify each program rebate to confirm
qualifications after the rebates are submitted.
Plans for 2023
Beginning in mid-2023, Avista will be shifting the rebate program for all HVAC measures except smart thermostats to
a midstream incentive model. The existing downstream model and midstream models will overlap for a short time to
allow customers and contractors to adjust to the new program.
For smart thermostats, new protocols associated with the iEnergy rebate verification process include verification of
home type and space heating type during the incentive approval process. Avista will also consider incorporating a
qualified product list into program requirements for future program years.
Residential Shell Program
TABLE 30— RESIDENTIAL SHELL PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramShell
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 119
Overall kWh Savings 137,338
Incentive Spend $ 74,032
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 67,181
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 141,212
ProgramShell
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 354
Overall Therm Savings 20,360
Incentive Spend $ 198,834
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 9,501
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 208,336
mf Pg 60 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Description
Avista encourages residential customers to improve their home's building envelope by adding insulation or storm
windows or upgrading existing windows or doors. Following the same annual energy usage requirements as the
HVAC program, Idaho residential electric customers who heat their homes with Avista electric and use at least 8,000
kWh a year are eligible to apply, as are Idaho residential natural gas customers with an annual home heating usage of
340 therms. This rebate approach issues payment to the customer following installation. All measures except doors
require installation by a qualified contractor.
Rebates are offered for insulation of attics, floors, and walls, with each type of insulation having specific pre-and
post-installation R-value requirements. Required contractor documentation includes an invoice and contractor
verification of the square footage of the space insulated and both pre-and post-installation R-values.
Replacement windows must have a U-factor rating of .29 or lower to qualify and supporting documentation must
include the invoice, along with window dimensions and U-factor ratings.
Contractor-installed storm windows must have a glazing material emissivity less than 0.22 with a solar transmittance
greater than 0.55. Required documentation includes the invoice and window dimensions.
Program Activities
Electric:Savings of 137,338 kWh in 2022 (12 percent of the overall residential savings), a 37 percent
decrease from the 219,690 kWh achieved in 2021.
Natural Gas:Savings of 20,360 therms in 2022, or 8 percent of the overall residential savings. The program
had an 12 percent increase in savings relative to the 18,214 therms achieved in 2021.
The savings derived from the residential Shell Program for both natural gas and electric homes are primarily attributed
to single-pane window replacements.
Shell Program participants have generally been inclined to replace existing windows with regular windows rather than
with storm windows.
Program Changes
ENERGY STAR-rated exterior doors were added to the program in 2022. Unlike other shell measures, rebates for
exterior doors did not require contractor installation or minimum annual usage.
Marketing
The program was included in the winter heating campaign to increase awareness and drive participation. See pages
43-54. Marketing efforts build awareness of opportunities in the home and drive customers to the website for rebate
information. Additional communication methods to encourage program participation include promotion on Avista's
website and bill inserts.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 61

Impact Evaluation
ADM arrived at a 67 percent realization rate of savings for prescriptive shell rebate measures in electric homes and an
84 percent realization rate for rebate measures in homes with natural gas. This includes all three insulation cavities
(attic, floor, and wall), along with regular and storm window installation and ENERGY STAR-certified insulated doors.
The realization rate for electric savings in the Shell Program deviates from 100 percent, primarily due to differences
between the categories applied in the Avista TRM prescriptive savings values and the more detailed categories with
unique RTF UES values related to heating type and climate zone. For single- and double-pane window replacement,
wall insulation, and attic insulation, the Avista TRM values are lower than the values for Idaho's climate zone in the
RTF UES values. Evaluators recommend adjusting the Avista TRM values to align more closely with the RTF UES values,
making particular adjustments based on the observed participation within each heating type category. In addition,
small changes to verified quantity led to variation in the realization rate for each measure type.
The realization rate for natural gas savings in the Shell Program is lower than 100 percent, primarily due to differences
in quantity in the tracking data and verified documentation.
Recommendations
ADM offered the following recommendation for the residential Shell Program:
In the Shell Program, evaluators recommend that Avista update the attic insulation and single- and double-
pane window TRM values to the appropriate RTF UES value. Avista's TRM uses 1.5 kWh per square foot,
whereas the RTF displays 0, 1, or 2 kWh per square foot, depending on heating type and heating and cooling
zone. Similarly, the difference between RTF savings and the Avista TRM value for window replacements is
drastic, with the RTF indicating much lower savings for the window replacements, based on U-values and
double-versus single-pane values. Evaluators recommend that Avista ensures the correct RTF UES values are
used to calculate expected savings and incorporates more granularity by climate zone, heating type, U-value,
and single-versus double-pane-specific savings into Avista's TRM.
Plans for 2023
In 2023, Avista will consider adding a do-it-yourself option for window rebates in response to customer requests.
Some customers, especially those in rural or remote areas, undertake window replacement projects themselves and
are dissatisfied by the lack of rebate options for this category.
Avista will also consider incorporating more granularity into the TRM in 2023 for window measures.
Pg 62 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'r-7honsra®

Residential Water Heating Program
TABLE 31 —RESIDENTIAL WATER HEATING PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramWater Heating
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 23
Overall kWh Savings 27,769
Incentive Spend $ 4,945
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 4,487
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 9,432
ProgramWater Heating
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 395
Overall Therm Savings 28,408
Incentive Spend $ 148,800
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 7,110
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 155,910
Description
Avista customers who use either electricity or natural gas to heat their water are eligible for participation in the
residential Water Heating Program. Three different types of water heaters are available: a high-efficiency electric heat
pump water heater, a natural gas tankless water heater, or a natural gas high-efficiency storage tank water heater.
Efficiency ratings for all equipment are verified according to the contractor invoice or the AHRI certification and must
be included with the customer's rebate application.
Program Activities
• Electric: Program savings were 27,769 kWh in 2022, a 10 percent decrease from the 30,726 kWh of savings
achieved in 2021.
• Natural Gas:Overall therm savings were 28,408 therms, a 32 percent decrease from 41,972 therms
achieved in 2021. Savings accounted for 11 percent of the residential portfolio, and the program achieved 96
percent of its savings goal of 39,436 therms.
The program saw a participation of 420 units, a decrease from the 591 units incentivized in 2021, but it was still a
fairly high-volume year compared to recent program years.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 63

Marketing
The creative refresh of residential efficiency campaigns in 2022 helped to build awareness of opportunities in the
home and drive customers to the website for rebate information. See pages 43-54. Additional communication
methods that encourage program participation include promotion on Avista's website and bill inserts. Finally,
communication with trade allies continues to drive participation, as some trade allies utilize the rebates as a sales
promotion tool.
Impact Evaluation
ADM arrived at a realization rate of 98 percent for the electric program and 97 percent for the natural gas program.
The realization rate for the electric savings in the Water Heating Program deviates from 100 percent due to the Avista
TRM prescriptive savings value. The Avista TRM assigns a combination of the values the RTF assigns for Tier 2 and Tier
3 heat pump water heaters. However, among document verification, evaluators found that most water heaters are
Tier 3 or higher, which the RTF UES assigns a higher savings value.
In addition, the Avista TRM assigns the savings values for water heaters of any size. During document review,
evaluators found that most of the water heaters have a storage tank under 55 gallons, which has a higher savings
value in the RTF than water heaters with unknown tank sizes. Some storage tanks, however, were verified to hold 80
gallons, which carries a larger savings value in the RTF than storage tanks with 50 or 55 gallons. Evaluators applied
the RTF UES value for the associated tank size and tier for each model number in the sampled rebates. These changes
led to the high realization rate for the electric heat pump water heater measure in the Water Heating Program. The
ISRs for each measure in the Water Heating Program were 10 percent and therefore did not affect the verified savings
realization rates.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Water Heating Program deviated from 100 percent because one
project for the 50 gallon natural gas water heater and another for the natural gas tankless water heater were verified
to not meet minimum equipment efficiency requirements. Savings for these two projects, therefore, were verified to
be zero therms.
Recommendations
♦ Evaluators offered no recommendations for electric water heating measures.
♦ For natural gas measures, evaluators recommend that equipment efficiency is verified prior to fulfilling rebates
for this program. These two adjustments are the only adjustments that led to the 97.40 percent realization
rate.
Plans for 2023
All three water heater products will be available in 2023, with an increase both to the incentives for and the efficiency
ratings of the heat pump water heater(2.9)and the natural gas tankless water heater(.93).
m. -
Pg 64 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �4rVISra®

Residential ENERGY STAR/NEEM Manufactured Homes Program
TABLE 32 — RESIDENTIAL ENERGY STAR/NEEM MANUFACTURED HOMES PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramENERGY STAR/NEEM Manufactured Homes
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 19
Overall kWh Savings 55,400
Incentive Spend $ 19,000
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 17,242
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 36,242
Description
Any Idaho residential electric customer who purchases a new ENERGY STAR manufactured home as certified by
Northwest Energy-Efficient Manufactured (NEEM)with Avista electric and/or Avista natural gas for space and water
heating is eligible for the rebate.
NEEM-certified homes provide energy savings beyond code requirements for space heating, water heating, shell
measures, lighting, and appliances. Space-heating equipment may include electric forced air, an electric heat pump,
or a natural gas furnace. This rebate encompasses the whole home and may not be combined with other Avista
individual measure rebate offers(such as high-efficiency water heaters).
The ENERGY STAR Manufactured Homes Program promotes a sustainable, low-operating-cost, environmentally
friendly structure as an alternative to traditional home construction to both builders and homeowners. In Idaho, Avista
offers both electric and natural gas energy-efficiency programs; as a result, the company has structured the program
to account for homes where either a single fuel or both fuels are used for space and water heating needs. Avista
continues to support the regional program to encourage sustainable building practices.
Program Activities
Electric: ENERGY STAR Homes electric savings were 55,400 kWh in 2022. The program accounted for 5
percent of the residential electric savings portfolio.
• Natural Gas: No ENERGY STAR natural gas homes participated in the program in 2022.
The 2022 incentive for ENERGY STAR Manufactured Homes was $1,000 for homes using either Avista electric service
or homes with both electric and natural gas.
A11W -
�IIIVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 65

Impact Evaluation
Evaluators arrived at a realization rate of 88 percent for the electric ENERGY STAR Homes Program.
The realization rate for the electric savings in the ENERGY STAR Homes Program deviated from 100 percent due to
the categorical differences between the applied Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the more detailed RTF LIES
categories.
The Avista TRM applies RTF savings values from heating zone 2 to all rebates. In addition, the Avista TRM does not
take into account cooling zone, which also affects savings assigned in the RTF. Evaluators applied the appropriate
RTF savings values for the heating zone and cooling zone for each rebated household. This change led to low
realization rates for some rebates and high realization rates for others within the same Avista ENERGY STAR home—
manufactured furnace measure category. The overall effect of this change on the measure is an upward adjustment
on the savings that a fully natural gas-heated home would realize. Evaluators verified that all dual fuel homes had
natural gas as the primary heating type. Therefore, they assigned electric savings from the RTF associated with a fully
natural gas-heated home at 43 kWh per year rather than the fully electric value that Avista applied.
Evaluators did not conduct a verification survey for the ENERGY STAR Homes Program and therefore did not adjust
verified savings with an ISR.
Recommendations
• Evaluators recommend that Avista's TRM be updated to reflect the electric savings of 43 kWh for a fully
natural gas-heated home.
Plans for 2023
There are no substantial measure changes planned for this program in 2022. However, Avista will include a TRM
savings value of 43 kWh for natural gas-heated ENERGY STAR homes.
mom__
Pg 66 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �7honsra®

Residential Multifamily/Small Home Program
TABLE 33— RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY/SMALL HOME PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramMultifamily/Small Home Participation,Savings and Costs
Conservation Projects 22
Overall kWh Savings 18,754
Incentive Spend $ 8,618
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 7,821
Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 16,439
ProgramMultifamily/Small Home i
Participation,Savings and Costs
Conservation Projects 20
Overall Therm Savings 955
Incentive Spend $ 6,980
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 334
Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 7,314
Description
Created in response to a gap in program availability, the Multifamily/Small Home Program addresses two unique
barriers to Avista's residential rebate program. First, customers who did not meet minimum annual energy usage
requirements of 8,000 kWh or 340 therms were not eligible for the program. The annual usage requirement is in
place to ensure an Avista fuel is being used as a primary heat source instead of an alternative heat source (e.g., oil,
wood, propane). Second, condominium owners have historically been excluded from program eligibility because
condos are typically multifamily buildings.
The company has often been forced to turn away owners of condominiums or small houses for window or insulation
rebates, as very little to no energy savings existed for these homes. Customers were left dissatisfied and confused as
to why their condo or their 800-square-foot stick-built home would not qualify for a rebate. In 2022, Avista decided
to test the interest and the energy savings that may be achieved in these types of housing structures by providing
incentives for window replacement, storm windows, insulation, and line voltage thermostats.
Energy savings claimed are less than the traditional residential rebate program. Savings were determined by
considering lower estimated energy use and home square footage.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 67

Program Activities
The Residential Multifamily/Small Homes Program accounted for 2 percent of program savings for electric and less
than 1 percent of savings for natural gas programs.
Electric:Savings of 18,754 kWh in 2022, a decrease of 85 percent compared to 129,232 kWh achieved in
2021.
Natural Gas:Savings of 955 therms in 2022, a decrease of 80 percent over the 4,756 therms achieved in
2021.
Program Changes
Due to increased interest in the program in 2022, the measure list for these homes was extended to offer all
incentives currently obtainable through the residential rebate program.
Impact Evaluation
Evaluators arrived at a realization rate of 76 percent for the small home and multifamily electric program and 94
percent for the natural gas program.
Evaluators found that many projects exceed Avista's definition of a small home, which includes a single family home
that is less than 1,000 square feet or a multifamily home with five units or more. They recommend claiming projects
on single family homes that are larger than 1,000 square feet in the Multifamily/Small Home Weatherization Program.
In addition, evaluators note that the current program rebate applications do not provide an option to indicate
"multifamily" home type. Rather, the current rebate application includes the following options: "single family,"
"manufactured," "new construction," and "other." Evaluators recommend adding a "multifamily" option to
consistently apply RTF savings for each of the measures.
Most projects displayed realization rates that differ from 100 percent due to variations in home type for all measures
and verified U-values for windows measures. In addition, the updated weatherization workbook for single family
homes has significantly lower savings than the updated weatherization workbook for multifamily homes. Evaluators
verified the home type via Zillow to apply the correct savings from the single family, multifamily, and manufactured
home RTF workbooks. These adjustments led to high and low realization rates across each measure.
Recommendations
Evaluators recommend that Avista verify home type prior to applying Avista TRM values. They also recommend
creating separate single family and multifamily windows measures and savings values to apply in the Avista database,
mimicking the RTF values, to ensure proper categorization of measure savings.
Pg 68 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'r-7honsra®

Plans for 2023
Customers with small homes were confused by the inclusion of their homes within the multifamily segment.
Beginning in 2023, the "multifamily" option will include homes with shared interior walls. Small single-family homes
without shared interior walls will be served through the single-family program. Usage requirements will also be
adjusted to improve equitable access to rebates for the entire customer population.
Residential Appliances Program
TABLE 34— RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES PROGRAM METRICS
Appliances Program Summary—Electric
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 326
Overall kWh Savings 32,467
Incentive Spend $ 23,850
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 21,643
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 45,493
Appliances Program Summary—Natural Gas
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 84
Overall Therm Savings 457
Incentive Spend $ 4,150
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 198
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 4,348
Description
Avista has historically offered incentives for high-efficiency appliances such as residential washers, dryers, and
refrigerators through various avenues such as point-of-sale programs and prescriptive paths. Beginning in 2021
and continuing in 2022, the company's prescriptive offerings include rebates for ENERGY STAR-certified appliances,
including:
• front-load and top-load washers
• electric dryers
refrigerators/freezers
freezers
'AII.
,ir-IliVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 69

Program Activities
Electric:Savings of 32,467 kWh in 2022, a 42 percent increase over the 13,420 kWh savings achieved in
2021.
Natural Gas:Savings of 457 therms in 2022, an 81 percent increase over the 253 therms achieved in 2021.
Program Changes
In 2022, ENERGY STAR-certified top-load washers were added to the program although with notably less energy
savings than front-load models.
Impact Evaluation
Evaluators arrived at a realization rate of 65 percent for electric appliances and 110 percent for natural gas appliances
rebated through the program.
The program-verified savings for electric appliances resulted in a realization rate of less than 100 percent, largely
due to low savings from ENERGY STAR-certified refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer and ENERGY STAR-certified
upright freezer projects. All fridge-freezer projects were verified as ENERGY STAR-qualified but not ENERGY STAR
Most Efficient(ESME). The low realization rate for the fridge-freezer measure is due to the difference in RTF savings
value between ENERGY STAR fridge-freezers(about 45 kWh/year)and ESME fridge-freezers(about 126 kWh). Avista
TRM references the standard size refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer(side-mounted freezer) ESME at 124 kWh/
year savings. Evaluators found that no rebated fridges met this requirement, so lower RTF savings were applied. In
addition, one fridge-freezer rebate was not ENERGY STAR-rated.
Similarly, for the upright freezer measure, all projects were verified as ENERGY STAR-qualified but not ESME-qualified.
The low realization rate is due to the difference in Avista TRM and RTF savings values. The RTF assigns ENERGY STAR
fridges 26 kWh per unit, while ESME freezers are assigned 67 kWh per unit. The Avista TRM references the standard
size freezer(upright) ESME savings at 67 kWh per year savings. However, because evaluators found that no freezers
met the ESME qualifications, the lower ENERGY STAR savings values were applied to each project.
Finally, evaluators attributed zero kWh per unit savings to the ENERGY STAR-rated top load washer because the
referenced RTF clothes washer workbook estimates that savings for this measure is negative, and therefore there are
no proven RTF savings for this measure.
For natural gas appliances, evaluators note that all natural gas clothes dryer rebates were assigned zero therms
expected savings. However, they applied Avista TRM UES to these rebates, leading to a high realization rate for the
measure.
In addition, the RTF assigns 120 kWh per unit savings value for the front load washer. The evaluator assigned
equivalent therms savings by dividing by 29.3, which is the conversion factor to convert kWh to therms. Evaluators
therefore estimate 4 therms per unit of savings for each clothes washer. However, the Avista TRM erroneously
converted this value to 6 therms per unit, leading to a low verified realization rate.
Pg 70 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report '61III sra®

Finally, evaluators removed savings that were applied to the top load washer. The RTF clothes washer workbook
calculates negative savings for the top load washer, as the market practice baseline for this measure is already more
efficient than the incentivized efficiency. Therefore, since the RTF does not assign electric savings to top load washers,
evaluators deem zero therms of equivalent savings. This led to a downward adjustment on the program's realization
rate.
Recommendations
Evaluators found that the RTF assigns much lower savings than the Avista TRM for the electric fridge-freezer and
upright freezer measures. The Avista TRM seems to reference ESME-certified savings for each of these measures.
However, all projects rebated were verified to meet ENERGY STAR certification rather than ESME certification. This led
to a drastically low realization rate for these measures. The evaluators recommend updating the Avista TRM to reflect
appropriate RTF values.
In the natural gas Appliances Program, the evaluators note that all natural gas clothes dryer rebates were assigned
zero therms expected savings. However, they applied Avista TRM UES to these rebates, leading to a high realization
rate for the measure. Evaluators recommend investigating causes for this database error.
Plans for 2023
The program will continue with no changes in 2023; however, Avista will update its TRM in accordance with the
above recommendations.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 71

Residential Fuel-Efficiency Program
TABLE 35— RESIDENTIAL FUEL-EFFICIENCY PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramI
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 40
Overall kWh Savings 326,625
Incentive Spend $ 93,200
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 21,643
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 114,843
Description
The Fuel-Efficiency Program encourages customers to consider converting their resistive electric space and water
heating to natural gas. The direct use of natural gas continues to be the most efficient fuel choice when available,
and, over time, offers the most economic value in terms of the operating costs of the equipment. While natural
gas prices have risen slowly in recent years, the cost of infrastructure continues to rise at a faster pace, both for the
utility and for customers' installation costs for these conversions. Avista residential customers who use more than
8,000 kWh of Avista electricity for straight-resistance heat are eligible to participate. This program is also available
to customers considering a switch to a natural gas forced-air furnace. The rebate is also available as a combination
space/water heat incentive for customers who plan to switch to natural gas for both systems.
In 2022, the rebate to convert from electric heat to a forced-air natural gas furnace or boiler was $2,100. The rebate
to convert from electric heat to natural gas forced-air space and water heat was $2,850.
Program Activities
The Fuel-Efficiency Program obtained 326,625 kWh of savings in 2022, which is a decrease of 44 percent from the
586,226 kWh achieved in 2021. Savings from this program accounted for 29 percent of the residential electric savings
portfolio.
Program Changes
No changes to this program were implemented in 2022.
m.Pg 72 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Marketing
Energy-efficiency marketing efforts build considerable awareness of opportunities in the home and drive customers
to the website for rebate information. See pages 43-54. Vendors generate participation using the rebate as a sales
tool for their services. Additional communication methods that encourage program participation and utility website
promotion include vendor training, retail location visits, and presentations at various customer events throughout the
year.
Impact Evaluation
ADM arrived at a realization rate of 100 percent for the residential Fuel-Efficiency Program in the Idaho service
territory. Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values, along with verified tracking data, to estimate net program
adjusted savings for measures not evaluated through billing analysis. In addition, they reviewed and applied the
current Avista TRM values for the electric measures, along with verified tracking data, to estimate net program verified
savings for this measure. The applied Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the verified savings aligned in the
tracking data.
Plans for 2023
There are no planned changes for the program in 2023.
A11W -
�IuVESTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 73

LOW—INCOME SECTOR
M9
low
STOP I ,�
Aw
d -~
kid,L
Priest River,
•.

LOW-INCOME SECTOR
Program Summary
Low-Income Program
TABLE 36— LOW-INCOME PROGRAM METRICS
Program
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 79
Overall kWh Savings 85,639
Incentive Spend $ 300,953
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 132,026
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 432,979
ProgramParticipation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 75
Overall Therm Savings 1,954
Incentive Spend $ 165,970
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 40,444
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 206,414
For 2022, the Low-Income Program served 103 electric and 142 natural gas customers. Program participation for low-
income programs is quantified in the number of installed units or square feet of installed insulation or windows.
Description
Avista collaborates with a community action partnership (CAP) agency to deliver low-income energy-efficiency
programs in nine Idaho counties within the company's service territory. The CAP has the infrastructure to income-
qualify customers and provides access to a variety of funding sources to install energy-efficiency improvements to the
homes. The agency serving Avista's Idaho territory receives an annual funding amount of $875,000.
The agency may spend the contract amount at its discretion on either electric or natural gas efficiency measures.
Improvements to the residential shell (e.g., insulation, windows) require that the home demonstrates a minimum
level of annual energy use of either Avista electricity or natural gas for space heating purposes. For conversions
from electric resistive heat to a heat pump or to a natural gas furnace, an annual kilowatt hour use of 4,000 is
required. Within the annual funding allocation is a 15 percent reimbursement for administrative costs. The agency
may also choose to use up to 15 percent of its annual allocation for home repair, as well as other health and safety
improvements.
'AI1.--
�IuVESTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 75

To guide the agencies toward projects that are most beneficial to Avista's energy-efficiency efforts, the company
provides an approved list of measures that are considered cost-effective and allow for full reimbursement of the
installation.
A qualified list of measures allows for partial reimbursement of efficiency improvements that may not be cost-
effective from a utility perspective but may be vital for the home's functionality. These measures are compensated
with an amount that is equal to the utility's avoided cost of the energy savings associated with the energy-efficiency
improvement.
Program Activities
For 2022, the program achieved 86,539 kWh of verified electric savings and 1,954 therms of verified natural gas
savings in Idaho. Table 37 shows Avista savings goals for the low-income sector for 2022, as well as reported savings
and goal portions achieved.
TABLE 37— LOW-INCOME PROGRAM EVALUATED SAVINGS
.. ..
Electric(kWh) 109,952 85,639 140%
Natural Gas(Therms) 16,078 1,954 20%
Avista continued to reimburse the agencies for 100 percent of the cost for installing most energy-efficiency measures
defined on the approved measure list(see Table 38). Avista deemed these measures as cost-effective during the
development of the 2022 Annual Conservation Plan, which took place in late 2021.
TABLE 38— LOW-INCOME PROGRAM APPROVED MEASURE LIST
Electric Measures Natural Gas Measures
Air Infiltration
Air Infiltration
Air-Source Heat Pump
Boiler(96%AFUE)
Air-Source Heat Pump
Attic Insulation Doors—ENERGY STAR-Rated
Doors—ENERGY STAR-Rated Duct Insulation
Duct Insulation Duct Sealing
Floor Insulation
Duct Sealing Furnace(95%AFUE)
Floor Insulation
Wall Insulation
LED Lamps Water Heater(storage)<55 gallon.65 EF
Refrigerator—ENERGY STAR-Rated
Wall Insulation Water Heater(tankless).82 EF
Windows—ENERGY STAR Rated Windows—ENERGY STAR-Rated
Fuel Conversion Measures
Electric to Air-Source Heat Pump
Electric to Natural Gas Furnace Conversion
Electric to Ductless Heat Pump
Electric to Natural Gas Water Heater
Heat Pump Water Heater(Tier 2-3) Electric to Air-Source Heat Pump(9 HSPF)
Electric to Ductless Heat Pump(10 HSPF)
Pg 76 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

Measures that did not meet the utility cost-effectiveness test are found on the qualified rebate list. The agency is
eligible to receive partial reimbursement for the installation. The reimbursement amount is equal to the avoided cost-
energy value of the improvement. This approach focuses the agency toward installing measures that had the greatest
cost-effectiveness from the utility's perspective. To allow for additional flexibility, the agency may use the health and
safety dollars to fully fund the cost of the measures on the qualified rebate list.
TABLE 39— LOW-INCOME PROGRAM QUALIFIED REBATE MEASURE LIST
Electric Measures Natural Gas Measures
Air Infiltration
Air Source Heat Pump Replacement(9 HSPF) Attic InsulationDuct Insulation
Electric to Natural Gas Water Heater Duct Sealing
Heat Pump Water Heater(Tier 2-3 any size) Floor Insulation
Wall Insulation
Customer Outreach
Customers who participate in the low-income weatherization program are often referred through the agency's
energy-assistance program. Typically, Avista provides a handful of referrals from a variety of internal departments
including energy efficiency, customer service, and its Customer Assistance Referral and Evaluation Services(CARES)
Program. CARES representatives provide support for disabled, elderly, and low-income customers, or customers
experiencing hardships related to employment, health, or finances.
Other referrals are the result of various outreach events that Avista hosts or is invited to attend. In partnership with
the company's energy-efficiency efforts, its community and economic vitality department conducts conservation
education and outreach for low-income customers, seniors, individuals living with disabilities, and veterans. The
Avista outreach team reaches this target population through workshops, energy fairs, and mobile and general
outreach. Each method includes demonstrations and distribution of low-and no-cost materials with a focus on energy
efficiency, conservation tips and measures, and information regarding energy assistance that may be available through
Community Action Agencies. One low-income and senior outreach goal is to increase awareness of energy assistance
programs such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)and Project Share.
Avista recognizes several educational strategies as efficient and effective ways to deliver energy efficiency and
conservation outreach:
♦ Energy conservation workshops for senior and low-income Avista customers.
♦ Energy fairs where attendees can receive information about low-and no-cost methods to weatherize their
homes through demonstrations and limited samples—as well as learn about bill assistance and online
account and energy management tools. Community partners that provide services to low-income populations
and support to increase personal self-sufficiency are invited, at no cost, to host a booth and provide
information about their services and accessibility. Multiple communication channels are used to promote
Avista's energy fairs. Tactics include news releases, direct mail, email, flyers, community calendars, social
media, signage, and print and radio advertising.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 77

• Mobile outreach through the Avista energy resource vans, where visitors can learn about effective tips to
manage their energy use, bill payment options, and community assistance resources.
• General outreach through energy management information and resources at events (such as resource fairs)
and through partnerships that reach the target populations. General outreach also includes outlining bill
payment options and assistance resources in senior and low-income publications.
Emerging from the pandemic in 2022, Avista cautiously revamped outreach activity to ensure public and staff safety
and well-being. To serve customers in a safe manner, the outreach team dropped off energy-saving items and
information at food banks, participated in mobile food bank drive-through events, and partnered with community-
based organizations to provide home energy kits to their clients. Kits were delivered to multiple community partners,
including senior centers and churches. In addition to receiving a free energy kit, they could also request a free energy
use guide(pictured on page 80)as well as the "Avista Kids" children's energy savings activities book (pictured on
page 82).
The team conducted and participated in 27 events that reached 2,092 Idaho residents, resulting in the distribution of
3,790 LED lamps for these customers. Table 40 shows an overview of outreach activities.
TABLE 40— LOW-INCOME PROGRAM OUTREACH EVENT AND LED BULB DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY
Number of Events/ 11
Description Activities Contacts
Energy Fairs 0 0 0
General Outreach 25 1,979 3,514
Mobile Outreach 1 63 176
Workshops 1 50 100
Low-Income Total 27 2,092 3,790
Marketing
Avista provided support to agencies to increase awareness of its weatherization programs throughout the year. The
primary goal of these marketing activities was to connect eligible households to their local agency for weatherization
services. Marketing tactics included direct-mail postcards, email, flyers for agencies to circulate and print, and
weatherization information on Avista's website for customers also seeking bill assistance. Marketing collateral was
published in both English and Spanish. Avista's Energy Resource Van was also marketed as a resource for agencies to
request at their events or sites. The van is staffed by Avista employees who share low- and no-cost energy saving tips
as well as bill assistance options with attendees.
/IIN Pg 78 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

FIGURE 37- LOW-INCOME PROGRAM HOME ENERGY SAVINGS KIT BROCHURE
VISTA
• - energy-saving tips
. Window Plastic V-Seal Weather Strip Open curtains on south-facing windows to let in
Your Covering your windows with plastic insulation V-Seal weather strip blocks narrow gaps war,sunlight during the winter Keep window
is a simple solution to save energy.The film around doors or windows.The two covering closed in moms that do not receive direct
• , seals out cold air and keeps in warm air, sides of its V shape are squeemd togethersunlight to insulate from cold window drafts.
plus it's dear so you can still see outside. for a tight seal when you dose your Close all curtains at night to not,in heat
To Install: door or window.
1.Clean and dry edge of window. To Install:
thm,gho,t the heating season and every three
2.Apply double-sided mounting tape around window edge. 1.Apply when temperature is above 20
-F month,during the cooling eas.n Al.put in a
clean filter at the start of the fir,season to improve
3.Unfold film and cut it to the width of the window,adding an 2.Cut to the required length. air quality and replace as outside air con itions
extra 2"on all sides. 3.Fold along the pre-scored center line to form a"V'with the deem necessary.Sign up for a free email reminder
4.Press film in place starting at the top of the window, adhesive on the outside.
then sides and bottom. 4.Peel off the backing strip and press into place,positioning it Take quick showerm and use low-ficav shomemeads.
S.Shrink film to remove wrinkles using a hair dryer so the N"compresses as the door or window is closed. Short showdr,use less hot water than a bath.
inch or so away from the film. DAD: Practice wine heating when using baseboard or
LED Lightbultn 1.Apply across and down the latch side of the doorstop molding.
space heaters by turning down the heat and closing
Compared to standard incandescent lightbulbs, 2.Apply to the hinge side,next m doorframe molding. doors in unused moms(a good temperature is
LEDs last 15 times longer(providing up to 25,000 Windows: it 55-F.Keep both clear from obstucrions such as
hours of light)and use up to 90%less energy. furnil and drapes that block heat.Anything that
The four energy-efficient LED bulbs in your kit are 1.Apply to frame above the window. touches these devicas can be a fire hamm.
also dimmable. i 2.Apply to sill under the window.
3.Apply across the lock rail. See a complete list of energy-saving tips at
Nightlight anyarvisisaxorl
A low-watt nightlight is perfect for O Reusable Tote If you have questions about your Home Energy
when you have to get up at night and We've also included a handy reusable
n electricity.The one in your kit t�y tote to carry whenever you shop.
has a light sensor for nighttime use only. �,.%�
or by phone at 509-495-8500.
EllankM AVESTA
A cozy blanket lets you lower your thermostat
and still stay warm and mmfy in winter.Save
energy by setting your thermostat A 58°F.
Also lower it another 5 degrees at night or See how to install these products with our do-it-yourself
when away from home for an hour or more. vice.at irry-ista-111.1.
FIGURE 38— LOW-INCOME PROGRAM WEATHERIZATION FLYER
• for life
Arriving
soon.
Sandpoint Food Bank
1707 Culvers,Sandpoint
JUNE 6,2022
9:00 am-2:30 pm
Visit our van to learn about AVista's online
tools,payment options,assistance
resources and get low-cosUnocost energy
management information and items.
/IIW__
�IIIV�Sra 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 79

FIGURE 39— LOW-INCOME ENERGY USE GUIDE
Heating&Cooling-46%
ical Energy Use in Your Home ■wate,Heatinp-14%
nergy bill for a Typical U.S.single family home S ■Dghtin9-12
gets$2,200 per year.Where does all this money go7
ost of heating and cooling your home can represent 40% ■Appliances-13%
of your total energy bill.The chart to the right shows ond°dee'nnoeraror ai:mvamec dnue:wa:M1er
eakdown of enerISIIgy use by category and starts to give
e of where savings can be found.Reducing energy ■Electronics-4%
eption by just 15%could save you over S300 a year in Ilnduaes eompu,er,mon�wc ry a�a ovo nuyerl
costs. 0 Other-11Energy Use
lineudnerrernal poweraaapers,ssraop bores,
and Sa
r g e.vein sans one M1ome auaiol
our Energy Budget Understanding This Guide
aysa good Individual lifestyle and energy use habits, Listed below are terms and definitions that will be used throughout this guide.
9uI't—with number and age of Occupants,as well All numbers and costs included are a representation based on national average use
s -� o needs. as the size design,levels of insulation with average Avista rates.
I_ f y"clothing, end heating system in your home, Kilowatt Hours(kWh):We measure A to Watts:The
rgyt run yo r all combinetodetenninehowmuch pproaima —rage is
nergy usage nergy you will use for heating. electrical energy In watt hours.One kilowatt the consumption rate of electricity a
- ag that portion hour equals 1,000 watt hours.The kilowatt device exhibits while operating.This
- _ is booklet, The statistics In this booklet are based on hours on your bill equals the rate or speed of energy consumption may occur when a
ving tips to national averages.The wattage or energy use(kilowatts)x the length of time electricity .mp..r Is turned on,when a kitchen
,gets usage and efficiencies of your appliances, was used.Running a5,000-watt(S kilowatt) m er is in use or when light bulbs
your own use habits,as well as the size of clothes dryer for 1 hour uses 5 kilowatt are turned on in a light fixture.
f. nand suggestions your family will vary.Keep this In mind when hours of electricity.Burning a 100-watt light
11 and better you're reviewing your own energy use. bulb for 10 hours uses 1 kilowatt hour. Monthly kWh Usage:The monthly
rm[ion. n k�assu ageforeach device is basedin
u[h some Therms:Your gas energy use is measured mete typical month of operation,
aewith, a unit called therms.Therms Identify the estimating the hours the device is
You. heating value provided by gas.One therm operating in conjunction with its power
equals the heating capacity of approximately consumption as noted in the watt rating.
100,000 wooden kitchen matches Estimated Monthly host The
€ram estimated monthly cost is based on
VHeating end the energy consumption at$0,10 per
9 Cooling -—------ kaowatt hour for electricity or$0.80
® natural gas therm which are typical
Heating and Cooling Energy SavingHeating and Cooling orrAvis.residential ru.t n—
Tips g Doge.
-------------- Energy Saving Checklist
IOn sunny winter ❑Block drafts,Check caulking antl a
days,open your weather strippingaround windowsantl ❑Ure�ns fin thesummer.Tryu
draperies to get doo s.If you see cracks,light,or Teel a in the summer before 5 0,in sing fans
sfulI banolt of sun drah,make repair where it onditioening Oltl A/C e g 0°the
hi u g ow,in ❑Seal leaks.Ductwork ex needed. It eauival t to using 30 orumoree ta
fans n
shmm rdo o e In P°setl to outside �f Y° must use your air contlitioner,set
cis the sealed uuncond"i°nee spaces should be 1t attm8.Fy:eaca
tlraperies to help s1°g mastic paste and wrappptl ill s n tlegree over 78°in the
keep out unwanted securely with insulation'nsulation joints �Wurrcooling bil�ou approximately 3%
should be sealetl heat with insulation tape,
Fireplace dampers should be kept cl.setl _ ❑0heck fumare"life.Check filters at ❑�9rem your thermostat gdjurt
When you're.not using the fireplace A chimney can tlraw off as much as 25% 'east cleano replace
h69
perature settings according to s
e a onth; repl a Preset xhedule.this way of the heated air in your I. when tlirtY. r m up or cool ouwo Your Dom
damp°.,Is left open.Safel°ysbloekf the I ❑min a Profesi ohen yoon er y II b a r r s nu d fireplaces when p ibl off a tonal.A gualified h e.C d wake or at
n im Id check he'ting and theon.can",hat leamisF'enabled smart eouipment at the be
each season to ensure efficient operation,
Your settings.
turn down the heat in winter.Kee ❑ore tlrs P tion,
17.0 thermostat at or below fib°F'se 7 youp Pee or sehacles.Wind—
s
thermotat three degrees low thOBYu conelo9'cateyaour hof'ousesKeepthe
can red. er in the winter I tl n o�psthem
ce your bill by about l0%. Idd ys antl ope unny
When selecting an air condhl ---------- ones.
nart sonatn mnm or cent,ot ec 8.5
Seas Energy I acie check in leas -
ih SEER intlicates a units relative energy Rr 18%
hie Most units are to 'when..letting a h Reading Your Meter
tni.mr°rmadnn,oryn.,deaeedwim Heatingsea.nnalPenorpnme'chegkn. N4011gTTN0UR6
you determ net the SEER.The high"It hcan e (HSPF).The—indicates Factor Elarroc and natural acts meters
SEER,the better.q 5 rel tes a h a not
ref. EER of 13 or P abov,red,18 o is
r above is exceptional.a HS
np
'age` ® Water Heating ® Water Heating
Water Heating Energy Saving Tips Energy Saving Checklist
❑Keep showers short.Try to keep yo...hower to no longer than five minutes.
❑Adjust your temperature settings.Set your water heater at 12°F.
' /`� ❑Replace washers on faucets that drip.A leaky faucet can wane 2,500 gallons of hot
/// water per year at a rate of one drip per second.
❑Install a low-flow shower head.It can reduce your home water consumption as much
Ias 50%,and reduce your energy cost of heating the water also by as much as 50%.
W6;Jhen than
1.5 gal new shower head You should look for shower heads that use no
re than 1.5 gallons per minute(water consumption)and preferably no more than 0.6
gallons per minute.
Energy Use Guide—Electric
If you do not have access to natural gas, Showers generally take less hot water water heater,50-gallon neat pump 182.9 $18,29
consider a heat pump water heater to than baths and dishwashers generally Water heater,50-gallon high-efficiency 3552 $38,52
save energy. take less water than hand washing. Water heater,50-gallon standard-efficiency 404,E $40.48
® Energy Use Guide-Natural Gas
Water heater,50-gallon 20 816.00
Water heater,40-9a11on 1].5 $14.00
Instantaneous water heater, 11.5 $9.20
m9any MT.,
Buy
ENERGY STAR n.dpninaye na,d water Oryo.
do have a water softener,consider a
appliances. tankless"atural gas water heater
that red.....tandby losses.
age p Energy Uae and savings Guide age 11
Pg 80 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

FIGURE 40— LOW-INCOME BILL ASSISTANCE FLYERS
a=
Looking for energy
bill assistance?
We have options.
1ff
Avi" z difre nady Pw lan eo
bill I ncefor'ncy ometl mg de
fi xial s�oprso'estleez'^�di—d..nr 1.feaR^r idCuhetlesoe ol a ndmiss�Lldmenos
ha p lease rell us at She-i2]-918]mtlncuss M1awwe y ablew p a1 800"32]-918]Wmhablarizobre cdmo patlemoz ayudado.
LING OPTIONS PAYMENTOPTIONS OPCIONES DE FACfURAC16N OPCIONES DE PAGO -
omfortLevelBlllin hs out she Pa Arran be made fasWredon por nivelxtlemMort AcueNos de pa go puetlen real'¢arse
g smoo[ yment gemen[s can redus lot alnbalozenaomales de laz forma individual para apuelbz que to
C nal highs antl lows of energy bills on an individual basis for thozein need. fanulras thee ,Ia al tlivtllr el mnsumo Isen.Lldmenoz oacceda an—rb
bydividing yearly usage Ibb,12 equal Glve usa.11 or login to our website GE YOUR ENERGY BILL n 2 pagos mensualesiguales.Su stioPS b,abnyavista I.,—realaar GESTIONAR 51.1 FACTURA DE ENERGIA
nihy payments.Your account must yaviztacom to make payment nta debe—al dia con un hmwial de acuertlmdepogoenll—
Is Bill Comparison shorn any bill mo tle al menos t2 rrezez para potler La Cnmpxxi6n tlefaclurx muezha
be In M1ootl xsantling with a[lean l2 arrangements online c El Pagoars[pmSti edetluce tlefwma
s of usag,hirtory topuali for rgy omparedtopreviouzbillzand xredera ezte programs. to i5hra zu pogo a was ewcu n el cu�lquier fanura mmparatla con las
N Auto Pay automatically withdraws your id"tI,,how bills are lmpane0 by Ia hshe tleveMmlemo tle pre(erende menseocaja de ahonoz coda mesolore xidn mreseitlentitica cdmolas fanurasu
ih�nprogram. zsa payment from your checking or [their weather and the number of days in pucde aysgaraallnear la icdia de rnrgaasu tagtn tle dEbilooaetl s ven afmadas por el cllma y el numero de
Preferretl Due Data wn M1elp align Me a 19,account each montM1 or charges Slgn the billing period Sign into your online venciml Bela fanuracidn—-dia de DAFINANOERA dix del�riIdI de fanuracidn.Accetlaa
billing due date with payday We may your debit or credit card. om account at myavina corn pogo.Es posible quepodamos alurtarlaU su cuen en llnea en rrryav'ma.com.
fecha tle vendmiento Lelpago.en funci6n ubvemlonez de ezkcemla la Efidexia ene be able to adjun the payment du,date, FINANCIAL HELP ffid. del estado de la cuenu Watuxi6n ^rlergedcaticonro b.pd Share.se a ryadca ez una pad,
de do sands ecfc nergy EnergyE y'z an mpottant part Y lez para ostlmtes a mpo tle g title os cortos pe; goo a<c P Ena AFn —Grams such as could of mono both especlfra Ise ap ranagunas esl.
s tua on(tome re pp y). '�Share a bl E tal f'nd the short and to gy off Ia FaNs resntl q pl s al ,riergd y g pazo.AwzG
llmg crtome g recbr f elecbdnm wd tleeleg b-datl.Po g<s6en horn ofre j tlef" aenergdliw
rs who gdy nergy eH'cenry'p b tl P g d potlra nembolso '1 raq lot
b'll 'land duedase reninders gu Eel net.Con [your local Communty bb. nformafon on Eng homes az effciens ertzde 0 tl fediazde tl Idad f de a hogs No m3zefderrtes posib,
antl othernotiEcmions. AnionA en fyouqualii for as possible afro avirta.wm/wa nroyoo-az nofiiradon¢ mowers cumple con lm rtqubnoz
g ryto zees y �e Y Nosave. para recibirasis[ends con Wfacsura. nmyavista.cgMwaylosave.
bill assistance. of Avisb Ou4exhinclutles our VlsRe om/assistana El Akan<ede Avina mcluye nuenra
Massissance to Lind gthe h I roe contrarw furg.n..tle recursos energedcos que
sit myavism co nergy Resource Van t at trove z oficina Iwal
your 1.1 Communhy Anion office, cite seas throughout—hington Id.h.
being and Idaho disvibusing energy- d-buyendo materiales tle m,rvaci6n
I_n Ueeneyia.
Ix.aaamnai lntoreaem on ban.) a Vbb myavls[a.mMoutreech M.immmaoenaaoorel entl mmol glaze ¢ise mymvtamMouoeach Pao versi
I,see if thereWpm
is an event near you. Ines hay un ewnso<erca.
a urncoxwwnox.ouxoxrsnrsuvro. .omaroaoenecxosaezewaN:.naz ®'
,iAIuVffSTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 81

FIGURE 41 KIDS CAN SAVE ENERGY g. COLORING AND ACTIVITY BOOK
KIDS CAN
ENE + � ►�l �� �•�)Yr�o
Open fpyipethe Mefyigera[n� ■
SAVE FIN °'°°g• -Turn°N the Ty and video� ° °
whenypua�en�tuetnglhei 1+vis4rn
ENERGY WORDS -------------------
LIS 1Q►�
4
Y
2 b y r Q�. LIGHTS 1
UNF
1
ETIEGTIVE
t x
ow on
�i✓IST4

Impact Evaluation
The Low-Income Program achieved a realization rate of 97 percent for electricity and 101 percent for natural gas
savings in 2022.
Evaluators note that most deviations from a 100 percent realization rate at measure level—for electric measures—are
due to the inaccurate reference in Avista's TRIM to unit-level savings for LED bulbs. Some deviations also occurred
because the 20 percent savings cap was not applied to all measures found to be installed in a household.
For natural gas measures, there were a few notable deviations between the expected and verified savings, leading
to a realization rate close to 100 percent. Evaluators did identify one instance where verified savings from a duct
insulation measure was two times the reported savings. The reason for this deviation is unclear, however, evaluators
recommend that the company works to ensure that the Avista TRM rates are properly applied.
Recommendations
Evaluators offered the following recommendations for Avista's Idaho Low-Income Program:
♦ Evaluators found one project where the 20 percent annual usage savings cap was not applied to all
measures in the household, leading to a lower realization rate for the measures in that household. Evaluators
recommend ensuring that savings caps are applied to all measures within a household for expected savings
calculations.
♦ Evaluators found unit-level savings for LED bulbs were inaccurately referenced for the Low-Income Program.
Avista TRM specifies 1 kWh per bulb, while expected savings uses 9 kWh savings per bulb, leading to a 11
percent realization rate for LED bulb projects under the program. Evaluators recommend updating database
calculations to use Avista TRM values during expected savings calculations.
♦ Evaluators identified one instance where verified savings from a duct insulation measure was double the
reported savings. They recommend that the company works to ensure that the Avista TRM rates are properly
applied throughout its rebate database.
A11W -
�IuVESTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 83

Cost-Effectiveness
Tables 41 and 42 show the low-income sector cost-effectiveness results by fuel type.
TABLE 41 — LOW-INCOME PROGRAM ELECTRIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 187,553 $ 418,870 0.45
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 125,197 $ 512,126 0.24
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 434,226 $ 166,027 2.62
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 83,527 $ 687,070 0.12
TABLE 42— LOW-INCOME PROGRAM NATURAL GAS COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs E 11 Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 61,168 $ 203,869 0.30
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 61,168 $ 197,268 0.31
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 172,725 $ 132,801 1.30
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 21,400 $ 243,792 0.09
Plans for 2023
The agency will continue to implement weatherization measures in the next two-year contracting cycle. As mentioned
previously, the measures that appear on the approved and acceptable measure lists may fluctuate annually based on
utility cost-effectiveness tests.
The flexibility given to how the dollars are used for the health, safety, and repair allocation does allow for non-cost-
effective measures to be fully funded. Excluding pandemic years, the agencies have demonstrated the ability to spend
most of their utility allocation. With the increase to the percentages in the administration/program support category,
the company will work with its advisory group on a periodic review of this allocation.
Avista will continue to revisit unit energy savings(UES)assumptions for measures as part of its annual business
planning process. The company also continues to re-evaluate the units used to set program participation goals for the
year. Finally, Avista will ensure that the TRM is updated to reflect any UES adjustments. With low-income programs
moving into the iEnergy system in 2023, Avista expects that TRM maintenance will become more automated,
reducing or eliminating TRM-related errors in future impact evaluations. Application of the 20 percent savings cap is
also expected to be more uniform after the iEnergy migration.
m.Pg 84 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVISra®

(This page intentionally left blank.)
/IIW__
�IuV1STA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 85

PILOT PROGRAMS
1
r
r=
+- �~ 1
HALL
r
yrr
r
�= wr
r.�
err - �1Zi-
r ry
Wallace,Idaho

PILOT PROGRAMS
Program-by-Program Summaries
Active Energy Management
Consistent with Avista's goals to be carbon-neutral by 2030 and carbon-free by 2045, the Active Energy Management
(AEM) pilot focuses on innovative ways to achieve deep energy savings in commercial buildings. AEM can be defined
in industry terms as a strategic energy management program that employs monitoring-based commissioning
processes and the intelligent fault detection and diagnostic tools.
For this pilot, Avista has partnered with Edo, a joint investment between Avista Development and McKinstry. The
AEM pilot uses the newly built eco-district's communication networks, cloud services, and data-mining algorithms to
capture, process, and disseminate actionable information to participants in the program. The technology platform is
expected to provide a framework to evaluate building performance.
The energy management pilot represents an enhanced approach to utility customer solutions. Specifically, the pilot
provides high-touch energy management services and education to customers to complete the identified energy
conservation measures.
Recruitment ended in 2022 with 12 customers and 19 buildings participating across two states in Avista's service
territory(6 customers in Idaho and 6 in Washington). Over the next two years (2023-2024), the program's focus will
be on meeting the following goals:
1. Achieve 4.8 million kWh of energy savings over the pilot term.
2. Acquire rich facility operating information that can inform future rate or program design, particularly focused
on future load flexibility programs.
3. Increase customer satisfaction for participating building owners and operators.
4. Gain insight into customer willingness to participate in future demand flexibility programs.
5. Demonstrate non-energy benefits from program participation, including occupant comfort, reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, and improved equipment life expectancy.
/IIW—-
�IuVESTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 87

Residential Home Energy Audit Pilot Program
Description
Taking advantage of previous experience and aligning with industry best practices, Avista launched a pilot Home
Energy Audit Program in 2019. Eligible participants included residential customers who use Avista energy as their
primary heating source and reside in Kootenai County, Idaho or in Spokane County, Washington. The program was
implemented by Avista using a contract auditor. In early 2020, Avista gained support from the Energy Efficiency
Advisory Group and commission staff for both Idaho and Washington to move the program from pilot to full program
status.
Program Activities
Modifications to program marketing materials and agreement forms were underway prior to the COVID-19 pandemic;
restrictions effectively suspended the program. As a result, no audits were conducted in 2020, 2021, or the first half
of 2022.
The program resumed in June 2022 and was offered across the utility's entire Idaho and Washington service territory.
Avista estimated that 200 audits would be conducted between the two states per year. During the last half of the
calendar year 2022 (June through December), 121 audits were completed, 23 of which were in Idaho. However,
interest in the program proved to be greater than what Avista anticipated. Applications increased as outside
temperatures decreased and exceeded staffs ability to process them.
Plans for 2023
Avista is working through the backlog in 2023 and has revised program participation estimates to 500 audits annually
across both states.
Customer education about energy efficiency and cross-program awareness are the key focus areas of this program.
Avista is working with its third-party evaluator to develop an analysis plan for participating homes. The purpose of
this one-year post audit would be to determine if energy savings can be attributed to the program, either directly or
indirectly, through increased participation in other Avista energy-efficiency programs.
Pg 88 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report '61III sra®

AeroBarrier Pilot Program
Reducing air leaks in a new-construction home results in sustainable benefits with increased comfort, reduced energy
usage, and lower energy bills. Many builders recognize and promote this, but there are several value-based builders
who choose not to meet air-seal code requirements. Avista targeted all builders in Idaho for this pilot and will track
demographics of each to determine the value of and future potential for this program.
The pilot program offered incentives exclusively for the air-sealing method using AeroBarrier. This product differs from
traditional air sealing practices that use spray foam, caulk, gaskets, and tape because AeroBarrier manufacturers its
product(acrylic sealant)from technology invented, and proven, by the U.S. Department of Energy more than 20 years
ago. The sealant is applied using sprayers throughout the home while it's under pressure, which delivers consistent
results.
The pilot was launched in April 2021 to provide home builders with an incentive to seal new homes with AeroBarrier's
product. It concluded in June 2022. The program is currently being evaluated by Avista's third-party evaluator to
establish cost-effectiveness and determine whether to offer a full program. Results are expected in the third quarter of
2023 and will be discussed with Avista's fall EEAG meeting to determine next steps.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 89

Small Business Lighting Direct Install
Description
Resource Innovations, the third-party consultant hired to implement the Small Business Lighting Direct Install pilot,
will establish a turnkey lighting program to recruit and train trade allies/installers to engage customers with energy-
efficiency opportunities. The pilot is designed for hard-to-reach small business customers within Avista's service
territory to supplement and enhance Avista's ongoing customer engagement and energy-efficiency efforts. It includes
installation of low- and no-cost energy-savings lighting measures at each customer location (lamps, fixtures, and
controls), a brief on-site audit to identify customer opportunities and interest in other Avista programs, and leave-
behind materials and contact information for any customer follow-up questions or feedback.
Program Activities
Resource Innovations will use ZIP Code identifiers to "cluster" eligible customers and establish routes for door-to-
door marketing. Additionally, myavista.com will host a web form for customers to sign up for the service. Trade allies/
installers will have the opportunity to complete specialized training, wear/carry co-branded materials, and receive
project leads in order to complete installations for this program. Resource Innovations will utilize the iEnergy software
to conduct customer eligibility checks, facility walkthrough assessments, and project scope creation, as well as to
generate customer facing reports and surveys. All applicable project data will be tracked in iEnergy.
Program Eligibility
Commercial customers who receive electric service in either Idaho or Washington under Schedule 11 or Schedule 12
will be eligible, and customers who have meters on multiple rate schedules in addition to Schedules 11 and 12 will be
considered.
Plans for 2023
With the goal of completing 111 projects, the program will begin customer direct marketing and lighting installation
early in the second quarter, after the following activities have been finalized: marketing plan, measure list, trade ally/
installer recruitment and training, and software release of the iEnergy OnSite program tracking system.
Pg 90 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report mar sra®

(This page intentionally left blank.)
/IIW__
�IuV1STA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 91

REGIONAL MARKET TRANSFORMATION
`a
- ►.�
x.
y.
A
I�
I%
■
a `ty r
Qo
AIL
t�f rr ��hr
_ rim• � +�_' %T

REGIONAL MARKET TRANSFORMATION
Overview
Avista's local energy-efficiency portfolio consists of programs and supporting infrastructure designed to enhance and
accelerate the saturation of energy-efficiency measures throughout its service territory through a combination of
financial incentives, technical assistance, program outreach, and education. Utilities in the northwest, including Avista,
work together through NEEA to realize broader regional efficiency opportunities. Avista has been participating in and
funding NEEA since its inception in 1997.
Table 43 shows 2022 NEEA actual savings and associated costs for Idaho, which exclude internal administrative costs
associated with the participation in the various NEEA activities and studies. These savings are above NEEA's established
baseline and exclude utility-claimed savings from locally run programs.
A primary drive for the increase in electric savings is the adoption of a new building code in Idaho. According to a
2018 IECC driver by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Idaho's new residential code is approximately 11.6
percent more efficient than the prior code, while the commercial code is roughly 3.9 percent more efficient. On the
residential natural gas side, the new code is approximately 13 percent more efficient than the prior code'.
TABLE 43—ACTUAL SAVINGS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS FOR IDAHO
2022 NEEA Final 2022 Costs Avista Idaho Current
FuelType Reported Energy (Avista Financials) Funding Share
Savings (2021-2024)
Electric 5,694 MWh $ 1,507,782 1.69%
(0.65 aMW)
Natural Gas 282,088 $ 607,597 3.55%
In addition to code savings, NEEA continues to work on market development initiatives for a number of measures
of interest to Avista's Idaho customers, including a highly efficient dedicated outside air systems(DOAS)approach;
programs for commercial and industrial fans, more efficient variable speed heat pumps, and high-performance
windows for residential applications.
NEEA also moved an efficient rooftop units program into market development in late 2022. The program's goal is to
accelerate adoption of efficient natural gas rooftop units, while working to influence the adoption of improved testing
procedures as well as more stringent federal standards. Savings data from this effort is expected to be available by the
fourth quarter of 2023.
Avista's investment in NEEA programs is highly cost-effective. In a recent evaluation of NEEA's cost-effectiveness by
ADM, NEEA programs were found to have an average UCT value of 8.55 over five program years(2017 to 2021)2.
1) As reported in"Final 2022 Annual Savings Report"March 23,2023 memo from NEEA to Avista.The memo included the following citations for code savings
assumptions:a)https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-28125.pdf;and b)neea.org,portal login,savings,codes.
2) As reported in"Evaluation of NEEA Impacts Allocated to Idaho Power Company and Avista Utilities within the State of Idaho,April 6,2023,by ADM Associates,
Inc."
/IIW__
�IuV1STA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 93

Avista will continue to work closely with NEEA and other regional entities to identify overlapping priorities and
objectives while simultaneously deploying a more thorough and customized market transformation strategy to its local
market—including additional investment and direct coordination with the supply chain.
Electric Energy Savings Share
All the values provided in this report represent the amounts that are allocated to Avista's service territory, which is a
combination of site-based energy savings data (where available) or an allocation of savings based on funding share.
Using the funding share allocation approach, the funding share for Avista is split between 30 percent for Avista Idaho
and 70 percent for Avista Washington. The funding share for Avista varies by funding cycle and within each cycle if
the funding composition changes.
Natural Gas Energy Savings Share
NEEA's costs include all expenditures for operations and value delivery: energy savings initiatives; investments in
market training and infrastructure; stock assessments, evaluations, data collection, and other regional and program
research; emerging technology research and development; and all administrative costs.
Avista's criteria for funding NEEA's electric market transformation portfolio calls for the portfolio to deliver
incrementally cost-effective resources beyond what could be acquired through Avista's local portfolio alone. Avista
has historically communicated with NEEA the importance of that organization delivering cost-effective resources
to the company's service territory. The company believes that NEEA will continue to offer cost-effective electric
market transformation in the foreseeable future. Avista will continue to be active in the organizational oversight of
NEEA, a critical step in ensuring that geographic equity, cost-effectiveness, and resource acquisition goals of market
transformation are met.
Pg 94 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report mar sra®

Brio Eastside Collaborative Market Transformation
During 2022, Avista continued to investigate new market transformation efforts with a specific focus on energy-
efficiency measures and solutions that work well in northern Idaho and eastern Washington. This engagement
is complementary to NEEA's efforts for the broader region. The goal of this effort is aimed at assessing market
transformation opportunities that drive greater local impact and create deeper customer engagement. To do
this, Avista has partnered with Brio Energy and Idaho Power to pilot the application of a market transformation
approach that focuses on mid- and upstream interventions to remove market barriers and create lasting change.
The promotional period for Phase I of the Eastside Collaborative Pilot began in October 2021 in Idaho Power's
service territory, and concluded with a four-month promotional period in Avista's service territory from May through
September of 2022.
The following table summarizes the ductless heat pump unit sales from Phase I.
TABLE 44— EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE AND DUCTLESS HEAT PUMP PILOT PHASE I SUMMARY
PeriodPilot Period Pilot Period Participating
Participating Phase I Participating Participating Dealer/Contractor
Distributor&Branch Promo Distributor Branch Dealer/Contractor Installs within
Sales Installs Utility Service
territories
Thermal Supply Idaho Power Oct 2021 —Apr 2022 1,395(Oct—Jun) 48* N/A
Sigler Idaho Idaho Power Apr—Aug 2022 364(Apr—Aug) 169 167
Airefco Spokane Avista May—Sept 2022 865(May—Sept) 329 212
Totals 2,624 ' 546 . 379**
* Assumed installs from two Thermal branches in Idaho(Meridian and Twin Falls),based on contractor self-reported sales,Daikin warranty data,and incentive data
from Idaho Power.
** Included Thermal's sales in December's report,overlooking that they did not request incentives from Idaho Power in Phase I.
In Avista's service territory, 25 percent of units sold through the participating dealer were incentivized through this
program. Of those 212 units, 57 were installed for Idaho customers, while 155 units were installed for Washington
customers. In conversations with Brio, the participating distributor expressed enthusiasm about participating in the
program, but did report some confusion about promotion requirements, which may have resulted in lower initial
rebates than expected.
In early 2023, Brio will offer additional orientation webinars for dealers, to clarify promotion requirements. In Phase II
of the pilot, which will extend into 2023, Airefco will be expanding participation to additional dealers. All distributors
who participated in Phase I will continue into Phase II. To support Phase II activities, Brio has developed a toolkit
for dealers to aid in recruitment. It includes draft emails for distributors to send to territory managers, an overview
presentation of the pilot to circulate to interested parties, draft emails for territory managers to send to dealers, and
templates to collect contact information for participating dealers.
Manufacturer and supply chain engagement is planned for early to mid-2023.
A11W -
�4uVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 95

•
r
4
y
Nr �
y. e,�'S''� 3'y• ate• - _ _
C v3'} �T >�q�..��v r� �-S• _,yn{w�'t� `~ � *may- _ram a.T.
�..). �.5..�,,- ram[. "1}A�� �_ . - y Jr ' _ `�5;/�• -�'
•s>-�=iY� ,•,'e`,� - _ _ ;. .r ���,.+..;�„t�J _ram _ }{ ..r -';.
All—
Ac
-40
ikA
< ^
'. -�
'�' � �tea-• ����€�"� �+
dr
ol
17
ifs • �' r<' •. �i �-"� �v`�� _. �'y � � s. - _
.?Y�/,St.: V � ..r rlY�l,����i/ v n .r!'[�a r, �i�- J�.•.J��r���"�� A e�.`�f 1'����.� -��
North Idaho

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Advisory Group:Avista's group of external stakeholders who comment about the company's energy-efficiency
activities.
AHRI(Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute)certificates:a certification widely recognized
through the industry as a standard certification for HVAC/refrigeration efficiency.
advanced metering infrastructure (AMI): Systems that measure, collect, and analyze energy usage, from advanced
devices such as electricity meters, natural gas meters, and/or water meters to various communication media on
request or on a predetermined schedule.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI):The trade association representing manufacturers
of HVAC and water heating equipment.
aMW.•The amount of energy that would be generated by one megawatt of capacity operating continuously for one
full year. Equals 8,760 MWhs of energy.
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers(ASHRAE): Devoted to the
advancement of indoor-environment-control technology in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
industry, ASHRAE's mission is "to advance technology to serve humanity and promote a sustainable world."
Annual Conservation Plan (ACP):An Avista-prepared resource document that outlines the company's conservation
offerings and its approach to energy efficiency, as well as details on verifying and reporting savings.
Annual Conservation Report(ACR):An Avista-prepared resource document that summarizes its annual energy
efficiency achievements.
annual fuel utilization efficiency(AFUE): A measurement on how efficiently a furnace or boiler uses its fuel.
avoided cost:An investment guideline describing the value of conservation and generation resource investments in
terms of the cost of more expensive resources that would otherwise have to be acquired.
baseline:Conditions, including energy consumption, which would have occurred without implementation of the
subject's energy-efficiency activity. Baseline conditions are sometimes referred to as "business-as-usual" conditions.
baseline efficiency:The energy use of the baseline equipment, process, or practice that is being replaced by a more
efficient approach to providing the same energy service. It is used to determine the energy savings obtained by the
more efficient approach.
baseline period:The period of time selected as representative of facility operations before an energy-efficiency
activity takes place.
AII.
IIIiV1.5TAW 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 97

Biennial Conservation Plan (BCP):An Avista-prepared resource document that outlines Avista's conservation
offerings and its approach to energy efficiency, as well as details on verifying and reporting savings for a two-year
period.
Building Owners&Managers Association (BOMA):An international federation of local associations and global
affiliates that represents the owners, managers, service providers, and other property professionals of all commercial
building types.
Business Partner Program (BPP):An outreach effort designed to raise awareness of utility programs and services
that can assist rural small business customers in managing their energy bills.
British thermal unit(Btu):The amount of heat energy necessary to raise the temperature of one pound of water
one degree Fahrenheit(3,413 Btus are equal to one kilowatt-hour).
busbar:The physical electrical connection between the generator and transmission system. Load on a system is
typically measured at the busbar.
capacity:The maximum power that a machine or system can produce or carry under specified conditions. The
capacity of generating equipment is generally expressed in kilowatts or megawatts. In terms of transmission lines,
capacity refers to the maximum load a line is capable of carrying under specified conditions.
Clean Energy Implementation Plan (CEIP): Introduced within a subsection of the Clean Energy Transformation Act,
a CEIP must describe the utility's plan for making progress toward meeting the clean energy transformation standards
while it continues to pursue all cost-effective, reliable, and feasible conservation and efficiency resources.
Clean Energy Transformation Act(CETA):Signed into law in 2019, the Clean Energy Transformation Act requires
electric utilities to supply their Washington customers with 100 percent renewable or non-emitting electricity with no
provision for offsets.
coefficient of performance (COP):A ratio of useful heating or cooling provided to work (energy) required for heat
pumps, refrigerators, or air conditioning systems. Higher COPS equate to more efficient systems and lower operating
costs.
Community Action Partnership (CAP):General term for Community Action Programs, Community Action
Agencies, and Community Action Centers that provide services such as low-income weatherization through federal
and state and other funding sources (e.g., utility constitutions).
Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP):Created by the Washington State Legislature in 2009, CEEP
encourages homeowners and small businesses across the state to make energy-efficiency retrofits and upgrades.
conservation:According to the Northwest Power Act, any reduction in electric power consumption as a result of
increases in the efficiency of energy use, production, or distribution.
.An.
Pg 98 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'd-41VISTAW

conservation potential assessment(CPA):An analysis of the amount of conservation available in a defined area.
Provides savings amounts associated with energy-efficiency measures to input into the company's integrated resource
planning process.
cooling degree days:A measure of how hot the temperature was on a given day or during a period of days. A
day with a mean temperature of 80OF has 15 cooling degree days. If the next day has a mean temperature of 83°F,
it has 18 cooling degree days. Historically, the fixed temperature has been set at 65 degrees Fahrenheit, the outdoor
temperature above which cooling was typically needed.
cost-effective:According to the Northwest Power Act, a cost-effective measure or resource must be forecast to be
reliable and available within the time it is needed, and to meet or reduce electrical power demand of consumers at an
estimated incremental system cost no greater than that of the least-costly, similarly reliable and available alternative or
combination of alternatives.
curtailment:An externally imposed reduction of energy consumption due to a shortage of resources.
customer/customer classes:Category(ies)of customer(s) defined by provisions found in tariff(s) published by the
entity-providing service, approved by the PUC. Examples of customer classes are residential, commercial, industrial,
agricultural, local distribution company, core, and non-core.
decoupling: In conventional utility regulation, utilities make money based on how much energy they sell. A utility's
rates are based largely on an estimation of costs of providing service over a certain set time period, with an allowed
profit margin, divided by a forecasted amount of unit sales over the same time period. If the actual sales turn out to
be as forecasted, the utility will recover all of its fixed costs and its set profit margin. If the actual sales exceed the
forecast, the utility will earn extra profit.
deemed savings: Primarily referred to as unit energy savings, an estimate of the energy savings for a single unit of
an installed energy-efficiency measure that(a) has been developed from data sources and analytical methods that are
widely considered acceptable for the measure and purpose, and (b) is applicable to the situation being evaluated.
demand:The load that is drawn from the source of supply over a specified interval of time(in kilowatts, kilovolt-
amperes, or amperes). Also, the rate at which natural gas is delivered to or by a system, part of a system, or piece of
equipment, expressed in cubic feet, therms, Btus or multiples thereof, for a designated period of time(such as during
a 24-hour day).
demand response (DR):A voluntary and temporary change in consumers' use of electricity when the power system
is stressed.
demand side management(DSM):The process of helping customers use energy more efficiently. Used
interchangeably with energy efficiency and conservation, although conservation technically means using less while
DSM and energy efficiency mean using less while still having the same useful output of function.
A11W -
APIuVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 99

direct load control(DLQ:The means by which a utility can signal a customer's appliance to stop operations to
reduce the demand for electricity. Such rationing generally involves a financial incentive for the affected customer.
discount rate:The rate used in a formula to convert future costs or benefits to their present value.
distribution:The transfer of electricity from the transmission network to the consumer. Distribution systems generally
include the equipment to transfer power from the substation to the customer's meter.
distributed generation (DG):An approach that employs a variety of small-scale technologies to both produce and
store electricity close to the end users of power.
effective useful life(EUL):Sometimes referred to as measure life and often used to describe persistence. EUL is an
estimate of the duration of savings from a measure.
emergency operating plan (EOP):A plan that assigns responsibility to organizations and individuals for carrying
out specific actions to respond to an emergency. An EOP sets forth lines of authority, lays out organizational roles
and responsibilities during an emergency, and illustrates how actions will be coordinated. An EOP also describes how
people and property will be protected in emergencies and natural disasters, and identifies personnel, equipment,
facilities, and supplies to use during recovery operations.
end-use:A term referring to the final use of energy; it often refers to the specific energy services(for example, space
heating), or the type of energy-consuming equipment(for example, motors).
energy assistance advisory group:An ongoing energy assistance program advisory group to monitor and explore
ways to improve Avista's Low-Income Rate Assistance Program (LIRAP).
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG):A group which advises investor-owned utilities on the development of
integrated resource plans and conservation programs.
energy-efficiency measure: Refers to either an individual project conducted, or technology implemented, to reduce
the consumption of energy at the same or an improved level of service. Often referred to as simply a "measure."
Energy Independence Act(EIA): Requires electric utilities serving at least 25,000 retail customers to use renewable
energy and energy conservation.
energy use intensity(EUI):A metric—energy per square foot per year—that expresses a building's energy use as a
function of its size or other characteristics.
evaluation:The performance of a wide range of assessment studies and activities aimed at determining the effects
of a program (and/or portfolio) and understanding or documenting program performance, program or program-
related markets and market operations, program-induced changes in energy-efficiency markets, levels of demand or
energy savings, or program cost-effectiveness. Market assessment, monitoring and evaluation, and verification are
aspects of evaluation.
m.
Pg 100 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V):Catch-all term for evaluation activities at the measure,
project, program, and/or portfolio level; can include impact, process, market, and/or planning activities. EM&V is
distinguishable from measurement and verification (M&V) defined below.
ex-ante savings estimate: Forecasted savings value used for program planning or savings estimates for a measure,-
Latin for "beforehand."
ex-post evaluated estimated savings: Savings estimates reported by an independent, third-party evaluator after
the energy impact evaluation has been completed. If only the term "ex-post savings" is used, it will be assumed that
it is referring to the ex-post evaluation estimate, the most common usage; from Latin for "from something done
afterwa rd."
external evaluators(AKA third-party evaluators): Independent professional efficiency person or entity retained
to conduct EM&V activities. Consideration will be made for those who are Certified Measurement and Verification
Professionals (CMVPs)through the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) and the Efficiency Evaluation Organization
(EVO).
free rider:A common term in the energy efficiency industry meaning a program participant who would have
installed the efficient product or changed a behavior regardless of any program incentive or education received. Free
riders can be total, partial, or deferred.
generation:The act or process of producing electricity from other forms of energy.
Green Motors Practices Group (GMPG):A nonprofit corporation governed by electric motor service center
executives and advisors whose goal is the continual improvement of the electric motor repair industry.
gross savings:The change in energy consumption and/or demand that results from energy-efficiency programs,
codes and standards, and naturally-occurring adoption which have a long-lasting savings effect, regardless of why
they were enacted.
heating degree days:A measure of the amount of heat needed in a building over a fixed period, usually a year.
Heating degree days per day are calculated by subtracting from a fixed temperature the average temperature over the
day. Historically, the fixed temperature has been set at 65 degrees Fahrenheit, the outdoor temperature below which
heat was typically needed. As an example, a day with an average temperature of 45 degrees Fahrenheit would have
20 heating degree days, assuming a base of 65 degrees Fahrenheit.
heating seasonal performance factor(HSPF): Defined as the ratio of heat output over the heating season to the
amount of electricity used in air-source or ductless heat pump equipment.
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning(HVAQ:Sometimes referred to as climate control, HVAC is particularly
important in the design of medium to large industrial and office buildings where humidity and temperature must all
be closely regulated while maintaining safe and healthy conditions within.
AIIN
,ir-iiWISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 101

high-intensity discharge (HID)fixture:A fixture that is bright and powerful enough to throw a high amount of
lumens an extremely long distance; often used in very large spaces such as manufacturing facilities or sports stadiums.
HOU: Hours of use (an annual estimation of lighting or HVAC equipment operation hours).
Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC): Regulators of investor-owned or privately owned utilities that provide
natural gas, water, electricity, or some telephone services for profit.
impact evaluation: Determination of the program-specific, directly or indirectly induced changes (e.g., energy and/or
demand usage) attributable to an energy-efficiency program.
implementer:Avista employee whose responsibilities are directly related to operations and administration of energy-
efficiency programs and activities, and who may have energy savings targets as part of their employee goals or
incentives, or in the case of a third-party implementer, may be contractually obligated to implement programs on
behalf of Avista.
incremental cost:The difference between the cost of baseline equipment or services and the cost of alternative
energy-efficient equipment or services.
installation verification (IV)report:A detailed report documenting installed conservation measures on a site-
specific project.
in-service rate:The percentage of energy-efficiency measures in an impact evaluation sample that have been
installed as expected, in accordance with incentive program parameters.
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP):A comprehensive evaluation of future electric or natural gas resource plans. The IRP
must evaluate the full range of resource alternatives to provide adequate and reliable service to a customer's needs
at the lowest possible risk-adjusted system cost. These plans are filed with the state public utility commissions on a
periodic basis.
International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol(IPMVP):A guidance document with a
framework and definitions describing the four V&V approaches; a product of the Energy Valuation Organization
(www.evo-wo r I d.o rg).
investor-owned utility(IOU):A utility that is organized under state law as a corporation to provide electric power
service and earn a profit for its stockholders.
kilowatt(kW):The electrical unit of power that equals 1,000 watts.
kilowatt-hour(kWh):A basic unit of electrical energy that equals one kilowatt of power applied for one hour.
.An _
Pg 102 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �I11VISTAW

kilo British thermal unit(kBtu): Btu, which stands for British thermal units, measures heat energy. Each Btu equals
the amount of heat needed to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit; the prefix kilo means 1,000, which
means that a kBtu equals 1,000 Btu.
levelized cost of energy(LCOE):The present value of a resource's cost (including capital, financing, and operating
costs) converted into a stream of equal annual payments. This stream of payments can be converted to a unit cost of
energy by dividing them by the number of kilowatt-hours produced or saved by the resource in associated years. By
levelizing costs, resources with different lifetimes and generating capabilities can be compared.
line losses:The amount of electricity lost or assumed lost when transmitting over transmission or distribution lines.
This is the difference between the quantity of electricity generated and the quantity delivered at some point in the
electric system.
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Federal energy assistance program, available to
qualifying households based on income, usually distributed by community action agencies or partnerships.
market effect evaluation:An evaluation of the change in the structure or functioning of a market, or the behavior
of participants in a market, that results from one or more program efforts. Typically, the resultant market or behavior
change leads to an increase in the adoption of energy-efficient products, services, or practices.
measure (also energy-efficiency measure or"EEM'): Installation of a single piece of equipment, subsystem or
system, or single modification of equipment, subsystem, system, or operation at an end-use energy consumer facility,
for the purpose of reducing energy and/or demand (and, hence, energy and/or demand costs) at a comparable level
of service.
measure life: See Effective Useful Life (EUL).
measurement and verification (M&V):A subset of program impact evaluation that is associated with the
documentation of energy savings at individual sites or projects, using one or more methods that can involve
measurements, engineering calculations, statistical analyses, and/or computer simulation modeling. M&V approaches
are defined in the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol
(IPMVP available at www.evo-world.org).
megawatt(MW):The electrical unit of power that equals one million watts or one thousand kilowatts.
megawatt-hour(MWh):A basic unit of electrical energy that equals one megawatt of power applied for one hour.
net savings:The change in energy consumption and/or demand that is attributable to an energy-efficiency program.
This change in energy use and/or demand may include, implicitly or explicitly, consideration of factors such as free
drivers, non-net participants (free riders), participant and non-participant spillover, and induced market effects. These
factors may be considered in how a baseline is defined and/or in adjustments to gross savings values.
AII.--
AirWISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 103

non-energy benefit/non-energy impact(NEB/NEI):The quantifiable non-energy impacts associated with program
implementation or participation; also referred to as non-energy benefits(NEBs)or co-benefits. Examples of NEls
include water savings, non-energy consumables and other quantifiable effects. The value is most often positive, but
may also be negative(e.g., the cost of additional maintenance associated with a sophisticated, energy-efficient control
system).
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance(NEEA):A nonprofit organization that works to accelerate energy efficiency
in the Pacific Northwest through the adoption of energy-efficient products, services, and practices.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council(NWPCC):An organization that develops and maintains both a
regional power plan and a fish and wildlife program to balance the environmental and energy needs of the Pacific
Northwest.
Outside Air Temperature(OAT): Refers to the temperature of the air around an object, but unaffected by the
object.
Participant Cost Test(PCT):The PCT measures quantifiable costs and benefits to the customer participating in a
program— including, for example, the incentive paid by the utility under the program, as well as non-energy impacts.
Since many customers do not base their decision to participate in a program entirely on quantifiable variables, this test
cannot be a complete measure of the benefits and costs of a program to a customer.
portfolio: Collection of all programs conducted by an organization. In the case of Avista, portfolio includes electric
and natural gas programs in all customer segments. It can also be used to refer to a collection of similar programs
addressing the market. In this sense of the definition, Avista has an electric portfolio and a natural gas portfolio with
programs addressing the various customer segments.
prescriptive:A prescriptive program is a standard offer for incentives for the installation of an energy-efficiency
measure. Prescriptive programs are generally applied when the measures are employed in relatively similar
applications.
process evaluation:A systematic assessment of an energy-efficiency program or program component for
the purposes of documenting operations at the time of the examination, and identifying and recommending
improvements to increase the program's efficiency or effectiveness for acquiring energy resources while maintaining
high levels of participant satisfaction.
program:An activity, strategy, or course of action undertaken by an implementer. Each program is defined by a
unique combination of program strategy, market segment, marketing approach, and energy-efficiency measure(s)
included. Examples are a program to install energy-efficient lighting in commercial buildings and residential
weatherization programs.
project:An activity or course of action involving one or multiple energy-efficiency measures at a single facility or site.
AM Pg 104 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

ratepayer impact(RIM):A cost effectiveness test that measures changes in customer bills or rates due to changes in
utility revenues and operating costs caused by an energy efficiency or demand response program.
Regional Technical Forum of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council(RTF):A technical advisory
committee to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council established in 1999 to develop standards to verify and
evaluate energy efficiency savings.
realization rate(RR): Ratio of ex-ante reported savings to ex-post evaluated estimated savings. When realization
rates are reported, they are labeled to indicate whether they refer to comparisons of(1) ex-ante gross reported savings
to ex-post gross evaluated savings, or(2)ex-ante net reported savings to ex-post net evaluated savings.
reliability:When used in energy-efficiency evaluation, the quality of a measurement process that would produce
similar results on (a) repeated observations of the same condition or event, or(b) multiple observations of the same
condition or event by different observers. Reliability refers to the likelihood that the observations can be replicated.
reported savings:Savings estimates reported by Avista for an annual (calendar) period. These savings will be based
on best available information.
request for proposal(RFP): Business document that announces and provides details about a project, as well as
solicits bids from potential contractors.
retrofit:To modify an existing generating plant, structure, or process. The modifications are done to improve energy
efficiency, reduce environmental impacts, or to otherwise improve the facility.
rigor:The level of expected confidence and precision. The higher the level of rigor, the more confident one is that the
results of the evaluation are both accurate and precise, i.e., reliable.
ratepayer impact(RIM):A cost-effectiveness test that measures how customer bills or rates are affected by the
changes in utility revenues and operating costs caused by the program. This test indicates the direction and magnitude
of the expected change in customer bills or rate levels. Lower values equate to less impact on customer bills.
R-value or R-factor(resistance transfer factor): Measures how well a barrier, such as insulation, resists the
conductive flow of heat.
schedules 90 and 190: Rate schedules that show energy-efficiency programs.
schedules 91 and 191: Rate schedules that are used to fund energy-efficiency programs.
sector(s):The economy is divided into four sectors for energy planning. These are the residential, commercial (e.g.,
retail stores, office and institutional buildings), industrial, and agriculture (e.g. dairy farms, irrigation)sectors.
service territory:The areas in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon served by Avista to provide either natural gas or
electric service(or both).
/IIW—-
�IIIVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 105

site-specific:A non-residential program offering individualized calculations for incentives upon any electric or natural
gas efficiency measure not incorporated into a prescriptive program.
simple payback:The time required before savings from a particular investment offset costs, calculated by investment
cost divided by value of savings(in dollars). For example, an investment costing $100 and resulting in a savings of
$25 each year would be said to have a simple payback of four years. Simple paybacks do not account for future cost
escalation or other investment opportunities.
spillover: Reductions in energy consumption and/or demand caused by the presence of an energy-efficiency
program, beyond the program-related gross savings of the participants and without direct financial or technical
assistance from the program. There can be participant and/or non-participant spillover(sometimes referred to as
"free drivers"). Participant spillover is the additional energy savings that occur as a result of the program's influence
when a program participant independently installs incremental energy-efficiency measures or applies energy-saving
practices after having participated in the energy-efficiency program. Non-participant spillover refers to energy savings
that occur when a program non-participant installs energy-efficiency measures or applies energy savings practices as a
result of a program's influence.
technical reference manual(TRM):An Avista-prepared resource document that contains Avista's (ex-ante)savings
estimates, assumptions, sources for those assumptions, guidelines, and relevant supporting documentation for its
natural gas and electricity energy-efficiency prescriptive measures which is populated and vetted by the RTF and 3rd
party evaluators.
total resource cost(TRQ:A cost-effectiveness test that assesses the impacts of a portfolio of energy-efficiency
initiatives regardless of who pays the costs or who receives the benefits. The test compares the present value of costs
of efficiency for all members of society(including all costs to participants and program administrators) compared to
the present value of all quantifiable benefits, including avoided energy supply and demand costs and non-energy
impacts.
transmission:The act or process of long-distance transport of electric energy, generally accomplished by elevating
the electric current to high voltages. In the Pacific Northwest, Bonneville operates a majority of the high-voltage, long-
distance transmission lines.
uniform energy factor(UEF):A measurement on how efficiently a water heater uses its fuel.
unit estimated savings(UES): Defines the first-year kWh savings value for an energy-efficiency measure.
U-value or U-factor:The measure of a material's ability to conduct heat, numerically equal to 1 divided by the
R-value of the material. Used to measure the rate of heat transfer in windows. The lower the U-factor, the better the
window insulates.
uncertainty:The range or interval of doubt surrounding a measured or calculated value within which the true value
is expected to fall within some degree of confidence.
AM Pg 106 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

utility cost test(UCT):One of the four standard practice tests commonly used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of
DSM programs. The UCT evaluates the cost-effectiveness based upon a program's ability to minimize overall utility
costs. The primary benefits are the avoided cost of energy in comparison to the incentive and non-incentive utility
costs.
variable frequency drive(VFD):A type of motor drive used in electro-mechanical drive systems to control AC motor
speed and torque by varying motor input frequency and voltage.
verification:An assessment that the program or project has been implemented per the program design. For example,
the objectives of measure installation verification are to confirm (a)the installation rate, (b)that the installation meets
reasonable quality standards, and (c)that the measures are operating correctly and have the potential to generate
the predicted savings. Verification activities are generally conducted during on-site surveys of a sample of projects.
Project site inspections, participant phone and mail surveys, and/or implementer and consumer documentation
review are typical activities association with verification. Verification may include one-time or multiple activities over
the estimated life of the measures. It may include review of commissioning or retro-commissioning documentation.
Verification can also include review and confirmation of evaluation methods used, samples drawn, and calculations
used to estimate program savings. Project verification may be performed by the implementation team, but program
verification is a function of the third-party evaluator.
weather normalized:This is an adjustment that is made to actual energy usage, stream-flows, etc., which would
have happened if normal weather conditions would have taken place.
weighted average cost of capital(WACC):A calculation of a firm's cost of capital in which each category of capital
is proportionately weighted. All sources of capital, including common stock, preferred stock, bonds, and any other
long-term debt, are included in a WACC calculation.
8,760:Total number of hours in a year.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 107

APPENDICES AND SUPPLEMENTS
Ov
McEuen Park,
y
1
�I
1
•- d'Alene, •. •

APPENDIX A - 2022 IDAHO ELECTRIC IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT
Avista Idaho PY2022
Evaluation , Measurement
and Verification ( EM & V ) of
I
Avista Idaho Electric PY2022
Residential ,
Low - Income , and
Nonresidential Energy
Efficiency Programs
SUBMITTED TO: AVISTA UTILITIES
SUBMITTED ON: JULY 2412023
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES INC. &
CADEO GROUP
ADM Associates, Inc Avista Utilities
3239 Ramos Circle 1411 E. Mission Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95827 Spokane, WA 99252
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Savings Results...........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations..........................................................................................................2
2. General Methodology..........................................................................................................................9
2.1 Glossary of Terminology............................................................................................................................9
2.2 Summary of Approach .............................................................................................................................10
3. Residential Impact Evaluation Results...............................................................................................23
3.1 Simple Verification Results.......................................................................................................................23
3.2 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results................................................................................................26
4. Low-Income Impact Evaluation Results.............................................................................................52
4.1 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results................................................................................................52
5. Non-Residential Impact Evaluation Results.......................................................................................57
5.1 Verification Results..................................................................................................................................57
5.2 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results................................................................................................59
6. Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results...................................................................................................79
6.1 Low-Income Program...............................................................................................................................79
7. Appendix B: Summary of Survey Respondents..................................................................................83
8. Appendix C: Site-Specific Program Project Reports...........................................................................85
Tables of Contents and Tables ii

Avista Idaho PY2022
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program.........................................................................1
Table 1-2: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program.......................................................................1
Table 1-3: Nonresidential Verified Impact Savings by Program...................................................................1
Table 1-4: Impact Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector...................................................................2
Table 2-1: Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Program ...........................................14
Table 2-2: Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Program...................................................15
Table 3-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program.......................................................................23
Table 3-2: Summary of Survey Response Rate...........................................................................................24
Table 3-3: Simple Verification Precision by Program .................................................................................24
Table 3-4: Water Heat Program ISRs by Measure......................................................................................24
Table 3-5: HVAC Program ISRs by Measure................................................................................................25
Table 3-6: Fuel Efficiency Program ISRs by Measure..................................................................................25
Table 3-7: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program ISRs by Measure..................................................25
Table 3-8: Appliance Program ISRs by Measure.........................................................................................26
Table 3-9: Water Heat Program Measures.................................................................................................26
Table 3-10 Water Heat Program Verified Electric Savings.........................................................................26
Table 3-11 Water Heat Program Incentive Costs by Measure...................................................................26
Table 3-12: Water Heat Verification Survey ISR Results ............................................................................28
Table 3-13: HVAC Program Measures........................................................................................................29
Table 3-14: HVAC Program Verified Electric Savings..................................................................................29
Table 3-15: HVAC Program Incentive Costs by Measure............................................................................30
Table 3-16: HVAC Verification Survey ISR Results......................................................................................31
Table 3-17: Shell Program Measures..........................................................................................................32
Table 3-18: Shell Program Verified Electric Savings...................................................................................33
Table 3-19: Shell Program Incentive Costs by Measure.............................................................................33
Table 3-20: Fuel Efficiency Program Measures..........................................................................................35
Table 3-21: Fuel Efficiency Program Verified Electric Savings....................................................................35
Table 3-22: Fuel Efficiency Program Incentive Costs by Measure..............................................................36
Table 3-23: Fuel Efficiency Verification Survey ISR Results........................................................................37
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 958271 916.363.8383 iii

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-24: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Fuel Efficiency Program........................................37
Table 3-25: ENERGY STAR"' Homes Program Measures.............................................................................38
Table 3-26: ENERGY STAR"' Homes Program Verified Electric Savings.......................................................38
Table 3-27: ENERGY STAR° Homes Program Incentive Costs by Measure.................................................39
Table 3-28: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Measures ..........................................................41
Table 3-29: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Verified Electric Savings....................................42
Table 3-30: Small Home & MF Weatherization Incentive Costs by Measure.............................................42
Table 3-31: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Verification Survey ISR Results..........................44
Table 3-32: Multifamily Direct Install Program Measures..........................................................................46
Table 3-34: Multifamily Direct Install Verified Electric Savings..................................................................46
Table 3-35: Multifamily Direct Install Program Incentive Costs by Measure.............................................46
Table 3-33: Appliances Program Measures................................................................................................48
Table 3-34: Appliances Program Verified Electric Savings .........................................................................48
Table 3-35: Appliances Program Incentive Costs by Measure ...................................................................48
Table 3-36: Appliances Program Verification Survey ISR Results...............................................................50
Table 4-1: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program.....................................................................52
Table 4-2: Low-Income Program Measures ...............................................................................................53
Table 4-3: Low-Income Program Verified Electric Savings.........................................................................53
Table 4-4: Low-Income Program Incentive Costs by Measure...................................................................54
Table 4-5: Measure Savings, Low-Income Program ...................................................................................56
Table 5-1:Non-Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program................................................................57
Table 5-2: Prescriptive Program Verification Precision..............................................................................58
Table 5-3: Survey Verification ....................................................................................................................58
Table 5-4: On-Site Verification ...................................................................................................................59
Table 5-5: Prescriptive Lighting Program Measures...................................................................................60
Table 5-6: Interior Prescriptive Lighting Program Verified Electric Savings...............................................60
Table 5-7: Prescriptive Lighting Program Incentives..................................................................................62
Table 5-8: Prescriptive Lighting Program Verification Precision ................................................................62
Table 5-9: Prescriptive Lighting Program Verification Findings..................................................................62
Table 5-10: Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Measures.............................................................................64
Table 5-11: Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Verified Electric Savings ......................................................64
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827 1916.363.8383 iv

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 5-12: Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Incentives ............................................................................64
Table 5-13: Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Verification Precision...........................................................65
Table 5-14: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Measures ......................................................66
Table 5-15: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Verified Electric Savings................................66
Table 5-16: Food Service Equipment Program Incentives..........................................................................66
Table 5-17: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Verification Precision....................................67
Table 5-18: Grocer Program Measures......................................................................................................68
Table 5-19: Grocer Program Verified Electric Savings................................................................................68
Table 5-20: Grocer Program Incentives......................................................................................................68
Table 5-21: Verification Precision...............................................................................................................69
Table 5-22: Prescriptive Shell Program Measures......................................................................................70
Table 5-23: Prescriptive Shell Program Verified Electric Savings...............................................................70
Table 5-24: Shell Program Incentives.........................................................................................................70
Table 5-25: Prescriptive Shell Program Verification Precision ...................................................................71
Table 5-26: Green Motors Program Measures...........................................................................................72
Table 5-27: Green Motors Program Verified Electric Savings....................................................................72
Table 5-28: Green Motors Program Incentives..........................................................................................72
Table 5-29: Green Motors Program Verification Precision ........................................................................73
Table 5-30: Site-Specific Program Verified Electric Savings .......................................................................74
Table 5-31: Site-Specific Program Costs.....................................................................................................74
Table 5-32: Site-Specific Program Sample Design......................................................................................75
Table 5-33: Site-Specific Program Sample Summary..................................................................................75
Table 5-34: Site-Specific Expected, Adjusted and Verified kWh Savings by Project...................................76
Table 5-35: Site-Specific Summary of kWh Savings by Sample Stratum ....................................................76
Table 6-1: Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program ...............................................................................79
Table 6-2: Pre-period Usage T-test for Electric Measures, Low-Income Program .....................................81
Table 6-3: TMY Weather, Low-Income Program........................................................................................81
Table 6-4: Household Savings for All Regression Models, Low-Income Program ......................................82
Table 7-1: Type and Number of Measures Received by Respondents.......................................................83
Table 7-2: Survey Respondent Home Characteristics ................................................................................83
Table8-1: Savings Inputs............................................................................................................................86
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 958271 916.363.8383 v

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 8-2: Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations...............................................................................86
Table 8-3: Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations .................................................................................86
Table 8-4: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.........................................................87
Table8-5: Savings Inputs............................................................................................................................88
Table 8-6: Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations...............................................................................88
Table 8-7: Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations .................................................................................88
Table 8-8: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.........................................................89
Table8-9: Savings Inputs............................................................................................................................90
Table 8-10: Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations .............................................................................90
Table 8-11: Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations ...............................................................................90
Table 8-12: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.......................................................91
Table8-13: Savings Inputs..........................................................................................................................92
Table 8-14: Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations .............................................................................92
Table 8-15: Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations ...............................................................................92
Table 8-16: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.......................................................93
Table8-17: Savings Inputs..........................................................................................................................94
Table 8-18: Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations.............................................................................94
Table 8-19: Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations ...............................................................................94
Table 8-20: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.......................................................95
Table8-21: Savings Inputs..........................................................................................................................96
Table 8-22: Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations.............................................................................96
Table 8-23: Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations ...............................................................................97
Table 8-24: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.......................................................97
Table 8-25: kWh Savings Calculations........................................................................................................98
Table 8-26: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.......................................................99
Table8-27: Savings Inputs........................................................................................................................100
Table 8-28: Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations...........................................................................100
Table 8-29: Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations .............................................................................101
Table 8-30: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.....................................................101
Table8-31: Savings Inputs........................................................................................................................102
Table 8-32: Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations...........................................................................102
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827 1916.363.8383 vi

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 8-33: Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations .............................................................................103
Table 8-34: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.....................................................103
Table8-35: Savings Inputs........................................................................................................................105
Table 8-36: Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations ...........................................................................105
Table 8-37: Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations .............................................................................106
Table 8-38: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.....................................................106
Table8-39: Savings Inputs........................................................................................................................109
Table 8-40: VFD kWh Savings Calculations...............................................................................................109
Table 8-41: VFD kW Savings Calculations.................................................................................................109
Table 8-42: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.....................................................110
Table8-43: Savings Inputs........................................................................................................................111
Table 8-44: VFD kWh Savings Calculations...............................................................................................112
Table 8-45: VFD kW Savings Calculations.................................................................................................112
Table 8-46: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.....................................................112
Table8-47: Savings Inputs........................................................................................................................113
Table 8-48: Lumber Mill Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations.....................................................................114
Table 8-49: Lumber Mill Retrofit kW Savings Calculations.......................................................................114
Table 8-50: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates &Adjustments.....................................................114
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 958271 916.363.8383 vii

Avista Idaho PY2022
1. Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the Residential and Low-Income Electric Evaluation, Measurement, and
Verification (EM&V) effort of the 2022 program year (PY2022) portfolio of programs for Avista
Corporation (Avista) in the Idaho service territory. The evaluation was administered by ADM
Associates, Inc. and Cadeo Group, LLC (herein referred to as the "Evaluators").
1.1 Savings Results
The Evaluators conducted an impact evaluation for Avista's Residential and Low-Income programs for
PY2022.The Residential portfolio savings amounted to 1,133,532 kWh with a 88.82% realization rate.
The Low-Income portfolio savings amounted to 85,639 kWh with a 97.33% realization rate.The
Nonresidential savings amounted to 13,708,164 kWh with a 102.20% realization rate.The Evaluators
summarize the Residential, Low-Income, and Nonresidential portfolio verified savings in Table 1-1
through Table 1-3, respectively.
Table 1-1:Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Verified Verified
Program Savings Savings Realization
Water Heat 28,290 27,769 98.16%
HVAC 560,952 517,702 92.29%
Shell 205,907 137,338 66.70%
Fuel Efficiency 326,625 326,625 100.00%
ENERGY STAR Homes 62,909 55,400 88.06%
Small Home&MF
24,785 18,754 75.66%
Weatherization
Appliances 50,079 32,467 64.83%
Multifamily Direct Install 16,701 17,478 104.65%
Total Res 1,276,249 1,133,532 88.82%
Table 1-2:Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Verified Verified
Program Savings Savings Realization
Low-Income 87,986 1 85,639 1 97.33%
Total Low-Income 87,986 85,639 1 97.33%
Table 1-3:Nonresidential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Verified Verified
Program Savings Savings Realization
Lighting 6,416,259 6,416,285 100.00%
HVAC 14,308 14,308 100.00%
Food Service Equipment 10,532 10,537 100.05%
Grocer 36,468 36,468 100.00%
Shell 4,490 4,490 100.00%
Green Motors 9,822 9,822 100.00%
Site-Specific 6,920,802 7,216,254 104.27%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 1

Avista Idaho PY2022
Expected Verified Verified
Savings Savings Realization
PTotalNon-Residential 1 13,412,681 1 13,708,164 1 102.20%
Table 1-4 summarizes the electric programs offered to residential and low-income customers in the
Idaho Avista service territory in PY2022 as well as the Evaluators' evaluation tasks and impact
methodology for each program.
Table 1-4: Impact Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector
ProgramDatabase Survey
Sector
Residential Water Heat ✓ ✓ RTF LIES
Residential HVAC ✓ ✓ RTF LIES
Residential Shell ✓ RTF LIES
Residential Fuel Efficiency ✓ ✓ RTF LIES
Residential ENERGYSTAR® ✓ RTF LIES
Homes
Residential Small Home&MF ✓ ✓ RTF LIES
Weatherization
Residential Appliances ✓ ✓ RTF LIES
Residential Multifamily Direct ✓ SBW TRM
Install
Low-Income Low-Income ✓ Avista TRM
Nonresidential Lighting ✓ ✓ Avista TRM
Nonresidential HVAC ✓ Avista TRM
Nonresidential Food Service ✓ RTF LIES,Avista TRM
Equipment
Nonresidential Grocer ✓ RTF LIES
Nonresidential Shell ✓ Avista TRM
Nonresidential Green Motors ✓ RTF LIES
Nonresidential Site-Specific ✓ IPMVP
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
The following section details the Evaluators' conclusions and recommendations for each the Residential
Portfolio, Low-Income Portfolio, and Nonresidential Portfolio program evaluations.
1.2.1 Conclusions
The following section details the Evaluator's findings resulting from the program evaluations for each
the Residential Portfolio, Low-Income Portfolio, and Nonresidential Portfolio.
1.2.1.1 Residential Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista's Residential electric programs:
The Evaluators found the Residential portfolio to demonstrate a total of 1,133,532 kWh with a
realization rate of 88.82%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 2

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ The Shell Program, which contributes 12%of the expected savings, resulted in a realization rate
of 67%whereas each of the other programs resulted in a combined 93% realization rate.The
Fuel Efficiency Program contributed to a 5%decrease in the overall residential sector, which
displayed a final realization rate of 89%.
■ The Residential Portfolio impact evaluation resulted in a realization rate of 88.82%due to
differences between the Avista TRM categories and the appropriately assigned RTF UES
categories for each measure.The Evaluators note several instances in which the Avista TRM
value reflects an average of a range of RTF UES values for the electric measures offered in the
Idaho electric service territory.The values had been averaged across heating zones, water
heater storage tank sizes, equipment efficiency values, housing types, and fuel types.The
Evaluators, instead of applying these averages, verified the appropriate RTF UES values for each
rebate for a sample of rebates in each program and applied the resulting realization rates to the
population of rebates for each program.This led to a lower realization rate, as some rebates
reflected RTF savings values higher than the average for that measure.
■ The Evaluators conducted verification surveys for a random sample of customers who had
participated in the residential prescriptive rebates programs.The Evaluators calculated in-
service rates for measures in which in-service rates are not typically 100%(water heaters,
furnaces, clothes washers and dryers, smart thermostats, etc).The Evaluators found that all
surveyed measures responses indicated in-service rates of 100%.These values were applied to
impact analysis results to estimate verified savings through the programs.
■ The Evaluators found the CC&B tracking database consistently reflected values indicated on
randomly sampled documents. However, some additional variables that are not currently
collected remain critical to calculating verified savings, such as detailed home type (single
family, multifamily, manufactured home), primary heating type (natural gas vs. electric), and
water heater storage tank size.
■ In the Water Heat Program,the Evaluators found that the Avista TRM assigns savings values for
water heaters of"any size".The Evaluators applied appropriate size-dependent RTF UES, leading
to high realization rates for the measure, as some rebates were found to have 80-gallon tank
sizes, which are allotted a larger kWh/unit savings value in the RTF than the<55 gallon tank size
equipment.
■ In the HVAC Program, the E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat and E Smart Thermostat
Paid Install with Electric Heat realization rates are lower than 100% because the Avista TRM uses
an average of heating type savings values, while the Evaluators assigned the appropriate RTF
UES value for each heating zone. In addition, the E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump verified
savings largely vary based on home type (single family vs. multifamily).The appropriate
categories in the RTF led to lower-than-expected savings and higher than expected savings
across individual projects within these measures, with an overall downward adjustment for
these measures.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 3

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ In the Shell Program,the lack of granularity in the Avista TRM UES led to a low realization rate
for attic insulation, wall insulation and window measures.The expected savings appeared to
have use a value of 2 kwh per square foot for attic and wall savings calculations while Avista's
TRM uses 1.5 kwh per square foot, and the RTF uses values from 0 to 2 kWh per square foot,
depending on heating type and heating and cooling zones. Similarly,the difference between RTF
savings and the Avista TRM value for window replacements is drastic, with the RTF indicating
much lower savings for the window replacements, based on U-values and double vs. single pane
values.The Evaluators recommend that Avista ensure that the correct RTF UES values are used
to calculate expected savings and that Avista incorporate more granularity by climate zone,
heating type, U-value, and single vs. double pane-specific savings into Avista's TRM.These
differences in applied RTF savings values led to an overall realization rate of 67%for the Shell
Program.
■ The ENERGY STAR Homes Program displayed verified savings of 55,400 kWh and a realization
rate of 88.06%.The Evaluators found that realization rates differed from 100%for this program
due to application of heating zone and cooling zone via the RTF, which the Avista TRM lacks. In
addition,the Evaluators found that realization rates differed from 100%due to savings value
application.The realization for the E ENERGY STAR° Home—Manufactured, Gas& Electric
measure is low because the expected savings employed an additive methodology between a
gas-heated home and an electric-heated home for the electric savings. However,the Evaluators
reviewed the RTF and determined that a manufactured with dual fuel and primary heating of
natural gas would be closer to the savings an entirely gas heated home would save.Therefore,
the Evaluators assigned electric savings from the RTF associated with a fully natural gas-heated
home at 43 kWh saved per year. Additionally,the Evaluators found one heat pump ENERGY
STAR home to be verified to have natural gas as the home's primary heating type.This led to
significantly low realization for this project,which contributed to one third of the measure's
overall participation.These two adjustments together led to an 88% realization rate for the
program.
■ In the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program,the Evaluators found that many projects
exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista-that a home is single family with less than
1,000 SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). In addition,the Evaluators note that the
current program rebate applications do not provide an option to indicate "Multifamily" home
type. Rather,the current rebate application includes an option for "Single family",
"Manufactured", "New construction", and "Other".Although quantity in the CC&B database
were consistent, the Avista TRM savings values differed from verified RTF UES values for each of
the projects.The majority of projects displayed realization rates that differ to 100%due to
differences in savings between various home types.The Evaluators verified home type via Zillow
to apply correct RTF workbook savings from the single family, multifamily, and manufactured
home RTF workbooks.These adjustments led to high and low realization rates across each
measure, as the RTF defines savings for each home type separately.The Evaluators recommend
Avista verify home type and apply appropriate Avista TRM values based on home type in order
to ensure proper estimation of measure savings.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 4

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ The Multifamily Direct Install Program displayed 64.83% realization with 32,467 kWh saved.The
program verified savings resulted in a realization rate of above 100% largely due to low
expected savings for the A-line 60W LEDs.The SBW document measure-level UES did not align
with tracking data values.The Evaluators were unable to identify the cause of this discrepancy.
■ The Appliance Program displayed a realization rate of 64.83%with 32,467 kWh savings. In this
program,the Evaluators found that the Avista TRM currently assigns RTF savings defined for
ENERGY STAR Most Efficient (ESME)-qualified fridges and freezers. However,the Evaluators
found that all projects were verified to be ENERGY STAR-qualified, not ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient (ESME)-qualified.The low realization rate is due to the difference in Avista TRM ESME-
qualified and RTF ENERGY STAR-qualified savings values. Because the Evaluators found that no
fridge-freezers or upright freezers to have met the ESME qualifications,the lower RTF ENERGY
STAR savings values were applied to each project. In addition,the Evaluators attributed 0
kWh/unit savings to the E Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer because the referenced RTF
clothes washer workbook estimates that savings for this measure is negative and therefore
there is no proven RTF savings for this measure.
1.2.1.2 Low-Income Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista's Low-Income electric programs:
■ The Evaluators found the Low-Income portfolio to demonstrate a total of 85,639 kWh with a
realization rate of 97.33%.
■ The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level Low-Income Program energy savings
through billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score
matching.The Evaluators attempted to isolate each unique measure. However, participation for
the Low-Income program resulted in a small number of customers with isolated measures and
therefore the Evaluators conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the electric measures
combined in the Low-Income in order to estimate savings for the average household
participating in the program, across all measures. Due to lack of statistical significance from the
billing analysis results,The Evaluators did not apply these regression savings estimates to the
program. Instead,the Evaluators designated the desk review savings as verified.
■ In the Low-Income Program,the Evaluators found one project where the savings cap was not
applied to all measures in the household, leading to a lower realization rate for the measures in
that household.
■ In the Low-Income Program,The Evaluators found the LED bulbs unit-level savings were
inaccurately referenced. Avista TRM specifies 1 kWh per bulb, while expected savings uses 9
kWh savings per bulb, leading to 11% realization for LED bulb projects under the program.
1.2.1.3 Nonresidential Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista's Nonresidential electric programs:
■ The Evaluators found the Non-Residential portfolio to demonstrate a total of 13,708,164 kWh
with a realization rate of 102.20%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 5

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ Verified savings for the Prescriptive Lighting Program are 6,416,285 kWh, 100.00%of claimed
savings.
■ Verified savings for the HVAC VFD Program is 14,308 kWh with a realization rate of 100.0%.
■ Verified savings for the Food Service Equipment Program is 10,537 kWh with a realization rate
of 100.05%. For one measure, Combination Ovens,the Evaluators found that claimed savings
used an Avista TRM value of 6,422 kWh savings per measure. The RTF specifies 6,427 kWh for
this measure, resulting in slightly higher verified savings. The Evaluators did not find any other
deviations from TRM UES.
■ The verified savings for the Grocer Program is 36,468 kWh with a realization rate of 100.0%.
■ The verified savings for the Shell Program is 4,490 kWh with a realization rate of 100.0%.
■ The verified savings for the Green Motor Rewind Program is 9,822 kWh with a realization rate of
100.0%.
■ The Site-Specific program completed 31 projects in PY2022. Verified savings are 7,216,254 kWh,
104.27%of claimed savings.
■ Five of the 12 sampled sites' realization varied from 100%due to the following reasons:
o Discrepancies between listed and verified HVAC interactive factors
o Discrepancies between listed and verified annual pump operating hours
o Omitted equipment in claimed savings calculations, adjustments to power factors
o Discrepancies between listed and verified VFD efficiency, and adjustments in VFD
operating assumptions
o Adjustments to annual production schedules
1.2.2 Recommendations
The following section details the Evaluator's recommendations resulting from the program evaluations
for each the Residential Portfolio, Low-Income Portfolio, and Nonresidential Portfolio.
1.2.2.1 Residential Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista's Residential electric programs:
■ The Evaluators imputed home type and space heating type for a large number of sampled
rebates, as the tracking database does not contain values for these characteristics or remain
outdated.The mail-in rebates collect this information; however, it does not seem to be required
to complete the rebate and therefore many rebates are missing this information. The Evaluators
recommend verifying home type and space heating type during rebate application approval in
order to apply correct savings values to each project.
■ In addition,the Evaluators note that the current program rebate applications for the Small
Home & MF Weatherization Program do not provide an option to indicate "Multifamily" home
type. For the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program, project savings largely depends on the
home type (single family vs. multifamily vs. manufactured).The current rebate application
includes an option for"Single family", "Manufactured", "New construction", and "Other".The
Evaluators recommend including an option for"Multifamily" in order to consistently apply RTF
Measurement and Evaluation Report 6

Avista Idaho PY2022
savings for each of the measures. The Evaluators recommend Avista verify home type prior to
applying Avista TRM values in order to ensure proper categorization of measure savings.
■ The Evaluators found that many projects claimed under the Small Home & MF Weatherization
Program exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista -that a home is single family with less
than 1,000 SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units).The Evaluators recommend claiming
projects on single family homes that are larger than 1,000 SQFT into the Shell Program.
■ In the Shell Program,the Evaluators recommend Avista update the attic insulation and single
and double pane window Avista TRM values to the appropriate RTF LIES value. Avista's TRM
uses 1.5 kwh per square foot, whereas the RTF displays 0, 1, or 2 kWh per square foot,
depending on heating type and heating and cooling zone. Similarly,the difference between RTF
savings and the Avista TRM value for window replacements is drastic, with the RTF indicating
much lower savings for the window replacements, based on U-values and double vs. single pane
values.The Evaluators recommend that Avista ensure that the correct RTF LIES values are used
to calculate expected savings and that Avista incorporate more granularity by climate zone,
heating type, U-value, and single vs. double pane-specific savings into Avista's TRM.
■ In the Appliances Program,the Evaluators found that the RTF assigns much lower savings than
the Avista TRM for the fridge-freezer and upright freezer measures.The Avista TRM seems to
reference ESME-certified savings for each of these measures. However, all projects rebated
were verified to meet ENERGY STAR certification rather than ESME certification.This led to a
drastically low realization rate for these measures.The Evaluators recommend that Avista
update the Avista TRM to reflect appropriate RTF values.
■ Within the ENERGY STAR° Program, Evaluators note that the realization for the E ENERGY STAR°
Home—Manufactured, Gas & Electric measure is low because the Avista TRM savings was
employed using an additive methodology between a gas-heated home and an electric-heated
home for the electric savings. However,the Evaluators reviewed the RTF and determined
manufactured home electric savings for a fully natural gas heated home would be closer to the
savings a gas heated home with electricity would save.The Evaluators recommend adjusting
Avista TRM electric savings for duel fuel ENERGY STAR° homes to reflect the RTF values
associated with a fully natural gas-heated home at 43 kWh saved per year.
1.2.2.2 Low-Income Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista's Low-Income electric programs:
■ The Evaluators found one project where the 20%annual usage savings cap was not applied to all
measures in the household, leading to a lower realization rate for the measures in that
household.The Evaluators recommend ensuring that savings caps are applied to all measures
within a household for expected savings calculations.
■ The Evaluators found the LED bulbs unit-level savings were inaccurately referenced for the Low-
Income Program. Avista TRM specifies 1 kWh per bulb, while expected savings uses 9 kWh
savings per bulb, leading to 11% realization for LED bulb projects under the program.The
Measurement and Evaluation Report 7

Avista Idaho PY2022
Evaluators recommend updating database calculations to use Avista TRM values during
expected savings calculations.
1.2.2.3 Nonresidential Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista's Nonresidential electric
programs:
■ Within the Grocer Program, when collecting measure information for ECM measures,the
Evaluators recommend collecting information about the motor power of the baseline motor.
■ Within the Prescriptive Lighting Program,the Evaluators recommend collecting space HVAC
configuration information and use interactive HVAC effects factors when calculating prescriptive
lighting savings for interior spaces.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 8

Avista Idaho PY2022
2.General Methodology
The Evaluators performed an impact evaluation on each of the programs summarized in Table 1-4. The
Evaluators used the following approaches to calculate energy impact defined by the International
Performance Measurement and Verification Protocols (IPMVP)1 and the Uniform Methods Project
(UMP)2:
■ Simple verification (web-based surveys supplemented with phone surveys)
■ Document verification (review project documentation)
■ Deemed savings (RTF UES and Avista TRM values)
■ Whole facility billing analysis (IPMVP Option C)
The Evaluators completed the above impact tasks for each the electric impacts and the natural gas
impacts for projects completed in the Idaho Avista service territory.
The M&V methodologies are program-specific and determined by previous Avista evaluation
methodologies as well as the relative contribution of a given program to the overall energy efficiency
impacts. Besides drawing on IPMVP,the Evaluators also 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 Regional Technical Forum (RTF)3
■ 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 20134
■ International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) maintained by the
Efficiency Valuation Organization(EVO)with sponsorship bythe U.S. Department of Energy(DOE)5
The Evaluators kept data collection instruments, calculation spreadsheets, and monitored/survey data
available for Avista records.
2.1 Glossary of Terminology
As a first step to detailing the evaluation methodologies, the Evaluators have provided a glossary of
terms to follow:
■ Deemed Savings—An estimate of an energy savings outcome (gross savings) for a single unit of
an installed energy efficiency measure. This estimate (a) has been developed from data sources
1 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fV02osti/31505.pdf
z https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fVl8osti/70472.pdf
3 https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures
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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 9

Avista Idaho PY2022
and analytical methods that are widely accepted for the measure and purpose and (b) are
applicable to the situation being evaluated.
■ Expected Savings—Calculated savings used for program and portfolio planning purposes.
■ Adjusted Savings—Savings estimates after database review and document verification has been
completed using deemed unit-level savings provided in the Avista TRM. It adjusts for such factors
as data errors and installation rates.
■ Verified Savings — Savings estimates after the unit-level savings values have been updated and
energy impact evaluation has been completed, integrating results from billing analyses and
appropriate RTF UES and Avista TRM values.
■ Gross Savings — The change in energy consumption directly resulting from program-related
actions taken by participants in an efficiency program, regardless of why they participated.
■ Free Rider — A program participant who would have implemented the program measure or
practice in absence of the program.
■ Net-To-Gross—A factor representing net program savings divided by gross program savings that
is applied to gross program impacts to convert them into net program load impacts.
■ Net Savings—The change in energy consumption directly resulting from program-related actions
taken by participants in an efficiency program, with adjustments to remove savings due to free
ridership.
■ Non-Energy Benefits — Quantifiable impacts produced by program measures outside of energy
savings (comfort, health and safety, reduced alternative fuel, etc.).
■ Non-Energy Impacts—Quantifiable impacts in energy efficiency beyond the energy savings gained
from installing energy efficient measures (reduced cost for operation and maintenance of
equipment, reduced environmental and safety costs, etc.).
2.2 Summary of Approach
This section presents our general cross-cutting approach to accomplishing the impact evaluation of
Avista's Residential, Low-Income, and Nonresidential programs listed in Table 1-4. The Evaluators start
by presenting our general evaluation approach.This chapter is organized by general task due to several
overlap across programs.
The Evaluators outline the approach to verifying, measuring, and reporting the residential portfolio
impacts as well as cost-effectiveness and summarizing potential program and portfolio 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 due to stay-
at-home orders due to the COVID19 pandemic.
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 a program is meeting its goals.These activities are aimed to provide
guidance for continuous program improvement and increased cost effectiveness for the 2022 and 2023
program years.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 10

Avista Idaho PY2022
The Evaluators employed the following approach to complete impact evaluation activities for the
programs.The Evaluators define three major approaches to determining net savings for Avista's
programs:
■ A Deemed Savings approach involves using stipulated savings for energy conservation measures
for which savings values are well-known and documented. These prescriptive savings may also
include an adjustment for certain measures, such as lighting measures in which site operating
hours may differ from RTF values.
■ A Billing Analysis approach involves estimating energy savings by applying a linear regression to
measured participant energy consumption utility meter billing data. Billing analyses included
billing data from nonparticipant customers.This approach does not require on-site data collection
for model calibration.This approach aligns with the IPMVP Option C.
■ A Custom approach, used for the Site-Specific program involves selecting the appropriate IPMVP
option to apply to the specific measure or project. Typically, this is Option A, as most projects in
the program are lighting retrofits,however Options B,C and D are also employed,depending upon
the project. Specific methods are discussed in each site report.
The Evaluators accomplished the following quantitative goals as part of the impact evaluation:
■ Verify savings with 10% precision at the 90%confidence level;
■ Where appropriate, apply the RTF to verify measure impacts; and
■ Where available data exists, conduct billing analysis with a suitable comparison group to estimate
measure savings.
■ Used IPMVP analysis methods for custom projects.
For each program,the Evaluators calculated adjusted savings for each measure based on the Avista TRM
and results from the database review.The Evaluators calculated verified savings for each measure based
on the RTF UES,Avista TRM, or billing analysis in combination with the results from document review.
For the HVAC, Water Heat, Fuel Efficiency, Small Home & MF Weatherization, and Appliances programs,
the Evaluators also applied in-service rates (ISRs)from verification surveys.
Reported Database Adjusted Documen Evaluate
Savings ReviewReview
The Evaluators assigned methodological rigor level for each measure and program based on its
contribution to the portfolio savings and availability of data.
The Evaluators analyzed billing data for all electric measure participants in the HVAC and Low-Income
programs.The Evaluators applied billing analysis results to determine evaluated savings only for
measures where savings could be isolated (that is,where a sufficient number of participants could be
Measurement and Evaluation Report 11

Avista Idaho PY2022
identified who installed only that measure). Program-level realization rates for the HVAC, Water Heat,
and Fuel Efficiency programs incorporate billing analysis results for some measures.
2.2.1 Database Review
At the outset of the evaluation, the Evaluators reviewed the databases to ensure that each 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 are appropriately applied using the Avista TRM. The Evaluators then
aggregated and cross-check program and measure totals.
The Evaluators reviewed program application documents for a sample of incented measures to verify
the tracking data accurately represents the program documents.The Evaluators ensured the home
installed measures that meet or exceed program efficiency standards.
2.2.2 Verification Methodology
This section summarizes the Evaluator's sampling methodologies for each prescriptive programs and
site-specific programs.
2.2.2.1.1 Sampling Methodology for Prescriptive Programs
The Evaluators verified a sample of participating households for detailed review of the installed measure
documentation and development of verified savings.The Evaluators verified tracking data by reviewing
invoices and surveying a sample of participant customer households.The Evaluators also conducted a
verification survey for program participants.
The Evaluators used the following equations to estimate sample size requirements for each program and
fuel type. Required sample sizes were estimated as follows:
Equation 2-1:Sample Size for Infinite Sample Size
n = (ZXCVIz
d JJ
Equation 2-2:Sample Size for Finite Population Size
n
no = C ll
1 + Nl
Where,
■ n =Sample size
■ Z =Z-value for a two-tailed distribution at the assigned confidence level.
■ CV = Coefficient of variation
■ d = Precision level
■ N = Population
Measurement and Evaluation Report 12

Avista Idaho PY2022
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. A CV of.5 was assumed for residential programs due to
the homogeneity of participation6,which yields a sample size of 68 for an infinite population. 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 document-based
verification and survey-based verification.
2.2.2.1.2 Sampling Methodology for the Site-Specific Program
For the Site-Specific program, Simple Random Sampling is not an effective sampling methodology as the
CV values observed in business programs are typically very high because the distributions of savings are
generally positively skewed. Often, a relatively small number of projects account for a high percentage
of the estimated savings for the program.
To address this situation, we use a sample design for selecting projects for the M&V sample that
considers such skewness. With this approach, we select several sites with large savings for the sample
with certainty and take a random sample of the remaining sites.To improve the precision, non-certainty
sites are selected for the sample through systematic random sampling.That is, a random sample of sites
remaining after the certainty sites have been selected is selected by ordering them according to the
magnitude of their savings and using systematic random sampling. Sampling systematically from a list
that is ordered according to the magnitude of savings ensures that any sample selected will have some
units with high savings, some with moderate savings, and some with low savings. Samples cannot result
that have concentrations of sites with atypically high savings or atypically low savings. Specific sampling
characteristics are shown in the Site-Specific section of this report.
The following sections describe the Evaluator's methodology for conducting document-based
verification and survey-based verification.
2.2.2.2 Document-Based Verification
The Evaluators requested rebate documentation for a subset of participating customers.These
documents included invoices, rebate applications, pictures, and AHRI certifications for the following
programs.
■ Water Heat Program
■ HVAC Program
■ Shell Program
■ Fuel Efficiency Program
■ ENERGY STAR' Homes Program
■ Small Home & MF Weatherization Program
6 Assumption based off California Evaluation Framework:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC Public Website/Content/Utilities and Industries/Energy/Energy Programs/De
mand Side Management/EE and Energy Savings Assist/CAEvaluationFramework.pdf
Measurement and Evaluation Report 13

Avista Idaho PY2022
Appliances Program
Low-Income Program
Community Energy Efficiency Program
Prescriptive Lighting Program
HVAC Program (non-res)
Food Service Equipment Program
Grocer
Shell Program (non-res)
Green Motor Rewind
This sample of documents was used to cross-verify tracking data inputs. In the case the Evaluators found
any deviations between the tracking data and application values, the Evaluators reported and
summarized those differences in the Database Review sections presented for each program in Section
3.2 and Section 4.1.
The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieves a sampling precision of±10% 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 following samples for each program's document review using Equation
2-1 and Equation 2-2.The Evaluators ensured representation in each state and fuel type for each
measure.
Table 2-1: Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Program
Sector Irogram 1W Electric (With Finite Precision at
Population Population •0' cl
Residential Water Heat 23 18 90%±9.24%
Residential HVAC 311 73 90%±8.43%
Residential Shell 119 47 90%±9.37%
Residential Fuel Efficiency 40 27 90%±9.14%
Residential ENERGY STAR® Homes 19 16 90%±8.39%
Residential Small Home&MF 22 20 90%±5.68%
Weatherization
Residential Appliances 326 66 90%±9.06%
Low-Income Low-Income 408 87 90%±7.83%
Nonresidential HVAC 473 70 ±9.08%
Nonresidential Food Service Equipment 4 4 ±0%
Nonresidential Grocer 2 2 ±0%
Nonresidential Shell 4 4 ±0%
Nonresidential Green Motors 1 1 ±0%
'Assumes sample size of 68 for an infinite population,based on CV(coefficient of variation)=0.5,
d(precision)=10%,Z(critical value for 90%confidence)=1.645.
The table above represents the number of rebates in Idaho service territory only(does not include Idaho
rebate samples).The Evaluators ensured representation of state and fuel type in the sampled rebates
for document verification.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 14

Avista Idaho PY2022
2.2.2.3 Survey-Based Verification
The Evaluators conducted survey-based verification for the Water Heat, HVAC, Fuel Efficiency, Small
Home & MF Weatherization, and Appliances Programs.The primary purpose of conducting a verification
survey is to confirm that the measure was installed and is still currently operational and whether the
measure was early retirement or replace-on-burnout.
The Evaluators summarize the final sample sizes shown in Table 2-2 for the Idaho Electric Avista
projects.The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieved a sampling precision of±6.96%at 90%
statistical confidence for ISRs estimates at the measure-level during web-based survey verification.
Table 2-2:Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Program
Sector Program Population Respondents
0
Residential Water Heat 23 0 N/A
Residential HVAC 311 50 90%±10.67%
Residential Fuel Efficiency 40 4 90%±39.51%
Residential Small Home&MF 22 3 90%±45.17%
Weatherization
Residential Appliances 326 66 90%±9.06%
Non-Residential Lighting* 472 2 90%±58.10%
Total 1,194 125 90%±6.96%
*These programs did not meet 90/10 precision for the survey-based verification.
For these programs,100%in-service rates were assumed.
The Evaluators implemented a web-based survey to complete the verification surveys. The Evaluators
contacted all customers in the programs listed in the table above with the goal of reaching 90/10
precision, however, all efforts were exhausted to reach these customers and therefore these programs
do not display 90/10 precision at the program-level for in-service rate calculations. For programs in
which this goal was not met,the Evaluators assumed in-service rates of 100%.
The findings from these activities served to estimate ISRs for each measure surveyed.These ISRs were
applied to verification sample desk review rebates towards verified savings,which were then applied to
the population of rebates.The measure-level ISRs resulting from the survey-based verification are
summarized in Section 3.1.
2.2.3 Impact Evaluation Methodology
The Evaluators employed the following approach to complete impact evaluation activities for the
programs.The Evaluators define two major approaches to determining net savings for Avista's
programs:
■ Deemed Savings
■ Billing Analysis (IPMVP Option Q
The Site-Specific program also employed various IPMVP options, deepening upon the project and
measure, and is discussed separately as it differs in approach from the approaches used in the remainder
of the portfolio. In the following sections,the Evaluators summarize the general guidelines and activities
followed to conduct each the deemed savings and billing analyses approaches above.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 15

Avista Idaho PY2022
In the following sections, the Evaluators summarize the general guidelines and activities followed to
conduct each of the above analyses.
2.2.3.1 Deemed Savings
This section summarizes the deemed savings analysis method the Evaluators employed for the
evaluation of a subset of measures for each program.The Evaluators completed the validation for
specific measures across each program using the RTF unit energy savings (UES)values, where available.
The Evaluators ensured the proper measure unit savings were recorded and used in the calculation of
Avista's ex-ante measure savings.The Evaluators requested and used the technical reference manual
Avista employed during calculation of ex-ante measure savings (Avista TRM).The Evaluators
documented any cases where recommend values differed from the specific unit energy savings
workbooks used by Avista.
In cases where the RTF has existing unit energy savings (UES) applicable to Avista's measures,the
Evaluators verified the quantity and quality of installations and apply the RTF's UES to determine
verified savings.
2.2.3.2 Billing Analysis
This section describes the billing analysis methodology employed by the Evaluators as part of the impact
evaluation and measurement of energy savings for measures with sufficient participation.The Evaluators
performed billing analyses with a matched control group and utilized a quasi-experimental method of
producing a post-hoc control group. In program designs where treatment and control customers are not
randomly selected at the outset, such as for downstream rebate programs, quasi-experimental designs
are required.
For the purposes of this analysis, a household is considered a treatment household if it has received a
program incentive. Additionally, a household is considered a control household if the household has not
received a program incentive.To isolate measure impacts, treatment households are eligible to be
included in the billing analysis if they installed only one measure during the 2022 program year. Isolation
of individual measures are necessary to provide valid measure-level savings. Households that installed
more than one measure may display interactive energy savings effects across multiple measures that
are not feasibly identifiable.Therefore, instances where households installed isolated measures are
used in the billing analyses. In addition,the pre-period identifies the period prior to measure installation
while the post-period refers to the period following measure installation.
The Evaluators utilized propensity score matching (PSM) to match nonparticipants to similar participants
using pre-period billing data. PSM allows the evaluators to find the most similar household based on the
customers' billed consumption trends in the pre-period and verified with statistical difference testing.
After matching based on these variables,the billing data for treatment and control groups are
compared, as detailed in IPMVP Option C.The Evaluators fit regression models to estimate weather-
dependent daily consumption differences between participating customer and nonparticipating
customer households.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 16

Avista Idaho PY2022
Cohort Creation
The PSM approach estimates a propensity score for treatment and control customers using a logistic
regression model. A propensity score is a metric that summarizes several dimensions of household
characteristics into a single metric that can be used to group similar households.The Evaluators created
a post-hoc control group by compiling billing data from a subset of nonparticipants in the Avista territory
to compare against treatment households using quasi-experimental methods.This allowed the
Evaluators to select from a large group of similar households that have not installed an incented
measure. With this information,the Evaluators created statistically valid matched control groups for
each measure via seasonal pre-period usage.The Evaluators matched customers in the control group to
customers in the treatment group based on nearest seasonal pre-period usage (e.g., summer, spring,
fall, and winter) and exact 3-digit zip code matching(the first three digits of the five-digit zip code). After
matching,the Evaluators conducted a t-test for each month in the pre-period to help determine the
success of PSM.
While it is not possible to guarantee the creation of a sufficiently matched control group, this method is
preferred because it is likely to have more meaningful results than a treatment-only analysis. Some
examples of outside variables that a control group can sufficiently control for changes in economies and
markets, large-scale social changes, or impacts from weather-related anomalies such as flooding or
hurricanes.
After PSM,the Evaluators ran the following regression models for each measure:
■ Fixed effect Difference-in-Difference(D-n-D) regression model(recommended in UMP protocols)'
■ Random effects post-program regression model (PPR) (recommended in UMP protocols)
■ Gross billing analysis (treatment only)
The second model listed above (PPR) was selected because it had the best fit for the data, identified
using the adjusted R-squared. Further details on regression model specifications can be found below.
Data Collected
The following lists the data collected for the billing analysis:
1. Monthly billing data for program participants (treatment customers)
2. Monthly billing data for a group of non-program participants (control customers)
3. Program tracking data, including customer identifiers, address, and date of measure installation
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)weather data between January 1,2021
and December 31, 2022)
5. Typical Meteorological Year(TMY3) data
Billing and weather data were obtained for program year 2022 and for one year prior to measure install
dates (2021).
7 National Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL)Uniform Methods Project(UMP)Chapter 17 Section 4.4.7.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 17

Avista Idaho PY2022
Weather data was obtained from the nearest weather station with complete data during the analysis
years for each customer by mapping the weather station location with the customer zip code.
TMY weather stations were assigned to NOAA weather stations by geocoding the minimum distance
between each set of latitude and longitude points.This data is used for extrapolating savings to long-
run, 30-year average weather.
Data Preparation
The following steps were taken to prepare the billing data:
1. Gathered billing data for homes that participated in the program.
2. Excluded participant homes that also participated in the other programs, if either program
disqualifies the combination of any other rebate or participation.
3. Gathered billing data for similar customers that did not participate in the program in evaluation.
4. Excluded bills missing address information.
5. Removed bills missing fuel type/Unit of Measure (UOM).
6. Removed bills missing usage, billing start date, or billing end date.
7. Remove bills with outlier durations (<9 days or>60 days).
8. Excluded bills with consumption indicated to be outliers.
9. Calendarized bills (recalculates bills, usage, and total billed such that bills begin and end at the
start and end of each month).
10. Obtained weather data from nearest NOAA weather station using 5-digit zip code per household.
11. Computed Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD) for a range of setpoints.
The Evaluators assigned a setpoint of 65°F for both HDD and CDD. The Evaluators tested and
selected the optimal temperature base for HDDs and CDDs based on model R-squared values.
12. Selected treatment customers with only one type of measure installation during the analysis years
and combined customer min/max install dates with billing data (to define pre-and post-periods).
13. Restricted to treatment customers with install dates in specified range (typically January 1, 2022
through June 30, 2022)to allow for sufficient post-period billing data.
14. Restricted to control customers with usage less than or equal to two times the maximum observed
treatment group usage. This has the effect of removing control customers with incomparable
usage relative to the treatment group.
15. Removed customers with incomplete post-period bills (<4 months).
16. Removed customers with incomplete pre-period bills.
17. Restricted control customers to those with usage that was comparable with the treatment group
usage.
18. Created a matched control group using PSM and matching on pre-period seasonal usage and zip
code.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 18

Avista Idaho PY2022
Regression Models
The Evaluators ran the following models for matched treatment and control customers for each
measure with sufficient participation. For net savings,the Evaluators selected either Model 1 or Model
2.The model with the best fit (highest adjusted R-squared)was selected.The Evaluators utilized Model
3 to estimate gross energy savings.
Model 1:Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference Regression Model
The following equation displays the first model specification to estimate the average daily savings due to
the measure.
Equation 2-3:Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference(D-n-D)Model Specification
ADCit = ao +f31(Post)it +f32(Post x Treatment)it +f33(HDD)it +f34(CDD)it
+f3s(Post x HDD)it +&(Post x CDD)it +MPost x HDD x Treatment)it
+f3$(Post x CDD x Treatment)it +f39(Month)t +f310(Customer Dummy)i + Fit
Where,
■ i=the ith household
■ t=the first, second,third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
■ ADCit =Average daily usage reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
■ Postit = A dummy variable indicating pre- or post-period designation during period t
at home i
■ Treatmenti =A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
■ HDDit = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
■ CDDit =Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
■ Montht=A set of dummy variables indicating the month during period t
■ Customer Dummyi = a customer-specific dummy variable isolating individual household
effects
■ £it =The error term
■ a0=The model intercept
■ /l1_10 =Coefficients determined via regression
The Average Daily Consumption (ADC) is calculated as the total monthly billed usage divided by the
duration of the bill month.f32 represents the average change in daily baseload in the post-period
between the treatment and control group and f37 and f3$ represent the change in weather-related daily
consumption in the post-period between the groups. Typical monthly and annual savings were
estimated by extrapolating the f37 and f3$ coefficients with Typical Meteorological Year(TMY) HDD and
CDD data. However, in the case of gas usage, only the coefficient for HDD is utilized because CDDs were
not included in the regression model.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 19

Avista Idaho PY2022
The equation below displays how savings were extrapolated for a full year utilizing the coefficients in the
regression model and TMY data.TMY data is weighted by the number of households assigned to each
weather station.
Equation 2-4:Savings Extrapolation
Annual Savings = F'2 * 365.25 +f37 * TMY HDD +/3$ * TMY CDD
Model 2:Random Effects Post-Program Regression Model
The following equation displays the second model specification to estimate the average daily savings
due to the measure.The post-program regression (PPR) model combines both cross-sectional and time
series data in a panel dataset.This model uses only the post-program data, with lagged energy use for
the same calendar month of the pre-program period acting as a control for any small systematic
differences between the treatment and control customers; in particular, energy use in calendar month t
of the post-program period is framed as a function of both the participant variable and energy use in the
same calendar month of the pre-program period.The underlying logic is that systematic differences
between treatment and control customers will be reflected in the differences in their past energy use,
which is highly correlated with their current energy use.These interaction terms allow pre-program
usage to have a different effect on post-program usage in each calendar month.
The model specification is as follows:
Equation 2-5:Post-Program Regression (PPR) Model Specification
ADCit = ao +f31(Treatment)i +f32 (PreUsage)i +F'3 (PreUsageSummer)i
+f34(PreUsageWinter)i +f3s(Month)t +&(Month x PreUsage)it
+f AflJonth x PreUsageSummer)it +&(Month x PreUsageWinter)it
+f3g(HDD)it +f310(CDD)it +f311(Treatment x HDD)it +f312(Treatment x CDD)it
+ Fit
Where,
■ i=the ith household
■ t=the first, second,third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
■ ADCit =Average daily usage for reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
■ Treatmenti =A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
■ Montht = Dummy variable indicating month of month t
■ PreUsagei =Average daily usage across household is available pre-treatment billing reads
■ PreUsageSummeri = Average daily usage in the summer months across household is
available pretreatment billing reads
■ PreUsageWinteri =Average daily usage in the winter months across household is available
pre-treatment billing reads
■ HDDit = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
■ CDDit =Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
Measurement and Evaluation Report 20

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ £it = Customer-level random error
■ ao=The model intercept for home i
■ f31_12 =Coefficients determined via regression
The coefficient f31 represents the average change in consumption between the pre-period and post-
period for the treatment group and F'11 and f312 represent the change in weather-related daily
consumption in the post-period between the groups.Typical monthly and annual savings were
estimated by extrapolating the F'11 and F'12 coefficients with Typical Meteorological Year(TMY) HDD and
CDD data.
The equation below displays how savings were extrapolated for a full year utilizing the coefficients in the
regression model and TMY data.
Equation 2-6:Savings Extrapolation
Annual Savings = F'1 * 365.25 +F'11 * TMY HDD +f312 * TMY CDD
Model 3:Gross Billing Analysis, Treatment-Only Regression Model
The sections above detail the Evaluator's methodology for estimating net energy savings for each
measure.The results from the above methodology report net savings due to the inclusion of the
counterfactual comparison group. However,for planning purposes, it is useful to estimate gross savings
for each measure.To estimate gross savings,the Evaluators employed a similar regression model;
however, only including participant customer billing data.This analysis does not include control group
billing data and therefore models energy reductions between the pre-period and post-period for the
measure participants (treatment customers).
To calculate the impacts of each measure, the Evaluators applied linear fixed effects regression using
participant billing data with weather controls in the form of Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling
Degree Days (CDD).The following equation displays the model specification to estimate the average
daily savings due to the measure.
Equation 2-7: Treatment-Only Fixed Effects Weather Model Specification
ADCit = ao +f31(Post)it +f32(HDD)it +f33(CDD)it +f34(Post X HDD)it +f3s(Post X CDD)it
+&(Customer Dummy)i +f37(Month)t + £it
Where,
■ i=the ith household
■ t=the first, second,third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
■ ADCit =Average daily usage for reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
■ HDDit = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
■ CDDit =Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
■ Postit = A dummy variable indicating pre- or post-period designation during period t at
home i
Measurement and Evaluation Report 21

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ Customer Dummyi = a customer-specific dummy variable isolating individual household
effects
■ £it = Customer-level random error
■ ao=The model intercept for home i
■ F'1_6 = Coefficients determined via regression
The results of the treatment-only regression models are gross savings estimates.The gross savings
estimates are useful to compare against the net savings estimates. However, the treatment-only models
are unable to separate the effects of the COVID19 pandemic.The post-period for PY2022 and perhaps
also PY2022 are affected by the stay-at-home orders that had taken effect starting March 2021 in Idaho.
The stay-at-home orders most likely affect the post-period household usage. Because there is
insufficient post-period data before the shelter-in-place orders,the Evaluators were unable to separate
the effects on consumption due to the orders and the effects on consumption due to the measure
installation.Therefore,the results from this additional gross savings analysis are unable to reflect actual
typical year savings. However, for planning purposes,these estimates may be useful.
2.2.4 Net-To-Gross
The Northwest RTF UES measures do not require NTG adjustments as they are built into the deemed
savings estimates. In addition, billing analyses with counterfactual control groups, as proposed in our
impact methodology, does not require a NTG adjustment, as the counterfactual represents the
efficiency level at current market (i.e. the efficiency level the customer would have installed had they
not participated in the program).
2.2.5 Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators used the Regional Technical Forum (RTF)to quantify non-energy benefits (NEBs)for
residential measures with established RTF values where available. Measures with quantified NEBs
include residential insulation, high efficiency windows, air source heat pumps, and ductless heat pumps.
In addition to the residential NEBs, the Evaluators applied the end-use non-energy benefit and health
and human safety non-energy benefit to the Low-Income Program.The Evaluators understand that the
two major non-energy benefits referenced above are uniquely applicable to the Low-Income Program.
The Evaluators applied those benefits to the program impacts as well as additional non-energy benefits
associated with individual measures included in the program.The Evaluators incorporated additional
NEBs to the impact evaluation, as applicable. Additional details on the non-energy benefits applied can
be found in Section 2.2.5.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 22

Avista Idaho PY2022
3. Residential Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Avista's Residential portfolio to verify program-level
and measure-level energy savings for PY2022. The following sections summarize findings for each
electric impact evaluation in the Residential Portfolio in the Idaho service territory. The Evaluators used
data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms,Avista TRM, RTF, and
billing analysis of participants and nonparticipants to evaluate savings. This approach provided the
strongest estimate of achieved savings practical for each program, given its delivery method, magnitude
of savings, number of participants, and availability of data. Table 3-1 summarizes the Residential verified
impact savings by program.
Table 3-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Verified Verified
Wrograrn Savings(k Savings
!!r (kWh) Rate
o.
Water Heat 28,290 27,769 98.16/
HVAC 560,952 517,702 92.29%
Shell 205,907 137,338 66.70%
Fuel Efficiency 326,625 326,625 100.00%
ENERGY STAR Homes 62,909 55,400 88.06%
Small Home&MF 24,785 18,754 75.66%
Weatherization
Appliances 50,079 32,467 64.83%
Multifamily Direct Install 16,701 17,478 104.65%
Total Res 1,276,249 1,133,532 88.82%
In PY2022, Avista completed and provided incentives for residential electric measures in Idaho and
reported total electric energy savings of 1,133,532 kWh. All programs except the Fuel Efficiency Program
and Appliances Program met or exceeded savings goals based on reported savings, leading to an overall
achievement of 88.82% of the expected savings for the residential programs. Further details of the
impact evaluation results by program are provided in the sections following.
3.1 Simple Verification Results
The Evaluators surveyed 755 unique customers that participated in Avista's residential energy efficiency
program in October 2022 and March 2023 using an email survey approach.
Customers with a valid email were sent the survey via an email invitation. The Evaluators surveyed
customers that received rebates for the Water Heat, HVAC, Small Home & MF Weatherization, and
Appliances Programs.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 23

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-2:Summary of Survey Response Rate
RespondentsPopulation
Initial email contact list 3,116
Invalid or bounced 134
Invalid or bounced email(%) 4.30%
Invitations sent(unique valid) 2,982
Completions 755
Response rate(%) 25.30%
3.1.1 In-Service Rates
The Evaluators calculated in-service rates of installed measures from simple verification surveys
deployed to program participants for the Water Heat, HVAC, Fuel Efficiency, Small Home & MF
Weatherization, and Appliances Programs.The Evaluators asked participants if the rebated equipment is
currently installed and working, in addition to questions about the new equipment fuel type. The
Evaluators achieved ±6.76% precision across the programs surveyed for the electric measures in Avista's
service territory, summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3:Simple Verification Precision by Program
Precision at •0
.. .
Residential Water Heat 23 0 N/A
Residential HVAC 311 50 90%±10.67%
Residential Fuel Efficiency 40 4 90%±39.51%
Residential Small Home&MF 22 3 90%±45.17%
Weatherization
Residential Appliances 326 66 90%±9.06%
Total 1,413 196 90%±6.76%
As previously stated, the Evaluators contacted all customers in the Water Heat Program, Fuel Efficiency
Program, and Small Home & MF Weatherization Program with the goal of reaching 90/10 precision,
however, all efforts were exhausted to reach these customers and therefore these programs do not
display 90/10 precision at the program-level for in-service rate calculations. For programs in which this
goal was not met, the Evaluators either assigned mixed-state (Idaho and Washington) in-service rates is
precision meets the 90/10 goals, or assumed in-service rates of 100% if the mixed-state responses did
not meet the 90/10 goals. The state-level (Idaho) and mixed state-level (Idaho and Washington)
measure-level ISRs determined from the verification survey for each program in which simple
verification was conducted is presented in Table 3-4, Table 3-5, and Table 3-6.
Table 3-4: Water Heat Program ISRs by Measure
Methodology_F_ Mixed State- Mixed
Measure State-level State- level State- ISR
Respondents
Respondents
ISR
E Heat Pump Water Heater* 0 100% 7 100% 1 Assume 100%ISR
*Due to lack of 90/10 precision,this ISR is instead assumed to be 100%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 24

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-5:HVAC Program ISRs by Measure
RespondentsPFF__ Mixed State- Mixed
State-level State- I State-
Measure level I ISR
... .gy
Resents IS
pond
ISR
NEDuct less Heat Pump with Existing 11 100% 26 100% State-specific ISR
Forced Air Furnace
E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump 20 100% 37 100% State-specific ISR
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 3 100% 3 100% State-specific ISR
E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric 5 100% 21 100% State-specific ISR
Heat
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install with 11 100% 31 100% State-specific ISR
Electric Heat
Table 3-6:Fuel Efficiency Program ISRs by Measure
MethodologyMixed Mixed
Measure State-level State- State-level State-level ISR
Respondents .
ISR
ts
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace* 3 100% 3 100% Assume 100%ISR
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace& 1 100% 1 100% Assume 100%ISR
Water Heat*
*Due to lack of 90/10 precision,this ISR is instead assumed to be 100%
Table 3-7:Small Home& MF Weatherization Program ISRs by Measure
MethodologyState-level State- Mixed State- Mixed
Measure Respondents level ISR level State-level ISR
Respondents
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY* 1 100% 1 100% Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Wall Insulation With a
0 N/A 0 N/A Assume 100/ISR
Electric Heat*
E Multifamily Window Replc With o
0 N/A 6 N/A Assume 100%ISR
Electric Heat*
E Multifamily Ductless Heat Pump 0 N/A 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Replac Existing Baseboard*
E Multifamily Attic Insulation With o
1 N/A 1 N/A Assume 100%ISR
Electric Heat*
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated 1 100% 2 100% Assume 100%ISR
Insulated Door With El Heat*
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat Paid 0 N/A 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
install*
E Multifamily Air Source Heat Pump 0 100% 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
replac existing baseboard*
E Multifamily Heat Pump Water 0 N/A 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Heater*
E Multifamily WIFI Thermostat with 0 N/A 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Baseboard Electric Heat*
*Due to lack of 90/10 precision,this ISR is instead assumed to be 100%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 25

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-8:Appliance Program ISRs by Measure
MethodologyState-level State- Mixed State- Mixed
Measure Respondents level ISR level State-level ISR
Respondents
E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator 28 100% 759
74 100% State-specific ISR
and Refrigerator-Freeze
E Energy Star Certified Upright Freezer 5 F100% 13 100% State-specific ISR
E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 18 100% 100% State-specific ISR
E Energy Star Rated Front Load 14 100% 45 100% State-specific ISR
Washer
E Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer* 0 N/A 0 N/A Assume 100%ISR
*Due to lack of 90/10 precision,this ISR is instead assumed to be 100%
These ISR values were utilized in the desk reviews for each of the measures listed above in order to
calculate verified savings.Additional insights from the survey responses are summarized in Appendix B.
3.2 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Residential sector in the section below.
3.2.1 Water Heat Program
The Water Heat Program encourages customers to replace their existing electric or natural gas water
heater with high efficiency equipment. Customers receive incentives after installation and after
submitting a completed rebate form.Table 3-9 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-9: Water Heat Program Measures
Impact
MethodologyMeasure Description Analysis
E Heat Pump Water Heater Electric water heater(0.94 EF or higher) RTF UES
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Water Heat Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-10 Water Heat Program Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
E Heat Pump Water Heater 1 23 28,290 28,279 27,769 98.16%
Total 1 23 28,290 1 28,279 27,769 98.16%
The Water Heat Program displayed verified savings of 27,769 kWh with a realization rate of 98.16%
against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 3-11 Water Heat Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive
Costs
E Heat Pump Water Heater $4,945.00
Total $4,945.00
Measurement and Evaluation Report 26

Avista Idaho PY2022
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Water Heat Program in the section below.
3.2.1.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Water Heat Program.
3.2.1.2 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Water Heat
Program.The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 2.2.2.2.
The Evaluators found all Water Heat Program rebates to have completed rebate applications with the
associated water heater model number and efficiency values filled in either the Customer Care & Billing
(CC&B)web rebate data or mail-in rebate applications.
The Evaluators note that the CC&B web rebate data consistently reflected the same values found in the
mail-in rebate applications, invoices, and AHRI certification documents submitted with the rebate
application. However,the Evaluators found some water heaters to have storage tanks larger than 50
gallons.This information is crucial to assigning correct savings values for the rebate.The Evaluators
recommend that Avista incorporate the storage tank size into rebate application forms.
In addition,the majority of rebates were accompanied with AHRI certification. In order to acquire
accurate equipment efficiencies and tank sizes, AHRI certifications are required to be submitted with the
rebate application, with an invoice that matches the model number found in the AHRI certification.The
Evaluators were able to easily verify each sampled rebate's equipment due to inclusion of these
documents.
The Evaluators found all sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency
requirements for the Water Heat Program.
3.2.1.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure.The Evaluators included questions such as:
■ Was this water heater a new construction, or did it replace another water heater?
■ Was the previous water heater functional?
■ Is the newly installed water heater still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
Water Heat Program.
Table 3-12 displays the ISRs for each of the Water Heat measures for Idaho and Washington territory
combined.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 27

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-12: Water Heat Verification Survey ISR Results
Program-LevelNumber of Number of
Rebates Survey Precision at •0 , In-Service Rate
Completes Confidence
E Heat Pump Water Heater 128 7 90%±26.54%% 100%
Although the Evaluators contacted all participants for this program, response rates did not meet the
90/10 precision goal for the program when considering participant responses in both Idaho and
Washington combined.Therefore,the Evaluators assumed 100% in-service rate for this measure.
However, of the participants who did respond, all survey respondents for each water heater measure
described equipment to be currently functioning, supporting the 100% in-service rate assumption for
this measure.The Evaluators applied these ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each
measure.
3.2.1.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Water Heat Program.The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for the E Heat Pump Water Heater measure using the RTF workbook in place
at the time the savings goal for the program was finalized The UES value associated with this measure
was applied to a random sample of participants,with verification of project documents such as rebate
applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.2.1.5 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators did not conduct a billing analysis for the electric measures in the Water Heat Program.
3.2.1.6 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values for the E Heat Pump Water Heater
measure along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure.The verified
savings for the program is 27,769 kWh with a realization rate of 98.16%, as displayed in Table 3-10.
The realization rate for the electric savings in the Water Heat Program deviate from 100%due to the
Avista TRM prescriptive savings value.The Avista TRM assigns a combination of the values the RTF
assigns for Tier 2 and Tier 3 heat pump water heaters. However, among document verification,the
Evaluators found a majority of water heaters to be Tier 3 or higher,which the RTF UES assigns a higher
savings value.
In addition,the Avista TRM assigns the savings values for water heaters of any size. During document
review,the Evaluators found most of the water heaters to have a storage tank under 55 gallons, which
has a higher savings value in the RTF than water heaters with unknown tank sizes. However, some
storage tanks were verified to be 80 gallons, which carry a larger savings value in the RTF than storage
tanks with 50 or 55 gallons.The Evaluators applied the RTF UES value for the associated tank size and
tier found for each model number in the sampled rebates.These changes led to the high realization rate
for the E Heat Pump Water Heater measure in the Water Heat Program.The ISRs for each of the
measures in the Water Heat Program was 100%and therefore did not affect the verified savings
realization rates.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 28

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.2 HVAC Program
The HVAC program encourages installation of high efficiency HVAC equipment and smart thermostats
through customer incentives.The program is available to residential electric or natural gas customers
with a winter heating season usage of 4,000 or more kWh, or at least 160 Therms of space heating in the
prior year. Existing or new construction homes are eligible to participate in the program.Table 3-9
summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-13:HVAC Program Measures
MethodologyMeasure Description Impact Analysis
E Ductless Heat Pump with Electric forced air furnace replacement RTF UES
Existing Forced Air Furnace with ductless heat pump
E Electric To Air Source Heat Electric forced air furnace replacement RTF UES
Pump with air source heat pump
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump Electric forced air furnace replacement RTF UES
with ductless heat pump
E Smart Thermostat DIY with Self-installed connected thermostats in RTF UES
Electric Heat electrically heated home
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install Professionally installed connected RTF UES
with Electric Heat thermostats in electrically heated home
E Variable Speed Motor
Variable speed motor in electrically N/A-
heated home
*No E Variable Speed Motor projects were completed in PY2022
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the HVAC Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-14:HVAC Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Realization
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) Rate
E Ductless Heat Pump with 48 127,714 129,480 121,655 95.26%
Existing Forced Air Furnace
E Electric To Air Source Heat 96 296,640 296,664 277,211 93.45%
Pump
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 63 57,204 57,204 56,663 99.05%
E Smart Thermostat DIY with
38 29,960 28,443 21,904 73.11%
Electric Heat
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install 66 49,434 49,401 40,269 81.46%
with Electric Heat
Total 311 560,952 561,192 517,702 92.29%
The HVAC Program displayed verified savings of 517,702 kWh with a realization rate of 92.29%against
the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated
with the program.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 29

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-15:HVAC Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Costs
E Ductless Heat Pump with Existing Forced Air
$24,000.00
Furnace
E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump $95,500.00
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump $31,000.00
E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat $4,712.40
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Electric Heat $9,900.00
Total $165,112.40
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the HVAC Program in the section below.
3.2.2.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the HVAC Program.
3.2.2.2 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the HVAC
Program.The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in in Section 2.2.2.2.
The Evaluators found all HVAC Program rebates to have project documentation with the associated
HVAC model number and efficiency values in either the CC&B web rebate data or mail-in rebate
applications. The majority of project files contained associated AHRI certifications for the installed
equipment.This allowed the Evaluators to easily verify equipment specifications to assign savings values
to each sampled project.
The Evaluators note that not all rebate applications contained existing/new construction field and single
family home/manufactured home fields.This field is an input to apply correct RTF UES values.The
Evaluators recommend requiring this field be completed in rebate applications, both mail-in and web-
based.
The Evaluators verified smart thermostat model specifications through the ENERGY STAR database and
to verify if thermostat met all conditions required from the RTF measure specifications.The Evaluators
verified that 4 of the 24 sampled thermostats did not meet RTF measure specifications due to lack of
occupancy detection and/or geofencing capabilities, a specification required by the RTF. The remaining
smart thermostats were verified to qualify for RTF measure savings.
The Evaluators found all other sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency
requirements for the HVAC Program.
3.2.2.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure described in Section 2.2.2.3.The Evaluators included questions such as:
■ What type of thermostat did this thermostat replace?
Measurement and Evaluation Report 30

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ Is your home heating with electricity, natural gas, or another fuel?
■ Was the previous equipment functional?
Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
HVAC Program.The responses to these additional questions can be found in Appendix B.
Table 3-16 displays the ISRs for each of the HVAC measures for Idaho electric territory only.The ISRs
resulted in 6.93% precision at the 90%confidence interval for the program.
Table 3-16:HVAC Verification Survey ISR Results
Number Number of Precision In-Service
Measure of Survey at 90% Rate
CompletesRebates .
E Ductless Heat Pump with Existing Forced Air 112 26 100%
Furnace
E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump 173 37 90% 100%
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 113 3 ±6.93% 100%
E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat 144 21 100%
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Electric Heat 178 31 100%
The majority of survey respondents described equipment to be currently functioning, leading to a 100%
ISR for the ductless heat pump and above 90% ISR for all remaining measures.The Evaluators applied
the ISRs listed in Table 3-16 to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each measure.
3.2.2.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the HVAC Program.The Evaluators attempted to
conduct a billing analysis for the HVAC measures, but participation was insufficient to complete verified
savings using this methodology.Therefore, the Evaluators calculated verified savings for the HVAC
measures using the RTF workbook in place at the time the savings goal for the program was finalized.
These UES values were applied to a random sample of participants, with verification of project
documents such as rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.2.2.5 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators did not conduct a billing analysis for the electric measures in the HVAC Program.
3.2.2.6 Verified Savings
The HVAC Program in total displays a realization rate of 92.29%with 517,702 kWh verified electric
energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-14. The realization rate for the
electric savings in the HVAC Program deviate from 100%due to the differences between the applied
Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the true Avista TRM or appropriate RTF UES value.
The Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate net
program adjusted savings. In addition,the Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values
for the electric measures along with verified tracking data to estimate net program verified savings for
this measure. For the HVAC measures such as ductless heat pumps and air source heat pumps, RTF
Measurement and Evaluation Report 31

Avista Idaho PY2022
savings are dependent on housing type (single family/multifamily/manufactured housing). The
Evaluators verified home type when applying RTF values to each sampled project, which led to higher or
lower savings than expected, depending on housing type.
The smart thermostat measures realization rates are low because the Avista TRM uses an average of
retail and direct install savings values as well as an average across heating types, while the Evaluators
assigned the appropriate RTF UES value for each installation type and heating zone. appropriate
categories in the RTF led to a lower-than-expected savings for the direct install and retail rebates for this
measure. In addition, 4 of the 23 total smart thermostat measures were verified to lack requirements in
the RTF, and therefore savings for those 4 smart thermostats were removed.The Measure-level ISRs
were also applied to these savings values, which did not affect the realization rate, as ISRs displayed
were 100%for all measures in the HVAC program.
3.2.3 Shell Program
The Shell Program provides incentives to customers for improving the integrity of the home's envelope
with upgrades to windows and storm windows. Rebates are issued after the measure has been installed
for insulation and window measures. Participating homes must have electric or natural gas heating and
itemized invoices including measure details such as insulation levels, window values, and square
footage. In order to be eligible for incentive, the single-family households, including fourplex or less,
must demonstrate an annual electricity usage of at least 8,000 kWh or an annual gas usage of at least
340 Therms. Multifamily homes have no usage requirement. This program includes free manufactured
home duct sealing implemented by UCONS. Table 3-9 summarizes the measures offered under this
program.
Table 3-17:Shell Program Measures
Measure Description Methodology
E Attic Insulation with Electric Heat Attic insulation for homes heated with electricity RTF UES
E Floor Insulation with Electric Heat Floor insulation for homes heated with RTF UES
electricity
E Energy Star Certified Insulated ENERGY STAR-certified door replacement in RTF UES
Door homes heated with electricity
E Storm Window with Electric Heat High-efficiency storm window replacement for RTF UES
homes heated with electricity
E Wall Insulation with Electric Heat Wall insulation for homes heated with electricity RTF UES
E Window Replc from Double Pane High-efficiency double pane window RTF UES
W Electric Heat replacement for homes heated with electricity
E Window Replc from Single Pane W High-efficiency single pane window replacement RTF UES
Electric Heat for homes heated with electricity
The following table summarizes the adjusted and verified electric energy savings for the Shell Program
impact evaluation.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 32

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-18:Shell Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Realization
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) Rate
E Attic Insulation with Electric Heat 22 50,840 38,760 28,489 56%
E Energy Star Certified Insulated Door 8 7,272 9,090 12,119 167%
E Floor Insulation with Electric Heat 1 500 500 455 91%
E Wall Insulation with Electric Heat 4 9,964 7,473 7,387 74%
E Window Replc from Double Pane W 2 1,925 1,903 1,541 80%
Electric Heat
E Window Replc from Single Pane W 82 135,406 133,824 87,346 65%
Electric Heat
Total 119 205,907 191,550 137,338 66.70%
The Shell Program displayed verified savings of 137,338 kWh with a realization rate of 66.70%against
the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated
with the program.
Table 3-19:Shell Program Incentive Costs by Measure
E Attic Insulation with Electric Heat $19,065.00
E Energy Star Certified Insulated Door $1,500.00
E Floor Insulation with Electric Heat $375.00
E Wall Insulation with Electric Heat $3,736.50
E Window Replc from Double Pane W $692.00
Electric Heat
E Window Replc from Single Pane W $48,663.40
Electric Heat
Total $74,031.90
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Shell Program in the section below.
3.2.3.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Shell Program.
3.2.3.2 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Shell
Program.The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.2.
The Evaluators reviewed each measure number of units, square footage, and insulation where available.
The Evaluators found three instances of the 31 single pane window replacement measures in which
square footage quantity in the rebate application did not match the values presented in the project
data. The Evaluators also found some cases where the quantity in the tracking data differed slightly from
the documentation reviewed, leading to additional deviations from a 100% realization rate.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 33

Avista Idaho PY2022
The Evaluators found that for one sampled measure, the quantity of the Energy Star insulated door
measures in the project tracking data did not match the rebate data.The Evaluators also found one case
in which the tracking data and rebate documentation showed that a sample customer had two Energy
Star doors installed but the savings value only accounted for one customer.These factors lead to a
realization rate above 100%for the Energy Star doors measures as highlighted in Table 3-18.
The Evaluators used the Avista TRM to determine adjusted savings and RTF UES values for verified
savings.The Evaluators found that verified attic and wall insulation savings were less than expected
savings primarily due to the differences between the categories applied in the Avista TRM prescriptive
savings values and the more detailed categories present with unique RTF UES values associated with
heating type, R-values and climate zone.The expected savings also appeared to use a value of 2 kwh per
square foot while Avista's TRM uses 1.5 kwh per square foot. Both of these factors lead to a low
realization rate for attic and wall insulation measures.The Evaluators also found that the granularity in
RTF UES values by households characteristics also lead to a lower realization rate for double and single
pane window replacement.The Evaluators recommend that Avista ensure that the latest RTF UES values
are used to calculate expected savings and that Avista incorporate more granularity from the RTF into
Avista's TRM.
The Evaluators imputed home type (single family home vs. manufactured home) and space heating type
for several sampled rebates, as the tracking database did not contain values for these accounts, and
rebate applications were not available to draw values from.This allows the Evaluators to accurately
assign RTF values.The mail-in rebates collect this information; however, it does not seem to be required
to complete the rebate and therefore many rebates are missing this information.The Evaluators
recommend verifying home type and space heating type during rebate application approval in order to
apply correct savings values to each project.
The Evaluators found no duplicate rebates in the project data and therefore did not remove any rebates
from verified savings.
3.2.3.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators conducted verification surveys for Energy Star doors in Shell Program and found an in-
service rate of 100%.The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for other measures in shell
since weatherization measures historically have high verification rates.
3.2.3.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Shell Program.The Evaluators calculated
verified savings for the electric measures using the RTF workbook in place at the time the savings goals
for the program was finalized.The Evaluators calculated adjusted savings for each measure using the
active Avista TRM values and verified tracking data.These UES values were applied to a random sample
of participants, with verification of project documents such as rebate applications to verify installation,
quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.2.3.5 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators did not conduct a billing analysis for the electric Shell measures, as the RTF provides valid
UES savings for all measures incented through the program.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 34

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.3.6 Verified Savings
The Shell Program in total displays a realization rate of 66.70%with 137,338 kWh verified electric energy
savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-18.The realization rate for the electric
savings in the Shell Program deviate from 100% primarily due to the differences between the categories
applied in the Avista TRM prescriptive savings values and the more detailed categories present with
unique RTF UES values associated with heating type and climate zone. For Single and Double Pane
Window Replacement, wall insulation, and attic insulation, the Avista TRM values are lower than the
values observed for Idaho's climate zone in the RTF UES values.The Evaluators recommend adjusting
the Avista TRM values to more closely align with the RTF UES values making particular adjustments
based on the observed participation within each heating type category. In addition, small changes to
verified quantity led to variation in realization rate for each measure type.
3.2.4 Fuel Efficiency Program
The Residential Fuel Efficiency Program encourages customers to consider converting their resistive
electric space and water heating equipment to natural gas.This program is offered to residential
customers in the Idaho service territory. Customers must use Avista electricity for electric straight-
resistance heating or water heating in order to qualify for the rebate, which is verified by evaluating
their energy use. The home's electric baseboard or furnace heat consumption must indicate at least
8,000 kWh during the previous heating season. Customers receive incentives after installation and after
submitting a completed rebate form.Table 3-9 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-20:Fuel Efficiency Program Measures
MethodologyMeasure Description Impact Analysis
Electric central ducted forced
E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump air furnace to air source heat RTF UES
pump(9.0 HFSP or greater)
Electric baseboard or forced air
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace furnace heat to natural gas RTF UES
forced air furnace
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace&Water Heat Electric to natural gas furnace RTF UES
and water heat combo
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Fuel Efficiency Program
impact evaluation.
Table 3-21:Fuel Efficiency Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2022
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Realization
Rate
E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump* 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 27 199,368 199,368 199,368 100.00%
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace& 13 127,257 127,257 127,257 100.00%
Water Heat
Total 40 326,625 326,625 326,625 100.00%
*The E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump measure had 0 rebates completed in PY2022
Measurement and Evaluation Report 35

Avista Idaho PY2022
The Fuel Efficiency Program displayed verified savings of 326,625 kWh with a realization rate of 100.00%
against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 3-22:Fuel Efficiency Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Incentive
Costs
E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump* N/A
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace $56,150.00
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace&Water Heat $37,050.00
Total $93,200.00
*The E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump measure had 0 rebates completed in PY2022
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Fuel Efficiency Program in the section below.
3.2.4.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Fuel Efficiency Program.
3.2.4.2 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Fuel
Efficiency Program.The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify
tracking data inputs, summarized in in Section 2.2.2.2.
The Evaluators found all Fuel Efficiency Program rebates to have project documentation with the
associated HVAC model number and efficiency values in either the CC&B web rebate data or mail-in
rebate applications.The majority of project files contained associated AHRI certifications for the
installed equipment.This allowed the Evaluators to easily verify equipment specifications to assign
savings values to each sampled project.
The Evaluators found the CC&B data does not contain manufacturer information.The Evaluators
recommend this as an input in the CC&B data. The E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace &Water Heat
measure CC&B data does not detail both the furnace and the water heater model number and
manufacturer details. Instead, it contains only the furnace or only the water heater equipment, but not
both.The Evaluators recommend collecting both equipment manufacturer, model number, and
efficiency for the combination measures.
The Evaluators found all sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency
requirements for the Fuel Efficiency Program.
3.2.4.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure, as described in Section 2.2.2.3.The Evaluators included questions such as:
■ Is your home heating with electricity, natural gas, or another fuel?
■ Was the previous equipment functional?
Measurement and Evaluation Report 36

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate in-service rates (ISRs) for the measures
offered in the Fuel Efficiency Program.The responses to these additional questions can be found in
Appendix B.
Table 3-12 displays the ISRs for each of the Fuel Efficiency measures for Idaho territory.The ISRs did not
meet 10% precision at the 90%confidence interval for the program.
Table 3-23:Fuel Efficiency Verification Survey ISR Results
Number Number of Precision In-Service
Measure of Survey at 90% Rate
Rebates Completes Confidence
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 27 3 100%
±16.7
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace&Water Heat 13 1 1 1 100%
Although the Evaluators contacted all participants for this program, response rates did not meet the
90/10 precision goal for the program.Therefore,the Evaluators assumed 100% in-service rate for this
measure. However, of the participants who did respond, all survey respondents for each furnace water
heater combination measure described equipment to be currently functioning, supporting the 100% in-
service rate assumption for this measure.
3.2.4.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Fuel Efficiency Program.The Evaluators
attempted to conduct a billing analysis for the Fuel Efficiency Program measures, but participation was
insufficient to complete verified savings using this methodology.The Evaluators calculated verified
savings for the gas measures using the active Avista TRM values.These UES values were applied to a
random sample of participants, with verification of project documents such as rebate applications to
verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
The following sections summarize the results of the billing analysis and the desk review,with a summary
of the verified savings for the Fuel Efficiency Program.
3.2.4.5 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators did not conduct a billing analysis for the measures in the Fuel Efficiency Program, as
there were insufficient participants.Table 3-24 displays customer counts for customers considered for
billing analysis (i.e. customer with single-measure installations) and identifies measures that met the
requirements for a billing analysis.
Table 3-24:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Fuel Efficiency Program
Measure Number of Sufficient
Measure Considered for Customers w/ Participation
Billing Analysis Isolated-Measure for Billing
Installations Analysis
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace ✓ 50
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace& ✓ 34
Water Heat
Measurement and Evaluation Report 37

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.4.6 Verified Savings
The Fuel Efficiency Program in total displays a realization rate of 100.00%with 326,625 kWh verified
electric energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-14.The Evaluators reviewed
the Avista TRIM values along with verified tracking data to estimate net program adjusted savings for
measures not evaluated through billing analysis. In addition,the Evaluators reviewed and applied the
current Avista TRIM values for the electric measures along with verified tracking data to estimate net
program verified savings for this measure.
The realization rate for the electric savings in the Fuel Efficiency Program does not deviate from 100%.
The applied Avista TRIM prescriptive savings value and the verified savings aligned in the tracking data.
3.2.5 ENERGY STAR® Homes Program
The ENERGY STAR° Homes Program provides rebates for homes within Avista's service territory that
attain an ENERGY STAR' certification.This program incentivizes ENERGY STAR° Eco-rated homes. Table
3-25 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-25: ENERGY STAR°Homes Program Measures
MethodologyImpact Analysis
Description
E ENERGY STAR Home- ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured RTF UES
Manufactured, Furnace home with electric furnace
G ENERGY STAR Home- ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured RTF UES
Manufactured, Natural Gas home with natural gas heating
G ENERGY STAR Home- ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured RTF UES
Manufactured,Gas& Electric home with gas and electric
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the ENERGY STAR° Homes
Program impact evaluation.
Table 3-26: ENERGYSTAR°Homes Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified -.
Participation Savings Savings Savings
E Energy Star Home-Manufactured, 15 49,725 49,725 55,303 111.22%
Furnace
E Energy Star Home-Manufactured, 4 13,184 13,260 97 0.74%
Gas&Electric
Total 19 62,909 62,985 55,400 88.06%
The ENERGY STAR® Homes Program displayed verified savings of 55,400 kWh with a realization rate of
88.06%against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive
costs associated with the program.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 38

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-27:ENERGY STAR'Homes Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Incentive
Costs
E Energy Star Home-Manufactured, Furnace $15,000.00
E Energy Star Home-Manufactured,Gas&Electric $4,000.00
Total $19,000.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the ENERGY STAR' Homes Program in the section below.
3.2.5.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program.
3.2.5.2 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the ENERGY
STAR' Homes Program.The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify
tracking data inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.2.
The Evaluators found no significant or notable discrepancies in the project data and rebate
documentation for the rebates in the Idaho electric service territory.
3.2.5.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the ENERGY STAR° Homes Program.
3.2.5.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the ENERGY STAR° Homes Program.The
Evaluators calculated verified savings for the electric measures using the RTF workbook in place at the
time the savings goal for the program was finalized.These RTF UES values were applied to a random
sample of participants, with verification of project documents such as rebate applications to verify
installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.2.5.5 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate adjusted
program savings for each of the ENERGY STAR' Homes measures. In addition,the Evaluators reviewed
and applied the current RTF UES values for each measure along with verified tracking data to estimate
net program savings.
The ENERGY STAR' Homes Program in total displays a realization rate of 88.06%with 55,400 kWh
verified electric energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-26.The realization
rate for the electric savings in the ENERGY STAR' Homes Program deviate from 100%due to the
categorical differences between the applied Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the more detailed
RTF UES categories.
The Avista TRM applies RTF savings values from heating zone 2 to all rebates. In addition,the Avista TRM
does not take into account cooling zone, which also affects savings assigned in the RTF.The Evaluators
Measurement and Evaluation Report 39

Avista Idaho PY2022
applied the appropriate RTF savings values for the heating zone and cooling zone for each rebated
household.This change led to low realization rates for some rebates and high realization rates for others
within the same Avista E ENERGY STAR° Home—Manufactured Furnace measure category.The overall
effect this change had on the measure is an upward adjustment on savings.
The realization for the E ENERGY STAR° Home—Manufactured, Gas & Electric measure is low because
the expected savings employed an additive methodology between a gas-heated home and an electric-
heated home for the electric savings. However,the Evaluators reviewed the RTF and determined
manufactured home with dual fuel and primary natural gas heating would be closer to the savings a fully
gas heated home would save.The Evaluators verified that all dual fuel homes had natural gas as the
primary heating type.Therefore,the Evaluators assigned electric savings from the RTF associated with a
fully natural gas-heated home at 43 kWh saved per year rather than the fully electric value that Avista
applied.
The Evaluators did not conduct a verification survey for the ENERGY STAR' Homes Program and
therefore did not adjust verified savings with an ISR.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 40

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.6 Small Home & MF Weatherization Program
The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program is a residential prescriptive program that waives the
energy usage requirement that is typically employed for residential prescriptive programs. This benefits
small homes (less than 1,000 square feet in size) and multifamily dwellings (specifically customers in
condominiums larger than five units in size). While this program is designed for all customers, it could
also benefit members of Named Communities who reside in smaller homes.
This section summarizes the impact results of the evaluation results for the Small Home & MF
Weatherization Program.Table 3-28 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-28:Small Home& MF Weatherization Program Measures
ImpactJF
Methodologyr Measure Description Analysis
E Multifamily Ductless Heat Pump Conversion from electric baseboard with
Replac Existing Baseboard high efficiency ductless heat pump in RTF UES
multifamily home
E Multifamily Heat Pump Water Install high efficiency heat pump water RTF UES
Heater heater in multifamily home
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY Connected thermostat for multifamily RTF UES
homes with electric heat,self-installed
E Multifamily WIFI Thermostat with Connected thermostat for multifamily RTF UES
Baseboard Electric Heat homes with electric heat
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated Install ENERGY STAR-certified door in RTF UES
Insulated Door With El Heat multifamily home
E Multifamily Wall Insulation With Wall insulation for multifamily homes with RTF UES
Electric Heat electric heat
E Multifamily Attic Insulation With Attic insulation for multifamily homes with RTF UES
Electric Heat electric heat
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat Paid Connected thermostat for multifamily
install homes with electric heat, contractor- RTF UES
installed
E Multifamily Air Source Heat Pump Conversion to air source heat pump from RTF UES
replac existing baseboard electric baseboard for multifamily home
E Multifamily Floor Insulation With Floor insulation for multifamily homes RTF UES
Electric Heat with electric heat
E Multifamily Window Replc With Window replacement for multifamily RTF UES
Electric Heat homes with electric heat
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Small Home & MF
Weatherization impact evaluation.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 41

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-29:Small Home& MF Weatherization Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2022
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
E Multifamily Smart 2 1,399 1,300 939 67.12%
Thermostat DIY
E Multifamily Wall Insulation 1 870 871 1,037 119.12%
With Electric Heat
E Multifamily Window Replc 10 12,634 5,621 8,913 70.55%
With Electric Heat
E Multifamily Ductless Heat
Pump Replac Existing 1 908 1,300 856 94.27%
Baseboard
E Multifamily Attic Insulation 4 3,978 581 2,494 62.71%
With Electric Heat
E Multifamily Energy Star
Rated Insulated Door With El 1 606 4 529 87.35%
Heat _
E Multifamily Smart 2 1,300 1,300 1,143 87.92%
Thermostat Paid install
E Multifamily Air Source Heat
Pump replac existing 1 3,090 3,090 2,842 91.97%
baseboard
Total 22 24,785 14,067 18,754 75.66%
The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed verified savings of 18,754 kWh with a
realization rate of 75.66%against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes
the incentive and non-incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 3-30:Small Home& MF Weatherization Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Costs
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY $250.00
E Multifamily Wall Insulation With Electric Heat $240.00
E Multifamily Window Replc With Electric Heat $4,540.56
E Multifamily Ductless Heat Pump Replac Existing Baseboard $500.00
E Multifamily Attic Insulation With Electric Heat $1,687.50
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated Insulated Door With El Heat $100.00
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat Paid install $300.00
E Multifamily Air Source Heat Pump replac existing
baseboard
$1,000.00
Total $8,618.06
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for Small Home & MF Weatherization Program in the section below.
3.2.6.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 42

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.6.2 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Small Home
& MF Weatherization Program.The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-
verify tracking data inputs, summarized in in Section 2.2.2.2.
The rebate application form sufficiently collects all required RTF measure specification details. All rebate
applications and tracking data contain smart thermostat manufacturer and model number.The
Evaluators were able to verify the models for RTF specifications for connected thermostats.
The Evaluators found that many projects exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista -that a home
is single family with less than 1,000 SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units).The Evaluators
recommend claiming projects on single family homes that are larger than 1,000 SQFT into the Shell
Program.
In addition,the Evaluators note that the current program rebate applications do not provide an option
to indicate "Multifamily" home type. Rather,the current rebate application includes an option for
"Single family", "Manufactured", "New construction", and "Other".The Evaluators recommend
including an option for"Multifamily" in order to consistently apply RTF savings for each of the measures.
The Evaluators reviewed each measure number of units, square footage, and insulation where available.
The Evaluators found no instances in which square footage quantity in the rebate application does not
match the values presented in the project data attic insulation.The Evaluators also note that Avista
consistently verified square footage and R-values with customers when information was unclear.The
tracked quantity and U-values were then documented in the tracking database consistently.
Although quantity in the CC&B database were consistent,the Avista TRM savings values differed from
verified RTF LIES values for each of the projects.The majority of projects displayed realization rates
larger than 100%due to differences in home type.The Evaluators verified home type via Zillow to apply
correct RTF workbook savings from the single family, multifamily, and manufactured home RTF
workbooks.These adjustments led to high realization rates for the overall program.
The Evaluators imputed home type (single family home vs. manufactured home vs. multifamily home)
and space heating type for a number of sampled rebates, as the tracking database did not contain values
for these accounts, and rebate applications were not available to draw values from.This allows the
Evaluators to accurately assign RTF values.The mail-in rebates collect this information; however, it does
not seem to be required to complete the rebate and therefore many rebates are missing this
information. The Evaluators recommend verifying home type and space heating type during rebate
application approval in order to apply correct savings values to each project.
The realization rate for the E Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY is low because one of the two
thermostats were verified to lack RTF qualification due to lack of occupancy sensor or geolocation
capabilities.The realization rate for the E Multifamily Energy Star Rated Insulated Door With El Heat is
low because the RTF LIES is 75%the magnitude of the Avista TRM value.
The Evaluators found no duplicate rebates in the project data and therefore did not remove any rebates
from verified savings.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 43

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.6.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure described in Section 2.2.2.3.The Evaluators included questions such as:
What type of thermostat did this thermostat replace?
Is your home heating with electricity, natural gas, or another fuel?
Was the previous equipment functional?
Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
Small Home & MF Weatherization Program. The responses to these additional questions can be found in
Appendix B.
Table 3-16 displays the ISRs for each of the Small Home & MF Weatherization measures for Idaho and
Washington electric territory combined.The ISRs resulted in 45.17% precision at the 90%confidence
interval for the program.
Table 3-31:Small Home& MF Weatherization Program Verification Survey ISR Results
FNumber Number of Precision
Measure of Survey at 90% In-Service Rate
Rebates Completes Confidenc
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY 2 1 Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Wall Insulation With Electric Heat 1 0 Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Window Replc With Electric Heat 10 0 Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Ductless Heat Pump Replac Existing 1 0 Assume 100%ISR
Baseboard
E Multifamily Attic Insulation With Electric Heat 4 1 Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated Insulated Door 1 1 90% Assume 100%ISR
With El Heat ±45.17%
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat Paid install 2 0 Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Air Source Heat Pump replac o
existing baseboard 1 0 Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Heat Pump Water Heater N/A N/A Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily WIFI Thermostat with Baseboard N/A N/A Assume 100%ISR
Electric Heat
Although the Evaluators contacted all participants for this program, response rates did not meet the
90/10 precision goal for the program.Therefore,the Evaluators assumed 100% in-service rate for this
measure. However, of the participants who did respond, all survey respondents for each smart
thermostat measure described equipment to be currently functioning, supporting the 100% in-service
rate assumption for this measure. The Evaluators applied these ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified
savings for each measure.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 44

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.6.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program.
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for the electric measures using the RTF workbook in place at
the time the savings goal for the program was finalized.
3.2.6.5 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate net
adjusted program savings for those measures. Final verified savings were estimated using the RTF UES
values associated with each measure. The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed 75.66%
realization with 18,754 kWh saved, as displayed in Table 3-29.
Although quantity in the CC&B database were consistent,the Avista TRM savings values differed from
verified RTF UES values for each of the projects.The majority of projects displayed realization rates that
differ from 100%due to differences in home type for all measures and verified U-values for windows
measures. In addition,the updated weatherization workbook for single family homes has significantly
lower savings than the updated weatherization workbook for multifamily homes.The Evaluators verified
home type via Zillow to apply correct RTF workbook savings from the single family, multifamily, and
manufactured home RTF workbooks. These adjustments led to high and low realization rates across
each measure.The Evaluators recommend Avista verify home type prior to applying Avista TRM values,
and to create a separate single family and a separate multifamily windows measure and savings value to
apply in the Avista database, mimicking the RTF values, in order to ensure proper categorization of
measure savings.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 45

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.7 Multifamily Direct Install Program
The Multifamily Direct Install Program (MFDI) Program is administered by SBW Consulting, Inc (SBW).
This program provides direct installation and audits for customers to install direct install measures and
identify additional energy efficiency opportunities.This program is available to customers who receive
electric service from Avista and have a five-unit or more multifamily property. The program also serves
hard-to-reach customer segment as well as Avista's low- and limited-income population. Table 3-28
summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-32: Multifamily Direct Install Program Measures
Impact
7 Measure Ik Description Analysis
Methodology
Screw-in LED lamps Efficient LED lighting of various types SBW TRM
Kitchen/bathroom faucet aerators 1 gallon per minute faucet aerator SBW TRM
Vending miser Controls for vending machines SBW TRM
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Multifamily Direct Install
Program impact evaluation.
Table 3-33: Multifamily Direct Install Verified Electric Savings
Expected Verified Verified
Measure Participation Savings Savings Realization
Screw-in LED lamp(A-line 748 3,988 4,834 121.23%
60W)
Screw-in LED lamp(3.8) 127 3,305 3,266 98.82%
Screw-in LED lamp(G25) 25 628 597 95.06%
Faucet aerator(1 GPM) 132 5,544 5,544 100.00%
Kitchen Aerator 83 3,237 3,237 100.00%
Total 1,115 16,701 17,478 104.65%
The Multifamily Direct Install Program displayed verified savings of 17,478 kWh with a realization rate of
104.65%against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive
costs associated with the program.
Table 3-34: Multifamily Direct Install Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Costs
Screw-in LED lamp(A-line 60W) $12,716.00
Screw-in LED lamp(3.8) $2,667.00
Screw-in LED lamp(G25) $425.00
Faucet aerator(1 GPM) $1,056.00
Kitchen Aerator $664.00
Total $17,528.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for Multifamily Direct Install Program in the section below.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 46

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.7.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Multifamily Direct Install Program.
3.2.7.2 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Multifamily
Direct Install Program.This involved verifying direct install models,wattages, and measure
specifications.There were no further project-level documents to verify other than tracking data
provided.
The Evaluators found no duplicate rebates in the project data and therefore did not remove any rebates
from verified savings.
3.2.7.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not select a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure. Instead,the Evaluators interviewed a subset of multifamily property managers.The
Evaluators included questions such as:
■ What type of equipment did the measure replace?
■ Is your facility's space heated with electricity or natural gas?
■ Was the previous equipment functional?
■ Is the newly installed equipment still installed and properly functioning?
The responses to this interviews were used to assess in-service rates offered in the Multifamily Direct
Install Program. However,the Evaluators note that the SBW measure-level savings technical reference
manual included assumed in-service rates within the savings calculations.
3.2.7.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Multifamily Direct Install Program.The
Evaluators calculated verified savings for the electric measures using the SBW savings document.
3.2.7.5 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed the SBW savings values along with verified tracking data to estimate net
adjusted program savings for those measures. Final verified savings were estimated using the SBW UES
values associated with each measure. The Multifamily Direct Install Program displayed 104.65%
realization with 17,478 kWh saved, as displayed in Table 3-29.
The program verified savings resulted in a realization rate of above 100% largely due to low expected
savings for the A-line 60W LEDs.The SBW document measure-level UES did not align with tracking data
values.The Evaluators were unable to identify the cause of this discrepancy.
3.2.8 Appliances Program
The Appliances Program is residential prescriptive program that offers incentives for customers to
upgrade their existing clothes washers and dryers to ENERGY STAR-rated clothes dryers and washers.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 47

Avista Idaho PY2022
This section summarizes the impact results of the evaluation results for the Appliances Program. Table
3-28 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-35:Appliances Program Measures
Impact
MethodologyMeasure Description Analysis
E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator ENERGY STAR-certified refrigerator or RTF UES
and Refrigerator-Freeze refrigerator-freezer for residential homes
E Energy Star Certified Upright ENERGY STAR-certified standard or RTF UES
Freezer compact freezer for residential homes
E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer ENERGY STAR-certified clothes dryer for RTF UES
residential homes
E Energy Star Rated Front Load ENERGY STAR-certified clothes washer for RTF UES
Washer residential homes
E Energy Star Rated Top Load ENERGY STAR-certified clothes washer for RTF UES
Washer residential homes
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Appliances Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-36:Appliances Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2022
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
E Energy Star Certified
Refrigerator and 151 18,724 18,724 1,572 8.39%
Refrigerator-Freeze
E Energy Star Certified o
Upright Freezer 31 2,077 2,077 549 26.44/0
E Energy Star Rated Clothes 75 21,750 21,728 22,002 101.16/
Dryer
E Energy Star Rated Front 62 7,346 7,440 8,345 113.59/
Load Washer
E Energy Star Rated Top Load 7 182 182 0 0.00%
Washer
Total 326 50,079 50,151 32,467 64.83%
The Appliances Program displayed verified savings of 32,467 kWh with a realization rate of 64.83%
against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 3-37:Appliances Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive
Costs
E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator and
Refrigerator-Freeze $15,100.00
E Energy Star Certified Upright Freezer $1,550.00
E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer $3,750.00
E Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer $3,100.00
E Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer $350.00
Total $23,850.00
Measurement and Evaluation Report 48

Avista Idaho PY2022
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for Appliances Program in the section below.
3.2.8.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Appliances Program.
3.2.8.2 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Appliances
Program.The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in in Section 2.2.2.2.
The rebate application form sufficiently collects all required RTF measure specification details.All rebate
applications and tracking data contain AHRI documentation or model numbers to verify model
specifications.The Evaluators were able to verify the models for RTF specifications for the majority of
projects.
The Evaluators verified each model specification with values provided by ENERGY STAR qualified product
lists.The Evaluators found that 1 of the 30 sampled clothes washer projects did not qualify due to
minimum volume requirements specified by the RTF.All other sampled projects qualified for RTF
savings.
The Evaluators found no duplicate rebates in the project data and therefore did not remove any rebates
from verified savings.
3.2.8.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure described in Section 2.2.2.3.The Evaluators included questions such as:
■ What type of clothes washer/dryer did this equipment replace?
■ Is your home heating's water heated with electricity or natural gas?
■ Was the previous equipment functional?
Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
Appliances Program.The responses to these additional questions can be found in Appendix B.
Table 3-16 displays the ISRs for each of the Appliances measures for Idaho electric territory only.The
ISRs resulted in ±9.06% precision at the 90%confidence interval for the program.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 49

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-38:Appliances Program Verification Survey ISR Results
Number Number of Precision In-Service
Measure of Survey at 90% Rate
CompletesRebates .
E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator and 151 28 100%
Refrigerator-Freeze
E Energy Star Certified Upright Freezer 31 5 90% 100%
E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 75 18 ±9.06/o 0 100%
E Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer 62 14 100%
E Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer 7 0 Assume
100%ISR
All survey respondents described equipment to be currently functioning, leading to a 100% ISR for each
measure. For the E Energy Star Rate Top Load Washer, since there were no respondents,the Evaluators
assumed a 100% in-service rate for this measure.The Evaluators applied the ISRs listed in Table 3-16 to
each rebate to quantify verified savings for each measure.
3.2.8.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Appliances Program.The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for the electric measures using the RTF workbook in place at the time the
savings goal for the program was finalized.
3.2.8.5 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate net
adjusted program savings for those measures. Final verified savings were estimated using the RTF UES
values associated with each measure. The Appliances Program displayed 64.83% realization with 32,467
kWh saved, as displayed in Table 3-29.
The program verified savings resulted in a realization rate of less than 100% largely due to low savings
attributed to E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer and E Energy Star Certified
Upright Freezer projects.All fridge-freezer projects were verified to be ENERGY STAR-qualified, but not
ENERGY STAR Most Efficient (ESME).The low realization rate for the fridge-freezer measure is due to the
difference in RTF savings value between ENERGY STAR fridge-freezers (about 45kWh/year) and ESME
fridge-freezers (about 126 kWh). Avista TRM references the Standard Size Refrigerator and Refrigerator-
Freezer-Side-mounted Freezer- ESME at 124 kWh/year savings, but the Evaluators found that no
rebated fridges met this requirement, and therefore lower RTF savings were applied. In addition, one
fridge-freezer rebate was not ENERGY STAR rated.
Similarly, for the upright freezer measure, all projects were verified to be ENERGY STAR-qualified, but
not ESME-qualified.The low realization rate is due to the difference in Avista TRM and RTF savings
values.The RTF assigns ENERGY STAR fridges 26kWh/unit, while ESME freezers are assigned 67
kWh/unit.The Avista TRM references the Standard Size Freezer- Upright—ESME savings at 67
kWh/year savings. However, because the Evaluators found that no freezers met the ESME qualifications,
the lower ENERGY STAR savings values were applied to each project.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 50

Avista Idaho PY2022
Finally,the Evaluators attributed 0 kWh/unit savings to the E Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer
because the referenced RTF clothes washer workbook estimates that savings for this measure is
negative and therefore there is no proven RTF savings for this measure.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 51

Avista Idaho PY2022
4. Low-Income Impact Evaluation Results
The Low-Income Program delivers energy efficiency measures to low-income residential customers in its
Idaho service territory with a partnership with five network Community Action Agencies ("Agencies")
and one tribal weatherization organization.The Agencies qualify income to prioritize and treat
households based on several characteristics. In-house or contract crews install approved program
measures. In addition,the Agencies have access to other monetary resources which allow them to
weatherize a home or install additional energy efficiency measures.
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Avista's Low-Income portfolio to verify program-level
and measure-level energy savings for PY2022.The following sections summarize findings for each
electric impact evaluation in the Low-Income Portfolio in the Idaho service territory.The Evaluators used
data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms,Avista TRM, and RTF
values to evaluate verified savings.This approach provided the strongest estimate of achieved savings
practical for each program, given its delivery method, magnitude of savings, number of participants, and
availability of data.
Table 4-1:Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Verified Verified
Program Savings(kWh) Savings Realization
L (kWh) Rate
Low-Income 87,986 85,639 97.33%
Total Low-Income 87,986F 85,639 97.33%
In PY2022,Avista completed and provided incentives for low-income electric measures in Idaho and
achieved total electric energy savings of 85,639 kWh.The Low-Income sector had achieved 97.33%of
the savings expectations. Further details of the impact evaluation results by program are provided in the
sections following.
4.1 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Low-Income sector in the section below.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 52

Avista Idaho PY2022
4.1.1 Low-Income Program
The Low-Income Program delivers energy efficiency measures to low-income residential customers in its
Idaho service territory with a partnership with five network Community Action Agencies ("Agencies")
and one tribal weatherization organization. The Agencies qualify income to prioritize and treat
households based on several characteristics. In-house or contract crews install approved program
measures. In addition, the Agencies have access to other monetary resources which allow them to
weatherize a home or install additional energy efficiency measures.
Avista provides CAP agencies with the following approved measure list, which are reimbursed in full by
Avista. Avista also provides a rebate list of additional energy saving measures the CAP agencies are able
to utilize which are partially reimbursed. The following table summarizes the measures offered under
this program.
Table 4-2 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 4-2: Low-Income Program Measures
MethodologyMeasurL� Impact Analysis
Air Infiltration
Air source heat pump
Attic insulation
Duct insulation
Duct sealing
Electric to air source heat pump
Electric to ductless heat pump
ENERGY STAR®door
ENERGY STAR® refrigerator
Avista TRM
ENERGY STAR®window
Floor insulation
Heat pump water heater
LED lighting
Wall insulation
High efficiency furnace
High efficiency tankless natural
gas water heater
Natural gas boiler
Table 4-3 summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Low-Income Program impact
evaluation.
Table 4-3:Low-Income Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2022 -Mx-pected Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
E Air Infiltration 12 6,935 6,706 6,706 96.69%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 53

Avista Idaho PY2022
PY2022
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
E Duct Sealing 2 963 707 707 73.45%
E Ductless Heat Pump 1 3,016 3,016 3,016 100.01%
E Energy Star Doors 3 516 519 519 100.69%
E Energy Star Windows 9 4,953 4,560 4,560 92.07%
E INS-Attic 2 1,097 823 823 75.02%
E INS-Duct 3 632 535 535 84.66%
E INS-Floor 4 3,964 3,595 3,595 90.70%
E To G Furnace Conversion 4 13,092 13,092 13,092 100.00%
E To Heat Pump Conversion 13 51,990 51,989 51,989 100.00%
Health And Safety 10 - - - N/A
LED Bulbs 16 829 96 96 11.58%
Total 79 87,986 85,639 85,639 97.33%
The Low-Income Program displayed verified savings of 85,639 kWh with a realization rate of 97.33%
against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 4-4:Low-Income Program Incentive Costs by Measure
E Air Infiltration $14,894.30
E Duct Sealing $339.58
E Ductless Heat Pump $10,140.00
E Energy Star Doors $2,540.98
E Energy Star Windows $23,793.21
E INS-Attic $3,287.00
E INS-Duct $898.99
E INS-Floor $9,569.63
E To G Furnace Conversion $50,959.20
E To Heat Pump Conversion $142,535.41
Health And Safety $41,670.36
LED Bulbs $324.16
Total $300,952.82
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for Low-Income Program in the section below.
4.1.1.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Low-Income Program.
4.1.1.2 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Low-Income
Program.The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 2.2.2.2.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 54

Avista Idaho PY2022
During review,the Evaluators found that all the requested project information clearly outlined measure
details and calculations. In addition,the Evaluators found database quantity information to be
consistent with documents verified.
However,the Evaluators found some instances in which 20%savings cap was not applied to all measures
found to be installed in a household, leading to low realization rates for one of the projects in the
program.
The Evaluators found the LED bulbs unit-level savings were inaccurately referenced. Avista TRM specifies
1 kWh per bulb, while expected savings uses 9 kWh savings per bulb, leading to 11% realization for LED
bulb projects under the program.The Evaluators recommend updating database calculations to use
Avista TRM values during expected savings calculations.
These few instances of downward adjustment led to a realization rate of 97%for the Low-Income
Program.
4.1.1.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the Low-Income Program.
4.1.1.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Low-Income Program.The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for Low-Income Program measures using the Avista TRM. However, a whole
building billing analysis was completed to supplement the findings from the desk review.
4.1.1.5 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the Low-Income Program are provided below.
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level Low-Income Program energy savings through
billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score matching.The
Evaluators attempted to isolate each unique measure. In doing so,the Evaluators also isolate the
measure effects using the customer's consumption billing data. However, participation for the Low-
Income program resulted in a small number of customers with isolated measures and therefore the
Evaluators were unable to estimate measure-level savings through billing analysis.
The Evaluators instead conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the electric measures combined
in order to estimate savings for the average household participating in the program, across all measures.
The Evaluators successfully created a matched cohort for the electric measure households. Customers
were matched based on average pre-period seasonal usage, including summer, fall, winter, and spring
for each control and treatment household.The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control
customers to draw upon.The Evaluators used propensity score matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio.
Therefore, each treatment customer was matched to 5 similar control customers.
Table 4-5 provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as the
final model for the Low-Income Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the
regression models. However, savings for this model are not statistically significant at the 90% level,
indicated by the lower 90%confidence bound at 0 Therms saved per year.The customers considered for
Measurement and Evaluation Report 55

Avista Idaho PY2022
billing analysis include customers in both Washington and Idaho service territories to gather the
maximum number of customers possible for precise savings estimates.
Table 4-5: Measure Savings, Low-Income Program
Control Annual Savings ,0 .0, Adjusted
Customers per Customer Lower Upper 111-
M (kWh) cl Cl Squared
..
All Electric Measures 36 466 363.26* 0.00 1235.33 0.74 Model 2: PPR
*Not statistically significant
Due to lack of statistical significance from the billing analysis results,The Evaluators did not apply these
regression savings estimates to the program. Instead, the Evaluators estimated savings through the
program by applying Avista TRM values to verified quantities. Further details of the billing analysis can
be found in Appendix A.
4.1.1.6 Verified Savings
Due to insufficient participation to conduct measure-level billing analyses,the Evaluators reviewed the
Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for those measures.
Adjusted savings were estimated using the Avista TRM.The Low-Income Program in total displays a
realization rate of 97.33%with 85,639 kWh verified electric energy savings in the Idaho service territory,
as displayed in Table 4-3. Due to requirements for measure-level verified savings for cost-effectiveness
testing,the Evaluators designated the adjusted savings as final.
The Evaluators note that most deviations from 100% realization rate at measure level are due to the
inaccurate reference to LED bulbs unit-level savings in Avista's TRM and some were also due to the fact
that the 20%savings cap was not applied to all measures found to be installed in a household.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 56

Avista Idaho PY2022
5. Non-Residential Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Avista's Non-Residential portfolio to verify program-
level and measure-level energy savings for PY2022.The following sections summarize findings for each
electric impact evaluation in the Non-Residential Portfolio in the Idaho service territory. The Evaluators
used data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms, Avista TRM, RTF,
IPMVP, supplemental sources and billing analysis of participants to evaluate savings. This approach
provided the strongest estimate of achieved savings practical for each program, given its delivery
method, magnitude of savings, number of participants, and availability of data.Table 5-1 summarizes
the Non-Residential verified impact savings by program.
Table 5-1:Non-Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Program Savings(kWh) Savings(kWh) Savings(kWh) Realization
Rate
Lighting 6,416,259 6,416,206 6,416,285 100.00%
HVAC 14,308 14,308 14,308 100.00%
Food Service Equipment 10,532 10,532 10,537 100.05%
Grocer 36,468 36,468 36,468 100.00%
Shell 4,490 4,490 4,490 100.00%
Green Motors 9,822 9,822 9,822 100.00%
Site-Specific 6,920,802 7,176,491 7,216,254 104.27%
Total Non-Residential: 13,412,681 13,668,317 13,708,164 102.20%
In PY2022, Avista completed and provided incentives for non-residential electric measures in Idaho and
achieved a total electric energy savings of 13,708,164 kWh. All programs exceeded savings claims based
on reported savings, leading to an overall achievement of 102.20% of the expected savings for the non-
residential programs.
5.1 Verification Results
5.1.1 Database & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analyses, the Evaluators conducted a database review for all prescriptive
programs. The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in Document-Based Verification in Section 2.2.2.2.
The Evaluators requested rebate documentation for a subset of participating customers. These
documents included invoices, rebate applications, pictures, AHRI certificates and DLC screenshots and
similar types of documents for the following programs:
Lighting
HVAC (VFD) Program
Food Service Equipment Program
Grocer Program
Measurement and Evaluation Report 57

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ Shell Program
■ Green Motors Program
This sample of documents was used to cross-verify tracking data inputs. In the case the Evaluators found
any deviations between the tracking data and application values,the Evaluators reported and
summarized those differences in the appropriate report chapters.
The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieves a sampling precision of±10% at 90%statistical
confidence—or"90/10 precision"—for document verification.
Table 5-2 displays program populations, sample sizes for document verification and resulting precision.
Table 5-2: Prescriptive Program Verification Precision
Population Sampled Precision
(Projects) (Projects)
Lighting 473 70 ±9.08%
HVAC 4 4 ±0%
Food Service Equipment 2 2 ±0%
Grocer 4 4 ±0%
Shell 1 1 ±0%
Green Motors 2 2 ±0%
5.1.2 Survey and On-Site Verification
Unlike Residential measures, non-residential measures typically have a 100%installation rate or a deemed
in-service rate (ISR) included in RTF and Avista TRM UES. The two exceptions to this are Prescriptive
Lighting measures and customs projects,such as those in the Site-Specific programs. Verification for these
programs was addressed in two ways:
5.1.2.1 Prescriptive Lighting Verification
To access Prescriptive Lighting ISRs the Evaluators conducted a survey of program participants. A total
of 472 projects included a contact email, of which 74 were unique. Customers with a valid email were
sent the survey via an email invitation,followed a week later by a follow-up reminder to those who had
not responded.
The Evaluators asked participants if the rebated equipment is currently installed and working, in
addition to questions about HVAC configurations.The Evaluators achieved ±58.10% precision across the
Prescriptive Lighting Program in Avista's WA service territory, summarized in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3:Survey Verification
Population Respondents =
. ,.
472 2 100% ±58.10%
All respondents reported that their rebated equipment was currently installed and operating.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 58

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.1.2.2 Site-Specific Verification
For the Site-Specific program, the Evaluators conducted 9 on-site visits to verify full installation and
equipment operation as described in the project scope. This is discussed further in the Site-Specific
chapter.
Table 5-4: On-Site Verification
On-Site
•0
Program Population Visits Cl(by claimed
I savings)
Site-Specific 31 9 ±9.35%"
5.2 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Non-Residential sector in the section below.
8 Sampling precision based on sample stratified by kWh. Multiple projects occurred at several sites,necessitating only a single visit for multiple
sampled projects.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 59

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.1.3 Prescriptive Lighting Program
This program is intended to prompt commercial electric customers to increase the energy efficiency of
their lighting equipment through direct financial incentives. It indirectly supports the infrastructure and
inventory necessary to ensure that the installation of high-efficiency equipment is a viable option for
customers.
In an effort to streamline the process and make it easier for customers and vendors to participate in the
program, Avista developed a prescriptive approach for commercial/industrial customers in 2004.This
program provides for many common retrofits to receive a pre-determined incentive amount.The
Prescriptive Lighting program makes it easier for customers—especially smaller customers and vendors
—to participate in the program.
The measures included in the Prescriptive Lighting program include retrofits from fluorescent lamps and
fixtures, HID, directional, and incandescent can fixtures to more energy-efficient LED light sources and
controls.
The Prescriptive Lighting Program accounts for the largest share of non-residential expected savings, or
roughly 50.5%of the expected non-residential portfolio.
Table 5-5 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 5-5:Prescriptive Lighting Program Measures
Location Measure Savings
Source
LED tubes
LED U-Bend
LED W reduction
Interior LED Down lamps/Directional
Linear LED Fixtures
HID LED fixtures/lamps Prescriptive
Calculations
Occupancy Sensors
LLLC Fixtures
Exterior HID LED fixtures/lamps
Sign Lighting
New Construction HID LED fixtures
Prescriptive Lighting Program impact evaluation by measure, and then are summarized in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6:Interior Prescriptive Lighting Program Verified Electric Savings
Number
Measure of claimed kWh adjusted kWh � verified kWh kWh RR
Projects
1000 watt HID Fixture to 400 watt or less LED Fixture 5 195,128 195,128 195,128 100.00%
1000 watt HID Fixture to 400 watt or less LED Fixture 11 333,235 333,235 333,235 100.00%
or Retrofit(Ext)
150 watt HID Fixture to 50 watt or less LED Fixture or 16 77,272 77,272 77,272 100.00%
Retrofit(Ext)
Measurement and Evaluation Report 60

Avista Idaho PY2022
175 watt HID Fixture to 100 watt or less LED Fixture 2 1,987 1,987 1,987 100.00%
(Ext, NC)
175 watt HID Fixture to 100 watt or less LED Fixture 32 81,986 81,986 81,986 100.00%
or Retrofit(Ext)
2,3,4-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to LED Qualified 2x4 44 241,199 241,199 241,199 100.00%
Fixture
20-50 watt MR16 to MR16 LED 2-9 watt 1 4,586 4,586 4,586 100.00%
250 watt HID Fixture to 140 watt or less LED Fixture 2 3,072 3,072 3,072 100.00%
(Ext, NC)
250 watt HID Fixture to 140 watt or less LED Fixture 39 280,494 280,494 280,494 100.00%
or Retrofit(Ext)
250-watt HID Fixture to 140-watt or less LED Fixture 15 94,638 94,638 94,638 100.00%
2-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to LED Qualified 1x4 Fixture 9 5,762 5,762 5,762 100.00%
2-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to LED Qualified 2x2 Fixture 14 21,552 21,552 21,552 100.00%
320 and 400 watt HID Fixture to 160 or less watt LED 4 12,273 12,273 12,273 100.00%
Fixture(Ext, NC)
320 watt HID Fixture to 160 watt or less LED Fixture 9 191,532 191,532 191,532 100.00%
or Retrofit(Ext)
400 watt HID Fixture to 175 watt or less LED Fixture 33 642,007 642,007 642,007 100.00%
400 watt HID Fixture to 175 watt or less LED Fixture 73 683,718 683,718 683,718 100.00%
or Retrofit(Ext)
70-89 watt HID Fixture to 25 watt or less LED Fixture 14 48,531 48,531 48,531 100.00%
or Retrofit(Ext)
750 watt HID Fixture to 300 watt or less LED Fixture 1 9,370 9,370 9,370 100.00%
or Retrofit(Ext)
75-100 watt Incandescent Can to less than 20 watt 15 71,946 71,946 71,946 100.00%
LED Fixture Retrofit
90-100 watt HID Fixture to 30 watt or less LED Fixture 18 71,034 71,034 71,034 100.00%
or Retrofit(Ext)
DLC Qualified LLLC Fixture 9 91,033 91,033 91,033 100.00%
Four Pin Base CFL to 17 watt or less Plug in LED 38 151,790 151,790 151,790 100.00%
Occupancy sensors built-in relays 5 5,429 5,350 5,429 100.00%
Sign Lighting 53 130,510 130,539 130,539 100.02%
T12/T8(2') Lamp to 1-Lamp less than 13 watt T8 TLED 16 11,127 11,127 11,127 100.00%
T12/T8(3') Lamp to 1-Lamp less than 17 watt T8 TLED 8 3,582 3,582 3,582 100.00%
T12/T8(4') Lamp to 1-Lamp less than 23 watt T8 TLED 275 2,174,671 2,174,671 2,174,671 100.00%
T12/T8 8' Fixture to 90 watt or less 8' LED fixture 14 113,461 113,460 113,460 100.00%
T12/T8 Eight-Foot to LED 20 49,071 49,071 49,071 100.00%
T12/T8 U-Bend to less than 23 watt T8 LED 10 5,023 5,023 5,023 100.00%
T5 Lamp to 1-Lamp less than 18 watt T5 TLED 4 48,409 48,409 48,409 100.00%
T5HO(4')4-Lamp to 135 watt of less LED Fixture 7 41,570 41,570 41,570 100.00%
T5HO(4')6-Lamp to 160 watt of less LED Fixture 14 175,778 175,777 175,777 100.00%
T5HO Lamp to 1-Lamp less than 29 watt T51-10 TLED 35 343,484 343,484 343,484 100.00%
Total 865 6,416,259 6,416,206 6,416,285 100.00%
The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 61

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 5-7:Prescriptive Lighting Program Incentives
Measure Total Electric
Measure Count Incentives
Lighting 54,527 1 $1,422,500.93
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Prescriptive Lighting Program in the section below.
5.1.3.1 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Prescriptive
Lighting Program.The Evaluators review all rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 5.1.1. Data points checked between project applications and program tacking
counts, wattages/DLCs sheets, hours of operation and measure cost values. Below,Table 5-8 shows the
project population, the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Table 5-8:Prescriptive Lighting Program Verification Precision
Population
. .
473 70 ±9.08%
Below,Table 5-9 shows the count of discrepancies found between program tracking and project-level
data.
Table 5-9:Prescriptive Lighting Program Verification Findings
Count Correction Location Hours Wattage
11 Correction Correction Correction
0 5 10 5
No corrections to discrepancies resulted in appreciable changes to verified savings.
5.1.3.2 Impact Analysis
The Evaluators calculated verified savings by using a standard engineering algorithm:
Wfixt(i)tre
N X Wfixt(i)
kWhl
savings = ([Nf ixt(i) X 1000 [ fixt(i) 1000 ]— post X AOH X ISR
Where:
Nfixt(i), pre= Pre-retrofit number of fixtures of type i
Nfixt(i), post= Post-retrofit number of fixtures of type i
Wfixt(i), pre= Rated wattage of pre-retrofit fixtures of type i (Standard Wattage Table developed from
RTF materials)
Wfixt(i), post= Rated wattage of post-retrofit fixtures of type i (Varies).Self-reported.
AOH =Annual operating hours for specified space type(Varies).Self-reported.
ISR=The In-Service Rate,or storage rate(94.8%,weighted average based on type)Obtained from RTF
Midstream Lighting v4.1
Measurement and Evaluation Report 62

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.1.3.3 Verified Savings
The verified savings for the program is 6,416,285 kWh with a realization rate of 100.00%, as displayed in
Table 5-6. Expected savings calculations did not incorporate in-service rates into calculations.These
were included in verified savings calculations, resulting in lower verified savings.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 63

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.1.4 Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program
The Prescriptive HVAC Variable Frequency Drive Program is intended to prompt customers to increase
the energy efficiency of their HVAC fan or pump applications with a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD)
retrofit. Adding a VFD to HVAC systems is an effective tool for cutting operating costs, improving overall
system performance, and reducing wear and tear on motors.The prescriptive rebate approach issues
payment to the customer after the measure has been installed. Commercial customers who use Avista
electricity and apply the VFD to the eligible fan or pump measures are eligible for this program.
The Prescriptive HVAC Variable Frequency Drive Retrofit Program is offered for retrofitting VFDs on
existing HVAC equipment. Customers must submit a completed rebate form, invoices, and
documentation to verify the horsepower of the motor on which the VFD was installed within 90 days of
installation.This program is promoted by trade allies,Avista account executives,the Avista website, and
Avista marketing efforts.The website is also used to communicate program requirements, incentives,
and forms.
Table 3-9 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 5-10:Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Measures
MethodologyMeasure Impact Analysis
HVAC Cooling Pump Avista TRM UES
HVAC Fan Avista TRM UES
HVAC Heating Pump or Combo Avista TRM UES
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Prescriptive HVAC VFD
Program impact evaluation.
Table 5-11:Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Verified Electric Savings
Measure Participation
(Projects) Savings Savings Savings Rate
VFD on Supply Fan or Supply Air Handler 4 14,308 14,308 14,308 100.0%
Total 4 14,308 14,308 14,308 100.0%
The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-12:Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Incentives
Measure Total
Count Electric
I Incentives
VFDs on HVAC Systems 14 1 $2,800.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program in the section below.
5.1.4.1 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Prescriptive
HVAC VFD Program.The Evaluators review all rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 5.1.1. Verification of project documents included data points such as quantity,
Measurement and Evaluation Report 64

Avista Idaho PY2022
motor horsepower, installation location and costs of the equipment. Table 5-13 shows the project
population,the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Table 5-13:Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Verification Precision
Population_111111"Im.,TO.
2 2 ±0
The Evaluators did not find any deviations between project applications and program tracking data.
The Evaluators found all rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency requirements for
the Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program.
5.1.4.2 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program.The
Evaluators calculated verified savings for VFD measures using the Avista TRM. The Evaluators attempted
to use the RTF to calculate verified savings, however found project documentation to be insufficient to
determine key characteristics necessary to assign RTF UES. A recommendation is made below to
address this. Final verified savings were calculated by applying the appropriate TRM UES to a census of
measures.
5.1.4.3 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current TRM UES values to verified tracking data to estimate
net program savings for this measure.The verified savings for the program is 14,308 kWh with a
realization rate of 100.00%, as displayed in
Measurement and Evaluation Report 65

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.1.5 Food Service Equipment Program
The Food Service Equipment Program offers incentives for commercial customers who purchase or
replace food service equipment with ENERGY STAR-qualified equipment.This prescriptive rebate
approach issues payment to the customer after the measure has been installed. Commercial customers
who use Avista electricity to operate the equipment submitted for a rebate are eligible for this program.
Customers must submit a completed rebate form and invoices within 90 days after the installation has
been completed. Avista will send incentive checks to the customers or their designees after each project
is approved.The website is also used to communicate program requirements, incentives, and forms.
Table 3-9 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 5-14:Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Measures
Measure Impact Analysis Methodology
Convection oven RTF,Convection Oven v4.2
Combination oven RTF,Commercial Cooking RTF Combination Ovens v4.2
Griddle RTF,Griddles v1.2
Rack oven RTF, Rack Ovens v1.2
Dishwasher Avista TRM, Non-Res Dishwashers(multiple)
Energy Star ice machine RTF,Commercial ENERGY START" Ice Makers v1.3
Fryer RTF,Commercial Cooking Fryer v4.2
Hot food holding cart RTF,Commercial Cooking Hot Food Cabinet v4.2
Steam cookers RTF,Commercial Cooking Steamer v4.2
Pre-rinse sprayer Avista TRM, Non-Res Pre-Rinse Sprayer(multiple)
Overwrapper RTF,On-Demand Overwrappers v1.1
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Prescriptive Food Service
Equipment Program impact evaluation.
Table 5-15:Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
TMeasure -9 Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
(Projects) I I f
Commercial Combination Oven
1 6,422 6,422 6,427 100.08%
Electric(5-14 pans)
Commercial Dishwasher High Temp 1 4,110 4,110 4,110 100.00%
Electric Hot Water
Total 2 10,532 10,532 10,537 100.05%
The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-16: Food Service Equipment Program Incentives
Measure Count Electric
Incentives
Commercial Combination Oven Electric(5-14 pans) 1 $1,000.00
Commercial Dishwasher High Temp Electric Hot Water 1 $750.00
Total 2 $1,750.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities and
results for the Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program in the section below.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 66

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.1.5.1 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Prescriptive
Food Service Equipment Program.The Evaluators review all rebate applications to cross-verify tracking
data inputs, summarized in Section 5.1.1. Data points checked between project applications and
program tacking include fuel type, capacity, ENERGYSTAR° status, quantity and measure cost values.
Table 5-18 shows the project population, the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Table 5-17:Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Verification Precision
Population
2 2 ±0%
The Evaluators found all rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency requirements for
the Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program.
5.1.5.2 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Prescriptive Food Service Equipment
Program.The Evaluators calculated verified savings for the food service measures using RTF UES in place
at the time the savings goals for the program was finalized. For measures where RTF UES were not
available or unsuitable,the 2022 Avista TRM was used to verify savings. Final verified savings were
calculated by applying the appropriate UES to a census of measures.
5.1.5.3 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the appropriate UES values to verified tracking data to estimate
program savings for these measures.Verified savings for the program is 10,537 kWh with a realization
rate of 100.0%, as displayed in Table 5-15. For one measure, Combination Ovens, the Evaluators found
that claimed savings used an Avista TRM value of 6,422 kWh savings per measure. The RTF specifies
6,427 kWh for this measure, resulting in slightly higher verified savings. The Evaluators did not find any
other deviations from TRM UES.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 67

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.1.6 Grocer Program
This program offers incentives to customers who increase the energy efficiency of their refrigerated
cases and related grocery equipment. Refrigeration often represents the primary electricity expense in a
grocery store or supermarket. The prescriptive rebate approach issues payment to the customer after
the measure has been installed. Commercial customers who use Avista fuel for the measure applied for
are eligible.
Customers must submit a completed rebate form and invoice within 90 days after the installation has
been completed.This program is promoted by trade allies, Avista account executives, the Avista
website, and Avista marketing efforts.The website is also used to communicate program requirements,
incentives, and forms.
Table 5-18 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 5-18: Grocer Program Measures
MethodologyImpact Analysis
7DoorCGaskets
erator Case Lighting RTF EUS
ASH ontrols RTF EUS
Avista TRM LIES
Floating Head Pressure Controls RTF EUS
Strip Curtains RTF EUS
Walk-In ECM Controllers RTF EUS
ECMs on Evaporator Fans Avista TRM LIES
ECM Replacing Evaporator PS and PSC RTF EUS
RTF Commercial Grocery
Refrigerator Case Lighting Display Case Lighting
v1.2
ASH Controls RTF EUS
Door Gaskets RTF EUS
Floating Head Pressure Controls RTF EUS
Strip Curtains RTF EUS
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Grocer Program impact
evaluation.
Table 5-19: Grocer Program Verified Electric Savings
Participation Savings Savings Rate
(Projects) Expected Adjusted
INEVMeasure
Low Temp ECM 2 12,224 12,224 12,224 100.00%
Med Temp ECM 2 24,244 24,244 24,244 100.00%
Total 4 36,468 36,468 36,468 100.00%
The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-20: Grocer Program Incentives
Measure Total
Count Electric
I Incentives
Low Temp ECM 16 $800.00
Measurement and Evaluation Report 68

Avista Idaho PY2022
Med Temp ECM 44 $2,200.00
Total 60 $3,000.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities and
results for the Grocer Program in the section below.
5.1.6.1 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Grocer
Program.The Evaluators review all rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs, summarized
in Section 5.1.1. Data points checked between project applications and program tacking including
measure specification, quantity and measure cost values.
Table 5-21 shows the project population, the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Table 5-21: Verification Precision
Population . -.
4 4 ±0
The Evaluators found all rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency requirements for
the Grocer Program.
5.1.6.2 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Prescriptive Food Service Equipment
Program.The Evaluators calculated verified savings for the food service measures using RTF UES in place
at the time the savings goals for the program was finalized. Final verified savings were calculated by
applying the appropriate UES to a census of measures.
5.1.6.3 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the appropriate UES values to verified tracking data to estimate
program savings for these measures.The verified savings for the program is 36,438 kWh with a
realization rate of 100.00%, as displayed in Table 5-19.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 69

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.1.7 Prescriptive Shell Program
The Commercial Prescriptive Shell Program offers incentives to commercial customers who improve the
envelopes of their existing buildings by adding insulation, which may make a business more energy-
efficient and comfortable.This prescriptive rebate approach issues payment to the customer after the
measure has been installed by a licensed contractor. Commercial customers must have an annual
heating footprint for a fuel provided by Avista.
Customers must submit a completed rebate form, invoices, and an insulation certificate within 90 days
after the installation has been completed. Avista will send incentive checks to customers or their
designees after each project is approved.This program is promoted by trade allies,Avista account
executives, the Avista website, and Avista marketing efforts.The website is also used to communicate
program requirements, incentives, and forms.
Table 5-22Table 3-9 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 5-22:Prescriptive Shell Program Measures
MethodologyImpact Analysis
7Atticnsulation Avista TRM UES
nsulation Avista TRM UESnsulation Avista TRM UES
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Prescriptive Shell Program
impact evaluation.
Table 5-23:Prescriptive Shell Program Verified Electric Savings
Measure Participation Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
(Projects) Savings Savings Savings Rate
Attic=<R11 to R45+ 1 4,490 4,490 4,490 100.00%
Total 1 4,490 4,490 4,490 100.00%
The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-24:Shell Program Incentives
Total I
Measure Measure Electric
Count Incentives
Attic=< R11 to R45+ 3,230 $2,422.50
Total 3,230 $2,422.50
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities and
results for the Prescriptive Shell Program in the section below.
5.1.7.1 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Prescriptive
Shell Program.The Evaluators review all rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 5.1.1. Data points checked between project applications and program tacking
Measurement and Evaluation Report 70

Avista Idaho PY2022
include R-levels, square footage of installation, HVAC configuration and measure cost values. Below,
Table 5-25 shows the project population,the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Table 5-25:Prescriptive Shell Program Verification Precision
1 1 ±0%
The Evaluators found all rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency requirements for
the Prescriptive Shell Program.
5.1.7.2 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Prescriptive Shell Program.The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for the insulation measures using the Avista TRM, in place at the time the
savings goals for the program was finalized. Final verified savings were calculated by applying the
appropriate UES to a census of measures.
5.1.7.3 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current TRM UES values for the Attic and Wall Insulation
measures along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure.The
verified savings for the program is 4,490 kWh with a realization rate of 100.0%, as displayed Table 5-23.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 71

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.1.8 Green Motors Program
The Green Motors Program ensures quality rewinding that results in the motor maintaining its original
efficiency, which is commonly called a "green rewind."The Green Motors Practices Group (GMPG) is a
non-profit organization that identifies, promotes, and verifies only excellent member motor service
centers.These companies are committed to consistently producing repair/rewinds that retain or
improve reliability and efficiency and provide on-site motor driven systems assistance.
The incentive for this program is$1 per HP of the motor being rewound, up to$10,000 for 5,000 HP, and
is taken directly off the customer bill at the service center.There is also a $1 per HP fee paid to the
service center for participating.
Table 5-26 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 5-26: Green Motors Program Measures
Impact
Methodology
Motor Rewind (Industrial) Avista TRM 2022 UES
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Green Motors Program
impact evaluation.
Table 5-27: Green Motors Program Verified Electric Savings
Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
300 HP Ind 1 4,535 4,535 4,535 100.00%
350 HP Ind 1 5,287 5,287 5,287 100.00%
Total 2 9,822 9,822 9,822 100.00%
The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-28: Green Motors Program Incentives
Measure Total
Measure Count Electric
Incentives
300 HP Ind 300 $826.75
350 HP Ind 350 $964.35
Total 650 $1,791.10
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities and
results for the Green Motors Program in the section below.
5.1.8.1 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Green
Motors Program.The Evaluators review all rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 5.1.1. Data points checked between project applications and program tacking
including operating hours, RPM, motor horsepower and measure cost values.
Table 5-29 shows the project population, the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 72

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 5-29:Green Motors Program Verification Precision
Population_ Sampled recision
2 2 ±0%
The Evaluators found all rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency requirements for
the Green Motors Program.
5.1.8.2 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Green Motors Program.The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for motor rewinding using the Avista TRM, in place at the time the savings
goals for the program was finalized. Final verified savings were calculated by applying the appropriate
UES to a census of measures.
5.1.8.3 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current TRM UES values for all measures along with verified
tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure.The verified savings for the program is
9,822 kWh with a realization rate of 100.0%, as displayed in Table 5-27.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 73

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.1.9 Site-Specific Program
The Site-Specific Program provides calculated incentives to support the installation of qualifying energy
efficiency equipment at commercial/industrial sites.These projects typically have a higher degree of
complexity than the traditional prescriptive offerings and rely on custom calculations of savings and
incentive levels. Examples of these projects include process improvements, upgrades to specialized
equipment used in manufacturing, lighting installations that rely on specialized controls, and other
measures designed around the customer's specific needs.
Avista's Site-Specific Program is a major component in its non-residential electric offerings.The program
approach strives for a flexible response to energy efficiency projects that have demonstrable kWh
savings within program criteria.The majority of site-specific kWh savings are composed of custom
lighting projects and custom HVAC, envelope, and industrial process load projects that do not fit the
prescriptive path.The Site-Specific Program is available to all commercial/industrial retail electric
customers, and typically brings in the largest portion of savings to the overall energy efficiency portfolio.
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Site-Specific Program impact
evaluation.
Table 5-30:Site-Specific Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2022
Savings Savings Savings Realization
(kWh) (kWh) I (kWh) Rate
31 6,920,802 1 7,176,491 1 7,216,254 104.27/
The Site-Specific Program displayed verified savings of 7,216,254 kWh with a realization rate of 104.27%
against the expected savings for the program.
Table 5-31:Site-Specific Program Costs
Mar-In. Mimi M,
$1,561,656.73
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities and
results for the Site-Specific Program in the section below.
5.1.9.1 Sample Design
Unlike other non-residential programs, completing a census review of all Site-Specific projects is not
feasible. To ensure accurate verified savings estimates,the Evaluators developed a sample of
representative sites to inspect using the Stratified Random Sampling procedure detailed in 2.2.2.1.2.
This procedure provides 90%confidence and +/- 10% precision with a significantly reduced sample than
random sampling would require, by selecting the highest saving facilities with certainty,thereby
minimizing the variance that non-sampled sites can contribute to the overall results.
The participant population for the Site-Specific Program was divided into five strata.Table 5-32
summarizes the strata boundaries and sample frames for the Site-Specific Program.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 74

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 5-32:Site-Specific Program Sample Design
Descriptor
Strata boundaries(kWh) <5,000 5,001- 50,001- 400,001- >2,000,001
50,000 400,000 2,000,000
Number of projects 5 16 6 3 1 31
Total kWh savings 10,299 260,037 949,565 2,624,292 3,076,609 6,920,802
Average kWh Savings 2,060 16,252 158,261 874,764 3,076,609 223,252
Standard deviation of kWh 1,392 8,258 112,300 28,512 N/A 601,361
Coefficient of variation 0.676 0.508 0.710 0.520 0.000 0.000
Final design sample 2 4 2 3 1 12
Two of the highest-savings sites (both in the 5t"stratum) were also specifically selected for verification
and analysis. Verified sampling precision is±9.35%at 90%.
Table 5-33:Site-Specific Program Sample Summary
#Sites in Population Review Sample Size Precision
31 12 9.35%at 90%
5.1.9.2 Project Document Review and On-Site Visits
Once representative projects were selected, the Evaluators obtained all project-related documentation
for review. These documents typically included spec sheets, building characteristics, calculators,
invoices, project photos and trending data. This information allowed the Evaluators to replicate claimed
savings estimates and develop M&V plans to be used in assessing verified savings and collecting on-site
data.
Using project-specific M&V plans, the Evaluators visited sampled to verify measure installation and
operating parameters, as well as building parameters such as square footage and HVAC configurations.
The Evaluators were able to conduct visits at 10 of the 12 sampled sites.
5.1.9.3 Impact Approaches
The majority(8/14) projects were lighting projects and could be analyze using standard savings
algorithms. Below,the two equations show the algorithms used in calculating savings from lighting
projects.
kWh X Wfixt(i)tre
— N X Wfixt(i)l X AOH X IEF
savings = ([Nfixt(i) 1000 fixt(i) 1000J post
Wf ixt(i) N X Wfixt(i)
kWl
savings = ([Nfixt(i) X 1000 tre — [ fixt(i) 1000J post X CF X IEF
Where:
Nfixt(i), pre= Pre-retrofit number of fixtures of type i
Nfixt(i), post= Post-retrofit number of fixtures of type i
Wfixt(i), pre= Rated wattage of pre-retrofit fixtures of type i (Standard Wattage Table developed from
RTF materials)
Measurement and Evaluation Report 75

Avista Idaho PY2022
Wfixt(i), post= Rated wattage of post-retrofit fixtures of type i (Taken from project spec sheets)
CF= Peak demand coincidence factor(80%,for most measures)
AOH =Annual operating hours for specified space type(Varies. Collected during M&V site visits)
IEF=Site-Specific Interactive effects factor specific to building and Site-Specific configuration (developed
from RTF materials)
For non-lighting projects, specific methodology varies between IPMVP Options A-C, and is described as
needed in individual site reports, located in Appendix C: Site-Specific Program Project Reports.
5.1.9.4 Site-Level Realization
Adjusted and verified savings were developed for each sampled site. The realization rates for sites
within each stratum were then applied to the non-sampled sites within their respective stratum. Table
5-34 presents realization at the site level, with Table 5-35 presenting results at the stratum level.
Table 5-34:Site-Specific Expected,Adjusted and Verified kWh Savings by Project
Expected IkW Adjusted kWh Verified kWhJr Realization
Project ID Savings Savings Savings Rate
SSLP_81717 1,663 1,663 1,663 100.0%
SSLP 80105 4,475 4,475 4,475 100.0%
SSLP 81224 7,802 7,802 7,802 100.0%
SSLP_80312 11,925 11,925 11,925 100.0%
SSLP_80512 25,507 25,507 25,507 100.0%
SSLP_80599 29,742 29,675 29,675 99.8%
SSOP_81531 93,301 80,796 99,147 106.3%
SSLP 78714 344,924 344,924 344,924 100.0%
SSLP_79005 476,885 476,885 476,885 100.0%
SSOP 74531 776,307 793,437 793,437 102.2%
SSOP_74548 1,371,100 1,386,589 1,386,589 101.1%
SSOP_80742 3,076,609 3,327,005 3,327,005 108.1%
Total 6,220,239 6,490,683 6,509,034 104.6%
Table 5-35:Site-Specific Summary of kWh Savings by Sample Stratum
Stratum Expected kWh Adjusted IkW Verified IkW Realization
Savings Savings VF Savings Rate
1 10,299 10,298 10,298 99.99%
2 260,037 259,808 259,808 99.91%
3 949,565 922,469 962,232 101.33%
4 2,624,292 2,656,911 2,656,911 101.24%
5 3,076,609 3,327,005 3,327,005 108.14%
Total 6,920,802 7,176,491 7,216,254 104.27%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 76

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.1.9.5 Discussion of Non-100%Realization
Below are brief explanations of differences between claimed and verified savings for projects with
realization rates that are not 100%.
■ SSLP_80599-The Evaluators were unable to recreate expected savings for(14) 2L F96T12HO-E
to (21) 76W LED strips. Verified savings was calculated using actual fixture wattages, verified
lighting hours of operation and deemed HVAC interactive factors specific to the building type
and HVAC configuration (Medium Office, ID, >2006 vintage).This resulted in slightly reduced
kWh savings.
■ SSOP_81831-The Evaluators were unable to fully reconstruct all claimed savings calculations,
but it appears that HVAC interactive effects were omitted. These effects were included in
verified savings calculations, leading to a slightly high realization rate.
■ SSOP_74531-The ex-ante assumed only 1 pump was running and just used north pump data as
it was the primary pump during the monitoring period.This makes sense based on the customer
saying only one runs at a time, however,there were a few instances when the north pump
stopped, and the south pump took over and their operation overlapped briefly(which is
expected to occasionally happen). The Evaluators used the summed %amps instead of the north
pump%amps which reduced savings slightly(1%).The ex-ante also subtracted the standard
deviation of the post average power from their overall kW demand reduction which lowered the
realization rate.The Evaluators used the average kW values when calculating the kW demand
reduction.
The kWh RR was also impacted by the annual operation hours.The ex-ante assumed annual
hours of 8,500 but according to the customer on a site visit, the facility has at least one pump
running 24/7 365.The Evaluators used 8760 annual hours which increased the realization rate
by 3%.
■ SSOP_74548-The ex-ante calculations treated the new agitator as part of the project.The
evaluator didn't include the new agitator in the savings calcs since it isn't really part of a VFD
system upgrade.These changes reduced the overall savings and realization rate.
The power factors for the baseline and as-built systems were different in the ex-ante and ex
post analyses.The ex-ante used 0.772 baseline power factor based on the assumption that the
baseline motor is a DC motor controlled by a DC VFD (Ex ante source: AC vs DC Drives
Advantages of Power Factor Comparison - Mechanical Electrical Systems Inc.
(variablefrequencydrive.com)).The evaluator assumed a constant speed motor baseline with a
power factor of 0.85.The ex-ante assumed a 0.98 power factor for the post-install motors while
the evaluator used the motor nameplate power factor.These changes reduced the overall
savings and realization rate.
The final difference in calculation parameters was the annual hours of operation.The ex-ante
assumed 8,500 hours while the evaluator used 8,652 hours based on the customers' testimony
during an on-site visit.This change increased the overall savings and realization rate. The net
effect of these discrepancies was somewhat balanced, only raising the realization rate by 1%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 77

Avista Idaho PY2022
SSOP_80742-The ex ante analysis assumed 2021 levels of production while the Evaluators used
an average of the 2018 and 2021 production. Since the 2021 production was higher than 2018
production,the realization rate was high.
Additionally, ex ante calculations for all lighting projects assumed an 80%chance that lighting would
operate during times of peak demand. The Evaluators found that for multiple projects the lighting
fixtures runs continuously, so there is a 100%chance of them operating during the peak period. The
coincidence factor was adjusted from 80%to 100%for these measures.
Individual reports for each sampled site are included in Appendix C: Site-Specific Program Project
Reports.
5.1.9.6 Verified Savings
The Site-Specific Program in total displays a realization rate of 104.27%with 7,216,254 kWh verified
electric energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 5-30.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 78

Avista Idaho PY2022
6.Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results
This appendix provides additional details on the billing analyses conducted for each program.
6.1 Low-Income Program
The Evaluators conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the electric measures combined in order
to estimate savings for the average household participating in the program, across all measures. The
Evaluators successfully created a matched cohort for the electric measure households. Customers were
matched on their average pre-period seasonal usage, including summer, fall, winter, and spring for each
control and treatment household.
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon, as shown in Table
6-1. The Evaluators used propensity score matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each
treatment customer was matched to 5 similar control customers. Also shown in Table 6-1, are the
impact of various restrictions on the number of treatment and control customers that were included in
the final regression model. The "Starting Count" displays the beginning number of customers available
prior to applying the data restrictions, while the "Ending Count" displays the number of customers after
applying data restrictions and final matching.
-'=F-Table 6-1:Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program
Measure Data Restriction Treatment Control
Customers Customers
Starting Count 126 4717
Install Date Range:January 1,2022 to June 30,2022 37 4717
Whole home electric Control Group Usage Outlier(>2X max treatment usage) 37 4665
Incomplete Post-Period Bills(<6 months) 36 4400
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills(<10 months) 36 4399
Ending Count(Matched by PSM) 36 466
Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 display the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching for
the combined electric measures before and after conducting matching.
The distributions prior to matching appear to be less similar in summer, with control customers averaging
higher usage. However, after matching, the pre-period usage distribution in summer is more similar
between the groups.The remaining pre-period seasons (winter, summer,fall), closely overlap before and
after matching, indicating little differences exist on average between the groups prior to matching and
validating the initial selection of control customers.
Figure 6-1: Covariate Balance Before Matching, Low-Income Electric Measures
Measurement and Evaluation Report 79

Avista Idaho PY2022
A 0.020- B o.o3-
0.015-
y Group 5 0.02 Group
0 0.010- ❑ ccaw o n control
❑Treatment O 0.01- ❑ Treatment
0.005-
0.000- 0.00-
0 5D 'DD '50 "DO D -- 1OD 2DD
Pre-period Winter Usage Pre-period Spring Usage
Ci D 0.03-
I
I
D.02-
a Group n 0.02 Group
ncontra
n COMI
0 0.01- El Treatment O 0.01- J ❑Treatment
f
0.00- - — 0.00-
Pre-period Summer Usage Pre-period Fall Usage
Figure 6-2: Covariate Balance After Matching, Low-Income Electric Measures
A B D.Dze.
0.020-
0.010-
? Group 5 O.Ot5 Group
c Control c n Control
O.OD5- '• Treatment o'D D.010- ❑Treatment
a 0.005-
O.ODD- 0.OD0- •���
0 50 1DD 150 2DD --
Pre-period Winter Usage Pre-period Spring Usage
C.D D3-
0.020-
0 02- �' Group ,o.ot5 Group
on control o 3.010_ Control
❑Treatment 0 ❑Treatment
0.005-
DOD- O.ODD-
D 50 100 150 200 D n
Pre-period Summer Usage Pre-period Fall Usage
The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure.The t-test displayed no statistically
significant differences at the 95% level in average daily consumption between the treatment and control
groups for any month in the pre-period. In addition,the chi-squared test returned a p-value well over
0.05 for all measures, indicating that pre-period usage was balanced between the groups. Lastly,the
standardized difference test returned values were under 10 (well under the recommended cutoff of 25),
further indicating the groups were well matched on all included covariates.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 80

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 6-2 provides results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment and control groups
after matching for the Low-Income program.The P-Value is over 0.05 for each month, meaning pre-
period usage between treatment and control groups is similar at the 95%confidence level.
Table 6-2: Pre-period Usage T-test for Electric Measures, Low-Income Program
Average Daily Average Daily 1W I
Usage Usage Reject
T Statistic Std Error �'-Valu7e
(Therms) (Therms), Null?
Control Treatment r_
kJan65.47 61.29 1.06 3.95 0.29 No
Feb 62.41 57.47 1.34 3.69 0.18 No
Mar 48.80 45.07 1.30 2.88 0.20 No
Apr 37.87 35.37 1.11 2.27 0.27 No
May 28.33 27.42 0.53 1.73 0.60 No
Jun 26.88 26.89 0.00 2.06 1.00 No
J u I 30.49 29.64 0.33 2.58 0.74 No
Aug 29.40 27.55 0.80 2.32 0.43 No
Sep 25.38 24.96 0.23 1.81 0.82 No
Oct 33.45 31.78 0.86 1.94 0.39 No
Nov 53.21 48.69 1.41 3.22 0.16 No
Dec 64.47 60.42 1.25 3.25 0.21 No
Table 6-3 provides customer counts for customers in the final regression model by assigned weather
station ID for each measure. In addition,TMY HDD and CDD from the nearest available TMY weather
station is provided as well as the weighted HDD/CDD for each measure.The HDD and CDD was weighted
by the number of treatment customers assigned to a weather station.
Table 6-3: TMY Weather, Low-Income Program
AF #of TMY TMY Weighted Weighted.
Measure U Treatment TMY USAF ID
'FSrt a t Si n I D Customers
HDD CDD TMYHDD TMYCDD7
726817 3 726985 4207 245 5829 376
727830 3 727830 5347 861 5829 376
727834 3 727834 6773 343 5829 376
All Electric Measures 727850 1 727850 6436 224 5829 376
727856 17 727856 6052 437 5829 376
727857 7 727857 6322 265 5829 376
727870 2 727857 6322 265 5829 376
In addition to the net savings value represented above, the Evaluators also conducted a treatment-only
regression model for each of the measures described above.Table 6-4 provides annual
savings/customer for the Low-Income program for all electric measures and regression model.The PPR
model was selected for ex-post net savings because it provided the best fit for the data (highest
Measurement and Evaluation Report 81

Avista Idaho PY2022
adjusted R-squared). The treatment-only model represents estimated gross savings for this measure.
The Evaluators estimate gross savings for each Low-Income participant is 1,005 kWh per year.
Table 6-4:Household Savings for All Regression Models, Low-Income Program
•0
Measure Model Treatment Control s Savings/Customer Lower Upper CI R-Squared
Customers Customer C1
Diff-in-cliff 36 466 1005.41* 0.00 4340.16 0.29
All Electric PPR 36 466 363.26* 0.00 1235.33 0.74
Measures Treatment
36 466 5082.85 3186.76 6978.93
Only(Gross) 0.27
*Not statistically significant
The results of the billing analysis indicate no statistically significant savings were found for the electric
measures.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 82

Avista Idaho PY2022
7.Appendix 6: Summary of Survey Respondents
This section summarizes additional insights gathered from the simple verification surveys deployed by
the Evaluators for the impact evaluation of Avista's Residential and Low-Income Programs.
Survey respondents confirmed installing between one and three measures that were rebated by Avista,
displayed in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Type and Number of Measures Received by Respondents
Measure Category Total Percent
No Measures 36 4.80%
One Measure 84 11.10%
Two Measures 390 51.70%
Three Measures 168 22.20%
Four Measures 56 7.40%
Five or more measures 119 15.80%
HVAC 171 22.60%
Water Heater 99 13.10%
Smart Thermostat 201 26.60%
Clothes Washer 84 11.10%
Clothes Dryer 73 9.70%
The Evaluators asked respondents to provide information regarding their home, as displayed in Table
7-2. Similar to the previous impact evaluation findings, the majority of respondents noted owning a
single-family home between 1,000 and 3,000 square feet with central air conditioning.
Table 7-2:Survey Respondent Home Characteristics'
ResponseQuestion
Own 94.30%
Rent 1.30%
Own and rent to
0.90%
Do you rent your home? (n=755) someone else
I don't know 0%
Prefer not to 3.40%
answer
Single-family 87 20%
house detached
Which of the following best describes your home?
(n=755) Single-family
house attached
3.30%
to one or more
other houses
9 Four contractors or construction companies were not asked these questions.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 83

Avista Idaho PY2022
Mobile or
manufactured 6.20%
home
Apartment 0.60%
Other 1.90%
1 don't know 0.30%
Prefer not to say 0.50%
Does your home have central air conditioning? Yes 74.40%
(n=755)
Less than
1,OOOft2 4.10%
1,000-1,999ft2 14.90%
About how many square feet is your home?(n=629)
2,000-2,999ft2 6.80%
3,000-3,999ft2 3.30%
4,000ft2 or more 2.50%
Before 1950 19.90%
1950 to 1959 11.00%
1960 to 1969 6.80%
1970 to 1979 16.30%
1980 to 1989 6.80%
When was your home built?(n=719)
1990 to 1999 15.30%
2000 to 2009 12.80%
2010 to 2019 5.00%
2020 to Present 5.70%
1 don't know 0.40%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 84

Avista Idaho PY2022
8.Appendix C: Site-Specific Program Project
Reports
This section displays site reports for each sampled project in the Site-Specific Program.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 85

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSLP_81717
Project Background
The participant is a light manufacturing facility that received incentives from Avista for retrofitting energy
efficient interior lighting.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (9) 3L F28T8 HBs were replaced by(9) 2x2 LED panels
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility
to verify installation, assumed operating parameters and HVAC configuration(s). Savings for the lighting
measures were calculated using industry standard lighting retrofit algorithms. Annual lighting hours of
operation are based upon verified actual hours of lighting operation.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Table 8-1:Savings Inputs
Facility or Space Type HVAC Configuration Annual
Hours
Other Gas Heat,Air Conditioned 1 3,120
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above,the Evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Table 8-2:Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
Quantity— Expected Adjusted Verified kWh
•
kWh kWh kWh Realization
Rate
13L28T8 HB to 2x2 LED 9 9 97 43 3,120 1,663 1,663 1,663 100.0%
panels 1,663 1,663 1,663 100.0%
Table 8-3:Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
Quantity(Fixtures) Wattage Expected Adjusted Verified kW
Measure Base ost Base Post kW kW kW Realization
I Rate
3L F28T8 HB to 2x2 LED panels 9 9 97 43 0.42 0.42 0.42 100.07
Total 1 0.42 0.42 0.42 100.0%
Results
For project#81717 the kWh realization rate is 100.0%and the kW realization rate is 100.0%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 86

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 8-4: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
ReductionVerified Verified kWh kW kWh kW Therm
Measure kWh kW Realization Realization Adjustments Adjustments Penalty
Savings
3L F28T8 HB to 2x2 LED panels 1,663 0.42 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -23
Total 1,663 0.42 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -23
Measurement and Evaluation Report 87

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSLP_80105
Project Background
The participant is a retail store that received incentives from Avista for retrofitting energy efficient interior
lighting. The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
(8) 4L F32T8s were replaced by (8) 47.2W LED tube fixtures
(40) 1L 15W CFs were replaced by (25) 14W LED tubes
(4) 4L F32T8s were replaced by (16) 17W TLED tubes
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. Savings for the lighting measures were calculated using
industry standard lighting retrofit algorithms. Annual lighting hours of operation are verified actual hours
of lighting operation.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Table 8-5:Savings Inputs
Pre .o
Facility or Space Type HVAC
al I
nsutal
rs Hours
Retail Strip Mall Gas Heat/Air Conditioned 1 3,640 3,640
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above, the Evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Table 8-6: Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
_rQuantity WattagVe Expected Adjusted Verified kWh
— (Fixtures) �IACIH
kWh kWh kWh
7pst Base] Post Rate
4L F32T8 to 2x4 LED tubes 8 8 112 47 3,640 2,089 2,089 2,089 100.0%
1L 15W CF to 14W accent LEDs 40 25 18 14 3,640 1,472 1,472 1,472 100.0%
4L F32T8 to 17W LED tubes 4 16 112 17 3,640 914 914 914 100.0%
Total 4,475 4,475 4,475 100.0%
Table 8-7: Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
Quantity
Measure (Fixtures) —rWattagelF Expected I? Adjusted Verified Realization
kW kW kW
Base I Post Base �Post Rate
4L F32T8 to 2x4 LED tubes 8 8 112 47 0.46 0.46 0.46 100.0%
1L 15W CF to 14W accent LEDs 40 25 18 14 0.32 0.32 0.32 100.0%
4L F32T8 to 17W LED tubes 4 16 112 17 0.20 0.20 0.20 100.0%
Total 0.98 0.98 0.98 100.0%
Results
Measurement and Evaluation Report 88

Avista Idaho PY2022
For project 4SSLP_80105 the kWh realization rate is 100.0%and the kW realization rate is 100.0%.
Table 8-8: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
17 kWh 1. IkW Realization lization I Adjustments Adjustments Penalty
Measure PRea
Savings Reduction Rate Rate
4L F32T8 to 2x4 LED tubes 2,089 0.46 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -34
1L 15W CF to 14W accent LEDs 1,472 0.32 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -24
4L F32T8 to 17W LED tubes 914 0.20 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -15
Total 4,475 0.98 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -72
Measurement and Evaluation Report 89

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSLP_81224
Project Background
The participant is a mall that received incentives from Avista for retrofitting energy efficient interior
lighting.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (39) 3L F17T8s were replaced by(31) 2x2 LED panels
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility
to verify installation, assumed operating parameters and HVAC configu ration(s). Savings for the lighting
measures were calculated using industry standard lighting retrofit algorithms. Annual lighting hours of
operation are based on verified actual hours of lighting operation.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Table 8-9:Savings Inputs
Facility or Space Type HVAC Configuration Annual
Hours
Retail Strip Mall Gas Heat,Air Conditioned 5,200
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above,the Evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Table 8-10:Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
Quantity � Expected � Adjusted Verified kWh
(Fixtures) AOH kWh kWh kWh Realization
Post Rate
3L F17T8 to 2x2 LED panels 39 31 67 41 5,200 7,802 7,802 7,802 100.0%
Total 7,802 7,802 7,802 100.0%
Table 8-11:Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
Quantity Wattage Expected Adjusted Verified kW .
(Fixtures) kW kW kW Realization
Base Post Base Post Rate
3L F17T8 to 2x2 LED panels 39 31 1 67 1 41 1.20 1.20 1.20 100.0%
Total 1.20 1.20 1.20 100.0%
Results
For project#SSLP_81224 the kWh realization rate is 100.0%and the kW realization rate is 100.0%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 90

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 8-12: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Verified Verified kWh kW kWh kW Therm
Measure kWh kW Realization Realization Adjustments Adjustments Penalty
Savings Reduction Rate Rate
3L F17T8 to 2x2 LED panels 7,802 1.20 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -126
Total 7,802 1.20 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -126
Measurement and Evaluation Report 91

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSLP_80312
Project Background
The participant is a manufacturing facility that received incentives from Avista for retrofitting energy
efficient interior lighting.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (63) 2L F96T12HO-Es were replaced by(42) high bay LED fixtures
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility
to verify installation, assumed operating parameters and HVAC configuration(s). Savings for the lighting
measures were calculated using industry standard lighting retrofit algorithms. Annual lighting hours of
operation are verified actual hours of lighting operation.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Table 8-13:Savings Inputs
Pre Post
Facility or Space Type HVAC ConfigurationTAnnual � Annual
Hours Hours
Large Office Gas Heat, no AC 3,120 3,120
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above,the Evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Table 8-14:Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
Quantity Wattage Expected Adjusted Verified kWh
(Fixtures) — I kWh kWh kWh Realization
Post Base •.
WItH0-E 63 42 155 149 3,120 11,925 11,925 11,925 100.051-1
fixture 1 7
Total 11,925 11,925 11,925 100.0%
Table 8-15:Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
Quantity Wattage Expected Adjusted Verified kW
Measure (Fixtures) kW kW kW Realization
Base Pos Post Rate
2L F96T12HO-E to high bay LED o
63 42 155 149 3.06 3.06 3.06 100.0%
fixture
Total 3.06 3.06 3.06 100.0%
Results
For project#SSLP_80312 the kWh realization rate is 100.0%and the kW realization rate is 100.0%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 92

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 8-16: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Verified Verified kWh kW Therm
Measure kWh kW Rea,I�zahli.. Realization Adjustments � Adjustments Penalty
-7 Savings Reduction Rate u- Rate
2L F96T12HO-E to high bay
11,925 3.06 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -149
LED fixture
Total 11,925 3.06 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -149
Measurement and Evaluation Report 93

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSLP_80512
Project Background
The participant is a middle school that received incentives from Avista for retrofitting energy efficient
interior lighting.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (25) 350W pulse start MI-Is were replaced by(25) 190W High Bay LEDs
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility
to verify installation, assumed operating parameters and HVAC configuration(s). Savings for the lighting
measures were calculated using industry standard lighting retrofit algorithms. Annual lighting hours of
operation are verified actual hours of lighting operation.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Table 8-17:Savings Inputs
Facility or Space Type HVAC Configuration Annual
Hours
Primary School Gas Heat,Air Conditioned 1 4,432
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above,the Evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Table 8-18:Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
Quantity � Expected � Adjusted Verified kWh
(Fixtures) AOH kWh kWh kWh Realization
��Jml Post Rate
1L MH 350 PS to 190W LED 25 25 380 191 4,432 25,507 25,507 25,507 100.0%
Total 25,507 25,507 25,507 100.0%
Table 8-19:Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
Quantity Wattage Expected Adjusted Verified kW .
(Fixtures) kW kW kW Realization
Base Post Base Post Rate
1L MH 350 PS to 190W LED 25 25 380 1 191 4.00 4.00 4.00 100.0%
Total 4.00 4.00 4.00 100.0%
Results
For project#SSLP_80512 the kWh realization rate is 100.0%and the kW realization rate is 100.0%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 94

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 8-20: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Verified Verified kWh kW Therm
Measure kWh kW Rea,I�zahli.. Realization Adjustments � Adjustments Penalty
-7 Savings Reduction Rate u- Rate
1L MH 350 PS to 190W High
25,507 4.00 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -457
Bay LED
Total 25,507 4.00 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -457
Measurement and Evaluation Report 95

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSLP_80599
Project Background
The participant is a manufacturing facility that received incentives from Avista for retrofitting energy
efficient interior lighting.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (52) 2L F96T12HO-Es were replaced by(38) 149W LED high bay fixtures
■ (94) 2L F32T8s were replaced by(26) 149W LED high bay fixtures
■ (21) 2L F96T12HO-Es were replaced by(20) 75W LED low bay fixtures
■ (14) 2L F96T12HO-Es were replaced by(21) 76W LED strips
■ (40) 3L F28T8 HBs were replaced by(40)43.2W LED 2x2 panels
■ (6) 2L F96T12H0-Es were replaced by(6) 76W LED strips
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility
to verify installation, assumed operating parameters and HVAC configuration(s). Savings for the lighting
measures were calculated using industry standard lighting retrofit algorithms. Annual lighting hours of
operation are verified actual hours of lighting operation.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Table 8-21:Savings Inputs
Pre Post
Facility or Space Type HVAC Configuration Annual Annual
Hours Hours
Medium Office Gas Heat 3,120 3,120
Medium Office Gas Heat,Air Conditioned 3,120 3,120
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above, the Evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Table 8-22:Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
QuantityWattage Expected A.
justed Verified kWh
Measure (Fixtures) AOH Realization
kWh kWh kWh
Base .o Base Post Rate
2L F96T12HO-E to 149W LED
high bay fixtures 52 38 160 149 3,120 8,293 8,293 8,293 100.0%
2L F32T8 to 149W LED high bay
94 26 58 149 3,120 4,923 4,923 4,923 100.0%
fixtures
2L F96T12HO-E to 75W LED 21 20 160 75 3,120 5,803 5,803 5,803 100.0%
low bay fixtures
2L F96T12HO-E to 76W LED 14 21 160 76 3,120 2,154 2,088 2,088 96.9%
strips
3L F28T8 HB to 43.2W LED 2x2
40 40 97 43 3,120 6,997 6,997 6,997 100.0%
panels
Measurement and Evaluation Report 96

Avista Idaho PY2022
2L F96T12HO-E to 76W LED
strips
6 6 160 76 3,120 1,571 1,571 1,571 100.0%
Total 29,742 29,675 29,675 99.8%
Table 8-23:Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
Quantity Wattage Expected Adjusted Verified kW
Measure (Fixtures) kW kW kW Realization
Base .o Base Post Rate
2L F96T12H0-E to 149W LED high bay
52 38 160 149 2.13 2.13 2.13 100.0%
fixtures
2L F32T8 to 149W LED high bay fixtures 94 26 58 149 1.26 1.26 1.26 100.0%
2L F96T12H0-E to 75W LED low bay
21 20 160 75 1.49 1.49 1.49 100.0%
fixtures
2L F96T12H0-E to 76W LED strips 14 21 160 76 0.55 0.57 0.57 103.6%
3L F28T8 HB to 43.2W LED 2x2 panels 40 40 97 43 1.79 1.77 1.77 98.9%
2L F96T12H0-E to 76W LED strips 6 6 160 76 0.40 0.40 0.40 100.0%
Total 7.62 7.62 7.62 100.0%
Results
For project#SSLP_80599 the kWh realization rate is 99.8%and the kW realization rate is 100.0%.
Table 8-24: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Verified Verified kWh kW kW Therm
Measure kWh kW Realization Realization
Savings Reduction Rate Rate Adjustment Penalty
2L F96T12H0-E to 149W LED high
8,293 2.13 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -166
bay fixtures
2L F32T8 to 149W LED high bay
4,923 1.26 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -98
fixtures
2L F96T12H0-E to 75W LED low bay
5,803 1.49 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -116
fixtures
2L F96T12H0-E to 76W LED strips 2,088 0.57 96.9% 103.6% -66 0.02 -40
3L F28T8 HB to 43.2W LED 2x2
6,997 1.77 100.0% 98.9% 0 -0.02 -134
panels
2L F96T12H0-E to 76W LED strips 1,571 0.40 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 0
Total 29,675 7.62 99.8% 100.0% -67 0.04 -554
The Evaluators were unable to recreate expected savings for(14) 2L F96T12HO-E to ( 21) 76W LED strips.
Verified savings was calculated using actual fixture wattages, verified lighting hours of operation and
deemed HVAC interactive factors specific to the building type and HVAC configuration (Medium Office,
ID, >2006 vintage).This resulted in slightly reduced kWh savings.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 97

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSOP_81831
Project Background
The participant is a new primary school that received incentives from Avista for installing reduced power
density lighting and above code insulation.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (639) LED fixtures (30.5 average watts) in a 49,793 square foot space
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility
to verify installation, assumed operating parameters and HVAC configuration(s). Savings for new
constructions lighting,or lighting power density,was evaluated using a standard algorithm,shown below,
and ASHRAE 90.1 LPD ratios:
kWhsavings= 2[(Nf ixt(i) x W fixt(i) 1000 )pre — (Nf ixt(i) x W f ixt(i) 1000 )post] x AOH x IEF
kWsavings=2[(N f ixt(i) x W f ixt(i) 1000) pre— (N f ixt(i) x W fixt(i) 1000 )post] x CF x IEFD
Nfixt(i),pre= Pre-retrofit number of fixtures of type i Nfixt(i)
post= Post-retrofit number of fixtures of type i
Wfixt(i),pre = Rated wattage of pre-retrofit fixtures of type i
Wfixt(i),post= Rated wattage of post-retrofit fixtures of type
1,000=Conversion constant from watts to kilowatts
CF = Peak demand coincidence factor(80%)
AOH =Annual operating hours for specified building type
IEFD = Interactive effects factor for demand savings, kW
IEFE = Interactive effects factor for energy savings, kWh
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above,the Evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Table 8-25:kWh Savings Calculations
Location Allowable Verified kWh Realization
M1 LPD LPD Savings Rate
ME Verified kWh
NC Lighting Strip Mall 0.82 7 0.51 5,824 93,301 99,147 106.27%
Results
For project#SSOP_81531 the kWh realization rate is 106.27%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 98

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 8-26: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
ReductionVerified Verified kWh kW kWh kW Therm
Measure kWh kW Realization Realization Adjustments Adjustments Penalty
Savings
NC Lighting 99,147 13.62 101.0% N/A 5,846 0.00 -1,602
Total 99,147 13.62 101.0% N/A 5,846 0.00 -1,602
The Evaluators were unable to fully reconstruct all claimed savings calculations, but it appears that
HVAC interactive effects were omitted. These effects were included in verified savings calculations,
leading to a slightly high realization rate.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 99

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSLP_78714
Project Background
The participant is a big box retail store that received incentives from Avista for retrofitting energy efficient
interior lighting.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (515) 20OW LEDs were replaced by(494) 163W high bay LED fixtures, controlled by day sensors
The lighting is controlled so that while the business is open the lights function at 100% illumination, then
are dimmed to 50%illumination overnight.
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility
to verify installation, assumed operating parameters and HVAC configuration(s). Savings for the lighting
measures were calculated using industry standard lighting retrofit algorithms. Annual lighting hours of
operation are verified actual hours of lighting operation.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Table 8-27:Savings Inputs
-T Pre Post
Facility or Space Type HVAC Configuration Annual Annual
Hours Hours
Retail Stand Alone Gas Heat/Air Conditioned 5,110 3,322
Retail Stand Alone Gas Heat/Air Conditioned 3,650 3,650
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above,the Evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Table 8-28:Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
Quantity Wattage Pre Post Expected Adjusted F Verif ied kWh
Measure (Fixtures) AOH AOH kWh kWh kWh Realization
�Base Post Base I Post Rate
20OW LED to 163W LED
highbay(daytime) 515 494 200 163 5,110 3,322 297,128 297,128 297,128 100.0%
20OW LED to 163W LED 258 247 200 163 3,650 3,650 47,796 47,796 47,796 100.0%
highbay(nighttime)
Total 344,924 344,924 344,924 100.0%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 100

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 8-29:Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
Quantity Wattage Expected Adjusted Verified kW
Measure (Fixtures) kW kW kW Realization
Base .o Base Post Rate
20OW LED to 163W LED highbay 515 494 200 163 20.77 20.77 20.77 100.0%
20OW LED to 163W LED highbay 258 247 200 163 10.48 10.48 10.48 100.0%
Total 31.25 31.25 31.25 100.0%
The lighting is controlled so that while the business is open the lights function at 100%illumination,then
are dimmed to 50% illumination overnight.
Results
For project#SSLP_78714,the kWh realization rate is 100.0% and the kW realization rate is 100.0%.
Table 8-30: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Measure kWh kW Real I zati7n Realization Adjustments Adjustments Penalty
Savings Reduction Rate Rate
20OW LED to 163W LED highbay 297,128 20.77 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -1,715
20OW LED to 163W LED highbay 47,796 10.48 100.0% N/A 0 0.00 -276
Total 344,924 31.25 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -1,991
Measurement and Evaluation Report 101

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSLP_79005
Project Background
The participant is a manufacturing facility that received incentives from Avista for retrofitting energy
efficient interior lighting.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (80) 150W HPS fixtures were replaced by (80) 50W LED fixtures
■ (87) 250W HPS fixtures were replaced by(87) 80W LED fixtures
■ (4)40OW HPS fixtures were replaced by(4) 130W LED fixtures
■ (2) 70W HPS fixtures were replaced by(2) 30W LED fixtures
■ (18) 175W MH fixtures were replaced by(18) 50W LED fixtures
■ (20) 250W MH fixtures were replaced by(20) 80W LED fixtures
■ (19)40OW MH fixtures were replaced by(19) 130W LED fixtures
■ (26)40OW MH fixtures were replaced by(26) 80W LED fixtures
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility
to verify installation, assumed operating parameters and HVAC configuration(s). Savings for the lighting
measures were calculated using industry standard lighting retrofit algorithms. Annual lighting hours of
operation are verified actual hours of lighting operation.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Table 8-31:Savings Inputs
Facility or Space Type HVAC Configuration Annual
Hours
Warehouse None 8,760
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above,the Evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Table 8-32:Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
Quantity Wattage Expected Adjusted Verified kWh
(Fixtures) kWh kWh kWh Realization
1W MnINIM res t 50
80 80 7190 51 8,760 97,271 97,271 97,271 100.0%
fixtures
250W HPS fixtures to 80W LED 87 87 295 78 8,760 165,151 165,151 165,151 100.0%
fixtures
40OW HPS fixtures to 130W 4 4 450 130 8,760 11,220 11,220 11,220 100.0%
LED fixtures
70W HPS fixtures to 30W LED 2 2 92 29 8,760 1,102 1,102 1,102 100.0%
fixtures
175W MH fixtures to 50W LED 18 18 215 51 8,760 25,828 25,828 25,828 100.0%
fixtures
Measurement and Evaluation Report 102

Avista Idaho PY2022
250W MH fixtures to 80W LED 20 20 286 78 8,760 36,389 36,389 36,389 100.0%
fixtures
40OW MH fixtures to 130W 19 19 455 130 8,760 54,126 54,126 54,126 100.0%
LED fixtures
40OW MH fixtures to 80W LED 26 26 455 78 8,760 85,797 85,797 85,797 100.0%
fixtures
Total 476,885 476,885 476,885 100.0%
Table 8-33:Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
'Quantity Wattage Exp kW
Adjusted
Measure (Fixtures) r Realization
ix
Pos Base Post Rate
150W HPS fixtures to 50W LED fixtures 80 80 190 51 8.88 11.10 11.10 125.0%
250W HPS fixtures to 80W LED fixtures 87 87 295 78 15.09 18.85 18.85 124.9%
40OW HPS fixtures to 130W LED fixtures 4 4 450 130 1.02 1.28 1.28 125.0%
70W HPS fixtures to 30W LED fixtures 2 2 92 29 0.10 0.13 0.13 135.4%
175W MH fixtures to 50W LED fixtures 18 18 215 51 2.36 2.95 2.95 125.0%
250W MH fixtures to 80W LED fixtures 20 20 286 78 3.32 4.15 4.15 125.0%
40OW MH fixtures to 130W LED fixtures 19 19 455 130 4.94 6.18 6.18 125.0%
40OW MH fixtures to 80W LED fixtures 26 26 455 78 7.83 9.79 9.79 125.0%
Total 43.54 54.43 54.43 125.0%
Results
For project 4SSLP_79005 the kWh realization rate is 100.0%and the kW realization rate is 125.0%.
Table 8-34: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
ReductionVerified Verified kWh kW kWh kW Therm
Measure kWh kW Realization Realization Adjustments Adjustments Penalty
Savings
15OW HPS fixtures to 50W LED
97,271 11.10 100.0% 125.0% 0 2.22 0
fixtures
250W HPS fixtures to 80W LED
165,151 18.85 100.0% 124.9% 0 3.77 0
fixtures
40OW HPS fixtures to 130W
11,220 1.28 100.0% 125.0% 0 0.26 0
LED fixtures
70W HPS fixtures to 30W LED
fixtures 1,102 0.13 100.0% 135.4% 0 0.03 0
175W MH fixtures to 50W LED
25,828 2.95 100.0% 125.0% 0 0.59 0
fixtures
250W MH fixtures to 80W LED
36,389 4.15 100.0% 125.0% 0 0.83 0
fixtures
40OW MH fixtures to 130W
54,126 6.18 100.0% 125.0% 0 1.24 0
LED fixtures
40OW MH fixtures to 80W LED
85,797 9.79 100.0% 125.0% 0 1.95 0
fixtures
Total 476,885 54.43 100.0% 125.0% 0 10.89 0
Measurement and Evaluation Report 103

Avista Idaho PY2022
Ex ante calculations assumed an 80% peak coincidence factor, but the lights operate continuously, so
the factor was adjusted to 100%, resulting in an additional 10.89 kW reduction.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 104

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSOP_79005
Project Background
The participant is a manufacturing facility that received incentives from Avista for retrofitting energy
efficient interior lighting.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (80) 150W HPS fixtures were replaced by(80) 50W LED fixtures
■ (87) 250W HPS fixtures were replaced by(87) 80W LED fixtures
■ (4)400W HPS fixtures were replaced by(4) 130W LED fixtures
■ (2) 70W HPS fixtures were replaced by(2) 30W LED fixtures
■ (18) 175W MH fixtures were replaced by(18) 50W LED fixtures
■ (20) 250W MH fixtures were replaced by(20) 80W LED fixtures
■ (19)40OW MH fixtures were replaced by(19) 130W LED fixtures
■ (26)400W MH fixtures were replaced by(26) 80W LED fixtures
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility
to verify installation, assumed operating parameters and HVAC configuration(s). Savings for the lighting
measures were calculated using industry standard lighting retrofit algorithms. Annual lighting hours of
operation are verified actual hours of lighting operation.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Table 8-35:Savings Inputs
Pre Post
HVAC Configuration Annual Annual
Interior/Area Lighting None 8,760 8,760
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above, the evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Table 8-36:Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
QuantityWattage Pre Post Expected Adjusted Verified kWh
H kWh kWh kWh Realization
Post • •
Rate
150W HPS fixtures to 50W LED 80 80 190 51 8,760 8,760 97,271 97,271 97,271 100.0%
fixtures
250W HPS fixtures to 80W LED 87 87 295 78 8,760 8,760 165,151 165,151 165,151 100.0%
fixtures
400W HPS fixtures to 130W 4 4 450 130 8,760 8,760 11,220 11,220 11,220 100.0%
LED fixtures
70W HPS fixtures to 30W LED 2 2 92 29 8,760 8,760 1,102 1,102 1,102 100.0%
fixtures
Measurement and Evaluation Report 105

Avista Idaho PY2022
175W MH fixtures to 50W LED
18 18 215 51 8,760 8,760 25,828 25,828 25,828 100.0%
fixtures
250W MH fixtures to 80W LED 20 20 286 78 8,760 8,760 36,389 36,389 36,389 100.0%
fixtures
40OW MH fixtures to 130W 19 19 455 130 8,760 8,760 54,126 54,126 54,126 100.0%
LED fixtures
40OW MH fixtures to 80W LED 26 26 455 78 8,760 8,760 85,797 85,797 85,797 100.0%
fixtures
Total 476,885 476,885 476,885 100.0%
Table 8-37:Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
Adjusted Verified kW
Measure --qvi (Fixtura- - kW kW kW Realization
Base Post Rate
150W HPS fixtures to 50W LED fixtures 80 80 190 51 8.88 11.10 11.10 125.0%
250W HPS fixtures to 80W LED fixtures 87 87 295 78 15.09 18.85 18.85 124.9%
40OW HPS fixtures to 130W LED fixtures 4 4 450 130 1.02 1.28 1.28 125.0%
70W HPS fixtures to 30W LED fixtures 2 2 92 29 0.10 0.13 0.13 135.4%
175W MH fixtures to 50W LED fixtures 18 18 215 51 2.36 2.95 2.95 125.0%
250W MH fixtures to 80W LED fixtures 20 20 286 78 3.32 4.15 4.15 125.0%
40OW MH fixtures to 130W LED fixtures 19 19 455 130 4.94 6.18 6.18 125.0%
40OW MH fixtures to 80W LED fixtures 26 26 455 78 7.83 9.79 9.79 125.0%
Total 43.54 54.43 54.43 125.0%
Results
For project 4SSLP_79005 the kWh realization rate is 100.0%and the kW realization rate is 125.0%.
Table 8-38: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Verified Verified7 kWh kW kWh kW-41F- Therm
Measure kWh kW Realization Realization Adjustments Adjustments Penalty
Savings Reduction Rate Rate
150W HPS fixtures
to 50W LED fixtures 97,271 11.10 100.0% 125.0% 0 2.22 0
250W HPS fixtures
to 80W LED fixtures 165,151 18.85 100.0% 124.9% 0 3.77 0
40OW HPS fixtures
to 130W LED 11,220 1.28 100.0% 125.0% 0 0.26 0
fixtures
70W HPS fixtures
to 30W LED fixtures 1,102 0.13 100.0% 135.4% 0 0.03 0
175W MH fixtures
to 50W LED fixtures 25,828 2.95 100.0% 125.0% 0 0.59 0
250W MH fixtures
to 80W LED fixtures 36,389 4.15 100.0% 125.0% 0 0.83 0
40OW MH fixtures
to 130W LED 54,126 6.18 100.0% 125.0% 0 1.24 0
fixtures
Measurement and Evaluation Report 106

Avista Idaho PY2022
40OW MH fixtures
to 80W LED fixtures 85,797 9.79 100.0% 125.0% 0 1.95 0
Total 4761885 54.43 100.0% 125.0% 0 10.89 0
Ex ante calculations assumed an 80% peak coincidence factor, but the lights operate continuously, so
the factor was adjusted to 100%, resulting in an additional 10.89 kW reduction.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 107

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSOP_74531
Project Background
The participant is a paper manufacturer that received incentives from Avista for replacing two fixed speed
pumps with two VFD controlled pumps for the demineralized boiler feedwater. The Evaluators verified
the participant had installed:
■ (2)450HP pump motors with VFD controls.
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility
to verify installation, assumed operating parameters and equipment configuration. Savings for the VFD
measure were calculated using custom methods.The baseline system power was calculated using trended
PSI, pump curves, and assumed motor efficiency. See below for the pump curve:
##4 Power Demin Feedwater Pumps
w — I rn11[nn 77UU1 I g SytlC/
I` WFFH 11 EYE AREA 48.5 SO.I N.
600
-
8/25/2020- learned that
500 impeller was trimmed to
20-114" in 2018 or 2019
=400 a
3O'O
to
Uffmt
200 7
Y1 cc
- w Z
a
-41 4oIow¢
M ►- -rw
in CL
IOO tAPAC 0 u
10 500 l000 500 2000 �snn n ,
The baseline average power was calculated using the following equations:
Pump Power (HP) = Flow (GPM) x System Head (ft)/(3,960 x Motor Ef f x Pump Ef f)
Pump Power (HP) = 800 GPM x 464 f t/(3,960 x 95% x 58%) = 170.24 HP
Pump Power (kW) = Pump Power (HP) x 0.746 kW/HP = 127 kW
Measurement and Evaluation Report 108

Avista Idaho PY2022
Motor% amperage and % load data was gathered on the post installation system and used with the full
load amperage to calculate the average current. The post average power was calculated using the three-
phase power equation shown below:
Pump Power (kW)
= Current (amps) x Voltage (VAC) x PF x V-3-1(VFD efficiency x 1000 W lkW)
Pump Power (kW) = 43.81A x 480V x 0.98 x V-3-/(98% x 1000) = 36.42 kW
During a site visit,the Evaluators confirmed that only one pump runs at a time and that at least one pump
runs 24/7, 365. The pump motors are theoretically identical and only one is scheduled to run at a time,
however, the logged data showed occasional overlap when the load is switched from one pump to
another. In light of this, the average power was calculated as the sum of the North and South pump
average power. The annual energy use in the baseline and post cases were calculated by multiplying the
respective average power by the annual use time, 8760 hours.
Since the production is consistent throughout the day as well as throughout the year, the kW demand
reduction is the difference in average kW between the baseline and post periods.
The values used in calculating energy and demand savings are presented in the table below.
Table 8-39:Savings Inputs
Measure Baseline Post Annual Baseline Post kW kWh
Avg kW Avg IkW Hours kWh kWh Reduction Savings
Boiler Feedwater Pump VFDs 127 36.42 8760 1 1,112,485 319,048 90.58 793,437
Savings Calculations
Using values from the table above,the Evaluators calculated VFD savings as follows:
Table 8-40: VFD kWh Savings Calculations
Baseline Post Baseline Expected Verified lk�h
Savings Savings Rate
Boiler Feedwater VFDs 127 36.42 8,760 1,112,458 319,048 776,307 793,437 102%
Table 8-41: VFD kW Savings Calculations
Measure Baseline kW Post IkW Expected IkW Verified IkW IkW Realization
Reduction Reduction Rate
Boiler Feedwater VFDs 127 36.42 87 90.58 1047
Results
For project SSOP_74531 the kWh realization rate is 102%and the kW realization rate is 104%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 109

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 8-42: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Verified Verified k h kW kWh kW Therm
kWh kW Real�zation Realization
Savings Reduction Rate Rate Adjustments Adjustments Penalty
WBoilerFeedpwaterVFDs 1 793,437 90.58 102.2% 1 104% n/a I n/a In/a
The ex-ante assumed only 1 pump was running and just used north pump data as it was the primary pump
during the monitoring period. This makes sense based on the customer saying only one runs at a time,
however, there were a few instances when the north pump stopped, and the south pump took over and
their operation overlapped briefly (which is expected to occasionally happen). The Evaluators used the
summed %amps instead of the north pump%amps which reduced savings slightly(1%).The ex-ante also
subtracted the standard deviation of the post average power from their overall kW demand reduction
which lowered the realization rate. The Evaluators used the average kW values when calculating the kW
demand reduction.
The kWh RR was also impacted by the annual operation hours.The ex-ante assumed annual hours of 8,500
but according to the customer on a site visit, the facility has at least one pump running 24/7 365. The
Evaluators used 8760 annual hours which increased the realization rate by 3%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 110

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSOP_74548
Project Background
The participant is a paper manufacturer that received incentives from Avista for replacing two pulp
agitator motors with new VFD controlled motors.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (2)400HP motors with VFD controls.
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility
to verify installation, assumed operating parameters and equipment configuration. Savings for the VFD
measure were calculated using custom methods. Motor amperage and load data was gathered on the
baseline and post installation systems. The north agitator was down for repairs during the baseline
monitoring period so its energy use was modeled using trended % load data and south agitator logged
amps. The average amperage and % load were calculated from the baseline data and used to estimate
the max amperage into the VFD. This max amperage was applied to the baseline north agitator average
load to calculate the baseline amperage. The amperage, input voltage, and an assumed power factor
were used in 3-phase power equations to estimate the baseline power and extrapolate energy use over a
1 year period.
The post-install average VFD amperage was calculated for the north and south agitator motors. The
amperage, input voltage, and motor nameplate power factor were used in 3-phase power equations to
estimate the as-built power and extrapolate energy use over a 1 year period.
The energy savings are the difference between the 1-year baseline energy and 1-year as-built energy.
The annual hours used to calculate annual energy use were calculated based on the customer's testimony.
The customer claimed the motors run 24/7, 365 with the exception of six 18-hour maintenance periods
annually.The annual hours were calculated as 8,652 hours.
Since the production is assumed consistent throughout the day as well as throughout the year, the kW
demand reduction is the difference in average kW between the baseline and post periods.
The values used in calculating energy and demand savings are presented in the table below.
Table 8-43:Savings Inputs
EquipmentPost
. Baseline. Voltage ®I
N.Agitator 87.6 2,300 0.85 52 2300 0.78 8,652
S.Agitator 71.0 2,300 0.85 62 2300 0.84 8,652
Savings Calculations
Using values from the table above,the evaluators calculated VFD savings as follows:
Measurement and Evaluation Report 111

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 8-44: VFD kWh Savings Calculations
Baseline Post Baseline Expected Verified kWh
Measure kW kW AOH kWh Post kWh kWh kWh Realization
Savings Savings Rate
Pulp Agitator VFDs 537.05 376.79 8,652 4,646,585 3,259,996 1 1,371,100 1,386,589 101.1%
Table 8-45: VFD kW Savings Calculations
Baseline kW Post kW Expected kW Verified kW kW Realization
Reduction Reduction Rate
PPulpAgitator VFDs 537.05 376.79 0 160.26 n/a
Results
For project SSOP_74548 the kWh realization rate is 101%and the kW realization rate is n/a.
Table 8-46: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Verified Verified kWh kW . kWh kW Therm
Measure kWh kW Realization Realization Adjustments Adjustments Penalty
Savings ii Reduction
Pulp AgitatorVFDs 1,386,589 160.26 101.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a
The ex-ante calculations treated the new agitator as part of the project.The evaluator didn't include the
new agitator in the savings calcs since it isn't really part of a VFD system upgrade.These changes reduced
the overall savings and realization rate.
The power factors for the baseline and as-built systems were different in the ex-ante and ex post analyses.
The ex-ante used 0.772 baseline power factor based on the assumption that the baseline motor is a DC
motor controlled by a DC VFD (Ex ante source:AC vs DC Drives Advantages of Power Factor Comparison-
Mechanical Electrical Systems Inc. (variablefrequencydrive.com)). The evaluator assumed a constant
speed motor baseline with a power factor of 0.85.The ex-ante assumed a 0.98 power factor for the post-
install motors while the evaluator used the motor nameplate power factor. These changes reduced the
overall savings and realization rate.
The final difference in calculation parameters was the annual hours of operation. The ex-ante assumed
8,500 hours while the evaluator used 8,652 hours based on the customers' testimony during an on-site
visit.This change increased the overall savings and realization rate.
The net effect of these discrepancies was somewhat balanced, only raising the realization rate by 1%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 112

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSOP_80742
Project Background
The participant is a lumber mill that received incentives from Avista for replacing an older style of log mill
line with a new highly efficient log line. The Evaluators verified the participant had installed the log line
and VFDs associated with the new motors.
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos, and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility
to verify installation, assumed operating parameters and HVAC configuration(s).
Savings for the new log mill line measure was calculated using an energy intensity(kWh/board foot) billing
analysis. The ex ante analysis monitored kWh billing data for the baseline and post-installation periods
(2018 and 2021) and also provided total production in board feet over the monitoring periods. ADM
attempted to use a billing regression analysis, however, no significant correlation between electricity use
and outside air temperature was found.Annual peak demand savings were based on hourly metered data
during summer peak demand periods (5pm-7pm). The average peak demand for the post-installation
period was subtracted from the average peak demand during the baseline period to determine the
average peak demand savings.
The monitored data provided was meter level electrical usage from (4) meters. (2)of the meters were for
equipment that was outside the scope of this project. The Large Log Line (LLL, was replaced) was
reconfigured to share the same meter as the Small Log Line (SLL, not replaced) as part of the project.This
means that the kWh from both the log lines were summed in the model and the calculations were
performed on the combined log line energy use.
The total energy (kWh) and production (board feet) were summed for the baseline and post-install
periods.The energy intensity was calculated by dividing energy by production to determine the kWh per
board foot for both periods. The annual production was determined by averaging the 2018 and 2021
production. The evaluators on-site visit confirmed that the production should not change significantly
over the monitoring period (2018 and 2021) and should be considered typical. The difference in energy
intensities was multiplied by the annual production to determine the kWh savings.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Table 8-47:Savings Inputs
Space Type Energy use for Large and Mill .. ction Energy Intensity
Small .• Lines(kWh) (BF) (kWh/BF)
Baseline(2018) 23,077,003 273,535,4301 0.08437
Post(2021) 19,332,109 267,747,706 0.07220
Savings Calculations
Using energy intensity and mill production values from the table above,the evaluators calculated savings
as follows:
Measurement and Evaluation Report 113

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 8-48:Lumber Mill Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
Product2018 Pre 2021 Post Average Pre Energy Post Energy Energy
Measure .dProduction
Savings
Upgrade Large Log Line 273,535,430 267,747,706 270,641,568 0.08437 0.07220 0.01216 3,291,807
Table 8-49:Lumber Mill Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
Baseline Average Post
Measure Peak kW Average kW Savings
Peak kW
Upgrade Large Log Line 2,842 2,261 581.00
Resu Its
For project SSOP_80742 the kWh realization rate is 107%and the kW realization rate is 104%.
Table 8-50: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Verified F Verified kWh
Measure kWh kW Realization
Savings , Reduction Rate
Upgrade Large Log Line 3,291,807 581.00 108.1%
The difference in expected and realized savings can be attributed to assumptions used in the savings
analysis.The ex ante analysis assumed 2021 levels of production while the Evaluators used an average of
the 2018 and 2021 production. Since the 2021 production was higher than 2018 production, the
realization rate was high.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 114

APPENDIX B — 2022 IDAHO NATURAL GAS IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT
Avista Idaho PY2022
Evaluation , Measurement
and Verification ( EM & V ) of
I
Avista Idaho Gas PY2022
Residential ,
Low - Income , and
Nonresidential Energy
Efficiency Programs
SUBMITTED TO: AVISTA UTILITIES
SUBMITTED ON : JULY 2412023
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC. &
CADEO GROUP
ADM Associates, Inc Avista Utilities
3239 Ramos Circle 1411 E. Mission Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95827 Spokane, WA 99252
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Savings Results...........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations..........................................................................................................2
2. General Methodology..........................................................................................................................8
2.1 Glossary of Terminology............................................................................................................................8
2.2 Summary of Approach ...............................................................................................................................9
3. Residential Impact Evaluation Results...............................................................................................22
3.1 Simple Verification Results.......................................................................................................................22
3.2 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results................................................................................................24
4. Low-Income Impact Evaluation Results.............................................................................................46
4.1 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results................................................................................................46
5. Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Results.........................................................................................51
5.1 Verification Results..................................................................................................................................51
5.2 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results................................................................................................52
6. Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results...................................................................................................61
6.1 Low-Income Program...............................................................................................................................61
7. Appendix B: Summary of Survey Respondents..................................................................................65
8. Appendix C: Site-Specific Site Reports...............................................................................................67
Tables of Contents and Tables ii

Avista Idaho PY2022
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program.........................................................................1
Table 1-2: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program.......................................................................1
Table 1-3: Nonresidential Verified Impact Savings by Program...................................................................2
Table 1-4: Impact Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector...................................................................2
Table 2-1: Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Program ...........................................13
Table 2-2: Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Program...................................................13
Table 3-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program.......................................................................22
Table 3-2: Summary of Survey Response Rate...........................................................................................23
Table 3-3: Simple Verification Precision by Program .................................................................................23
Table 3-4: Water Heat Program ISRs by Measure......................................................................................23
Table 3-5: HVAC Program ISRs by Measure................................................................................................24
Table 3-6: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program ISRs by Measure..................................................24
Table 3-7:Appliances Program ISRs by Measure.......................................................................................24
Table 3-8: Water Heat Program Measures.................................................................................................25
Table 3-9: Water Heat Program Verified Natural Gas Savings...................................................................25
Table 3-10: Water Heat Program Costs......................................................................................................25
Table 3-11: Water Heat Verification Survey ISR Results ............................................................................26
Table 3-12: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Water Heat Program ............................................27
Table 3-13: Measure Savings, Water Heat Program ..................................................................................27
Table 3-14: HVAC Program Measures........................................................................................................28
Table 3-15: HVAC Program Verified Natural Gas Savings...........................................................................28
Table 3-16: HVAC Program Costs...............................................................................................................29
Table 3-17: HVAC Verification Survey ISR Results......................................................................................30
Table 3-18: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, HVAC Program......................................................30
Table 3-19: Measure Savings, HVAC Program............................................................................................31
Table 3-20: Measure Savings for Natural Gas Furnaces, HVAC Program ...................................................32
Table 3-21: Shell Program Measures..........................................................................................................33
Table 3-22: Shell Program Verified Natural Gas Savings............................................................................33
Table 3-23: Shell Program Costs.................................................................................................................34
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 958271 916.363.8383 iii

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-24: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Shell Program .......................................................35
Table 3-25: Measure Savings, Shell Program .............................................................................................36
Table 3-26: Fuel Efficiency Program Measures..........................................................................................37
Table 3-27: Fuel Efficiency Program Verified Natural Gas Penalty.............................................................37
Table 3-28: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Measures.............................................................................38
Table 3-29: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Measures ..........................................................39
Table 3-30: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Verified Natural Gas Savings.............................39
Table 3-31: Small Home& MF Weatherization Program Costs..................................................................40
Table 3-32: Small Home & MF Weatherization Verification Survey ISR Results ........................................41
Table 3-33:Appliance Program Measures .................................................................................................43
Table 3-34:Appliance Program Verified Natural Gas Savings....................................................................43
Table 3-35:Appliance Program Costs.........................................................................................................43
Table 3-36:Appliance Verification Survey ISR Results...............................................................................44
Table 4-1: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program.....................................................................46
Table 4-2: Low-Income Program Measures ...............................................................................................47
Table 4-3: Low-Income Program Verified Natural Gas Savings..................................................................47
Table 4-4: Low-Income Program Costs.......................................................................................................48
Table 4-5: Measure Savings, Low-Income Program ...................................................................................49
Table 5-1: Non-Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program...............................................................51
Table 5-2: Non-Residential Program-level Verification Precision ..............................................................52
Table 5-3: Prescriptive HVAC Program Measures ......................................................................................53
Table 5-4: Prescriptive HVAC Program Verified Natural Gas Savings.........................................................53
Table 5-5: Prescriptive HVAC Program Incentives......................................................................................53
Table 5-6: Prescriptive HVAC Program Verification Precision....................................................................54
Table 5-7: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Measures ........................................................55
Table 5-8: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Verified Natural Gas Savings...........................55
Table 5-9: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Costs by Measure............................................56
Table 5-10: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Verification Precision....................................56
Table 5-11: Prescriptive Shell Program Measures......................................................................................57
Table 5-12: Prescriptive Shell Program Verified Natural Gas Savings........................................................57
Table 5-13: Prescriptive Shell Program Costs by Measure.........................................................................57
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827 1 916.363.8383 iv

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 5-14: Prescriptive Shell Program Verification Precision ...................................................................58
Table 5-15: Site-Specific Program Verified Natural Gas Savings ................................................................59
Table 5-16: Site-Specific Program Costs.....................................................................................................59
Table 5-17: Site-Specific Expected, Adjusted and Verified Therm Savings by Project ...............................60
Table 5-18: Site-Specific Impact Summary.................................................................................................60
Table 6-1: Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program ...............................................................................61
Table 6-2: Pre-period Usage T-test for Gas Measures, Low-Income Program...........................................63
Table 6-3: TMY Weather, Low-Income Program........................................................................................63
Table 6-4: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Low-Income Program .........................................64
Table 7-1: Type and Number of Measures Received by Respondents.......................................................65
Table 7-2: Survey Respondent Home Characteristics ................................................................................65
Table 8-1:Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments.........................................................68
Table 8-2: HDD and Model Fit....................................................................................................................69
Table 8-3: Pre/Post Use and Therm Savings...............................................................................................69
Table 8-4:Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments.........................................................69
admenergy.com 13239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827 1 916.363.8383 v

Avista Idaho PY2022
1. Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the Residential, Low-Income, and Nonresidential Gas Evaluation,
Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) effort of the 2022 program year (PY2022) portfolio of
programs for Avista Corporation (Avista) in the Idaho service territory. The evaluation was
administered by ADM Associates, Inc. and Cadeo Group, LLC(herein referred to as the "Evaluators").
1.1 Savings Results
The Evaluators conducted an impact evaluation for Avista's Residential, Low-Income, and
Nonresidential programs for PY2022. The Residential portfolio savings amounted to 266,415.08
Therms with a 109.30% realization rate. The Low-Income portfolio savings amounted to 1,954.31
Therms with a 100.64% realization rate.The Nonresidential portfolio savings amounted to 37,960.68
Therms with a 138.00% realization rate. The Evaluators summarize the Residential, Low-Income, and
Nonresidential portfolio verified savings in Table 1-1 through Table 1-3, respectively.
Table 1-1:Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Verified Verified
Program Savings Savings Realization
(Therms) (Therms) Rate
Water Heat 29,167.60 28,407.84 97.40%
HVAC 188,961.00 216,235.62 114.43%
Shell 24,195.05 20,360.10 84.15%
Fuel Efficiency' 0.00 0.00 -
ENERGY STAR Homes2 0.00 0.00 -
Small Home& MF
1,011.78 954.61 94.35%
Weatherization
Appliances 417.15 456.91 109.53%
Multifamily Direct Install 0.00 0.00 -
Total Res 243,752.58 266,415.08 109.30%
Table 1-2:Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Verified Verified
Program Savings Savings Realization
(Therms) (Therms) Rate
Low-Income 3 1 1,941.89 1 1,954.31 1 100.64%
Total Low-Income 1 1,941.89 1 1,954.31 1 100.64%
'The Fuel Efficiency Program displayed a verified Therms penalty of 19,468.00 Therms due to fuel conversion measures. For the
purposes of this report,this penalty is not included in the overall metrics of natural gas-saving energy efficiency measures.
2 The ENERGY STAR Homes Program displayed a verified Therms savings of 1,206.00 Therms for the electric measures.
3 The Low-Income Program displayed a verified Therms penalty of 960.00 Therms due to fuel conversion measures.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 1

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 1-3:Nonresidential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Verified Verified
Program Savings Savings Realization
(Therms) (Therms) Rate
HVAC 5,081.68 5,081.68 100.00%
Food Service Equipment 12,910.00 12,910.00 100.00%
Shell 260 260 100.00%
Site-Specific 9,255.77 19,709.00 212.94%
Total 27,507.45 37,960.68 138.00%
Table 1-4 summarizes the gas programs offered to residential, low-income, and nonresidential
customers in the Idaho Avista service territory in PY2022 as well as the Evaluators' evaluation tasks
and impact methodology for each program.
Table 1-4:Impact Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector
.. . .•
Review Verification
Residential Water Heat ✓ ✓ Avista TRM
Residential HVAC ✓ ✓ Avista TRM/IPMVP Option A
Residential Shell ✓ Avista TRM
Residential ENERGY STAR® ✓ Avista TRM
Homes
Residential Small Home& MF ✓ ,/ Avista TRM
Weatherization
Residential Appliances ✓ ✓ Avista TRM
Residential Multifamily Direct ✓ ,/ SBW TRM
Install
Low-Income Low-Income ✓ Avista TRM
Nonresidential HVAC ✓ RTF,Avista TRM
Nonresidential Food Service ✓
RTF,Avista TRM
Equipment
Nonresidential Shell ✓ Avista TRM
Nonresidential Site-Specific ✓ IPMVP Options
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
The following section details the Evaluators' conclusions and recommendations for each the
Residential Portfolio, Low-Income Portfolio, and Nonresidential Portfolio program evaluations.
1.2.1 Conclusions
The following section details the Evaluator's findings resulting from the program evaluations for each
the Residential Portfolio, Low-Income Portfolio, and Nonresidential Portfolio.
1.2.1.1 Residential Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista's Residential gas programs:
The Evaluators found the Residential portfolio to demonstrate a total of 266,415.08 Therms
with a realization rate of 109.30%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 2

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ The Residential Portfolio impact evaluation resulted in a realization rate of 109.30% due to
differences between the applied Avista TRM values and the active RTF UES or applied
measure-level quantities for each measure in addition to the difference in savings values
between the results from billing analyses and the Avista TRM.
■ The Evaluators conducted verification surveys via web survey to collect information from
customers who participated in the Water Heat, HVAC,Small Home& MF Weatherization,and
Appliance programs. A total of 755 unique customers were surveyed between October 2022
and February 2023. The Evaluators collected information including the functionality of the
efficient equipment, and the functionality of the replaced equipment. The Evaluators
calculated in-service rates for the measures within these two programs in order to apply
findings to the verified savings results for each program.
■ The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Water Heat Program was 97.40% with
28,407.84 Therms saved. The Evaluators found two instances in which expected savings
differed from verified savings. One project for each the G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater
and the G Tankless Water Heater were verified to not meet minimum equipment efficiency
requirements, and therefore savings for these two projects were verified to be 0 Therms.The
Evaluators recommend that equipment efficiency is verified prior to fulfilling rebates for this
program. These two adjustments are the only adjustments that led to the 97.40% realization
rate.
■ The Evaluators explored a billing analysis for the natural gas water heater measures within
the Water Heat Program. However, the G 50 Gallon Natural gas Water Heater and the G
Tankless Gas Water Heater measures resulted in savings that were not statistically significant.
Therefore, the Evaluators elected to use Avista TRM values to estimate verified savings. The
Evaluators will explore further billing analyses for these measures during the next program
year if participation permits.
■ The HVAC Program in total displays a realization rate of 114.43%with 216,236 Therms verified
natural gas savings in the Idaho service territory. The realization rate for the natural gas
savings in the HVAC Program deviate from 100% due to differences between the billing
analysis results and the RTF UES.The furnace measure has larger billing analysis results to the
Avista TRM value (billing analysis indicated 103.16 Therms saved for G Natural Gas Furnace,
while Avista TRM indicated 81.66 Therms). In addition, one smart thermostat project was
verified to not qualify based device capabilities and therefore the Evaluators removed savings
for this project. All other rebates were assigned savings equivalent to the expected savings
through Avista TRM values.
■ The Evaluators attempted to estimate smart thermostat measure savings values for the HVAC
Program. However, because the results from the billing analyses for smart thermostats were
contradicting and/or inconclusive, the Evaluators elected to utilize Avista TRM values to
estimate verified savings for these measures.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 3

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ The Shell Program displayed verified savings of 20,360 Therms with a realization rate of
84.15%against the expected savings for the program.The realization rate for the natural gas
savings in the Shell Program deviate from 100% due to the differences between the
differences in the quantity between the Avista tracking database and the verified documents.
The Evaluators conducted a billing analysis for the attic insulation and window replacement
measures, however, due to unexpectedly low savings estimates, the Evaluators chose to
verify savings through the Avista TRM.
■ There were no gas ENERGY STAR Homes rebates claimed for Idaho Gas in PY2022.
■ In the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program, the Evaluators found that many projects
exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista -that a home is single family with less than
1,000 SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). In addition, the Evaluators note that
the current program rebate applications do not provide an option to indicate "Multifamily'
home type. Rather, the current rebate application includes an option for "Single family",
"Manufactured", "New construction", and "Other".
■ The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Small Home & MF Weatherization
Program are unexpectedly high at 94.35% due to differences between the attic insulation
savings values assigned to the project quantities and the verified Avista TRM prescriptive
savings value.Avista used a value of 0.30 Therms/SQFT instead of multifamily attic Avista TRM
value listed at 0.036 Therms/SQFT for the one sampled attic insulation measure.This led to a
120%realization rate for this measure. In addition,the Evaluators verified one window rebate
to have almost half the square footage that the Avista database captured.This led to an 80%
realization rate for the window replacement measure overall.
■ The Appliances Program displayed verified savings of 457 Therms with a realization rate of
109.53%. The Evaluators note that all gas clothes dryer rebates were assigned 0 Therms
expected savings. However, the Evaluators applied Avista TRM UES to these rebates,
therefore leading to a high realization rate for the measure. In addition, the Avista TRM
erroneously converted the RTF electric washer savings value to 6 Therms/unit instead of 4
Therms/unit,therefore leading to a low verified realization rate for this measure. Finally,the
Evaluators removed savings applied to the top load washer because the RTF clothes washer
workbook calculates negative savings for the top load washer,as the market practice baseline
for this measure is already more efficient than the incentivized efficiency. Therefore, , the
Evaluators deemed 0 equivalent savings in Therms for this measure. However, The upward
adjustment for the clothes dryers outweighed the downward adjustments made for the
clothes washers, and therefore the program displays a high realization rate.
1.2.1.2 Low-Income Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista's Low-Income natural gas
programs:
Measurement and Evaluation Report 4

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ The Evaluators found the Low-Income portfolio to demonstrate a total of 1,954.31 Therms
with a realization rate of 100.64%. The Low-Income Portfolio impact evaluation resulted
verified savings that exceeded expected savings.
■ The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level Low-Income Program energy savings
through billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score
matching.The Evaluators attempted to isolate each unique measure. However, participation
for the Low-Income program resulted in a small number of customers with isolated measures
and therefore the Evaluators conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the natural gas
measures combined in the Low-Income to estimate savings for the average household
participating in the program, across all measures. However, the billing analysis results were
not statistically significant.Therefore,the Evaluators found a realization rate of 100.64%from
the desk review with Avista TRM values.
■ The Evaluators note that the deviations from 100%realization rate is due verifying 20%annual
household energy caps were properly applied. The Evaluators allowed full savings when the
20%annual cap was not reached by the sum of all project savings for the service address. For
instances in which the 20%cap was met or exceeded,the Evaluators applied the appropriate
cap to those projects, weighted by measure.
1.2.1.3 Nonresidential Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista's Nonresidential gas programs:
■ The Evaluators found the Non-Residential portfolio to demonstrate a total of 37,960.68
Therms with a realization rate of 138.00%.The difference can be attributed to the Site-Specific
Program: In one project a correction was made to an calculation, and in the second measured
savings, using a metered billing analysis, was higher than what had been calculated as
expected savings.
■ Verified savings for the HVAC Program are 5,081.68 Therms, 100.0% of claimed savings. The
RTF does not currently offer a section for non-residential furnaces, however does for non-
residential boilers. The Evaluators attempted to use the RTF to calculate verified savings for
boilers, however found project documentation to be insufficient to determine key
characteristics, necessary to assign RTF UES. Specific characteristics required are building
type: 'Grocery, Restaurant, and Lodging,' 'Medical — Hospital and Outpatient' or 'All Other.'
The Evaluators attempted to ascertain this information from detailed project-level documents
but were unable to make determinations.
■ Verified savings for the Food Service Equipment Program are 12,910.00 Therms, 100.0% of
claimed savings. Both measures that appear in the PY2022 program there is no current RTF
measure offering to supply UES, or the RTF measure does not include calculations for Therm
savings. In these instances, the Evaluators used Avista TRM values. Evaluators did not find
any deviations between claimed and verified TRM UES.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 5

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ Verified savings for the Shell Program are 260.00 Therms, 100.0%of claimed savings.The RTF
does not provide a current measure listing for the measures in this program. The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for the insulation measure using the 2022 Avista TRM.
■ The Site-Specific program completed two projects in PY2022. Verified savings are 19,709.00
Therms, 212.94% of claimed savings. Savings for one site displayed 283.3% of expected
savings when a metered billing analysis was performed.
1.2.2 Recommendations
The following section details the Evaluator's recommendations resulting from the program
evaluations for each the Residential Portfolio, Low-Income Portfolio, and Nonresidential Portfolio.
1.2.2.1 Residential Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista's Residential natural gas
programs:
■ The Evaluators note instances found in which the web-based rebate data indicates the
household has electric space heating, but all other sources (project data and document
verification) indicate natural gas space heating, and vice versa. The Evaluators recommend
updating data collection standards in order for all sources of information to reflect the same
values as the project documentation.
■ The Evaluators found that many projects claimed under the Small Home&MF Weatherization
Program exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista - that a home is single family with
less than 1,000 SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). The Evaluators recommend
claiming projects on single family homes that are larger than 1,000 SQFT into the Shell
Program.
■ A number of smart thermostat rebates included equipment that did not meet RTF measure
specifications to receive verified savings through the RTF workbooks, which the Avista TRM
values are drawn from. The Evaluators recommend providing a qualified product list for
customers to ensure purchased smart Thermostat meets program requirements. In addition,
the Evaluators recommend Avista verify each program rebate to verify qualifications after
rebates are submitted.
■ In the Appliances Program, The Evaluators note that all gas clothes dryer rebates were
assigned 0 Therms expected savings. However, the Evaluators applied Avista TRM UES to
these rebates, therefore leading to a high realization rate for the measure. The Evaluators
recommend investigating causes for this database error.
■ The Evaluators recommend removing the top load washer from Appliance Program offerings,
as the RTF clothes washer workbook calculates negative savings for the top load washer.This
indicates that the market practice baseline for this measure is already more efficient than the
incentivized to load washer efficiency.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 6

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ The Evaluators recommend Avista update the front load clothes washer Avista TRM value to
correctly convert 120 kWh/unit to 4 Therms/unit. Currently, the Avista TRM reflects 6
Therms/unit.
1.2.2.2 Low-Income Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista's Low-Income natural gas
programs:
■ The Evaluators note that the majority of deviations from 100% realization rate in the Low-
Income Program is due verifying 20% annual household energy caps were properly applied.
The Evaluators recommend verifying each of these values are documented and applied.
The Evaluators identified one instance in which verified savings from a duct insulation
measure was double the reported savings. The reason for this deviation is unclear, however,
the Evaluators recommend that Avista work to ensure Avista TRM rates are properly applied
throughout the Avista rebate database.
1.2.2.3 Nonresidential Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista's Nonresidential natural gas
programs:
■ Within the HVAC Program, when collecting measure information for boiler measures, the
Evaluators recommend collecting information about the type of facility the retrofit is
occurring in, 'Grocery, Restaurant, and Lodging,' 'Medical — Hospital and Outpatient' or 'All
Other'to allow for measure savings assessment using RTF materials.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 7

Avista Idaho PY2022
2-General Methodology
The Evaluators performed an impact evaluation on each of the programs summarized in Table 1-4.The
Evaluators used the following approaches to calculate energy impact defined by the International
Performance Measurement and Verification Protocols (IPMVP)4 and the Uniform Methods Project
(UMP)5:
■ Simple verification (web-based surveys supplemented with phone surveys)
■ Document verification (review project documentation)
■ Deemed savings (RTF UES and Avista TRM values)
■ Whole facility billing analysis (IPMVP Option Q
The Evaluators completed the above impact tasks for each the electric impacts and the natural gas
impacts for projects completed in the Idaho Avista service territory.
The M&V methodologies are program-specific and determined by previous Avista evaluation
methodologies as well as the relative contribution of a given program to the overall energy efficiency
impacts. Besides drawing on IPMVP,the Evaluators also 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 Regional Technical Forum (RTF)'
■ 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'
■ International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) maintained by the
Efficiency Valuation Organization(EVO)with sponsorship by the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE)'
The Evaluators kept data collection instruments, calculation spreadsheets, and monitored/survey data
available for Avista records.
2.1 Glossary of Terminology
As a first step to detailing the evaluation methodologies, the Evaluators have provided a glossary of
terms to follow:
■ Deemed Savings—An estimate of an energy savings outcome (gross savings)for a single unit of
an installed energy efficiency measure.This estimate (a) has been developed from data sources
4 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31505.pdf
6 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fyl8osti/70472.pdf
6 https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures
7 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.
8 Core Concepts:International Measurement and Verification Protocol.EVO 100000—1:2016,October 2016.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 8

Avista Idaho PY2022
and analytical methods that are widely accepted for the measure and purpose and (b) are
applicable to the situation being evaluated.
■ Expected Savings—Calculated savings used for program and portfolio planning purposes.
■ Adjusted Savings—Savings estimates after database review and document verification has been
completed using deemed unit-level savings provided in the Avista TRM. It adjusts for such
factors as data errors and installation rates.
■ Verified Savings—Savings estimates after the updated unit-level savings values have been
updated and energy impact evaluation has been completed, integrating results from billing
analyses and appropriate RTF UES and Avista TRM values.
■ Gross Savings—The change in energy consumption directly resulting from program-related
actions taken by participants in an efficiency program, regardless of why they participated.
■ Free Rider—A program participant who would have implemented the program measure or
practice in absence of the program.
■ Net-To-Gross—A factor representing net program savings divided by gross program savings that
is applied to gross program impacts to convert them into net program load impacts.
■ Net Savings—The change in energy consumption directly resulting from program-related
actions taken by participants in an efficiency program, with adjustments to remove savings due
to free ridership.
■ Non-Energy Benefits—Quantifiable impacts produced by program measures outside of energy
savings (comfort, health and safety, reduced alternative fuel, etc.).
■ Non-Energy Impacts—Quantifiable impacts in energy efficiency beyond the energy savings
gained from installing energy efficient measures (reduced cost for operation and maintenance
of equipment, reduced environmental and safety costs, etc.).
2.2 Summary of Approach
This section presents our general cross-cutting approach to accomplishing the impact evaluation of
Avista's Residential, Low-Income, and Nonresidential programs listed in Table 1-4. The Evaluators start
by presenting our general evaluation approach.This chapter is organized by general task due to several
overlap across programs.
The Evaluators outline the approach to verifying, measuring, and reporting the residential portfolio
impacts as well as cost-effectiveness and summarizing potential program and portfolio 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 due to stay-
at-home orders due to the COVID19 pandemic.
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 a program is meeting its goals.These activities are aimed to provide
guidance for continuous program improvement and increased cost effectiveness for the 2022 and 2023
program years.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 9

Avista Idaho PY2022
The Evaluators employed the following approach to complete impact evaluation activities for the
programs.The Evaluators define two major approaches to determining net savings for Avista's
programs:
■ A Deemed Savings approach involves using stipulated savings for energy conservation measures
for which savings values are well-known and documented.These prescriptive savings may also
include an adjustment for certain measures, such as lighting measures in which site operating
hours may differ from RTF values.
■ A Billing Analysis approach involves estimating energy savings by applying a linear regression to
measured participant energy consumption utility meter billing data. Billing analyses included
billing data from nonparticipant customers.This approach does not require on-site data
collection for model calibration.This approach aligns with the IPMVP Option C.
■ A Custom approach, used for the Site-Specific program involves selecting the appropriate IPMVP
option to apply to the specific measure or project. Typically this is Option A as most projects in
the program are lighting retrofits, however Options B, C and D are also employed, depending
upon the project. Specific methods are discussed in each site report.
The Evaluators accomplished the following quantitative goals as part of the impact evaluation:
■ Verify savings with 10% precision at the 90%confidence level;
■ Where appropriate, apply the RTF to verify measure impacts; and
■ Where available data exists, conduct billing analysis with a suitable comparison group to estimate
measure savings.
For each program,the Evaluators calculated adjusted savings for each measure based on the Avista TRM
and results from the database review.The Evaluators calculated verified savings for each measure based
on the RTF UES,Avista TRM, or billing analysis in combination with the results from document review.
For the HVAC, Water Heat, and Fuel Efficiency programs, the Evaluators also applied in-service rates
(ISRs)from verification surveys.
Reported Database Adjusted Docurnen Evaluate
Savings Review savings Review
The Evaluators assigned methodological rigor level for each measure and program based on its
contribution to the portfolio savings and availability of data.
The Evaluators analyzed billing data for all natural gas measure participants in the HVAC and Low-
Income programs.The Evaluators applied billing analysis results to determine evaluated savings only for
measures where savings could be isolated (that is,where a sufficient number of participants could be
identified who installed only that measure). Program-level realization rates for the HVAC, Water Heat,
and Fuel Efficiency programs incorporate billing analysis results for some measures.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 10

Avista Idaho PY2022
2.2.1 Database Review
At the outset of the evaluation,the Evaluators reviewed the databases to ensure that each 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 are appropriately applied using the Avista TRM.The Evaluators then
aggregated and cross-check program and measure totals.
The Evaluators reviewed program application documents for a sample of incented measures to verify
the tracking data accurately represents the program documents.The Evaluators ensured the home
installed measures that meet or exceed program efficiency standards.
2.2.2 Verification Methodology
The Evaluators verified a sample of participating households for detailed review of the installed measure
documentation and development of verified savings.The Evaluators verified tracking data by reviewing
invoices and surveying a sample of participant customer households.The Evaluators also conducted a
verification survey for program participants.
The Evaluators used the following equations to estimate sample size requirements for each program and
fuel type. Required sample sizes were estimated as follows:
Equation 2-1 Sample Size for Infinite Sample Size
n = rZXCV\Z
d
Equation 2-2 Sample Size for Finite Population Size
n no 1 + C llNl
Where,
■ n =Sample size
■ Z =Z-value for a two-tailed distribution at the assigned confidence level.
■ CV = Coefficient of variation
■ d = Precision level
■ N = 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. A CV of.5 was assumed for residential programs due to
Evaluation and Measurement Report 11

Avista Idaho PY2022
the homogeneity of participation9, which yields a sample size of 68 for an infinite population. 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 document-based
verification and survey-based verification.
2.2.2.1 Document-Based Verification
The Evaluators requested rebate documentation for a subset of participating customers.These
documents included invoices, rebate applications, pictures, and AHRI certifications for the following
programs:
■ Water Heat Program
■ HVAC Program
■ Shell Program
■ Fuel Efficiency Program
■ ENERGY STAR' Homes Program
■ Small Home & MF Weatherization Program
■ Multifamily Direct Install Program
■ Appliances Program
■ Low-Income Program
This sample of documents was used to cross-verify tracking data inputs. In the case the Evaluators found
any deviations between the tracking data and application values,the Evaluators reported and
summarized those differences in the Database Review sections presented for each program in Section
3.2 and Section 4.1.
The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieves a sampling precision of±10% 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 following samples for each program's document review using Equation
2-1 and Equation 2-2.The Evaluators ensured representation in each state and fuel type for each
measure.
9 Assumption based off California Evaluation Framework:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC Public Website/Content/Utilities and Industries/EnergV/Energy Programs/De
mand Side Management/EE and Energy Savings Assist/CAEvaluationFramework.pdf
Evaluation and Measurement Report 12

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 2-1:Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Program
ProgramSample
Sector
Population Population •0' Cl
• ,Residential Water Heat 395 60 90%±9.79%
Residential HVAC 3,040 73 90%±9.51%
Residential Shell 354 66 90%±9.14%
Residential ENERGY STAR® Homes 0 0 N/A
Residential Small Home&MF 20 18 90%±6.29%
Weatherization
Residential Appliances 84 46 90%±8.21%
Residential Multifamily Direct Install 0 0 N/A
±
Low-Income Low-Income 75 21 90%90%
Total 3,975 291 90%±4.64%
Assumes sample size of 68 for an infinite population, based on CV(coefficient of variation)=0.5,d(precision)=10%,Z(critical
value for 90%confidence)=1.645.
The table above represents the number of rebates in Idaho service territory only. The Evaluators ensured
representation of state and fuel type in the sampled rebates for document verification.
2.2.2.2 Survey-Based Verification
The Evaluators conducted survey-based verification for the Water Heat Program, HVAC Program, and
Appliances Program. The primary purpose of conducting a verification survey is to confirm that the
measure was installed and is still currently operational and whether the measure was early retirement
or replace-on-burnout.
The Evaluators summarize the final sample sizes of sampled Idaho Gas Avista projects shown in Table
2-2 for the programs listed.The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieved a sampling
precision of±6.48% at 90%statistical confidence for ISRs estimates at the measure-level during web-
based survey verification.
Table 2-2:Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Program
RespondentsSector Program Population � •0' Cl
Residential Water Heat 395 31 90%±14.2%
Residential HVAC 3,040 100 90%±8.09%
Residential Small Home&MF 20 4 90%±37.74%
Weatherization
Residential Appliances 84 19 90%±16.7%
Total 3,539 154 90%±6.48%
The Evaluators implemented a web-based survey to complete the verification surveys. The findings from
these activities served to estimate ISRs for each measure surveyed. These ISRs were applied to
verification sample desk review rebates towards verified savings, which were then applied to the
population of rebates.The measure-level ISRs resulting from the survey-based verification are
summarized in Section 3.1.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 13

Avista Idaho PY2022
2.2.2.3 Survey-Based Verification
For sampled projects in the Site-Specific program,the Evaluators conducted onsite visits to the facilities
to verify installation, collected facility characteristic and collected any data needed to conducted savings
calculations. In ID, one of two sites was visited to verify natural gas measures. Further details are
available in the Site-Specific chapter.
2.2.3 Impact Evaluation Methodology
The Evaluators employed the following approach to complete impact evaluation activities for the
programs.The Evaluators define two major approaches to determining net savings for Avista's
programs:
■ Deemed Savings
■ Billing Analysis (IPMVP Option C)
The Site-Specific program also employed various IPMVP options, deepening upon the project and
measure, and is discussed separately as it differs in approach from the approaches used in the
remainder of the portfolio. In the following sections,the Evaluators summarize the general guidelines
and activities followed to conduct each the deemed savings and billing analyses approaches above.
2.2.3.1 Deemed Savings
This section summarizes the deemed savings analysis method the Evaluators employed for the
evaluation of a subset of measures for each program.The Evaluators completed the validation for
specific measures across each program using the RTF unit energy savings (UES)values, where available.
The Evaluators ensured the proper measure unit savings were recorded and used in the calculation of
Avista's ex-ante measure savings.The Evaluators requested and used the technical reference manual
Avista employed during calculation of ex-ante measure savings (Avista TRM).The Evaluators
documented any cases where recommend values differed from the specific unit energy savings
workbooks used by Avista.
In cases where the RTF has existing unit energy savings (UES) applicable to Avista's measures,the
Evaluators verified the quantity and quality of installations and apply the RTF's UES to determine
verified savings.
2.2.3.2 Billing Analysis
This section describes the billing analysis methodology employed by the Evaluators as part of the impact
evaluation and measurement of energy savings for measures with sufficient participation.The
Evaluators performed billing analyses with a matched control group and utilized a quasi-experimental
method of producing a post-hoc control group. In program designs where treatment and control
customers are not randomly selected at the outset, such as for downstream rebate programs, quasi-
experimental designs are required.
For the purposes of this analysis, a household is considered a treatment household if it has received a
program incentive. Additionally, a household is considered a control household if the household has not
Evaluation and Measurement Report 14

Avista Idaho PY2022
received a program incentive.To isolate measure impacts, treatment households are eligible to be
included in the billing analysis if they installed only one measure during the 2020 and 2021 program
years. Isolation of individual measures are necessary to provide valid measure-level savings. Households
that installed more than one measure may display interactive energy savings effects across multiple
measures that are not feasibly identifiable.Therefore, instances where households installed isolated
measures are used in the billing analyses. In addition,the pre-period identifies the period prior to
measure installation while the post-period refers to the period following measure installation.
The Evaluators utilized propensity score matching (PSM) to match nonparticipants to similar participants
using pre-period billing data. PSM allows the evaluators to find the most similar household based on the
customers' billed consumption trends in the pre-period and verified with statistical difference testing.
After matching based on these variables,the billing data for treatment and control groups are
compared, as detailed in IPMVP Option C.The Evaluators fit regression models to estimate weather-
dependent daily consumption differences between participating customer and nonparticipating
customer households.
Cohort Creation
The PSM approach estimates a propensity score for treatment and control customers using a logistic
regression model. A propensity score is a metric that summarizes several dimensions of household
characteristics into a single metric that can be used to group similar households.The Evaluators created
a post-hoc control group by compiling billing data from a subset of nonparticipants in the Avista territory
to compare against treatment households using quasi-experimental methods.This allowed the
Evaluators to select from a large group of similar households that have not installed an incented
measure. With this information,the Evaluators created statistically valid matched control groups for
each measure via seasonal pre-period usage.The Evaluators matched customers in the control group to
customers in the treatment group based on nearest seasonal pre-period usage (e.g., summer, spring,
fall, and winter) and exact 3-digit zip code matching(the first three digits of the five-digit zip code). After
matching,the Evaluators conducted a t-test for each month in the pre-period to help determine the
success of PSM.
While it is not possible to guarantee the creation of a sufficiently matched control group,this method is
preferred because it is likely to have more meaningful results than a treatment-only analysis. Some
examples of outside variables that a control group can sufficiently control for are changes in economies
and markets, large-scale social changes, or impacts from weather-related anomalies such as flooding or
hurricanes.
After PSM,the Evaluators ran the following regression models for each measure:
■ Fixed effect Difference-in-Difference (D-n-D) regression model (recommended in UMP
protocols)10
■ Random effects post-program regression model (PPR) (recommended in UMP protocols)
10 National Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL)Uniform Methods Project(UMP)Chapter 17 Section 4.4.7.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 15

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ Gross billing analysis (treatment only)
The second model listed above (PPR) was selected because it had the best fit for the data, identified
using the adjusted R-squared. Further details on regression model specifications can be found below.
Data Collected
The following lists the data collected for the billing analysis:
1. Monthly billing data for program participants (treatment customers)
2. Monthly billing data for a group of non-program participants (control customers)
3. Program tracking data, including customer identifiers, address, and date of measure installation
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)weather data between January 1,2020
and December 31, 2022)
5. Typical Meteorological Year(TMY3) data
Billing and weather data were obtained for program year 2022 and for one year prior to measure install
dates (2021).
Weather data was obtained from the nearest weather station with complete data during the analysis
years for each customer by mapping the weather station location with the customer zip code.
TMY weather stations were assigned to NOAA weather stations by geocoding the minimum distance
between each set of latitude and longitude points.This data is used for extrapolating savings to long-
run, 30-year average weather.
Data Preparation
The following steps were taken to prepare the billing data:
1. Gathered billing data for homes that participated in the program.
2. Excluded participant homes that also participated in the other programs, if either program
disqualifies the combination of any other rebate or participation.
3. Gathered billing data for similar customers that did not participate in the program in evaluation.
4. Excluded bills missing address information.
5. Removed bills missing fuel type/Unit of Measure (UOM).
6. Removed bills missing usage, billing start date, or billing end date.
7. Remove bills with outlier durations (<9 days or>60 days).
8. Excluded bills with consumption indicated to be outliers.
9. Calendarized bills (recalculates bills, usage, and total billed such that bills begin and end at the
start and end of each month).
10. Obtained weather data from nearest NOAA weather station using 5-digit zip code per household.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 16

Avista Idaho PY2022
11. Computed Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD) for a range of setpoints.
The Evaluators assigned a setpoint of 65°F for both HDD and CDD. The Evaluators tested and
selected the optimal temperature base for HDDs and CDDs based on model R-squared values.
12. Selected treatment customers with only one type of measure installation during the analysis years
and combined customer min/max install dates with billing data (to define pre-and post-periods).
13. Restricted to treatment customers with install dates in specified range (typically January 1, 2022
through June 30, 2022)to allow for sufficient post-period billing data.
14. Restricted to control customers with usage less than or equal to two times the maximum observed
treatment group usage. This has the effect of removing control customers with incomparable
usage relative to the treatment group.
15. Removed customers with incomplete post-period bills (<4 months).
16. Removed customers with incomplete pre-period bills.
17. Restricted control customers to those with usage that was comparable with the treatment group
usage.
18. Created a matched control group using PSM and matching on pre-period seasonal usage and zip
code.
Regression Models
The Evaluators ran the following models for matched treatment and control customers for each
measure with sufficient participation. For net savings,the Evaluators selected either Model 1 or Model
2.The model with the best fit (highest adjusted R-squared) was selected.The Evaluators utilized Model
3 to estimate gross energy savings.
Model 1:Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference Regression Model
The following equation displays the first model specification to estimate the average daily savings due to
the measure.
Equation 2-3:Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference(D-n-D) Model Specification
ADCit = ao +/31(Post)it +QZ(Post x Treatment)it +fl3(HDD)it +fl4(CDD)it
+ fls(Post x HDD)it +&(Post x CDD)it +fl7(Post x HDD x Treatment)it
+ N(Post x CDD x Treatment)it +/39(Month)t +/310(Customer Dummy)i + Fit
Where,
■ i=the ith household
■ t=the first, second,third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
■ ADCit =Average daily usage reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
■ Postit = A dummy variable indicating pre- or post-period designation during period t
at home i
■ Treatmenti =A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
■ HDDit = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
Evaluation and Measurement Report 17

Avista Idaho PY2022
■ CDDit =Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
■ Montht=A set of dummy variables indicating the month during period t
■ Customer Dummyi = a customer-specific dummy variable isolating individual household
effects
■ £it =The error term
■ ao=The model intercept
■ #,-10 =Coefficients determined via regression
The Average Daily Consumption (ADC) is calculated as the total monthly billed usage divided by the
duration of the bill month.f32 represents the average change in daily baseload in the post-period
between the treatment and control group and#7 and#8 represent the change in weather-related daily
consumption in the post-period between the groups. Typical monthly and annual savings were
estimated by extrapolating the f37 and f38 coefficients with Typical Meteorological Year(TMY) HDD and
CDD data. However, in the case of gas usage, only the coefficient for HDD is utilized because CDDs were
not included in the regression model.
The equation below displays how savings were extrapolated for a full year utilizing the coefficients in the
regression model and TMY data.TMY data is weighted by the number of households assigned to each
weather station.
Equation 2-4:Savings Extrapolation
Annual Savings = F'2 * 365.25 +f37 * TMY HDD +f38 * TMY CDD
Model 2:Random Effects Post-Program Regression Model
The following equation displays the second model specification to estimate the average daily savings
due to the measure.The post-program regression (PPR) model combines both cross-sectional and time
series data in a panel dataset.This model uses only the post-program data, with lagged energy use for
the same calendar month of the pre-program period acting as a control for any small systematic
differences between the treatment and control customers; in particular, energy use in calendar month t
of the post-program period is framed as a function of both the participant variable and energy use in the
same calendar month of the pre-program period.The underlying logic is that systematic differences
between treatment and control customers will be reflected in the differences in their past energy use,
which is highly correlated with their current energy use.These interaction terms allow pre-program
usage to have a different effect on post-program usage in each calendar month.
The model specification is as follows:
Equation 2-5:Post-Program Regression (PPR) Model Specification
ADCit = a0 +f,(Treatment)i +f32 (PreUsage)i +f33 (PreUsageSummer)i
+f34(PreUsageWinter)i +#s(Month)t +f36(Month x PreUsage)it
+f37(Month x PreUsageSummer)it +f38(Month x PreUsageWinter)it
+fj9(HDD)it +fjl0(CDD)it +#,,(Treatment x HDD)it +f312(Treatment x CDD)it
+ Fit
Evaluation and Measurement Report 18

Avista Idaho PY2022
Where,
■ i=the ith household
■ t=the first, second,third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
■ ADCit =Average daily usage for reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
■ Treatmenti =A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
■ Montht = Dummy variable indicating month of month t
■ PreUsagei =Average daily usage across household is available pre-treatment billing reads
■ PreUsageSummeri = Average daily usage in the summer months across household is
available pretreatment billing reads
■ PreUsageWinteri =Average daily usage in the winter months across household is available
pre-treatment billing reads
■ HDDit = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
■ CDDit =Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
■ £it = Customer-level random error
■ ao=The model intercept for home i
■ fl1-12 =Coefficients determined via regression
The coefficient Ql represents the average change in consumption between the pre-period and post-
period for the treatment group and/311 and f312 represent the change in weather-related daily
consumption in the post-period between the groups.Typical monthly and annual savings were
estimated by extrapolating the f311 and N12 coefficients with Typical Meteorological Year(TMY) HDD and
CDD data.
The equation below displays how savings were extrapolated for a full year utilizing the coefficients in the
regression model and TMY data.
Equation 2-6:Savings Extrapolation
Annual Savings = f31 * 365.25 +f311 * TMY HDD +f312 * TMY CDD
Model 3:Gross Billing Analysis, Treatment-Only Regression Model
The sections above detail the Evaluator's methodology for estimating net energy savings for each
measure.The results from the above methodology report net savings due to the inclusion of the
counterfactual comparison group. However,for planning purposes, it is useful to estimate gross savings
for each measure.To estimate gross savings,the Evaluators employed a similar regression model;
however, only including participant customer billing data.This analysis does not include control group
billing data and therefore models energy reductions between the pre-period and post-period for the
measure participants (treatment customers).
To calculate the impacts of each measure,the Evaluators applied linear fixed effects regression using
participant billing data with weather controls in the form of Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling
Degree Days (CDD).The following equation displays the model specification to estimate the average
daily savings due to the measure.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 19

Avista Idaho PY2022
Equation 2-7: Treatment-Only Fixed Effects Weather Model Specification
ADCit = ao +f31(Post)it +f32(HDD)it +f33(CDD)it +f34(Post x HDD)it +f35(Post x CDD)it
+&(Customer Dummy)i +#7(Month)t + Eit
Where,
■ i=the ith household
■ t=the first, second,third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
■ ADCit =Average daily usage for reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
■ HDDit = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
■ CDDit =Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
■ Postit = A dummy variable indicating pre- or post-period designation during period t at
home i
■ Customer Dummyi = a customer-specific dummy variable isolating individual household
effects
■ Eit = Customer-level random error
■ ao=The model intercept for home i
■ f31_6 = Coefficients determined via regression
The results of the treatment-only regression models are gross savings estimates.The gross savings
estimates are useful to compare against the net savings estimates. However,the treatment-only models
are unable to separate the effects of the COVID19 pandemic.The post-period for PY2022 and perhaps
also PY2022 are affected by the stay-at-home orders that had taken effect starting March 2021 in Idaho.
The stay-at-home orders most likely affect the post-period household usage. Because there is
insufficient post-period data before the shelter-in-place orders,the Evaluators were unable to separate
the effects on consumption due to the orders and the effects on consumption due to the measure
installation.Therefore,the results from this additional gross savings analysis are unable to reflect actual
typical year savings. However, for planning purposes,these estimates may be useful.
2.2.4 Net-To-Gross
The Northwest RTF UES measures do not require NTG adjustments as they are built into the deemed
savings estimates. In addition, billing analyses with counterfactual control groups, as proposed in our
impact methodology, does not require a NTG adjustment, as the counterfactual represents the
efficiency level at current market (i.e. the efficiency level the customer would have installed had they
not participated in the program).
2.2.5 Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators used the Regional Technical Forum (RTF)to quantify non-energy benefits (NEBs)for
residential measures with established RTF values where available. Measures with quantified NEBs
include residential insulation, high efficiency windows, air source heat pumps, and ductless heat pumps.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 20

Avista Idaho PY2022
In addition to the residential NEBs, the Evaluators applied the end-use non-energy benefit and health
and human safety non-energy benefit to the Low-Income Program.The Evaluators understand that the
two major non-energy benefits referenced above are uniquely applicable to the Low-Income Program.
The Evaluators applied those benefits to the program impacts as well as additional non-energy benefits
associated with individual measures included in the program.The Evaluators incorporated additional
NEBs to the impact evaluation, as applicable. Additional details on the non-energy benefits applied can
be found in Section 2.2.5.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 21

Avista Idaho PY2022
3. Residential Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Avista's Residential portfolio to verify program-level
and measure-level energy savings for PY2022. The following sections summarize findings for each
natural gas impact evaluation in the Residential Portfolio in the Idaho service territory. The Evaluators
used data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms, Avista TRM, RTF,
and billing analysis of participants and nonparticipants to evaluate savings. This approach provided the
strongest estimate of achieved savings practical for each program, given its delivery method, magnitude
of savings, number of participants, and availability of data. Table 3-1 summarizes the Residential verified
impact savings by program.
Table 3-1:Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Verified Verified
Program Savings Savings Realization
(Therms) (Therms) Rate
Water Heat 29,167.60 28,407.84 97.40%
HVAC 188,961.00 216,235.62 114.43%
Shell 24,195.05 20,360.10 84.15%
ENERGY STAR Homes 0.00 0.00 -
Small Home&MF
1,011.78 954.61 94.35%
Weatherization
Appliances 417.15 456.91 109.53%
Multifamily Direct Install 0.00 0.00 -
Total Res 243,752.58 266,415.08 109.30%
In PY2022, Avista completed and provided incentives for residential natural gas measures in Idaho and
reported total natural gas savings of 266,415.08 Therms. All programs except the Appliances Program
met savings goals based on reported savings, leading to an overall achievement of 109.30% of the
expected savings for the residential programs. Further details of the impact evaluation results by
program are provided in the sections following.
3.1 Simple Verification Results
The Evaluators surveyed 755 unique customers that participated in Avista's residential energy efficiency
program from October 2022 to March 2023 using an email survey approach. The Evaluators also
conducted targeted follow-up outreach to customers for certain measures.
The Evaluators surveyed customers that received rebates for Water Heat, HVAC, Small Home & MF
Weatherization, and Appliance programs.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 22

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-2:Summary of Survey Response Rate
Population Respondents
Initial email contact list 1,376
Invalid or bounced 53
Invalid or bounced email(%) 4%
Invitations sent(unique valid) 1,323
Completions 302
Response rate(%) 23%
3.1.1 In-Service Rates
The Evaluators calculated in-service rates of installed measures from simple verification surveys
deployed to program participants for the Water Heat and HVAC Programs.The Fuel Efficiency program
was surveyed for the electric measures;the sample is provided in the Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation
report and does not contribute to the precision for the Idaho Gas impacts.The Evaluators asked
participants if the rebated equipment is currently installed and working, in addition to questions about
the new equipment fuel type.The Evaluators achieved ±6.48% precision across the programs surveyed
for the natural gas measures in Avista's service territory, summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3:Simple Verification Precision by Program
Sector Program Population Respondents
cl
Residential Water Heat 395 31 90%±14.2%
Residential HVAC 3,040 100 90%±8.09%
Residential Small Home& MF 20 4 90%±37.74%
Weatherization
Residential Appliances 84 19 90%± 16.7%
Total 3,539 154 90%±6.48%
The measure-level ISRs determined from the verification survey for each program in which simple
verification was conducted is presented in the tables below.The tables below summarize Idaho-level
(state-level) respondents and ISR as well as Idaho and Washington-level (mixed state-level) respondents
and ISR.
Table 3-4: Water Heat Program ISRs by Measure
MethodologyState-level State- Mixed State- Mixed
Measure Respondents level ISR level State-level ISR
Respondents
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater* 6 100% 23 100% Mixed state ISR
G Tankless Water Heater* 25 100% 71 100% Mixed state ISR
*These measures did not receive enough responses to meet 90/10 precision and therefore
100%in-service rate is assumed
Evaluation and Measurement Report 23

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-5:HVAC Program ISRs by Measure
MethodologyState-level State- Mixed State- Mixed
Measure Respondents level ISR level State-level ISR
Respondents
G FURNACE 95%(Multi-Stage) N/A N/A 24 100% Mixed state ISR
G Natural Gas Boiler 1 100% 3 100% State-specific ISR
G Natural Gas Furnace 59 100% 128 100% State-specific ISR
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural 8 100% 47 96% State-specific ISR
Gas Heat
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with 32 100% °
Natural Gas Heat 89 100% State-specific ISR
Table 3-6:Small Home& MF Weatherization Program ISRs by Measure
State-level—I I Mixed State- Mixed
Respondents—I
Respondents ISR
IG Multifamily 50 Gallon Natural Gas ° °ater HePater* N/A N/A 1 100% Assume 100/ISR
G Multifamily Attic Insulation With 1 100% 1 N/A Assume 100%ISR
Natural Gas Heat*
G Multifamily Furnace 95%* N/A N/A 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
G Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY* 1 100% 2 100% Assume 100%ISR
G Multifamily Smart Thermostat Paid* 1 100% 1 100% Assume 100%ISR
G Multifamily Tankless Water Heater* N/A N/A 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
G Multifamily Window Replc With 1 100% 2 N/A Assume 100%ISR
Natural Gas Heat*
G Multifamily Wall Insulation With N/A N/A 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Natural Gas Heat*
*These measures did not receive enough responses to meet 90/10 precision and therefore
100%in-service rate is assumed
Table 3-7:Appliances Program ISRs by Measure
Methodology_T
State-level State- Mixed State- M ixed
Measure level State-level ISR
Respondents
Respondents
G Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 1 6 1 100% 17 100% 1 Mixed state ISR
G Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer 1 12 1 100% 40 1 Mixed state ISR
These ISR values were utilized in the desk reviews for the Water Heat, HVAC, Small Home & MF
Weatherization, and Appliance Programs in order to calculate verified savings. Additional insights from
the survey responses are summarized in Appendix B: Summary of Survey Respondents.
3.2 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Residential sector in the section below.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 24

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.1 Water Heat Program
The Water Heat Program encourages customers to replace their existing electric or natural gas water
heater with high efficiency equipment. Customers receive incentives after installation and after
submitting a completed rebate form.Table 3-8 summarizes the gas measures offered under this
program.
Table 3-8: Water Heat Program Measures
Measure Description
nalysis
•.• .•
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater Storage tank natural gas water heater,50 gallons or Avista TRM
less
G Tankless Water Heater Tankless natural gas water heater Avista TRM
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the Water Heat Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-9: Water Heat Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
...... Savings Savings Savings Realization
Participation (Therms) (Therms) (Therms) Rate
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater 31 698 676 465 66.67%
G Tankless Water Heater 364 28,470 28,392 27,943 98.15%
Total 395 29,167.60 29,067.80 28,407.84 97.40%
The Water Heat Program displayed verified savings of 28,407.84 Therms with a realization rate of
97.40% against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive
costs from the program.
Table 3-10: Water Heat Program Costs
Incentive
Costs
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater $3,200.00
G Tankless Water Heater $145,600.00
Total $148,800.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Water Heat Program in the section below.
3.2.1.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Water Heat Program.
3.2.1.2 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Water Heat
Program.The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 25

Avista Idaho PY2022
The Evaluators found all Water Heat Program rebates to have completed rebate applications with the
associated water heater model number and efficiency values filled in either the Customer Care & Billing
(CC&B)web rebate data or mail-in rebate applications.
In addition,the Evaluators note that the CC&B web rebate data reflected consistent values between the
mail-in rebate applications, invoices, and AHRI certification documents submitted with the rebate
application.The Evaluators found two deviations, however.The Evaluators found that for one G 50
Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater and one G Tankless Water Heater,the minimum equipment efficiency
was not met when the Evaluators verified appropriate AHRI documents.
3.2.1.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure.The Evaluators included questions such as:
■ Was this water heater a new construction, or did it replace another water heater?
■ Was the previous water heater functional?
■ Is the newly installed water heater still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
Water Heat Program.
Table 3-11 displays the ISRs for each of the Water Heat measures for Idaho and Washington territory
combined.
Table 3-11: Water Heat Verification Survey ISR Results
Program-LevelNumber of Number of
Rebates* Survey Precision at •0 , In-Service Rate
Completes Confidence
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas
Water Heater 138 23 90%+8 21°/* 1000
0
G Tankless Water Heater 743 71 100%
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
All survey respondents for each water heater measure described equipment to be currently functioning,
leading to a 100% ISR.The Evaluators applied these ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified savings for
each measure.
3.2.1.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Water Heat Program.The Evaluators
conducted a billing analysis for measures where participation allowed.The Evaluators calculated verified
savings for the remaining measures using active values from the Avista TRM workbook.These values
were applied to a random sample of participants,with verification of project documents such as rebate
applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 26

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.1.5 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the Water Heat Program are provided in this section.The
methodology for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.3.2.
Table 3-12 displays customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with
single-measure installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
Table 3-12:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Water Heat Program
Measure Number of Sufficient
Measure Considered for Customers w/ Participation
Billing Analysis I Isolated-Measure for Billing
Installations Analysis
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater ✓ 51
G Tankless Gas Water Heater ✓ 225 ✓
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon.The Evaluators
used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment customer was
matched to 5 similar control customers.The final number of customers in each the treatment and
control group are listed in Table 3-13.
The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure and the Evaluators conducted a linear
regression using the matched participant and nonparticipant monthly billing data.
Table 3-13 provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR)was selected as the
final model for the Water Heat Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the
regression model for the tankless water heat measure.Although savings for the G Tankless Water
Heater were statistically significant,the estimate is lower than what we would expect to see for this
measure.
Table 3-13:Measure Savings, Water Heat Program
Annual
Treatment Control Savings ,0, .0' Adjusted
UpperMeasure Customers Customers per Lower Model
ClCustomer Cl
G Tankless Water Heater 225 224 13.78* I 23.69 3.87 0.92 Model 2:
PPR
*Not statistically significant
Because the results from this billing analyses are inconclusive,the Evaluators elected to utilize Avista
TRM values to estimate verified savings for these measures.The findings from the PY2022 billing
analyses for these measures may have been impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. Further details of the
billing analysis for the variable speed motor measure can be found Appendix A.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 27

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.1.6 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to
estimate net program savings for this measure.The verified savings for the program is 28,407.84 Therms
with a realization rate of 97.40%, as displayed in Table 3-9.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Water Heat Program deviated from 100% because
one project for each the G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater and the G Tankless Water Heater were
verified to not meet minimum equipment efficiency requirements, and therefore savings for these two
projects were verified to be 0 Therms.The Evaluators recommend that equipment efficiency is verified
prior to fulfilling rebates for this program.These two adjustments are the only adjustments that led to
the 97.40% realization rate.
3.2.2 HVAC Program
The HVAC program encourages installation of high efficiency HVAC equipment and smart Thermostats
through customer incentives.The program is available to residential electric or natural gas customers
with a winter heating season usage of 4,000 or more kWh, or at least 160 Therms of space heating in the
prior year. Existing or new construction homes are eligible to participate in the program.Table 3-14
summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-14:HVAC Program Measures
ImpactMeasure Description
Methodology
G Natural Gas Boiler Natural gas boiler Avista TRM
G Natural Gas Furnace Natural gas forced air furnace IPMVP Option A
with billing data
G Natural Gas Wall Heater Natural gas wall heater Avista TRM
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Professionally installed connected
Natural Gas Heat Thermostats in natural gas-heated Avista TRM
home
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install Variable speed motor in natural gas-
with Natural Gas Heat heated home Avista TRM
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the HVAC Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-15:HVAC Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Realization
(Therms) (Therms) Rate
G Natural Gas Boiler 19 2,010 2,136 2,010 100.00%
G Natural Gas Furnace 1,751 152,685 123,519 181,116 118.62%
G Smart Thermostat DIY with 173 4,635 4,609 3,477 75.01%
Natural Gas Heat
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install 1,094 29,304 29,146 29,306 100.01%
with Natural Gas Heat
G Wall Furnace 3 327 245 327 100.00%
Total 3,040 188,961.00 159,655.04 216,235.62 114.43%
Evaluation and Measurement Report 28

Avista Idaho PY2022
The HVAC Program displayed verified savings of 216,235.62 Therms with a realization rate of 114.43%
against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 3-16:HVAC Program Costs
G Natural Gas Boiler $8,550.00
G Natural Gas Furnace $790,200.00
G Smart Thermostat DIY with
Natural Gas Heat $20,034.42
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install
with Natural Gas Heat $164,706.88
G Wall Furnace $1,800.00
Total $985,291.30
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the HVAC Program in the section below.
3.2.2.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the HVAC Program.
3.2.2.2 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the HVAC
Program.The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators found all HVAC Program rebates to have project documentation with the associated
HVAC model number and efficiency values in either the CC&B web rebate data or mail-in rebate
applications. In addition, all projects contained associated AHRI certifications, allowing the Evaluators to
easily verify model specifications.
3.2.2.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure described in Section 2.2.2.2.The Evaluators included questions such as:
■ What type of Thermostat did this Thermostat replace?
■ Is your home heating with electricity, natural gas, or another fuel?
■ Was the previous equipment functional?
■ Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
HVAC Program.The responses to these additional questions can be found in Appendix A.
Table 3-17 displays the ISRs for each of the HVAC measures for Idaho and Washington natural gas
territory combined.The ISRs resulted in ±8.09% precision at the 90%confidence interval for the
program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 29

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-17:HVAC Verification Survey ISR Results
Number Number of Precision In-Service
Measure of Survey at •0
Rebates* Completes Confidence Rate
G Natural Gas Boiler 19 1 100%
G Natural Gas Furnace 1,751 59 100%
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat 173 8 90% 100%
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas 1,094 32 ±8.09%* 100%
Heat
G Wall Furnace 3 0 Assume
100%ISR
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
Survey respondents described equipment to be currently functioning, leading to a 100% ISR for all
measures except the G Natural Gas Furnace measure.The Evaluators applied the ISRs listed in Table
3-17 to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each measure.
3.2.2.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the HVAC Program.The Evaluators conducted a
billing analysis for measures where participation allowed, however, the results were inconclusive. The
Evaluators calculated verified savings for the remaining measures using active values from the Avista
TRM workbook.These values were applied to a random sample of participants, with verification of
project documents such as rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the
equipment.
3.2.2.5 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the HVAC program are provided in this section.The methodology
for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.3.2.
Table 3-18 displays customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with
single-measure installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
The customers considered for billing analysis include customers in both Washington and Idaho service
territories in order to gather the maximum number of customers possible for precise savings estimates.
Table 3-18:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, HVAC Program
Number: Measure of IW' Sufficient ml�
Measure Considered for Customers w/ Participation
111"r Billing Analysis Isolated-Measure for Billing
Installations* Analysis
G FURNACE 95%(Multi-Stage) ✓ 187 ✓
G Natural Gas Boiler ✓ 2
G Natural Gas Furnace ✓ 1053 ✓
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat ✓ 427 ✓
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas ✓ 608 ✓
Heat
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
Evaluation and Measurement Report 30

Avista Idaho PY2022
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon.The Evaluators
used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment customer was
matched to 5 similar control customers.The final number of customers in each the treatment and
control group are listed in provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was
selected as the final model for the HVAC Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among
the regression models. Savings are not statistically significant at the 90% level for the DIY smart
Thermostat measure.
Table 3-19.
The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
4. t-test on pre-period usage by month
5. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
6. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure and the Evaluators conducted a linear
regression using the matched participant and nonparticipant monthly billing data.
provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as the final model
for the HVAC Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the regression models.
Savings are not statistically significant at the 90% level for the DIY smart Thermostat measure.
Table 3-19 provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as the
final model for the HVAC Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the regression
models. Savings are not statistically significant at the 90% level for the DIY smart Thermostat measure.
Table 3-19: Measure Savings, HVAC Program
Annual .0, .0.
Measure Treatment Control Savings per Lower Upper Adjusted Model
Customers Customers Customer R-Squared
G FURNACE 95%(Multi-Stage) 187 183 20.28 37.19 3.36 0.91 Model 2: PPR
G Natural Gas Furnace 1,053 1,019 13.82 20.23 7.41 0.92 Model 2: PPR
G Smart Thermostat Paid 427 422 13.78 23.69 3.87 0.92 Model 2: PPR
Install with Natural Gas Heat
G Smart Thermostat DIY with
Natural Gas Heat* 608 594 -1.5 5.64 -8.64 0.94 Model 2: PPR
*Not statistically significant
Because the results from these three billing analyses are lower than we would expect for these
measures, the Evaluators elected to utilize a retrofit isolation methodology for the furnaces,further
described in the next section. For the smart thermostats, the Evaluators elected to use Avista TRM
values to estimate verified savings.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 31

Avista Idaho PY2022
Retrofit Isolation Results
A retrofit isolation approach was used to estimate savings for Natural Gas Furnaces in addition to the
billing analysis. Because the retrofit isolation approach relies on extracting baseload usage estimate
from summer(June—August) billing data,the sample was restricted to customers with installations in
January, 2022 and 11 months of post installation data. Table 3-20 provides annual gas savings for
Natural Gas Furnaces.The Evaluators estimate the G FURNACE 95% (Multi-Stage) at 103.16 Therms and
the G Natural Gas Furnace measure to display an annual savings of 123.36 Therms.These verified valued
were applied to all associated rebates in the Idaho gas service territory.
Table 3-20: Measure Savings for Natural Gas Furnaces, HVAC Program
#of Treatment Annual Savings/Customer •0, .0,
Customers (Therms) Lower Cl Upper Cl
G FURNACE 95%(Multi-Stage) 183 103.16 2.02 0.02
G Natural Gas Furnace 1,019 123.36 7.92 0.06
3.2.2.6 Verified Savings
The HVAC Program in total displays a realization rate of 114.43%with 216,235.04 Therms verified
natural gas savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-15.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the HVAC Program deviate from 100%due to
differences between the billing analysis results and the RTF UES. In addition, one smart thermostat
project was verified to not qualify based device capabilities and therefore the Evaluators removed
savings for this project.All other rebates were assigned savings equivalent to the expected savings
through Avista TRM values.The furnace measure has larger billing analysis results to the Avista TRM
value (billing analysis indicated 103.16 Therms saved for G Natural Gas Furnace, while Avista TRM
indicated 81.66 Therms).
The Evaluators attempted to estimate smart thermostat measure savings values for the HVAC Program.
However, because the results from the billing analyses for smart thermostats were contradicting and/or
inconclusive, the Evaluators elected to utilize Avista TRM values to estimate verified savings for these
measures.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 32

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.3 Shell Program
The Shell Program provides incentives to customers for improving the integrity of the home's envelope
with upgrades to windows and storm windows. Rebates are issued after the measure has been installed
for insulation and window measures. Participating homes must have natural gas or natural gas heating
and itemized invoices including measure details such as insulation levels, window values, and square
footage. In order to be eligible for incentive, the single-family households, including fourplex or less,
must demonstrate an annual electricity usage of at least 8,000 kWh or an annual gas usage of at least
340 Therms. Multifamily homes have no usage requirement. This program includes free manufactured
home duct sealing implemented by UCONS. Table 3-21 summarizes the measures offered under this
program.
Table 3-21:Shell Program Measures
escription j " impact Analysis
Methodolog
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Attic insulation for homes heated with natural Avista TRM
Heat gas
G Energy Star Certified Insulated ENERGY STAR-certified door for homes heated Avista TRM
Door with natural gas
G Floor Insulation With Natural Gas Floor insulation for homes heated with natural Avista TRM
Heat gas
G IGU Window Replc With Natural IGU window replacement for homes heated with Avista TRM
Gas Heat natural gas
G Storm Windows with Natural Gas High-efficiency storm window replacement for Avista TRM
Heat homes heated with natural gas
G Wall Insulation With Natural Gas Wall insulation for homes heated with natural Avista TRM
Heat gas
G Window Replc With Natural Gas High-efficiency window replacement for homes Avista TRM
Heat heated with natural gas
The following table summarizes the adjusted and verified natural gas savings for the Shell Program
impact evaluation.
Table 3-22:Shell Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
Ow— Expected T_ Adjusted Verified__7_Veri�fied
Measure - ----- Savings Savings Savings Realization
IF Participation (Therms) (Therms) (Therms) Rate
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 56 10,136 10,221 10,136 100.00%
G Energy Star Insulated Door 24 807 869 1,075 133.35%
G Floor Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 5 442 442 442 100.00%
G Storm Windows with Natural Gas Heat 1 34 33 33 97.37%
G Wall Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 13 899 899 1,299 144.61%
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 255 11,878 11,476 7,374 62.08%
Total 354 24,195.05 23,939.08 20,360.10 84.15%
The Shell Program displayed verified savings of 20,360 Therms with a realization rate of 84.15%against
the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated
with the program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 33

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-23:Shell Program Costs
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $50,678.25
G Energy Star Insulated Door $4,100.00
G Floor Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $5,530.50
G Storm Windows with Natural Gas Heat $270.00
G Wall Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $9,627.75
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat $128,627.92
Total $198,834.42
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Shell Program in the section below.
3.2.3.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Shell Program.
3.2.3.2 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Shell
Program.The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators reviewed each measure number of units, square footage, and insulation where available.
The Evaluators found six window replacement measures in which square footage quantity in the rebate
application did not match the values presented in the project data.These instances are the primary
reason for the lower than 100% realization rate.
The Evaluators also identified one wall insulation project where the square footage quantity in the
rebate application was four times larger than the square footage in the tracking data, leading to a 145%
realization rate for the wall measure as shown in Table 3-22.
The Evaluators identified one Energy Star Door measure in which three doors were installed but the
expected savings only accounted for one door, leading to a verified savings that was three times the
expected amount.This occurrence increased the realization rate to 133%for Energy Star certified
insulated door measures as shown in Table 3-22
The Evaluators recommend collecting information on single-family/multi-family/manufactured in the
web rebate form.This allows the Evaluators to categorize home type during the impact evaluation
methodologies.The mail-in rebates collect this information; however, it does not seem to be required to
complete the rebate and therefore many rebates are missing this information.
3.2.3.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators conducted verification surveys for Energy Star doors in Shell Program and found an in-
service rate of 100%.The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for other measures in shell
since weatherization measures historically have high verification rates.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 34

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.3.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Shell Program.The Evaluators calculated
verified savings for the natural gas measures using the active Avista TRM values.The Evaluators
calculated adjusted savings for each measure using the active Avista TRM values and verified tracking
data. The Evaluators conducted a billing analysis for measures where participation allowed. However,
the billing analysis results were not used due to unexpectedly low savings values.Therefore,the Avista
TRM values were applied to a random sample of participants, with verification of project documents
such as rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.2.3.5 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the Shell program are provided in this section.The methodology for
the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.3.2.
Table 3-24 displays customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with
single-measure installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
The customers considered for attic insulation billing analysis include customers in both Washington and
Idaho service territories to gather the maximum number of customers possible for precise savings
estimates. Window was evaluated for ID alone.
Table 3-24:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Shell Program
Measure Number Suff icient
Considered for Customers w/ Participation
Billing Analysis Isolated-Measure for Billing
Installations Analysis
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat ✓ 104 ✓
G Energy Star Certified Insulated Door ✓ 2
G Floor Insulation With Natural Gas Heat ✓ 1
G Storm Windows with Natural Gas Heat ✓ 1
G Wall Insulation With Natural Gas Heat ✓ 5
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat ✓ 136 ✓
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon.The Evaluators
used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment customer was
matched to 5 similar control customers.The final number of customers in each the treatment and
control group are listed in Table 3-25.
The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure and the Evaluators conducted a linear
regression using the matched participant and nonparticipant monthly billing data.
Table 3-25 provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR)was selected as the
final model for the Shell Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the regression
Evaluation and Measurement Report 35

Avista Idaho PY2022
models. Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level for all measures and the adjusted R-squared
shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data (adjusted R-squared >0.90).
Table 3-25:Measure Savings, Shell Program
Annual
Treatment Control Savings ,0. ,0. Adjusted
Measure Customers Customers per Lower Upper R-
N
G Attic Insulation With 74 486 63.75 22.59 104.91 0.92 Model
Natural Gas Heat 2: PPR
G Window Replc With 98 597 32.87 8.39 57.36 0.91 Model
Natural Gas Heat 2: PPR
The Evaluators found the G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat measure to display a statistically
significant verified savings value of 63.75 Therms per year. In addition,the Evaluators found statistically
significant savings of 32.87 Therms per year for the G Window Replacement with Natural Gas Heat
measure. Although the Evaluators estimated savings for these measures through billing analysis,the
verified savings for the measures were calculated via Avista TRM due to unexpectedly low savings
estimates when applying the modeled savings. Further details of the billing analysis for the Shell
measures can be found in Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results.
3.2.3.6 Verified Savings
The Shell Program in total displays a realization rate of 84.15%with 20,360 Therms verified natural gas
savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-22.The realization rate for the natural gas
savings in the Shell Program is lower than 100%due primarily to differences in quantity in the tracking
data and the verified documentation.
3.2.4 Fuel Efficiency Program
The Residential Fuel Efficiency Program encourages customers to consider converting their resistive
electric space and water heating equipment to natural gas.This program is offered to residential
customers in the Idaho service territory. Customers must use Avista electricity for electric straight-
resistance heating or water heating in order to qualify for the rebate, which is verified by evaluating
their energy use.The home's electric baseboard or furnace heat consumption must indicate at least
8,000 kWh during the previous heating season. Customers receive incentives after installation and after
submitting a completed rebate form.Table 3-26 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 36

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 3-26:Fuel Efficiency Program Measures
MethodologyMeasure Description Impact Analysis
Electric central ducted forced
E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump air furnace to air source heat RTF UES
pump(9.0 HFSP or greater)
Electric baseboard or forced air
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace furnace heat to natural gas Billing Analysis
forced air furnace
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace&Water Heat Electric to natural gas furnaceAvista TRM
and water heat combo
The program does not contain any natural gas saving measures; however,the program includes a
Therms penalty due to converting electric equipment to natural gas equipment.The verified Therms
penalty is 19,468.00 Therms and represents a 100.00% realization rate against the expected Therms
penalty amount of 19,468.00 Therms.The following table displays the Therms penalty by measure.
Table 3-27:Fuel Efficiency Program Verified Natural Gas Penalty
PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Measure Participation Penalty Penalty Penalty Realization
(Therms) (Therms) (Therms) Rate
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 27 12,123 12,123 12,123 100.00%
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace& 13 7,345 7,345 7,345 100.00%
Water Heat
Total 40 19,468.00 19,468.00 19,468.00 100.00%
The Therms penalties represented in the table above are not aggregated in the Residential portfolio
impact evaluation and are summarized here for planning purposes.The costs associated with this
program are claimed in the Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation Report.The Evaluators summarize the
program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and
recommendations for the Fuel Efficiency Program in Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation Report for PY2022.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 37

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.5 ENERGY STAR° Homes Program
The ENERGY STAR' Homes Program provides rebates for homes within Avista's service territory that
attain an ENERGY STAR' certification. This program incentivizes ENERGY STAR® Eco-rated homes.Table
3-28 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-28:ENERGYSTAR®Homes Program Measures
ImpactMeasure Description
Methodology
G Energy Star Home-Manufactured, ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured RTF UES
Natural Gas home with natural gas furnace
G Energy Star Home-Manufactured, ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured RTF UES
Gas& Electric home with natural gas and electric
In PY2022, no gas ENERGY STAR Homes rebates were claimed.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 38

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.6 Small Home & MF Weatherization Program
The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program is a residential prescriptive program that waives the
energy usage requirement that is typically employed for residential prescriptive programs.This benefits
small homes (less than 1,000 square feet in size) and multifamily dwellings (specifically customers in
condominiums larger than five units in size). While this program is designed for all customers, it could
also benefit members of Named Communities who reside in smaller homes.
This section summarizes the impact results of the evaluation results for the Small Home & MF
Weatherization Program.Table 3-29 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-29:Small Home& MF Weatherization Program Measures
Impact
MethodologyMeasure Description Analysis
G Multifamily Attic Insulation Attic insulation for multifamily homes Avista TRM
With Natural Gas Heat with natural gas heat
G Multifamily Smart Connected thermostat for multifamily
Thermostat Paid homes with electric heat,contractor- Avista TRM
installed
G Multifamily Furnace 95% Install high efficiency furnace water Avista TRM
heater in multifamily home
G Multifamily Smart Connected thermostat for multifamily Avista TRM
Thermostat DIY homes with electric heat,self-installed
G Multifamily Tankless Water Install high efficiency tankless water Avista TRM
Heater heater in multifamily home
G Multifamily 50 Gallon Install high efficiency 50 gallon tank Avista TRM
Natural Gas Water Heater water heater in multifamily home
G Multifamily Wall Insulation Wall insulation for multifamily homes Avista TRM
With Natural Gas Heat with electric heat
G Multifamily Window Replc Window replacement for multifamily Avista TRM
With Natural Gas Heat homes with natural gas heat
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the Small Home& MF
Weatherization Program impact evaluation.
Table 3-30:Small Home& MF Weatherization Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Measure Units Savings Savings Savings Realization Rat
(Therms) (Therms) (Therms)
G Multifamily Attic Insulation 1 13 16 16 120.00%
With Natural Gas Heat
G Multifamily Smart 4 107 107 107 100.01/0
Thermostat DIY
G Multifamily Smart 3 80 80 80 100.01/0
Thermostat Paid
G Multifamily Window Replc 6 299 147 240 80.03%
With Natural Gas Heat
G Multifamily Furnace 95% 5 435 437 437 100.34%
G Multifamily Tankless Water 1 78 77 77 98.08%
Heater
Evaluation and Measurement Report 39

Avista Idaho PY2022
PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Units Savings Savings Savings Realization Rate
(Therms) (Therms) (Therms)
Total 20 7 1,0 11.78 862.11 954.61 94.35%
The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed verified savings of 954.61 Therms with a
realization rate of 94.35%against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes
the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 3-31:Small Home& MF Weatherization Program Costs
G Multifamily Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $324.00
G Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY $405.51
G Multifamily Smart Thermostat Paid $450.00
G Multifamily Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat $3,150.96
G Multifamily Furnace 95% $2,250.00
G Multifamily Tankless Water Heater $400.00
Total $6,980.47
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program in the section
below.
3.2.6.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Small Home& MF Weatherization Program.
3.2.6.2 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Small Home
& MF Weatherization Program.The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-
verify tracking data inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The rebate application form sufficiently collects all required RTF measure specification details. All rebate
applications and tracking data contain smart Thermostat manufacturer and model number. The
Evaluators were able to verify the models for RTF specifications for connected Thermostats.
The Evaluators found that many projects exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista -that a home
is single family with less than 1,000 SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units).The Evaluators
recommend claiming projects on single family homes that are larger than 1,000 SQFT into the Small
Home & MF Weatherization Program.
In addition,the Evaluators note that the current program rebate applications do not provide an option
to indicate "Multifamily" home type. Rather,the current rebate application includes an option for
"Single family", "Manufactured", "New construction", and "Other".The Evaluators recommend
including an option for"Multifamily"to consistently apply RTF savings for each of the measures.
The Evaluators reviewed each measure number of units, square footage, and insulation where available.
The Evaluators found no instances in which square footage quantity in the rebate application does not
Evaluation and Measurement Report 40

Avista Idaho PY2022
match the values presented in the project data attic insulation.The Evaluators also note that Avista
consistently verified square footage and R-values with customers when information was unclear.The
tracked quantity and U-values were then documented in the tracking database consistently.
The Evaluators found no duplicate rebates in the project data and therefore did not remove any rebates
from verified savings.
3.2.6.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed non-weatherization measure. The Evaluators included questions such as:
■ Was the previous equipment functional?
■ Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
Small Home & MF Weatherization Program.Table 3-32 displays the ISRs for each of the measures for
the Idaho territory alone.
Table 3-32:Small Home& MF Weatherization Verification Survey ISR Results
Program-LevelNumber of Number of
Measure Rebates* Survey Precision at 90% In-Service Rate
Completes* Confidence
G Multifamily 50 Gallon 1 1 Assume 100%ISR
Natural Gas Water Heater
G Multifamily Attic Insulation 5 0 Assume 100%ISR
With Natural Gas Heat
G Multifamily Furnace 95% 4 1 100%
G Multifamily Smart o
Thermostat DIY 3 1 100/G Multifamily Smart 90%±46.78% o
_Thermostat Paid 1 0 Assume 100%ISR
G Multifamily Tankless 6 1 Assume 100%ISR
Water Heater
G Multifamily Window Replc 1 1 Assume 100%ISR
With Natural Gas Heat
G Multifamily Wall Insulation 5 0 Assume 100%ISR
With Natural Gas Heat
*This count includes rebates from Idaho only
The response rate for this verification survey did not meet 90/10 precision goals for either single state or
mixed state.Therefore,the Evaluators assumed 100% in-service rate for these measures. However,
survey respondents for each smart thermostat,water heater, and furnace measure described
equipment to be currently functioning,further supporting the 100% ISR assumption.The Evaluators
applied these ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each measure.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 41

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.6.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program.
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for the natural gas measures using the most recent RTF
workbook for the Small Home & MF Weatherization measures.These RTF UES values were applied to a
random sample of participants, with verification of project documents such as rebate applications to
verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.2.6.5 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate net
adjusted program savings for those measures. Final verified savings were estimated using the RTF UES
values associated with each measure.The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed 94.35%
realization with 955 Therms saved, as displayed in Table 3-30.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program deviate
from 100%due to differences between the attic insulation savings values assigned to the project
quantities and the verified Avista TRM prescriptive savings value. Avista used a value of 0.30
Therms/SQFT instead of multifamily attic Avista TRM value listed at 0.036 Therms/SQFT for the one
sampled attic insulation measure.This led to a 120% realization rate for this measure. In addition, the
Evaluators verified one window rebate to have almost half the square footage that the Avista database
captured.This led to an 80% realization rate for the window replacement measure overall. In-service
rates did not affect the realization rates for this program, as the assumed ISR for this program is 100%,
as described in the sections above.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 42

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.7 Appliance Program
The Appliances Program is residential prescriptive program that offers incentives for customers to
upgrade their existing clothes washers and dryers to ENERGY STAR-rated clothes dryers and washers.
This section summarizes the impact results of the evaluation results for the Appliances Program. Table
3-33 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-33:Appliance Program Measures
Methodologyrl Xescriptio Impact Analysis
miiiiiild��� �_[
G Energy Star Rated Clothes ENERGY STAR-certified clothes dryer for RTF UES
Dryer residential homes
G Energy Star Rated Front Load ENERGY STAR-certified front loading RTF UES
Washer clothes washer for residential homes
G Energy Star Rated Top Load ENERGY STAR-certified top loading RTF UES
Washer clothes washer for residential homes
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the Appliance Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-34:Appliance Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Measure Savings Savings Savings Realization
Participation (Therms) (Therms) (Therms) Rate
G Energy Star Rated Clothes 27 73.44 266.96 252.13 343.31%
Dryer
G Energy Star Rated Front Load 50 301.50 204.78 204.78 67.92%
Washer
G Energy Star Rated Top Load o
Washer 7 42.21 28.67 0.00 0.00/
Total 84 417.15 500.41 456.91 109.53%
The Appliance Program displayed verified savings of 456.91 Therms with a realization rate of 109.53%
against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive and non-
incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 3-35:Appliance Program Costs
G Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer $1,350.00
G Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer $2,450.00
G Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer $350.00
Total $4,150.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Appliance Program in the section below.
3.2.7.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Appliance Program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 43

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.7.2 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Appliance
Program.The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators found all Appliance Program rebates to have project documentation with the associated
model number and efficiency values in either the CC&B web rebate data or mail-in rebate applications.
In addition, documents included AHRI certifications or model numbers necessary to verify AHRI
certifications.This allowed Evaluators to easily verify model specifications and apply savings.
3.2.7.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure described in Section 2.2.2.2.The Evaluators included questions such as:
■ What type of clothes washer/dryer did this clothes washer/dryer replace?
■ Is your home's water heated with electricity, natural gas, or another fuel?
■ Was the previous equipment functional?
■ Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
Appliance Program.The responses to these additional questions can be found in Appendix A.
Table 3-36 displays the ISRs for each of the Appliance measures for Idaho and Washington natural gas
territory combined.The ISRs resulted in ±16.7% precision at the 90%confidence interval for the
program.
Table 3-36:Appliance Verification Survey ISR Results
Number Number of Precision In-Service
Measure of Survey at 90% Rate
Rebates* Completes Confidence
G Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 27 6 100%
G Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer SO 12 90% 100%
G Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer 7 0 ±16.7% Assume100%ISR
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
Although the survey responses did not meet the 90/10 precision goals, all survey respondents described
equipment to be currently functioning, leading to a 100% ISR for all measures.The Evaluators applied
the ISRs listed in Table 3-36 to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each measure.
3.2.7.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Appliance Program.The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for the remaining measures using active values from the Avista TRM
workbook.These values were applied to a random sample of participants, with verification of project
documents such as rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 44

Avista Idaho PY2022
3.2.7.5 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators did not complete a billing analysis for the measures in the Appliance Program.
3.2.7.6 Verified Savings
The Appliance Program in total displays a realization rate of 109.53%with 457 Therms verified natural
gas savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-34.
The Evaluators note that all gas clothes dryer rebates were assigned 0 Therms expected savings.
However,the Evaluators applied Avista TRM UES to these rebates,therefore leading to a high realization
rate for the measure.
In addition,the RTF assigns 120 kWh/unit savings value for the front load washer.The Evaluator
assigned equivalent Therms savings by dividing by 29.3.The Evaluators therefore estimate 4
Therms/unit of savings for each clothes washer. However,the Avista TRM erroneously converted this
value to 6 Therms/unit,therefore leading to a low verified realization rate.
Finally,the Evaluators removed savings applied to the top load washer.The RTF clothes washer
workbook calculates negative savings for the top load washer, as the market practice baseline for this
measure is already more efficient than the incentivized efficiency.Therefore, since the RTF does not
assign electric savings to top load washers,the Evaluators deem 0 equivalent savings in Therms.This led
to a downward adjustment on the program's realization rate.
Overall,the program displays a realization rate of 109.53%due to the unexpected savings accrued from
the clothes dryers.The Evaluators recommend Avista correct savings estimates for the front load washer
measure, remove the top load washer measure from program offerings, and perform additional quality
assurance to ensure rebates are properly attributed savings throughout the database.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 45

Avista Idaho PY2022
4. Low-Income Impact Evaluation Results
The Low-Income Program delivers energy efficiency measures to low-income residential customers in its
Idaho service territory with a partnership with five network Community Action Agencies ("Agencies")
and one tribal weatherization organization.The Agencies qualify income to prioritize and treat
households based on several characteristics. In-house or contract crews install approved program
measures. In addition,the Agencies have access to other monetary resources which allow them to
weatherize a home or install additional energy efficiency measures.
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Avista's Low-Income portfolio to verify program-level
and measure-level energy savings for PY2022.The following sections summarize findings for each
natural gas impact evaluation in the Low-Income Portfolio in the Idaho service territory.The Evaluators
used data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms, Avista TRM, and
RTF values to evaluate verified savings.This approach provided the strongest estimate of achieved
savings practical for each program, given its delivery method, magnitude of savings, number of
participants, and availability of data.Table 4-1 summarizes the Low-Income verified impact savings by
program.
Table 4-1:Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Verified Verified
Program Savings Savings Realization
(Therms) (T Rate
Low-Income 1,941.89 1,954.31 100.64%
Total Low-Income 1,941.899 1,954.31 100.64%
In PY2022,Avista completed and provided incentives for low-income gas measures in Idaho and
achieved total natural gas savings of 1,954 Therms.The Low-Income Program met savings expectations
based on reported savings with an achieved realization rate of 100.64%. Further details of the impact
evaluation results by program are provided in the sections following.
4.1 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Low-Income sector in the section below.
4.1.1 Low-Income Program
The Low-Income Program delivers energy efficiency measures to low-income residential customers in its
Idaho service territory with a partnership with five network Community Action Agencies ("Agencies")
and one tribal weatherization organization.The Agencies qualify income to prioritize and treat
households based on several characteristics. In-house or contract crews install approved program
measures. In addition,the Agencies have access to other monetary resources which allow them to
weatherize a home or install additional energy efficiency measures.
Avista provides CAP agencies with the following approved measure list, which are reimbursed in full by
Avista. Avista also provides a rebate list of additional energy saving measures the CAP agencies are able
Evaluation and Measurement Report 46

Avista Idaho PY2022
to utilize which are partially reimbursed. The following table summarizes the measures offered under
this program.
Table 4-2 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 4-2:Low-Income Program Measures
MethodologyMeasure Impact Analysis
Air Infiltration
Air source heat pump
Attic insulation
Duct insulation
Duct sealing
Natural gas to air source heat
pump
Natural gas to ductless heat
pump
ENERGY STAR®door
ENERGY STAR® refrigerator Avista TRM
ENERGY STAR®window
Floor insulation
Heat pump water heater
LED lighting
Wall insulation
High efficiency furnace
High efficiency tankless natural
gas water heater
Natural gas boiler
Table 4-3 summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the Low-Income Program impact evaluation.
Table 4-3:Low-Income Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
Expected Adjusted Verified 7-Veriffied
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Realization
(Therms) (Therms) (Th Rate
G Air Infiltration 13 132.61 133.66 133.66 100.79%
G Duct Sealing 2 25.17 25.03 25.03 99.44%
ENERGY STAR®door 6 68.30 69.05 69.05 101.10%
ENERGY STAR®window 12 271.50 266.87 266.87 98.29%
G HE Boiler 2 159.84 158.90 158.90 99.41%
G HE Furnace 8 497.92 497.92 497.92 100.00%
G HE WH 50G 1 7.05 7.05 7.05 100.00%
G INS-Attic 6 340.02 348.21 348.21 102.41%
G INS-Duct 1 7.00 14.14 14.14 202.00%
G INS-Floor 7 342.48 348.21 348.21 101.67%
G INS-Wall 2 90.00 85.27 85.27 94.74%
Evaluation and Measurement Report 47

Avista Idaho PY2022
Health And Safety 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A
Total 75 1,941.89 1,954.31 1,954.31 100.64%
The Low-Income Program displayed verified savings of 1,954 Therms with a realization rate of 100.64%
against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive and non-
incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 4-4:Low-Income Program Costs
Costs M
G Air Infiltration $1,050.14
G Duct Sealing $289.00
ENERGY STAR®door $5,279.30
ENERGY STAR®window $35,774.29
G HE Boiler $22,670.40
G HE Furnace $44,560.59
G HE WH 50G $4,516.80
G INS-Attic $3,452.49
G INS-Duct $252.11
G INS-Floor $6,924.28
G INS-Wall $1,432.83
Health And Safety $39,767.77
Total $165,970.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Low-Income Program in the section below.
4.1.1.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Low-Income Program.
4.1.1.2 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Low-Income
Program.The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
During review, the Evaluators found that all the requested project information clearly outlined measure
details and calculations. In addition, the Evaluators found database quantity information to be
consistent with documents verified.
The Evaluators identified one instance in which verified savings from a duct insulation measure was
double the reported savings.The reason for this deviation is unclear, however,the Evaluators
recommend that Avista work to ensure Avista TRM rates are properly applied.
4.1.1.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the Low-Income Program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 48

Avista Idaho PY2022
4.1.1.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Low-Income Program.The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for Low-Income Program measures using the Avista TRM. However, a whole
building billing analysis was completed to supplement the findings from the desk review.
4.1.1.5 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the Low-Income Program are provided below.
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level Low-Income Program energy savings through
billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score matching.The
Evaluators attempted to isolated each unique measure. In doing so, the Evaluators also isolate the
measure effects using the customer's consumption billing data. However, participation for the Low-
Income program resulted in a small number of customers with isolated measures and therefore the
Evaluators were unable to estimate measure-level savings through billing analysis.
The Evaluators instead conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the natural gas measures
combined in order to estimate savings for the average household participating in the program, across all
measures.The Evaluators successfully created a matched cohort for the natural gas measure
households. Customers were matched on zip code (exact match) and their average pre-period seasonal
usage, including summer,fall, winter, and spring for each control and treatment household. The
Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon.The Evaluators used
nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio.Therefore, each treatment customer was
matched to 5 similar control customers.
Table 4-5 provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as the
final model for the Low-Income Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the
regression models. However, savings for this model are not statistically significant at the 90% level,
indicated by the lower 90%confidence bound at 0 Therms saved per year.The customers considered for
billing analysis include customers in both Washington and Idaho service territories to gather the
maximum number of customers possible for precise savings estimates.
Table 4-5:Measure Savings, Low-Income Program
Treatment Control Annual Savings •0' •0' Adjusted
UpperCustomers Customers per Customer Lower Model
I (Therms) Cl Cl Squared
All Gas Measures F69 593 9.84* 0 25.12 0.89 Model 2: PPR
(Therms)
*Not statistically significant
Due to lack of statistical significance from the billing analysis results,The Evaluators did not apply these
regression savings estimates to the program. Instead,the Evaluators estimated savings through the
program by applying Avista TRM values to verified quantities. Further details of the billing analysis can
be found in Appendix A.
4.1.1.6 Verified Savings
Due to lack of significance in the billing analyses,the Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along
with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for those measures. Adjusted savings were
Evaluation and Measurement Report 49

Avista Idaho PY2022
estimated using the Avista TRM.The Low-Income Program in total displays a realization rate of 100.64%
with 1,954 Therms verified natural gas savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 4-3.
The Evaluators note that there were few notable deviations between the expected and verified savings
leading to a realization rate close to 100%.The Evaluators did identify one instance in which verified
savings from a duct insulation measure was two times the reported savings.The reason for this
deviation is unclear, however, the Evaluators recommend that Avista work to ensure Avista TRM rates
are properly applied.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 50

Avista Idaho PY2022
5. Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Avista's Non-Residential portfolio to verify program-
level and measure-level energy savings for PY2022.The following sections summarize findings for each
natural gas impact evaluation in the Non-Residential Portfolio in the Idaho service territory.The
Evaluators used data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms,Avista
TRM 2022, RTF, IPMVP, supplemental sources and billing analysis of participants to evaluate savings.
The approach selected for each program allowed for the strongest estimate of achieved savings practical
for each program, dependent on each program's delivery method, magnitude of savings, number of
participants, and availability of data.Table 5-1 summarizes the Non-Residential verified impact savings
by program.
Table 5-1:Non-Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Adjusted Verified 'Verified
Program Savings Savings Realization
Expected
Savings
(Therms) (Therms (Therms) Rate
HVAC 5,081.68 5,081.68 5,081.68 100.00%
Food Service Equipment 12,910.00 12,910.00 12,910.00 100.00%
Shell 260.00 260.00 260.00 100.00%
Site-Specific 9,255.77 9,255.77 19,709.00 212.94%
Total 27,507.45 27,507.45 37,960.68 138.00%
In PY2022,Avista completed and provided incentives for non-residential natural gas measures in Idaho
and reported total natural gas energy savings of 37,960.680 Therms.All programs exceeded savings
claims, leading to an overall achievement of 138.00%of the expected savings for the non-residential
programs. Further details of the impact evaluation results by program are provided in the sections
following.
5.1 Verification Results
Before conducting the impact analyses,the Evaluators conducted a database review for all prescriptive
programs.The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications and associated documents
from participating customers to cross-verify tracking data inputs.These documents included invoices,
rebate applications, pictures,AHRI certificates and similar types of documents for the following
programs:
■ HVAC Program
■ Food Service Equipment Program
■ Shell Program
This sample of documents was used to cross-verify tracking data inputs. In the case the Evaluators found
any deviations between the tracking data and application values,the Evaluators reported and
summarized those differences in the appropriate report chapters.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 51

Avista Idaho PY2022
The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieves a sampling precision of±10% 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.
Table 5-2 displays program populations, sample sizes for document verification and resulting precision.
Table 5-2:Non-Residential Program-level Verification Precision
Program Population Sampled Precision
HVAC 40 27 ±9.14%
Food Service Equipment 6 6 ±0%
Shell 1 1 ±0%
5.1.1 On-Site Verification
Unlike Residential measures, non-residential measures typically have a 100% installation rate or a
deemed in-service rate (ISR) included in RTF and Avista TRM UES. The exception to this rule are custom
projects, such as those in the Site-Specific programs. For this the Evaluators conducted one on-site visit
to verify full installation and equipment operation as described in the project scope.
5.2 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
for the Non-Residential sector in the section below.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 52

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.2.1 Prescriptive HVAC Program
The Prescriptive Natural Gas HVAC Program encourages customers to select highly efficient natural gas
heating equipment solutions for their business. Installing high efficiency equipment helps lower
operating costs and save energy. The prescriptive rebate approach issues payment to the customer after
the measure has been installed. Commercial customers who heat with Avista natural gas are eligible for
this program. Customers must submit a completed rebate form, invoices, and an AHRI certificate within
90 days after the installation has been completed.
Table 5-3 summarizes the measures rebated in PY2022 under this program.
Table 5-3: Prescriptive HVAC Program Measures
Impact
Methodology
Natural Gas Boiler Avista TRM 2022 UES
Multi-Stage Furnace Avista TRM 2022 UES
Single-Stage Furnace Avista TRM 2022 UES
Unit Heater Avista TRM 2022 UES
The following table displays the claimed, adjusted and verified savings from the Prescriptive HVAC
program.
Table 5-4:Prescriptive HVAC Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure Participation Therm Therm Therm Rate
(Projects) Savings Savings Savings
95 Percent or greater AFUE NG single stage o
furnace 225 6 1,849.68 1,849.68 1,849.68 100.00/
90-94.9 Percent AFUE NG single stage o
furnace 225 3 482.16 482.16 482.16 100.00%
90 Percent AFUE or greater NG boiler 300 1 631.40 631.40 631.40 100.00%
95 Percent AFUE or greater NG multi stage o
furnace 225 6 2,118.44 2,118.44 2,118.44 100.00%
Total 16 5,081.68 5,081.68 5,081.68 100.00%
The following table summarizes the incentives associated with the program.
Table 5-5:Prescriptive HVAC Program Incentives
Measure Incentive
Costs
95 Percent or greater AFUE NG single stage furnace 225 5,544.00
90-94.9 Percent AFUE NG single stage furnace 225 840.00
90 Percent AFUE or greater NG boiler 300 1,980.00
95 Percent AFUE or greater NG multi stage furnace 225 6,526.00
Total 14,890.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Prescriptive HVAC Program in the section below.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 53

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.2.1.1 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Prescriptive
HVAC Program.The Evaluators review all rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 2.2.2.1. Verification of project documents included data points such as input
BTUs, efficiency levels and costs of the equipment.
Table 5-6 shows the project population, the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Table 5-6:Prescriptive HVAC Program Verification Precision
16 14 ±8.03%
The Evaluators did not find any substantive deviations between project applications and program
tracking data. The Evaluators found all rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency
requirements for the Prescriptive HVAC Program.
5.2.1.2 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Prescriptive VFD Program.The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for furnace and boiler measures using the Avista TRM.The RTF does not
currently offer a section for non-residential furnaces; however the RTF does currently provide savings
estimates for non-residential boilers.The Evaluators attempted to use the RTF to calculate verified
savings for boilers, but found project documentation to be insufficient to determine key characteristics
necessary to assign RTF UES. Specific characteristics required are building type: 'Grocery, Restaurant,
and Lodging,' 'Medical—Hospital and Outpatient' or'All Other.'The Evaluators attempted to ascertain
this information from detailed project-level documents but were unable to make determinations. A
recommendation is made below to address this. Final verified savings were calculated by applying the
appropriate TRM UES to a census of measures.
5.2.1.3 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current TRM UES values for the Attic and Wall insulation
measures along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure.The
verified savings for the program is 5,081.68 Therms with a realization rate of 100%, as displayed in Table
5-4.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 54

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.2.2 Food Service Equipment Program
The Food Service Equipment Program offers incentives for commercial customers who purchase or
replace food service equipment with ENERGY STAR-qualified equipment.This prescriptive rebate
approach issues payment to the customer after the measure has been installed. Commercial customers
who use Avista natural gas to operate the equipment submitted for a rebate are eligible for this
program. Customers must submit a completed rebate form and invoices within 90 days after the
installation has been completed. Avista will send incentive checks to the customers or their designees
after each project is approved. The website is also used to communicate program requirements,
incentives, and forms.
Table 3-8 summarizes the measures rebated in PY2022 under this program.
Table 5-7: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Measures
Methodologypr
Impact Analysis
Convection oven RTF,Convection Oven v4.2
Combination oven RTF,Commercial Cooking RTF Combination Ovens v4.2
Griddle RTF,Griddles v1.2
Rack oven RTF, Rack Ovens v1.2
Dishwasher Avista TRM, Non-Res Dishwashers(multiple)
Energy Star ice RTF,Commercial ENERGY START" Ice Makers v1.3
machine
Fryer RTF,Commercial Cooking Fryer v4.2
Hot food holding
RTF, Commercial Cooking Hot Food Cabinet v4.2
cart
Steam cookers RTF,Commercial Cooking Steamer v4.2
Pre-rinse sprayer Avista TRM, Non-Res Pre-Rinse Sprayer(multiple)
Overwrapper RTF,On-Demand Overwrappers v1.1
The following table summarizes the claimed, adjusted and verified Therms savings for the program.
Table 5-8: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
ParticipationPY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure
(Projects) Savings Savings Savings
Commercial Convection Oven Natural 2 1,800.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 100.00%
Gas full size
Commercial Fryer Gas 14 11,110.00 11,110.00 11,110.00 100.00%
Total 16 12,910.00 12,910.00 12,910.00 100.00%
The following table summarizes the incentives associated with the program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 55

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 5-9:Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Costs by Measure
Measure Total Total
Measure Count Natural Gas Partner
Incentives Incentives
Commercial Convection Oven Natural
4 $2,800.00 $6,800.00
Gas full size
Commercial Fryer Gas 22 $22,000.00 $23,400.00
Total 26 $24,800.00 $30,200.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program in the section
below.
5.2.2.1 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Prescriptive
Food Service Equipment Program.The Evaluators review all rebate applications to cross-verify tracking
data inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1. Data points checked between project applications and
program tacking include fuel type, capacity, ENERGYSTAR° status, quantity, and measure cost values.
Table 5-10 shows the project population, the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Table 5-10:Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Verification Precision
Population Sampled Precision
16 14 ±8.03%
The Evaluators found all rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency requirements for
the Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program and did not find any substantive differences between
program tracking and project documents.
5.2.2.2 Impact Analysis
Both measures that appear in the PY2022 program, there is no current RTF measure offering to supply
UES, or the RTF measure does not include calculations for Therms savings. In these instances, the
Evaluators used Avista TRM values. Evaluators did not find any deviations between claimed and verified
TRM UES.
Final verified savings were calculated by applying the appropriate UES to a census of measures.
5.2.2.3 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the appropriate UES values to verified tracking data to estimate
program savings for these measures. The verified savings for the program is 12,910 kWh with a
realization rate of 100%, as displayed in Table 5-8.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 56

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.2.3 Prescriptive Shell Program
The Commercial Prescriptive Shell Program offers incentives to commercial customers who improve the
envelopes of their existing buildings by adding insulation, which may make a business more energy-
efficient and comfortable.Avista issues payment to the customer after the measure has been installed
by a licensed contractor. Commercial customers must have an annual heating footprint for a fuel
provided by Avista.
Customers must submit a completed rebate form, invoices, and an insulation certificate within 90 days
after the installation has been completed. Avista will send incentive checks to customers or their
designees after each project is approved.This program is promoted by trade allies, Avista account
executives, the Avista website, and Avista marketing efforts.Avista's website is also used to
communicate program requirements, incentives, and forms.
Table 5-11 summarizes the measures rebated in PY2022 under this program.
Table 5-11:Prescriptive Shell Program Measures
MethodologyMeasure Impact Analysis
Attic Insulation Avista TRM UES
Roof Insulation Avista TRM UES
Wall Insulation Avista TRM UES
The following table summarizes the claimed, adjusted and verified Therm savings for the program.
Table 5-12:Prescriptive Shell Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure Participation Therm Therm Therm Rate
(Projects) Savings Savings Savings
Attic=<R11 to R45+ 1 260.00 260.00 260.00 100.00%
Total 1 260.00 260.00 260.00 1 100.00%
The following table summarizes the incentive and non-incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-13:Prescriptive Shell Program Costs by Measure
Measure
Measure Count Incentive
(Square Feet Costs
Attic=<R11 to R45+ $2,000.00 $1,700.00
Total $2,000.00 $1,700.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Prescriptive Shell Program in the section below.
5.2.3.1 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Prescriptive
Shell Program. The Evaluators review all rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 2.2.2.1. Data points checked between project applications and program tacking
Evaluation and Measurement Report 57

Avista Idaho PY2022
include R-levels, square footage of installation, HVAC configuration and measure cost values. Below,
Table 5-14 shows the project population,the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Table 5-14:Prescriptive Shell Program Verification Precision
Population Precision
1 1 ±0%
The Evaluators found all rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency requirements for
the Prescriptive Shell Program and there were no substantive deviations between program tracking data
and project documents.
5.2.3.2 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Shell Program.The Evaluators calculated
verified savings for the natural gas measures using the active Avista TRM values.The Evaluators
calculated adjusted savings for each measure using the active Avista TRM values and verified tracking
data.The Evaluators conducted a billing analysis for measures where participation allowed. However,
the billing analysis results were not used due to unexpectedly low savings values.Therefore,the Avista
TRM values were applied to a random sample of participants,with verification of project documents
such as rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
5.2.3.3 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current TRM UES values for the Attic and Wall Insulation
measures along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure.The
verified savings for the program is 260.00 Therms with a realization rate of 100.0%, as displayed in Table
5-11. Evaluators did not find any deviations from TRM UES.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 58

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.2.4 Site-Specific Program
The Site-Specific Program provides calculated incentives to support the installation of qualifying energy
efficiency equipment at commercial/industrial sites.These projects typically have a higher degree of
complexity than the traditional prescriptive offerings and rely on custom calculations of savings and
incentive levels. Examples of these projects include process improvements, upgrades to specialized
equipment used in manufacturing, lighting installations that rely on specialized controls, and other
measures designed around the customer's specific needs.
The program approach strives for a flexible response to energy efficiency projects that have
demonstrable Therm savings within program criteria and are typically composed of custom HVAC,
envelope, and industrial process load projects that do not fit the prescriptive path. In PY2022 four
projects were completed, consisting of the replacement of heated pool covers and boiler replacements.
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas energy savings for the Site-Specific Program
impact evaluation.
Table 5-15:Site-Specific Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
PY2022 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Participation Therm Therm T'herm Realization
Savings Savings S; Rate
2 9,255.77 9,255.77 19,709.00 212.94%
The Site-Specific Program displayed verified savings of 19,709.00 Therms with a realization rate of
212.94%against the expected savings for the program.
Table 5-16:Site-Specific Program Costs
Incentive
Costs
$32,395.20
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Site-Specific Program in the section below.
5.2.4.1 Sample Design
In their review,the Evaluators conducted reviews of both natural gas savings projects completed during
the PY2022 program year.The Evaluators obtained the project-related documentation for review.
These documents typically included spec sheets, building characteristics, calculators, invoices, project
photos, and trending data. This information allowed the Evaluators to replicate claimed savings
estimates and develop M&V plans to be used in assessing verified savings and collecting on-site data.
Using project-specific M&V plans, the Evaluators visited each sites to verify measure installation and
operating parameters, as well as building parameters and other data necessary to determine verified
savings. The Evaluators were able to conduct visits at both of the project sites.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 59

Avista Idaho PY2022
5.2.4.2 Impact Approaches
Impact approaches varied by project but adhered to IPMVP option A for one project, and a whole-facility
billing analysis (option C)was feasible and provided statistically robust savings estimates for the second.
Specified methodology and inputs are discussed in individual site reports, located in Appendix C: Site-
Specific Site Reports.
5.2.4.3 Site-Level Realization
Adjusted and verified savings were developed for each sampled site.The realization rates for sites within
each stratum were then applied to the non-sampled sites within their respective stratum. Table 5-17
presents realization at the site level, with program-level savings.
Table 5-17:Site-Specific Expected,Adjusted and Verified Therm Savings by Project
Project ID Expected Therm Adjusted Therm Verified Therm Realization
Savings Savings Savings Rate
SSOP_106886 3,570.00 3,570.00 3,570.00 100.00%
SSOP_111467 5,685.77 5,685.77 16,139.00 283.85%
Total 9,255.77 9,255.77 19,709.00 212.94%
5.2.4.4 Discussion of Non-100%Realization
■ SSOP_111467- Measured savings are higher than ex ante predictions.
5.2.4.5 Verified Savings
The Site-Specific Program in total displays a realization rate of 213%with 22,372 Therms verified natural
gas energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 5-18.
Table 5-18:Site-Specific Impact Summary
Expected Therm Adjusted Therm Verified Therm Realization Rate
Savings Savings Savings
9,255.77 9,255.77 19,709.00 212.94%
Evaluation and Measurement Report 60

Avista Idaho PY2022
6-Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results
This appendix provides additional details on the billing analyses conducted for each program.
6.1 Low-Income Program
The Evaluators conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the natural gas measures combined in
order to estimate savings for the average household participating in the program, across all measures.
The Evaluators successfully created a matched cohort for the natural gas measure households.
Customers were matched on their average pre-period seasonal usage, including summer,fall,winter,
and spring for each control and treatment household.
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon, as shown in Table
6-1.The Evaluators used propensity score matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio.Therefore, each
treatment customer was matched to 5 similar control customers.Also shown in Table 6-1, are the
impact of various restrictions on the number of treatment and control customers that were included in
the final regression model. The "Starting Count" displays the beginning number of customers available
prior to applying the data restrictions, while the "Ending Count" displays the number of customers after
applying data restrictions and final matching.
Table 6-1:Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program
Measure Data Restriction Treatmen Control
Starting Count 164 1852
Install Date Range:January 1, 2022 to June 30,2022 72 1852
Whole home natural Control Group Usage Outlier(>2X max treatment usage) 72 1819
gas Incomplete Post-Period Bills(<6 months) 69 1718
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills(<10 months) 69 1718
Ending Count(Matched by PSM) 69 593
The distributions prior to matching appear to be less similar in summer,with control customers averaging
higher usage. However, after matching, the pre-period usage distribution in summer is more similar
between the groups.The remaining pre-period seasons (winter,summer,fall), closely overlap before and
after matching, indicating little differences exist on average between the groups prior to matching and
validating the initial selection of control customers.
Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 display the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching for
the combined natural gas measures before and after conducting matching.
The distributions prior to matching appear to be less similar in summer,with control customers averaging
higher usage. However, after matching, the pre-period usage distribution in summer is more similar
between the groups.The remaining pre-period seasons (winter,summer,fall), closely overlap before and
Evaluation and Measurement Report 61

Avista Idaho PY2022
after matching, indicating little differences exist on average between the groups prior to matching and
validating the initial selection of control customers.
Figure 6-1: Covariate Balance Before Matching, Low Income Gas Measures
A B
0.3-
y, I� Group > Group
p 0.2
n Control
m
❑TreatmentD2-
"1 L T-3tr_t
.
- 0.0-
e 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Pre-period Winter Usage Pre-period Spring Usage
C z D- D 0.a-
? Group a I� Group
_D- Control c 9.4- Cortrol
Treatment ❑Treat,—t
0.2-
i.J- 0.0-
D 0
Pre-period Summer Usage Pre-period Fall Usage
Figure 6-2: Covariate Balance After Matching, Low Income Gas Measures
A 0.4- B :
r
a 0.3- Group c 4 Group
m 0.2_ 1-1Control o n Control
❑Treatment Treatment
o.D
Pre-period Winter Usage Pre-period Spring Usage
C 2.0- D
,.5- i J.^- 41
a Group I Group
-a1.D- L Control c J.4- n Control
0 El O Treatment
0.5- 02- I
0.0- — 0.0-
Pre-period Summer Usage Pre-period Fall Usage
The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure.The t-test displayed no statistically
significant differences at the 95% level in average daily consumption between the treatment and control
groups for any month in the pre-period. In addition,the chi-squared test returned a p-value well over
0.05 for all measures, indicating that pre-period usage was balanced between the groups. Lastly, the
standardized difference test returned values well under the recommended cutoff of 25, and always
falling under 10,further indicating the groups were well matched on all included covariates.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 62

Avista Idaho PY2022
Table 6-2 provides results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment and control groups
after matching for the Low-Income program.The P-Value is over 0.05 for each month, meaning pre-
period usage between treatment and control groups is similar at the 95%confidence level.
Table 6-2: Pre-period Usage T-test for Gas Measures, Low-Income Program
Average Da ly Average Daily F
Usage Usage T Statistic Std Error P 7-V a h:�z Reject
Control Treatment ?I
Jan 3.37 3.20 1.70 0.10 0.09 No
Feb 3.24 3.08 1.50 0.10 0.13 No
Mar 2.33 2.27 0.70 0.09 0.48 No
Apr 1.61 1.53 1.04 0.07 0.30 No
May 0.86 0.87 -0.13 0.05 0.90 No
Jun 0.43 0.47 -0.78 0.05 0.43 No
Jul 0.27 0.29 -0.58 0.04 0.56 No
Aug 0.27 0.30 -0.67 0.04 0.50 No
Sep 0.44 0.49 -1.24 0.04 0.21 No
Oct 1.25 1.24 0.10 0.05 0.92 No
Nov 2.65 2.44 2.40 0.08 0.02 Yes
Dec 3.34 3.11 2.91 0.08 0.00 Yes
Table 6-3 provides customer counts for customers in the final regression model by assigned weather
station ID for each measure. In addition,TMY HDD and CDD from the nearest available TMY weather
station is provided as well as the weighted HDD/CDD for each measure.The HDD and CDD was weighted
by the number of treatment customers assigned to a weather station.
Table 6-3: TMY Weather, Low-Income Program
USAF #of TMY TMY Weighted Weighted
Measure Station ID Treatment TMY USAF ID HDD CDD TMYHDD TMYCDD
Customers 1
720322 1 726985 4207 245 5956 414
726817 4 726985 4207 245 5956 414
727830 3 727830 5347 861 5956 414
All Gas Measures 727834 3 727834 6773 343 5956 414
727850 1 727850 6436 224 5956 414
727856 49 727856 1 6052 1 437 1 5956 414
727857 5 727857 6322 265 5956 414
727870 3 727857 6322 265 5956 414
Table 6-4 provides annual savings/customer for the Low-Income program the program. Model 2 (PPR)
was selected as the final model for the Low Income Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-
squared among the regression models. Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level for all
Evaluation and Measurement Report 63

Avista Idaho PY2022
measures and the adjusted R-squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data (adjusted
R-squared >0.90).
Table 6-4:Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Low-Income Program
90% Adjusted
Measure Model Treatment Control Lower I
Customers Customers � Savings/Customer cl Upper Cl R-Squared
Diff-in-cliff 69 593 65.8* 0 156.41 0.67
All Electric PPR 69 593 9.84* 0 25.12 0.89
Measures Treatment
Only(Gross) 69 593 21.2* 0 66.46 0.70
*Not statistically significant
The results of the billing analysis indicate no statistically significant savings were found for the gas
measures.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 64

Avista Idaho PY2022
7•Appendix B: Summary of Survey Respondents
This section summarizes additional insights gathered from the simple verification surveys deployed by
the Evaluators for the impact evaluation of Avista's Residential and Low-Income Programs.
Survey respondents confirmed installing between one and three measures that were rebated by Avista,
displayed in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Type and Number of Measures Received by Respondents
Measure Category Total Percent
No Measures 36 4.80%
One Measure 84 11.10%
Two Measures 390 51.70%
Three Measures 168 22.20%
Four Measures 56 7.40%
Five or more measures 119 15.80%
HVAC 171 22.60%
Water Heater 99 13.10%
Smart Thermostat 201 26.60%
Clothes Washer 84 11.10%
Clothes Dryer 73 9.70%
The Evaluators asked respondents to provide information regarding their home, as displayed in Table
7-2. Similar to ADM's 2020 survey,the majority of respondents noted owning a single-family home
between 1,000-3,000 square feet with central air conditioning.
Table 7-2:Survey Respondent Home Characteristics11
Question Response
Own 94.30%
Rent 1.30%
Own and rent to 0 90°/
Do you rent your home?(n=755) someone else
don't know 0%
Prefer not to
3.40%
answer
Single-family 87 20%
house detached
Which of the following best describes
your home?(n=755) Single-family
house attached 3.30%
to one or more
other houses
ii Four contractors or construction companies were not asked these questions.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 65

Avista Idaho PY2022
Mobile or
manufactured 6.20%
home
Apartment 0.60%
Other 1.90%
1 don't know 0.30%
Prefer not to say 0.50%
Does your home have central air
Yes 74.40/
conditioning?(n=755)
Less than
1,OOOft2 4.10%
About how many square feet is your 1,000-1,999ft2 14.90%
home?(n=629) 2,000-2,999ft2 6.80%
3,000-3,999ft2 3.30%
4,000ft2 or more 2.50%
Before 1950 19.90%
1950 to 1959 11.00%
1960 to 1969 6.80%
1970 to 1979 16.30%
When was your home built?(n=719) 1980 to 1989 6.80%
1990 to 1999 15.30%
2000 to 2009 12.80%
2010 to 2019 5.00%
2020 to Present 5.70%
rl don't know 0.40%
Evaluation and Measurement Report 66

Avista Idaho PY2022
8-Appendix C: Site-Specific Site Reports
This section displays site reports for each sampled project in the Site-Specific Program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 67

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSOP_106886
Project Background
The participant is a public recreation facility that received incentives from Avista for installing pool covers
on (2) pools which are heated by natural gas.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ Pool Cover on lap pool, approximately 3,876 sqft
■ Pool Cover on activities pool, approximately 7,033 sqft
Both pools are located outdoors and are heaters to approximately 80°.
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, photos, and invoices,to verify the
installation of rebated equipment.The Evaluators also conducted an onsite visit to the facility to verify
installation and assumed operating parameters.
The Evaluators obtained natural gas metered billing data for the facility, but were unable to obtain
statistically valid savings estimates.
Expected savings were calculated using proprietary modeling software, so the Evaluators examined
inputs and model assumptions for accuracy and appropriateness. A brief benchmark study of
commercial pool covers in similar climates was conducted and found to produce similar results to those
claimed, corroborating therm savings claims.
Results
For project SSOP_106886 the therm realization rate is 100.0%.
Table 8-1: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Adjusted Verified Realization
Therm Therm
Savings Savings Rate
Pool Covers 3,570 3,570 100.0%
Total 3,570 3,570 100.0%
Evaluation and Measurement Report 68

Avista Idaho PY2022
Project Number SSOP_111467
Project Background
The participant is a school district that received incentives from Avista for replacing two inefficient boilers
with a single efficient model at a junior high school. The Evaluators verified the participant had replaced:
■ (2) Bryan 85%efficient natural gas boilers with (1) 96.1%efficient natural gas boiler
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, calculators, photos and invoices, to
verify the installation of rebated equipment. Savings for the boiler measure was calculated using a
weather-optimized billing analysis. The regression used one full year of pre-project natural gas billing
data,one full year of post-project billing data and TM3 data,with HDD based on a fitted,optimized heating
point.
The yearly operation does not vary over time. Equipment setpoints and maintenance schedules will also
remain unchanged.
Savings Calculations
Using data described above, the Evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Table 8-2:HDD and Model Fit
Post
base mod( ..
50 0.98 0.94
Table 8-3:Pre/Post Use and Therm Savings
Expected Annual Annual Verified
Therm Pre Post Therm Realization
Savings Usage Usage Savings Rate
(Therms) (Therms)
5,686 41,988 I 25,849 1 16,139 283.8%
Results
For project#111467 the therm realization rate is 283.8%.
Table 8-4: Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Adjusted Verified r Therm
Measure Therm Therm Realizatio
Savings Savings Rate
One(1)96.1%NG boiler replacing 11
16,139 16,139 283.8%
two(2)85%NG boilers
Total 16,139 16,139 283.8%
Measured savings are higher than ex ante predictions.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 69

APPENDIX C — COST-EFFECTIVENESS TABLES
Electric
Electric Portfolio
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 17,127,964 $ 9,597,254 1.78
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 6,508,365 $ 5,078,273 1.28
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 15,213,059 $ 8,199,774 1.86
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 6,466,695 $ 16,610,540 0.39
Electric Portfolio (without Low-Income)
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 16,940,411 $ 9,178,384 1.85
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 6,383,168 $ 4,566,147 1.40
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 14,778,833 $ 8,033,747 1.84
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 6,383,168 $ 15,923,470 0.40
Residential (Prescriptive and MDFI)
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 2,801,050 $ 2,026,982 1.38
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 1,130,938 $ 772,086 1.46
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 2,745,017 $ 1,589,625 1.73
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 1,130,938 $ 3,182,374 0.36
Commercial/Industrial
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 14,139,361 $ 7,151,402 1.98
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 5,252,230 $ 3,794,061 1.38
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 12,033,816 $ 6,444,122 1.87
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 5,252,230 $ 12,741,096 0.41
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Multifamily Direct Install
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 384,330 $ 48,875 7.86
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 7,663 $ 48,875 0.16
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 37,826 $ 17,528 2.16
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 7,663 $ 69,173 0.11
Residential
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 2,416,720 $ 1,978,107 1.22
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 1,123,275 $ 723,211 1.55
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 2,707,191 $ 1,572,097 1.72
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 1,123,275 $ 3,113,201 0.36
Low-Income
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 187,553 $ 418,870 0.45
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 125,197 $ 512,126 0.24
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 434,226 $ 166,027 2.62
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 83,527 $ 687,070 0.12
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Natural Gas
Natural Gas Portfolio
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 2,510,353 $ 3,704,474 0.68
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 2,510,352 $ 1,838,898 1.37
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 6,141,666 $ 3,417,110 1.80
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 2,470,584 $ 6,429,030 0.38
Natural Gas Portfolio (without Low-Income)
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 2,449,185 $ 3,500,605 0.70
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 2,449,184 $ 1,641,630 1.49
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 5,968,941 $ 3,284,309 1.82
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 2,449,184 $ 6,185,238 0.40
Residential (Prescriptive and MDFI)
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefit/(ost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 2,223,790 $ 3,292,497 0.68
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 2,223,789 $ 1,445,359 1.54
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 5,491,488 $ 3,198,687 1.72
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 2,223,789 $ 5,585,299 0.40
Commercial/Industrial
Cost-Effectiveness Test A Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 225,395 $ 208,108 1.08
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 225,395 $ 196,271 1.15
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 477,453 $ 85,622 5.58
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 225,395 $ 599,939 0.38
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Multifamily Direct Install
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 9,008 $ 10,655 0.85
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 8,964 $ 7,359 1.22
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 24,870 $ 10,277 2.42
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 8,964 $ 25,249 0.36
Residential
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 2,214,782 $ 3,281,842 0.67
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 2,214,825 $ 1,438,000 1.54
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 5,466,618 $ 3,188,410 1.71
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 2,214,825 $ 5,560,050 0.40
Low-Income
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 61,168 $ 203,869 0.30
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 61,168 $ 197,268 0.31
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 172,725 $ 132,801 1.30
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 21,400 $ 243,792 0.09
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

APPENDIX D - ENERGY EFFICIENCY EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM
Program
Energy Efficiency
Low-Income
Low-Income $ 432,979 $ 206,414 $ 639,393
Residential i
HVAC $ 314,946 $ 1,032,374 $ 1,347,320
Multifamily Direct Install $ 33,434 $ - $ 33,434
AeroBarrier $ - $ 18,328 $ 18,328
Multifamily/Small Home Weatherization $ 16,439 $ 7,314 $ 23,753
Shell $ 141,212 $ 208,336 $ 349,547
Water Heating $ 9,432 $ 155,910 $ 165,343
ENERGY STAR Homes $ 36,242 $ - $ 36,242
Fuel-Efficiency $ 177,776 $ - $ 177,776
Appliances $ 45,493 $ 4,348 $ 49,841
Commercial/Industrial
HVAC $ 3,502 $ 43,778 $ 47,280
Food Service Equipment $ 2,189 $ 72,914 $ 75,103
Grocer $ 3,752 $ - $ 3,752
Shell $ 3,030 $ 4,998 $ 8,028
Green Motors $ 2,240 $ - $ 2,240
Site-Specific $ 1,953,152 $ 95,244 $ 2,048,396
Interior Lighting $ 991,693 $ - $ 991,693
Exterior Lighting $ 398,461 $ - $ 398,461
Sign Lighting $ 32,346 $ - $ 32,346
Energy Efficiency Total $ 4,598,319 $ ' 1,849,958 $ 6,448,277
Market Transformation low-
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance $ 1,507,782.41 $ 607,596.97 $ 2,115,379.38
Brio Eastside Market Transformation $ 75,300.00 $ - $ 75,300.00
Market Transformation Total $ 1,583,082.41 $ 607,596.97 $ 2,190,679.38
Other Programs
General Implementation $ 71,690.07 $ 36,978.03 $ 108,668.10
Labor Costs $ 937,749.97 $ 165,902.85 $ 1,103,652.82
Marketing Costs $ 272,134.29 $ 30,199.68 $ 302,333.96
Third Party Implementation $ 77,063.78 $ 26,316.91 $ 103,380.69
Pilot Programs $ 7,465.96 $ 13,431.62 $ 20,897.57
EM&V/CPA $ 161,561.25 $ 77,995.22 $ 239,556.47
Other Programs and Activities Total $ 1,527,665.30 $ 350,824.31 $ 1,878,489.61
Grand Total $ 7,709,066.49 $ 2,808,379.08 $ 10,517,445.57
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

APPENDIX E - ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTIVITY BY PROGRAM
ProgramNatural Gas
Evaluated
Energy Efficiency
Weatherization 36 Homes 20,462 $ 94,182 49 Homes 1,290 $ 67,724
HVAC 17 Units 65,082 $ 278,380 10 Units 657 $ 83,614
Water Heating - Units - - 1 Unit 7 $ 5,617
Lights 16 Units 96 $ 466 - N/A - -
Health and Safety 10 HHS - $ 59,951 15 HHS - $ 49,458
Low-Income Total 79 85,639 $ 432,979 75 1,954 $ 206,414
HVAC 311 Furnace, 517,702 $ 314,946 3,040 Furnace, 216,236 $ 1,032,374
Tstat Tstat
Multifamily Direct Install 1,115 Homes 17,478 $ 33,434 - Homes - -
AeroBarrier - Units N/A $ 0 14 Units TBD $ 18,328
Multifamily/Small Home 22 Units 18,754 $ 16,439 20 Units 955 $ 7,314
Weatherization (Measures) (Measures)
Shell 119 Windows, 137,338 $ 141,212 354 Windows, 20,360 $ 208,336
Insulation Insulation
Water Heating 23 Units 27,769 $ 9,432 395 Units 28,408 $ 155,910
(Measure) (Measure)
ENERGY STAR Homes 19 Units 55,400 $ 36,242 - Units -
(Measures) (Measures)
Fuel-Efficiency 40 Units 326,625 $ 177,776 - Units - -
Appliances 326 Dryer Washer/ 32,467 $ 45,493 84 Dryer
Washer/ 457 $ 4,348
Residential Total 1,975 1,133,532 $ 774,974 3,907 266,415 $ 1,426,610
HVAC 4 Projects 14,308 $ 3,502 16 Projects 4,689 $ 43,778
Food Service Equipment 2 Units 10,537 $ 2,189 16 Units 12,910 $ 72,914
Grocer 4 Projects 36,468 $ 3,752 - Projects - -
Shell 1 Project 4,490 $ 3,030 1 Project 260 $ 4,998
Green Motors 2 Motor 9,822 $ 2,240 - N/A - -
Rewinds
Site-Specific 31 Units 7,216,254 $ 1,953,152 2 Units 19,709 $ 95,244
Exterior Lighting 222 Projects 1,794,504 $ 398,461 - N/A - -
Interior Lighting 591 Projects 4,491,242 $ 991,693 - N/A - -
Sign Lighting 53 Projects 130,539 $ 32,346 - N/A - -
Commercial/Industrial Total 857 13,708,164 $ 3,358,020 35 37,961 $ 216,934
Energy Efficiency Total 2,911 14,927,335 $ 4,565,973 4,017 306,330 $ 1,849,958
2022 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

i