20240801Exhibit No. 2 - Avista 2023 Idaho ACR.pdf

j �Llv YIN
'h s. i ;
got I Ilk
At-! i '
16.
t •, y r.. -
IV
� - • .fit ,I � '1 r � •v� � _ • ,' ''1R: -
•� ff
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
July 31, 2024

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.
Front cover:Mineral Ridge,Lake Coeur d'Alene,Idaho

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
TariffRider Balances ............................................................................................................................................... 2
IdahoAchievements............................................................................................................................................... 2
PortfolioTrends................................................................................................................................................... 3
VerifiedSavings................................................................................................................................................... 5
Expenditures....................................................................................................................................................... 6
EvaluationApproach.............................................................................................................................................. 7
Evaluation Methodology and Activities................................................................................................................ 8
Impact Evaluation Results, Portfolio................................................................................................................... 10
Cost-Effectiveness................................................................................................................................................. 10
Commercial/Industrial Sector............................................................................................................................... 13
Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
Marketing ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
BusinessPartner Program.................................................................................................................................. 26
Impact Evaluation: Commercial/Industrial Sector................................................................................................ 27
Performance and Savings Goals .................................................................................................................. 27
Cost-Effectiveness............................................................................................................................................. 27
Program-by-Program Summaries....................................................................................................................... 28
Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program................................................................................................ 28
Description........................................................................................................................................... 28
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 28
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 29
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 29
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 31
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Programs .................................................................................. 32
Description........................................................................................................................................... 32
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 32
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 35
ProgramMarketing .............................................................................................................................. 36
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 37
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 38
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 38
Commercial/Industrial Direct-Install Lighting Program ................................................................................. 38
Description........................................................................................................................................... 38
ProgramImplementation...................................................................................................................... 39
ProgramEligibility................................................................................................................................. 39
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Programs........................................................................... 40
Description........................................................................................................................................... 40
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 42
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 43
ProgramMarketing .............................................................................................................................. 43
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 44
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 45
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 45
ResidentialSector.................................................................................................................................................47
Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
Marketing ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
AtHome with Lisa ...................................................................................................................................... 52
Impact Evaluation: Residential Sector................................................................................................................. 54
Performance and Savings Goals .................................................................................................................. 55
Cost-Effectiveness............................................................................................................................................. 56
Program-by-Program Summaries....................................................................................................................... 57
MidstreamProgram .................................................................................................................................... 57
Description........................................................................................................................................... 57
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 58
Program Announcement...................................................................................................................... 58
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 58
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 58
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 59
ResidentialShell Program............................................................................................................................ 59
Description........................................................................................................................................... 60
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 60
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 60
ProgramMarketing .............................................................................................................................. 61
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 61
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 62
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 62
Residential Home Energy Audit Program ..................................................................................................... 62
Description........................................................................................................................................... 62
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 62
ProgramMarketing .............................................................................................................................. 63
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 63
Residential Smart Thermostat Program........................................................................................................ 64
Description........................................................................................................................................... 64
ProgramMarketing .............................................................................................................................. 64
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 67
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 67
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 68
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

Residential ENERGY STAR/NEEM Manufactured Homes Program............................................................... 68
Description........................................................................................................................................... 68
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 69
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 69
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 69
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 69
Residential Multifamily Weatherization........................................................................................................ 70
Description........................................................................................................................................... 70
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 70
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 71
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 71
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 71
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 71
ResidentialAppliances Program................................................................................................................... 72
Description........................................................................................................................................... 72
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 73
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 73
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 74
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 74
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 74
Residential Multifamily Direct-Install Program and Supplemental Lighting Program...................................... 75
Description........................................................................................................................................... 75
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 76
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 77
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 77
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 77
ResidentialHVAC Program.......................................................................................................................... 78
Description........................................................................................................................................... 78
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 79
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 79
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 79
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 79
Residential Water Heat Program.................................................................................................................. 80
Description........................................................................................................................................... 80
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 80
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 81
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 81
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 81
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 81
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

Residential Fuel-Efficiency Program.............................................................................................................. 82
Description........................................................................................................................................... 82
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 82
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 82
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 83
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 83
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 83
Low-Income Sector...............................................................................................................................................85
Program-by-Program Summaries....................................................................................................................... 85
Low-Income Program.................................................................................................................................. 85
Description........................................................................................................................................... 85
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 86
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 87
CustomerOutreach.............................................................................................................................. 88
ProgramMarketing .............................................................................................................................. 89
Cost-Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................ 93
ImpactEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 93
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 93
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 94
PilotPrograms ...................................................................................................................................................... 97
Program-by-Program Summaries....................................................................................................................... 97
ActiveEnergy Management........................................................................................................................ 97
Description........................................................................................................................................... 97
ProgramActivities................................................................................................................................. 98
ProgramChanges................................................................................................................................. 98
Plansfor 2024...................................................................................................................................... 98
Research and Development............................................................................................................................... 99
Inland Northwest Center for Energy and Decarbonization ........................................................................... 99
Regional Market Transformation....................................................................................................................... 101
Electric Energy Savings Share........................................................................................................................... 101
NaturalGas Energy Savings Share ................................................................................................................... 101
NEEAEvaluation Results.................................................................................................................................. 102
Brio Eastside Collaborative Market Transformation .......................................................................................... 102
Glossaryof Terms................................................................................................................................................... 105
Appendicesand Supplements................................................................................................................................ 117
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

LIST OF TABLES
Table1 —Tariff Rider Activity ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Table 2 — Electric Energy Savings(kWh)...................................................................................................................... 3
Table 3 — Natural Gas Energy Savings (therm)............................................................................................................. 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.......................................................................... 27
Table 12 —Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas Cost-Effectiveness Results.................................................................. 27
Table 13—Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Metrics................................................................................ 28
Table 14—Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Electric Impact Findings........................................................ 29
Table 15—Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies .................................. 30
Table 16—Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Natural Gas Impact Findings ................................................ 31
Table 17—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Metrics.................................................................... 32
Table 18—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Changes.................................................................. 35
Table 19—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Electric Impact Findings ........................................... 37
Table 20—Commercial/Industrial Direct-Install Lighting Program Metrics.................................................................. 39
Table 21 —Commercial/Industrial Direct-Install Lighting Program Measures and Direct Benefit ................................. 39
Table 22 —Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Metrics ............................................................ 40
Table 23—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Changes.......................................................... 43
Table 24—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Impact Findings—Electric................................. 44
Table 25—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Impact Findings—Natural Gas.......................... 44
Table 26— Residential Savings by Program................................................................................................................ 47
Table 27— Residential Programs Verified Electric Savings .......................................................................................... 55
Table 28— Residential Programs Reported Natural Gas Savings................................................................................. 56
Table 29— Residential Electric Cost-Effectiveness Results .......................................................................................... 56
Table 30— Residential Natural Gas Cost-Effectiveness Results................................................................................... 56
Table 31 — Residential Midstream Program Metrics................................................................................................... 57
Table 32 — Residential Shell Program Metrics............................................................................................................ 59
Table 33— Residential ENERGY STAR Homes Program Metrics.................................................................................. 68
Table 34— Residential Multifamily Weatherization Program Metrics.......................................................................... 70
Table 35— Residential Appliances Program Metrics................................................................................................... 72
Table 36— Residential Multifamily Direct-Install Program and Supplemental Lighting Program Metrics...................... 75
Table 37— Residential HVAC Program Metrics.......................................................................................................... 78
Table 38— Residential Water Heat Program Metrics.................................................................................................. 80
Table 39— Residential Fuel-Efficiency Program Metrics.............................................................................................. 82
Table 40— Low-Income Program Metrics.................................................................................................................. 85
Table 41 — Low-Income Program Evaluated Savings.................................................................................................. 86
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

Table 42 — Low-Income Program Approved Measure List.......................................................................................... 87
Table 43— Low-Income Program Qualified Rebate Measure List................................................................................ 87
Table 44— Low-Income Program Outreach Event and LED Bulb Distribution Summary.............................................. 89
Table 45— Low-Income Cost-Effectiveness Results— Electric..................................................................................... 93
Table 46— Low-Income Cost-Effectiveness Results—Natural Gas.............................................................................. 93
Table 47— NEEA Energy Savings And Participation Costs........................................................................................ 101
Table 48— DHP Unit Sales through Brio Market Transformation Initiative................................................................ 103
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—Impact Evaluation Method......................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5—Commercial/Industrial Business Programs Overview Flyer.......................................................................... 14
Figure 6—Commercial/Industrial Increase Energy Efficiency In Your Schools Email .................................................... 15
Figure 7—Commercial/Industrial Programs and Services for Schedule 21 and 25 Customers Email ........................... 16
Figure 8—Commercial/Industrial Energy Solutions Email........................................................................................... 17
Figure 9—Commercial/Industrial Luxury Living, LLC Print Advertorial........................................................................ 18
Figure 10—Commercial/Industrial Luxury Living, LLC Broadcast................................................................................ 19
Figure 11 —Commercial/Industrial Luxury Living, LLC Digital Ads.............................................................................. 19
Figure 12 —Commercial/Industrial Lighting Print Advertorial..................................................................................... 20
Figure 13 —Commercial/Industrial Lighting Digital Ad............................................................................................... 21
Figure 14—Commercial/Industrial Grocer Print Advertorial....................................................................................... 22
Figure 15—Commercial/Industrial Grocer Digital Ad................................................................................................. 23
Figure 16—Commercial/Industrial Compressed-Air Print Advertorial......................................................................... 24
Figure 17—Commercial/Industrial Compressed-Air Digital Ad .................................................................................. 25
Figure 18—Commercial/Industrial Small Business Partner Program Letter................................................................. 26
Figure 19—Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Incentive Dollars by Measure.............................................. 29
Figure 20—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Savings by Month .................................................. 33
Figure 21 —Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Exterior Lighting Program kWh Savings by Measure........................... 33
Figure 22 —Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Interior Lighting Program kWh Savings by Measure ........................... 34
Figure 23 —Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Rebate Web Portal ................................................. 37
Figure 24—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Incentive Dollars by Measure—Electric.......................... 42
Figure 25—Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Incentive Dollars by Measure—Natural Gas................... 42
Figure 26— Residential Rebates Summer Cooling Direct Email.................................................................................. 48
Figure 27— Residential Energy-Efficiency Print Ads................................................................................................... 49
Figure 28— Residential Rebates Bill Insert................................................................................................................. 49
Figure 29— Residential Summer Bill Facebook Post................................................................................................... 50
Figure 30— Residential August 2023 Connections Newsletter .................................................................................. 50
Figure 31 — Residential November 2023 Connections Newsletter.............................................................................. 51
Figure 32 — Residential Winter Bill Google Display Ads ............................................................................................. 51
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

Figure 33 — Residential Winter Bill Google Display Ads, Spanish................................................................................ 52
Figure 34— Residential At Home with Lisa Google Display Ads................................................................................. 53
Figure 35— Residential At Home with Lisa Facebook Posts ....................................................................................... 53
Figure 36— Residential At Home with Lisa Video Series............................................................................................ 54
Figure 37— Residential Shell Program Insulation Rebates Google Display Ads ........................................................... 61
Figure 38— Residential Home Energy Audit Bill Insert............................................................................................... 63
Figure 39— Residential Smart Thermostat Rebate Google Display Ads...................................................................... 64
Figure 40— Residential Rebates Direct Email............................................................................................................. 65
Figure 41 — Residential Energy Smart Giveaway Tips Card ........................................................................................ 66
Figure 42 — Residential Energy Smart Giveaway, October 2023 Connections Newsletter........................................... 67
Figure 43 — Residential Appliance Program Bill Insert................................................................................................ 73
Figure 44— Residential Multifamily Direct-Install Program and Supplemental Lighting Program Flyer......................... 76
Figure 45— Low-Income Program Home Energy Savings Kit Brochure....................................................................... 89
Figure 46— Low-Income Program Energy Use Guide................................................................................................. 90
Figure 47— Kids Can Save Energy Too Coloring and Activity Book............................................................................ 91
Figure 48— Low-Income Program Weatherization Flyer............................................................................................ 92
LIST OF APPENDICES AND SUPPLEMENTS
Appendix A—2023 Electric Impact Evaluation Report
Appendix B—2023 Natural Gas Impact Evaluation Report
Appendix C —2023 Cost-Effectiveness Tables
Appendix D—2023 Expenditures by Program
Appendix E—2023 Energy Efficiency Activity by Program
Appendix F—2023 Process Evaluation
Appendix G —NEEA 2023 Annual Savings Report—Electric
Appendix H —NEEA 2023 Annual Savings Report— Natural Gas
Appendix I —Idaho NEEA Evaluation Report
Appendix J—Brio Eastside Collaborative Study
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report

INTRODUCTION
77
Bic
F :-. � �y Lam." � `':_ ,• .,
wet:
V i -
' { -Ile '
wool
* - I

INTRODUCTION
For more than four decades, Avista has served its communities by developing and implementing reliable and cost-
effective energy-efficiency programs. This 2023 Annual Conservation Report provides a summary of Avista's efforts
to support customer energy needs for residential and commercial customers across the company's service territory.
Avista's efficiency programs help customers discover innovative ways to conserve energy, live more comfortably,
operate businesses with more efficiency, and save money—all while continuing to be a least-cost resource for the
company.
In 2023, customers in Avista's service territory took advantage of efficiency programs and services at participation
rates similar to pre-pandemic rates. While customers and contractors continued to report some supply chain
constraints and labor shortages, program participation had a strong recovery, particularly in the fourth quarter of the
year. One factor driving this increase in engagement was customer participation in Avista's innovative new program
offerings in 2023 —specifically the Midstream and Small-Business Direct-Install Lighting Programs. Avista programs
continue to focus on affordability and flexibility, with a large emphasis on customer-centered energy solutions.
In addition to a portfolio of programs implemented by Avista and third-party contractors, the company 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
Kettle Falk•
Sandpoint
•
•Noxon MONTANA
WASHINGTON Spokane• •Coew*Alene
•otl+Nb o
mac Frane Pullman
• •1.FOKCOw °
Nsnwil Gas sw,.w
Stevenson GpkIWx:jak. Clarkston• •Levwston
Avista • •
•Grangevide
Electric and
"• La Grande•
Natural Lau
Service Areas IDAHO
OREGON
•Roseburg
Electric •
Natural Gas • milord
Electric and Natural Gas ■ •
VamatA Falls
�IIIV�sra 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 1

TARIFF RIDER BALANCES
At the start of 2023, the Idaho electric and natural gas (aggregate)tariff rider balances were overfunded by nearly $5
million. During the year, approximately $10.8 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund energy efficiency,
while over $11.3 million was expended to operate energy-efficiency programs. The $570,000 excess of expenditures
over collections contributed to the decrease in the overfunded balance of the tariff riders, resulting in an overfunded
balance close to $4.4 million by year-end.
Table 1 illustrates the 2023 tariff rider activity by fuel type.
TABLE 1 —TARIFF RIDER ACTIVITY
kb Natural Gas
Beginning Balance(Underfunded)/Overfunded $ 6,812,862 $ (1,823,835) $ 4,989,027
Energy-Efficiency Funding $ 6,688,244 $ 4,062,642 $ 10,750,886
Net Funding of Operations $ 13,501,106 $ 2,238,807 $ 15,739,913
Energy-Efficiency Expenditures $ 9,137,460 $ 2,186,149 $ 11,323,609
Ending Balances(Underfunded)/Overfunded $ 4,363,646 $ 52,658 $ 4,416,304
IDAHO ACHIEVEMENTS
Electric Conservation:For 2023, Avista's electric Energy-Efficiency Program achieved 15,530,289 kWh of
conservation from local programs.
• Natural Gas Conservation: For 2023, Avista's natural gas Energy-Efficiency Program achieved 231,497
therms of conservation from local programs.
• NEEA Conservation:An additional 5,992 MWh were conserved through the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA) program, resulting in overall electric savings of 21,523 MWh; an additional 217,045 therms
led to an overall natural gas savings of 448,542 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 15,530,289 kWh for electric and 231,497 therms for natural gas.
Values shown in total will not always equal the sum of the column in presentation charts due to rounding.
m. -
Pg 2 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �JFV1Sra®

Portfolio Trends
Avista's electric energy savings achieved in 2023 were higher than in 2022 (15,530,289 kWh vs 14,927,336 kWh).
This gain was due mainly to increases in savings through the Prescriptive Lighting Program, which rose 24 percent
between 2022 and 2023 and accounted for 51 percent of overall program savings.
TABLE 2— ELECTRIC ENERGY SAVINGS (KWH)
Customer Segment
Residential(Inclusive of Low-Income Programs) 1,219,172 1,898,530
Commercial/Industrial 13,708,164 13,631,759
Total 14,927,336 ' 15,530,2891
As shown in Table 3, Avista's natural gas portfolio decreased in savings in 2023 compared to the prior year. While the
commercial/industrial savings increased by 60 percent, the residential portfolio decreased significantly. This was largely
due to a 60 percent reduction in savings from the HVAC Program.
TABLE 3 — NATURAL GAS ENERGY SAVINGS (THERM)
Customer Segment
i
Residential 268,369 169,490
Commercial/Industrial 37,961 62,007
IF306,330 231,497
/IIW_-
�IuVFSTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 3

Of Avista's overall electric portfolio, the commercial/industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program and Small Business
Lighting Program obtained 70 percent of the savings in 2023. All other programs combined achieved the remaining
30 percent(see Figure 2).
FIGURE 2— ELECTRIC SAVINGS PORTFOLIO
Site-Specific
Commercial/Industrial Lighting
Small Business Lighting
Midstream
Residential
Multifamily Direct Install
Low-Income
Commercial/Industrial Other
2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000
Electric(kWh)
Of Avista's overall natural gas savings portfolio, residential HVAC and Midstream Program obtained 58 percent of the
savings in 2023 (see Figure 3).
FIGURE 3— NATURAL GAS SAVINGS PORTFOLIO
Residential
Midstream
Commercial/Industrial
Site-Specific
Low-Income
Fi i i i i i 1
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
Natural Gas(Therms)
/III Pg 4 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Verified Savings
Avista's targets are set through the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) process. Targets for 2023 were 14,970 MWh and
465,478 therms.
For the 2023 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 2023
conservation acquisition target identified in its IRPwas 14,970 MWh of qualifying energy efficiency in Idaho.
The 2023 natural gas target of 465,478 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 2023, the electric energy-efficiency portfolio achieved first-year annual energy savings of 15,530 MWh (21,523
MWh inclusive of NEEA) and natural gas savings of 230,111 therms(447,156 therms inclusive of NEEA). Based on the
target established in the electric and natural gas IRPs, Avista achieved 104 percent(144 percent inclusive of NEEA) of
the electric savings target and 49 percent(96 percent inclusive of NEEA) of natural gas.
Table 4 shows 2023 savings by fuel and sector. The Idaho electric portfolio achieved an overall 91 percent realization
rate.
TABLE 4- ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS BY SECTOR- ELECTRIC
Sector Reported Savings Evaluated Savings � Realization Rate
Commercial/Industrial 14,276,472 13,631,759 95%
Residential 2,614,744 1,727,219 66%
Low-Income 223,111 171,311 77%
Total 17,114,327 15,530,289 91
The Idaho natural gas portfolio achieved an overall realization rate of 70 percent, as shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5— ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS BY SECTOR— NATURAL GAS
ReportedlSavings Evaluated Savings
(Therms) I (Therms) Realization Rate
Commercial/Industrial 67,047 62,007 92%
Residential 262,607 167,465 64%
Low-Income 2,136 2,025 95%
Total 331,790 231,497 70%
/IIW_-
�4rifISra 2023 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
Natural Gas
Projected 2023 Expenditures
Incentives Budget $ 4,354,990 $ 2,819,450
Non-Incentives and Labor $ 1,092,851 $ 98,357
NEEA,CPA, EM&V $ 500,040 $ 45,004
Total Budgeted Expenditures $ 5,947,881 $ 2,962,810
Incentives $ 5,830,551 $ 1,429,549
Non-Incentives and Labor $ 2,513,379 $ 474,343
Market Transformation,CPA,EM&V, R&D, Pilot Programs $ 793,530 $ 282,256
Total Actual Expenditures $ 9,137,460 $ 2,186,149
Variance $ 3,189,579 $ (776,661)
Table 7 illustrates the top five programs with the highest impact on the expenditure variance.
TABLE 7— PROGRAMS WITH HIGHEST IMPACT ON EXPENDITURE VARIANCE
.. Planned Actual I Variance Variance Percentage
Small Business Lighting $ — $ 1,823,804 $ 1,823,804 —
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive
$ 1,392,400 $ 1,969,025 $ 576,625 41%
Lighting
Residential Midstream—Electric $ 96,381 $ 115,290 $ 18,909 20%
Commercial HVAC—Electric $ 1,950 $ 8,500 $ 6,450 331%
rcommercial Prescriptive Shell—Electric $ 5,680 $ 2,423 $ (3,258) (57)%
AIII Pg 6 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

EVALUATION APPROACH
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 include 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.)
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. The 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 incorporates recommendations to improve program performance, enact changes to programs, and
make decisions to phase out programs and measures.
Recommendations from third-party evaluations, as well as the application of lessons learned through each program
year, are incorporated into Avista's annual business planning process to further refine program design and improve
their chances of success.
For 2023, Avista retained 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 approach to provide a benchmark against
which future years can be compared. Impact and process evaluations for most programs were also completed at the
program level, so that customer experience could be better delineated and realization rates understood.
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 demand-
side management(DSM)and Avista corporate publications. Program-specific EM&V plans are created to inform and
benefit the 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 in consideration of their inclusion
in Avista's energy-efficiency portfolio. In its electric portfolio, Avista 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 related to energy efficiency and conservation.
To contribute to regional efforts, Avista's Energy Efficiency Engineering Manager has a voting role on the Regional
Technical Forum (RTF)—the advisory committee to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) and a
primary source of information regarding the standardization of energy savings and measurement processes for electric
applications in the Pacific Northwest. This 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 several 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--
�41if§Sra 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 7

Evaluation Methodology and Activities
An impact evaluation was performed on each program in the Idaho program portfolio that achieved savings in 2023.
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 unit energy savings (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 set out for EM&V
work as defined by several guidebook documents that were published in recent 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 by the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE)5
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 during the evaluation 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)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.
Allf Pg 8 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIV1Sra®

A Billing Analysis approach estimates energy savings by applying a linear regression to utility meter billing
data for measured participant energy consumption. Billing analyses included 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 TRIM, or billing
analysis in combination with the results from document review. For the HVAC, Water Heat, Fuel Efficiency, Small
Home & Multifamily Weatherization, and Appliances Programs, evaluators also applied in-service rates (ISRs)from
verification surveys.
FIGURE 4— IMPACT EVALUATION METHOD
IN
Database Adjusted Document
Review Savings Review
The 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
Heat, and Fuel Efficiency Programs incorporate billing analysis results for some measures.
AIII
,iRiMISTAW 2023 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: 91 percent realization rate and 15,530,289 kWh in annual verified savings.
Natural Gas: 70 percent realization rate and 231,497 therms in annual gross savings.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Before implementing any new program, Avista conducts analyses to determine whether that program is cost-effective
from both the company's and 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 2023, the UCT benefit/cost ratios were 1.45 for electric and 1.01 for natural gas.
TABLE 8— ELECTRIC PORTFOLIO COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 18,834,190 $ 15,458,671 1.22
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 11,725,343 $ 8,069,657 1.45
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 22,657,795 $ 7,389,014 N/A
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 11,725,343 $ 23,618,605 0.50
TABLE 9—NATURAL GAS PORTFOLIO COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 2,386,009 $ 6,665,220 0.36
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 2,071,628 $ 2,059,959 1.01
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 28,574,595 $ 4,605,261 N/A
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 2,071,628 $ 30,320,172 0.07
/IIf Pg 10 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESYK

(This page intentionally left blank.)
/IIW__
�IuV1STA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 11

COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
ow Its
lop—
Nam-
4 vk—,
Nor-
Idaho

COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
Overview
The commercial/industrial energy-efficiency market has traditionally been served through a combination of prescriptive
and site-specific programs. Any savings measure not offered through the Prescriptive Program path—or that does not
meet its parameters—is automatically eligible for treatment through the Site-Specific Program path. In 2023, Avista
launched its Midstream Program, which partners with distributors and trade allies to offer incentives to a broader
range of customers than the company's programs previously reached. HVAC systems and food service equipment
measures now go through the Midstream Program rather than through prescriptive channels.
The Prescriptive Program path remains in Avista's program portfolio for straightforward equipment installations that
generally have similar operating characteristics. For example, some lighting equipment and variable frequency drives.
Projects can range from small to very large.
In 2023, Avista also launched an innovative direct-install lighting program for small businesses. This program, which
offers low-to no-cost lighting upgrades to Schedule 11 and Schedule 12 customers, has been extremely popular with
customers and trade allies alike.
The Site-Specific Program path is reserved for 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-based approach is used.
• 71,391 commercial/industrial electric projects in 2023: Total savings of 13,632 MWh
110 commercial/industrial natural gas projects in 2023: Total savings of 62,007 therms
TABLE 10— COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL VERIFIED SAVINGS BY PROGRAM
Commercial/industrial Program Electric Savings Natural Gas Savings
Prescriptive Lighting 7,978,849 —
Small Business Lighting 2,956,164 —
Midstream 58,355 8,922
HVAC 42,924 12,969
Grocer 1,928 —
Shell 37,320 7,117
Green Motors — —
Site Specific 2,556,219 29,069
Food Service Equipment — 3,930
Total Commercial/Industrial . 13,631,759 62,007
/IIW_-
�4uVFSTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 13

Marke tin g
Avista expanded its approach to commercial and industrial energy-efficiency marketing in 2023. The company
developed education and awareness campaigns to share ways to save energy, available rebate programs, and
customer energy-efficiency success stories. Avista refreshed all web pages offering energy-saving advice and program
information to business customers. Ads for energy-efficiency rebate programs were redeveloped, offering multiple
creative options to engage customers. The regional account executives who manage business customer projects
continued to play a large role in spreading program awareness and increasing engagement. Because this customer
segment holds significant energy-saving potential, new case studies were developed to highlight successful customer
energy-saving experiences. Customer projects were also highlighted on Linkedln. The purpose of these efforts was to
engage the business audience in the energy-efficiency conversation and show companies how they can benefit from
saving energy with the help of Avista's programs.
FIGURE 5 - COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PROGRAMS OVERVIEW FLYER
rXEnergy efficiency rebates and incentives
i-
for Avista business customers.
Standard Rebates
+� Ali •l Covmmercial Lighting
Sa energyimmediatelcingclighting upgrades.LED technology continues an
tmgavailable ntrol lighting retrofits
to Improve,further reducing costs and minimizing maintenance needs. nd lighting controls.
Commercial Insulation
Rebates available for energy-efficient wall,
Prevent art from escaping or entering your building by adding insulation attic and of
insulation.
Cus romers • You'll save on heating and cooling and keep your space more comfortable.
Commercial Connected Thermostat Rebates available to Washington customers
savingare energy • Replace your standard thermostat withaconnected thermostat Iy ith primary heating equipment
to save energy fueled by Avista elec[dciry or natural gas.
money Commercial Clothes Washer Rebates available to Washiin?mn customers
Save energy by replacing your commercial doth wa
sher asher only wfh water heating fueled by Avista
business with a new ENERGY STAR product. electricity or natural gas.
Commercial Grocer R bates available for variou display ca
For customers with commercial refrigeration(grocery stores,sueermarkets, LEDs,doors,motors,control,sVi curia ns
ce stores,etcJ.Up grade equipment to improve effici noes and ad kts. p
nergy losses. n gas e
Commercial Comprossed Air Leak Detection Rebates available and dependent upon
We can help With high-efficiency upgrades, Reduce energy use by repairing leaks in your compressed air system. verified leak repair and energy savings.
you reach your the money you'll save on energy MAC variable Fmquenq Orive(VFD) Rebates available for retrofits of VFDs on
WDsu brless n,.—man powerthan single-speed motors,yet create available
HVACequipofits
operational and costs can be reinvested in other the same energy ncmre—rah.i todnvefnsnd pumps.Mlnimiewaried commercial
p energy and save on operational costs.
sustainability areas of your business.
Groan Motors Rewind Rebates available for Green Rewinds on
goals. Standard Rebates Overtime,all motors lose efficiency.A bad repair/rewind can adversely tShp to SOOhp NEMA-rated motors at
affect to,
funttionality Quality rewinding("green rewind")ensures partiopating service centers.
Our team of energy experts can Get money back on common high-efficiency upgrades such as LED a motor maintains its original efficiency,
help you identify opportunities to lighting,insulation,VFD,or commercial refrigeration.No project
save.Contact your Avista account Pre-qualification needed.Visit mvavista.com/blmabates for Pay
yf Performancer Retrofit Rebates av ilable for buildn�s [h 20�000 sf
ecutive or call(8v9)9366fi29 qualifying products,e ant and details. Annual incentives that capture all electric and/or natural gas savings at of conditioned space and dependent
quipm the meter,rather than separate rebates for individual measures. upon annual energy savings.
to learn more.
Site-specific Incentives Site-Specific Incentives
Custom financial Incentives may be available for energy-saving projects For en acts that do notmeetour Stand' ideli
that don't fit within our Standard program guidelines.Projects require -m -fk; n progr mg Incentives vary byprojectandstpo
custom(vte-speafi)ni inequa ntivemprorto file eroectt start.
in en[ t t II rficant portion
prequalification and analysis.Find and contactyourAvista account min pmjct an�lys8 and pre-qulifiratbn,pdorto the projects start.To learn note
ycovenngasign po
executive atogmv'sta cumIbbir elpto getstarted. f dand tact your account executiveMmvavina mm/b'zhelp. cos
Small Business Partner Program Small Business Partner Program
If you ea nural small business customer considering an energy- For Avirta's rural small business customers,we'll four licensed
efficiency upgrade,we can help streamline the process by sending a pay oneo Contact Lorri Kirstein at
partner conVactors to travel to r'te,talk vnt you bout your protect, I nflkintein•a istacoro.rom or
contractor to your site(free of charge)to provide a bid and identify draw up a bid and determine elig blliry for any of our rebate program,so (5v9)495-28T3 for more information.
potential rebate eligibility you can decide if and how You like to move forward.
For full program details and rebate forms,
visit mvavista comlbizralso es or call(800)936-6629.
Pg 14 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

Throughout the year, Avista reached out to business customers directly via email, offering energy-saving advice and
helpful program information related to the healthcare and manufacturing/industrial industries. As a follow-up to a
message sent in late 2022, 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 direct email and postal letter were sent to Avista's large commercial and
industrial customers on Rate Schedules 21 and 25, furthering awareness about programs and services the company
offers to help reduce energy usage.
FIGURE 6-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN YOUR SCHOOLS EMAIL
WMI:ME
NMI*
W w yr dme ivl tua b.an ao..ttl..Mq%901 up- .Cho t Ad md— --.drool.
.hwby u.a.k0m taq he"Iooltllr l tabal.a avaA.bl.of Mbl_k.WW
Protrct..r dit W..v�—•.04 WW_ Ih.Mt+._,.—.41.
orrr Iv 40"Kwnhw N ee.gloWm►fo help lai ti►e to.+ut ot rwt Uot.I
e.4p.t Lr_"..I M fib']on.arum+ jW3 tro n%4.(MI.n'W
.Yar.r.d 10P"rehab.
-aoo...d wab.NW and root raaM.on nbataa
•4"trrrv_.d~V__W n W(MYA n'")
•Garor.nlon Of t P.7 kW P.tlro.orn 0109 r %ahlu7 n••rb 2=i
Add"69nal I—Ong Ow qMs school dhs*%b bt Avttb'o.wvloa bnOvy t y oho be
.v.d.o•.It-3h I.'+r Mha.YYdMft bvaobtlW and Job Att I".ndW to WA~
A.Orcbpn Act IdtA) I!A nW,w Sb40 ootott w.fll.oe br nt+.n„e.r.wrq and pn>Qarry n
YaMbwlaaR!lC t4aae.eV..R 0•tPO.ttM t'+or rvJaf.dA Y.•M b..Yd bI aN•t7/
.App+tV 1,WOW.IaC1.0..h000 b+d b m.and broaM'A ftpop.W rw*men
IRA n N—$1 b- ".kb*br Ib aktflaln 91.4.u..d M.e..r.aOq dam E..d 7
WM"b—
tao may omdww A.rabr onoW e44rnry r.bobw a#h LIA aaabor RA 0 Io
Ituod.09 your"..y.00"'"bob bn.o w~V Prt).en r Obootl.bo bb.NM
YO Iykary w b.A_b tiI o.bb
•Awls nbaom-rrtlsA�a7tris
•0.N4An -� .Ly n1_��ta-UVVAIy7lIY'�3•�r.
<, - •r ttu�tlLe3l� ry M�tLa QAc�OM�)
•IRA tid.-C •:«&li br..•Ner•:r..rY.,aar•.t.*_I
Irani twfta—arw W b.•Pumod M•arnr t rrr.,,I AirldmYvao+s q
Pnorw r(sobs aa.4oet
ski
Atgbla K6kW
Ragan Am t t a w
m
�IIIV�sra 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 15

FIGURE 7 — COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR SCHEDULE 21 AND 25 CUSTOMERS EMAIL
OEM CunAsalpr,
Od you ura 7wl vw�rwq aaka.tY Ir uv J T.a pw!.arr Icr a e......rw b ewyc.iY cgrYs�
aaps�aa�
Mate nar a�1wVI✓1 nsn naa,x�arr.at aw YW cpwla sH arpsln�cv hwlw�-w.<Aw tGOr•-
A-Iw4t` v mwtw--VWAffi-._Y-Ivry ..o b too bar Va.arrryr.a.sal.0 d w
n~MUW nrAda b"W"AM aadrg MArrry Grra u a aw Wan yu.
~Y*W Mao P. ac N u aaana an ww labor PAWL for VW
ti aalaalan.A da tra a vW*W of 401Car~MOO to rop vM,trgvalyd Ow we oar 1-w
VW bywawu'-WW mvMb—it—r W.lot an Itl Ind!b
•LY-C[IfSn09lYlr
�Elararr 9.a1 a171f]IJjn►/�,
YOU IYa W='r4c/I n a/O.=JON ar*V Oar raruabr!Oaaa oar rpm b~aaa bI*Wrha Mr A.,a V
askm
EM Err a!d an arw wq mead wr mme 1+f Nw AVAfa R"a"Accruo Eraalm■
.ar^•naaaryr{annacv::_T-y)[,61W14 I
I vEllr►7u p s oralorlwr,and 1 bM bl.sE b rMM'r'N Y.a!b p9+la rA�mplgn and prpyyllE�
N!wi W W"W.Opa1'WW OI 0-a.Mgr
F .rl.
id,,w NararE
A..nr tiwy,..y Acu lr r..OA"
O
���r•�i rrrw�w w�
rngyM 1•/apa�a�r
Avista continued its long-standing business customer newsletter, Energy Solutions, using program promotion boxes
that direct viewers to myavista.com and its energy-efficiency programs. A lead article was included each month,
providing a consistent opportunity for energy-efficiency storytelling. The newsletter goes out monthly to a customer
list managed by each regional account executive.
m.Pg 16 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

FIGURE 8- COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ENERGY SOLUTIONS EMAIL
SenoecLtQQ+tnn�f9ln IitlyraF.e4
LfY�lOY.iYltemi
tint��� Orw seAy b.nf t+w nMewsW�V mresrs ca,.
garde errray snleae d 1Vf MryAe rear�'a
2 E ne gwwn rnre�ow.wG9sd
:'ob •R:a•:lao
Ca+rtea+r tl.rM►
+a l.sedlWoi
242�2IIYfOY�S1f4LYSipaSP ..u�r.�,.
t7fW Rl VPdatt!s
Amin cf4 money-vary rebates Am :�e
m"ruy-01com upQedbs end eauipnrfM.We
.wA b hdp you Broke 1M WWW49ft
pr"K"you ye boom coneMemp a P08ft
T*n year wo�e btMd b OW elOre�d
Froen,rres"new proprerr»to mrmwad Mastornp Mamnnanu p�mq=
wNomem-Ike you
® learn row to apamze Pi o sya OM�
srer•�rereberer.es;Ban
ELACE
■1st6EY
MONTE
V%WType of ffidw"Uses Nt
&EW3
Every 0"WM"WQ s Wkwt bA wean qw Montlt
ra em Dgpna wrav reY'y �yls Qsri IMMsry Morn nnen w•n[nc�Te
Icy Ord eWeaewes er 06 c b�
Building on the success of a similar in-person event held in mid-2022, Avista offered an energy-efficiency program
open house in the spring of 2023. An in-person option was hosted in March, while an online version was offered
in April. Commercial and industrial trade ally vendors and contractors were invited and 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.
AIlea--
�IuVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 17

Avista partnered with business customers to continue to build out its library of energy-efficiency case studies. While
former case studies continued to be used in external marketing, a new rural project was added. Luxury Living, LLC
shared its success with lighting, heating, and insulation rebate programs, as well as other services provided by Avista.
Generic case studies were also developed on the benefits of LED lighting, fixing compressed-air system leaks, and
upgrading commercial grocer equipment. The case study campaigns ran from March to December via broadcast, OTT,
digital, and print advertisements.
In total, Avista's 2023 paid advertising campaigns for commercial/industrial energy efficiency resulted in over 12.1
million impressions. Avista's web pages for business energy efficiency received more than 161,000 views. The landing
page for energy-saving programs and services averaged over 4,200 views each month, an increase over the previous
year's average of 2,000 views per month.
FIGURE 9-COMMERCIALANDUSTRIAL LUXURY LIVING, LLC PRINT ADVERTORIAL
AF
businessRural low
owners
money and
energy with
�-
Cc oWNE R5.LUXURY LIVING LLC F-
Rural businesses
often lack easy access to expert Avirta provided reb.testoreplacethe deteriorated insulation.
guidan on energy-saing measures.Avista's Small Rebates werealso given ruefurbiti areaswheresingle-pane
Bus n ss Partner Program eliminates the costs windows were removed and were replaced VMh insulated walls.
and hassle of obtaining help by bringing energy- Garryand Mike—need the unibt,have private entries,so
efficiency knowledge and project funding n entiNts suing gu..,dIdc1 have to go through the main building.So,they
straight to businesses in small communities,c installed French doors on all the back decks.
Says Mike,"The wide doors are also-
are measure for
Including Davenport,Washington,population 7,740. elderlytenarHs.if ever thereinemergency,fim responders can
Garry Rosman and Mike St.—are two Davenprt Wei
r— bring in mobile medical equipment.lot easier."
partnerswho'vebenefitedfrom this program.Bum and raised "Safety is alsowhywe installed a gasfireplace in each ui
locally,the men have been friends for nearly 50 years.And adds Garry."Should a Winter storm knock out power to our new
they've inverted in commercial busine a and property together heat pumps,the fireplacecanheattheentirsapartment"
manytimes,includingintheirlatestp,gj :Luxury Uving LLS F—aided energy savings,Garryand Mike took advantage
Davenport's newestserm,independent living apartments. of rebates on high efficiency LED lighting for the entire corm
"Our Small Business Partner Programshowed Gany and Mike including the dentist and chiropractor offices which had obsolete
howtomaketheir a rNhRnr IWddingenergyefficient"says fluoreuents.They also savetl on sensorsfor the common area to
program manager,Lerri Kimein."Italsosignificantlyreducecitheir aA.—ically,hut off lights when unoccupied.
ovation expenses with Avirta rebates and incentives as well as
outside grants."
Through the program,Avirta coven expenses for a specialized,
lice xd co t the facility and s.bmh ompetit
bid for an anen,y-effinen,,protect.The bid includes applicable
Avirta rebates as well as state grants that may be available.With
complete price in hand and the contractor ready to go,the
customer can easily decide whether to move forward.
In Garry and Mike'—se,they had ceme across a building for
sale near Davenport's hosphal.Built in the 70s,it was a medical
clinic that housed four donors,a dentist and a chiropractor.The
doctors,however,planned to move.
If something didn"t happen,the building Was just going to
deteriorate,"says Garry."We scratched our heads on how to make
o s .thing useful for the community that would tart."
Given the buildingi proximity to the hospital,they decided
to convert it into apartments for independent senior living.Until
then,the fewalte...nesfor seniors in Davenport either required "Ahogether,they received$25,g in rebates and$1;846 in
purchase,included nursing rare,or hadi—nne—icii— grants,"says Lorri.
They bought the building and A....ceiving their fim energy "Their upgrades also saved 65,600 kWh of elMridty and 850
bill,they wereshocked by how nuchelechicitywasbeingused. therms of natural gas,which lowered their bill."
We immediately called Avirta,"says Mike."They sent out, According to Garry and Mike,the benefits of working with
tech,who found that the misting sidewalk snow-melt syrtem was Avirta went beyond rebates and lower energy costs.By emphasizing
run
ning 24,costing a1,,A$600 extra a month. nergy efficiency and equipment they were able to improve tenant
Garry adds,"The tech mentioned that Avirta may help pay for comfort and keep rents affordable.
automatic thermostat far seasonal heating synems-crethat Both men agreed that AVIAN,and its Small Business Partner
sestemperaaneand mrrirture.He put us in touch with Loin. Program were pivotal in helping them to complete than—
We nut only received a rebate and grant for the new heat-control independent senior living apartments.They are currently
Thy but after she caught wind of our aP.—antP.jRMshe undertaking several other projects with Avista's help.
volunteered to have Avirta assirt with everything." See how Avista can help your business save energy
With Mike as co—ion m,nager,nd Garry handling at myavista.comlbizrebates.
Ic,bdcs,their plan was to convert 11 office units into one,one-
plus-,and twobedroom apartments,including ADA certified units.
Unfortunately,they quickly learned the outer walls and original
support structure were an issue.
"The 2 x 4 walls had to be furred in.2 x 6's to meet cade,"
Mike explains."In same places there was only two inches of
insulation.We had to flx the ceiling,too,to fit maximum imulMion." Wl
Pg 18 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report sra®

FIGURE 10-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LUXURY LIVING, LLC BROADCAST
dill
199002 Da6tport,
2
FIGURE 11 —COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LUXURY LIVING, LLC DIGITAL ADS
i
_ 1
•
y
How a small
eff iciency business saved
small business. nioney.
See rebates See txw
• AVIS=
-
�IIi�/ISTA" 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 19

FIGURE 12-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING PRINT ADVERTORIAL
+�
404
Save energy with
�;--
lighting
ti~
- r
upgrades
get money
New lighting technologies constantly lights by intensity and adjust color temperature to create
improving and can help every type of business desirable ambiance and mood.
reduce energy consumption,furthering progre Interior and exterior lighting,including sign lighting can all
toward zustai consumption,
oils.That's why Avista ss 9ualify for incentives.Avista also provides incentives for lighting,
Y9 Y control,including occupanry sensors,which detect movement
offers lighting incentive
programs to help its and automatically turn off lights after occupants leave a room.
commercial electric ustom make the switch. (Serrao trol—me daylight toshut off,say,parking lot lights at
According to ENERGY STAR°"lighsing n nsponsiblefor down.)Lighting controls greatly reduce energy consumption
up to l]%of all the electricity cons d in U.S.commercial and will a.end the lifespan of any lighting.
buildings,meaning there a re plenty of opportunities to make Avista rebates have helped many of our business customers
your lighting more energy efficient."ENERGY STAR°predicts Pay for new LED lighting synems to conserve energy and support
that"by 202],widespreatl use is LEDs could reduce our nation's a oreflexible energy grid,"explained Brit.
that
2027 equal to the annualelD coup ned.cUtp't of,large m"Weofferlighting incentives on projects that qualify to
electricity seelectric Power plants."' businesses of all sizes and any intlunry.No project is too big or
Brit Stottleni Regional Account Executive at Avista,says, too small to consider."
"Lighting is the first place commercial customers shoultl look re'de of project qualification,the only eligibi lily
whening is h identifyce co to save." requirement is that the business must be an Avina commercial or
According to Brit,some customers use rebates to reduce industrial customer with a rate schedule of 11 or higher,
costs on jun a few lamps,while others retrofit entire facilities. Avista offers standard off-the-shelf and custom
"We've awarded million-dollar rebate checks and seen savings program options.
that exceed three million kilowatt hours per year(worth over
$250,WOannually).Thesavingspoenialanbeimmene." The standard s typically for replacing exsti ng
LEDs emit far less heat than fluorescent lights,saving even equipment.Pre-approved rebates are offered on items identified
moreenergy cosh because of their reduced impact on by Avista o proven energy savers.A couple examples are
ventilation and cooling both,adds Brit LEDs can also Ian up to upgratles from fluorescent and HlD fixtures to LED.
15 times longer,which significantly decreases maintenance and The custom option is for projects that don't fit Avista's
replacement cons,especially for those with long operating hours, standard guidelines.Avista's account executives can coordinates
Project analysis for projected energy savings.
While Avista does not make vendor recommendations,many
_ local electricians and lighting contractors can assin in selecting
' and installing the correct equipment.
( Businesses that participate in the standard program do not
need pre-approval before purchasing and installing equipment
but they must meet aII the program requirements listed on
Avi,ta's incentive agreement.
Customers may hire a licensed electrician W install their
equipment or do it themselves.Afterward,with the standard
1 program,they simply complete and submit a rebate application
within 120 days of the installation.
"LEDs use approximately 90%less energy to emit the same
am unt of light as traditional bulb ssessee s.Busine energy savings
r oight away after completing a lighting retrofit"says Brit,"I've
en had some customers iell me that their reduced ligMing
expenses paid for their project costs in under a year
.highly
recommend it to all our commercial customers."
There is also lighting's positive effect on employee For re information and list of aproducts that
productivity.The right lighting in an office,warehouse or qualify,go to information
myavi to and
a list of products
industrial setting has been shown to lower worker fatigue and
tes
stress and improve overall mood and health.Increased visibility (If you don't find a rebate that fits your need;ask your Avista
n also reduce the chance of accidents,especially where forklifts ount executive for possible custom options.Find your account
and machinery are being used.Illuminating a business at night executive at myavista.comlbizhelp.)
can help deter theft,as well.
LED technology continues to advance,offering a variety of
customization options.For instance,cunomers can now tailor
eina�ruggraa Jign iia�ngvxassj
Pg 20 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

FIGURE 13—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING DIGITAL AD
jBIESTA
Get money
back on new
commercial
See rebates.
s
�IIIV�sra 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 21

FIGURE 14-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL GROCER PRINT ADVERTORIAL
■ 46 I.F. Ihelp you save energy
'■ ■ 1
4 L
Get cash incentives to
i�
on refrigeration.
_1
Grocery stores put great efforts into Avista's Commercial Grocer Program letsyou retrofit all
maintaining a constant supply of food for types of refrigeration equipment including reach-in,walk-in,
and many storage units and display cases.For energy-efficient
people to consume.Their efforts,however, refrigeration,Avista says preventing cold air from escaping and
consume a lot of energy. war air from entering is key.
Whether it's a small neighborhood convenience store AIM,provides incentives for anti-sweat controls in
or a large superstore with thousands ofsquare feet energy refrigerated display cases.Anti-sweat controls r,g,l,t,th,
consumption is primarily due to refrigeration.Many rows of output of anti-sweat heaters.Theysense humidity levels
feners and coolers must operate around the clock,seven days ound reach-in glass doors,so the heater only operates when
a week,to preserve product qual%mnd ensuresafety. needed,improving the case's efficiency.
According to an EPA study,commercial refrigeration is"the For additional refrigeration savings in your.....,
biggest energy user within supermarket,accounting for about electronically commutated motors(ECMs)are good for
40 to 60 percent of electricityconsumption."'it can take quite refrigerator evaporators in walk-in coolers or freezers.They
a bite from the grocery industry',thin profit margins. offer quieter operation,reduced maintenance and increased
"Refrigeration is our number one target for saving energy longevity when compared to other motors,
when helping our grocery bovines,customers,"says Christian Adding ECM controls can help maintain consistent
Wright Avista Regional Account Executive."Unlike product refrigeration temperature by decreasing evaporator tan-motor
and labor,store energy costs area variable operating expense speed or temporarily
porily turning the fan off once the desired
that can be mitigated without a huge investment It's why temperature is met.
Avista developed its Commercial Grocer Program" The Commercial Grocer Program also has incentives
valiable on qualifying new strip curtains for walk-in freezers
E• andcoolers,as wellascertaln door gaskets.
One of Avista,top energy-saving suggestions is for grocers
to upgrade their lighting in open and reach-in refrigerated
cases to LEDs.LEDs use up to 50 percent less energy than
_ fluorescent tubes and can la,t over 10 times longer.You'll save
energy and replacement costs,plus you'll reduce maintenance
time because they don't have to be changed as often.
^J Not only that,LEDs emit far less heat for Improved
temperature control,which supports the ability to maintain
food quality.LED lighting is better at reflecting the color and
textures of fresh foods to create added product appeal,too.
There are a few restrictions within the Commercial Grocer
dir Program,however,Avista may offer incentives for non-
standard projects,as well.Grocer business customers just need
to contact their Avista account executive to have their projects
evaluated and prequalified beforehand.
Avista'.Commercial Grocer Program makes it easy and "Saving energy creates a stronger bottom line for program
e affordable for participating businesses to achieve savings participants and reduces a store's carbon footprint too,"
says
on their utility bills,explained Wright.Under the program, Wright"It's no wonder why so many of my grocer business
Avista provides grocers with cash incentives to help reduce the customers take advantage of our program."
upfront costs of making energy-efficiency modifications to Find your Avista account executive
their refrigeration unit, Gy and see qualifying Commercial
Netimates only that..ave onyoure in ergy
but=ent Grocer Program
equipment at
ST increasing
salesby$5ry dollar saved in energy is equivalent 9r
to increasing sales by S59? myavista.comlbizrebates.
pmrxk[rweeu xopa anaam nbnermn.f�rsl.me[nn9i[nkzmyaaramKa(areseuMormce,manee
am'g,.eo„symmr„remmmro.rep,u(x[[[uwk,',s ay,.�s,res wa.w',g ap,.x r,utl.[art aer,kireexw,
a.o no-C.r.aaptll
u i in a Z�trVryer%iohr%X6uPemwrk xwk%mGmxrY%]O.r�oal��'mrae
MA
Pg 22 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

FIGURE 15-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL GROCER DIGITAL AD
rebatesGet
to improve
ref rigeration
Learn more.
of 0
fl/ �
,iiAIuVFSTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 23

FIGURE 16-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL COMPRESSED-AIR PRINT ADVERTORIAL
Many commercial and industrial "The possibility of leaks should be addressed by every
businesses are unknowingly letting business t st
that utilizes arompressed air system,•states Kim.
"That's why Avista helps its commercial electric cuomers
money disappear into thin air.If your by offering an incentive for leak detection and repair."
operation uses a compressed air system
that leaks,your company is one of them. Avista's Leak Detection program helps
The U.S.Department of Energy reports that unchecked commercial and industrial customers save
leaks in a compressed air system can account for a significam energy and money by reimbursing them
portion of energy use,often wasting as much as 20%to 30% for costs associated with eliminating
of the compressor's output
. leaks in their compressed air systems.
"When your compressed air systems leak,you end
up paying for a lot of energy that isn't doing anything Under the program customers hire a contractor to
productive foryour business,"says Avista Account Executive perfor a preliminary acoustic-imaging leak-detection audit
Kim Casey. on their system.Audits inspect the entire compressed-air
Seventy percent of all manufacturing facilities in the system for leaks,with special attention paid to the most
United States have mine form of compressed air system.Most common problem ar couplings,fittings,pipe joints,
of these systems provide compressed air to drive a variety quick disconnects,hoess,valves,FRL(filtec regulator and
of equipment throughout a plant,including machine tools, lubricator)and other components.
painting booths,materials separation,and materials handling. Using the resulting report,the customer then tines the
Auto service centers and collision repair shops also rely leaks in-hou or hire one to do it.Once the leaks are
on ompressed air for pneumatic tools,air-powered lifts,tire fixed,the customer must undergo a second acoustic imaging
inflation,spray painting and numerous other tasks. audit to obtain a report that shows the repairs worked and
how much energy is being saved.
} To initiate reimbursement,the customer fills out Mirta's
Compressed Air Leak Detection rebate form,attaches their
1 two audit reports,and submits the paperwork to Avista.
- ` Upon approval,Avista pays the customer$0.23 for every
kilowatt hour of electricity the repair(s)saves.
The U.S.Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market
Opportunities Assessment(Motor Market Assessment)
2 estimates that the energy consumed by a compressed-air
Il system in a typical manufacturing facility could be reduced
by 17%through maintenance or repairs with simple
payback,of three years or less.
"Avirta's Leak Detection program improves your energy
efficiency and your bottom line,"says Kim."Commercial
and industrial companies interested in the program should
contact their Avista account executive for details."
The trouble is fluctuating pressure from a leaking To find your Avista account executive,
compressed air system on cause air-operated tools and go to myavista.comlbizhelp.
equipmentto function less efficiently,slowing or interfering
with work duties.If a job requires consistent air pressure,
it can even compromise product quality.
Leaks in a system will also put added strain on the
ompressor because it is forced to run longer and cycle
arily.This leads to more frequent repairs and
downtime,not to mention a shorter compressor lifespan.
All these costs add up.
us n� in I.—
cow i.,, m o� w,.«<rsr..ww«ra<mamnmm;<;mr:.�ma2,r<ed;.-;<,x.
Pg 24 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

FIGURE 17 -COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL COMPRESSED-AIR DIGITAL AD
Get cash back
for •
compressed-
air
learn more.
�IIIV�sra 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 25

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, and energy-
efficiency rebates. Due to this program's success, beginning in fall 2023, it has been expanded to include both rural
and urban small business customers.
Avista continues 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.
FIGURE 18— COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SMALL BUSINESS PARTNER PROGRAM LETTER
Small Business Name
Address
City,State,Zip
Current Date
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 tackle?
Avista can help make that project a reality through our Small Business Partner Program.
Designed to cater specifically to the needs of small business customers like you,this program
an help lower your energy use by identifying potential energy-saving opportunities within your
facility.
Are you interested in uparading-or lighting to LED?At no cost to you,we'll send a
licensed contractor to your business to assess your lighting project and determine if there are
any out-of-pocket costs to you.If your lighting project is eligible for an Avista incentive,it'll be
included in your bid,making it easier for you to determine your next steps.To Team more and
apply online please refer to the information on the attached Flyer.To see a full list of rebates
we offer,visit myavista.com/bizrebates.
Additional services and programs we can help you with include:
• Energy Star PaMolio Manager and reporting-energy use and benchmarking
• Green Options—renewable solutions to meet your needs
• Energy Saving Case Studies and advice—ways to save at work,including success stories
from other customers like you
If you're interested in any of the opportunities mentioned above,please contact me directly
at(509)495-2873 or email Lord.Kirstein(davistacoro.wm.
For billing and payment options,contact our Business Support team at(509)495-4717 or
:or
businessaccountsCdavistacorp.com.
For all other inquiries,including construction and capacity needs,contact your Avista Regional
Account Executive,Brittany Stottiemyre at bdttanv.stottlemym(CDavistacoru.com or(208)769-
1340.
We value you as a customer.Let us take the guesswork out of your next energy-saving
project and help enhance the operation of your business.I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Lord Kirstein-Avista
Business Partner Program,Manager
AIIf Pg 26 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Impact Evaluation: Commerciallindustrial Sector
Although some individual project results varied, particularly within the Midstream Program, the overall commercial/
industrial sector performed strongly in 2023 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 13,632 MWh, with a combined realization rate of 91 percent.
• Natural Gas: Total verified savings of 62,007 therms, with a combined realization rate of 70 percent.
Performance and Savings Goals
The commercial/industrial sector exceeded the combined prescriptive and site-specific program paths' electric goal of
11,327 MWh, with the programs achieving 120 percent of the overall goal. For natural gas programs, the commercial/
industrial sector exceeded the annual therm savings goal for combined prescriptive and site-specific programs,
achieving 60,621 therms (145 percent of the combined prescriptive and site-specific program paths' natural gas
savings goal of 41,878 therms).
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 Benefits I Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 8,602,598 $ 12,254,090 0.70
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 8,602,563 $ 6,022,296 1.43
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 9,290,803 $ 6,231,794 1.49
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 8,602,563 $ 15,313,064 0.56
TABLE 12—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NATURAL GAS COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 539,514 $ 451,026 1.20
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 525,923 $ 442,399 1.22
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 6,724,369 $ 8,627 779.45
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 525,923 $ 7,153,177 0.07
/IIW_-
�IuVFSTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 27

Program-by-Program Summaries
Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program
TABLE 13— COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM METRICS
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 23
Overall kWh Savings 2,556,219
Incentive Spend $ 402,074
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 334,898
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 736,972
Site-Specif ic Program Summary—Natural Gas 2023
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 3
Overall Therm Savings 29,069
Incentive Spend $ 87,120
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 95,586.48
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 182,706
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 help identify energy-efficiency opportunities. Customers receive technical
assistance in determining potential energy and cost savings and identifying and estimating incentives for participation.
Site-specific projects include appliances, compressed air, HVAC, industrial process, motors(non-prescriptive), shell, and
lighting; the majority are lighting and shell measures.
Program Activities
Electric: Savings of 2,556,219 kWh, or 16 percent of the overall electric savings. The largest percentage of
incentives went to non-lighting projects (96 percent).
Natural Gas: Savings of 29,069 therms in 2023.
mf
Pg 28 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Measure type and savings are shown in Figure 19.
FIGURE 19—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE
$16,062 Site-Specific Lighting
$386,012 all other measures
Program Changes
In 2023, Avista increased the incentive levels to $0.26 per kWh and $3.50 per therm savings for the Site-Specific
Program path. The company continues to offer an incentive for any qualifying electric or natural gas energy-saving
improvements that are cost-effective with a 15-year simple payback or less and up to 70% of the project's incremental
costs.
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 99 percent realization rate for electric measures.
TABLE 14—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM ELECTRIC IMPACT FINDINGS
Program Path Reported Savings Evaluated Savings Realization Rate
Site-Specific 2,576,031 2,556,219 99%
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 on page 92 of Appendix A. Of twelve 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.
A11W -
�IuVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 29

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 rr appears that HVAC interactive effects were omitted.These effects were included
in verified savings calculations,leading to a slightly high realization rate(RR).
Site-Specific Lighting Evaluators were unable to recreated expected savings for(14)2L F96T12HO-E to
(21)76W LED strips.Verified savings was calculated using actual fixture wattages,
1 40 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 expected
a
occasionally). Evaluators used the summed percentage amps instead of the north
Replacement two fixed pump percentage amps which reduced savings slightly(one percent).The ex-ante
speed pumps and two
VFD controlled pumps 1 T also subtracted the standard deviation of the post average power from the overall
kW demand reduction,which lowered the realization rate. Evaluators used the
average kW values when calculating the kW demand reduction.
The kWh RR 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 three 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 two pulp on the assumption that the baseline motor is a DC motor controlled by a DC VFD.
agitator motors with new 1
The evaluator assumed a constant speed motor baseline with a power factor of
rr
VFD controlled motors 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 essentially
balanced,only raising the realization rate by one percent.
Older style of log mill The ex-ante analysis assumed the 2022 levels of production,while evaluators
line with a new highly 1 rr used an average of the 2018 and 2022 production.Since the 2022 production
efficient log line was higher than 2018 production,the realization rate was high.
AIIN Pg 30 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESYK

In addition to the discrepancies noted in Table 15, 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 117 percent. Because
there were only two site-specific gas projects in Idaho in 2023, both were included in the impact evaluation review.
Evaluators reviewed all project-related documentation, including specification sheets, building characteristics,
calculators, invoices, project photos, and trending data.
TABLE 16— COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM NATURAL GAS IMPACT FINDINGS
Programv A Wed Savings
Site-Specific 24,891 29,069 117%
Plans for 2024
Avista plans to continue to offer the Site-Specific Program path in Idaho for both electric and natural gas customers
in 2024 and will assess the current measurement and verification process to determine whether 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 its rural and urban 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 2024. The Trade Ally Bid Program is a collaboration
between Avista, and its trade ally partners to offer bid assistance for energy-efficiency upgrades.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 31

Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Programs
TABLE 17—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramPrescriptive Lighting
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 60,149
Overall kWh Savings 7,978,849
Incentive Spend $ 1,969,025
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 1,045,335
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 3,014,360
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.
In 2004, Avista developed a prescriptive approach to streamline the process and make it easier for customers and
vendors to participate. 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 7,978,849 kWh, or 59 percent of commercial/industrial electric savings, a slight
increase in savings compared to 6,416,259 kWh in 2022.
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 2023. While 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 2023. Apart from July and September, monthly goals
were met, and annual savings targets were reached.
.An.
Pg 32 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'd-41VISTAff

FIGURE 20—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM SAVINGS BY MONTH
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
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
2022 2023
Interior Exterior
FIGURE 21 —COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROGRAM KWH SAVINGS BY MEASURE
400W HID Fixture to 175W or less LED Fixture/Retrofit
250W HID Fixture to 140W or less LED Fixture/Retrofit
150W HID Fixture to 50W or less LED Fixture/Retrofit
1000W HID Fixture to 400W or less LED Fixture/Retrofit
Sign Lighting
175W HID Fixture to 100W or less LED Fixture/Retrofit
175W HID Fixture to 100W or less LED Fixture
90-100W HID Fixture to 30W or less LED Fixture/Retrofit
70-89W HID Fixture to 25W or less LED Fixture/Retrofit
320-400W HID Fixture to 160W or less LED Fixture
320W HID Fixture to 160W or less LED Fixture/Retrofit
750W HID Fixture to 300W or less LED Fixture/Retrofit
DLC Qualified LLLC Exterior Fixture
200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
/IIW_-
�IuVFSTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 33

FIGURE 22—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE INTERIOR LIGHTING PROGRAM KWH SAVINGS BY MEASURE
4-Foot T12/T8 to 23W or less T8 LED
40OW HID Fixture to 175W or less LED
T5HO to 29W or less T5HO LED
2,3,4-Lamp T12/1­8 Fixture to 2x4 LED Fixture
1000W HID Fixture to 40OW or less LED
250W HID Fixture to 140W or less LED
DLC Qualified Networked Lighting Controls
6-Lamp 4-Foot T5HO to 165W or less LED Fixture
8-Foot T12/T8 to 90W or less LED Fixture
Four-Pin Base CFL to>_17W Four-Pin Plug-in LED
8-Foot T12/T8 Fixture to LED Fixture
75-100W Incandescent Can to 20W or less LED
Ceiling or Fixture Mount Occupancy Sensor
4-Lamp 4-Foot T5HO to 135W or less LED Fixture
2-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture 1x4 LED Fixture
3-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to 17W or less T8 LED Fixture
U-Bend T12/T8 to 23W or less T8 LED
2-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to 2x2 LED Fixture
4-Foot T8/T5 TLED to TLED(>_5W reduction)
Wall Switch Occupancy Sensor
2-Foot T12/T8 Fixture to 13W or less T8 LED Fixture
T5 Fixture to 18W or less T5 LED Fixture
2150W Incandescent to 30W or less LED Fixture
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000
/IIN Pg 34 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Program Changes
Table 18 shows the changes Avista made to the program in 2023.
TABLE 18-COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM CHANGES
2023 Changes to Commercial/industrial Prescriptive Lighting Rebates
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 $ 75.00 $ 85.00
90-100W HID Fixture to<-30W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 100.00 $ 120.00
150W HID Fixture to<50W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 160.00 $ 180.00
175W HID Fixture to< 100W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 160.00 $ 180.00
250W HID Fixture to< 140W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 200.00 $ 230.00
320W HID Fixture to< 160W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 250.00 $ 280.00
400W HID Fixture to< 175W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 330.00 $ 375.00
575W HID Fixture to<300W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 350.00 $ 400.00
750W HID Fixture to<300W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 660.00 $ 750.00
1000W HID Fixture to<-400W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 825.00 $ 930.00
1500W HID Fixture to<600W LED Fixture or Lamp Site-Specific $ 1,300.00
New Construction Fixtures HID Lighting
Requires at Least 4,288 Hours of Use per Year-Must Be DLC or ENERGY STAR-Rated
175W Code HID Fixture to< 100W LED Fixture $ 150.00 $ 170.00
250W Code HID Fixture to< 140W LED Fixture $ 195.00 $ 225.00
320W Code HID Fixture to< 160W LED Fixture $ 220.00 $ 250.00
Sign Lighting Retrofit-Requires at Least 4,288 Hours of Use per Year 1
T12 to LED Sign Lighting-per Square Foot $ 11.00 $ 13.00
Interior Lighting
eplacement Lamps-Must Be DLC or ENERGY STAR-Rated
T12/T8 Fluorescent to<_ 13W T8 Two Foot TLED $ 7.50 $ 9.00
T12/T8 Fluorescent to<_ 17W T8 Three-Foot TLED $ 10.00 $ 11.00
T12/T8 Fluorescent to<_23W T8 Four-Foot TLED $ 12.50 $ 14.00
T12/T8 Fluorescent to<_45W T8 Eight-Foot TLED $ 23.00 $ 27.00
T12/T8 Fluorescent to<_23W T8 U-Bend TLED $ 13.50 $ 15.00
T5 Fluorescent to< 18W T5 Four-Foot TLED $ 14.00 $ 17.00
T5H0 Fluorescent to<29W T5H0 Four-Foot TLED $ 25.00 $ 30.00
T8/T5 TLED to TLED(>-5W reduction) $ 4.00 $ 5.00
Four-Pin Base CFL to Four-Pin Plug-in LED $ 15.00 $ 18.00
.A11W -
�IuVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 35

2023 Changes to Commercial/industrial Prescriptive Lighting Rebates 2022 2023
Interior Lighting
Replacement Fixtures—Must Be DLC or ENERGY STAR-Rated
T12/T8 to<40W 1x4 LED Fixture $ 35.00 $ 40.00
T12/T8 to<40W 2x2 LED Fixture $ 30.00 $ 35.00
T12/T8 to<60W 2X4 LED Fixture $ 55.00 $ 60.00
T12/T8 to<90W Eight-Foot LED $ 55.00 $ 85.00
4-Lamp T5HO Fluorescent to< 135W LED $ 85.00 $ 100.00
6-Lamp T5HO Fluorescent to< 160W LED $ 185.00 $ 200.00
175W HID to<75W LED Fixture or Lamp Site-Specific $ 145.00
250W HID to< 140W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 235.00 $ 265.00
400W HID to< 175W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 285.00 $ 325.00
1000 Watt HID to<400W LED Fixture or Lamp $ 450.00 $ 560.00
>42W Incandescent Can to<20W LED Fixture Site-Specific $ 20.00
65W Incandescent to< 10W LED Fixture Site-Specific $ 45.00
75-100W Incandescent Can to<20W LED Fixture $ 50.00 $ 60.00
> 150W Incandescent to<30W LED Fixture Site-Specific $ 75.00
Controls
Wall Switch Occupancy Sensor Site-Specific $ 17.00
Ceiling or Fixture Mount Occupancy Sensor $ 40.00 $ 75.00
Networked Lighting Controls $ 75.00 $ 150.00
Program 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 or incentive levels if desired. This usually includes—at a minimum—direct email
communication to trade allies as well as website updates.
/IIN Pg 36 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

FIGURE 23 -COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM REBATE WEB PORTAL
CommAvistal wi j
rcial
• • Ind Information for each measure.
Rebilte
•
Guide
will scan with customer —
rmanon as you beam to _
nce through each section. --
— 1
im
er
— _ • In Progress- � � ����
InspeRlon Required
Appli—,
IeRedforan
inspettionpdorto
payment.Please
check}ro,nun,ilfor -
follow-up instructions.
Progress- �R�^ ��r�
Missing Information
APO—
is missing
'Inf—lton need H
ify he pmlea. w
Pease check ur
iltrfoll -up
inrtructions. _
Impact Evaluation
TABLE 19—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM ELECTRIC IMPACT FINDINGS
Program Type Reported Savings Evaluated Savings Realization Rate
Prescriptive Lighting 8,374,096 7,978,849 95%
/IIW_-
�IuV1STA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 37

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.
Avista has acknowledged this recommendation and will consider it in the future, as negative values, such as the
increased need for heating, often become more significant than positive values, like the decreased need for air
conditioning. Including therms also puts an additional burden on the customer to report heating and cooling
information correctly.
Plans for 2024
With the more sophisticated measure-level detail in iEnergy, Avista has been able to update lighting measures annually
to reflect market conditions, 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 Small Business Lighting Program. 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.
Commercial/Industrial Direct-Install Lighting Program
Description
In partnership with Resource Innovations, Avista is providing a Direct-Install Lighting Program to supplement and
enhance the ongoing customer engagement and energy efficiency efforts already in place. Avista contracts with local
electrical trade allies to ensure that customers receive installation of appropriate energy-saving lighting measures
such as lamps, fixtures, and controls, as well as a brief onsite audit identifying additional efficiency opportunities.
Marketing and collateral handouts are provided to encourage future program participation. This program allows
customers who have traditionally been unable to participate in programs requiring upfront capital the opportunity
to receive new lighting and lower their energy costs. The direct-install methodology also boosts regional markets by
endorsing local businesses and trade allies and providing training and upskilling opportunities.
Pg 38 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report mar sra®

TABLE 20—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DIRECT-INSTALL LIGHTING PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramDirect-install Lighting
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 41
Overall kWh Savings 140,527
Incentive Spend $ 41,453
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 18,411
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 59,864
Program Implementation
To market and implement the Direct-Install Lighting Program, Avista and Resource Innovations have developed
engagement procedures for the direct installation and audit approach. The iEnergy software platform is utilized to
streamline customer eligibility, maintain data integrity, and lower administrative costs. Specifically, the development
of the iEnergy OnSite tool has allowed trade allies to conduct customer eligibility checks, complete surveys and
enrollment, perform facility walkthrough assessments, and project scope creation and costs. It also captures all
applicable lighting program data, tracks equipment that is removed or installed, calculates site-specific savings based
on wattage reduction and hours of operation, generates customer-facing reports, and allows for quality control
reviews and inspections as required.
Program Eligibility
This program provides a valuable service to small-and medium-sized commercial electric customers in Avista's
Idaho service territory under rate schedules 11 or 12. Resource Innovations uses ZIP codes and city identifiers to
"cluster" eligible customers geographically and establish an efficient routing for door-to-door marketing, audits,
and installations. Customers may also complete a request form on myavista.com to express interest in participating.
Table 21 shows the estimated annual savings and the value of the direct installation (direct benefit to customer, or
DBtC)for the lighting program. DBtC amounts represent the total cost of the program outside of allocated program
administrative costs.
TABLE 21 —COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DIRECT-INSTALL LIGHTING PROGRAM MEASURES AND DIRECT BENEFIT
Projected Program Metrics
Overall kWh Savings 2,956,164
Direct Benefit to Customer $ 1,823,804
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 387,297
Total Costs $ 2,211,101
/IIW_-
�4uVFSTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 39

Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Programs
TABLE 22—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramPrescriptive Non-Lighting
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 11,236
Overall kWh Savings 3,096,691
Incentive Spend $ 1,865,257
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 405,707
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 2,270,964
ProgramPrescriptive Non-Lighting i
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 107
Overall Therm Savings 32,938
Incentive Spend $ 154,751
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 103,751
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 258,502
Description
Commercial Food Service Equipment—The Commercial Food Service Equipment Program, which was rolled into
the Midstream Program in mid-2023, was designed to encourage customers to purchase energy-efficient equipment
either as a replacement for existing equipment or as a new product to support food service activities. Metrics reported
in this section reflect the program's accomplishments leading up to the shift to the Midstream Program.
Compressed Air Line Isolation—Targeting commercial compressed-air customers, this program is for compressed-
air leak detection. Incentives are paid for the repair of leaks identified by an audit from a preliminary acoustic imaging
detector, followed by a second audit that verifies the repair of those leaks. Avista commercial electric customers are
eligible for this program.
Commercial Natural Gas HVAC—The Commercial Natural Gas HVAC Program, which was also absorbed by the
Midstream Program in mid-2023, was designed to encourage Avista commercial natural gas customers to save energy
by choosing to install energy-efficient natural gas furnaces, boilers, and unit heaters. Metrics reported in this section
reflect the program's achievements prior to being rolled into the Midstream Program.
m.Pg 40 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Green Motors Rewind—The goal of the Green Motors Program is to organize, identify, educate, and promote
member motor service centers to commit to energy-saving shop rewind practices, continuous energy improvement,
and motor-driven system efficiency. Green Motors Practices Group (GMPG) launched the green motors initiative in
2008 to work with Northwestern regional utilities and other sponsoring organizations to provide incentives, through
GMPG's member motor centers, for qualifying motors meeting the organization's standards. Avista joined this effort
in offering the program to electric customers who participate in the green rewind program for 15-5,000 horsepower
(HP) motors. This program provides an opportunity for Avista customers to participate in a regional effort. Without
it, this market is difficult for the company to reach as a local utility. Avista commercial electric customers are eligible
for this program, and incentives are paid as a credit off the invoice at the time of the rewind. An incentive of $1 per
horsepower goes to the customer and $1 per horsepower to the service center.
Commercial Grocer—The Commercial Grocer Program offers incentives to customers who increase the energy
efficiency of their refrigerated cases and related grocery equipment, including improvements with case lighting, anti-
sweat heater controls, gaskets and strip curtains, and various motor components. 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
are eligible.
Commercial HVAC VFD Retrofit—The Prescriptive HVAC Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) Program is intended to
prompt customers to increase the energy efficiency of their HVAC fan or pump applications with a 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.
Commercial Prescriptive Shell—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.
Commercial Appliance and HVAC Controls—This program offers incentives to Avista commercial customers who
install ENERGY STAR commercial clothes washers or connected thermostats.
Commercial Pay for Performance—The Pay for Performance Program 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.
AIII
,iRiMISTAW 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 41

Program Activities
• Electric: Savings of 3,096,691 kWh, an increase of 3,995 percent compared to 75,625 kWh in 2022.
• Natural Gas: Savings of 65,938 therms, an increase of 73 percent compared to 18,252 therms in 2022.
FIGURE 24—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE — ELECTRIC
Midstream
HVAC
Shell
Grocer
Green Motors
Food Service Equipment
$5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000
FIGURE 25 —COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE — NATURAL GAS
Midstream
HVAC
Shell
Food Service Equipment
$10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000
/IIN Pg 42 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Program Changes
For 2023, the following changes were made to the Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program:
• The Commercial Food Service Equipment and Commercial Natural Gas HVAC Programs were rolled into the
new Midstream Program in mid-2023.
• The line isolation measure was removed from the Compressed Air Program.
• The Fleet Heat Program was discontinued.
• A Commercial ENERGY STAR Clothes Washer and Connected Thermostat Program was offered.
In 2023, insulation measures were increased from 2022.
TABLE 23—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM CHANGES
Insulation Measure Change Implemented
Wall R4 to R11-R18 From 0.60 per sq.ft.to 1.00 per sq.ft.
Wall R4 to R19 or greater From 0.65 per sq.ft.to 1.25 per sq.ft.
Attic RI to R30-1344 From 0.75 per sq.ft. 1.00 per sq.ft.
Attic RI to R45 or greater From 0.85 per sq.ft.to 1.25 per sq.ft.
Roof RI to R30 or greater From 0.60 per sq.ft.to 1.00 per sq.ft.
The Commercial Grocer Program added three new measures:
• Add door to medium-temperature vertical remote-condensing refrigerated case.
• Add door to low-temperature horizontal remote-condensing refrigerated case.
• Add door to medium-temperature horizontal remote-condensing refrigerated case.
Program Marketing
Avista account executives market these programs, as do external trade allies. All commercial programs are also
featured on Avista's website, where business energy-savings webpages are experiencing increasing traffic. In addition,
program-specific flyers, a commercial offerings one-sheet, paid digital advertising, and customer case study campaigns
were all used to help build awareness about these opportunities.
A11W -
AP4uVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 43

Impact Evaluation
Electric: Table 24 shows the reported and evaluated electric energy savings for Avista's Commercial/Industrial
Prescriptive Program path (non-lighting), as well as the realization rates between the evaluated and reported savings
for 2023. The overall Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Program path achieved a 93 percent realization rate for
electric programs.
TABLE 24— COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM IMPACT FINDINGS— ELECTRIC
Program Type Reported Savings Evaluated Savings Realization Rate
HVAC 42,924 42,924 100%
Food Service Equipment — — —
Grocer 1,928 1,928 100%
Shell 3,458 37,320 1,079%
Green Motors — — —
Midstream 142,927 58,355 41%
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive 3,326,344 3,096,691 93%
Natural Gas: Natural gas prescriptive programs achieved a realization rate of 78 percent.
TABLE 25—COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM IMPACT FINDINGS— NATURAL GAS
Program
(Therms (Therms)
HVAC 12,969 12,969 100%
Food Service Equipment 3,930 3,930 100%
Shell 7,117 7,117 100%
Midstream 18,140 8,922 49%
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive 42,156 32,938 78%
Pg 44 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVISra®

Recommendations
Within the Grocer Program, when collecting information for energy conservation measures, evaluators recommend
including information about the motor power of the baseline motor. Evaluators suggest reexamining how expected
unit energy savings(UES)are developed, particularly for food service equipment. Current expected UES are
significantly higher than the same configurations specified in the RTF. Avista has reviewed the recommendation and
will explore incorporating it into the next form version.
Plans for 2024
Avista will reassess all program measures and incentive levels in 2024.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 45

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
tj
�7. Cj ;.ice
s. y •e -
IN
•.
r 4 - f1• .. ��,.� .�f• �F�' •�J.• ' 1�'•' ../f � �'�� !{�=}'1��y''_l�, •�1���,I .r:�_'.' ♦►^ •r
r ff .•ice � rr r' �� •. r �">'
'�J4 \�{ = •ems �f i
Ilk
.:l � � �l��r�� _ " - �. r � ►� 'gip � � 7�
—NamM
•
•• d'Alene, •.

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
Overview
Avista's residential sector portfolio consists of a comprehensive suite of programs designed to encourage customers
to save energy while living more comfortably in their homes. Historically, prescriptive rebate programs were the main
component of the portfolio. The launch of the Midstream Program in mid-2023 has added a broader approach to
capturing savings, replacing prescriptive rebate measures for HVAC and water heating upgrades. Avista's Multifamily
Direct-Install Program also resumed full implementation activities as the COVID pandemic abated. While Avista
concluded this long-standing program at the end of 2023, it plans to re-launch a similar offering for multifamily
residents and building owners in mid-2024.
Over $1.5 million in rebates and direct benefits were provided in 2023 to Idaho residential customers, offsetting costs
and enabling customers to make desired upgrades. The combined energy savings achieved for all programs within the
residential sector portfolio were 1,727,220 kWh and 167,464 therms.
TABLE 26— RESIDENTIAL SAVINGS BY PROGRAM
Residential Electric Savings E Natural Gas Savings
kWh) (Therms)
TPI"(111
Water Heat 4,066 9,051
HVAC 307,573 82,264
Shell 155,539 18,117
Fuel Efficiency 193,123 —
ENERGY STAR Homes 47,508 134
Multifamily Weatherization 81,535 5,445
Appliances 81,599 396
Midstream 683,356 48,830
Multifamily Direct-Install 172,921 227
Total Residential 1,727,220 167,464
Marketing
Meeting customers where they are, with information that's valuable to them, drives Avista's energy-efficiency
marketing strategies to increase awareness of and engagement with its energy-efficiency programs and resources.
In 2023, the company's energy-efficiency campaigns underwent a creative refresh. Existing channels— including web
pages, bill inserts, print and electronic newsletters, email, and social media—continued to expand education and
program awareness. Digital tactics were also expanded to reach additional audiences.
Over the course of the year, energy-efficiency education and program posts were shared on Avista's Facebook
page. 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 eight out of twelve months.
A11W -
�IuVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 47

Seasonal energy-saving material was shared throughout the year, with a new summer cooling campaign to share tips
promoted on social media, in Avista's newsletter, with digital advertising, and via direct email outreach. The new paid
digital components garnered over 28.5 million impressions. Avista continued 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 31.1
million total impressions.
FIGURE 26— RESIDENTIAL REBATES SUMMER COOLING DIRECT EMAIL
Dear Cuatmw
S..r.'.w A nar.eW tl tom':up o-two N_ x Waal «i--dw Po.r r a...o
~I.a 0 Dpa w'A OW40-xtax lti.rW-0 H•AA I"—f..Pnpar.g raP.dry hop
ve.••W AW ST•.a..a•.nN xr.wW-wo&..a Npl
Y9 dRV,.r.'x7.x4`A b"M VW Parr.Wo a.dk aF ae-w+S.—Coux•q t�V.
-art I pPn hwY x.twat,y. h.W x"can..orhatr♦"~%M--W
.a+.OJ. A*AWQ K••P f O-4"W"rove e.p..w can rwnA n an
A:V r ••M.lift wa v,.a.w.Vx Cnrmaa a 64,w.xp...Wwr•f0.Il.paaxl aw
.ern.YW*.tx V.
•It ra P roe an AC.ywn•,maintain A a1 rt Ja.e.x.x FAN. to.aprw.Han
Kau rw ac non.x a Kx+n M wfio.. EaY.J•ta"atK r.78 J..y..e—t—A
xn xggn PA%31%M0AOM n Wo"xxp~ Evana�xN fV f--W
a ree.y..w04ACax+.•"60=WftWa"W%aP..t-0VP .Wau
n..r4.1m.arW.v alh.,awk.d xv Man.
•IJxx box twV...l..4 cF Ka••r w ftxow Fa^a....ab"I..d P.r/Mr, ►.m
AC'.a
-UvaI.A ywx G"W's.an x sptn e.wtm u,m.....rrb7...a.The M pun sI
now....a.0..o Y_c—IaI it
•C1N4 taI prat xnf OraFa%,.v a+.Mr x..'"W naN.to NNx.(an
!a..ra uD N y1 d M Ham'. .It nnn r—..y p.Mo ytt/.r.NOw.
•UN y0�nl.q.x..r t*N ox W.0—n—A1Dm%k--- '..r P.
•Ppp.xrW..Dx k0b txxwx can t•.V—IV M VD'%T a.-kV CW* W aAlta•10
•r(.ry W n Msi.r.qWt.1r W —pro rn wt ra0 hx.p P••n•r rfix.4,w xaax
.'.7 wW.NJparYnn
Vnxt Inplx w.x•V,IW.'V ON 0 to*WW We PAO IM w•..x!LOOM xvx.na.tv
.IIV{Y 60-+i xo.arc Ix.and adW.Du•OOO•a rlan.wPn 1IN Y.Zx to b1/w I.P.II
aV""bwx
S►•x_M,
a © ® c ■
Ir_xaaN.
Pg 48 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

FIGURE 27 — RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-EFFICIENCY PRINT ADS
Save energy.
�- Save money.
�r r
' When you save energy,it's easy to save money.
• I — Avista helps you save even more by offering
I I pip,
_ rebates on added insulation,new windows and
S._ IL exterior doors.You can also get cash back on a new
I energy-saving smart thermostat that more efficiently
controls your comfort.Enjoy our rebate discounts on
high-efficiency refrigerators,freezers,washers and
dryers,too:
. see how you can save.
Save -um Visit m .co yavistam/getrebates
energy. 'Some restrictions may apply.
money.Save
When you save energy,it's easy to save money.
Avista helps you save even more by offering
rebates on added insulation,new windows
and exterior doors.You can also get cash back
on a new energy-saving smart thermostat
that more efficiently controls your comfort.
Enjoy our rebate discounts on high-efficiency
refrigerators,freezers,washers and dryers,too:
See how you can save.
Visit myavista.com/getrebates
'Some restrictions may apply.
T
FIGURE 28— RESIDENTIAL REBATES BILL INSERT
the air
-___--— dander from y
et
dirt and pet oving{reel
---- ----- reduces dust, keeps it m
furnace filter breathe easier.It as ard to keel you
clean
A our home so YOU esn't have to wor finder Program
in Y our furnace do Furnace Filter Rem
• too,so comfortable.loin Avto change Yours again• s:
so You never forget two helpful option Mon
or
furnace S Choose between every three m
•y. It,s easy,Cho finder sent to your InbYo Your doorstep•
life email rem Ifurnacefilter • • •
hangingtel
.Get an {urnace filters directly
at MYavista.coM
.Let us ship new today a�P
Learn More and sign uP • • •
regularly' ur
ts titter
/ t
/III__
Sra 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 49

FIGURE 29- RESIDENTIAL SUMMER BILL FACEBOOK POST
w wra�Y
•
FIGURE 30— RESIDENTIAL AUGUST 2023 CONNECTIONS NEWSLETTER
Continued from(root Need help with
Summer is heating up your energy bill?
• All, • turning counterclockwise in the summer to force the air down.Fans don't cool the air Avista partners with community
butwill circulate the airtocool you.Afanusesaboull%oftheenergythalan agencies to help-.tamers
air conditioner does.To.ace energy,be sure to turn off the fans when the rooms manage their small—ft.
rent occupied, If you need help paying your home
1 I all like to o doves u t right,when outside tern eratures drop, ergy bill,you may be eligible for
pen win pstairs a g Pfinancial assistance.Please call us at
m let coal air in and hot air au[.use a fan m keep the air circulating through [phone] to see If you qualify
Get cash back me mom. Find an agency near you and learn
on energy-saving ,! t I For more energy-saving tips,visit myavistacomkurnmercooling. more atmyavinaedWassinarm
home products
ward fo lower your energy w,
bill'Start
byroproving your home's w _
energy effidency.Adding In,.IA.n
ndgettingnewwndnwswddoors - Your safety matters
an help save on heating and cooling We,at Avista,ward to keep you, •�
^orppreventing air fmmgetting
m of your house.ore o de to a your family and neighbors safe
mart thermostat and ENERGY STAR® around electricity and natural y
appliances for even more savings.Avista gas.That's why we created some useful i
offers cash-back rebates 10 make these d Informational safety videos.You can
improvements mare affordable.Start find these at myav¢ta... wfetyvideo5.
avmq energy and money today at Questions,please call us at(BOo)2Z]-918].
myavists.rem/getrebates.
Avoid failing
Summer is here! victim to a scam
Summer weather is here,and
During the summer months,my old 1910 house really starts to response to the hot,dry
heat up,especially in the aftem—n.,when the sun beats down conditions,Avista changes operations
on my roof.When this happens,I turn to Avista',webote to look for tips to stay in some ows to decrease the potemial _ Be alert to anyone who
cool while being energy efficient for wilMlres.This shift,called Fire Safety shows up at your home and
This hasalot of tlnformation,m avistacom/summercoolin,Includin Made,means we diange our system to useshighpressuretacticsto
page grea y 9 g turn off automatic re nergization when demand immediate payment
how to program your thermostat during the summer months howtom,fansto ,fault oaurs.Avista',line personnel will to avoid having your service
stay cool(rather than cranking theair conditioner),and how to vemilate your home, physically patrol an outage area before a disconnected Stammers can try
If you have a cooling system,set your thermostat as high as you can,wfule still line Is placed back'mto service.It means to appear IegNmate by carrying a
feeling comfortable.In the summer,an adjusonem of just three degrees higher you might experience longer dotage walue-tall wearing a hard hat
result in 10%of energy savings.If you have a programmable thermostat, times,br keeps everyone safer. and orange vest.Awtaemployees and
you can set it according to your schedule,so when We have been implementing this response to hot,dry weather for more than 20 year, our authorisd rent.-rs,Id­
you come home you will be niw and real,while Lisa,an Avista customer, RecentlyAvista has ex ded Fire Safety Mode t with our flre-we ,eg all carry an Avista photo ID badge.Our
g a energy coo g an empty g Pan Y by pairing
no[us in lot of one tin t home bought her 1910 house monitoring system.This allows Avista to make the lines even more sensitive during authorired rentraMrs will have vehide
when you are gone. because she loved the limes when high verul predicted if we decide to elevate the settings,you will signsshowing they are under contract
Think about upgrading to a smart thermostat old- rld character,some be notrfled at the email and phone associated with your Avista account Avista will with us and will retry Avista program
that has wi-Fi connectivity and an app for your of which doesn't make her return the distribution system to normal as soon as weather permft and fire potential matedals.For more information,visit
house very energy efficient. myavista.rem/1-rtodoor.
martphone.you caneven get,n th,,that Over the last two years, decreases.Learn more about our wildfire resiliency plan my ota.coMwildfire.
may pay for the cost of your smart thermostat at s
myavrsta.com/getrebate5.you should also think Lisa hared her en podence
about"Ingaservice to check your heating and ontaking smon—impledo-
ooling ytern before each woven to make sure it-yourself improvements
h is running smoothly to inspire others.Now,
she's highlighting helpful Connect with us
I rely on a lot of fans m the summer.I have a information you can find Mailing Address:1411 E.Mission,PO eox 3727,,Spokane,WA 99220-3727
ceding but and l make sure that the blades are on the Avista website. TollFree:(800)2P-91 1web Site:"Wsta—rin I Email:ask®myavista.com III_ !Tw
Continued on back Iso,AVA ®C-ria.3 1Avina C-w-on II��,i lfi•
Pg 50 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report mar Sra®

FIGURE 31 - RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 2023 CONNECTIONS NEWSLETTER
Need help with
your energy bill?
• _ • w
Avista partners with local
1' mmunity agencies to help
stona—with their energy
- wets.In Washington,income-
eligible customers can now qualify for
} •_`r _ J a new monthly bill discount program
Holiday Lights called My Energy Discount.In Idaho,
1 C f'ha dal assistance may be available
Bright,twinkling lights are one of '* through your loca mm l counity action
the joys of the season,whether on e ; ��Jsj[�•'� agency.Learn moreaboutyour
the eaves of your home or strung on •�'1� - phons at myakrsta.com/assistance or
trees.While those merry little lights are sY■ by calling us at(800)22]-918].
a delight for many,inconect usage can •I • 5
Know the igns
rawefires,injuries from falls or electrical
s •1 J1]
To keep the holidays festive and fun, r+ �' 1 From the exhaust produced by operation.The Consumer Product
follow these safety lips while decorating • 11 1 your family vehicle to the fuel Safety Commission recommends
outdoors: - - / ounce of your home's heating Installing at least one detector in dL
•Use lights—and if needed,—a- + system.carbon monoxide(CO) a hallway near your sleeping area.
cords—that are appno d for _ •" sun live within your home By having your heating system and 11
check all light
outdoor use. a without you even realizing it. ecid mem ser0ced by a qualified
•Before decorating, CO is a colorless,odorless,poisonous technician at regular intervals or by K
_ gas than,produced by the incomplete the manufacturer's recommendation,
strands for damages and W—d-out burning of varow fuels,including you can reduce the risk of CO being
ghts.Frayed'nsWaton exposed wires - - • carcoal 'l,herosen,propane,diesel present in your home or busnew, r
and broken plugs are all hazards and - _' y fuel,coal d and natural gas Poll wurces of CO that
a
should be discarded.When re placin g '.p. hrM \
bulbs unplug the strand. �s :'�: Berzuse CO undetectable to the shouldn't be used-ndoors under
human senses t-,important for people any d-mrtances include portable
•Consider purchasing miniature or loknowthesign,of COexpo,ure. generators,barbeques and charcoal
LEDlightsasthgwelessenergy These,ymptoms aresimilartotheflu grille.Items to consider for servicing
and are long lasting.LED lights are • and can include: inside your home or business indude
also shatterproof and present no ter heater and I, Want to avoid bit.
fire hazaN. •Headache •Nauseauor ova any gas,of
Fatigue ,Dimness dor wall'ningheaters.rcyou relatedsurprises7
•To avoid accidentally leaving your lights •Shortness of breath suspect that you or someone eke k
onsidera timer.Makesure the The weather out side is changing and you may find yourself experiencing CO poisoning,get to Sign up for Billing Alerts to
timer you use is rated to handle the tempted to crank up the heat.Before you do,consider that during cooler To protect yourself and your family, fresh airimmediately. get notified when you haves
total wattage of your lights months,heating is responsible for 40-60%of the energy use most of our customers consider instelling carbon monoxide Leave the home and call for assistance ew statement,your payment
on their bills Although you can[cormol[he weather,there are ways you can detectors throughout your home.These h due,and your payment is
Visit nryavistacom/safery for more n- devices monitor CO levels and alert from a safe place.Get medical tdue.
anage your use. You attention immediately d inform pas
saferytips. should the gas reacher,are elevels. yan
Use thk checklist to reduce energy use and improve comfort: medical staff that CO poisoning is Curtomers In Washington wiBr an
andTha a why CO detectors are needed suspected.Call 911,then call Avirta at AMI Smart Meter can also sign up for
•three fie degree Se[rt at I In the wiener.Li used
d even further,by just d are a legal requirement in some asps Bud et Alerts.you choose a dollar
If&
three additional degrees,can care 10%more on energy used for heating. statesCOdetecorsareavailableat [phone] and do not reenter the 9Chan furnace filter and remove buildu baseboard heaters— most home retailoutlets. home untl m can ensure your safety. amount,and we'll let you know if your
ge p ey mouthy bill is expected to be higher
Dust and debris block airfrom moving freefyweven if your heater kicks on,rooms We reco me d nl bu UL-listed Visit myavista.com/-ngsafMy for thanthatlllaramountwon't warm u Hlcient. You eyy m yousetVst
P e fy models nd follow the manufacturer's ore information on CO and natural mya✓ifa.comhlerts to learn more and
Seal drafts and leaks—Wndow plastic,caulk and weather snipping can help instructions for instaial and gassafety sign up.
keep your wane air in and the cold air out.
•Check fireplace dampers—When not in use,a chimney with an open damper
n allow up to 25%of the heated air in your house to escape.
•Check water heater—Set it at 120".Water heating is often the second largest Connect with us
ochry user in your horn Mailing Address:1411 E.Mission,PO Box3]2],Spokane,WA 99220-3TC/
Find more energy-saving tips at myavista.com1—Mytips.
Tdl-Free:(800)22]A18] Web Slte:myavista.wm I Email:ask®myavista.com /III
sva— ®oPyg 2023 Awa. p— �III��sTa•
FIGURE 32 - RESIDENTIAL WINTER BILL GOOGLE DISPLAY ADS
home Less The
a
with daylight heating scurcv
air leaks
uses more your winter imp_" yourenergy. energy use. energy bill
�■■r
•■.�
• � O
Tall m•why.
�IIIV�sra 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 51

FIGURE 33 - RESIDENTIAL WINTER BILL GOOGLE DISPLAY ADS, SPANISH
Una . .
con fugas . -
Al
la luz del
dia, se
Dimr p+�Qur
incrementa
el
• de TA
At Home with Lisa
Many Avista customers live in older, energy-inefficient homes. Since 2020, the company has partnered with Lisa, an
Avista customer who bought her 1910 house because she loved its old-world character—then quickly discovered
it wasn't very energy-friendly. She attended an Avista energy fair and discovered how easy implementing some
efficiency measures could be. Lisa began writing weekly features sharing her experience with simple do-it-yourself
projects around her house to help improve her energy use and comfort. Most of Lisa's articles focused 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 in the Connections blog. They also continue to
be shared on Avista's social media pages and in its Connections newsletters.
In 2022, Avista expanded the "At Home with Lisa" series to include a digital campaign using static ads and short
videos. 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.
"__
Pg 52 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report mar sra®

Lisa's digital campaign proved successful, increasing traffic to Avista's energy-efficiency web pages. In 2023, Avista
furthered Lisa's reach, continuing its digital presence and including search ads. In total, Lisa content exceeded 45.4
million impressions in 2023. The web page containing her DIY videos was the sixth most-viewed web page on Avista's
website(up from fourteenth the previous year), with over 311,000 total views. Averaging nearly 26,000 views each
month and consistently remaining in the top ten most-viewed pages is an accomplishment, considering transactional
(payment, outage reporting, etc.) pages typically dominate the company's page rankings.
The company is continuing to partner with Lisa and identify additional opportunities to take advantage of interest in
receiving energy-saving information through the voice and experience of a fellow customer.
FIGURE 34- RESIDENTIAL AT HOME WITH LISA GOOGLE DISPLAY ADS
a
Caulk vvindow Lisa fixed Save
_ r
home
leaks to her drafty
energy.save energy. windows.
llim r1101e OIY with Lice
Ican,too
FIGURE 35- RESIDENTIAL AT HOME WITH LISA FACEBOOK POSTS
•.s..r.•r•�.ara...p r..uaa n rw•ro..n+.r.•r. ....w.•w.»..�...��..s�w lw
++.....-.ems
�IIIV�sra 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 53

FIGURE 36-RESIDENTIAL AT HOME WITH LISA VIDEO SERIES
JA
At home
with Lisa
' rPr
Saving energy ! 1
at home
no, �
C r
The At Home with Lisa video series now includes more than 25 short videos that cover 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 2023. Savings
realization rates were as follows:
♦ Electric: Total verified savings of 1,727,220 kWh with a realization rate of 66 percent.
♦ Natural Gas: Evaluated natural gas savings show a realization rate of 64 percent on savings of 167,464
therms.
Complete impact evaluations for electric and natural gas are included as Appendices A and B.
Pg 54 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'e-7chnsra®

Performance and Savings Goals
The electric program portfolio achieved 56 percent of the 2023 savings goal. The Multifamily Direct-Install Program
continued to be impacted by COVID-19 restrictions, operating on a limited basis with no projects completed in 2023.
The Multifamily 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 11 percent of total residential sector
savings. Midstream measures accounted for 40 percent of savings. The Appliances Program far surpassed its kWh
saving goal, contributing 5 percent of residential savings.
Table 27 shows savings goals assigned to Avista's residential sector programs for 2023, as well as reported savings and
the goal portion achieved in 2023.
TABLE 27— RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS VERIFIED ELECTRIC SAVINGS
Savin.. s Goals Verified ..
Water Heat 26,351 4,066 15%
HVAC 600,836 307,573 51%
Shell 725,781 155,539 21%
Fuel Efficiency 539,240 193,123 36%
ENERGY STAR Homes 63,464 47,508 75%
Multifamily Weatherization 542,594 81,535 15%
Appliances 41,522 81,599 197%
Midstream — 683,356 —
Multifamily Direct-Install 520,289 172,921 33%
Residential Total 3,060,078 1,727,220 56%
The natural gas segment of the portfolio achieved 50 percent of the goal for 2023.
The following shows the percentage of residential evaluated savings provided by each program:
♦ The HVAC Program accounted for 51 percent of residential natural gas savings.
♦ The Midstream Program accounted for 29 percent of residential natural gas savings.
♦ The Shell Program accounted for 11 percent of residential natural gas savings.
A11W -
AP4uVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 55

Table 28 shows savings goals assigned to Avista's residential sector programs for 2023, as well as reported savings and
percentage of goal achieved in 2023.
TABLE 28— RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS REPORTED NATURAL GAS SAVINGS
Program Savings Goals Verified Savings Percentage of Goal
(Therms) (Therms)
Prescriptive Programs 301,274 162,020 54016
Multifamily Weatherization 33,353 5,445 16%
6Fesidential Total 334,627 167,465 50%
Cost-Effectiveness
Tables 29 and 30 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 Programs.
TABLE 29— RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effective n ess Test Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 3,434,404 $ 2,341,695 1.47
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 2,844,719 $ 1,058,041 2.69
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 6,222,228 $ 1,283,654 4.85
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 2,844,719 $ 6,690,584 0.43
TABLE 30—RESIDENTIAL NATURAL GAS COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test L.06-- Benefits Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 1,642,344 $ 6,167,894 0.27
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 1,526,609 $ 1,256,435 1.22
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 21,366,135 $ 4,911,459 4.35
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 1,526,609 $ 22,506,835 0.07
/III Pg 56 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESYK

Program-by-Program Summaries
Midstream Program
TABLE 31 — RESIDENTIAL MIDSTREAM PROGRAM METRICS
Midstream Program Summary—Electric
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 263
Overall kWh Savings 683,356
Incentive Spend $ 115,290
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 198,035
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 313,325
Midstream Program Summary—Natural Gas 2023
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 578
Overall Therm Savings 48,830
Incentive Spend $ 242,550
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 74,783
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 317,333
Description
Avista's Midstream Program moves traditional utility incentives up the supply chain to target the market actors that
have the greatest influence on equipment sales. Avista's approach with the Midstream Program is to work with
distributors, who influence the majority of equipment sales in any given region. Avista works with its vendor, Energy
Solutions, to encourage the inflow of high-efficiency and efficient equipment into its market.
The Midstream Program uses a flexible approach in which the distributor may use the incentive to reduce the cost
to the contractor and customer or for activities such as marketing or training. Incentives for residential and small
commercial customers utilize a pass-through model. Midstream combines several elements that were previously
individual programs. This includes commercial and residential HVAC, water heating equipment, and commercial
foodservice equipment.
The initial midstream claims were processed in July 2023. Claims and savings continuing to grow exponentially, and
distributors continued to join the program through the end of 2023. Ongoing messaging to contractors about the
new process and their role contributed to this growth.
A11W -
�4uVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 57

Program Activities
Avista's Midstream Program formally began in 2023, with a sunsetting of corresponding downstream and site-specific
measures. Given that the program was new, significant effort was required in early 2023 for data exchange systems
setup, policy development, measure review and finalization and training/marketing material development. Additional
program activities included reaching out to potential distributor partners, completing legal participation agreements
with distributors, and onboarding participating distributors and contractors.
• Electric: Savings of 683,356 kWh in 2023, which accounted for 40 percent of the overall residential savings
• Natural Gas: Savings of 48,830 therms in 2023, or 29 percent of the overall residential savings.
Program Announcement
Commercial and residential customers were notified of the pending transition to a midstream approach and the end
of various downstream measures beginning in early 2023. Avista's rebate forms and website included messaging
regarding the pending transition, and commercial customers received multiple notifications of the transition by email.
Impact Evaluation
The Midstream Program's realization rate of 54 percent for residential electric was a large contributor to the overall
low residential realization rate. This discrepancy in expected savings for the Midstream Program was attributable to
differences between the baseline of the implementer-assigned expected savings values using minimum code and the
baseline of the RTF-implemented market practice. The evaluators used engineering algorithms to assess this program,
based on purchased equipment efficiency level. They also applied RTF market practice baseline equivalents to the
engineering algorithms to maintain consistency with evaluation methods between the downstream and midstream
programs, while taking into account the often higher efficiency values of the purchased equipment. Although the
evaluators noted instances where the implementer's engineering algorithms were applied incorrectly in calculating
the expected savings values, the market practice baseline adjustment resulted in the largest downward adjustment,
leading to a low realization rate for the program.
The Residential Midstream Program, which contributed 53 percent of the expected natural gas savings, resulted
in a realization rate of 35 percent. The other programs resulted in a combined realization rate of 107 percent. The
Midstream Program contributed to a 43 percent decrease in the overall residential sector.
Recommendations
Evaluators recommend the following for the Midstream Program:
• Administrators should verify that unit energy savings(UES)and savings multipliers are applied consistently
across measures.
• Avista should verify baseline efficiency assumptions for food equipment.
• The evaluators suggest that program implementors calculate expected savings for HVAC measures using
prescriptive algorithms and measure-specific characteristics. Capacities and efficiency levels vary considerably
within these measures, and current planning materials only produce general savings estimates.
m.Pg 58 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVISra®

Avista should update annual water usage estimates for storage and instantaneous water heaters.
• Avista should refer to RTF savings estimates for griddles.
• Avista should work with the implementer of the Midstream Program to update expected savings values in the
implementer TRM to adjust for market practice baseline and more accurately predict program-level savings in
future program cycles.
• Within the Midstream Program, Avista should reexamine how expected savings UES are developed,
particularly for food service equipment. Current expected savings UES are significantly higher than the same
configurations specified in the RTF.
Avista acknowledges the recommendations and is working with the implementor and evaluator to coordinate the
appropriate midstream design for evaluation.
Plans for 2024
During 2024, Avista anticipates continuing to refine program implementation and seek new distribution partners.
Although participation within the HVAC sector is broad, there are additional opportunities to expand the program
in commercial foodservice, including the addition of ultra-low temperature freezers. The initiation of market share
reports to participating distributors in 2024 will incentivize increased performance through healthy competition.
Residential Shell Program
TABLE 32— RESIDENTIAL SHELL PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramShell
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 158
Overall kWh Savings 155,539
Incentive Spend $ 81,921
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 45,075
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 126,996
ProgramShell
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 383
Overall Therm Savings 18,117
Incentive Spend $ 204,553
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 27,746
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 232,299
/IIW_-
�4uV1STA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 59

Description
Avista encourages residential customers to improve their home's building envelope by adding insulation or storm
windows or upgrading existing windows or doors. The Residential Shell Program has 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 4,000 kWh a year are eligible to apply, as are Idaho residential natural gas customers with an annual
home heating usage of 120 therms. This rebate approach issues payment to the customer following installation.
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 be ENERGY STAR certified or 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 155,539 kWh in 2023 (nine percent of the overall residential savings), a 13 percent
increase over the 137,338 kWh achieved in 2022.
Natural Gas: Savings of 18,117 therms in 2023, or 11 percent of the overall residential savings. The program
had an 11 percent decrease in savings relative to the 20,360 therms achieved in 2022.
Savings derived from the Residential Shell Program for both natural gas and electric homes are primarily attributed to
single-pane window replacements.
Program participants have generally been inclined to replace existing windows with regular windows rather than with
storm windows.
Program Changes
The minimum usage requirement was lowered for Avista customers who heat their homes with electricity. Those
who use at least 4,000 kWh a year are eligible to apply, as are Idaho residential natural gas customers with an annual
home heating usage of 120 therms. This is a reduction from the previous requirement of 8,000 kWhs or 340 therms.
An option was added to the storm window rebate for windows that are not ENERGY STAR certified. They must have a
glazing material emissivity of less than 0.22 with a solar transmittance of greater than 0.55.
A new rebate option was implemented for self-installed windows that offers customers in rural areas additional
choices for installing energy efficient windows. All window rebate requirements are consistent, but customers can
install their own windows. The incentive amount is lower for this option.
m.
Pg 60 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Program Marketing
The program was included in the winter heating campaign to increase awareness and drive participation (see pages
46-52). Marketing efforts built awareness of opportunities in the home and directed customers to the website for
rebate information. Additional efforts to encourage program participation included promotion on Avista's website and
bill inserts.
FIGURE 37 -RESIDENTIAL SHELL PROGRAM INSULATION REBATES GOOGLE DISPLAY ADS
Pay less to add
f�
low home insulation.
n v
�.)- 51�, ;� See our rebates» WES TA
Save on
• - insulation.
See our rebates
Impact Evaluation
For the electric program, the lack of granularity in the Avista TRM data led to a low electric realization rate for attic
insulation, wall insulation, and window measures. For attic and wall savings calculations, the expected savings
appeared to use a value of 2 kWh per square foot, while Avista's TRM used a value of 1.86 kWh per square foot.
Similarly, the difference between RTF savings and the Avista TRM value for window replacements was drastic, with the
RTF indicating much lower savings for the window replacements, based on U-values and double-versus single-pane
values.
The natural gas program displayed verified savings of 18,117 Therms, with a realization rate of 93 percent against the
expected savings for the program. The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Shell Program was less than
100 percent because of differences in quantities between the Avista tracking database and the verified documents.
The evaluators conducted a billing analysis for the attic insulation and window replacement measures, but they chose
to verify savings through the Avista TRM because savings estimates were unexpectedly low.
A11W -
�IuVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 61

Recommendations
In the Shell Program, evaluators recommend that Avista updates the single-and double-pane window TRM values
to the appropriate RTF LIES value. Avista's TRM uses 1.5 kwh per square foot, whereas the RTF displays 1 kWh per
square foot for most projects. 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 single-versus double-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.
Starting in 2024 Avista has altered this program to provide rebates on a per window basis. This issue will be resolved
with the new structure of the Shell Program.
Plans for 2024
In 2024, Avista will adjust how window rebates are provided. As of April 1, 2024, windows will be rebated on a per
window basis. The incentives and savings are based on the u-factor of the installed window, with lower u-factors
rebated at a higher amount. Savings have been adjusted to reflect whether the new windows are replacing single-or
double-pane windows. A new rebate will be offered for sliding glass doors, which will follow the same requirements
as windows.
Residential Home Energy Audit Program
Description
The Home Energy Audit Program completed its first full year as a program in 2023. The program entails a home
energy auditor going into the customer's home for a clipboard style inspection. This is a visual inspection that looks
for opportunities for energy-efficient upgrades in the customer's home. Customers complete an application to
participate at no cost to them. Customers have the option to pay an additional fee if they wish to have a blower-door
test. After the audit is completed, the customer receives a written Home Performance Report detailing the auditors'
recommendations for their home, estimated project costs, potential energy savings, directions for installation of some
energy saving measures, and leave-behind materials.
Program Activities
The program is offered across Avista's Idaho and Washington service territories. Initially, Avista projected that the
program would conduct an estimated 500 audits between both states in 2023. The projection was close, with 463
audits completed by the end of 2023. Applications drastically increased, as outside temperatures abruptly decreased.
The high demand exceeded Avista's ability to schedule all requested audits prior to the end of 2023.
Pg 62 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'r-7honsra®

Program Marketing
Due to program interest that exceeded fulfillment capacity, marketing for the Home Energy Audit Program was
limited. A bill insert was sent to all Idaho and Washington residential customers in October, aligning with National
Energy Awareness Month.
FIGURE 38— RESIDENTIAL HOME ENERGY AUDIT BILL INSERT
Does Whether you rent or own,a Home Energy Audit can help
energy,costing you _ you understand how your home uses energy.We send
_ it should7 The easiest certified,third-party experts to uncover every aspect that
addressway to f ind and may need attention,including equipment and a appliances.
Y 9Pp i,
any issues is to schedule They then recommend ways you can improve your energy
efficiency and comfort.
for Idaho and Washington Learn more at • •
Avista customers* or call us at(80 •
117
Plans for 2024
Avista estimates program participation will be around 1,000 audits annually across both Idaho and Washington in
2024. Initial marketing in January of 2024 was wildly successful and generated approximately 400 audit requests.
Staffing has increased to meet demand with the goal of completing 40 audits per week.
/IIW--
APIuVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 63

Residential Smart Thermostat Program
Description
Smart thermostats offer a wide range of options that can assist the customer with reducing their energy usage. A
smart thermostat is a Wi-Fi enabled device that automatically adjusts heating and cooling temperature settings in
the home for optimal performance. This program requires that the smart thermostat be connected to the customer's
in-home Wi-Fi and have a smartphone application available to download or access via the internet. This program is
available for new construction and existing homes.
Program Marketing
The Smart Thermostat Program was promoted throughout the year as part of broader residential rebates
communications via bill inserts, Connections newsletters, social media posts, direct emails, and more. Three separate
digital ads helped drive customers to the program, as did search ads. In October, in support of National Energy
Awareness Month, Avista offered the Energy Smart Giveaway to its residential customers. The giveaway provided
the opportunity for 200 customers to win a smart thermostat. It was promoted via direct email and Connections
newsletters. More than 9,700 customers registered for the giveaway. Although only 200 won, every customer who
entered was mailed an energy-saving tips brochure and a card with information about the program.
FIGURE 39-RESIDENTIAL SMART THERMOSTAT REBATE GOOGLE DISPLAY ADS
I Pay loss
• now
srnart .o
Seeoui rebates.
Save on
a new
smart
thermostat. Less energy. Big savings.
See our rebates
Pg 64 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

FIGURE 40— RESIDENTIAL REBATES DIRECT EMAIL
•
Omer Customer.
ra ddrortY EtwryY M.aran.ar uaa,or.l A.wb wart b.•.r.+.a.r M w m a+arrp..c.r a'w'9Y
rrpa YWw dal Lrr atn.n tlrtwWau(Ul S lWua aoW p br W bal
Ettbr now tor your cawanca to Ynn a Gwgm Naat Loarnrt9 rnan•YoardL
Whafre w w"I.tw.w!•w 0.00.*.W Larry Thm"Waa.r9
t on hab V�tiwr,r•.rney rvt—*V(~a".Von b*lcr lh*a"M CO ho WWVY
W,wo,'a!bae•+'V Ywr 40!%,wW—rtd Pw.--v atd b Imw Yw aa-b'ar..Y on*w
ariM ra.y.lean aw and tram r"a Mo. M*w o+r.8—.NWti a tn.atw b-9 t•v.
a.rgr.Ika.nl tr.Y'M n.b'r4 Ya�v t..a.rrrQY b.rdrme>ti..nr beat kr aaaar I d oa4rt
AYwdy waYal•MaA avt.•w.bl an0 baw^Y!or OMMr-tya b Nr.anMQyY
M'r.reyae b hrp Yde rH wrOY
S.rara/r
Ar1.Y Etrtp E�It1MCY Tao!
O.—hwrt,..o.r.daar.k uw—c-w--wep•,ft.. is r.av w.rthr a•.A.+Y.a
w nr.w•r✓t wre.arss�f np[)w erdp.A..I a.r.ee.t.v..tn.n�+rH w mr+n..
.e.s.w..asy s.rR.-..aww,.wnr rr...ti•w.a woet.a.r�c..+,v.r...w a
sa.ar a H'yt�vsr t]ver.!•av!w..r.r r..ad..av Maul a*.w I„.tw m..corn...tm..
eor►dth a✓•prwar tRyr Mtr Nn odr'.v ttv ov..a..n.t...'+u.M 6�opw Odo.•u..rr
i. 0 ® 0
��. •.1l���.w�.�rs tr!
�III��STa 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 65

Even though you didn't win a Nest thermostat,we're giving you other
ideas to help you save energy.
Thanks for entering our Energy Included are some easy tips that show you how.They can make your
home feel warmer and more comfortable when it's cold outside.
Smart Giveaway. We regret to For additional ways to save energy,you can also go to
say, your name wasn't randomly myavista.coMenergytips.
selected in our drawing. Sincerely,
FIGURE 41 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SMART GIVEAWAY TIPS CARD
Avista Energy Efficiency Team
If you still want a smart thermostat can help you saw
money an certain models.We offer rebates that may pay you back
Mawgive you rebates when you add insulation,purchase energy efficient
appliances,and more.See all our rebates at myEivista.conalgetrebates.
6� Vour prize is a Google Nest®Learning
uld you like more help saving energy at
home?Avista will give you money-mving rebates
when you add insulation,purchase appliances
'hat use less energy,and more.To see all our
rebates,go to myavistaxom/getrebartes.
Thermostat($215 retail value).It learns the
home temperatures you prefer,then takes
charge to help you save energy.You can also
set it remotely using your phone or tablet.
Since it's getting cold outside,we're also
providing you with some eary tips to save
more energy and improve your comfort at
home.Look for more energy-saving ideas at
myavista.com/energytips.
The Avista Energy Thank you for entering our drawing.
We hope you enjoy your new thermostat.
Smart Giveaway Sincerely,
Congratulations, Avista Energy Efficiency Team
you're one of
our winner
Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'r-47honsy'a

FIGURE 42— RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SMART GIVEAWAY, OCTOBER 2023 CONNECTIONS NEWSLETTER
Continued from from
Elemicxy Generation UTy Fuel Mix
Energy Smolt Giveaway Resource Mix
,4"17-Irls TAM A smart learning thermostat y a �Nel1
• • great daring heat
point It'll help you
mheating and moling use and a� ExEzcr-,
progra itseM.
' an Go to m to w.c,Going Nast ay
d emer to win a Going Nest
Learning Tcky winatr,will T ® ®,
Sign up to win in h.atn d inN—mbr,andrace.n
our Energy Smart thre,rammNovemjusandreceive
9y their new thermostat just before
Giveaway winter ealryae lesin xamy,
We're obserinn National Energy anrorias will only ba meptad
Awareness Month by giving y through October 31,2023.
a chance to win a Google Nest I For other energy-saving ideas,visit
Leaming Thermostat. myavisW.coni rgydps. Electric utilities'fuel mix disclosure
We know that the way to Avista uses different kinds of fuel facilities.We also have long-term contracts
a wstainable futureii Energy to produce the electricity that for additional hydro and wind power.
Is to use less energy.It's Natural gas is the the lives and businesses A tel 60 t of cam
why we share ways to saw dearest burning fossil of ou customers, owned generation'is renewable energy,
energy,reward uuwmers fuel available.But if natural
like you for upgrading to t burned In addition to the diverse mix of fuel we AS.,curtomers purchased the
gaz isn' property,say,
energy-effident equipment and adopting because of a faulty furnace,i[ use to generate power,we also have onmental offsets assodated with
weather¢adon measures and promotemommo emit carbon monoxide(CO), long and short-term purchased power eUse,81 million kilowatt-hours of new
sustainable technologies.So as the aamlodess,odorless gas that contract,In place and we purchase power renewable wind and solar power In
weather outside changes,it's the s
perfect ae flu-like symptoms and onthe wholesale market.It all adds up 2021 through Avista's My Clean Energy
time to think a bout how your home uses even usdeath.Brearted when too diverse energy mix that provides program.These participating c.-m—
energyandwhatoptionsyoumayhave Kids in Loon Lake and Valley,
WA school
presen CO is t Install a UL-listed our curtomers with clean,reliable power paid for and received the benefit of the
to control it. carbon monoxide detector.We at fair,reasonable rates.Avirta-arced ewable energy offset,so it is not
Continued on back school buses just want you to be safe. generation includes eight hydroelectric reported in Avirta's energy mix.Learn
Myavista Aafety. projects and eight thermal generation more a[myavista.com/fud—,
The first electric school buses have arrived
in Avista's Washington service territory.
VL Transport,who serves Loon take and Valley sdhool distfii recently received A new bill discount program for
a grant for two Elecric school busses and$75,000 in funding for charging Washington customers
• : infrastructure. }
"We are honored to be the rest ient of these,Ie c buses and dear in Amh^sta has anew program called My Energy Dismountyo help Washington 1/
P 9 9 stoners with their bills.If youTe eligible for the discount,you'll save money
equipment"said Annette Wreally,Transportation Supervisor,Valley School DistriR every month.
VL Trani ong,Center.ohelang US helpedu hickidentify where—woulecould see operational SJ /
cost savings,while also helping us Identify which routes would safely and reliably Even If you couldn't get help with your bill before,you might e t able to
Vansport our kids using an electric bus.Thisis a turning point toward a clean energy ow.lt',U,,Iertoqua,,,ddUrp,Ie you're
iapip red to apply Unt"ll you have to doatell
solu5on for our bus transportation,"she said. �s your hou"e te,,'s size and Income.If you're approved,your discount Is good for two
years.Even better,you can still benefit from all the other programs and services your local
Avista's electric fleet analysis te—rentified the Washington State Department of unity act ion agency offers,including other types of payment assistance and home
Ecology's Electric School Bus grant program as a good fit for VL Transport providing: improvement help.
•Route analysis Visit myavista.camhnyarwrgydism—MA to learn more and fill out our simple
•Expected savings online form to apply now.Or gW us a call at 18 0 01 2 27-918 7.
•Optimal Barging meddles
•Plus,with the grant,there were no out of pocket expenses
See x your distriQ is eligible Connect with us
Between now and 2026,$5 billion of federal funding will provide U.S.schools Mailing Address:1411 E.Mission,PO eox 3727,Spokane,WA 99220-3727
with incentives to purchase clean school buses.School districts and third-party bus Toll-Fee:(800)227-91871 Web Site:myavistacom I Email:ask®myavistamm III_ w
providers interested in learning more about available grams are encouraged gryrigMzoz3 nvina Cwporauoc IIr�rsr
to corrtaR us a[myavisG.conn/t, sporfation. s93i AVA
Impact Evaluation
For the Smart Thermostat Program, realization rates for the Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat and Smart
Thermostat Paid Install with Electric Heat were lower than 100 percent because the Avista TRM used an average of
heating type savings values, as well as an average across heating types, while the evaluators assigned the appropriate
RTF LIES value for each heating zone.
Recommendations
The evaluators recommend that Avista checks the source Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)
documentation and product level documentation to verify efficiency prior to incentivizing installation of the measure.
Evaluators also recommend providing a qualified product list for customers to ensure that the smart thermostats they
purchase meet program requirements. In addition, evaluators recommend that Avista verifies each program rebate to
confirm qualifications after rebates are submitted.
A11W —
�4lifESra 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 67

Avista acknowledges the recommendation to check the source AHRI documentation. This documentation, however,
no longer applies because Avista moved HVAC systems to its Midstream Program and now requires smart thermostats
to be ENERGY STAR certified. Per the recommendation to provide a qualified product list, Avista made a program
change as of April 1, 2024 that requires smart thermostats to be ENERGY STAR certified to qualify for a rebate. In
June of 2024, Avista submitted a request to iEnergy to update the library, and the program manager requested that it
continue to be updated on a quarterly basis.
Plans for 2024
Beginning in April 2024, Avista will require that smart thermostats be ENERGY STAR certified to be eligible for rebate
incentives. This is to ensure consistency of functionality of the thermostats installed.
Residential ENERGY STAR / NEEM Manufactured Homes Program
TABLE 33 — RESIDENTIAL ENERGY STAR HOMES PROGRAM METRICS
ENERGY STAR Homes Program Summary-Electric 2023
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 14
Overall kWh Savings 47,508
Incentive Spend $ 14,000
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 13,768
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 27,768
ENERGY STAR Homes Program Summary-Natural Gas
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 1
Overall Therm Savings 134
Incentive Spend $ 600
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 205
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 805
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.
m.__
Pg 68 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �4FV1Sra®

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: Savings were 47,508 kWh in 2023, accounting for 3 percent of the residential electric savings
portfolio.
• Natural Gas: Savings were 134 therms in the program in 2023.
The 2023 incentive for ENERGY STAR manufactured homes was $1,000 for homes using either Avista's electric service
or both its electric and natural gas, and $600 for homes using Avista's natural gas only.
Impact Evaluation
For the ENERGY STAR Homes Program, the evaluators found that realization rates differed from 100 percent because
of the 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 percent due to savings value application. Program application
forms commonly lacked information about the home's primary and secondary space and water heating type.
Recommendations
The evaluators recommend updating the Avista measure savings database to match the primary heating type for dual
fuel households. The evaluators also recommend updating the document data aggregation to provide consistent
database values between the database and the provided rebate forms(primary heating type) and to determine
whether the customer is an Avista electric and/or natural gas customer before providing an incentive for dual fuel.
Finally, the evaluators recommend updating Avista's measure savings to reflect heating zone-specific RTF measure
savings rather than averaging savings from heating zones together.
Avista has updated the verbiage on the website to ensure it aligns with the program design.
Plans for 2024
There are no substantial measure changes planned for this program in 2023. Avista will, however, include a TRM
savings value of 43kWh for natural gas-heated ENERGY STAR homes.
A11W -
APIuVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 69

Residential Multifamily Weatherization Program
TABLE 34— RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramMultifamily Weatherization Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 63
Overall kWh Savings 81,535
Incentive Spend $ 13,078
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 23,629
Idaho Energy-Efficiency Rider Spend $ 36,707
ProgramMultifamily Weatherization
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 69
Overall Therm Savings 5,445
Incentive Spend $ 34,857
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 8,339
Idaho Energy-Efficiency Rider Spend $ 43,196
Description
After previous efforts to include small homes in this program resulted in customer confusion, the program returned
to focusing on multifamily properties in 2023. For multifamily residences(five-plex or larger), owners and developers
may choose to make efficiency improvements to the entire complex through the Commercial Site-Specific Program
or to single units through the Multifamily Direct-Install Program approach. Energy savings claimed are less than the
traditional residential rebate program. Savings were determined by considering lower estimated energy use and home
square footage.
Program Activities
The Multifamily Weatherization Program accounted for 5 percent of program savings for electric and three percent of
savings for natural gas programs.
• Electric: Savings of 81,535 kWh in 2023, an increase of 335 percent compared to 18,754 kWh achieved in
2022.
Natural Gas: Savings of 5,445 therms in 2023, an increase of 470 percent over the 955 therms achieved in
2022.
mf__
Pg 70 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �4rVESra®

Program Changes
Due to customer confusion, the small home portion of the Multifamily Program was eliminated as of January 1, 2023.
Small homes are now served by the Single-Family Program. Usage requirements were eliminated in 2023 to drive
throughput and to eliminate a barrier for properties with a lower square footage footprint that have lower energy
usage. As of April 1, 2024, line-voltage thermostats were discontinued as a program offering.
Impact Evaluation
In the Multifamily Weatherization Program, evaluators found that many projects (14) exceeded Avista's definition of
"small home" as a single-family home with less than 1,000 square feet or a multifamily home with five or more units.
Although quantities in the Customer Care and Billing (CC&B) database were consistent, the Avista TRM savings values
differed from verified RTF UES values for each of the projects. Most projects displayed realization rates that differed
from 100 percent due to variations in home type. The evaluators verified the 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. Many of the measures(ductless heat pump, attic insulation,
and door insulation) displayed low realization rates due to the exclusion of heating and cooling zone specifications in
the Avista TRM.
The evaluators found that the tracking database did not track square footage data consistently for insulation
measures.
Recommendations
The evaluators recommend that Avista performs additional quality assurance (QA)and quality control (QC) efforts to
ensure square footage is tracked properly, especially for multiple insulation projects.
Avista has noted the evaluators' recommendation and will continue to work on improving the QA/QC process. The
evaluators recommend updating Avista TRIM values to incorporate expected downward adjustment based on heating
and cooling zone distribution among its participants rather than taking a simple average of all zones. This change
will improve realization rates in future evaluation periods. They also recommend removing expected savings for this
measure in the future. The evaluators found that the realization rate for ENERGY STAR certified refrigerators and
freezers was low because a subset of rebates were for bottom-mount refrigerators, which caused the RTF savings to
reflect a lower value. The realization rate for the smart thermostats was low because one of the two thermostats was
verified to lack RTF qualification since it didn't have occupancy sensor or geolocation capabilities and the RTF UES
value is 75 percent of the amount of the Avista TRM value. The evaluators recommend updating the Avista TRM value
for smart thermostats to match the expected RTF UES values.
Plans for 2024
In 2024, the Multifamily Weatherization Program will include homes with shared interior walls.
A11W -
�IuVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 71

Residential Appliances Program
TABLE 35— RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES PROGRAM METRICS
Appliances ..
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 555
Overall kWh Savings 81,599
Incentive Spend $ 38,100
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 23,647
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 61.747
ProgramAppliances
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 115
Overall Therm Savings 396
Incentive Spend $ 5,450
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 606
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 6,056
Description
Avista has historically offered incentives for high-efficiency appliances such as residential washers, dryers, refrigerators,
and freezers through various avenues, such as point-of-sale programs and prescriptive paths. Beginning in 2022 and
continuing in 2023, the company's prescriptive offerings included rebates for ENERGY STAR certified appliances, such
as:
♦ front-load and top-load washers
♦ electric and gas dryers
♦ refrigerators/freezers
♦ freezers
m.
Pg 72 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

FIGURE 43— RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCE PROGRAM BILL INSERT
With Avista rebates,you can save
energy and money when purchasing
high-efficiency equipment such as a new
water heater or natural gas furnace.
-------------
Get money back when you buy a smart
thermostat,add insulation,or upgrade Seeoure
your home with new windows.We offer •
rebates on Energy Star®washers and dryers, , •
refrigerators and freezers too!
L_
Program Activities
Electric: Savings of 81,599 kWh in 2023 (5 percent of the overall portfolio), a 151 percent increase over the
32,467 kWh achieved in 2022.
Natural Gas: Savings of 396 therms in 2023, a 14 percent decrease from the 457 therms achieved in 2022.
Program Changes
In 2023, ENERGY STAR certified top-load washers were added to the program, although with notably less energy
savings than front-load models.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 73

Impact Evaluation
For the Residential Appliance Program, evaluators noted that the Avista TRM defined appropriate unit energy savings
for the refrigerator-freezer and upright freezer measures. They found that program verified savings resulted in a
95 percent realization rate due to the attribution of 0 kWh per unit savings to the ENERGY STAR certified top load
washer. The evaluators removed savings for this measure because the RTF clothes washer workbook estimated that
savings for this measure are negative, and there are therefore no proven RTF savings. All refrigerator-freezer projects
were verified to be ENERGY STAR certified. In addition, the expected savings for the ENERGY STAR certified clothes
dryer measure were lower than the RTF workbook unit savings by nearly 8 percent. The evaluators noted that the
tracking database did not document the cubic volume for the refrigerators and freezers, which is an RTF requirement
with minimum restrictions.
The natural gas program displayed a realization rate of 66 percent at 396 therms saved in the 2023 program year. The
realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Appliance Program deviated from 100 percent due to the removal
of savings from the top load washer measure and inflated savings from the ENERGY STAR certified clothes dryer
measure. The expected savings utilized a 2.72 therms savings value for clothes dryers, but the appropriate RTF UES
value was 9.59 therms. The evaluators recommend updating the clothes dryer measure to align with the RTF UES
value. They noted that the tracking database did not document the cubic volume for the refrigerators and freezers,
which is an RTF requirement with minimum restrictions.
Recommendations
The evaluators recommend that Avista reconsiders including this measure in its program offerings and eliminates
top-load washers because zero savings have been assigned to them. Per this recommendation, Avista removed top-
load washers as an offering in April 2024. The evaluators recommend incorporating cubic volume in the Appliance
Program tracking database and updating clothes dryer expected savings to align with RTF UES values.
Plans for 2024
Avista discontinued the top-load washer rebate as of April 1, 2024. The company will update its TRIM in accordance
with recommendations.
m.__
Pg 74 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �4rVISra®

Residential Multifamily Direct-Install Program and Supplemental Lighting Program
TABLE 36— RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DIRECT-INSTALL PROGRAM AND SUPPLEMENTAL LIGHTING PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramMultifamily Direct-install
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 2,744
Overall kWh Savings 172,921
Incentive Spend $ 101,263
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 50,112
Idaho Energy-Efficiency Rider Spend $ 151,375
ProgramMultifamily Direct-install
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 68
Overall Therm Savings 227
Incentive Spend $ 880
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 348
Idaho Energy-Efficiency Rider Spend $ 1,228
Note that the MFDI program has been tracked by total measures installed,which include LED lamps,faucet aerators,showerheads,and smart strips.
Description
The Multifamily Direct-Install (MFDI) Program is designed to help hard-to-reach customers save energy. Field installers
coordinate with property managers of multifamily complexes with five or more units to directly install small energy-
savers such as LED lamps, faucet aerators, showerheads, smart power strips, and vending misers in common areas.
During the first site visit at properties, installers audit the complex not only for tenant needs, but also for any eligible
common area lighting, which would include stairwell lighting used 24/7, exterior lamps and fixtures on a daylight
sensor, and conversions from interior fluorescent T12s and T8s to LEDs used 24/7. Direct installations are completed
at the complex, and the supplemental lighting information is passed on to lighting contractors working in various
areas. Lighting contractors communicate with the property managers to audit and put together project data that is
sent to SBW, the program implementer, and Avista to ensure the project is cost-effective, after which the project is
completed.
/IIW—-
�4uVIFSTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 75

Program Activities
The MFDI Program began in 2018 and ran as designed until March 2020, at which time it was paused due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. In April 2022, the program resumed direct installation as originally designed and wrapped up in
December of 2023.
• Electric: Savings of 172,921 kWh in 2023 (10 percent of the overall portfolio), an 889 percent increase over
the 17,478 kWh achieved in 2022.
• Natural Gas: MFDI had savings of 227 therms in 2023.
FIGURE 44- RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DIRECT-INSTALL PROGRAM AND SUPPLEMENTAL LIGHTING PROGRAM FLYER
' I
-r
(
Reduce energy use at your
multifamily housing complex.
As a participant in Avista;Multifamily Direct Install Program,you Our pilot program
may be Interested in additional self-installation incentives to further requirements:
improve the performance of your buildings. Participants must be able to perform
For a limited time only simple fixture rewiring.(kits come with
Avista is providing LED ballast bypass kits at no charge,so you can easy-to-follow installation instructions
easily upgrade all your 4-foot fluorescent-tube and mogul-base and technical support.)
HID futures to LEDs.We cover all permit costs and assist with the Old lamps must be safely removed
permitting process,as well. and disposed of in boxes that Avista
pmvides and picks up.
LED fluorescent tube lighting Hurry to learn more.
In addition to using less energy,provides better contact Nick Sitts at
lighting and has a longer lfr. [phone] or
nsitts�sbwconsulting.com
LED high intensity discharge lamps
Uses significantly less energy than typical exterior
lights and are easy to install.
WPM mi
�II�_
Pg 76 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �7honsra®

Impact Evaluation
For the Multifamily Direct-Install Program, the per unit savings value for the lighting measures did not align with the
per unit value in the methodology of Avista's implementor, SBW, or with the RTF UES values. The precise reason for
these discrepancies was unclear. The evaluators applied SBW TRM values to estimate verified savings for the quantity
of each measure claimed. These discrepancies led to deviations from a 100 percent realization rate for lighting
measures. Evaluators assessed the faucet and kitchen aerator values using RTF UES values and found no discrepancy
between the savings values in the tracking database and the RTF UES values. Therefore, these measures had a
realization rate of 100 percent. There was a difference between the calculated expected savings and verified savings
because the SBW TRM was applied to the consistently validated quantity of measures. The lighting measures displayed
discrepancies in the kWh per unit values used to calculate savings. The reason for these discrepancies was unclear. The
screw base LED lamp (A-line 60W) makes up 33 percent of total program savings yet displayed a realization rate of
138 percent, which led to inflated savings for the program overall.
Recommendations
The evaluators recommend that Avista applies the SBW UES to the tracking database accurately and consistently
across all lighting measures. In addition, more granularity in per unit savings values could be achieved if the tracking
data included data about space heating type for each unit. The evaluators recommend verifying space heating type in
the tracking data to apply more specific savings values to each project.
SBW will note the heating type by space and adjust the HVAC savings penalties following the RTF standard lighting
savings calculation methods for first year savings for the Multifamily Energy Excellence Program (MEEP).
Plans for 2024
Avista ended the program in December 2023.
A11W -
�IuVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 77

Residential HVAC Program
TABLE 37— RESIDENTIAL HVAC PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramHVAC
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 266
Overall kWh Savings 307,573
Incentive Spend $ 128,179
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 89,134
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 217,313
ProgramHVAC
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 1,641
Overall Therm Savings 85,264
Incentive Spend $ 454,975
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 130,581
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 585,556
Description
Avista's residential rebate program provides a variety of options to assist customers with multiple energy-efficiency
improvements for the home. Various rebates are available to provide comprehensive solutions for space and water
heating systems, the building shell, and appliances.
Idaho residential electric customers(Schedule 1)who heat their homes with Avista electricity may be eligible for a
rebate to convert their electric straight-resistance space heating to an air-source heat pump or ductless heat pump
system. Annual energy use in the home pre-upgrade must show 4,000 kWh or more (and less than 340 therms if
natural gas is also available)of heating use. To qualify for the program, air source or ductless heat pumps must have a
heating season performance factor(HSPF) of 9 or higher.
Idaho natural gas customers(Schedule 101)who heat their homes with Avista natural gas may be eligible for a rebate
for installing a high-efficiency natural gas furnace or boiler. To qualify for the program, high-efficiency natural gas
furnaces and boilers must have an annual fuel utilization efficiency(AFUE) of 95 percent or higher, and high-efficiency
natural gas wall furnaces must have an AFUE of 90 percent or higher. The supporting documentation required for
participation includes, but may not be limited to, copies of project invoices and AHRI certification.
The rebate is paid to the customer after the measure has been installed and documentation has been received.
Energy-efficiency marketing efforts build awareness of opportunities in the home and drive customers to the website
for rebate information. Vendors generate participation using the Avista rebate as a sales tool for their services.
m.__
Pg 78 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �4rVESra®

Program Activities
The annual usage requirement was lowered from 8,000 kWhs to 4,000 kWhs to encourage further participation
and account for homes with smaller footprints. As of July 1, 2023, HVAC and water heating rebates moved to
Avista's new Midstream Program. The only remaining HVAC prescriptive rebate is for converting from Avista-provided
electricity to Avista-provided natural gas.
♦ Electric: Savings of 307,573 kWh in 2023 (18 percent of the overall portfolio), a 41 percent decrease from
the 517,702 kWh achieved in 2022.
♦ Natural Gas: Savings of 85,264 therms in 2023 (51 percent of the overall portfolio), a 61 percent decrease
from the 216,236 therms achieved in 2022. These savings, however, only account for approximately half of
the year because program activities transitioned to the Midstream Program.
Impact Evaluation
The evaluators matched Avista's measures in this program to RTF measures and relied on the RTF savings assumptions,
which differed from Avista's TRM in some cases. This adjustment led to lower-than-expected savings for some
measures and higher-than-expected savings for others. For example, the electric-to-ductless heat pump measure
displayed a 22 percent realization rate because the Avista TRM assigned Idaho-based ductless heat pumps a savings
value of 4,000 kWh. The RTF, in comparison, assigned a savings value between 856 kWh and 908 kWh, depending
on heating and cooling zones. Despite this specific adjustment downward, there was an overall upward adjustment of
savings for measures in this program.
Recommendations
The evaluators recommend updating the Avista TRM value for Idaho-based unit energy savings to match the
Washington-based savings values and therefore align with RTF values. Additionally, since six of the eight smart
thermostats rebated were verified to not qualify for RTF UES due to lack of occupancy sensors, savings for these
projects would be zeroed out.
Plans for 2024
The HVAC program ended in mid-2023, with all measures moving to the Midstream Program, which will continue to
be offered in 2024.
A11W -
APIuVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 79

Residential Water Heat Program
TABLE 38— RESIDENTIAL WATER HEAT PROGRAM METRICS
ProgramWater Heat Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 7
Overall kWh Savings 4,066
Incentive Spend $ 1,615
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 1,178
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 2,793
ProgramWater Heat
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 156
Overall Therm Savings 9,051
Incentive Spend $ 56,100
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 13,862
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 69,962
Description
Idaho customers who use either electricity or natural gas to heat their water are eligible for participation in the
Residential Water Heat Program. Three different types of water heaters are available: a high-efficiency electric heat
pump water heater with an efficiency rating of 2.9 or higher, a natural gas tankless water heater with an efficiency
of 0.82 or higher, or a natural gas high-efficiency storage tank water heater with an efficiency of 0.65 or higher.
Efficiency ratings for all equipment are verified according to the contractor invoice or the AHRI certification and should
be included with the customer's rebate application.
Program Activities
• Electric: Savings of 4,066 kWh in 2023, an 85 percent decrease from the 27,769 kWh achieved in 2022.
• Natural Gas: Savings of 9,051 therms in 2023, a 68 percent decrease in savings from the 28,408 therms
achieved in 2022. These savings, however, only account for approximately half of the year because program
activities transitioned to the Midstream Program.
m.
Pg 80 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

Program Changes
As of July 1, 2023, HVAC and water heating rebates moved to Avista's new Midstream Program. The only remaining
HVAC prescriptive rebate is for converting from Avista-provided electricity to Avista-provided natural gas.
Impact Evaluation
For the Water Heat Program, the evaluators found that Avista TRM savings values were slightly lower than the RTF
savings assigned for the appropriate water heater tank size and tier efficiency. They found that most of the water
heaters were tier 3 or higher, but the Avista TRM only includes savings for a combination of tier 2 and tier 3 savings.
In addition, the Avista TRM assigned the savings values for water heaters of any size. During document review, the
evaluators found that most of the water heaters had a storage tank under 55 gallons, which has a higher savings
value in the RTF than water heaters with unknown tank sizes. The evaluators applied the RTF UES value for the
associated tank size and tier found for each model number in the sampled rebates.
Recommendations
The evaluators recommend that Avista documents the tier rating and tank size of heat pump water heaters to ensure
proper validation of savings.
Plans for 2024
This program ended in mid-2023 and was replaced by the Midstream Program, which will continue to be
implemented in 2024.
A11W -
APIuVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 81

Residential Fuel-Efficiency Program
TABLE 39— RESIDENTIAL FUEL-EFFICIENCY PROGRAM METRICS
Program
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 28
Overall kWh Savings 193,123
Incentive Spend $ 64,050
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 55,967
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 120,017
Description
Avista's residential rebate program provides a variety of options to assist customers with multiple energy-efficiency
improvements for the home. Various rebates are available to provide comprehensive solutions for space and water
heating systems, the building shell, and appliances.
Idaho residential electric customers(Schedule 1)who heat their homes with Avista electricity may be eligible for a
rebate to convert their electric straight-resistance space heating a natural gas system. Annual energy use in the home
pre-upgrade must show 4,000 kWh or more (and less than 340 therms if natural gas is also available)of heating
use. The supporting documentation required for participation includes, but may not be limited to, copies of project
invoices and AHRI certification.
The rebate is paid to the customer after the measure has been installed and documentation has been received.
Energy-efficiency marketing efforts build awareness of opportunities in the home and drive customers to the website
for rebate information. Vendors generate participation using the Avista rebate as a sales tool for their services.
Program Activities
• Electric: Savings of 193,123 kWh in 2023 (11 percent of the overall residential savings), a 41 percent
decrease from the 326,625 kWh achieved in 2022.
Program Changes
The annual usage requirement was lowered from 8,000 kWhs to 4,000 kWhs to encourage further participation and
account for homes with smaller footprints. With the implementation of the Midstream Program, all electric resistance
heating to heat pump conversions were eliminated from the program offerings.
m. -
Pg 82 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �4rVESra®

Impact Evaluation
For the Fuel Efficiency Program, the evaluators found that the realization rate deviated from 100 percent because
three of the AHRI AFUE values were reported at 80 percent, which does not meet the criteria to qualify for calculated
savings. Although the applied Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the verified savings aligned in the tracking
data, the removal of savings from these three projects caused the realization rate to drop down to 86 percent for the
program overall.
Recommendations
The evaluators recommend updating the Avista tracking database to capture previous heating types for conversion
measures; requiring home previous heating type, existing cooling type, and home type as inputs on the rebate
application forms; and enforcing required documents for all rebates, including the AHRI documentation and/or full
model number in order to verify measure efficiency.
Plans for 2024
Avista will consider making changes to this program as suggested by program evaluators.
A11W -
�IuVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 83

LOW-INCOME SECTOR
l
Restaurant
sailoor
F inrt
4;
Jw
4,1
n
LACE - , ,� � � _ � 1 •r � ��ei3.�
,
•. •

LOW-INCOME SECTOR
Program-by-Program Summaries
Low-Income Program
TABLE 40— LOW-INCOME PROGRAM METRICS
Program
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 142
Overall kWh Savings 171,311
Incentive Spend $ 745,060
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 243,421
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 989,320
Program
Participation,Savings,and Costs
Conservation Projects 62
Overall Therm Savings 2,025
Incentive Spend $ 344,129
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 17,009
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 361,124
For 2023, the Low-Income Program served 142 electric and 62 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 partners with a community action partnership(CAP) agency to deliver energy-efficiency programs to low-
income residents in ten Idaho counties within the company's service territory in Idaho. The CAP has the infrastructure
in place to income-qualify customers, as well as provide access to a variety of funding sources to make energy-
efficiency improvements to their homes. The agency serving Avista's Idaho territory receives an annual funding
amount of $875,000, with an additional $75,000 allocated for conservation education and outreach efforts.
/IIW—-
�4uVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 85

The agency may spend the contract amount at its discretion on either electric or natural gas efficiency measures. The
home must demonstrate a minimum level of annual energy use of either Avista electricity or natural gas for space-
heating purposes to be eligible for improvements to the residential shell (e.g., insulation, windows, and roof). 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. For customers who use natural gas as their main heating source, the home must demonstrate a
minimum natural gas baseline of annual energy use of at least 340 therms. The annual funding allocation includes 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 (e.g. bathroom fans, carbon dioxide
monitors, and other appropriate measures).
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 list of acceptable measures allows for partial reimbursement of those efficiency improvements that may not be cost-
effective 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 improvement.
Program Activities
In 2023, the program achieved 86,539 kWh of verified electric savings and 1,954 of verified natural gas savings in
Idaho. Table 41 shows Avista savings goals for the low-income sector for 2023, as well as reported savings and goal
portions achieved.
TABLE 41 — LOW-INCOME PROGRAM EVALUATED SAVINGS
.. ..
Electric(kWh) 198,995 171,311 86%
Natural Gas(Therms) 5,690 2,025 36%
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 42). The company deemed these measures cost-effective during the
development of the 2023 Annual Conservation Plan.
mf__
Pg 86 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �4rVESra®

TABLE 42— LOW-INCOME PROGRAM APPROVED MEASURE LIST
Electric Efficiency Measures Natural Gas Efficiency Measures
Air Infiltration
Attic Insulation
Doors—ENERGY STAR-Rated
Duct Insulation Boiler(96%AFUE)
Duct Sealing Doors—ENERGY STAR-Rated
Electric to Air-Source Heat Pump(9 HSPF) Furnace(95%AFUE)
Electric to Ductless Heat Pump(10 HSPF) Water Heater(storage)<55 gallon.65 EF
Electric to Natural Gas Furnace Conversion
Water Heater(tankless).82 EF
Floor Insulation
Windows:(ENERGY STAR-rated,u-factor.30 or less)
LED Lamps
Refrigerator—ENERGY STAR-Rated
Wall Insulation
Windows—(ENERGY STAR-Rated,u-factor.30 or less)
The agency could receive partial reimbursement for the installation of measures that are on the acceptable measures
list but did not meet the cost-effectiveness test. The amount of reimbursement 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 acceptable measures list.
TABLE 43 — LOW-INCOME PROGRAM QUALIFIED REBATE MEASURE LIST
Electric Efficiency Measures Natural Gas Efficiency Measures
Air Infiltration: $73.44
Attic Insulation:$1.25 sq/ft
Air-Source Heat Pump Replacement(9 HSPF): $636.45 Door Sweep: $1.00 sq/ft
Door Sweep: $3.00 Duct Insulation: $.096 sq/ft
Electric to Natural Gas Space&Water Heat: $3,211.14 Duct Sealing: $157.82
Electric to Natural Gas Hot Water Heat:$376.35 Floor Insulation: $.97 sq/ft
Heat Pump Water Heat(Tier 2-3 any size): $281.10 Smart Thermostat: $75.00
Storm Windows: $1.00 sq/ft
Wall Insulation: $.75 sq/ft
Program Changes
A new program manager was hired in February 2023, replacing a predecessor who served in the position for more
than 28 years.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 87

Customer Outreach
Avista's outreach coordinator retired in April of 2023. With a new program manager taking on this role, Avista
concurrently determined that it was necessary to begin engaging in a post-COVID refresh of the company's outreach
strategy. Avista therefore paused outreach activities in April 2023 to onboard new staff and develop a new outreach
strategy. A new outreach plan will be launched in 2024.
Customers who participate in the Low-Income Weatherization Program are often referred through the partner
agency's energy-assistance program. Avista also provides a handful of referrals each year from its internal
departments, including energy efficiency and customer service, as well as its Customer Assistance Referral and
Evaluation Services(CARES) Program, which provides 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 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(CAA). A primary 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.
• 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 2023, 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 food banks.
The team conducted and participated in 27 events that reached 5,065 Idaho residents, resulting in the distribution
of 287 LED lightbulbs for these customers. Table 44 shows an overview of outreach activities even during a slight
outreach pause.
m.
Pg 88 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

TABLE 44— LOW-INCOME PROGRAM OUTREACH EVENT AND LED BULB DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY
Description Number of Events/ Contacts LEDs
Activities
Direct Outreach through Flyers 5 2,546
General Outreach 11 84 0
Mobile Outreach 5 56 125
Fairs 6 2,379 162
Total 27 5,065 287
Avista continues to gather information and data about where these customer groups reside and how the
weatherization message is best delivered. This occurs through a variety of ways, including input from the company's
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group, interactions with stakeholders, and the use of data to assist in locating Avista
customers with a high energy burden.
Program 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 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.
FIGURE 45- LOW-INCOME PROGRAM HOME ENERGY SAVINGS KIT BROCHURE
rl
• - energy-saving tips
Window Plastic V-Seal Weather Strip Open curtains on south-facing windows to let in
Covering your windows with plastic insulation V-Seal weather strip blocks narrow gaps war,su nlight du ring the winter Keep window
•ur
is a simple solute,to save energy.The film around doors or windows.The two
seals out cold air and keeps in warm air, sides of its V shape are squeezed together a
plus it's dear so you can still see outside. for a tight seal when you dose your Ilos"ie all curtains at night to retain h,,t
Home Energy door or window.
To Install:
1.Clean and dry edge of window. To Install: throughout the heating,a,,n and every three
2.Apply double-sided mounting tape around window edge. 1.Apply when temperature is above 20°F. months during the cooling s....n Air,put in a
clean filter at the start of the fi re season to improve,
3.Uofold 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 conditions
Wre 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.
at inyanifstbuisorn/changenni
then sides and bottom. 4.Peel off the backing strip and press into place,positioning¢ Take quick showars and use low-flow showerheads.
5.Shrink film to remove wrinkles using a hair dryer so the"V"compresses as the door or window is closed. Short showora use less hot water than a bath.
Inch or so away from the film. D rs:
Practice wine hearting,when using baseboard or
LED lightbultn 1.Apply across and down the latch side of the doorstop molding.
space heaters by turn ng down the heat and closing
Compared to standard incandescent lightbulbs, 2.Apply to the hinge side,next to doorframe molding. doors in unused morts(a good temperature is
LEDs last 15 times longer(providing up to 25,000 Windows: 55-F.Keep both clear from abs,tuchons 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,
also dimmable. 2.Apply to sill under the window.
3.Apply across the lock rail. See a complete list of energy-saving tips at
Nightlight aryavistaxorl
[\\/\�/\
A low-watt,i""ight is perfect for V 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 Kit,pleae,contact Avista Oulnead,by email A
hasn eleNicity.The one in your kit tote to carry whenever you shop.
ea light sensor for nighttime use only
by phone at 509-495-8500,
Mai AVESTA
A Cory blanket lets you lower your thermostat
and still stay warm and comfy in winter.Save
energy by setting your thermostat 4 68°F.
Also lower it another 5 degrees at night orSee how to install these products with our do-it-yourself 7
when away from home for an hour or more.
�IIIV�sra 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 89

FIGURE 46— LOW-INCOME PROGRAM ENERGY USE GUIDE
---- ■Aeatin9&Cooling-46%
trot Energy Use in Your Home ■water Hering-,4%
gas$bill for,typical U.S.single family home S ■lighting Appliance,
$2,200 per year.Where does all this money go?
/. ost of heating and cooling your home can represent 40% ppli.dr,r ,d
\\' of your total energy bill.The chart to the right shows Uamaea,erageraro�,al:mva:ber.dome:warner
eakdown of energy use by category and starts to give
I Electronics
e of where savings can be found.Reducing energy
eptil by just 15%could save you over S300 a year in O�auaes�ompute�,mo��wc ry a�a"Iiayen p
sets. !Others e1rer al powu aaaprers,ssraop bores,
e g s.vem sans one M1ome aualol
1
our Energy Budget Understanding This Guide
sy,sa good Individual lifestyle and energy use habits, Listed below are terms and definitions that wi ll be used throughout this gu III
get starts with number and age of occupams,as well All numbers and costs Included are a representation based on national average use
o rce needs. s the size,design,levels of insulaton ith average Avista rates,
food,clothing, and heating sy.—in your home, Kilowatt Hours(kWh):We measure Approwmate Watts:The wattage is
1I rogoy to run your eln combine to determine how much electrical energy In watt hours.One kilowatt the consumption rate of electricity,
nerortione ergy you will use for heating. hour equals 1,000 watt hours.The kilowatt device exhibit—mleoperating.This
ng that portion The statistics In this booklet are based on hours°n bill a Is the rate or s eed°f tion may when
a
_ booklet, your qua p computer
r is
yhen a kitchen
s ving tips to national averages.The wattage or energy use(kilowatts)x the length of time electricity omputer Is turned on,when a kitchen
rces
. usage and efficiencies of yourappllances, was used.Running a5,000-watt(5 kilowatt) mxer is in use or when light bulbs
Iqr-', 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 f 1 and suggestions your family will vary.Keep this In mind when hours°f electricity.Burning a 100-watt light Monthly kWh Usage:The monthly
and better you're reviewing your own energy use. bulb for 10 hours uses 1 kilowatt hour.
ump'run. kWh usage for each device is based on
with some Therms:Your gas energy use is measured met typical month of operation,
aestions, in unit called therms.Therms Identify the est mating the hours the device Is
Y°u 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.
1 cri wooden kitchen matches. Estimated Monthly Cost:The
. --- ---_ estimated monthly cost is based on
Heating and Coolie the energy cnnsumpfion at 10.10 per
g kilowatt hour for electricity or$0.80
or
natural gas therm which are typical
Heating and Cooling EnergyHeatinga or Avis.residential c—ccers.
g Tips and Cooling page 5
----- Energy SavingChecklist
Saving --------------
I On sunny winter Block draft-s.Check Caulking and
days,open your other stripping around wintlows antl Use fans In the summer T
draperies t°get doors.If you see cracks,ligh4 or feel a in the summer before switchm using fans
full ber e",of sun draft,make repairs where e"I" air ontlitio`g Old A"equipment can
ldial
"I"g through ❑Seal leaks,Duchyork ex n be eu uival t to using 30 or more cans
mmmindowSp In Posetl to outsitle 11 y° must use your air contlitioner,set
r,co
the sealed g unconditioned spaces should be �umt�8°F;each tlegree Dyer 2g=in the
duapenes to help 51°9 mastic poaste and wrappetl will save
keep out unwanted securelyw 1taiesu�ati n;ins lotion joints on yourrcooling bil3l.0 appmxlmately3%
heat. should b se tl ith insulation tape
Fireplace dampers should be kept closetl ____ check furnace filter Check filters at ❑program your therm when you're not using the fireplace.q,him _ least once a clean o
temperature settle at,Adjust
y can tlra ----- them when tlirty.th, r replace Preset schedule.ih's wy ording to a w off as much as 25%
If the heated air in your house if the _damper is left o ❑Bring in a professional A qu
warm up or cool down you can
pen.Safely block off when you know you'll beoawake or at
unused fireplaces when I serviceman should check heatin hfietl home.Consider,Wi-Fi enabled smart
possible. coolie 9 and thermostat that learns
season
at the begin Your settings.
—_— -----_____ each s n to ensure efficient op-mr.n.
Turn down me heatin winYec Keep your o�tlm
1 7 O thermostat at or below 68°F'se pas or shatles.Window
thermostat three degrees low set you to het gs are one of the easiest ways
can
redu er m the winter P in C late your house.Keep them
ce your bill by about 10%, dosed o old days and open on sunny
u conditioning i�------------- ones.
When seletting an a' II Q --------
link,both room or central,check its "•�
Seasonal Energy Efficie cy ftatio(SEER). ww The SEER indicates a unity relative energy �N�
efficiency Most units are to When seletting a h ��►ya.,�,..� Reading Y..r Meter
this information,or pgetl with Heating Seasonal Rerform,rni:e'chiv,Che
its •r'sWR=
you tletermine the SEER!the old relettnc and natural
SEER,the better.A SEER of 13 or above is fe 5I,The HSPF indicate s meters are n
preferred,18 or above is exceptional. op,
s a h -
P
pa'e` ® Water Heating is Water Heating
Water Heating Energy Saving Tips Energy Saving Checklist
❑Keep showers short.Try to keep your shower to no longer than five minutes.
Adjust your temperature settings.Set your water heater at 120°F.
❑Replace washers on faucets that drip.A leaky faucet can waste 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
' as 50%,and reduce your energy cost of heating the water also by as much as 50%.
When purchasing a new shower head you should look for shower heads that use no
more 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 heat pump 182.9 $18,29
consider a heat pump water heater to than baths and tlishwashers generally Water heater,50-gallon high-efficiency 3852 f38.52
save energy, take less water than hand washing, Water heater,50-gallon standard-efficiency 4.k f40.48
Energy Use Guide-Natural Gas
Water heater,50-gallon 20 $16.00
mormare,m water
1].5 814.00
Instantaneous water heater 11.5 $9.20
YAYIYiMY1YY 9
Buy
ENERGY STAR If you don't have hard water or you
do have a water softener,consider a
appliances. [ankless natural gas water heater
that reduces standby losses.
pa9e10 Energy Use antl savings duo g t
Pg 90 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report sra®

FIGURE 47 — KIDS CAN SAVE ENERGY •• COLORING AND ACTIVITY : ••
KIDS CAN - •- �I�J
S I0
.r0�.
PACIES
,__.�1 �i►�►,,
TURN WN
THE
LIGHT
GIRADE
LEDGE
KNOW 10
0"tions b—
i if IS TA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 91
Turn oq the lights
when yaa leave a roam, �'fy�st4
...r..>M.i„
Draw lines from the tiny pictures
on the left to their matching
J�� whole pictures on the right.
6tart wa,n.r
Help Grandma o,r","�r�re. '"'
through the
maze to find , ,N,,,o„,
the light
switch.
TIP nnnynrnigmzm nnnne TIP y rannep,a.
rs sing helps to save energy. nur parents tod

FIGURE 48- LOW-INCOME PROGRAM WEATHERIZATION FLYER
ProgramEnergy Efficiency
Income-
Eligiblet
I
Avista provides funding to area community action agencies to offer energy-efficiency services to
income-qualified households.These services include free improvements to help reduce energy use and costs
while keeping your home more comfortable all year long.
Improvements may include insulation,caulking and weatherstripping to reduce drafts,duct sealing,air
filtration,and energy-efficient doors and windows.Inspectors may also check to see if health and safety
improvements are needed,such as installing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.
After your income eligibility is confirmed by a partnering community action agency,they will provide a
home-energy audit to identify efficiency improvements that would benefit your home.
If you currently receive assistance to pay your Avista bill,you are likely eligible to participate in this program.
To learn more,contact the community action agency that serves your county:
BENTON&FIR NKLIN COUNTIES 10 NORTHERN-MOST IDAHO FERRY,LINCOLN,PEND OREILLE
Benton Franklin Community COUNTIES&ASOTIN COUNTY, &STEVENS COUNTIES
Action Committee WASHINGTON Rural Resources Community
720 W Court St Community Action Partnership Action
Pasco,WA 99301 124 New 6th St 956 5 Main St
509-545-4042 Lewiston,ID 83501 Colville,WA 99114
bfcacorg 208-746-3351 or 800-326-4843 509-684-8421
WHITMAN COUNTY cap4action.org ruralresources.org
Community Action Center GRANT&ADAMS COUNTIES Spokane Indian Housing
350 SE Fairmont Rd Opportunities Authority
Pullman,WA 99163 Industrialization Center 6403 Sherwood Addition Rd
509-334-9147 717 Frudvale Blvd Wellurnt,WA 99040
cacwhltman.ding Yakima,WA 98902 509-818-1486
KLICKITAT&SKAMANIA 509457-2902 spokaneiha.com
COUNTIES SPOKANE COUNTY
Community Action Council SNAP
of Lewis,Mason&Thurston 212 W Second Ave
Counties Spokane,WA 99201
3020 Willamette Dr NE 509456-7627
Lacey,WA 98516 snapwa.org III
0-438-1100
ca
mt.org
Pg 92 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IIIV�sra®

Cost-Effectiveness
Tables 45 and 46 show the low-income sector cost-effectiveness results by fuel type.
TABLE 45— LOW-INCOME COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS— ELECTRIC
Cost-Effectiveness Test 1, Benefits Benefit/Cost Ratio
TRC $ 6,797,188 $ 862,886 7.88
UCT $ 278,060 $ 989,320 0.28
PCT $ 7,144,764 $ (126,434) N/A
RIM $ 278,060 $ 1,614,956 0.17
TABLE 46— LOW-INCOME COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS— NATURAL GAS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
TRC $ 204,151 $ 46,299 4.41
UCT $ 19,095 $ 361,124 0.05
PCT $ 484,091 $ (314,825) N/A
RIM $ 19,095 $ 660,159 0.03
Impact Evaluation
The Low-Income Program achieved a realization rate of 77 percent for electricity and 95 percent for natural gas
savings in 2023.
Evaluators note that most deviations from a 100 percent realization rate are attributable to errors in applying the
Avista TRM values. For electric measures, this is because of inaccurate TRM values for conversion to air source heat
pumps and conversion to natural gas furnaces. For natural gas measures, this is because of inaccurate TRM values
for attic insulation. Evaluators recommend that the company works to ensure that the Avista TRM rates are properly
applied.
Recommendations
Evaluators note that most deviations from a 100 percent realization rate in the program are attributable to slight
discrepancies between the reported savings and the Avista TRM, as well as some measures where 20 percent annual
household energy caps were improperly applied. Evaluators recommend verifying that the Avista TRM values and the
20 percent household cap are properly applied when calculating measure savings with available household billing
data.
A11W -
�4uVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 93

Plans for 2024
The agencies will continue to implement weatherization measures in the next two-year contracting cycle, coinciding
with the first year of Avista's Biennial Conservation Plan. As part of the eligibility review, each CAA will continue
to identify potential customers with a large energy burden. Avista will work with each agency to identify potential
customers that may fall into the high-energy-burden category. 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. For 2024 and 2025, the Low-Income Weatherization Program received an
additional $500k for the biennial budget to help increase customer energy efficiency while reducing their energy bills
due to various weatherization projects.
Avista will continue to revisit 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.
Pg 94 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report mar Sra®

(This page intentionally left blank.)
/IIW__
�IuV1STA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 95

i
A
•
a rr .r - 49
OR
,w��
r•r MM��
N R'r
VANas
■r M M !�I�,,•�A Q� w
�x !■ u
slop
�. . o
C3, r' ti' 1�►
►• Nit �.�
f • � . � 1 \
McEuen Park,Coeur d'Alene,Idaho

PILOT PROGRAMS
Program-by-Program Summaries
Active Energy Management
Description
Consistent with Avista's goals to be carbon-neutral by 2030 and carbon-free by 2045—and also aligning with
efficiency requirements on commercial buildings—the Active Energy Management(AEM) pilot focuses on the
exploration of clean energy transformation for commercial buildings. AEM can be defined in industry terms as a
strategic energy management program that employs monitoring-based commissioning processes and fault detection
and diagnostic tools.
For this pilot, Avista has partnered with Edo, a building efficiency and grid optimization business that is 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 provides 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 identified energy
conservation measures. This is a three-year, full service, no-cost pilot program that will conclude the end of 2024.
Before the pilot term ends, Avista will evaluate the pilot thoroughly to determine whether this service can be offered
more broadly as a full program.
Goals of the pilot include the following:
♦ Achieve 4.8 million kWh of energy savings over the pilot term.
• Acquire rich facility operating information that can inform future rate or program design, particularly focused
on future load flexibility programs.
♦ Increase customer satisfaction for participating building owners and operators.
♦ Gain insight into customer willingness to participate in future demand flexibility programs.
♦ Demonstrate non-energy benefits from program participation, including occupant comfort, reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, and improved equipment life expectancy.
/IIW—-
�IuVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 97

Program Activities
Most of the participants have been involved in the pilot since 2022, with the exception of two customers added at the
end of 2023 in an effort to broaden the building diversity from which to learn. Building types participating in the pilot
include large and small office buildings, retail space, medical centers, hospitals, community centers, grocery stores,
and universities. Participants in the program have unlimited access to Edo's Torrens Platform to view facility portfolio
performance over time and identify energy conservation measures and utility billing data. The Torrens Platform also
has an interactive tool participants can use to find trends and irregularities in HVAC system operations. Monthly
business review meetings occur for all of the pilot participants individually that include Edo, Avista, and customers.
These meetings allow for individualized customer project discussion and guidance with energy conservation measures
and any additional help the customer may need to complete them. During these meetings, Avista promotes its other
energy-efficiency incentive programs when the energy conservation measures being considered will qualify.
Customers receive an annual report describing activities and energy savings within their buildings as a result of pilot
participation. Facility operators find this report beneficial in communicating the value of the program and energy
efficiency with their leadership.
Program Changes
No pilot changes are being proposed at this time.
Plans for 2024
The pilot will be evaluated in mid-2024 to determine whether a program should be offered.
Pg 98 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report mar Sra®

Research and Development
Inland Northwest Center for Energy and Decarbonization
In 2023, Avista led a cross-sector collaboration to establish the Inland Northwest Center for Energy and
Decarbonization (INTENT) by pursuing funds from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)through its Regional
Innovation Engines program. In May 2023, the center was awarded $996,490 through Avista's partner, Urbanova, to
further develop a vision that would accelerate innovation and sustained economic growth by building on the existing
energy sector in the Inland Northwest.
The scope of the NSF Engines Development Award is to advance energy and decarbonization technologies in the
Inland Northwest. The project will ultimately serve 28 counties in Idaho and Washington. Its overarching goal is to
inclusively build the economy, nurture effective investments in innovation, grow and sustain a capable workforce,
and draw use-inspired research and development into building economic opportunities for all residents of the region.
Initially, committed partners include Avista, tribal governments, land grant research universities, national laboratories,
a regional workforce council, non-profits leading in energy and equity, public and private universities, public utility
districts, angel investment groups, intellectual property experts, state agencies, other economic cluster organizations,
and sector-leading for-profit companies.
Several Idaho entities in Avista's service territory are participating in INTENT, including the University of Idaho, North
Idaho College, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and the Nez Perce Tribe.
Although Avista has not requested research and development(R&D)funds to support research activities related to this
project to date. The INTENT partnership could, however, easily be leveraged in the future to pursue efficiency-specific
R&D projects, particularly if INTENT receives full funding to build out the center. As instructed in Order No. 35129 of
Case Nos. AVU-E-20-13 and AVU-G-20-08, Avista will continue to explore additional prospects for an R&D program
that includes measurable targets and metrics that can be met and monitored, and it will file a proposed updated R&D
program if such an opportunity is established.
A11W -
APIuVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 99

REGIONAL MARKET TRANSFORMATION
1 `a elf
it Ole
,% 1 OR
Ir--(f
ANN
iv
University
` �• �,' fir.
P7�I
of •. • Moscow,Idaho

REGIONAL MARKET TRANSFORMATION
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.
It is not feasible for Avista to independently have a meaningful impact on regional or national markets. Consequently,
utilities within the Pacific Northwest have worked together through the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)
to address opportunities that are beyond the ability or reach of individual utilities. Avista has been participating in and
funding NEEA since it was founded in 1997.
Table 47 shows 2023 NEEA savings and the associated costs for Idaho, which exclude internal administrative costs
associated with participation in the various NEEA activities and studies. 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.
TABLE 47— NEEA ENERGY SAVINGS AND PARTICIPATION COSTS
FuelType 2023 NEEA Energ 2023 NEEA Avista 2020-2024
Savings :YY Participation Costs Funding Share
Electric 5,957 MWh $ 523,920 1.69%
(0.68 aMW)
Natural Gas 217,045 therms $ 175,093 3.55%
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
Values provided in NEEA's 2023 annual report represent the amounts 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.
NEEA estimates savings at the state level and allocates results to funders based on their share of state residential
accounts from the Energy Information Administration (Form EIA-861).
Natural Gas Energy Savings Share
Of the 217,045 therms acquired through NEEA gas savings in Idaho in 2023, 216,883 therms (99.9%)were
attributed to changes to the residential code. The remaining 161 therms came from commercial products and
standards.
A11W -
�IuVESTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 101

NEEA Evaluation Results
Avista's criteria for funding NEEA's market transformation portfolio calls for it to deliver incrementally cost-effective
resources beyond what could be acquired through Avista's local portfolio alone. In 2022, in accordance with Idaho
Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) Order Number 35129 in AVU-E-20-13/AVU-G-20-08, and in collaboration with
Idaho Power, Avista retained a third party to evaluate NEEA's program activities—including savings calculation
methodologies, allocation methods of those savings to Idaho Power and Avista, and cost-effectiveness of NEEA
savings. This report, which was completed in April of 2023, is included Appendix I. While the evaluators found
that NEEA programs are cost-effective overall, they issued a series of nine recommendations concerning allocation
methodologies and savings calculation methodologies. Of these nine recommendations, NEEA accepted and
incorporated eight. The ninth recommendation, which pertains to attribution percentage of code savings, is being
evaluated through NEEA's Cost-Effectiveness Advisory Committee (CEAC), with a proposed resolution and plan of
action to be issued by the end of 2024.
The company will continue to be active in the organizational oversight of NEEA to ensure that resource acquisition
goals of market transformation are met, savings remain cost-effective, and NEEA programs continue to benefit Idaho
customers.
Brio Eastside Collaborative Market Transformation
Since 2019, Avista has participated in an Eastside Collaborative with Idaho Power. The purpose of this collaboration
is 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. The focus of this effort, a complimentary engagement to
NEEA's regional initiatives, was to assess opportunities in regional, smaller scale efforts that focused on customer and
trade ally engagement. The Eastside Collaborative's activities were extended by a year due to COVID-related supply
chain delays.
In 2023, the collaborative was able to conduct an initial Ductless Heat Pump (DHP) Market Transformation Pilot. The
purpose of the pilot was to gauge regional appetite for a locally focused market transformation effort.
Collectively, the pilot resulted in investment from the market of over $1.5 million across both utility territories, with
sales in Avista's service territory increasing by 48 percent from January 2022 to April 2023. Overall, 212 DHP units
were incentivized, sold, and installed through pilot program installation partners during the pilot period. Of those
units, 72 were installed within Avista's service territory, and 38 of the 72 were installed in Phase I of the pilot, which
included promotions with Arefco, Carrier, and Bryant. The other 34 were installed during Phase II, with promotions
from Thermal Supply and Daikin.
Although Avista saw value in partnering with local trade allies to market incentive programs, the company has opted
to pursue a similar type of partnership with distributors through its Midstream Program. As such, there are no plans
currently for future market transformation pilots through the Eastside Collaborative; however, the company may
explore implementing this model in future program years.
Pg 102 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report mar sra®

Table 48 summarizes the DHP unit sales from the engagement:
TABLE 48— DHP UNIT SALES THROUGH BRIO MARKET TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE
Participating Total DHP Sales Sales by Distributor I Number of Units
Distributor& Phase I for Participating Participating in the Receiving$300
PromotionalBranch .. Distributor&Branch Pilot Incentive(adjusted
M using DSAT)
Thermal Supply Idaho Power Oct'21 —Apr'22 1,395(Oct—Jun) 48* N/A
Sigler Idaho Idaho Power Apr—Aug 2023 364(Apr—Aug) 169 167
Airefco Spokane Avista May—Sept 2023 865(May—Sept) 329 212
Totals 2,624 546
*This figure assumes installs from two Thermal Supply branches in Idaho(Meridian and Twin Falls)based on contractor self-reported sales,Daikin warranty data,and
incentive data from Idaho Power.
**This figure includes Thermal Supply's sales in December's report,overlooking that it 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. 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 began offering additional orientation webinars for dealers, in order to clarify promotion
requirements. In Phase II of the pilot, which extended into 2023, Airefco expanded participation to additional dealers.
All distributors who participated in Phase I continued into Phase 11. To support Phase II activities, Brio developed
a toolkit for dealers to aid in dealer recruitment, which 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 started in early to mid-2023.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 103

R i �• .: r
+ r
_ Y `
r -
1 I
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
,1 `S `� � `11r►� ,'�•�, i� �t he �,.
Lj
r l
JW
�i _ ~....,..��4�"`!a_:,�lL•> '_ .�'. .. _=.f - .`l\cry�.. vn h
Pend Oreille River,Priest River,Idaho

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
active energy management(AEM):The implementation of continuous building monitoring to improve building
performance in real time.
adjusted market baseline (AMB): Based on the RTF guidelines; represents a measurement between the energy-
efficient measure and the standard efficiency case that is characterized by current market practice or the minimum
requirements of applicable codes or standards, whichever is more efficient. When applying an AMB, no net-to-gross
factor would be applied since the resultant UES amount would represent the applicable savings to the grid.
advanced metering infrastructure (AMI): Systems that measure, collect, and analyze energy usage from advanced
devices such as electricity meters, natural gas meters, or water meters through various communication media on
request or on a predetermined schedule.
advisory group:Avista's group of external stakeholders who comment about the company's energy-efficiency
activities.
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 of how efficiently a furnace or boiler uses its fuel.
Applied Energy Group (AEG):A consulting service that provides a wide range of energy efficiency and demand
response-related management services to assist clients in designing and implementing programs for their customers.
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, that would have occurred without implementation of the
subject's energy-efficiency activity. Baseline conditions are sometimes referred to as "business-as-usual" conditions.
AIII
,ir-iiiVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 105

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.
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 Btu are equal to one kilowatt-hour).
busbar:The physical electrical connection between the generator and transmission system. Typically load on the
system is measured at 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 can carry under specified conditions.
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 agency(CAA): 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).
conservation:According to the Northwest Power Act, any reduction in electric power consumption because of
increases in the efficiency of energy use, production, or distribution.
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 IRP process.
.An _
Pg 106 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �I11VESTAW

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 80°F has fifteen cooling degree days. If the next day has a mean temperature of 83°F, it
has eighteen cooling degree days. Historically, the fixed temperature has been set at 65°F, 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:A 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 set largely based 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 fixed costs and its set profit margin. If the actual sales exceed the
forecast, the utility will earn extra profit.
deemed savings: Primarily referenced as UES, an estimate of an 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 and expressed in cubic feet, therms, Btu or multiples thereof, for a designated period 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 means using less while still having the same useful output of function.
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.
A11W -
�IuVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 107

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(e.g., space
heating), or the type of energy-consuming equipment(e.g., motors).
Energy Assistance Advisory Group (EAAG):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.
Equity Advisory Group (EAG): Provides consultation for various endeavors across the company to ensure that all
customers are benefiting from the transition to clean energy through the equitable distribution of energy and non-
energy benefits and reduced energy burdens to vulnerable populations and high-impacted communities.
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 (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.
.An _
Pg 108 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �IiVJFSTAW

Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V): Term for evaluation activities at the measure, project,
program or portfolio level; can include impact, process, market or planning activities. EM&V is distinguishable from
Measurement and Verification (M&V), defined later.
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(a.k.a. third-party evaluators): Independent professional efficiency person or entity retained
to conduct EM&V activities. Consideration will be made for those who are certified M&V 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 advisers whose goal is the continual improvement of the electric motor repair industry.
gross savings:The change in energy consumption 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°F, the outdoor temperature below which heat was
typically needed. As an example, a day with an average temperature of 450F would have twenty heating degree days,
assuming a base of 65°F.
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 DHP equipment.
Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC): 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.
AII.
'AW STAW 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 109

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 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.
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.
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP):An IRP is 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.
Integrated Resource Plan Technical Advisory Committee (IRP TAC):Advisory committee for the IRP process that
includes internal and external participants.
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-world.o r g).
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.
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.
.An _
Pg 110 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report �lliVISTAW

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 CAAs or partnerships.
Low-Income Rate Assistance Program (LIRAP): LIRAP provides funding (collected from Avista's tariff rider) to CAAs
for distribution to Avista customers who are least able to afford their utility bill.
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 or demand (and, hence, energy 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, or computer simulation modeling. M&V approaches are
defined in the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol
(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 or demand that is attributable to an energy-efficiency program. This
change in energy use 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 or in adjustments to gross savings values.
'AIlW -
�IirW STAW 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 111

non-energy benefit/non-energy impact(NEB/NEI):The quantifiable non-energy impacts(NEIs) associated with
program implementation or participation; also referred to as non-energy benefits(NEBs) or co-benefits. Examples of
NEIs 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.
on-bill repayment/financing (OBR):A financing option in which a utility or private lender supplies capital to
a customer to fund energy efficiency, renewable energy, or other generation projects. It's repaid through regular
payments on an existing utility bill.
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, its portfolio includes electric
and natural gas programs in all customer segments. Portfolio 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 of 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.
AM Pg 112 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

project:An activity or course of action involving one or multiple energy-efficiency measures at a single facility or site.
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.
Regional Technical Forum of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council(RTF):A technical advisory
committee to the NWPCC 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.
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).
AII.
'AW STAW 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 113

site-specific:A commercial/industrial 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 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 or non-participant spillover(sometimes referred to as "free drivers"). Participant
spillover is the additional energy savings that occur because 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 because of a program's
influence.
Technical Reference Manual(TRM):An Avista-prepared resource document that contains Avista's(ex ante)savings
estimates, assumptions and sources for those assumptions, guidelines, and relevant supporting documentation for its
natural gas and electricity energy-efficiency prescriptive measures. This document is populated and vetted by the RTF
and third-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 most of the high-voltage, long-
distance transmission lines.
uniform energy factor(UEF):A measurement on how efficiently a water heater utilizes its fuel.
unit estimated savings: 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 one divided by the
value of the material. Used to measure the rate of heat transfer in windows. The lower the U-factor, the better the
window insulates.
/IIN Pg 114 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report 'JiIIIVESra®

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.
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, 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-com mission ing 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.
vulnerable population:Communities that experience a disproportionate cumulative risk from environmental
burdens.
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.
8760:Total number of hours in a year.
A11W -
�aIVISTA 2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 115

APPENDICES AND SUPPLEMENTS
w.
/fir f��� r �. ,"� •• �'f� •' � � -�� -`, •w
•f
Idaho

APPENDIX A — 2023 ELECTRIC IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT
Evaluation , Measurement
and Verification ( EM & V ) of
Avista Idaho Electric PY2023
Residential ,
Low - Income , and
Nonresidential Energy
Efficiency Programs
SUBMITTED TO: AVISTA UTILITIES
SUBMITTED ON : JULY 1812024
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
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Savings Results...........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations..........................................................................................................2
2. General Methodology........................................................................................................................13
2.1 Glossary of Terminology..........................................................................................................................13
2.2 Summary of Approach.............................................................................................................................14
3. Residential Impact Evaluation Results...............................................................................................30
3.1 Simple Verification Results......................................................................................................................30
3.2 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results...............................................................................................34
4. Low-Income Impact Evaluation Results.............................................................................................64
4.1 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results...............................................................................................64
5. Non-Residential Impact Evaluation Results.......................................................................................69
5.2 Survey and On-Site Verification...............................................................................................................70
5.3 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results...............................................................................................71
6. Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results...................................................................................................96
6.1 Shell Program...........................................................................................................................................96
6.2 Low-Income Program ............................................................................................................................101
6.3 HVAC Program.......................................................................................................................................104
6.4 Water Heat Program..............................................................................................................................106
6.5 Midstream Program...............................................................................................................................107
7. Appendix B: Summary of Survey Respondents................................................................................108
8. Appendix C: Site-Specific Program Project Reports.........................................................................110
Tables of Contents and Tables ii

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 ...........................................19
Table 2-2: Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Program...................................................20
Table 3-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program.......................................................................30
Table 3-2: Summary of Survey Response Rate...........................................................................................31
Table 3-3: State-Specific Simple Verification Precision by Program...........................................................31
Table 3-4: Mixed State-Specific Simple Verification Precision by Program................................................31
Table 3-5: Water Heat Program ISRs by Measure......................................................................................32
Table 3-6: HVAC Program ISRs by Measure................................................................................................32
Table 3-7: Fuel Efficiency Program ISRs by Measure..................................................................................32
Table 3-8: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program ISRs by Measure..................................................33
Table 3-9: Appliance Program ISRs by Measure.........................................................................................34
Table 3-10: Water Heat Program Measures...............................................................................................34
Table 3-11 Water Heat Program Verified Electric Savings .........................................................................34
Table 3-12 Water Heat Program Incentive Costs by Measure...................................................................34
Table 3-13: Water Heat Verification Survey ISR Results.............................................................................36
Table 3-14: HVAC Program Measures........................................................................................................37
Table 3-15: HVAC Program Verified Electric Savings..................................................................................37
Table 3-16: HVAC Program Incentive Costs by Measure............................................................................38
Table 3-17: HVAC Verification Survey ISR Results......................................................................................39
Table 3-18: Shell Program Measures..........................................................................................................41
Table 3-19: Shell Program Verified Electric Savings...................................................................................41
Table 3-20: Shell Program Incentive Costs by Measure.............................................................................41
Table 3-21: Fuel Efficiency Program Measures..........................................................................................44
Table 3-22: Fuel Efficiency Program Verified Electric Savings....................................................................45
Table 3-23: Fuel Efficiency Program Incentive Costs by Measure..............................................................45
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 958271 916.363.8383 iii

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-24: Fuel Efficiency Verification Survey ISR Results........................................................................46
Table 3-25: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Fuel Efficiency Program........................................47
Table 3-26: ENERGY STAR' Homes Program Measures.............................................................................47
Table 3-27: ENERGY STAR' Homes Program Verified Electric Savings.......................................................48
Table 3-28: ENERGY STAR' Homes Program Incentive Costs by Measure.................................................48
Table 3-29: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Measures ..........................................................50
Table 3-30: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Verified Electric Savings....................................51
Table 3-31: Small Home & MF Weatherization Incentive Costs by Measure.............................................51
Table 3-32: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Verification Survey ISR Results..........................53
Table 3-33: Multifamily Direct Install Program Measures..........................................................................56
Table 3-34: Multifamily Direct Install Verified Electric Savings..................................................................56
Table 3-35: Multifamily Direct Install Program Incentive Costs by Measure.............................................56
Table 3-36: Appliances Program Measures................................................................................................58
Table 3-37: Appliances Program Verified Electric Savings .........................................................................58
Table 3-38: Appliances Program Incentive Costs by Measure ...................................................................59
Table 3-39: Appliances Program Verification Survey ISR Results...............................................................60
Table 3-40: Midstream Program Measures................................................................................................61
Table 3-41: Midstream Program Verified Electric Savings.........................................................................61
Table 3-42: Midstream Program Costs by Measure...................................................................................61
Table 4-1: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program.....................................................................64
Table 4-2: Low-Income Program Measures................................................................................................65
Table 4-3: Low-Income Program Verified Electric Savings.........................................................................66
Table 4-4: Low-Income Program Incentive Costs by Measure...................................................................66
Table 4-5: Measure Savings, Low-Income Program ...................................................................................68
Table 5-1: Non-Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program...............................................................69
Table 5-2: Prescriptive Program Verification Precision..............................................................................70
Table 5-3: Survey Verification ....................................................................................................................70
Table 5-4: On-Site Verification ...................................................................................................................71
Table 5-5: Prescriptive Lighting Program Measures...................................................................................72
Table 5-6: Interior Prescriptive Lighting Program Verified Electric Savings ...............................................72
Table 5-7: Prescriptive Lighting Program Incentives..................................................................................74
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827 1916.363.8383 iv

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 5-8: Prescriptive Lighting Program Verification Precision ................................................................74
Table 5-9: Prescriptive Lighting Program Verification Findings..................................................................74
Table 5-10: Lighting In-Service Rates .........................................................................................................75
Table 5-11: Small Business Lighting Program Measures............................................................................76
Table 5-12: Small Business Lighting Program Verified Electric Savings......................................................77
Table 5-13: Prescriptive Lighting Program Incentives................................................................................78
Table 5-14: Small Business Lighting Program Verification Precision..........................................................79
Table 5-15: Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Measures.............................................................................81
Table 5-16: Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Verified Electric Savings.......................................................81
Table 5-17: Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Incentives ............................................................................81
Table 5-18: Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Verification Precision...........................................................82
Table 5-19: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Measures ......................................................83
Table 5-20: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Electric Savings..............................................83
Table 5-21: Grocer Program Measures ......................................................................................................84
Table 5-22: Grocer Program Verified Electric Savings................................................................................84
Table 5-23: Grocer Program Incentives......................................................................................................84
Table 5-24: Verification Precision...............................................................................................................85
Table 5-25: Prescriptive Shell Program Measures......................................................................................86
Table 5-26: Prescriptive Shell Program Verified Electric Savings ...............................................................86
Table 5-27: Shell Program Incentives.........................................................................................................86
Table 5-28: Prescriptive Shell Program Verification Precision ...................................................................87
Table 5-29: Green Motors Program Measures...........................................................................................88
Table 5-30: Green Motors Program Electric Savings..................................................................................88
Table 5-31: Non-Residential Midstream Program Measures.....................................................................89
Table 5-32: Non-Residential Midstream Program Verified Electric Savings...............................................89
Table 5-33: Non-Residential Midstream Incentives...................................................................................90
Table 5-34: Non-Residential Midstream Program Verification Precision...................................................90
Table 5-35: Site-Specific Program Verified Electric Savings .......................................................................92
Table 5-35: Site-Specific Program Verified Electric Savings .......................................................................92
Table 5-36: Site-Specific Program Incentives .............................................................................................92
Table 5-37: Site-Specific Program Sample Design......................................................................................93
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 958271 916.363.8383 v

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 5-38: Site-Specific Program Sample Summary..................................................................................93
Table 5-39: Site-Specific Expected, Adjusted and Verified kWh Savings by Sampled Project....................94
Table 5-40: Site-Specific Summary of kWh Savings by Sample Stratum and Overall.................................94
Table 6-1: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Shell Program .........................................................96
Table 6-2: Cohort Restrictions, Shell Program............................................................................................96
Table 6-3: Pre-period Usage T-test for Attic Insulation and Window Replacement Washington and Idaho,
ShellProgram.....................................................................................................................................98
Table 6-4:TMY Weather, Shell Program....................................................................................................99
Table 6-5: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Shell Program .....................................................99
Table 6-6: Measure Savings, Shell Program .............................................................................................100
Table 6-7: Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program .............................................................................101
Table 6-8: Pre-period Usage T-test for Electric Measures, Low-Income Program ...................................103
Table 6-9:TMY Weather, Low-Income Program......................................................................................103
Table 6-10: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Low-Income Program .....................................104
Table 6-11: Thermostat Regression Adjusted R-squared.........................................................................104
Table 6-12: Contractor Installed Thermostat PPR Results........................................................................105
Table 6-13: Self Installed Thermostat PPR Results...................................................................................105
Table 6-14: Natural Gas Furnace Heating Load Estimation Results .........................................................106
Table 6-15: Natural Gas Multi-Stage or Modulating Furnace Heating Load Estimation Results..............106
Table 6-16: Natural Gas Tankless Water Heater PPR Results...................................................................107
Table 6-17: Midstream Residential Furnace Heating Load Estimation Results........................................107
Table 6-18: Midstream Residential HVAC Heating Load Estimation Results............................................107
Table 7-1:Type and Number of Measures Received by Respondents.....................................................108
Table 7-2: Survey Respondent Home Characteristics ..............................................................................108
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827 1916.363.8383 vi

Avista Idaho PY2023
I. Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the Residential and Low-Income Electric Evaluation, Measurement, and
Verification (EM&V) effort of the 2023 program year (PY2023) 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 1,727,219kWh with a 66.06% realization rate.
The Low-Income portfolio savings amounted to 171,311 kWh with a 76.78% realization rate.The
Nonresidential savings amounted to 13,631,759 with a 95.6% 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
Program Expected Savings Verified Savings Verified Realization
Water Heat 5,272 4,066 77.12%
HVAC 544,847 307,573 56.45
Shell 238,446 155,539 65.23%
Fuel Efficiency 223,587 193,123 86.37%
ENERGY STAR Homes 45,531 47,508 104.34%
Small Home&MF Weatherization 66,305 81,535 122.97%
Multifamily Direct Install 140,349 172,921 123.21%
Appliances 85,586 81,599 95.34%
Midstream 1,264,821 683,356 54.03%
Total Res 2,614,744 1,727,219 66.06%
Table 1-2:Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program
Program Expected Savings Verified Savings Verified Realization
Low-Income 223,111 171,311 76.78
Total Low-Income 223,111 171,311 76.78%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 1

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 1-3:Nonresidential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Adjusted Savings , Verified Savings Verified
Program Savings(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) Realization
Rate
Prescriptive Lighting 8,374,096 8,374,096 7,978,849 95.3%
Small Business Lighting 3,135,108 2,956,164 2,956,164 94.3%
HVAC 42,924 42,924 42,924 100.0%
Food Service Equipment No PY2023 Participation
Grocer 1,928 1,928 1,928 100.0%
Shell 3,458 37,320 37,320 1079.2%
Green Motors No PY2023 Participation
Midstream 142,927 58,355 58,355 40.8%
Site-Specific 2,576,031 2,576,031 2,556,219 99.2%
Total Non-Residential: 14,276,472 14,046,818 13,631,759 95.5%
Table 1-4 summarizes the electric programs offered to residential, low-income, and nonresidential
customers in the Idaho Avista service territory in PY2023 as well as the Evaluators' evaluation tasks and
impact methodology for each program.
Table 1-4:Impact Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector
Impact
ProgramSector Database
Residential Water Heat ✓ ✓ RTF UES
Residential HVAC ✓ ✓ RTF UES
Residential Shell ✓ RTF UES
Residential Fuel Efficiency ✓ ✓ RTF UES
Residential ENERGYSTAR® ✓ RTF UES
Homes
Residential Small Home&MF ✓ ,/ RTF UES
Weatherization
Residential Appliances ✓ ✓ RTF UES
Residential Multifamily Direct ✓ SBW TRM
Install
Residential Midstream ✓ RTF UES
Low-Income Low-Income ✓ Avista TRM
Nonresidential Lighting ✓ ✓ Avista TRM
Nonresidential HVAC ✓ Avista TRM
Nonresidential Food Service ✓ RTF UES,Avista
Equipment TRM
Nonresidential Grocer ✓ RTF UES
Nonresidential Shell ✓ Avista TRM
Nonresidential Green Motors ✓ RTF UES
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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 2

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 1,727,219 kWh with a
realization rate of 66.06%.
■ The Residential Portfolio impact evaluation resulted in a realization rate of 65.91%due to
discrepancy in expected savings for the Midstream Program and due to differences between the
implementer-assigned expected savings values using minimum code baseline and the RTF-
implemented market practice baseline.The Evaluators utilized engineering algorithms to
evaluate this program based on purchased equipment efficiency level.The Evaluators also
applied RTF market practice baseline equivalents to the engineering algorithms in order to
maintain consistency with evaluation methods between the downstream and midstream
programs, while taking into account the often higher efficiency values of the purchased
equipment. Although the Evaluators note instances in which the implementer's engineering
algorithm were applied incorrectly in the calculation of the expected savings values,the market
practice baseline adjustment led to the largest downward adjustment, leading to a low
realization rate for the program.
■ 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 between 97 to 100% except for the E
Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat, which displayed ISRs of 67%across 3 respondents.
These values were applied to impact analysis results to estimate verified savings through the
programs.
■ The Midstream Program, which contributes 49%of the expected savings, resulted in a
realization rate of 54.03%whereas each of the other programs resulted in a combined 96%
realization rate.The Midstream Program contributed to a 23% decrease in the overall
residential sector, which displayed a realization rate of 65.91%.
■ The Evaluators conducted verification surveys via web survey to collect information from
customers who participated in the Water Heat, HVAC, Fuel Efficiency, Small Home and
Weatherization, and Appliance Programs.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 programs in order to apply
findings to the verified savings results for each program.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 3

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ In the Water Heat Program,the Evaluators found that Avista TRM savings values are slightly
lower than the RTF savings assigned for the appropriate water heater tank size and tier
efficiency.The Evaluators found a majority of water heaters to be Tier 3 or higher, but the Avista
TRM only includes savings for a combination of Tier 2 and Tier 3 savings. 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.The Evaluators
applied the RTF UES value for the associated tank size and tier found for each model number in
the sampled rebates.The Evaluators recommend that Avista document tier rating and tank size
of heat pump water heaters to ensure proper validation of savings.
■ 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 as well as an average across heating types, while the
Evaluators assigned the appropriate RTF LIES value for each heating zone. In addition, the E
Electric To Air Source Heat Pump verified savings vary largely based on home type (single family
vs. multifamily).The appropriate categories in the RTF led to a lower-than-expected savings and
higher than expected savings across individual projects within these measures, with an overall
upward adjustment for these measures.The E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump displays 22%
realization rate because the Avista TRM assigns Idaho-based ductless heat pumps a savings
value of 4,000 kWh whereas the RTF assigns between 856 kWh to 908 kWh, depending on
heating and cooling zones.The Evaluators recommend updating the Idaho-based unit energy
savings Avista TRM value to match the Washington-based savings values and therefore align
with RTF values. Additionally, 6 of the 8 smart thermostats rebated were verified to not be
qualified for RTF LIES due to lack of occupancy sensors and therefore savings were zeroed out
for these projects.
■ In the Shell Program,the lack of granularity in the Avista TRM data lead to a low realization rate
for attic insulation,wall insulation and window measures.The expected savings also appeared
to use a value of 2 kWh per square foot for attic and wall savings calculations while Avista's TRM
uses 1.86 kWh per square foot. 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.The Evaluators found minimal
discrepancy in square footage values between the tracking data and project-level documents
provided.These differences, similar to the conclusions in the previous impact evaluation report,
led to an overall realization rate of 65%for the Shell Program.
■ In the Fuel Efficiency Program,the Evaluators found that the realization rate deviates from 100%
due to three of the AHRI AFUE values reported being at 80%which does not meet the criteria to
qualify for calculated savings.The applied Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the verified
Measurement and Evaluation Report 4

Avista Idaho PY2023
savings aligned in the tracking data, however,the removal of savings from these three projects
caused the realization rate to drop down to 86.37%for the program overall.The Evaluators
recommend updating the Avista tracking database to capture previous heating types for
conversion measures, requiring home previous heating type, existing cooling type, and home
type as inputs on the rebate application forms, and lastly to enforce required documents for all
rebates, such as the AHRI documentation and/or full model number in order to verify measure
efficiency.
■ In the ENERGY STAR Homes Program,the Evaluators found that realization rates differed from
100%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. Program application forms commonly lacked information about home primary
and secondary space and water heating type. The Evaluators recommend updating the Avista
measure savings database to match the primary heating type for duel fuel households. In
addition,the Evaluators recommend updating the document data aggregation to provide
consistent database values between database and the provided rebate forms (primary heating
type) and determine if the customer is an Avista electric and/or gas customer before providing
an incentive for dual fuel. The Evaluators recommend updating Avista measure savings to
reflect heating zone-specific RTF measure savings rather than averaging savings from heating
zones together.
■ In the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program,the Evaluators found that many projects (14)
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). 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 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 and low realization rates across each measure.The Evaluators
recommend Avista verify home type prior to applying Avista TRM values in order to ensure
proper categorization of measure savings. Many of the measures (ductless heat pump, attic
insulation, and door insulation) displayed low realization rates due to exclusion of heating and
cooling zone specifications in the Avista TRM.The Evaluators recommend Avista update Avista
TRM values to incorporate expected downward adjustment based on heating and cooling zone
distribution among its participants rather than taking a simple average of all zones. This change
will improve realization rates in future evaluation periods.The Evaluators recommend removing
expected savings for this measure in the future.The Evaluators found the realization rate for
Energy Star Certified Refrigerators and Freezers to because the Evaluators found a subset of
rebates to be bottom-mounted which caused the RTF savings to reflect a lower value hence the
low realization rate.The realization rate for the smart thermostats is low because one of the
two thermostats were verified to lack RTF qualification due to lack of occupancy sensor or
geolocation capabilities and because the RTF UES is 75%the magnitude of the Avista TRM value.
The Evaluators recommend Avista update the smart thermostat Avista TRM value to match
Measurement and Evaluation Report 5

Avista Idaho PY2023
expected RTF UES values.The Evaluators found that the tracking database does not currently
track square footage data consistently for insulation measures.The Evaluators recommend
these values are tracked consistently for this program to ensure savings are calculated
accurately for each measure.The Evaluators recommend Avista incorporate a u-value field to
the tracking database and add additional QA/QC procedures for documenting square footage
for these measures in the program.
■ In the Multifamily Direct Install Program,the per unit savings value for the lighting measures did
not align with the per unit value in SBW's methodology or the RTF UES values.The precise
reason for these discrepancies was unclear.The Evaluators applied SBW TRM values to estimate
verified savings for each quantity of each measure claimed.These discrepancies led to
deviations from 100% realization rate for the lighting measures.The Evaluators evaluated the
faucet and kitchen aerator values using RTF UES values and found there was no discrepancy
between the savings values in the tracking database and the RTF UES values leading to a
realization rate of 100%for these measures.The difference between calculated expected
savings and verified savings are due to the application of the SBW TRM to the consistently
validated quantity of measures.The lighting measures displayed discrepancies in kWh/unit
values used to calculate savings.The reason for the discrepancies was unclear.The Screw-in LED
lamp (A-line 60W) makes up 33%of total program savings,yet displayed a realization rate of
138%, leading to inflated savings for this program overall.The Evaluators recommend Avista
apply the SBW UES to the tracking database accurately and consistently across all lighting
measures. In addition, more granularity in per unit savings values could be achieved if the
tracking data included data about space heating type for each unit.The Evaluators recommend
verifying space heating type in the tracking data to apply more specific savings values to each
project.
■ In the Appliance Program,the Evaluators note that Avista TRM defines appropriate unit energy
savings for the fridge-freezer and upright freezer measures. The Evaluators found the program
verified savings resulted in a 95% realization rate due the attribution of 0 kWh/unit savings to
the E Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer.The Evaluators removed savings for this measure
because the RTF clothes washer workbook estimates that savings for this measure are negative
and therefore there are no proven RTF savings for this measure.All fridge-freezer projects were
verified to be ENERGY STAR-qualified. In addition,the E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer
measure expected savings is lower than the RTF workbook unit savings by nearly 8%.The
Evaluators note that the current tracking database does not document the cubic volume for the
refrigerators and freezers, which is an RTF requirement with minimum restrictions.The
Evaluators recommend incorporating cubic volume in the Appliance Program tracking database
and updating clothes dryer expected savings to align with RTF UES values.
■ The Evaluators evaluated the Midstream Program in its launch year of PY2023.The program
started in summer 2023.Through this program, Avista effectively converted several water
heater and HVAC residential appliances from a downstream measure into a midstream delivery,
effectively removing the barriers for end-use customers by removing the requirement to deliver
Measurement and Evaluation Report 6

Avista Idaho PY2023
rebate applications to Avista.The program is implemented by Energy Solutions.The
implementer defined expected savings for each measure delivered in the program, which
displayed savings drastically higher than the Avista TRM and RTF LIES documented savings.
Therefore,the realization rates for the program are about 50%of expected savings.The
Evaluators reviewed program documentation and found that the implementer TRM LIES were
inflated due to incorporating code minimum baselines whereas the RTF and Avista TRM
incorporate estimated market baseline. In addition,the Evaluators found that the implementer
TRM LIES were not applied properly, leading to even further inflated savings. The Evaluators
note that, had the program utilized the Avista TRM to evaluate expected savings for the
program,the realization rate for the program would have been near-100%.The Evaluators
recommend that Avista and the implementers update the expected savings calculation
methodology to incorporate market practice baseline rather than minimum code baseline
values in order to remain consistent with the baseline methods utilized in the downstream
measure programs and more accurately estimate expected savings in future iterations of this
program.
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 171,311 kWh with a
realization rate of 76.78%.
■ The Low-Income Portfolio impact evaluation resulted in a 86% realization rate.The Low-Income
Program makes up the total of the Low-Income portfolio.The realization rate for this program
deviates from 100%due to differences between the Avista TRM values applied to the quantities
displayed in the tracking data.The Evaluators note several instances in which the tracking data
displayed correct quantity values, but the expected savings calculated for the project did not
indicate Avista TRM values were applied properly to the quantities.The Evaluators applied the
correct Avista TRM values for the Low-Income Program.Verified savings were estimated using
the Avista TRM savings values to each measure along with adjustments found during document
verification of the sampled projects.The largest contributor to discrepancy of savings is the
application of the 20%annual kWh and Therm usage cap on project-level savings. When
implemented,this led to a reduction of savings for a number of projects.
■ 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.The results of the billing analysis indicated non-statistically significant results.
Therefore,the Avista TRM was utilized to estimate verified savings for the Low-Income Program.
■ The Evaluators received a lower number of project documents than intended due to the CAP
agency having low bandwidth for fulfilling these time consuming paperwork requests. During
Measurement and Evaluation Report 7

Avista Idaho PY2023
the review,the Evaluators found there were several projects with missing data. In total, eight
projects were unable to be verified due to missing or incomplete data.
■ The information required to complete verification activities and proper expected savings
calculations are: measure installed square footage for insulation measures, measure quantity for
appliance measures, and total building annual energy usage in order to calculate proper building
savings cap at 20%annual energy usage.The Evaluators found a number of sampled projects
lacked annual kWh and Therms usage values.The Evaluators recommend Avista track each
participant's annual energy usage in the program tracking database in order to accurately apply
the 20%cap for savings when necessary.
1.2.1.3 Nonresidential Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista's Nonresidential electric programs:
■ The verified savings for the Prescriptive Lighting Program is 7,978,849 kWh with a realization rate
of 95.3%. Two factors affected the overall realization rate: The first is that annual hours in
expected savings calculations were calculated using 365 days/year, which does not account for
leap years. Verified savings calculations developed hours using 365.25 days/year, slightly raising
realization. However,claimed savings calculations did not include in-service rates. The Evaluators
used the RTF Midstream Lighting work books and assigned ISRs according to the rates, resulting
in slightly lower verified savings than expected.
■ The verified savings for the Small Business Lighting Program is 2,956,164 kWh with a realization
rate of 94.3%. For measures without occupancy sensors, realization is ±1%of expectations, with
any differences likely due to rounding. For measures with occupancy sensor,the Evaluators found
that expected savings were calculated by applying the occupancy sensor reduction factor both
the operating hours and the connected load of the lighting retrofit , slightly 'double counting'
savings. To account for occupancy sensor savings in verified calculations, the Evaluators applied
the 32% reduction to the operation of the post-install equipment, then added this value to the
retrofit savings, resulting in slightly lower verified savings.
■ Recommendations for Future Program Cycles:
o Report savings from lighting retrofits and sensor installation separately.
o Specify the type of control method employed.
o In tracking data, denote the wattage controlled by each installed occupancy sensor.
o If possible, record building type,vintage and HVAC configuration to calculate and include
additional savings resulting from HVAC interactive effects.
■ The verified savings for the Prescriptive HVAC program is 42,924 kWh with a realization rate of
100.00%.
■ The Food Service Equipment Program had no PY2023 participation.
■ The verified savings for the Grocery Program is 1,928 kWh with a realization rate of 100.00%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 8

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ The verified savings for the Shell Program is 37,320 kWh with a realization rate of 1,079%.Verified
savings was developed using the Avista TRM, which specified higher savings values than those
used in ex ante estimate. Savings for Shell measures are calculated using a per-square foot
multiplier based on insulation type, beginning and final R-values and HVAC configuration. The
table below shows the insulation type rebated through the PY2023 program year, the multiplier
used in ex ante savings calculations and the multiplier from the Avista TRM, used in verified
savings calculations. TRM values are significantly higher, leading to the high program realization
rate.
■ The Green Motors Rewind program has no PY2023 participation.
■ The verified savings for the Midstream Program is 58,355 kWh with a realization rate of 40.8%.
o With the exception of Mini/Multi Splits,which were analyzed using standard engineering
algorithms and equipment-specific inputs, verified savings was sourced from the
respective RTF workbooks associated with each measure. In most cases,expected savings
estimates far exceeded RTF estimates. No background information relating to how
planning estimates were developed was included in program materials, precluding a
thorough explanation of differences, though a weighted average of expected savings
show these values to be approximately 186%of RTF estimates.
■ The Site-Specific Program in total displays a realization rate of 99.2%with 2,556,219 kWh verified
electric energy savings in the Idaho service territory.
o For project SSLP_82041 Expected savings calculations assumed 3,120 annual hours of
operation, hours extrapolated for the operating schedule collected during the on-site visit
yielded approximately 2,870 annual hours and slightly reduced realized kWh.
o 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.
o Individual reports for each sampled site are included in Appendix C:Site-Specific Program
Project Reports.
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
Measurement and Evaluation Report 9

Avista Idaho PY2023
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.
■ The Evaluators found a handful of instances in which the rebated equipment did not meet the
program minimum requirements for efficiency.The Evaluator recommend Avista check the
source AHRI documentation and product level documentation to verify efficiency prior to
incentivizing installation of the measure. For example, 6 of the 8 smart thermostats did not
qualify for RTF savings and two appliances were verified to lack ENERGY STAR qualifications.
■ 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 verifying
whether a home is qualified for the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program prior to fulfilling
the rebate incentive. For projects that are larger than 1,000 SQFT,the incentives shall be
claimed from the Shell Program.
■ In the Shell Program,the Evaluators recommend Avista update the single and double pane
window Avista TRM values to the appropriate RTF UES value. Avista's TRM uses 1.5 kwh per
square foot, whereas the RTF displays 1 kWh per square foot for most projects.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.
■ The ENERGY STAR Homes Program,the verified savings applied largely depends on space
heating type.The program realization rate differs from 100%due to changes in heating
zone/cooling zone savings assignment as well as verified space heating type (electric vs. natural
gas).The Evaluators recommend updating the Avista measure savings database to match the
primary heating type for duel fuel households. In addition,the Evaluators recommend updating
the document data aggregation to provide consistent database values between database and
the provided rebate forms (primary heating type) and determine if the customer is an Avista
electric and/or gas customer before providing an incentive for dual fuel.
■ 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 found that the RTF found negative savings for the top
loading clothes washers and therefore zero savings are assigned for any rebated top load
Measurement and Evaluation Report 10

Avista Idaho PY2023
clothes washers.The Evaluators recommend Avista reassess the inclusion of this measure in its
program offerings.
■ In the Water Heat Program,the Evaluators found that Avista TRM savings values are slightly
lower than the RTF savings assigned for the appropriate water heater tank size and tier
efficiency.The Evaluators found a majority of water heaters to be Tier 3 or higher, but the Avista
TRM only includes savings for a combination of Tier 2 and Tier 3 savings. In addition,tank size is
not currently incorporated into Avista TRM savings values.The Evaluators recommend that
Avista document tier rating and tank size of heat pump water heaters to ensure proper
validation of savings.
■ In the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program,the Evaluators found that many projects (14)
exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista The Evaluators recommend Avista verify home
type prior to applying Avista TRM values in order to ensure proper categorization of measure
savings. In addition, U-values for window measures were not consistently tracked, which is an
important savings unit assignment requirement.The Evaluators recommend Avista incorporate
a u-value field to the tracking database and add additional QA/QC procedures for documenting
square footage for these measures in the program.
■ In the Multifamily Direct Install Program,the per unit savings value for the lighting measures did
not align with the per unit value in SBW's methodology or the RTF UES values.The precise
reason for these discrepancies was unclear.The Evaluators recommend Avista apply the SBW
UES to the tracking database accurately and consistently across all lighting measures. In
addition, more granularity in per unit savings values could be achieved if the tracking data
included data about space heating type for each unit.The Evaluators recommend verifying
space heating type in the tracking data to apply more specific savings values to each project.
■ In the Appliance Program,the Evaluators found the program verified savings resulted in a 95%
realization rate due the attribution of 0 kWh/unit savings to the E Energy Star Rated Top Load
Washer.The Evaluators recommend removing savings for this measure because the RTF clothes
washer workbook estimates that savings for this measure are negative and therefore there are
no proven RTF savings for this measure.The Evaluators note that the current tracking database
does not document the cubic volume for the refrigerators and freezers, which is an RTF
requirement with minimum restrictions.The Evaluators recommend incorporating cubic volume
in the Appliance Program tracking database.
■ The Evaluators evaluated the Midstream Program in its launch year of PY2023.The Evaluators
reviewed program documentation and found that the implementer TRM UES were inflated due
to incorporating code minimum baselines whereas the RTF and Avista TRM incorporate
estimated market baseline. In addition, the Evaluators found that the implementer engineering
algorithms were not applied properly, leading to even more inflated savings.The Evaluators
note that, had the program utilized the Avista TRM to evaluate expected savings for the
program,the realization rate for the program would have been near-100%.The Evaluators
recommend Avista work with the implementer of the Midstream Program to update expected
Measurement and Evaluation Report 11

Avista Idaho PY2023
savings values in the implementer TRM in order to adjust for market practice baseline and
therefore more accurately predict program-level savings in future program cycles.
1.2.2.2 Low-Income Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista's Low-Income electric programs:
■ The Evaluators found that most deviations from 100% realization rate for the Low-Income
Program is due to errors in application of the Avista TRM values.The Evaluators recommend
that Avista conduct quality control for the applied Avista TRM values in the tracking dataset.
■ The Evaluators found that the remaining deviations from 100% realization rate for the Low-
Income Program is due to incomplete application of the 20%annual savings cap across projects.
The Evaluators recommend Avista track each participant's annual energy usage in the program
tracking database in order to accurately apply the 20%cap for savings when necessary.The
Evaluators recommend additional QA/QC efforts are completed to ensure the program is
properly applying the 20%annual household cap by using available household billing data.
1.2.2.3 Nonresidential Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista's Nonresidential electric
programs:
■ 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.
■ 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 Shell program, reassign expected savings multipliers to align with the Avista TRM.
■ Within the Midstream program, reexamine how expected savings LIES are developed,
particularly for food service equipment. Current expected savings UES are significantly higher
than the same configurations specified in the RTF.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 12

Avista Idaho PY2023
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
(U M P)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 C)
■ Appropriate IPMVP Option (for Site-Specific, depending on project)
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 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:
1 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31505.pdf
z 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)was authored by Dan Mort and Chapter 15(Commercial New Construction Protocol)was Authored by Steven
Keates.
s Core Concepts: International Measurement and Verification Protocol. EVO 100000—1:2016,October 2016.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 13

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ 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
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 LIES 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 14

Avista Idaho PY2023
The Evaluators employed the following approach to complete impact evaluation activities for the
programs.The Evaluators define 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 Semi-Custom approach, used for the Prescriptive Lighting program, where savings are
quantified by a standard engineering algorithm with key performance parameter(s), such as
pre/post wattage, quantity and annual hours of use.This approach aligns with IPMVP Option A.
■ 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 LIES,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 Databasel Adjusted Document-' Evaluated
Savings Review I savings Review Savings
The Evaluators assigned methodological rigor level for each measure and program based on its
contribution to the portfolio savings and availability of data.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 15

Avista Idaho PY2023
The Evaluators analyzed billing data for all electric measure participants in the Shell, HVAC, Water Heat,
Midstream, 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.
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
In this section, the Evaluators summarize the verification methods used to ensure project-level details
were indeed completed and to the efficiency levels detailed in the program-level tracking data.
The Evaluators summarize the methods for each verification effort:
■ Sampling methodology for most programs
■ Sampling methodology for the Site-Specific Program
■ Document-based verification
■ Survey-based verification
■ On-site visits
2.2.2.1 Sampling Methodology for Most 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
— /ZxCVIz
n
l d
Measurement and Evaluation Report 16

Avista Idaho PY2023
Equation 2-2:Sample Size for Finite Population Size
n ll
no 1 + G)
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
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.
2.2.2.2 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.
6 Assumption based off California Evaluation Framework:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiIes/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 17

Avista Idaho PY2023
2.2.2.3 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
■ Appliances Program
■ Midstream Program (res)
■ Low-Income Program
■ Prescriptive Lighting Program
■ Small Business Lighting Program
■ HVAC Program (non-res)
■ Grocer
■ Shell Program (non-res)
■ Midstream Program (non-res)
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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 18

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 2-1:Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Program
Sample
Sector Program Electric (With Finite Precision at
Population Population •0' CI
Adjustment)Residential Water Heat 7 7 90%±0.00%
Residential HVAC 266 54 90%±9.36%
Residential Shell 158 48 90%±9.24%
Residential Fuel Efficiency 28 0 90%±8.27%
Residential ENERGY STAR® Homes 14 12 90%±6.33%
Residential Small Home&MF 63 33 90%±8.19%
Weatherization
Residential Appliances 556 61 90%±9.60%
Residential Midstream 263 55 90%±9.88%
Residential Multifamily Direct Install 0 0 N/A
Low-Income Low-Income 146 47 90%±8.79%
Nonresidential Prescriptive Lighting 587 70 ±3.65%
Nonresidential Small Business Lighting 128 40 2.81%
Nonresidential HVAC 3 3 ±0%
Grocer 2 2 ±0%
Nonresidential Shell 1 1 ±0%
Nonresidential Midstream 21 21 0.00%
Nonresidential Site-Specific 23 9 ±9.61%
Nonresidential Prescriptive Lighting 1 587 1 70 ±3.65%
'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
Washington rebate samples).The Evaluators ensured representation of state and fuel type in the
sampled rebates for document verification.
2.2.2.4 Survey-Based Verification
The Evaluators conducted survey-based verification for the Water Heat, HVAC, Fuel Efficiency, Small
Home& MF Weatherization,Appliances, and Midstream 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±5.77%at
90%statistical confidence for ISRs estimates at the measure-level during web-based survey verification.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 19

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 2-2:Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Program
RespondentsN��� Program Population . •0' CI
Residential Water Heat* 7 2 90%±53.09%
Residential HVAC* 266 52 90%±10.25%
Residential Fuel Efficiency* 28 5 90%±33.95%
Residential Small Home& MF 63 0 90%± 100%
Weatherization*
Residential Appliances 556 112 90%±6.95%
Non-Residential Prescriptive Lighting 379 5 90%±36.59%
Total 1,299 176 90%±5.77%
*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.
2.2.2.5 On-Site Visits
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 Idaho, a total of 7 visits were conducted to verify electric 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.
In the following sections, the Evaluators summarize the general guidelines and activities followed to
conduct each of the above analyses.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 20

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 (LIES)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 LIES 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 2023 program year. Isolation
of individual measures is 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
Measurement and Evaluation Report 21

Avista Idaho PY2023
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)'
■ 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,
2022 and December 31, 2023)
5. Typical Meteorological Year(TMY3) data
Billing and weather data were obtained for program year 2023 and for one year prior to measure install
dates (2022).
7 National Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL)Uniform Methods Project(UMP)Chapter 17 Section 4.4.7.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 22

Avista Idaho PY2023
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. Remove duplicate bills and any bills with overlapping billing periods. If two billing periods
overlapped,the bill with a start date that matched the previous bill's end date was included and
the other bill was excluded. For example, if overlapping bill 1 had a 02/19/2023 start date,
overlapping bill 2 had a 02/25/2023 start date, and the previous bill had a 02/19/2023 end date,
overlapping bill 2 would be removed. If there was no previous bill,the overlapping bill with the
earlier start date was included and the other overlapping bill was removed.
10. Calendarized bills (recalculates billing dates, usage, and total billed days such that bills begin and
end at the start and end of each month).
11. Obtained weather data from nearest NOAA weather station using 5-digit zip code per
household.
12. 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.
13. Removed measure cohorts without at least 75 treatment customers.
14. 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).
15. Restricted to treatment customers with install dates in specified range (typically January 1, 2023
through June 30, 2023)to allow for sufficient post-period billing data.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 23

Avista Idaho PY2023
16. 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.
17. Removed customers with incomplete post-period bills (<6 months).
18. Removed customers with incomplete pre-period bills.
19. Restricted control customers to those with usage that was comparable with the treatment
group usage.
20. 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
sADCit = ao +f31(Post)it +MPost x Treatment)it +f33(HDD)it +fj4(CDD)it +
fls(Post x HDD)it +&(Post x CDD)it +MPost x HDD x Treatment)it +f3$(Post x CDD x
Treatment)it +f39(Month)t +flo(Customer Dummy)i + Eit
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 tat 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
■ Eit =The error term
■ ao=The model intercept
Measurement and Evaluation Report 24

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ fl1-10 =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.R2 represents the average change in daily baseload in the post-period
between the treatment and control group and f37 and Qs 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.
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 = R2 * 365.25 +f37 * TMY HDD +f3$ * TMY CDD
Modell: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 +R2 (PreUsageSpring)i + MPreUsageSummer)i
+f34(PreUsageFall)i +f s(PreUsageWinter)i +f36(Month)t
+f37(Month x PreUsageSpring)it +f3$(Month x PreUsageSummer)it
+f39(Month x PreUsageFall)it +f310(Month x PreUsageWinter)it +f311(HDD)it
+f312(CDD)it +f313(Treatment x HDD)it +f314(Treatment x CDD)it + 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
■ Treatmenti =A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
■ Montht = Dummy variable indicating month of month t
Measurement and Evaluation Report 25

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ PreUsageSpringi =Average daily usage in the spring months across household is available
pre-treatment billing reads
■ PreUsageSummeri = Average daily usage in the summer months across household is
available pretreatment billing reads
■ PreUsageFalli = Average daily usage in the fall 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 tat home i
■ CDDit =Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
■ Eit =Customer-level random error
■ ao=The model intercept for home i
■ R1-14 =Coefficients determined via regression
The coefficient fl1 represents the average change in consumption between the pre-period and post-
period for the treatment group and R13 and f314 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 f313 and f314 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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 26

Avista Idaho PY2023
Equation 2-7: Treatment-Only Fixed Effects Weather Model Specification
ADCit = ao +fll(Post)it +fl2(HDD)it +fl3(CDD)it +fl4(Post x HDD)it +Qs(Post x CDD)it
+&(Customer Dummy)i +MMonth)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 tat 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
■ /l1_7 = 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 national or regional events like a pandemic, recession, or weather
event. For example,the pre-period and post-period for PY2023 may have been affected by changes in
remote work in Washington due to the tail end of the COVID-19 pandemic.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.
2.2.3.3 Billing Heating Load Estimation
In addition to the regression based IPMVP Option C billing analysis, the Evaluators also employed a
heating load estimation billing analysis. Heating load estimation is a prime methodology for estimating
savings associated with space heating measures such as furnaces.This methodology follows IPMVP
Option A, in which the estimation of a key parameter is used to calculate savings.The heating load
estimation methodology follows the same data collection and data preparation steps outlined in Section
0 and Section 0, respectively. However, instead of ending with a regression analysis, post-period billing
data are used to estimate customer heating load,which is used as an input in a deemed savings formula
to calculate energy savings.
The first step in heating load estimation is calculating TMY3 weather normalized average daily
consumption.To do so, customer-specific regressions are run to determine the effect of daily HDD on
average daily consumption.This is a straightforward regression of the form:
Measurement and Evaluation Report 27

Avista Idaho PY2023
Equation 2-8:Heating Load Regression
ADCi = ao +fj1(HDD)i
Where,
■ i=the ith household
■ ADCi =Average daily usage for household i during the post-treatment period
■ HDDi =Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) at home i
■ R1 =Coefficient determined via regression
This regression is run separately for each customer to determine f31, impact of HDD on average daily
consumption (i.e.,the change in Therms usage per HDD). From there, R1 multiplied by HDD is subtracted
from ADC and f 1multiplied by TMY3_HDD is added back to ADC to calculate TMY3 weather normalized
average daily consumption.The actual HDD attributable Therms usage is subtracted from average daily
consumption and the TMY_HDD attributable Therms are added back in, as outlined in the following
equation.
Equation 2-9:Normalized Average Daily Consumption
NADCi = ADCi -f31 * (HDD)i + f31 * (TMY_HDD)i
Where,
■ i=the ith household
■ NADCi = TMY normalized average daily usage for household i during the post-treatment
period
■ f31 =Customer-specific Therms usage per HDD
■ ADCi =Average daily usage for household i during the post-treatment period
■ HDDi =Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) at home i
■ TMY_HDDi =Average TMY heating degree days at home i
Once TMY normalized average daily usage is calculated,the penultimate step to heat load estimation is
calculating customer baseload usage. Customer baseload usage represents the energy customers use for
non-heating needs, such as a gas stove or dryer. For gas heating measures, customer baseload usage can
be calculated as the average NADC across June,July, and August. Customer-specific baseload usage is
then subtracted from NADC and to determine customer daily heating load.
Customer heating loads are then used in the following deemed savings equation to calculate the annual
savings associated with gas furnace installation.
Equation 2-10: Gas Furnace Savings
1 1
Savingsi = 365 * HLi * ( — )
Basei Ef fi
Where,
■ i=the ith household
■ Savingsi = Annual Therms savings for household i based on post-treatment period billing
data
Measurement and Evaluation Report 28

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ 365 = Days in the year
■ HLi = Customer-specific daily heating load for household i
■ Basei = Baseline furnace efficiency at home i, which is assumed to be 85.5% per the RTF Gas
Furnace LIES Measure
■ Ef fi = Installed furnace efficiency at home i,which is assumed to be 95%
2.2.3.4 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).
2.2.3.5 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 2.2.3.5.
8 https:Hrtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/residential-gas-furnaces/
Measurement and Evaluation Report 29

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 PY2023.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 Savings Verified Savings Verified Realization
Water Heat 5,272 4,066 77.12%
HVAC 544,847 307,573 56.45
Shell 238,446 155,539 65.23%
Fuel Efficiency 223,587 193,123 86.37%
ENERGY STAR Homes 45,531 47,508 104.34%
Small Home&MF Weatherization 66,305 81,535 122.97%
Multifamily Direct Install 140,349 172,921 123.21%
Appliances 85,586 81,599 95.34%
Midstream 1,264,821 683,356 54.03%
Total Res 2,614,744 1,727,219 66.06%
In PY2023,Avista completed and provided incentives for residential electric measures in Idaho and
reported total electric energy savings of 1,727,921 kWh.All programs except the ENERGY STAR Homes,
Small Home & MF Weatherization, and Multifamily Direct Install Programs did not meet savings goals
based on reported savings, leading to an overall achievement of 66.06%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 2,229 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, Fuel Efficiency, Small Home & MF
Weatherization, and Appliances Programs.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 30

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-2:Summary of Survey Response Rate
Population Respondents
Initial email contact list 8,262
Invalid or bounced 416
Invalid or bounced email(%) 5.0%
Invitations sent(unique valid) 7,846
Completions 2,229
Response rate(%) 28.4%
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, Shell, ENERGY STAR Homes, 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 ±5.68% precision across the programs surveyed for the electric
measures in Avista's service territory, summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3:State-Specific Simple Verification Precision by Program
tate-Speci State-Specific State-Specific
sector Program f irPrecision at •i
.. .
cl
Residential Water Heat* 7 2 90%±53.09%
Residential HVAC* 266 52 90%±10.25%
Residential Fuel Efficiency* 28 5 90%±33.95%
Residential Small Home&MF 63 0 90%±100%
Weatherization*
Residential Appliances 556 112 90%±6.95%
Total 920 171 90%±5.68%
*These programs did not achieve 90/10 precision.However,responses indicated 100%ISRs
Table 3-4:Mixed State-Specific Simple Verification Precision by Program
RespondentsMixed State- Mixed State- Mixed State-
Sector Program Specific Specific Specific Precision
Population .0, Cl
Residential Water Heat 51 12 90%±21.0%
Residential HVAC 706 130 90%±6.5%
Residential Fuel Efficiency 28 5 90%±33.95%
Residential Small Home&MF 294 1 90%±82.3%
Weatherization
Residential Appliances 1,688 298 90%±4.3%
Total 2,767 446 90%±3.57%
*These programs did not achieve 90/10 precision. However,responses indicated 100%ISRs
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
Measurement and Evaluation Report 31

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 3-5, Table 3-6, and Table 3-7.
Table 3-5: Water Heat Program ISRs by Measure
Measure State-level State- level State- ISR Mixed State- Mixed
Methodology
Respondents
Respondents
ISR
E Heat Pump Water Heater* 2 100% 12 100% Assume 100%ISR
*Due to lack of 90/10 precision,this ISR is instead assumed to be 100%
Table 3-6:HVAC Program ISRs by Measure
MethodologyMixed State- Mixed
Measure State-level State- level State- ISR
Respondents
Respondents
ISR
E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump 14 100% 27 100% State-specific ISR
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 16 100% 36 97% State-specific ISR
E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric
3 67% 18 94% State-specific ISR
Heat
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install with 19 100% 48 100% State-specific ISR
Electric Heat
Table 3-7:Fuel Efficiency Program ISRs by Measure
MethodologyMixed Mixed
Measure 4" State-level State- state-leve;State-level ISR
Respondents .
ISR
ts
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace* 2 100% 2 100% Assume 100%ISR
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace& 3 100% 3 100% Assume 100%ISR
Water Heat*
*Due to lack of 90/10 precision,this ISR is instead assumed to be 100%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 32

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-8:Small Home& MF Weatherization Program ISRs by Measure
State-level State- Mixed State- Mixed
Measure Respondents level ISR level State-level ISR Methodology
Respondents
E Multifamily Attic Insulation With 0 100% 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Electric Heat
E Multifamily Electric To Air Source No
N/A 0 N/A Assume 100%ISR
Heat Pump Participation
E Multifamily Electric to Ductless 0 100% 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Heat Pump
E Multifamily Energy Star Certified
0 100% 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Insulated Door
E Multifamily Energy Star Certified
Refrigerator and Refrigerator- 0 100% 1 100% Assume 100%ISR
Freeze
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated 0 100% °
Clothes Dryer 0 100/ Assume 100/ISR
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated 0 100% °
Front Load Washer 0 100/ Assume 100/ISR
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated No
Top Load Washer Participation 100% 0 N/A Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Floor Insulation to R- No
N/A 0 N/A Assume 100%ISR
30 Participation
E Multifamily Heat Pump Water No
N/A 0 N/A Assume 100%ISR
Heater Participation
E Multifamily Line Voltage Smart No
Thermostat Electric Baseb Participation N/A 0 N/A Assume 100%ISR
oard
E Multifamily Line Voltage No
Thermostat Electric Baseboard Participation N/A 0 N/A Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat 0 100% °
DIY with Electric Heat 0 100/ Assume 100/ISR
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat 0 100% °
Paid Install with Electric Heat 0 100/ Assume 100/ISR
E Multifamily Wall Insulation With No
Electric Heat Participation N/A 0 N/A Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Window Replc from
0 100% 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Single Pane W Electric Heat
E Multifamily Energy Star Certified 0 100% °
Upright Freezer 0 100/ Assume 100/ISR
E Multifamily Window DIY Replc No N/A 0 N/A Assume 100%ISR
With Electric Heating Participation
*Due to lack of 90/10 precision,this ISR is instead assumed to be 100%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 33

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-9:Appliance Program ISRs by Measure
State-level State- Mixed State- Mixed
Measure Respondents level ISR level State-level ISR Methodology
Respondents
E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator 41 100% 113 97% State-specific ISR
and Refrigerator-Freeze
E Energy Star Certified Upright Freezer 12 100% 22 100% State-specific ISR
E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 30 97% 81 99% State-specific ISR
E Energy Star Rated Front Load 17 100% 48 100% State-specific ISR
Washer
E Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer 8 100% 25 100% State-specific ISR
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 3-10 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-10: Water Heat Program Measures
Impact
MethodologyMeasure Description F—I 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 3-11 Water Heat Program Verified Electric Savings
--IN I PY2023 - - Expected Adjusted verified Realization
Measure Participation Savings qw,Savings Savings Rate
E Heat Pump Water Heater 7 5,272 9,226 4,066 77.12%
Total 7 5,272 9,226 4,066 77.12%
The Water Heat Program displayed verified savings of 4,066 kWh with a realization rate of 77.12%
against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 3-12 Water Heat Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive Costs
E Heat Pump Water Heater $1,615.00
Total $1,615.00
Measurement and Evaluation Report 34

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 2.2.2.3.
The Evaluators sampled seven rebates to evaluate program-level savings.Three of the sampled rebates
were found to have 0 claimed kWh savings and did not contain the proper information located in the
rebate application forms.The Evaluators found all sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the
measure efficiency requirements for the Water Heat Program except for one project, which was
erroneously categorized as a "E Heat Pump Water Heater" when in fact the verified measure happened
to be a "Heat pump and Heat pump coil",which would therefore fall under the HVAC Program.
The Evaluators found the remaining 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 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.
Most rebates were accompanied with AHRI certification.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 categorized each water heater tier rating using NEEA's HPWH Tier database9 to correctly
identify measure-level savings for the project.The Evaluators recommend that Avista document tier
rating of heat pump water heaters to ensure proper validation of savings.
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?
9 https:Hneea.org/img/documents/HPWH-qualified-products-list.pdf
Measurement and Evaluation Report 35

Avista Idaho PY2023
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
Water Heat Program.The responses to these additional questions can be found in Appendix B.Table
3-13 displays the ISRs for each of the Water Heat measures for Idaho and Washington territory
combined.
Table 3-13: 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 7 2 90%±53.09% 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 LIES 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 LIES 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 4,066 kWh with a realization rate of 77.12%, as displayed in Table 3-11.
The realization rate for the electric savings in the Water Heat Program deviates 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 most water heaters to be Tier 3 or higher, which the RTF UES assigns a higher savings
value.
The Evaluators found that the kWh savings outlined by Avista for electric HPWHs did not match those
outlined in the RTF measure table. Avista outlined its HPWH savings as 1,318 kWh while RTF savings are
1,371 and 1,324 for"0-55 gallons" and "AnySize" HPWHs, respectively.
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
Measurement and Evaluation Report 36

Avista Idaho PY2023
has a higher savings value in the RTF than water heaters with unknown tank sizes.The Evaluators
applied the RTF UES value for the associated tank size and tier found for each model number in the
sampled rebates.
The ISRs for each of the measures in the Water Heat Program was 100% and therefore did not affect the
verified savings realization rates.
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 3-10
summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-14:HVAC Program Measures
ENV- —MEER impact Analysis
Measure Description Methodology
E Ductless Heat Pump with Electric forced air furnace replacement with RTF UES
Existing Forced Air Furnace* ductless heat pump
E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump Electric forced air furnace replacement with air RTF UES
source heat pump
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump Electric forced air furnace replacement with RTF UES
ductless heat pump
E Smart Thermostat DIY with Self-installed connected thermostats in electrically RTF UES
Electric Heat heated home
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install Professionally installed connected thermostats in RTF UES
with Electric Heat electrically heated home
E Variable Speed Motor* Variable speed motor in electrically heated home RTF UES
*No E Variable Speed Motor or E Ductless Heat Pump with Existing Forced Air Furnace projects were completed in PY2023
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the HVAC Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-15:HVAC Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Participa Savings Savings Savings Realizati
tion (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) on Rate
E
4EIectrnicTo Air Source Heat Pump 67 178,188 190,414 185,813 104.28%
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 72 268,540 289,816 62,308 23.20%
E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat 35 28,462 28,462 5,419 19.04%
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Electric Heat 92 69,657 71,904 54,033 77.57%
Total 266 544,847 580,596 307,573 56.45%
The HVAC Program displayed verified savings of 307,573 kWh with a realization rate of 56.45% against
the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated
with the program.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 37

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-16:HVAC Program Incentive Costs by Measure
E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump $62,000.00
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump $48,693.75
E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat $4,036.12
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Electric Heat $13,449.00
Total $128,178.87
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 2.2.2.3.
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. Most 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 E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump savings through the RTF.The measure displays
a realization rate of 22% because the Avista TRM assigns Idaho-based ductless heat pumps a savings
value of 4,000 kWh whereas the RTF assigns between 856 kWh to 908 kWh, depending on heating and
cooling zones. However,this issue is not displayed in Washington-based projects because the Avista
TRM assigns Washington-based ductless heat pumps a savings value of 908 kWh.The Evaluators
recommend updating the Idaho-based unit energy savings Avista TRM value to match the Washington-
based savings values.
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 6 of the 8 sampled E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat rebates did not meet the 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.
In addition,the Avista TRM assigns savings for smart thermostats at 749 kWh per device, whereas the
RTF assigns savings of 558 or 664 kWh per device, depending on the heating zone of the household. For
these reasons,the realization rate for E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat is 19%and the
Measurement and Evaluation Report 38

Avista Idaho PY2023
realization rate for the E Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Electric Heat is 78%.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 2.2.2.4.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 B.
Table 3-17 displays the ISRs for each of the HVAC measures for Idaho electric territory only.The ISRs
resulted in 10.25% precision at the 90%confidence interval for the program.
Table 3-17:HVAC Verification Survey ISR Results
RebatesNumber of Number of Precision at In-Service
Measure
Completes Confidence
E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump 67 14 100%
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 72 16 90% 100%
E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat 35 3 ±10.25% 100%
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Electric Heat 92 19 100%
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.
3.2.2.4 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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 39

Avista Idaho PY2023
3.2.2.6 Verified Savings
The HVAC Program in total displays a realization rate of 56.45%with 307,573 kWh verified electric
energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-15.The realization rate for the
electric savings in the HVAC Program deviates 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
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 E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump displays 22% realization rate because the Avista TRM assigns
Idaho-based ductless heat pumps a savings value of 4,000 kWh whereas the RTF assigns between 856
kWh to 908 kWh, depending on heating and cooling zones.The Evaluators recommend updating the
Idaho-based unit energy savings Avista TRM value to match the Washington-based savings values.
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. For example,the
RTF assigns smart thermostats with electric FAF in heating zones annual savings between 558 and 604
kWh,while the Avista TRM assigns smart thermostats 778 kWh savings per year.
In addition, 6 of the 8 DIY smart thermostat measures were verified to lack requirements in the RTF, and
therefore the realization rate for this measure is 19%.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 3-10 summarizes the measures offered under this
program.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 40

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-18:Shell Program Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
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 electricity RTF UES
E Energy Star Certified Insulated Door ENERGY STAR-certified door replacement in RTF UES
homes heated with electricity
E Wall Insulation with Electric Heat Wall insulation for homes heated with electricity RTF UES
E Window DIY Replc With Electric High-efficiency window replacement for homes
Heating
heated with electricity, installed by the home RTF UES
owner
E Window Replc from Single Pane W High-efficiency single pane window replacement
Electric Heat for homes heated with electricity,installed by a RTF UES
contractor
The following table summarizes the adjusted and verified electric energy savings for the Shell Program
impact evaluation.
Table 3-19:Shell Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Participa Savings Savings Savings Realizati
tion (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) on Rate
E Attic Insulation With Electric Heat 19 36,223 38,828 27,065 74.72%
E Energy Star Certified Insulated Door 22 31,612 17,600 35,363 111.87%
E Floor Insulation With Electric Heat 5 2,694 3,384 0 0.00%
E Wall Insulation With Electric Heat 8 10,994 10,530 14,235 129.48%
E Window DIY Replc With Electric Heating 6 4,496 4,496 2,473 55.00%
E Window Replc from Single Pane W Electric Heat 98 152,428 152,002 76,402 50.12%
Total 158 238,446 226,839 155,539 65.23%
The Shell Program displayed verified savings of 155,539 kWh with a realization rate of 65.23%against
the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated
with the program.
Table 3-20:Shell Program Incentive Costs by Measure
IS Measure Incentive Costs
E Attic Insulation With Electric Heat $14,552.25
E Energy Star Certified Insulated Door $4,000.00
E Floor Insulation With Electric Heat $2,928.00
E Wall Insulation With Electric Heat $5,561.63
E Window DIY Replc With Electric Heating $817.46
E Window Replc from Single Pane W Electric Heat $54,061.68
Total $81,921.02
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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 41

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 2.2.2.3.
The Evaluators used the Avista TRM to determine adjusted savings and RTF LIES values for verified
savings.The Evaluators reviewed each measure number of units, square footage, and insulation where
available.The Evaluators found two instances of the 33 window replacement measures in which square
footage quantity in the rebate application did not align with the values presented in the tracking data.
The Evaluators also had insufficient documentation to verify one of the 33 window replacement
measures.This led to additional deviations from a 100% realization rate.
The Evaluators found seven attic insulation projects displayed square footage or R-values values in the
tracking database that did not align with the rebate application information or invoice.These factors
lead to a realization rate below 100%for the attic insulation measures as highlighted in Table 3-19.
The RTF assigns savings for floor insulation savings at 0, resulting in a 0% realization rate for this
measure.The Evaluators used the Avista TRM to determine adjusted savings and RTF UES values for
verified savings.The Evaluators found that verified attic insulation, wall insulation, and window measure
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
LIES values associated with unique heating type, R-values and climate zone.The lack of granularity in the
Avista TRM data lead to a low realization rate for attic insulation and window measures.
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 a verification survey for the Energy Star door measure and found that the in-
service rate was 100%.The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the other measures in the
Shell Program 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 LIES 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 1.4.3.2.
Table 325 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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 42

Avista Idaho PY2023
The customers considered for attic insulation and window replacement billing analysis include
customers in both Washington and Idaho service territories to gather the maximum number of
customers possible for precise savings estimates. Although the table shows that the windows have
enough according to our criteria,the regression analysis p-values do not show significant results.To
correct for variability in the data,the Evaluators combined all data for gas measures into a single
analysis.
Table 325: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis,Shell Program
ConsideredMeasure Number of' Sufficient
ParticipationCustomers w/
Billing Analysis Isolated-Measure Billing Analysis
E Attic Insulation With Electric Heat ✓ 22*
E Window Replc With Electric Heat ✓ 78* ✓
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
The final number of customers in each the treatment and control group are listed in Table 326.
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 326 provides annual savings per customer for both measures combined. Model 2 (PPR)was
selected as the final model for the Shell Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among
the regression 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 326:Measure Savings, Shell Program
Annual
Treatment Control Savings .0. .0. Adjusted
UpperMeasure Customers Customers per Lower Cl
Customer Squared
E Attic Insulation and E
Window Replc With 100 99 1,284.69 135.61 2,433.76 0.6512Model
Electric Heat : PPR
The Evaluators found the E Attic Insulation and E Window Replacement measures with Electric Heat
together display a statistically significant verified savings value of 1,284.69 kWh per year.Although the
Evaluators estimated savings for these measures through billing analysis,the verified savings for the
measures were calculated via Avista TRM due to a low adjusted R-squared value indicating poor fit.
Further details of the billing analysis for the Shell measures can be found in Appendix A: Billing Analysis
Results.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 43

Avista Idaho PY2023
3.2.3.6 Verified Savings
The Shell Program in total displays a realization rate of 65%with 155,539 kWh verified electric energy
savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-19.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. In addition, small changes in
verified R-value and square footage led to variation in realization rate for each measure type.
The attic insulation measure displays a realization rate of 74% because the RTF rounds the UES values to
the nearest whole kWh.The RTF assigns attic insulation annual savings of 1.00 kWh per square foot for
homes with zonal heating and 2.00 kWh per square foot for homes in with heat pump heating, while the
Avista TRM assigns a value of 1.86 kWh per square foot, regardless of heating type.The realization rate
arises because the majority of homes that participated in attic insulation retrofits displayed zonal
heating type.Therefore,the average verified kWh saved per square foot among participants is closer to
1.00 than 2.00.The Evaluators recommend Avista update the Avista TRM value to reflect participation
home characteristics.The Evaluators found minimal discrepancy in square footage values between the
tracking data and project-level documents provided.The Evaluators also recommend Avista update the
floor insulation measure to align with the lack of savings displayed in the RTF 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 3-10 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-21:Fuel Efficiency Program Measures
ImpactDescription
Methodology
E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump Electric central ducted forced air furnace to RTF UES
air source heat pump(9.0 HFSP or greater)
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace Electric baseboard or forced air furnace heat Avista TRM
to natural gas forced air furnace
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace& Electric to natural gas furnace and water heat Avista TRM
Water Heat combo
*The E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump measure had 0 rebates completed in PY2023
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Fuel Efficiency Program
impact evaluation.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 44

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-22:Fuel Efficiency Program Verified Electric Savings
7— PY2023 Expected Adjusted � Verified Verified
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Realization
Rate
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 21 155,064 155,064 134,389 86.67%
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace&Water 7 68,523 66,118 58,734 85.71%
Heat
Total 28 223,587 221,182 193,123 86.37%
The Fuel Efficiency Program displayed verified savings of 193,123 kWh with a realization rate of 86.37%
against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 3-23:Fuel Efficiency Program Incentive Costs by Measure
�X - Incentive Costs
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace $44,100
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace&Water Heat $19,950
Total $64,050
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 Section 2.2.2.3.
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.All of the 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.
Three of the AHRI AFUE values reported were at 80%which does not meet the criteria to qualify for
calculated savings. In addition,two of the rebate documents indicate that boilers were installed and
there were not any fuel conversions that took place.Therefore, savings were removed for these projects
Measurement and Evaluation Report 45

Avista Idaho PY2023
and led to a reduction of savings for the overall measures. The individual measures and program overall
displayed 86% realization rate.
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 2.2.2.4.The Evaluators included questions such as:
■ 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 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 3-13 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 3-24:Fuel Efficiency Verification Survey ISR Results
RebatesI Number of Number of Precision at In-Service
Measure
Completes .
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 21 2 100%
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace&Water Heat 7 3 - 90 7±33.95% 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 3-25 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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 46

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-25:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Fuel Efficiency Program
Measure Number of Suff icient
Measure Considered for Customers w/ Participation for
Billing Analysis Isolated-Measure Billing Analysis
Installations
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace ✓ 21
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace&Water Heat ✓ 7
3.2.4.6 Verified Savings
The Fuel Efficiency Program in total displays a realization rate of 86.37%with 193,123 kWh verified
electric energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-15.The 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,the Evaluators 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 realization rate for the electric savings in the Fuel Efficiency Program deviates from 100%due to
three of the AHRI AFUE values reported being at 80%which does not meet the criteria to qualify for
calculated savings.The applied Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the verified savings aligned in
the tracking data, however,the removal of savings from these three projects caused the realization rate
to drop down to 86.37%.
The Evaluators noted that the required information was validated by Avista employees prior to
confirming the rebate and that the ex-ante claimed kWh and Therms savings values aligned with those
outlined in the Avista TRM.The Evaluators recommend updating the Avista tracking database to capture
previous heating types for conversion measures, requiring home previous heating type, existing cooling
type, and home type as inputs on the rebate application forms, and lastly to enforce required
documents for all rebates, such as the AHRI documentation and/or full model number in order to verify
measure efficiency.
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
3-26 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-26:ENERGY STAR Homes Program Measures Impact Analysis
Description .. . .•
P. . ERGY STAR Home-Manufactured, ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured RTF UES
Electric Only home with electric furnace
G ENERGY STAR Home- ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured RTF UES
Manufactured,Gas Only home with natural gas heating
E ENERGY STAR Home-Manufactured, ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured RTF UES
Gas& Electric home with gas and electric
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the ENERGY STAR' Homes
Program impact evaluation.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 47

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-27:ENERGYSTAR®Homes Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Measure Participati Savings Savings Savings Realizatio
on (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) n Rate
E Energy Star Home-Manufactured, Electric o
Only 11 36,465 36,465 37,639 103.22/
E Energy Star Home- Manufactured, Gas& 3 9,066 9,066 9,869 108.86%
Electric
Total 14 45,531 45,531 47,508 104.34%
The ENERGY STAR° Homes Program displayed verified savings of 47,508 kWh with a realization rate of
104.34% against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive
costs associated with the program.
Table 3-28:ENERGY STAR®Homes Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive Costs
E Energy Star Home-Manufactured, Electric Only $11,000.00
E Energy Star Home-Manufactured,Gas&Electric $3,000.00
Total $14,000.00
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 2.2.2.3.
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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 48

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 LIES 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 104.34%with 47,508 kWh
verified electric energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-27.The realization
rate for the electric savings in the ENERGY STAR' Homes Program deviates 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 consider cooling zone, which also affects savings assigned in the RTF.The Evaluators assigned
electric savings from the RTF associated with the appropriate heating and cooling zones rather than
defaulting to a uniform value.This change led to low realization rates for some rebates and high
realization rates for others within the same measure category.The overall effect this change had on the
measure is an upward adjustment on savings. The Evaluators recommend updating Avista measure
savings to reflect heating zone-specific RTF measure savings rather than averaging savings from heating
zones together.
The Evaluators also found two all-electric rebates to be dual fuel projects and all dual fuel rebates to be
primarily heated through natural gas. Savings were adjusted accordingly for both cases.The Evaluators
recommend updating the Avista measure savings database to match the primary heating type for dual
fuel households.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 49

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 program encourages consumer to complete energy efficient home upgrades such as attic,floor, or
wall insulation, replacing windows with high efficiency windows, or upgrading thermostats, clothes
washers, clothes dryers, refrigerators, and refrigerator freezers to increase energy efficiency in these
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 Ana
Description Methodo..2�_a
E Multifamily Ductless Heat Pump Conversion from electric baseboard with high RTF UES
Replac Existing Baseboard efficiency ductless heat pump in multifamily home
E Multifamily Heat Pump Water Install high efficiency heat pump water heater in RTF UES
Heater multifamily home
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat Connected thermostat for multifamily homes with RTF UES
DIY electric heat,self-installed
E Multifamily WIFI Thermostat Connected thermostat for multifamily homes with RTF UES
with Baseboard Electric Heat electric heat
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated Install ENERGY STAR-certified door in multifamily RTF UES
Insulated Door With El Heat home
E Multifamily Wall Insulation With Wall insulation for multifamily homes with electric RTF UES
Electric Heat heat
E Multifamily Attic Insulation With Attic insulation for multifamily homes with electric RTF UES
Electric Heat heat
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat Connected thermostat for multifamily homes with RTF UES
Paid install electric heat,contractor-installed
E Multifamily Air Source Heat Conversion to air source heat pump from electric RTF UES
Pump replac existing baseboard baseboard for multifamily home
E Multifamily Floor Insulation Floor insulation for multifamily homes with RTF UES
With Electric Heat electric heat
E Multifamily Window Replc With Window replacement for multifamily homes with RTF UES
Electric Heat electric heat
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Small Home & MF
Weatherization impact evaluation.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 50

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-30:Small Home& MF Weatherization Program Verified Electric Savings
Expected Adjusted Verified
PY2023 Realization
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
E Multifamily Window Replc from Single Pane 11 38,012 30 63,548 167.18%
W Electric Heat
E Multifamily Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 5 12,908 15,000 4,694 36.37%
E Multifamily Energy Star Certified Insulated 1 800 800 186 23.28%
Door
E Multifamily Energy Star Certified 6 868 402 49 5.65%
Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freeze
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 11 3,190 3,190 3,454 108.28%
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated Front Load 14 1,680 1,680 1,680 100.00/
Washer
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY with 9 5,299 5,850 6,157 116.19/
Electric Heat
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat Paid Install 4 2,600 2,600 1,524 58.62%
with Electric Heat
E Multifamily Energy Star Certified Upright 1 67 67 18 26.87%
Freezer
E Multifamily Attic Insulation With Electric 1 881 1 225 25.49%
Heat
Total 63 66,305 29,620 81,535 122.97%
The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed verified savings of 81,535 kWh with a
realization rate of 122.97%against the expected savings for the program. The following table
summarizes the incentive and non-incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 3-31:Small Home& MF Weatherization Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive Costs
E Multifamily Window Replc from Single Pane W Electric Heat $6,221.24
E Multifamily Electric to Ductless Heat Pump $2,560.00
E Multifamily Energy Star Certified Insulated Door $100.00
E Multifamily Energy Star Certified Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freeze $700.00
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer $550.00
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer $700.00
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat $949.19
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Electric Heat $600.00
E Multifamily Energy Star Certified Upright Freezer $50.00
E Multifamily Attic Insulation With Electric Heat $648.00
Total $13,078.43
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 51

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 2.2.2.3.
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 that five of the sampled projects with insulation or window replacement did not
track square footage of installed units in the tracking database.The Evaluators also note that Avista
consistently verified square footage and R-values with customers when information was unclear.
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
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 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 measure described in Section 2.2.2.4.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?
Measurement and Evaluation Report 52

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 3-17 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 3-32:Small Home& MF Weatherization Program Verification Survey ISR Results
of 1p u ero Precision
Meas Survey at 90% Prin-Service Rate
Rebates Comple Confidence
E Multifamily Attic Insulation With Electric Heat 1 0 Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Electric To Air Source Heat Pump N/A N/A Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 5 0 Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Energy Star Certified Insulated 1 0 Assume 100%ISR
Door
E Multifamily Energy Star Certified Refrigerator 6 0 Assume 100%ISR
and Refrigerator-Freeze
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 11 0 Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated Front Load 14 0 Assume 100%ISR
Washer
E Multifamily Energy Star Rated Top Load N/A N/A Assume 100%ISR
Washer
E Multifamily Floor Insulation to R-30 N/A N/A Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Heat Pump Water Heater N/A N/A Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Line Voltage Smart Thermostat 90%±100% o
Electric Baseboard N/A N/A Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Line Voltage Thermostat Electric N/A N/A Assume 100%ISR
Baseboard
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric 9 0 Assume 100%ISR
Heat
E Multifamily Smart Thermostat Paid Install with 4 0 Assume 100%ISR
Electric Heat
E Multifamily Wall Insulation With Electric Heat N/A N/A Assume 100%ISR
E Multifamily Window Replc from Single Pane W 11 0 Assume 100%ISR
Electric Heat
E Multifamily Energy Star Certified Upright 1 0 Assume 100%ISR
Freezer
E Multifamily Window DIY Replc With Electric N/A N/A Assume 100%ISR
Heating
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.The Evaluators applied these ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each measure.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 53

Avista Idaho PY2023
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
122.97% realization with 81,535 kWh saved, as displayed in Table 3-30.
The E Multifamily Electric to Ductless Heat Pump displays a 36% realization rate because two of the four
sampled rebates were rebated for homes in heating zone 3, in which the RTF does not define savings for
ductless heat pump with existing FAF equipment.Therefore,the Evaluators assigned ductless heat pump
with zonal RTF savings, which is 29.4%the magnitude of savings of the Avista TRM value of 3,000 kWh.
The remaining two sampled E Multifamily Electric to Ductless Heat Pump rebates were installed in
homes which were verified to be multifamily homes, in which the RTF assigns savings at 43.33%the
magnitude of savings of the Avista TRM value.This led to a low realization rate for the measure overall.
The Evaluators recommend Avista incorporate additional measure specifications to assign expected
savings for this measure which account for home type, heating zone, and cooling zone.
The Attic Insulation and Door Insulation measures also returned low realization rates due to heating
zone discrepancies in the claimed expected savings.The Evaluators assigned electric savings from the
RTF associated with the appropriate heating and cooling zones which caused a difference in the verified
realization rates.The Evaluators recommend updating Avista measure savings to reflect heating zone-
specific RTF measure savings rather than averaging savings from heating zones together.
The Evaluators found the realization rate for Energy Star Certified Refrigerators and Freezers to be low
due to the configuration of the measure itself.The expected savings values line up with a side-mounted
freezer however, after further investigation via document verification the Evaluators found these
measures to be bottom-mounted which caused the RTF savings to reflect a lower value hence the low
realization rate.
The program verified savings resulted in a realization rate of 0%for the E Energy Star Rated Top Load
Washer largely due to the fact that the Evaluators attributed 0 kWh/unit savings because the RTF
clothes washer workbook estimates that savings for this measure are negative and therefore there are
no proven RTF savings for this measure.
The Evaluators found that the tracking database does not currently track square footage data
consistently for insulation measures.The Evaluators recommend these values are tracked consistently
for this program to ensure savings are calculated accurately for each measure.
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 UES is 75%the magnitude of the Avista TRM value.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 54

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 because the RTF 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 55

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 3-29
summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-33:Multifamily Direct Install Program Measures
MethodologyPF_ Measure Impact Analysis
Screw-in LED lamp(3.8) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(4.8) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(A-line 100W) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(A-line 40W) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(A-line 60W) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(BR30) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(BR40) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(G25) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(PAR30) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(PAR38) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(R20) Avista TRM/SBW TRM
Faucet aerator(1 GPM) RTF UES,Aerators_v1_1/SBW TRM
Kitchen Aerator RTF UES,Aerators_v1_1/SBW TRM
VendingMiser SBW TRM
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Multifamily Direct Install
Program impact evaluation.
Table 3-34:Multifamily Direct Install Verified Electric Savings
Expected Verified Verified
Measure Participation Savings Savings Realization
Screw-in LED lamp(A-line 60W) 1,828 50,279 67,427 134.11%
Screw-in LED lamp(BR30) 41 3,154 3,441 109.11%
Screw-in LED lamp(BR40) 12 397 563 141.88%
Screw-in LED lamp(G25) 401 36,464 51,552 141.38%
Screw-in LED lamp(PAR38) 3 2,394 2,276 95.06%
Faucet aerator(1 GPM) 456 47,544 47,544 100.00%
Kitchen Aerator 3 117 117 100.00%
Total 1 2,744 140,349 172,921 123.21%
The Multifamily Direct Install Program displayed verified savings of 172,921 kWh with a realization rate
of 124.20%against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive
costs associated with the program.
Table 3-35:Multifamily Direct Install Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive Costs
Screw-in LED lamp(A-line 60W) $62,135.00
Screw-in LED lamp(BR30) $1,210.00
Measurement and Evaluation Report 56

Avista Idaho PY2023
Screw-in LED lamp(BR40) $336.00
Screw-in LED lamp(G25) $28,118.00
Screw-in LED lamp(PAR38) $384.00
Faucet aerator(1 GPM) $9,056.00
Kitchen Aerator $24.00
Total $101,263.00
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.
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
To verify savings,the Evaluators reviewed the tracking data and verified savings using Avista TRM
values, RTF UES values, and SBW saving methodology.
The Evaluators found that in many cases, the per unit savings value for the lighting measures did not
align with the per unit value in SBW's methodology or the RTF UES values.The tracking data contained
multiple savings baselines for savings including one value for savings above code (EISA) and another
value for savings above existing installed lighting.This kWh energy saved per unit item did not always
align with the SBW TRM pre-defined values.The precise reason for these discrepancies was unclear.
These discrepancies led to deviations from 100% realization rate for the lighting measures.
The Evaluators evaluated the faucet and kitchen aerator values using RTF UES values.The Evaluators
found no discrepancy between the savings values in the tracking database and the RTF UES values
leading to a realization rate of 100%for these measures. However, more granularity in per unit savings
values could be achieved if the tracking data included data about space heating type for each unit.The
Evaluators recommend verifying space heating type in the tracking data in order to apply more specific
savings values to each project.
The Evaluators did not conduct survey verification for the Multifamily Direct Install Program since
customers are typically unaware of the measures installed and since the MFDI measure savings values
have in-service rates embedded in the savings values.
3.2.7.3 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 RTF workbook,Avista TRM, and
SBW methodology in place at the time the savings goals for the program were finalized.
3.2.7.4 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 124.20%
realization with 172,921 kWh saved, as displayed in Table 3-30.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 57

Avista Idaho PY2023
The difference between calculated expected savings and verified savings are due to the application of
the SBW TRM to the consistently validated quantity of measures.The program verified savings resulted
in a realization rate of above 100% largely due to low expected savings for the A-line 60W and G25 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 Evaluators recommend Avista apply the SBW UES to
the tracking database accurately and consistently across all lighting measures.
The Evaluators evaluated the faucet and kitchen aerator values using RTF UES values and found there
was discrepancy between the savings values in the tracking database and the RTF UES values leading to
a realization rate of 100%for these measures. However, more granularity in per unit savings values
could be achieved if the tracking data included data about space heating type for each unit. The
Evaluators recommend verifying space heating type in the tracking data to apply more specific savings
values to each project.
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.
This section summarizes the impact results of the evaluation results for the Appliances Program.Table
3-29 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-36:Appliances Program Measures Impact Analysis
Measure Description Methodology
E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator and ENERGY STAR-certified refrigerator or RTF UES
Refrigerator-Freeze refrigerator-freezer for residential homes
E Energy Star Certified Upright Freezer ENERGY STAR-certified standard or compact RTF UES
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 Washer ENERGY STAR-certified clothes washer for RTF UES
residential homes
E Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer ENERGY STAR-certified clothes washer for RTF UES
residential homes
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Appliances Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-37:Appliances Program Verified Electric Savings
ParticipationMeasure
(kWh) IF�(IkWlh) .�,&Wlh)s
E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator and 230 27,776 28,250 27,776 100.00%
Refrigerator-Freeze
E Energy Star Certified Upright Freezer 35 2,144 2,345 2,144 100.00%
E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 149 42,464 43,657 39,439 92.88%
E Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer 101 12,240 12,120 12,240 100.00%
E Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer 40 962 1,040 0 0.00%
Total 555 85,586 87,682 81,599 95.34%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 58

Avista Idaho PY2023
The Appliances Program displayed verified savings of 81,599 kWh with a realization rate of 95.34%
against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 3-38:Appliances Program Incentive Costs by Measure
E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freeze $22,050.00
E Energy Star Certified Upright Freezer $1,700.00
E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer $7,150.00
E Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer $5,250.00
E Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer $1,950.00
Total $38,100.00
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 2.2.2.3.
Avista sufficiently collects all required RTF measure specification details on the rebate application forms.
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 most projects.
The Evaluators verified each model specification with values provided by ENERGY STAR qualified product
lists.The Evaluators found that all the 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 2.2.2.4.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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 59

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-17 displays the ISRs for each of the Appliances measures for Idaho electric territory only.The
ISRs resulted in ±6.95% precision at the 90%confidence interval for the program.
Table 3-39:Appliances Program Verification Survey ISR Results
pr Number Number of Precision In-
90% Service
Rebates Completes Confidence Rate
E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freeze 230 41 97%
E Energy Star Certified Upright Freezer 35 12 90% 100%
E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 149 30 0 99%
±6.95
E Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer 101 17 100%
E Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer 40 8 100%
Almost survey respondents described equipment to be currently functioning, leading to near- 100% ISR
for each measure.The Evaluators applied the ISRs listed in Table 3-17 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 TRIM 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 95.34% realization with 81,599
kWh saved, as displayed in Table 3-30.
The program verified savings resulted in a realization rate of less than 100% largely due to low savings
attributed to E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer and E Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer projects. 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 which caused a drop in realization.
Furthermore,the E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer measure expected savings differed from the RTF
workbook unit savings.The claimed savings came in at 290 kWh for some projects and 293 kWh for
others while the RTF UES values associated with the measure were 281 kWh. This value was further
reduced when incorporating the ISR rate of 97%from the verification surveys.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 60

Avista Idaho PY2023
3.2.9 Midstream Program (Residential)
Avista converted several residential and nonresidential measures from a downstream delivery channel
to a midstream delivery channel via local distributors. As Avista notes, midstream approaches have
proven successful in other parts of the Pacific Northwest, as well as nationally.
The Midstream Program currently offers midstream incentives to residential customers for measures
such as:
Residential heat pump water heaters
Residential split unitary equipment
Residential high efficiency natural gas furnaces
Residential tankless water heaters
The nonresidential midstream measures and impact evaluation results are presented in Section 5.3.8.
This change in delivery channel is seen to expand the benefits gained from the consumer with respect to
the midstream incentive design rather than the downstream incentive design, as well as how customers
use this offering.
This section summarizes the estimated savings Avista has calculated for the Midstream Program. The
Evaluators conducted the first impact evaluation for the measures in this program for PY2023. Table
3-40 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-40: Midstream Program Measures
M
Ow . Methoclology_�dw
E Heat Pump Water Heater High efficiency heat pump water heater RTF with adjustments
installation
E Split Unitary Equipment Conversion to Air Source Heat Pump RTF with adjustments
installation
The following table summarizes the estimated electric energy savings for the Midstream Program
impact evaluation.
Table 3-41:Midstream Program Verified Electric Savings
Expected Savings Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure PY2023 Units (kWh) Savings Savings Rate
E Heat Pump Water Heater 1 2,181 2,787 1,575 72.22%
E Split Unitary Equipment 262 1,262,639 1,258,343 681,780 54.00%
Total 263 1,264,821 1,261,130 683,356 54.03%
The Midstream Program displayed estimated savings of 683,356 kWh with a realization rate of 54%.The
following table summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 3-42:Midstream Program Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive Costs
E Heat Pump Water Heater $200.00
E Split Unitary Equipment $115,090.00
Total $115,290.00
Measurement and Evaluation Report 61

Avista Idaho PY2023
The Evaluators describe the impact evaluation tasks completed for this program in the subsections
below.
3.2.9.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Midstream Program.
3.2.9.2 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Midstream
Pilot.The Evaluators selected a subset of rebates to cross-verify tracking data inputs, summarized in in
Section 2.2.2.3.
The Evaluators found all 10 selected rebates documented the information necessary to accurately
characterize savings for the program within the Idaho electric service territory. The Evaluators verified
the model number, efficiency, quantity, and RTF LIES values necessary to calculate verified savings.The
Midstream tracking data is tracked and delivered separately from the remaining residential portfolio,
often demonstrating extensive detail on product characteristics.
During review, the Evaluators found that the implementer's engineering algorithms, in which expected
savings are calculated, differed greatly from the LIES previously defined for each measure in the Avista
TRM and RTF LIES values.That is, the implementer's engineering equations resulted in savings double or
triple the amount for the average air source heat pump and heat pump water heater. In addition,the
Evaluators found that the engineering algorithms applied to the tracking database equipment were not
applied properly to the tracking data inputs. The reasoning for this discrepancy is unclear. The tracking
database displays measure-level savings about 40% inflated compared to measure-level savings had the
designated baseline and annual operating hours aligned with those values defined in the implementer
TRM.This discrepancy is separate from the adjustment for market practice baseline defined by the RTF.
3.2.9.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the Midstream Program in PY2023 due to the
nature of the midstream delivery channel; customers are not aware that they are participating in the
program because they are not required to fill out a downstream rebate application.
3.2.9.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Midstream Program. The Evaluators
attempted to conduct a billing analysis for each measure with sufficient participation. For measures in
which billing analysis was not feasible or displayed inconclusive results,the Evaluators evaluated verified
savings for the measure through the Regional Technical Forum workbooks in place at the time of the
biennium plan for the Midstream Program.
The Evaluators reviewed the expected savings workbook from the program implementer, Energy
Solutions.The implementer defined expected kWh savings for each measure prior to the rollout of the
program.The Evaluators note that the expected savings workbook values from the implementer vary
from the Avista TRM for the previous prescriptive measure savings expectations as well as the RTF LIES
Measurement and Evaluation Report 62

Avista Idaho PY2023
for each of the measures. For this reason, it is expected that the realization rate will portray
discrepancies between the expected and verified savings.
The Evaluators estimated verified savings using RTF UES workbooks in the RTF's residential sector.
3.2.9.5 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators did not conduct a billing analysis for the electric measures in the Midstream Program
because of limited participation for each measure due to mid-year implementation of the program.
3.2.9.6 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed the Energy Solutions implementer expected savings values along with verified
tracking data to estimate net adjusted program savings for those measures. In order to calculate verified
savings,the Evaluators utilized industry-standard engineering algorithms using purchased equipment
efficiency values and RTF-defined market practice baseline values, where appropriate.The Midstream
Program displayed 54.03% realization with 683,356 kWh saved, as displayed in Table 3-41.
The program verified savings resulted in low realization rate largely due to the fact that the expected
savings were inflated due to incorporation of baselines that did not represent market baseline, as the
Regional Technical Forum does. Additionally,the implementer-given expected savings differ from the
Avista TRM values.The Evaluators compared the implementer-provided expected savings to the
previously defined measure-level expected savings defined in the TRM and concluded that, had the
Avista TRM been used to define program expected savings,the realization rate would have been 100%
realization rather than 54% realization.This difference is seen in the discrepancy between the expected
savings value and the adjusted savings value presented in Table 3-41.
The Evaluators did not make any additional adjustments to the purchased equipment efficiency level of
the equipment nor the quantity, as the verification efforts confirmed the details were properly tracked.
Therefore,the difference between the established values in the implementer minimum code baseline
and the RTF market practice baseline, as well as incorrectly applied engineering algorithms were the
driving factors for the low realization rate.The Evaluators recommend that Avista and the implementers
update the expected savings calculation methodology to incorporate market practice baseline rather
than minimum code baseline values in order to remain consistent with the baseline methods utilized in
the downstream measure programs and more accurately estimate expected savings in future iterations
of this program.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 63

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 PY2023.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 Savings Verified Savings Verified
(kWh) (kWh) Realization Rate
Low-Income 223,111 171,311 76.78%
Total Low-Income 223,111 171,311 76.78%
In PY2023,Avista completed and provided incentives for low-income electric measures in Idaho and
achieved total electric energy savings of 171,311 kWh.The Low-Income sector achieved 76.78%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 64

Avista Idaho PY2023
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
Impact ... .
Air Infiltration-E—ID
Air Source Heat Pump-E—ID
Attic Insulation-E—ID
Conversion to Air Source Heat Pump-E-ID
Conversion to Ductless Heat Pump-E-ID
Conversion to Natural Gas Furnace—E-ID
Duct Insulation-E-ID
Avista TRM
Duct Sealing- E- ID
E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freeze—E-ID
Exterior Doors-E-ID
Floor Insulation-E-ID
Health Safety Repair-E-ID
LED-E-ID
Windows-E—ID
Table 4-3 summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Low-Income Program impact
evaluation.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 65

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 4-3:Low-Income Program Verified Electric Savings
Measure Expected Adjusted Verified
Participation (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) Rate
E Air Infiltration 17 10,727 10,727 10,727 100.00%
E Air Source Heat Pump 2 1,757 1,757 1,757 100.00%
E Attic Insulation With Electric Heat 2 848 848 848 100.00%
E Conversion to Air Source Heat Pump 24 134,903 134,903 97,316 72.14%
E Conversion to Ductless Heat Pump 10 30,162 30,162 25,753 85.38%
E Conversion to Natural Gas Furnace 5 21,636 21,636 12,264 56.68%
E Duct Insulation 2 271 536 536 198.02%
E Duct Sealing 3 2,130 2,130 2,130 100.00%
E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator and 1 39 39 39 100.00%
Refrigerator-Freeze
E Exterior Doors 15 3,077 3,077 3,077 100.00%
E Floor Insulation With Electric Heat 5 5,706 5,706 5,706 100.00%
E Health Safety and Repair 22 - - - N/A
E Lighting 17 102 102 102 100.00%
E Window Replc from Single Pane W Electric o
Heat 17 11,754 11,056 11,056 94.06/
Total 142 223,111 222,679 171,311 76.78%
The Low-Income Program displayed verified savings of 171,311 kWh with a realization rate of 76.78%
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
AWL *fir; Incentive Costs
E Air Infiltration $17,956.58
E Air Source Heat Pump $1,463.84
E Attic Insulation With Electric Heat $2,254.61
E Conversion to Air Source Heat Pump $345,882.90
E Conversion to Ductless Heat Pump $126,604.81
E Conversion to Natural Gas Furnace $57,930.35
E Duct Insulation $649.98
E Duct Sealing $316.87
E Energy Star Certified Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freeze $918.85
E Exterior Doors $15,358.61
E Floor Insulation With Electric Heat $9,551.54
E Health Safety and Repair $92,089.39
E Lighting $395.99
E Window Replc from Single Pane W Electric Heat $74,525.05
Total $745,899.37
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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 66

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 2.2.2.3.
During the review,the Evaluators found there were several projects with missing data. In total,thirteen
projects were unable to be verified due to missing or incomplete data. In addition,the Evaluators found
one measure that was repeated and removed from the review.
The required information necessary to complete verification activities and proper expected savings
calculations are: measure installed square footage for insulation measures, measure quantity for
appliance measures, and total building annual energy usage in order to calculate proper building savings
cap at 20%annual energy usage.
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.
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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 67

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 4-5:Measure Savings, Low-Income Program
Treatment Control Annual Savings •i' •�' � .justed
Measure Customers Customers per Customer Lower .. Model
(kWh) Cl Cl Squared
All Electric Measures 215 283 442.26* 1 94.09 791.90 0.80 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 lack of statistically significant estimates from 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 estimated using the Avista TRM. Verified savings were estimated using the Avista
TRM savings values to each measure along with adjustments found during document verification of the
sampled projects.
The largest contributor to discrepancy of savings is the application of the 20%annual kWh and Therm
usage cap on project-level savings. When implemented,this led to a reduction of savings for a number
of projects.The Evaluators recommend that Avista and CAP Agencies ensure that all required
documentation is properly documented and the 20%annual kWh and Therm usage caps are
incorporated to total project-level savings.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 68

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 PY2023. 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 Savings , Verified Savings Verified
Program Savings(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) Realization
Rate
Prescriptive Lighting 8,374,096 8,374,096 7,978,849 95.3%
Small Business Lighting 3,135,108 2,956,164 2,956,164 94.3%
HVAC 42,924 42,924 42,924 100.0%
Food Service Equipment No PY2023 Participation
Grocer 1,928 1,928 1,928 100.0%
Shell 3,458 37,320 37,320 1079.2%
Green Motors No PY2023 Participation
Midstream 142,927 58,355 58,355 40.8%
Site-Specific 2,576,031 2,576,031 2,556,219 99.2%
Total Non-Residential: 14,276,472 14,046,818 13,631,759 95.5%
In PY2023,Avista completed and provided incentives for non-residential electric measures in Idaho and
achieved a total electric energy savings of 13,631,759 kWh, leading to an overall achievement of 95.5%
of the expected savings for the non-residential programs. 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 2.2.2.3.
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
Shell Program
Green Motors Program
Measurement and Evaluation Report 69

Avista Idaho PY2023
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
Program Population(Projects) Sampled
Prescriptive Lighting 587 70 ±3.65%
Small Business Lighting 128 40 2.81%
HVAC 3 3 ±0%
Grocer 2 2 ±0%
Shell 1 1 ±0%
Midstream 21 21 0.00%
Site-Specific 23 9 ±9.61%
5.2 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 LIES. 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:
5.2.1 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 Precision at 90%Cl
472 2 100% ±58.10%
All respondents reported that their rebated equipment was currently installed and operating.
5.2.2 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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 70

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 5-4:On-Site Verification
Program Population On-Site Visits Precision at 90%Cl (by
claimed savings)
Site-Specific 31 9 ±9.35%'o
5.3 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.
io 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 71

Avista Idaho PY2023
5.3.1 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.
In PY2023,the Prescriptive Lighting Program accounted for the largest share of non-residential expected
savings, or roughly 58.7%of the expected non-residential portfolio from this program alone.
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 Prescriptive
Linear LED Fixtures
Calculations
HID LED fixtures/lamps with RTF
Occupancy Sensors Inputs
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
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
(Measures) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)
1000 watt HID Fixture to 400 watt or 64 214,408 214,408 215,144 100.397/o
less LED Fixture or Retrofit(Ext)
150 watt HID Fixture to 50 watt or less 367 269,224 269,224 270,148 100.3%
LED Fixture or Retrofit(Ext)
175 watt HID Fixture to 100 watt or
74 46,648 46,648 46,808 100.3%
less LED Fixture(Ext, NC)
Measurement and Evaluation Report 72

Avista Idaho PY2023
175 watt HID Fixture to 100 watt or 167 121,098 121,098 121,513 100.3%
less LED Fixture or Retrofit(Ext)
250 watt HID Fixture to 140 watt or 435 416,643 416,643 418,074 100.3%
less LED Fixture or Retrofit(Ext)
320 and 400 watt HID Fixture to 160
19 17,763 17,763 17,824 100.3
or less watt LED Fixture(Ext, NC)
320 watt HID Fixture to 160 watt or
less LED Fixture or Retrofit(Ext) 12 12,695 12,695 12,739 100.3%
400 watt HID Fixture to 175 watt or 773 1,121,125 1,121,125 1,124,976 100.3%
less LED Fixture or Retrofit(Ext)
70-89 watt HID Fixture to 25 watt or 107 35,798 35,798 35,921 100.3%
less LED Fixture or Retrofit(Ext)
750 watt HID Fixture to 300 watt or 1 2,359 2,359 2,367 100.3%
less LED Fixture or Retrofit(Ext)
90-100 watt HID Fixture to 30 watt or 86 40,328 40,328 40,466 100.3%
less LED Fixture or Retrofit(Ext)
DLC Qualified LLLC Exterior Fixture 4 480 480 482 100.3%
>=150W Incandescent to<=30W LED 2 917 917 920 100.3%
Fixture
1000 watt HID Fixture to 400 watt or 85 290,742 290,742 291,740 100.3%
less LED Fixture
2,3,4-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to LED 1,518 398,296 398,296 359,697 90.3/
Qualified 2x4 Fixture
250-watt HID Fixture to 140-watt or 189 284,864 284,864 257,258 90.3%
less LED Fixture i
2-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to LED
Qualified IA Fixture 192 19,993 19,993 18,055 90.3%
2-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to LED 76 10,030 10,030 9,058 90.3/
Qualified 2x2 Fixture
400 watt HID Fixture to 175 watt or 651 1,126,397 1,126,397 1,130,265 100.3%
less LED Fixture
75-100 watt Incandescent Can to less 90 27,219 27,219 27,313 100.3%
than 20 watt LED Fixture Retrofit
Four Pin Base CFL to 17 watt or less 978 69,928 69,928 70,168 100.3%
Plug in LED
DLC Qualified LLLC Fixture 1,347 86,301 86,301 86,596 100.3%
T12/T8(2') Lamp to 1-Lamp less than 130 3,527 3,527 3,185 90.3/
13 watt T8 TLED
T12/T8(3') Lamp to 1-Lamp less than 178 18,223 18,223 16,457 90.3%
17 watt T8 TLED
T12/T8(4') Lamp to 1-Lamp less than 42,105 2,499,632 2,499,632 2,257,394 90.3%
23 watt T8 TLED
T12/T8 8' Fixture to 90 watt or less 8' 236 75,923 75,923 68,565 90.3%
LED fixture
T12/T8 Eight-Foot to LED 532 52,713 52,713 47,605 90.3%
T12/T8 U-Bend to less than 23 watt T8 132 10,291 10,291 9,293 90.3%
LED
T5 Lamp to 1-Lamp less than 18 watt 78 3,083 3,083 2,784 90.3%
T5 TLED
T5HO(4')4-Lamp to 135 watt of less 42 20,174 20,174 18,219 90.3%
LED Fixture
Measurement and Evaluation Report 73

Avista Idaho PY2023
T5HO(4') 6-Lamp to 165 watt of less 149 77,746 77,746 70,211 90.3%
LED Fixture
T5HO Lamp to 1-Lamp less than 29 5,273 787,670 787,670 711,338 90.3%
watt T5HO TLED
TLED(4') Lamp to TLED(4') Lamp with 225 4,739 4,739 4,279 90.3%
5 watt or more reduction
Ceiling or Fixture Occupancy sensor 167 26,649 26,649 I 26,143 98.1%
with built-in relays
Sign Lighting 3,665 180,472 180,472 185,843 103.0%
Total 60,149 8,374,096 8,374,096 7,978,849 95.3%
The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-7:Prescriptive Lighting Program Incentives
TotalMeasure Count
Lighting 60,149 $1,969,025
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.
5.3.1.1 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(Projects) Sampled Precision
379 20 ±7.64%
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 . . . Correction
0 0 0 3
No corrections to discrepancies resulted in appreciable changes to verified savings.
5.3.1.2 Impact Analysis
The Evaluators calculated verified savings by using a standard engineering algorithm:
kWh — ([Nfixt(i) xWf`xt(i)tre
_ I N x Wf ixt(i)Lost)
x AOK x ISR
savings — 1000 Lfixt(i)
Where:
Nfixt(i), pre= Pre-retrofit number of fixtures of type i
Measurement and Evaluation Report 74

Avista Idaho PY2023
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, based on type. RTF estimates.See Table 5-10 below.
Table 5-10:Lighting In-Service Rates
Screw-in 96.4%
Linear 98.3%
Pin-based 90.0%
Fixture 100.0%
The Evaluators completed surveys with 5 program participants and asked participants if the rebated
equipment was installed and operating. The RTF does not provide storage rate estimates for integral
fixtures however survey responses for this measure are statistically significant and show a 100% ISR.
5.3.1.3 Verified Savings
The verified savings for the program is 7,978,849 kWh with a realization rate of 95.3%, as displayed in
Table 5-6. Two factors affected the overall realization rate: The first is that annual hours in expected
savings calculations were calculated using 365 days/year, which does not account for leap years.
Verified savings calculations developed hours using 365.25 days/year, slightly raising realization.
However, claimed savings calculations did not include in-service rates. The Evaluators used the RTF
Midstream Lighting work books and assigned ISRs according to the rates shown above in Table 5-10,
resulting in slightly lower verified savings than expected.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 75

Avista Idaho PY2023
5.3.2 Small Business Lighting
New in 2024, the Small Business Lighting Program is a non-residential direct install lighting program
implemented by Resource Innovations.The program offers lighting and controls assessments,
equipment and installation for commercial customers on rate schedules 11 or 12.
To participate, businesses fill out a request in the Avista website and then are contacted by a program
partner. An on-site assessment is scheduled to identify potential lighting and sensor upgrades needed
and eligibility is verified. Measures are then installed at low/no cost to the participant and incentivized
at $0.40- $0.65/kWh.
In PY2023,the Small Business Lighting Program accounted for the second largest share of non-
residential expected savings, or roughly 22.0%of the expected non-residential portfolio from this
program alone.
Table 5-11 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 5-11:Small Business Lighting Program Measures
Measure Savings Source
LED Fixture-replacing FLT8:2ft to 8ft, 17W-59W
LED Fixture-replacing FLT8:2ft to 8ft, 17W-59W with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing FLT12,400W-1000W with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing FLT5:2ft to 8ft, 14W-54W with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High Pressure Sodium lamp,400W-1000W with OCC
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing FLT8:2ft to 8ft, 17W-59W with OCC
LED Retrofit Kit-replacing FLT12,400W-1000W with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High Pressure Sodium lamp, 100W-250W with OCC
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing FLT12:2ft to 8ft,34W-80W with OCC
LED Retrofit Kit-replacing FLT8:2ft to 8ft, 17W-59W with OCC
Prescriptive
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing FLT5:2ft to 8ft, 17W-54W with OCC Calculations with
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High Pressure Sodium lamp,< 100W with OCC Custom Inputs
LED Fixture-replacing Halogen/Incandescent lamp,20-150W with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High Pressure Sodium lamp,320W-400W with OCC
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing Halogen/Incandescent lamp,20-150W with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing Halogen/Incandescent lamp, 150W-1500W with OCC
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing Metal Halide/High Pressure Sodium lamp,400W-
1000W with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High Pressure Sodium lamp,400W-1000W
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing FLT5:2ft to 8ft, 17W-54W
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing FLT8:2ft to 8ft, 17W-59W
LED Fixture-replacing Halogen/Incandescent lamp,20-150W
Small Business Lighting Program impact evaluation by measure, and then are summarized in Table 5-12.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 76

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 5-12:Small Business Lighting Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified � Realization
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
(Measures) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)
LED Fixture-replacing CFL Screw-in/Pin- 41 4,516 4,516 4,516 100.07.
based,8W-40W
LED Fixture-replacing FLT12,400W- 739 351,632 351,632 351,632 100.0%
1000W
LED Fixture-replacing FLT12,400W- 947 480,188 409,480 409,480 85.3%
1000W with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing FLT5: 2ft to 8ft, 42 14,114 14,114 14,114 100.0%
14W-54W
LED Fixture-replacing FLT5: 2ft to 8ft, 180 83,259 74,543 74,543 89.5%
14W-54W with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing FLT8: 2ft to 8ft, 361 140,304 140,304 140,304 100.0%
17W-59W
LED Fixture-replacing FLT8: 2ft to 8ft, 241 53,022 47,224 47,224 89.1%
17W-59W with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing
Halogen/Incandescent lamp, 150W- 10 14,889 14,889 14,889 100.0%
1500W
LED Fixture-replacing
Halogen/Incandescent lamp, 150W- 14 29,682 23,444 23,444 79.0%
1500W with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing
Halogen/Incandescent lamp, 20-150W 844 271,299 271,299 271,299 100.0/
LED Fixture-replacing
Halogen/Incandescent lamp, 20-150W 54 16,214 13,823 13,823 85.3%
with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High 45 10,532 10,532 10,532 100.0%
Pressure Sodium lamp,< 100W
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High
38 37,396 34,066 34,066 91.1%
Pressure Sodium lamp,< 100W with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High
139 102,240 102,240 102,240 100.0%
Pressure Sodium lamp, 100W-250W
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High
Pressure Sodium lamp, 100W-250W 60 60,195 48,086 48,086 79.9%
with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High 65 82,533 82,533 82,533 100.0%
Pressure Sodium lamp,320W-400W
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High
Pressure Sodium lamp,320W-400W 40 58,690 48,936 48,936 83.4%
with OCC
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High 77 166,984 166,984 166,984 100.0%
Pressure Sodium lamp,400W- 1000W
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High
Pressure Sodium lamp,400W- 1000W 38 37,059 33,431 33,431 90.2%
with OCC
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing 1140 123,398 123,398 123,398 100.0%
FLT12: 2ft to 8ft, 34W-80W
Measurement and Evaluation Report 77

Avista Idaho PY2023
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing 258 23,091 20,634 20,634 89.4%
FLT12: 2ft to 8ft, 34W-80W with OCC
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing FLT5: 74 6,461 6,461 6,461 100.0%
2ft to 8ft, 17W-54W
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing FLT5: 64 7,538 7,286 7,286 96.7%
2ft to 8ft, 17W-54W with OCC
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing FLT8: 3747 240,049 240,049 240,049 100.0%
2ft to 8ft, 17W-59W
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing FLT8: 466 22,543 23,530 23,530 104.4%
2ft to 8ft, 17W-59W with OCC
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing
Halogen/Incandescent lamp, 20-150W 864 349,118 349,118 349,118 100.0/
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing
Halogen/Incandescent lamp, 20-150W 36 11,940 9,297 9,297 77.9%
with OCC
LED Replacement Lamp-replacing Metal
Halide/High Pressure Sodium lamp, 4 1,962 1,962 1,962 100.0%
100W-250W
LED Retrofit Kit-replacing FLT12,400W- 388 247,071 203,466 203,466 82.4%
1000W with OCC
LED Retrofit Kit-replacing FLT8:2ft to 0
8ft, 17W-59W 58 18,717 18,717 18,717 100.0/
LED Retrofit Kit-replacing FLT8:2ft to 104 49,600 41,298 41,298 83.3%
8ft, 17W-59W with OCC
LED Retrofit Kit-replacing Metal
Halide/High Pressure Sodium lamp, 2 2,184 2,184 2,184 100.0%
320W-400W
LED Retrofit Kit-replacing Metal
Halide/High Pressure Sodium lamp, 15 16,688 16,688 16,688 100.0%
400W-1000W
Total 11,195 3,135,107 2,956,164 2,956,164 94.3%
The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-13:Prescriptive Lighting Program Incentives
Measure Count Total Electric Incentives
Lighting 11,195 $1,823,804
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Small Business Lighting Program in the section below.
5.3.2.1 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Small
Business Lighting Program.The Evaluators reviewed a representative sample (80) of projects,verifying
that wattages listed in program tracking data were those specified by product literature. For measures
listed as having integrated occupancy sensors,this configuration was also checked. No discrepancies
were found. Below,Table 5-14 shows the project population,the number of projects checked and the
overall precision.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 78

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 5-14:Small Business Lighting Program Verification Precision
Population Sampled Precision
128 40 ±2.81%
5.3.2.2 Impact Analysis
The Evaluators calculated verified savings by using a standard engineering algorithms:
5.3.2.3 Lighting Fixtures ]pre
[Nfixt(i)
l
kWh — ([Nfixt(i) xWfixt(l) — xWfLxt(L)J I x AOH x ISR
savings — 1000 1000 J
post
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,verified.
AOH =Annual operating hours for specified space type(Varies).Self-reported. Reported weekly hours
were divided by seven,then multiplied by 365.25.
ISR=The In-Service Rate. Due to the DI delivery channel,this is assumed to be 100%.
5.3.2.4 Occupancy Sensors
kWh savings x Wfixt(i)tost
x AOH x reduction
savings [Nfixt(i) 1000
Where:
Nfixt(i), post= Post-retrofit number of fixtures of type i
Wfixt(i), post= Rated wattage of post-retrofit fixtures of type i(Varies).Self-reported,verified.
AOH =Annual operating hours for specified space type(Varies).Self-reported.
reduction=The reduction in operating hours as a result of the installation of occupancy sensors, 32%for
fixture/ceiling mounted sensors.
5.3.2.5 Verified Savings
The verified savings for the program is 2,956,164 kWh with a realization rate of 94.3%, as displayed in
Table 5-12. For measures without occupancy sensors, realization is±1%of expectations, with any
differences likely due to rounding. For measures with occupancy sensor,the Evaluators found that
expected savings were calculated by applying the occupancy sensor reduction factor both the operating
hours and the connected load of the lighting retrofit, slightly'double counting' savings. To account for
occupancy sensor savings in verified calculations,the Evaluators applied the 32% reduction to the
operation of the post-install equipment,then added this value to the retrofit savings, resulting in slightly
lower verified savings.
5.3.2.6 Recommendations for Future Program Cycles
■ Report savings from lighting retrofits and sensor installation separately.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 79

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ Specify the type of control method employed.
■ In tracking data, denote the wattage controlled by each installed occupancy sensor.
■ If possible, record building type, vintage and HVAC configuration to calculate and include
additional savings resulting from HVAC interactive effects.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 80

Avista Idaho PY2023
5.3.3 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 5-15 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 5-15:Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Measures
Impact Analysis Methodology
HVAC Cooling Pump Avista TRM UES
HVAC Fan Avista TRM UES
HVAC Heating Pump or Combo J Avista TRM UES
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Prescriptive HVAC VFD
Program impact evaluation.
Table 5-16:Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
(Projects)
VFD on Supply Fan or Supply Air Handler 1 2 1 42,92477 42,924 42,924 100.0%
Total 1 2 42,924 1 42,924 42,924 100.0%
The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-17:Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Incentives
Measure Count Total Electric Incentives
VFDs on HVAC Systems 3 $8,400
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.
5.3.3.1 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,
motor horsepower, installation location and costs of the equipment. Table 5-18 shows the project
population,the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 81

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 5-18:Prescriptive HVAC VFD Program Verification Precision
Population - 11 - — Precision
3 3 ±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.
5.3.3.2 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 LIES to a census of
measures.
5.3.3.3 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current TRM LIES values to verified tracking data to estimate
net program savings for this measure.The verified savings for the program is 42,924 kWh with a
realization rate of 100.00%, as displayed in Table 5-16.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 82

Avista Idaho PY2023
5.3.4 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 5-19 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 5-19:Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Measures
MethodologyMeasure 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 machine RTF,Commercial ENERGY STAR TM 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
In PY2023 there were no claimed kWh savings from the Food Service Equipment Program.
Table 5-20:Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Electric Savings
Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
Total 0 0 0 0 N/A
Measurement and Evaluation Report 83

Avista Idaho PY2023
5.3.5 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 5-21 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 5-21: Grocer Program Measures
MethodologyImpact Analysis
Refrigerator Case Lighting RTF EUS
ASH Controls RTF EUS
Door Gaskets Avista TRM UES
Floating Head Pressure Controls RTF EUS
Strip Curtains RTF EUS
Walk-In ECM Controllers RTF EUS
ECMs on Evaporator Fans Avista TRM UES
ECM Replacing Evaporator PS and PSC RTF EUS
Refrigerator Case Lighting RTF Commercial Grocery 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 5-22: Grocer Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
(Pr
jects) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)
Case Light ,1 936 936 936 100.0%
Low Temp ECM 1 304 304 304 100.0%
Med Temp ECM 1 688 688 688 100.0%
Totals: 3 1,928 1,928 1,928 100.0%
The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-23: Grocer Program Incentives
Measure Count Total Electric Incentives
Case Light 18 $180
Low Temp ECM 1 $50
Med Temp ECM 1 $50
Totals: 20 $280
Measurement and Evaluation Report 84

Avista Idaho PY2023
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities and
results for the Grocer Program in the section below.
5.3.5.1 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 5-24 shows the project population,the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Table 5-24: Verification Precision
Population . — Precision
2 2 ±0%
The Evaluators found all rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency requirements for
the Grocer Program.
5.3.5.2 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. Final verified savings were calculated by
applying the appropriate UES to a census of measures.
5.3.5.3 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 1,928 kWh with a
realization rate of 100.00%, as displayed in Table 5-22.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 85

Avista Idaho PY2023
5.3.6 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 5-25 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 5-25:Prescriptive Shell Program Measures
Measure I Impact Analysis Methodology
Attic Insulation L Avista TRM UES
Roof Insulation Avista TRM UES
Wall Insulation Avista TRM UES
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Prescriptive Shell Program
impact evaluation.
Table 5-26:Prescriptive Shell Program Verified Electric Savings
Realization
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
PY2023 Expecte7Adjusted Verified Attic=< R11 to R45+ 3 2,847 30,441 30,441 1,069.2%
Attic=< R11 to R30-R44 3 565 6,399 6,399 1,133.3%
Wall=< R4 to R11-R18 1 46 479 479 1,044.4%
Totals 7 3,458 37,320 37,320 1,079.4%
The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-27:Shell Program Incentives
Measure I I Total Electric Incentives
hInstalled)
Attic=<R11 to R45+ 21,900 $875
Attic=<R11 to R30-R44 6,274 $207
Wall=<R4 to R11-1118 170 $6
Total 28,344 $1,089
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities and
results for the Prescriptive Shell Program in the section below.
5.3.6.1 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,
Measurement and Evaluation Report 86

Avista Idaho PY2023
summarized in Section 5.1.1. Data points checked between project applications and program tacking
include R-levels, square footage of installation, HVAC configuration and measure cost values. Below,
Table 5-28 shows the project population,the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Table 5-28:Prescriptive Shell Program Verification Precision
Population - 11 - — Precision
1 1 ±0%
The Evaluators found all rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency requirements for
the Prescriptive Shell Program.
5.3.6.2 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.
5.3.6.3 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current TRM LIES 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 37,320 kWh with a realization rate of 1,079%, as displayed Table 5-26.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 87

Avista Idaho PY2023
5.3.7 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 5-29 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 5-29: Green Motors Program Measures
MethodologyImpact Analysis
Motor Rewind (Industrial) Avista TRM 2023 UES
In PY2023 there were no claimed kWh savings from the Food Service Equipment Program.
Table 5-30: Green Motors Program Electric Savings
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
(Projects)
Total 0 0 0 0 N/A
Measurement and Evaluation Report 88

Avista Idaho PY2023
5.3.8 Midstream Program (Non-Residential)
Avista designed the Midstream Program to shift the onus of applying for rebates from end-use
customers to distributors. Not only does this reduce customers'/contractors' administrative burden (i.e.,
no need to submit paperwork tracking energy efficient installations), but it is also anticipated to increase
high-efficiency equipment options at competitive prices. Midstream rebates provide an immediate
discount on eligible products, which appear as a line item on customer invoices. Starting on July 1, 2023,
the Midstream Program replaced Avista's residential and commercial downstream space-heating and
water-heating programs as well as the commercial food service equipment rebate program.
Through the Midstream Program,Avista seeks to achieve three overall objectives:
Provide greater long-term, cost-effective savings for residential and commercial customers
alike
Reduce Avista's administrative burden in processing space-heating, water-heating, and
commercial kitchen equipment applications
Accelerate the market transformation of energy-efficient equipment
The Midstream Program provides bought-down equipment to both Residential and Commercial entities.
This chapter discusses and presents results only for the non-residential measures. See Section 3.2.9 for
the residential portion.
Table 5-31 summarizes the measures rebated in PY2023 under this program.
Table 5-31:Non-Residential Midstream Program Measures
Measure Measure Impact Analysis Methodology
Combination Oven RTF Combination Ovens
Convection Oven RTF Convection Ovens
Food Service Dishwasher Avista TRM
Hot Food Holding Cabinet RTF HFHC
Ice Machine RTF Ice Makers
Steamers RTF Steamers
HVAC Mini/Multi Split Engineering algorithm
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Midstream Program impact
evaluation.
Table 5-32:Non-Residential Midstream Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate Hot Food Holding Cabinet 1 1,016 2,603 2,603 256.1%
Dishwasher 2 22,668 8,220 8,220 36.3%
Steamer 1 36,468 9,274 9,274 25.4%
Ice Machine 2 1,411 702 702 49.7%
Combination Oven 2 49,993 24,490 24,490 49.0%
Convection Oven 1 2,595 1,496 1,496 57.6%
Mini/Multi Split 3 28,776 11,572 11,572 40.2%
Total 12 142,927 58,355 58,355 40.8%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 89

Avista Idaho PY2023
The following table summarizes the incentive and non-incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-33:Non-Residential Midstream Incentives
CountMeasure Measure I Incentive
Hot Food Holding Cabinet 1 $550
Dishwasher 2 $5,400
Steamer 1 $2,600
Ice Machine 2 $550
Combination Oven 2 $3,800
Convection Oven 1 $1,050
Mini/Multi Split 3 $7,400
Totals 12 $21,350
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Midstream Program in the section below.
5.3.8.1 Database Review&Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Midstream
Program. Due to the program delivery pathway,the Program does not include project applications. For
this program,the Evaluators examined a representative sample of projects to ensure that program
tracking data accurately reflected measure characteristics used in assessing savings. Data points checked
include: equipment configurations, capacities and efficiency levels.
Table 5-34 shows the project population, the number of projects checked and the overall precision.
Table 5-34: Non-Residential Midstream Program Verification Precision
Population . — Precision
12 12 0.0%
The Evaluators found all rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency requirements for
the Midstream Program and no substantive equipment specifications differed from those in the tracking
data.
5.3.8.2 Impact Analysis
Once verification was completed,to estimate program savings for these measures the Evaluators
reviewed and applied the appropriate UES values from the RTF. If a measure was not covered by an RTF
entry then a UEF from the Avista TRIM was used as the source for verified savings. For measures not
included in either the RTF or Avista TRM, verified savings was calculated using standard engineering
algorithms with project-specific specs and RTF inputs.
5.3.8.3 Verified Savings
The verified savings for the program is 58,355 kWh with a realization rate of 40.9%, as displayed in Table
5-33.
Adjusted savings comes from the program planning workbooks used by program implementors.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 90

Avista Idaho PY2023
With the exception of Mini/Multi Splits, which were analyzed using standard engineering algorithms and
equipment-specific inputs, verified savings was sourced from the respective RTF workbooks associated
with each measure. In most cases, expected savings estimates far exceeded RTF estimates. No
background information relating to how planning estimates were developed was included in program
materials, precluding a thorough explanation of differences,though a weighted average of expected
savings show these values to be approximately 186%of RTF estimates.
Further, it is unclear how ex ante estimates for Mini/Multi Splits was developed. Using program
planning materials and methods, the Evaluators found that approximately 17%of ex ante estimates
should have been claimed.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 91

Avista Idaho PY2023
5.3.9 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.
In PY2023,the Site-Specific Program accounted for the second largest share of non-residential expected
savings, or roughly 18.1%of the expected non-residential portfolio from this program alone.
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Site-Specific Program impact
evaluation.
Table 5-35:Site-Specific Program Verified Electric Savings
PY2023 Expected Savings Adjusted Savings Verified Savings Verified Realization
Participation
23 2,576,031 2,576,031 2,556,219 99.2%
The Site-Specific Program displayed verified savings of 2,556,219 kWh with a realization rate of 99.4%
against the expected savings for the program. Below,Table 5-37 breaks savings into Lighting and Non-
Lighting:
Table 5-36:Site-Specific Program Lighting and Non-Lighting Savings
Savings Source Expected Savings Adjusted Savings Verified Savings Verified Realization
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) Rate
Lighting 102,399 102,399 96,738 94.5
Non-Lighting 2,473,632 2,473,632 2,459,481 99.4%
Table 5-37.Site-Specific Program Incentives
Type T_ Count of Projects Incentives
Lighting 6 $16,062
Non-Lighting 17 $386,012
Total 23 $402,074
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities and
results for the Site-Specific Program in the section below.
5.3.9.1 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
Measurement and Evaluation Report 92

Avista Idaho PY2023
representative sites to inspect using the Stratified Random Sampling procedure detailed in 2.2.2.2. 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 5-38
summarizes the strata boundaries and sample frames for the Site-Specific Program.
Table 5-38:Site-Specific Program Sample Design
Descriptor Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum3 Stratum 4 Stratum 5 Totals
[Strata boundaries(kWh) <10,000 10,001- 62,001- 190,001- >400,001
62,000 190,000 400,000
Number of projects 6 6 5 5 1 23
Total kWh savings 26,187 122,403 480,804 1,327,378 619,259 2,576,031
Average kWh Savings 4,365 20,401 96,161 265,476 619,259 112,001
Standard deviation of kWh 3,121 11,658 60,778 28,512 N/A 153,625
Coefficient of variation 0.715 0.571 0.632 0.163 0.000 0.000
Final design sample 2 2 1 3 1 9
The highest-savings was specifically selected for verification and analysis. Verified sampling precision is
±9.61%at 90%.
Table 5-39:Site-Specific Program Sample Summary
#Sites in Population Review Sample Size Precision
23 9 9.61%at 90%
5.3.9.2 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 7 of the 9 sampled sites, with two projects occurring at the
same site.
5.3.9.3 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.
Wfixt Wfixt
kWhsavings ([Nfixt(i)
X 1000 ]pre - rNfixt(i) X 1000 ]post) X AOH X IEF
Measurement and Evaluation Report 93

Avista Idaho PY2023
kWsavings [Nf ixt(i) X Wfixt(i) pre - [Nfixt(i) X Wfixt(i) postX CF X IEF
= � 1000 � 1000
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 (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.
5.3.9.4 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
5-40 presents realization at the site level, with Table 5-41 presenting results at the stratum level.
Table 5-40:Site-Specific Expected, Adjusted and Verified kWh Savings by Sampled Project
Project ID Expected Savin Adjusted Savings-- Verified Saving!. Realization Rate
SSOP_113679 1,259 1,259 1,259 100.0%
SSLP_117017 8,034 8,034 8,034 100.0%
SS LP_82210 10,008 10,008 9,994 99.9
SSLP_82041 31,361 31,361 28,846 92.0%
SSO P_113344 100,360 100,360 100,291 99.9
SSOP_81734 198,868 198,868 196,000 98.6%
SSOP_81611 286,724 286,724 286,724 100.0%
SSOP_117547 288,762 288,762 288,762 100.0%
SSOP_82111 619,259 619,259 614,089 99.2%
Totals: 1,544,635 1,544,635 1,533,999 99.3%
Table 5-41:Site-Specific Summary of kWh Savings by Sample Stratum and Overall
r-Expected Savings Adjusted Savings Verified Savings Realization Rate
1 26,187 26,187 26,186 100.00
2 229,645 229,645 215,607 93.89%
3 174,694 174,694 174,574 99.93
4 1,526,246 1,526,246 1,520,593 99.63
5 619,259 619,259 619,259 100.00%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 94

Avista Idaho PY2023
Total 2,576,031 2,576,031 2,556,219 99.23%
5.3.9.5 Discussion of Non-100%Realization
For project SSLP_82041 Expected savings calculations assumed 3,120 annual hours of operation, hours
extrapolated for the operating schedule collected during the on-site visit yielded approximately 2,870
annual hours and slightly reduced realized kWh.
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.
5.3.9.6 Verified Savings
The Site-Specific Program in total displays a realization rate of 99.2%with 2,556,219 kWh verified
electric energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 5-41.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 95

Avista Idaho PY2023
6.Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results
This appendix provides additional details on the billing analyses conducted for each program.
6.1 Shell Program
The results of the billing analysis for the Shell program are provided below.Table 6-1 shows customer
counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customers with single-measure installations)
and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis. A billing analysis was completed
for measures that had at least 75 customers with single-measure installations.This ensured that
measures would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data restrictions (e.g. sufficient pre-
and post-period data).The billing analysis included participants in Washington and Idaho service
territories (439 total)to acquire the maximum number of customers possible.The billing analysis on
individual measures did not find significant savings due to variability observed in the data.The results
reported combine measures across Idaho and Washington to produce a statistically significant estimate.
See Table 6-5 for the non-significant results for individual measures.The rest of the section reports the
combined analysis.
Table 6-1:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Shell Program
ParticipationMeasure Number of Sufficient
Measure Considered for Customers W/
BillingAnalysis , isolated-Measure for Billing
Install2ti Analysis
E Attic Insulation With Electric Heat ✓ 22*
E Window Replc With Electric Heat ✓ 78* ✓
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
The Evaluators were successful in creating a matched cohort for each of the measures with sufficient
participation. 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, as shown in Table 6-2.
Also shown in Table 6-2, 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 6-2:Cohort Restrictions, Shell Program
Measure Data Restriction Treatment Control
Customers Customer
Starting Count 357 7,286
G Attic Insulation With Install Date Range:January 1, 2023 to June 30,2023 357 7,286
Natural Gas Heat Control Group Usage Outlier(>2X max treatment
355 7,280
usage)
Incomplete Post-Period Bills(<6 months) 107 6,945
Measurement and Evaluation Report 96

Avista Idaho PY2023
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills(<10 months) 103 6,012
Ending Count(Matched by PSM) 97 97
Starting Count 1,057 7,286
Install Date Range:January 1,2023 to June 30,2023 1,057 7,286
G Window Replc With Natural
Control Group Usage Outlier(>2X max treatment 1,040 7,281
usage)
Gas Heat Incomplete Post-Period Bills(<6 months) 356 6,946
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills(<10 months) 351 6,013
Ending Count(Matched by PSM) 342 342
Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 display the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching for
the combined measures, before and after conducting matching.
For the combined measures, the covariate balance shows small differences between the treatment and
control groups before and after matching.
Figure 6-1: Covariate Balance Before Matching, Shell Attic Insulation and Shell Window Replacement,
Washington and Idaho
A 1 B
1 —P —P
- ircaement O P �heat.rent
P-Derlod Winter Usage s Pre-period 5pring Usage s
C D
Group
:gym -P=
Pre-perlod summer Usage rs ^ SPre-period Foil usage is
Figure 6-2: Covariate Balance After Matching, Shell Attic Insulation and Shell Window Replacement,
Washington and Idaho
Measurement and Evaluation Report 97

Avista Idaho PY2023
A "�- B0.015-
+ 0.010
f Group + Group
Z 0.000 Z f If Control f Control
m 1 m 'i
O Treatment 0 Treatment
0.003- -,/ 0.005-
0.000- 0.000-
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Pre-period Winter Usage Pre-period Spring Usage
C D
0.020- f
0.015-
Z'0.015- Group Z, Group
m ❑ Control 0.010- PC
Control
0.010- Treatment0 Treatment
0.005
0.005-
0.000- 0.000-
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
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.
Table 6-3 -provides results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment and control groups
after matching for the Shell 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 6-3:Pre-period Usage T-test forAttic Insulation and Window Replacement Washington and Idaho,
Shell Program
Average Daily Average Daily _qrP-Value Reject Null7
'Wonth Usage(kWh), Usage(kWh), T Statisticq�Stcl Error
Control Treatment
Jan 45.645 50.641 -1.194 2.957 0.234 No
Feb 45.780 50.576 -1.149 2.950 0.252 No
Mar 45.615 50.063 -1.071 2.935 0.286 No
Apr 47.283 50.641 -0.748 3.166 0.456 No
Measurement and Evaluation Report 98

Avista Idaho PY2023
May 47.190 50.641 -0.774 3.145 0.440 No
Jun 47.046 50.417 -0.774 3.072 0.440 No
Jul 46.849 51.095 -0.956 3.132 0.340 No
Aug 46.574 50.893 -0.986 3.091 0.325 No
Sep 47.772 50.250 -0.554 3.149 0.580 No
Oct 46.686 50.185 -0.798 3.092 0.426 No
Nov 47.043 50.641 -0.807 3.145 0.421 No
Dec 46.419 50.290 -0.890 3.068 0.375 No
Table 6-4 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 6-4: TMY Weather, Shell Program
rV IV It of
TUSAF Treatment TMY TMY
Weighted Weighted
� � TMYCDD DD TMYCDD
720322 4 726985 4207 245 6053 413
726817 3 726985 4207 245 6053 413
726873 7 727830 5347 861 6053 413
E Attic Insulation With 727830 4 727830 5347 861 6053 413
Electric Heat and E 727834 12 727834 6773 343 6053 413
Window Replc With
Electric Heat 727850 5 727850 6436 224 6053 413
727855 3 727855 7224 437 6053 413
727856 69 727856 6052 437 6053 413
727857 12 727857 6322 265 6053 j 413
727870 13 727857 6322 265 6053 413
Table 6-5 provides annual savings per customer for the Shell program for each measure and regression
model.The PPR model was selected for ex post savings because it provided the best fit for the data
(highest adjusted R-squared).
Table 6-5:Measure Savings for All Regression Models,Shell Program
•i
Measure Model Treatment Control Savings/Custom Lower 90%Upper R-
Customers Customer er(kWh) Cl Cl Squared
Diff-in-cliff 132 165 1901.59* 0.00 50998.13 0.149
PPR 100 99 1284.69 135.61 2433.76 0.65
Measurement and Evaluation Report 99

Avista Idaho PY2O23
E Attic Insulation
Treatment
and E Window
Only 132 165 300.60* 0.00 5563.03 0.23
Replc With
Electric Heat (Gross)
*Not statistically significant
Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level for the combined measures and the adjusted R-
squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data.The results of the billing analysis
indicate no statistically significant savings were found for the window replacement measures.
Table 6-6:Measure Savings,Shell Program
Annual
Treatment Control Savings � .0, .0, Adjusted
Measure Customers Customers per LowerCl
..
Customer Squared
E Attic Insulation and E
Window Replc With 100 gg 1284.69 135.61 2433.76 0.65 Model
Electric Heat 2: PPR
Figure 6-3 provides monthly TMY savings per customer for the Shell program. As expected for gas
weatherization measures,the greatest savings occur during the winter months.
Figure 6-3:Monthly Savings, Shell Program
140.0
120.0 96.1 104.3 104.2 108.8 108.0
a�
E 100.0
N 107.3 105.4 107.0 109.E �105
U 80.0 103.E
60.0 78.5
m
U)
s
40.0
Y
c° 20.0
L
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Measurement and Evaluation Report 100

Avista Idaho PY2023
6.2 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
6-7: Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program
.The Evaluators used propensity score matching. Also shown in Table 6-7: Cohort Restrictions, Low-
Income Program
, 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 6-7:Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program
Measure Data Restriction Control Treatment
Customers Customers
Starting Count 815 412
Install Date Range:January 1, 2023 to June 30,2023 815 412
Whole home electric Control Group Usage Outlier(>2X max treatment usage) 642 401
Incomplete Post-Period Bills(<4 months) 350 226
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills(<10 months) 320 218
Ending Count(Matched by PSM) 283 215
20
Figure 6-4 and Pre-period Summer Usage Pre-period Fall Usage
Figure 6-5 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
after matching, indicating little differences exist on average between the groups prior to matching and
validating the initial selection of control customers.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 101

Avista Idaho PY2023
Figure 6-4: Covariate Balance Before Matching, Low Income Electric Measures
A s
7 Group > Group
C- - Control c f I Cortroi
\ Treatment �'''�•- a Treatrre-t
0 SD 1DO _.. ZX 0 50 '00 5-0 2Y
Pre-period Winter Usage Pre-period Spring Usage
C D
' I
I
5 D02- j Group �` Group
c �( F Control c Control
Treatments 0•- Treatment
I
I
O.00-
_. °4 20D
Pre-period Summer Usage Pre-period Fall Usage
Figure 6-5: Covariate Balance After Matching, Low Income Electric Measures
A B 0.025-
0.015- ��
o.a2o-
i
Group >g015 Group
D.010-
d n Control o
Treatment Do A'0- II i T•e-tr^ent
0.005- i;
0.005-
O.00D- O.00o- - -
0 50 too 150 200 0 `0 100 150 200
Pre-period Winter Usage Pre-period Spring Usage
C.0 D3- D 0.025- lJ,
I
I 0_J2T II
0 0z II Group a Group
I 1l D 015-
C !( Control C n control
O 0.01- I7(I} �Treatment OJ_010- El Treatment
0.D0- ��-- O.00D-
D _ ;, - - 0 -- is 1 200
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.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 102

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 6-8 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 6-8: Pre-period Usage T-test for Electric Measures, Low-Income Program
Average Daily Average Dail� Reject
Usage(kWh), Usage(kWh), �Statistic Std Error P-Value Null?
Control Treatment
Jan 44.40 48.94 -1.59 2.84 0.11 No
Feb 41.86 45.39 -1.35 2.61 0.18 No
Mar 36.17 38.41 -1.09 2.05 0.27 No
Apr 30.23 31.89 -1.09 1.52 0.28 No
May 25.50 25.68 -0.16 1.14 0.87 No
Jun 25.40 24.66 0.72 1.02 0.47 No
Jul 30.01 31.15 -0.91 1.26 0.36 No
Aug 30.03 31.54 -1.22 1.24 0.22 No
Sep 24.47 24.37 0.10 0.99 0.92 No
Oct 26.94 27.72 -0.70 1.13 0.49 No
Nov 38.81 41.49 -1.44 1.86 0.15 No
Dec 42.98 45.64 -1.27 2.09 0.20 No
Table 6-9 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 6-9: TMY Weather, Low-Income Program
r #of TMY USAF TMY TMY Weighted Weighted
Measure USAF Station ID Treatment ID HDD CDD TMYHDD TMYCDD
727827 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
727855 17 727856 6052 437 5829 376
727856 7 727857 6322 265 5829 376
727857 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 6-10 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 measures and the adjusted R-squared
Measurement and Evaluation Report 103

Avista Idaho PY2023
shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data (adjusted R-squared >0.90).The Evaluators
estimate gross savings for each Low-Income participant is 1,005 kWh per year.
Table 6-10:Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Low-Income Program
Model Treatment Control Savings 90% 90% Adjusted
Customers Customers per Lower Cl Upper Cl R-Squared
Customer
Diff-in-cliff 215 283 1005.41* 0.00 4340.16 0.29
All Electric PPR 215 283 363.26* 0.00 1235.33 0.74
Measures Treatment
Only 215 283 5,082.85* 3,186.76 6,978.93 0.27
(Gross)
*Not statistically significant
The results of the billing analysis indicate no statistically significant savings were found for the electric
measures.
6.3 HVAC Program
Four gas measures met the inclusion criteria necessary for billing analyses. Key components of these
inclusion criteria included having at least 75 customers who only installed a single measure,full details
can be found in Section 0. These four measures were Smart Thermostat Contractor Install, Smart
Thermostat Self Install, High Efficiency Natural Gas Furnaces, and Natural Gas Multi-Stage or Modulating
Furnaces.The Evaluators employed a regression-based pre vs. post billing analysis methodology, as
outlined in Section 0,to calculate the savings associated with thermostat installation. Of note,the PSM
process to create matching control cohorts for these two thermostat measures involved a caliper of 0.2,
a ratio of 1, and a "nearest" matching methodology. In contrast,the Evaluators used a heating load
estimation methodology, as outlined in Section 2.2.3.3,to assess furnace savings. Heating load
estimation only requires post-period billing data from treatment customers, so PSM was not necessary
for this analysis.
As detailed in Section 0,the regression model with the highest adjusted R-squared was selected for
reporting. For smart thermostats, as outlined in the table below,the PPR regression yielded the best fit.
Table 6-11: Thermostat Regression Adjusted R-squared
Measure DnDAdjR-squared PPRAdjR-squared Treatment Only Adj
Smart Thermostat Contractor Install 0.58 0.91 0.83
Smart Thermostat Self Install 0.59 0.93 0.83
Both smart thermostat regressions yielded statistically significant results,which suggests that both
contractor and self-installed smart thermostats are associated with a decrease in customer gas usage.
Full regression results for contractor and self-installed thermostats are outlined below in Table 6-12 and
Table 6-13, respectively.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 104

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 6-12: Contractor Installed Thermostat PPR Results
Am.
Treatment sample population(n) 200
Control sample population (n) 200
Annual savings(Therms) 16.95
Pooled Standard Error 10.55
90%Confidence Interval 17.35
90%Relative Precision 1.02
P value 0.02
Table 6-13:Self Installed Thermostat PPR Results
Metric Value
Treatment sample population(n) 356
Control sample population (n) 356
Annual savings(Therms) 29.46
Pooled Standard Error 6.80
90%Confidence Interval 11.19
90%Relative Precision 0.38
P value <0.01
Meanwhile, the heating load estimation methodology was used to calculate annual savings for High
Efficiency Natural Gas Furnaces and Natural Gas Multi-Stage or Modulating Furnaces. Since this
calculation methodology is based on a deemed savings algorithm (not a regression) it does not produce
measures of goodness of fit or statistical significance. However,the Evaluators did calculate standard
error, 90%confidence and precision metrics for this analysis. A full outline of the key billing analysis
results associated with each HVAC furnace measure can be found below.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 105

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 6-14:Natural Gas Furnace Heating Load Estimation Results
Metric Value
Treatment sample population (n) 109
Control sample population (n) N/A
Baseline Furnace Efficiency 88 5%11
Installed Furnace Efficiency 95%
Annual savings(Therms) 48.22
Pooled Standard Error 0.80
90%Confidence Interval 1.32
90%Relative Precision 0.03
Table 6-15:Natural Gas Multi-Stage or Modulating Furnace Heating Load Estimation Results
Metric Value
Treatment sample population (n) 46.512
Control sample population (n) N/A
Baseline Furnace Efficiency 88.5%
Installed Furnace Efficiency 95%
Annual savings(Therms) 48.25
Pooled Standard Error 1.88
90%Confidence Interval 3.10
90%Relative Precision 0.06
Of note, heating load estimation savings are highly dependent on the baseline used in calculations.The
88.5% baseline outlined in the Regional Technical Forum's gas furnace UES measure workbook
represents a precise regional estimate. However, if the federal minimum standard of 80%was used in
heating load calculations instead, estimated annual savings would reach 123 Therms for both Natural
Gas Furnaces and Natural Gas Multi-Stage or Modulating Furnaces.
6.4 Water Heat Program
The only gas measure that met inclusion criteria for the Water Heat program was Natural Gas Tankless
Water Heaters.The Tankless Water Heater cohort began with 187 treatment customers; however, after
preprocessing, billing data from 129 customers was used in the regression analyses. As with smart
thermostats, a caliper of 0.2, a ratio of 1, and a "nearest" matching methodology was used to develop a
matched control cohort of non-participant customers.The Difference-in-Difference regression yielded
an adjusted R-squared of 0.55,the PPR yielded an adjusted R-squared of 0.98, and the Treatment Only
regression yielded an adjusted R-squared of 0.80. As such PPR was selected for reporting.The following
table outlines the PPR results for Natural Gas Tankless Water Heater program.
11 The Regional Technical Forum outlines current practice furnace efficiency as 88.5%as of the July 2021 publication of the Gas
Furnace UES workbook version 1.1.
12 Heating load estimation is calculated monthly,so 46.5 is the average customers included in each month of valid billing data in
2023.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 106

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 6-16: Natural Gas Tankless Water Heater PPR Results
Am.
Treatment sample population(n) 129
Control sample population (n) 129
Annual savings(Therms) 21.62
Pooled Standard Error 10.55
90%Confidence Interval 17.36
90%Relative Precision 0.80
P value <0.01
6.5 Midstream Program
The only billing analyses for the Midstream program that yielded valid results were for the Residential
Furnace and Residential HVAC measures. While the Residential Heat Pump Water Heater and
Residential Water Heater programs passed the PSM, they only had 7 and 4 treatment customers each,
making the results of the regression analysis invalid due to such small sample sizes. As with the HVAC
program, the heating load savings estimate methodology was employed for both of these space heating
measures. Key savings results for the midstream residential furnace and HVAC measures are outlined
below.
Table 6-17.Midstream Residential Furnace Heating Load Estimation Results
Metric Value
Treatment sample population(n) 26.5"
Control sample population (n) N/A
Baseline Furnace Efficiency 88.5%
Installed Furnace Efficiency 95%
Annual savings(Therms) 47.43
Pooled Standard Error 1.14
90%Confidence Interval 1.88
90%Relative Precision 0.04
Table 6-18: Midstream Residential HVAC Heating Load Estimation Results
Treatment sample population(n) 13.4
Control sample population (n) N/A
Baseline Furnace Efficiency 88.5%
Installed Furnace Efficiency 95%
Annual savings(Therms) 51.73
Pooled Standard Error 4.81
90%Confidence Interval 7.91
90%Relative Precision 0.15
A As above, heating load estimation is calculated monthly,so 26.5 represents the average customers included in each month of
valid billing data in 2023.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 107

Avista Idaho PY2023
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. This table is missing information from 29 low-income, CEEP, and MFDI survey
respondents who did not indicate the number nor type of measures they received.
Table 7-1: Type and Number of Measures Received by Respondents
Measure Category Total Percent
No Measures 304 13.8%
One Measure 1218 55.4%
Two Measures 440 20.0%
Three Measures 171 7.8%
Four Measures 47 2.1%
Five or more measures 20 0.9%
HVAC 289 13.1%
Water Heater 136 6.2%
Smart Thermostat 515 23.4%
Clothes Washer 297 13.5%
Clothes Dryer 189 8.6%
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 Characteristics14
Question Response
Own 93.8%
Rent 1.9%
Do you rent your home? (n=755) Own and rent to someone else 1.3%
1 don't know 0.1%
Prefer not to answer 2.9%
Single-family house detached 86.0%
Single-family house attached to 2 3%
one or more other houses
Mobile or manufactured home 8.2%
Which of the following best Apartment with 2 to 4 units 0.8%
describes your home? (n=755)
Apartment with 5+units 0.3%
Other 1.4%
1 don't know 0.2%
Prefer not to answer 0.7%
Does your home have central air
conditioning?(n=755) Yes 72.6%
About how many square feet is Less than 1,OOOft2 6.6%
your home? (n=629) 1,000-1,999ft2 42.4%
14 Four contractors or construction companies were not asked these questions.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 108

Avista Idaho PY2023
2,000-2,999ft2 32.3
3,000-3,999ft2 13.5
4,000ft2or more 5.2%
Before 1950 20.0%
1950 to 1959 10.3%
1960 to 1969 6.6%
When was your home built? 1970 to 1979 15.3%
(n=719) 1980 to 1989 7.7%
1990 to 1999 15.3%
2000 to 2009 13.2
2010 to 2019 4.7%
2020 to Present 5.6%
1 don't know 1.1%
Prefer not to answer 0.2%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 109

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 110

Avista Idaho PY2023
Project Number SSOP_113679
Project Background
The participant is a fast-food restaurant that received incentives from Avista for installing electronic
defrost controls on its cooler and freezer.
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, photos, invoices, and simulation
outputs to verify the installation of rebated equipment. On site,the Evaluators verified this information.
The Evaluators attempted to measure savings estimates through a whole facility billing analysis,
however the results were not statistically significant.
To verify savings,the Evaluators instead examined materials used to develop expected savings estimates,
scrutinizing each of the inputs and cross-checked the model results using engineering algorithms. The
Evaluators found all assumptions and inputs to be reasonable, and prescriptive calculations carried out to
verify estimates yielded similar kWh savings estimated, corroborating savings claims.
Results
For project#SSOP_113679,the kWh realization rate is 100%.
Verified Gross Savings& Realization Rates
Verified
BAS 1,259 N/A 100.0% N/A
Totals: 1,259 N/A 100.0% N/A
Measurement and Evaluation Report 111

Avista Idaho PY2023
Project Number SSLP_117017
Project Background
The participant is fast food restaurant that received incentives from Avista for retrofitting energy efficient
interior lighting.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (33) 3L F24T51-10s were replaced by(33)Sylvania 3L 2ft T5HE LED
■ (6) 3L F24T51-10s were replaced by(6) Sylvania 3L 2ft T5HE LED
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 and peak coincidence
factors are based verified actual hours of lighting operation.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Savings Inputs
Space Type HVAC Pre Annual Hours Post Annual Hours CF
Configuration
Fast Food AC,gas heat 3,640 3,640 80%
Fast Food AC,gas heat 8,760 8,760 100%
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above,the evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
Quantity
Measure (Fixtures)
• • AOH kWh kWh kWh Realization Base Base Post
Rate
3L F24T5H0
to Sylvania 3L 33 33 63 21 3,640 3,640 5,589 5,589 5,589 100.0%
2ft T5HE LED
3L F24T5H0
to Sylvania 3L 6 6 63 21 8,760 8,760 2,445 2,445 2,445 100.0%
2ft T5HE LED
Totals: 8,034 8,034 8,034 100.0%
Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
Quantity
Measure Base kW kW kW Realization
mown
3L F24T5H0
to Sylvania 3L 33 33 63 21 0.80 1.23 1.23 1.23 100.0%
2ft T5HE LED
Measurement and Evaluation Report 112

Avista Idaho PY2023
3L F24T51-1O
to Sylvania 3L 6 6 63 21 1.00 0.22 0.22 0.28 127.3%
2ft TSHE LED
Totals: 1.45 1.45 1.51 104.1%
Results
For project#SSLP_117017 the kWh realization rate is 100.0%and the kW realization rate is 104.1%.
Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
ReductionVerified Verified kWh kW kWh kW
Measure kWh kW Realization rRealization Adjust- Adjust- Therm
Savings
3L F24T5HO to
Sylvania 3L 2ft 5,589 1.23 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.00 -90
TSHE LED
3L F24T5HO to
Sylvania 3L 2ft 2,445 0.28 100.0% 127.3% 0 0.00 -40
TSHE LED
Totals: 8,034 1.51 100.0% 104.1% 0 0.00 -130
By default, expected savings are calculated using an 80% peak CF. One of the retrofitted areas' lights
operate continuously, so the peak coincidence factor for this area was changed to 100%, resulting in a
slightly higher verified peak kW reduction.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 113

Avista Idaho PY2023
Project Number SSLP_82210
Project Background
The participant is a restaurant that received incentives from Avista for retrofitting energy efficient interior
lighting.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (4) 1L HPS 100s were replaced by(4) 40W LED
■ (63) 1L 60W Incs were replaced by(63) 9W A19 LED
■ (19) 1L 15W CFs were replaced by(19) 9W BR30 LED
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 and peak coincidence factors are based verified actual hours of lighting operation.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Savings Inputs
Space Type HVAC Pre Annual Hours Post Annual Hours
Configuration
Exterior none 4,288 4,288 0%
Full Service AC,gas heat 3,276 3,640 30%
Restaurant
Full Service AC,gas heat 8,766 3,640 100%
Restaurant
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above,the evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
uantity kWh
Post Expected Adjusted Verified
Measure L(F ures) AOH AOH kWh kWh kWh Realizationi
Base ost = Post Rate
1L HPS 100
to 40W LED 4 4 130 40 4,288 4,288 1,544 1,544 1,544 100.0%
1L 60W Inc
to 9W A19 63 63 43 9 3,276 3,276 7,859 7,578 7,578 100.0%
LED
1L 15W CF
to 9W 14 14 18 9 3,276 3,276 446 446
BR30 LED
605 144.1%
1L 15W CF
to 9W 5 5 18 9 8,766 8,766 426 426
BR30 LED
Measurement and Evaluation Report 114

Avista Idaho PY2023
Totals: 10,008 1 9,994 1 9,994 99.9%
Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
ExpectedQuantity Wattage Adjusted
Measure (Fixtures) CF kW kW kW Realization
Base .o Base Post Rate
1L HPS 100 to 40W LED 4 4 130 40 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.0%
1L 60W Inc to 9W A19 LED 63 63 43 9 0.30 1.92 1.85 0.69 37.3%
1L 15W CF to 9W BR30 LED 14 14 18 9 0.30 0.04 0.04
0.15 61.3%
1L 15W CF to 9W BR30 LED 5 5 18 9 1.00 0.05 0.05
Totals: 2.35 2.29 0.78 33.2%
Results
For project#SSLP_82210 the kWh realization rate is 99.9%and the kW realization rate is 31.9%.
Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Verified Verified kWh kW kWh kW Therm
Measure kWh kW Realization Realization Adjust Adjust- Penalty
Savings Reduction Rate Rate ments ments
1L HPS 100 to
40W LED 1,544 0.00 100.0% 0.0% 0 0.00 0.00
1L 60W Inc to 9W
A19 LED 7,578 0.69 100.0% 37.3% 0 0.00 -72.61
1L 15W CF to 9W
446 0.04 446 0.04 -5.80
BR30 LED
144.1% 61.3%
1L 15W CF to 9W
426 0.05 426 0.05 -4.08
BR30 LED
Totals: 9,994 0.78 99.9% 33.2% 0 0.00 -82.49
Expected savings calculations assumed 3,276 annual hours of operation for all (19) BR-30 lamps however,
during the on-site visit the Evaluators found that five of the lamps were left on continuously, so 8,766
hours and a 100% peak CF were used in verified savings calculations, resulting in higher-than-expected
kWh savings and peak kW reduction. By default expected savings are calculated using an 80% peak CF,
though using the verified operating schedule the Evaluators calculated a 30% chance the remaining
interior lights would be operating during peak hours, and a 0% chance for exterior lamps, resulting in a
lower verified peak W reduction. Lastly, expected savings calculations for (63) LED A-lamps assumed an
erroneous HCIF interaction factor (1.12), whereas 1.08 should have been used for the entire interior of
this facility(a full service restaurant with AC and gas heating built prior to 2006).This adjustment resulted
in slightly lower verified kWh and kW estimates for these lamps.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 115

Avista Idaho PY2023
Project Number SSLP_82041
Project Background
The participant is social club with a boat storage area that received incentives from Avista for retrofitting
energy efficient interior lighting.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (34)4L F54T51-10s were replaced by(26) 1L 148W LED
■ (41)4L F54T51-10s were replaced by(26) 1L 181W LED
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 and peak coincidence factors are based verified actual hours of lighting operation.
The values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Savings Inputs
Space Type HVAC Pre Annual Hours Post Annual Hours CIF
Configuration
Conditioned
Storage Gas heat, no AC 3,640 3,640 43%
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above,the evaluators calculated lighting savings as follows:
Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
QuantityWattage Pre Post Expected A.
Base I Post Base Post n Rate
4L F54T5HO
to 1L 148W 34 26 236 148 2,087 2,87
0 14,353 14,353 13,202 92.0%
LED
4L F54T5HO
to 1L 181W 41 26 236 182 2,87 2,87 17,008 17,008 15,645 92.0%
LED
Totals: 31,361 31,361 28,846 92.0%
Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
QuantityWattage Expected A.
justed Verified kW
Measure (Fixtures) -- CIF kW kW kW Realization
Base I Post rBase � Rate
Measurement and Evaluation Report 116

Avista Idaho PY2023
4L
F54T5HO to 34 26 236 148 0.43 3.67 3.68 1.97 53.5%
1L 148W
LED
4L
F54T5HO to 41 26 236 182 0.43 4.37 4.36 2.34 53.7%
1L 181W
LED
Totals: 8.04 8.04 4.31 53.6%
Results
For project#SSLP_82041 the kWh realization rate is 92.0% and the kW realization rate is 53.6%.
Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Veri ied Verified kWh kW kWh kW Therm
Measure kWh kW Realization Realization Adjust- Adjust- Penalty
Savings Reduction Rate Rate ments ments
4L F54T5HO to
1L 148W LED 13,202 1.97 92.0% 53.5% 0 0.00 -200
4L F54T5HO to
1L 181W LED 15,645 2.34 92.0% 53.7% 0 0.00 -237
Totals: 28,846 4.31 92.0% 53.6% 0 0.00 -438
Expected savings calculations assumed 3,120 annual hours of operation, hours extrapolated for the
operating schedule collected during the on-site visit yielded approximately 2,870 annual hours and slightly
reduced realized kWh.Similarly, by default expected savings are calculated using an 80% peak CF,though
using the verified operating schedule the Evaluators calculated a 43%chance the lights would be operating
during peak hours, resulting in a lower verified peak W reduction.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 117

Avista Idaho PY2023
Project Number SSOP_113344
Project Background
The participant is a manufacturing facility that received incentives from Avista for replacing and existing
180hp DC motor and silicon-controlled rectifier with a 200hp AC induction motor controlled by a VFD.
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, photos, and invoices to verify the
installation of rebated equipment. Verified savings were calculated using the following standard
algorithms, along with runtime data extrapolated from data logger.
kWhsavings = kWhpYe — kWhpost
kWhpre/post = kWpre/post X AOH
V X lavg,pre/post X Pfpre/post X
kWpre/post = 1000
Where:
AOH =Annual Operating Hours
V =Voltage (nominal)
Iavg =Average current draw
Pf = Power Factor
pre = Indicates pre-implementation
post = Indicates post-implementation
Savings Parameters
Specific input parameters assumed in the analysis and confirmed by the Evaluators are:
Measure Parameters/Characteristics
Motor
Currentavg Power Factor Currentan Voltage
71.8 0.8 44.0 0.98 480 8,424
Results
For project#SSOP_113344,the kWh realization rate is 100.0%and the kW realization rate is 100.0%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 118

Avista Idaho PY2023
Verified Gross Savings& Realization Rates
Verified
kWh IkW kWh Realization kW Realization
Savings Savings Rate Rate
DC motor with silicon rectifier to AC induction
motor with VFD 402,286 11.91 100.0% 100.0%
Totals: 402,286 11.91 100.0% 100.0%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 119

Avista Idaho PY2023
Project Number SSOP_81734
Project Background
The participant is a communications office that received incentives from Avista for "grooming" their
telecom switch system, in which unneeded switches are removed from the network.
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, photos, invoices and simulation
outputs, to verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators attempted to conduct a facility-
level billing analysis (Option C) using two years' worth of facility billing data and local weather data,
obtaining the following results:
Billing Regression Results
CIDD Balance HDD Balance CVRMSE —F—Pre-Period Post-Period kWh Savings
Point Point kWh/day kWh/day (per day)
55 50 4.2% 3,039 2,776 263
Savings Calculations
Calculations parameters used in the analysis and confirmed by the Evaluators are:
Model Fit
..
0.77 0.81
Pre/Post Use and kWh Savings
Expected kWh Annual Pre Usage Annual Post Usage Verified kWh Realization Rate
Savings (kWh) (kWh) Savings
198,868 40,280 21,983 196,000 99
Results
For project#SSOP_81734,the kWh realization rate is 99%.
Verified Gross Savings& Realization Rates
Verified
Telecom "Grooming" 198,868 N/A 99% N/A
Totals: 198,868 N/A 99% N/A
Measurement and Evaluation Report 120

Avista Idaho PY2023
Project Number SSOP_81611
Project Background
The participant is an assembly that received incentives from Avista for replacing existing hydraulic motors
with VFD AC-induction motors in their facility.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (1)VFD AC Motor replaced an existing hydraulic motor on the planer feed line
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, photos, invoices and prescriptive
calculations used to arrive at ex ante savings estimates. On site,the Evaluators confirmed the installation
of the equipment and recorded nameplate information for verification. Existing logging data was use to
confirm the annual hours of operation. Savings were calculated using the following algorithms:
kWhsavings = kWhbase — kWhee
kWh = kW x hours of operation
kW = VXIavgXPfXV3
1000
Where:
Hours of operation =Annual Operating Hours
V =Voltage (nominal)
Iavg =Average current draw
Pf = Power Factor
Savings Parameters
Specific input parameters assumed in the analysis and confirmed by the Evaluators are:
Measure Parameters/Characteristics
Annual
Building Input Uptime% Outfeed Infeed CoolingOutfeed Infeed PF Cooling
Hours Voltage Amps Amps Amps PF PF
8,760 472 45% 63.0 51.0 50.0 0.60 0.50 0.80
Savings Calculations
Baseline Efficient
Baseline kW Annual Baseline Efficient kW Annual Efficient Energy
Operating Energy Operating
Hours Hours
87.7 4,993 438,130 38.5 3,942 151,596 286,534
Measurement and Evaluation Report 121

Avista Idaho PY2023
Results
For project#SSOP_121533,the kWh realization rate is 100%.
Verified Gross Savings& Realization Rates
Verified
"VFD-controlled AC motors 286,724 49.00 100.% 100.0%
Totals: 286,724 49.00 100.% 100.0%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 122

Avista Idaho PY2023
Project Number SSOP_117547
Project Background
The participant is a lodging facility that received incentives from Avista for replacing existing baseboard
heaters with efficient PTHP units, install insulation to the buildings interior, and replace single-pane
windows with triple-pane vinyl windows.The Evaluators verified the participant had installed:
■ (25) inefficient baseboard PTAC units were replaced with (25) PTHP units
■ (30,118)sqft of uninsulated wall of R4 to(30,118)sqft of insulated walls of R19,ceiling of R49 and
floors of R25
■ (568) sqft of U-0.58 and 0.75 SHGC value single-pane window units were replaced with (568) sqft
of U-0.29 and 0.26 SHGC value triple-paned vinyl windows on all sides of the building.
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, photos, invoices, and simulation
outputs, to verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators attempted to conduct a facility-
level billing analysis (Option C) using nine months of pre and post conditions worth of facility billing data
and local weather data, however found that there was a statistically significant increase in use during the
post period when compared with the pre period. This indicated additional conflating factors beyond
weather (such as other changes to equipment, store operating hours or changes in behavioral patterns)
are affecting the energy consumption of the facility.
To verify savings,the Evaluators instead examined materials used to develop expected savings estimates,
and prescriptive engineering algorithms to verify ex ante estimates. The Evaluators found all ex ante
assumptions and inputs to be reasonable and appropriate, and prescriptive calculations yielded similar
kWh savings estimated, corroborating savings claims.
Savings Parameters
Specific input parameters assumed in the analysis and confirmed by the Evaluators are:
Measure Parameters/Characteristics—HVAC Units
Baseline Efficient Air
Heating AC Unit
Heating AC stem Location Conditio- Heating
Unit • • • • Sy
Size e Type Size Size Type ning
9,000 8,100 9,000 Baseboar
2,000 W BTU 1 ER BTU BTU 3.4 HP d Units Electric HP
Measurement and Evaluation Report 123

Avista Idaho PY2023
Measure Parameters/Characteristics—Insulation
FloorsBaseline Efficient Air
2—TW Conditioning Heating
Ft, all Ceiling . . .D .D
30,118 1 4 4 4 30,118 19 49 25 6,276 899 Electric HP
Measure Parameters/Characteristics— Window Panes
Efficient Air
�® value
Conditioning
568 0.58 0.75 0.653 568 0.29 0.26 0.226 Entire Electric HP
Facility
Results
For project#SSOP_117547,the kWh realization rate is 100.0%.
Verified Gross Savings& Realization Rates
Verified
Measure kWh kW kWh Realization Therm Realization
Savings i Savings Rate Rate
PTAC/PTHP,window pane, insulation 288,762 N/A 100.0% N/A
replacement
Totals: 288,762 N/A 100.0% N/A
Measurement and Evaluation Report 124

Avista Idaho PY2023
Project Number SSOP_82111
Project Background
The participant is an assembly that received incentives from Avista for removing six (6) existing wall-
mounted electric resistance space heaters and three (3) mobile electric space heaters. On site, the
Evaluators had confirmed that these heaters had been replaced with steam-powered heaters.
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, photos, invoices and prescriptive
calculations used to calculate expected savings. During the site visits, the Evaluators confirmed that the
existing ER heaters had been replaced with steam-powered heaters, and that heaters operate only when
the air temperature drops below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Energy savings comes from the removal of
electric equipment and is calculated as follows:
kW = Vxla„gxPfxvr3
1000
kWh = kW x hours of operation
kWhsavings = kWh,,,,, + kWhmobiie
Where:
Hours or operation =Annual Operating Hours (5,464)
V =Voltage (nominal) (472 volts)
Iavg =Average current draw (22.4 amps)
Pf = Power Factor(0.9)
Savings Calculations
Specific input parameters assumed in the analysis and confirmed by the Evaluators are shown in the table
below. Annual operating hours are based on TMY data taken from station NSRDB 241029 in Grangeville,
ID.
Measure Parameters/Characteristics
Unit Type kW ON
Wall 16.5 5,510 6 544,874
Mobile 4.5 5,510 3 74,385
Total: 619,259
Results
For project#SSOP_82111,the kWh realization rate is 100.0%.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 125

Avista Idaho PY2023
Verified Gross Savings& Realization Rates
Measure rified
kWh Savings kW Savings kWh Realization Rate IkW Realization Rate -
EEM Heaters 619,259 37.46 100.0% 100.0%
Totals: 619,259 37.46 100.0% 100.0%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 126

APPENDIX B - 2023 NATURAL GAS IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT
Evaluation , Measurement
and Verification ( EM & V ) of
r
Avista Idaho Gas PY2023
Residential ,
Low - Income , and
Nonresidential Energy
Efficiency Programs
SUBMITTED TO: AVISTA UTILITIES
SUBMITTED ON : JULY 1812024
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
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Savings Results...........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations..........................................................................................................2
2. General Methodology........................................................................................................................10
2.1 Glossary of Terminology..........................................................................................................................10
2.2 Summary of Approach.............................................................................................................................11
3. Residential Impact Evaluation Results...............................................................................................26
3.1 Simple Verification Results......................................................................................................................26
3.2 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results...............................................................................................29
4. Low-Income Impact Evaluation Results.............................................................................................58
4.1 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results...............................................................................................58
5. Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Results.........................................................................................62
5.1 Verification Results..................................................................................................................................62
5.2 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results...............................................................................................63
6. Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results...................................................................................................75
6.1 Shell Program...........................................................................................................................................75
6.2 Low-Income Program ..............................................................................................................................79
6.3 HVAC Program.........................................................................................................................................83
6.4 Water Heat Program................................................................................................................................85
6.5 Midstream Program.................................................................................................................................86
7. Appendix B: Summary of Survey Respondents..................................................................................87
8. Appendix C: Site-Specific Site Reports...............................................................................................89
Tables of Contents and Tables ii

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 ...........................................15
Table 2-2: Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Program...................................................15
Table 3-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program.......................................................................26
Table 3-2: Summary of Survey Response Rate...........................................................................................26
Table 3-3: State-Level Simple Verification Precision by Program...............................................................27
Table 3-4: Mixed State-Level Simple Verification Precision by Program....................................................27
Table 3-5: Water Heat Program ISRs by Measure......................................................................................27
Table 3-6: HVAC Program ISRs by Measure................................................................................................28
Table 3-7: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program ISRs by Measure..................................................28
Table 3-8: Appliances Program ISRs by Measure.......................................................................................29
Table 3-9: Water Heat Program Measures.................................................................................................29
Table 3-10: Water Heat Program Verified Natural Gas Savings.................................................................30
Table 3-11: Water Heat Program Costs......................................................................................................30
Table 3-12: Water Heat Verification Survey ISR Results.............................................................................31
Table 3-13: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Water Heat Program ............................................31
Table 3-14: Measure Savings, Water Heat Program ..................................................................................32
Table 3-15: HVAC Program Measures........................................................................................................33
Table 3-16: HVAC Program Verified Natural Gas Savings...........................................................................33
Table 3-17: HVAC Program Costs ...............................................................................................................33
Table 3-18: HVAC Verification Survey ISR Results......................................................................................34
Table 3-19: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, HVAC Program......................................................35
Table 3-20: Measure Savings, HVAC Program............................................................................................36
Table 3-21: Shell Program Measures..........................................................................................................37
Table 3-22: Shell Program Verified Natural Gas Savings............................................................................37
Table 3-23: Shell Program Costs.................................................................................................................38
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 958271 916.363.8383 iii

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-24: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Shell Program .......................................................39
Table 3-25: Measure Savings, Shell Program .............................................................................................39
Table 3-26: Fuel Efficiency Program Measures..........................................................................................41
Table 3-27: Fuel Efficiency Program Verified Natural Gas Penalty.............................................................41
Table 3-28: ENERGY STAR' Homes Program Measures.............................................................................42
Table 3-29: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Measures ..........................................................44
Table 3-30: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Verified Natural Gas Savings.............................44
Table 3-31: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Costs..................................................................45
Table 3-32: Small Home & MF Weatherization Verification Survey ISR Results........................................47
Table 3-33: Multifamily Direct Install Program Measures..........................................................................49
Table 3-34: Multifamily Direct Install Program Verified Natural Gas Savings............................................49
Table 3-35: Multifamily Direct Install Program Costs.................................................................................49
Table 3-36: Appliance Program Measures .................................................................................................51
Table 3-37: Appliance Program Verified Natural Gas Savings....................................................................51
Table 3-38: Appliance Program Costs.........................................................................................................51
Table 3-39: Appliance Verification Survey ISR Results...............................................................................52
Table 3-40: Midstream Program Measures................................................................................................54
Table 3-41: Midstream Program Verified Natural Gas Savings..................................................................54
Table 3-42: Midstream Program Costs by Measure...................................................................................54
Table 3-43: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Midstream Program .............................................56
Table 3-44: Measure Savings, Midstream Program ...................................................................................56
Table 4-1: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program.....................................................................58
Table 4-2: Low-Income Program Measures................................................................................................59
Table 4-3: Low-Income Program Verified Natural Gas Savings..................................................................59
Table 4-4: Low-Income Program Costs.......................................................................................................59
Table 4-5: Measure Savings, Low-Income Program ...................................................................................61
Table 5-1: Non-Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program...............................................................62
Table 5-2: Non-Residential Program-level Verification Precision...............................................................63
Table 5-3: Prescriptive HVAC Program Measures......................................................................................64
Table 5-4: Prescriptive HVAC Program Verified Natural Gas Savings.........................................................64
Table 5-5: Prescriptive HVAC Program Incentives......................................................................................64
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827 1916.363.8383 iv

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 5-6: Prescriptive HVAC Program Verification Precision....................................................................65
Table 5-7: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Measures ........................................................66
Table 5-8: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Verified Natural Gas Savings...........................66
Table 5-9: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Costs by Measure............................................66
Table 5-10: Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Verification Precision....................................67
Table 5-11: Prescriptive Shell Program Measures......................................................................................68
Table 5-12: Prescriptive Shell Program Verified Natural Gas Savings........................................................68
Table 5-13: Prescriptive Shell Program Costs by Measure.........................................................................68
Table 5-14: Prescriptive Shell Program Verification Precision ...................................................................69
Table 5-16: Non-Residential Midstream Program Measures.....................................................................70
Table 5-17: Non-Residential Midstream Program Verified Therms Savings ..............................................70
Table 5-18: Non-Residential Midstream Program Incentives ....................................................................71
Table 5-19: Non-Residential Midstream Program Verification Precision...................................................71
Table 5-15: Site-Specific Program Verified Natural Gas Savings ................................................................73
Table 5-16: Site-Specific Program Costs.....................................................................................................73
Table 5-17: Site-Specific Expected, Adjusted and Verified Therm Savings by Project ...............................74
Table 5-18: Site-Specific Impact Summary.................................................................................................74
Table 6-1: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Shell Program .........................................................75
Table 6-2: Cohort Restrictions, Shell Program............................................................................................75
Table 6-3: Pre-period Usage T-test for Attic Insulation and Window Replacement Washington and Idaho,
ShellProgram.....................................................................................................................................77
Table 6-4:TMY Weather, Shell Program....................................................................................................78
Table 6-5: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Shell Program .....................................................78
Table 6-6: Measure Savings, Shell Program ...............................................................................................79
Table 6-7: Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program ...............................................................................80
Table 6-8: Pre-period Usage T-test for Gas Measures, Low-Income Program ...........................................82
Table 6-9:TMY Weather, Low-Income Program........................................................................................82
Table 6-10: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Low-Income Program .......................................83
Table 6-11: Thermostat Regression Adjusted R-squared...........................................................................83
Table 6-12: Contractor Installed Thermostat PPR Results..........................................................................84
Table 6-13: Self Installed Thermostat PPR Results.....................................................................................84
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 958271 916.363.8383 v

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 6-14: Natural Gas Furnace Heating Load Estimation Results ...........................................................85
Table 6-15: Natural Gas Multi-Stage or Modulating Furnace Heating Load Estimation Results................85
Table 6-16: Natural Gas Tankless Water Heater PPR Results.....................................................................86
Table 6-17: Midstream Residential Furnace Heating Load Estimation Results..........................................86
Table 6-18: Midstream Residential HVAC Heating Load Estimation Results..............................................86
Table 7-1:Type and Number of Measures Received by Respondents.......................................................87
Table 7-2: Survey Respondent Home Characteristics ................................................................................88
admenergy.com 1 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827 1916.363.8383 vi

Avista Idaho PY2023
I. Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the Residential, Low-Income, and Nonresidential Gas Evaluation,
Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) effort of the 2023 program year (PY2023) 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 PY2023. The Residential portfolio savings amounted to 167,465 Therms
with a 63.77% realization rate. The Low-Income portfolio savings amounted to 2,025 Therms with a
94.82% realization rate. The Nonresidential portfolio savings amounted to 62,007 Therms with a
92.5% 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
Ipprogram Expected Savings Verified Savings Verified Realization
(Therms) (Therms) Rate
Water Heat 10,125 9,051 89.39%
HVAC 87,728 85,264 97.19
Shell 19,541 18,117 92.71%
Fuel Efficiency' 0 0 -
ENERGY STAR HomeS2 134 134 100.00%
Small Home&MF Weatherization 5,540 5,445 98.29%
Appliances 605 396 65.53%
Multifamily Direct Install 227 227 100.00%
Midstream 138,707 48,830 35.20%
Total Res 262,607 167,465 63.77%
Table 1-2:Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program
Expected Savings Verified Savings Verified Realization
(Therms) (Therms) Rate
Low-Income3 2,136 2,025 94.82%
Total Low-Income 2,136 2,025 94.82%
The Fuel Efficiency Program displayed a verified Therms penalty of 11,562.80 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.
z The ENERGY STAR Homes Program displayed a verified Therms savings of 0.00 Therms for the electric measures; no dual fuel
measures were rebated in PY2023.
3 The Low-Income Program displayed a verified Therms penalty of 0.00 Therms; no fuel conversion measures were rebated in
PY2023.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 1

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 1-3:Nonresidential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Program Expected Savings Verified Savings Verified Realization
(Therms) (Therms) Rate
HVAC 12,969 12,969 100.0%
Food Service Equipment 3,930 3,930 100.0%
Shell 7,117 7,117 100.0%
Midstream 18,140 8,922 49.2%
Site-Specific 24,891 29,069 116.8%
Total 67,047 62,007 92.5%
Table 1-4 summarizes the gas programs offered to residential, low-income, and nonresidential
customers in the Idaho Avista service territory in PY2023 as well as the Evaluators' evaluation tasks
and impact methodology for each program.
Table 1-4: Impact Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector
Impact
Sector .• —Database
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
Residential Midstream ✓ Avista TRM
Low-Income Low-Income ✓ Avista TRM
Nonresidential HVAC ✓ RTF,Avista TRM
Nonresidential Food Service ✓
RTF,Avista TRM
Equipment
Nonresidential Shell ✓ Avista TRM
Nonresidential ✓Midstream RTF,Avista TRM,
IPMVP Option A
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:
Measurement and Evaluation Report 2

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ The Evaluators found the Residential portfolio to demonstrate a total of 167,465 Therms with a
realization rate of 63.77%.
■ The Residential Portfolio impact evaluation resulted in a realization rate of 63.78%due to
discrepancy in expected savings for the Midstream Program and due to differences between the
implementer-assigned expected savings values using minimum code baseline and the RTF-
implemented market practice baseline. The Evaluators utilized engineering algorithms to
evaluate this program based on purchased equipment efficiency level.The Evaluators also
applied RTF market practice baseline equivalents to the engineering algorithms in order to
maintain consistency with evaluation methods between the downstream and midstream
programs, while taking into account the often-higher efficiency values of the purchased
equipment. Although the Evaluators note instances in which the implementer's engineering
algorithm were applied incorrectly in the calculation of the expected savings values,the market
practice baseline adjustment led to the largest downward adjustment, leading to a low
realization rate for the program.
■ The Midstream Program,which contributes 53%of the expected savings, resulted in a
realization rate of 35%whereas each of the other programs resulted in a combined 107%
realization rate.The Midstream Program contributed to a 43% decrease in the overall
residential sector.
■ The Evaluators conducted verification surveys via web survey to collect information from
customers who participated in the Water Heat, HVAC, Small Home and MF Weatherization, and
Appliance Programs.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 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 89.39%with
9,051 verified Therms saved.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.
■ In the Water Heat Program, the realization rate for the natural gas savings in the tankless and
storage tank water heater measures deviated from 100% realization due to differences in home
type, heating zone, cooling zone, and efficiency level of the water heater.The Evaluators also
found that many rebates did not have documentation filled for space heating type.The
Evaluators recommend Avista verify heating type prior to completing rebates and ensure proper
Avista TRM values are assigned for the specifications of the unique project.
■ The HVAC Program in total displays a realization rate of 97.19%with 85,264 Therms verified
natural gas savings in the Idaho service territory.The realization rate for the natural gas savings
in the HVAC Program deviates from 100%due to verification activities which confirmed that four
of the nine sampled G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat projects lacked qualification
for savings due to lack of occupancy senor or geolocation capabilities.The Evaluators
recommend Avista confirm qualification of smart thermostats prior to rebating the project.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 3

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ The Evaluators attempted to estimate smart thermostat measure savings values through a
billing analysis for the HVAC Program. However, because the results from the billing analyses for
smart Thermostats were contradictory and/or inconclusive,the Evaluators elected to utilize
Avista TRM values to estimate verified savings for these measures.
■ The Shell Program displayed verified savings of 18,117 Therms with a realization rate of 92.71%
against the expected savings for the program.The realization rate for the natural gas savings in
the Shell Program deviates from 100% due to the differences in quantities 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.
■ The Fuel Efficiency Program gas impacts are not claimed in the Idaho Gas report, however,the
Evaluators found that the program resulted in 11,562 Therms penalty,which is detailed in the
Idaho Electric impact evaluation report.Therms penalties are not aggregated into this report's
Residential portfolio impact evaluation and instead are reported here for planning purposes.
■ The ENERGY STAR Homes Program displayed a realization rate of 100%at 134 Therms saved
across 1 project in PY2023.The Evaluators found no deviations in savings for this program.
■ The Small Home& MF Weatherization Program in total displays a realization rate of 98.29%
with 5,445 Therms verified natural gas energy savings in the Idaho service territory.The
realization rate for the program deviates from 100%due one attic insulation project in which
the Avista TRM value was not applied to the project appropriately.This project resulted in a 20%
realization rate and contributed to the 50% realization rate for the attic insulation measure.All
other sampled projects displayed realization rates between 98%and 102%.These were
primarily due to small discrepancies in the square footage reported as well as a miscalculation of
the value used in the TRM for Natural Gas Furnaces. In addition, U-values for window measures
were not consistently tracked, which is an important savings unit assignment requirement.The
Evaluators recommend Avista incorporate a u-value field to the tracking database and add
additional QA/QC procedures for documenting square footage for these measures in the
program in which multiple insulation projects occur.
■ 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).The Evaluators recommend that Avista
ensure projects meet the small home definition; projects that do not meet this definition should
be rebated under the appropriate residential program.
■ The Multifamily Direct Install Program displayed a realization rate of 100%at 227 Therms saved
in PY2023.The Evaluators found no discrepancy between the savings values in the tracking
database and the TRM values leading to a realization rate of 100%for these measures. However,
more granularity in per unit savings values could be achieved if the tracking data included data
about space heating type for each unit.The Evaluators recommend verifying space heating type
in the tracking data in order to apply more specific savings values to each project.
■ The Appliance Program displayed a realization rate of 65.53%at 396 Therms saved in PY2023.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Appliance Program deviates from 100%
Measurement and Evaluation Report 4

Avista Idaho PY2023
due removal of savings from the Top Load Washer measure and the inflated savings from Energy
Star Rated Clothes Dryer measure.The expected savings utilized a 2.72 Therms savings value for
clothes dryers, but the appropriate RTF UES value is 9.59 Therms.The Evaluators recommend
Avista update the clothes dryer measure to be in alignment with the RTF UES value.The
Evaluators note that the current tracking database does not document the cubic volume for the
refrigerators and freezers, which is an RTF requirement with minimum restrictions.The
Evaluators recommend incorporating cubic volume in the Appliance Program tracking database.
■ The Evaluators evaluated the Midstream Program in its launch year of PY2023.The Midstream
Program displayed a realization rate of 35.20%at 48,830 Therms saved in PY2023.The program
started in summer 2023.Through this program, Avista effectively converted several water
heater and HVAC residential appliances from a downstream measure into a midstream delivery,
effectively removing the barriers for end-use customers by removing the requirement to deliver
rebate applications to Avista.The program is implemented by Energy Solutions.The
implementer defined expected savings for each measure delivered in the program, which
displayed savings drastically higher than the Avista TRM and RTF UES documented savings.
Therefore,the realization rates for the program are 35%of expected savings.The Evaluators
reviewed program documentation and found that the implementer engineering algorithm
results were inflated due to incorporating code minimum baselines whereas the RTF and Avista
TRM incorporate estimated market baseline. In addition,the Evaluators found that the
implementer engineering algorithms were not applied properly, leading to even further inflated
savings.The Evaluators note that, had the program utilized the Avista TRM to evaluate expected
savings for the program, the realization rate for the program would have been near-100%.The
Evaluators recommend that Avista and the implementers update the expected savings
calculation methodology to incorporate market practice baseline rather than minimum code
baseline values in order to remain consistent with the baseline methods utilized in the
downstream measure programs and more accurately estimate expected savings in future
iterations of this program.
1.2.1.2 Low-Income Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista's Low-Income natural gas
programs:
■ The Evaluators found the Low-Income portfolio to demonstrate a total of 2,025 Therms with a
realization rate of 94.82%.
■ 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 in order 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 91%from the desk
review with Avista TRM values.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 5

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ The Evaluators received a lower number of project documents than intended due to the CAP
agency having low bandwidth for fulfilling these time-consuming paperwork requests. During
the review,the Evaluators found there were several projects with missing data. In total, eight
projects were unable to be verified due to missing or incomplete data.
■ During the review,the Evaluators found there were several projects with missing data. In total,
seven projects were unable to be verified due to missing or incomplete data. The Evaluators
note that the majority of deviations from 100% realization rate in the Low-Income were due to
small differences in the reported savings and Avista TRM documentation 20%annual household
energy caps not properly applied in a few instances.The Evaluators recommend additional
QA/QC efforts are completed to ensure the program is properly applying the 20%annual
household cap by using available household billing data.
1.2.1.3 Nonresidential Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista's Nonresidential gas programs:
■ The verified savings for the HVAC program are 12,969 verified Therms with a realization rate of
100%.
■ The verified savings for the Food Service Equipment program is 3,930 therms with a realization
rate of 100%.
■ The verified savings for the Shell program is 7,117 Therms with a realization rate of 100.0%, as
displayed in Table 5-11. Evaluators did not find any deviations from TRM UES.
■ The verified savings for the Midstream program is 7,536 Therms with a realization rate of 41.5%,
as displayed in Table 5-16. Adjusted savings comes from the RTF where available. Where not
available, adjusted savings comes from program planning workbooks used by program
implementors.
o Results show that UES and prescriptive multipliers for Conveyor Ovens, Furnaces and
Storage Water Heaters did not align with ex ante savings shown in the planning workbook,
and were not applied to tracking data as originally intended.
o Savings for food service equipment was assigned using UES in the program
implementation workbook, however, did not provide the same estimates that were
claimed, indicating that expected UES values were not applied correctly or consistently
for Conveyor Ovens and Fryers.
o Verified savings for griddles, dishwashers and boilers was taken from the RTF workbook
and is specific to the equipment configuration, capacity and type of facility it is installed
in.
o Savings for Furnaces, Instantaneous Water Heaters and Storage Water Heaters was
calculated using standard engineering algorithms, with equipment-specific inputs for
capacity and efficiency, and EFLH values from the Midstream planning workbook.
Groundwater temps were taken from the RTF and estimates of gallons of water used per
year were taken from the IL TRM 12.0 and assigned to specific facility types. Expected
Measurement and Evaluation Report 6

Avista Idaho PY2023
savings for both instantaneous and storage water heaters assumed annual water usage
that varied between 348% and 461% of usage estimates in the IL and AR TRMs. Verified
savings this for these measures used the more reasonable annual water usage estimates
from the IL TRM 12.0, resulting in low verified savings
■ The verified savings for the Site-Specific Program are 29,069 Therms with a realization rate of
116.8%.
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 a handful of instances in which the rebated equipment did not meet the
program minimum requirements for efficiency.The Evaluator recommend Avista check the
source AHRI documentation and product level documentation to verify efficiency prior to
incentivizing installation of the measure. For example, six of the smart thermostats did not
qualify for RTF savings and two appliances were verified to lack ENERGY STAR qualifications.
■ 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.
■ 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.
■ The Evaluators found a handful of instances where the rebated equipment did not meet the
program minimum requirements for efficiency.The Evaluator recommend Avista check the
source AHRI document to verify efficiency prior to incentivizing installation of the measure.
■ In the Water Heat Program, the Evaluators found that Avista TRM savings values are slightly
lower than the RTF savings assigned for the appropriate water heater tank size and tier
Measurement and Evaluation Report 7

Avista Idaho PY2023
efficiency.The Evaluators found a majority of water heaters to be Tier 3 or higher, but the Avista
TRM only includes savings for a combination of Tier 2 and Tier 3 savings.The Evaluators
recommend that Avista document tier rating of heat pump water heaters to ensure proper
validation of savings.
■ In the Energy Star Homes Program, the Evaluators note that program application forms
commonly lacked information about home primary and secondary space and water heating type.
The Evaluators recommend updating the Avista measure savings database to match the primary
heating type for dual fuel households.
■ The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed small discrepancies in the square
footage reported; there was one project in which the square footage for the associated attic
insulation was used in place of the project's wall insulation, and vice versa. The Evaluators
recommend that Avista perform additional QA/QC efforts to ensure square footage is tracked
properly, especially for projects in which multiple insulation projects occur.
■ The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed inconsistent u-values, which is an
important savings unit assignment requirement.The Evaluators recommend Avista incorporate a
u-value field to the tracking database and add additional QA/QC procedures for documenting
square footage for these measures in the program.
■ 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.
■ In the Appliance Program, the Evaluators note that the current tracking database does not
document the cubic volume for the refrigerators and freezers, which is an RTF requirement with
minimum restrictions. The Evaluators recommend incorporating cubic volume in the Appliance
Program tracking database.
■ 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. Additionally,The Evaluators recommend Avista update the clothes dryer Avista
TRM value to correctly convert 281 kWh/unit to 9.6 Therms/unit. Currently,the Avista TRM
reflects 2.72 Therms/unit.
■ The Evaluators note that, had the Midstream Program utilized the Avista TRM to evaluate
expected savings for the program,the realization rate for the program would have been near-
100%.The Evaluators recommend Avista work with the implementer of the Midstream Program
to update expected savings values in the implementer TRM in order to more accurately predict
program-level savings in future program cycles.
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 to slight deviations between the reported savings and the Avista TRM as well as
Measurement and Evaluation Report 8

Avista Idaho PY2023
some measures where 20% annual household energy caps were improperly applied. The
Evaluators recommend verifying that the Avista TRM values and the 20% household cap are
properly applied when calculating measure savings by utilizing available household billing data.
1.2.2.3 Nonresidential Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista's Nonresidential Midstream
natural gas program:
■ Administrators should verify that LIES and savings multipliers are applied consistently across
measures.The Evaluators found that in many cases program planning estimates could not
replicate claimed savings.
■ Drivers of differences between implementor and RTF EUS for Food Equipment cannot be
assessed, but are likely due to differences in baseline efficiency assumptions.
■ The Evaluators suggest that program implementors calculated expected savings for HVAC
measures using prescriptive algorithms and measure-specific characteristics. Capacities and
efficiency levels very considerably within these measures and current planning materials only
produce very general savings estimates.
■ Hot water usage varies considerably between commercial facility types. For instantaneous and
storage water heaters, develop expected savings estimates using annual hot water usage (in
gallons) by specific building type.
■ Refer to RTF savings estimates for griddles.
Measurement and Evaluation Report 9

Avista Idaho PY2023
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)' 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 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)'
■ 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 20137
■ International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) maintained by the
Efficiency Valuation Organization(EVO)with sponsorship bythe 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 10

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 11

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 LIES,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.
Evaluated
Reported Database Adjusted Documen
Savings Review savings Review Savings
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 12

Avista Idaho PY2023
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
/ZxCVIz
n =
l d
Equation 2-2 Sample Size for Finite Population Size
n
no = ( l
1 + 0
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 13

Avista Idaho PY2023
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.aov/uploadedFiles/CPUC Public Website/Content/Utilities and Industries/Energy/Energy Programs/De
mand Side Management/EE and Energy Savings Assist/CAEvaluationFramework.pdf
Evaluation and Measurement Report 14

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 2-1:Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Program
I Sample
Sector Program Gas Population (With Finite Precision at 90%
Population C11
Residential Water Heat 156 48 90%±9.76%
Residential HVAC 1,641 65 90%±9.35%
Residential Shell 383 58 90%±9.58%
Residential ENERGY STAR® Homes 1 1 90%±0.00%
Residential Small Home&MF Weatherization 132 45 90%±8.64%
Residential Appliances 115 43 90%±9.79%
Residential Midstream 578 61 90%±9.96%
Residential Multifamily Direct Install - - N/A
Low-Income Low-Income 106 42 90%±10.52%
Total 3,975 291 90%±4.06%
'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±5.80%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
Program .. •i'
a
Residential Water Heat 156 24 90%±15.49%
Residential HVAC 1,641 131 90%±6.90%
Residential Appliances 115 27 90%±13.91%
Residential Small Home&MF 132 1 90%±82.25%
Weatherization
Total 2,044 183 90%±5.80%
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 15

Avista Idaho PY2023
2.2.2.3 Site-Specific 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 (LIES) 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 (LIES) applicable to Avista's measures,the
Evaluators verified the quantity and quality of installations and apply the RTF's LIES 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 16

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 2023 program year. Isolation
of individual measures is 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.
2.2.3.3 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)
io National Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL)Uniform Methods Project(UMP)Chapter 17 Section 4.4.7.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 17

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ 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.
2.2.3.4 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,
2022 and December 31, 2023)
5. Typical Meteorological Year(TMY3) data
Billing and weather data were obtained for program year 2023 and for one year prior to measure install
dates (2022).
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.
2.2.3.5 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. Remove duplicate bills and any bills with overlapping billing periods. If two billing periods
overlapped, the bill with a start date that matched the previous bill's end date was included and
the other bill was excluded. For example, if overlapping bill 1 had a 02/19/2023 start date,
overlapping bill 2 had a 02/25/2023 start date, and the previous bill had a 02/19/2023 end date,
Evaluation and Measurement Report 18

Avista Idaho PY2023
overlapping bill 2 would be removed. If there was no previous bill,the overlapping bill with the
earlier start date was included and the other overlapping bill was removed.
10. Calendarized bills (recalculates billing dates, usage, and total billed days such that bills begin and
end at the start and end of each month).
11. Obtained weather data from nearest NOAA weather station using 5-digit zip code per
household.
12. 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.
13. Removed measure cohorts without at least 75 treatment customers.
14. 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).
15. Restricted to treatment customers with install dates in specified range (typically January 1, 2023
through June 30, 2023)to allow for sufficient post-period billing data.
16. 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.
17. Removed customers with incomplete post-period bills (<6 months).
18. Removed customers with incomplete pre-period bills.
19. Restricted control customers to those with usage that was comparable with the treatment
group usage.
20. Created a matched control group using PSM and matching on pre-period seasonal usage and zip
code.
2.2.3.6 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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 19

Avista Idaho PY2023
Equation 2-3:Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference (D-n-D)Model Specification
sADCit = ao +f31(Post)it +MPost x Treatment)it +f33(HDD)it +fj4(CDD)it +
fls(Post x HDD)it +&(Post x CDD)it +f37(Post x HDD x Treatment)it +MPost x CDD x
Treatment)it +f39(Month)t +f310(Customer Dummy)i + Eit
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
■ Eit =The error term
■ ao=The model intercept
■ fli-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 Qs 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 = f32 * 365.25 +f37 * TMY HDD +f3$ * TMY CDD
Modell: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
Evaluation and Measurement Report 20

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 +F'2 (PreUsageSpring)i + MPreUsageSummer)i
+f34(PreUsageFa11)i +f3s(PreUsageWinter)i +&(Month)t
+f37(Month x PreUsageSpring)it +f3$(Month x PreUsageSummer)it
+f39(Month x PreUsageFall)it +#10(Month x PreUsageWinter)it +fjj(HDD)it
+f312(CDD)it +f313(Treatment x HDD)it +f314(Treatment x CDD)it + 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
■ Treatmenti =A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
■ Montht = Dummy variable indicating month of month t
■ PreUsageSpringi =Average daily usage in the spring months across household is available
pre-treatment billing reads
■ PreUsageSummeri = Average daily usage in the summer months across household is
available pretreatment billing reads
■ PreUsageFalli = Average daily usage in the fall 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)
■ Eit =Customer-level random error
■ ao=The model intercept for home i
■ /l1-14 =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 f313 and f314 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 f313 and F'14 coefficients with Typical Meteorological Year(TMY) HDD and
CDD data.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 21

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 = fli * 365.25 +f311 * TMY HDD +fl12 * 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 +fs(Post x CDD)it
+&(Customer Dummy)i +MMonth)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_7 = 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 national or regional events like a pandemic, recession, or weather
event. For example,the pre-period and post-period for PY2023 may have been affected by changes in
Evaluation and Measurement Report 22

Avista Idaho PY2023
remote work in Washington due to the tail end of the COVID-19 pandemic.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.
2.2.3.7 Billing Heating Load Estimation
In addition to the regression based IPMVP Option C billing analysis,the Evaluators also employed a
heating load estimation billing analysis. Heating load estimation is a prime methodology for estimating
savings associated with space heating measures such as furnaces.This methodology follows IPMVP
Option A, in which the estimation of a key parameter is used to calculate savings.The heating load
estimation methodology follows the same data collection and data preparation steps outlined in Section
2.2.3.4 and Section 2.2.3.5, respectively. However, instead of ending with a regression analysis, post-
period billing data are used to estimate customer heating load, which is used as an input in a deemed
savings formula to calculate energy savings.
The first step in heating load estimation is calculating TMY3 weather normalized average daily
consumption.To do so, customer-specific regressions are run to determine the effect of daily HDD on
average daily consumption.This is a straightforward regression of the form:
Equation 2-8:Heating Load Regression
ADCi = ao +(31(HDD)i
Where,
■ i=the ith household
■ ADCi =Average daily usage for household i during the post-treatment period
■ HDDi =Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) at home i
■ R1 =Coefficient determined via regression
This regression is run separately for each customer to determine/31, impact of HDD on average daily
consumption (i.e.,the change in Therms usage per HDD). From there, R1 multiplied by HDD is subtracted
from ADC and/31multiplied by TMY3_HDD is added back to ADC to calculate TMY3 weather normalized
average daily consumption.The actual HDD attributable Therms usage is subtracted from average daily
consumption and the TMY_HDD attributable Therms are added back in, as outlined in the following
equation.
Equation 2-9:Normalized Average Daily Consumption
NADCi = ADCi —(31 * (HDD)i + R1 * (TMY_HDD)i
Where,
■ i=the ith household
■ NADCi = TMY normalized average daily usage for household i during the post-treatment
period
■ R1 =Customer-specific Therms usage per HDD
■ ADCi =Average daily usage for household i during the post-treatment period
■ HDDi =Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) at home i
Evaluation and Measurement Report 23

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ TMY_HDDi =Average TMY heating degree days at home i
Once TMY normalized average daily usage is calculated,the penultimate step to heat load estimation is
calculating customer baseload usage. Customer baseload usage represents the energy customers use for
non-heating needs, such as a gas stove or dryer. For gas heating measures, customer baseload usage can
be calculated as the average NADC across June,July, and August. Customer-specific baseload usage is
then subtracted from NADC and to determine customer daily heating load.
Customer heating loads are then used in the following deemed savings equation to calculate the annual
savings associated with gas furnace installation.
Equation 2-10: Gas Furnace Savings
1 1
Savingsi = 365 * HLi * ( — )
Basei Ef fi
Where,
■ i=the ith household
■ Savingsi = Annual Therms savings for household i based on post-treatment period billing
data
■ 365 = Days in the year
■ HLi = Customer-specific daily heating load for household i
■ Basei = Baseline furnace efficiency at home i, which is assumed to be 85.5% per the RTF Gas
Furnace LIES Measure11
■ Ef fi = Installed furnace efficiency at home i,which is assumed to be 95%
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
11 https:Hrtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/residential-gas-furnaces/
Evaluation and Measurement Report 24

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 25

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 PY2023.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 Savings Verified Savings Verified Realization
Program (Therms) (Therms) Rate
Water Heat 10,125 9,051 89.39%
HVAC 87,728 85,264 97.19%
Shell 19,541 18,117 92.71%
Fuel Efficiency 0 0 -
ENERGY STAR Homes 134 134 100.00%
Small Home&MF Weatherization 5,540 5,445 98.29%
Appliances 605 396 65.53%
Multifamily Direct Install 227 227 100.00%
Midstream 138,707 48,830 35.20%
Total Res 262,607 167,465 63.77%
In PY2023,Avista completed and provided incentives for residential natural gas measures in Idaho and
reported total natural gas savings of 167,465 Therms, leading to an overall achievement of 63.77%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 2,229 unique customers that participated in Avista's residential energy efficiency
program from October 2022 and in December 2023 using an email survey approach. The Evaluators
surveyed customers that received rebates for HVAC, Water Heater, Shell, Small Home & MF
Weatherization, and Appliance Programs.
Table 3-2:Summary of Survey Response Rate
Population Respondents
Initial email contact list 8,262
Invalid or bounced 416
Invalid or bounced email(°o) 5.0%
Invitations sent(unique valid) 7,846
Completions 2,229
Response rate(%) 28.4%
Evaluation and Measurement Report 26

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 ±5.80% precision across the programs surveyed
for the natural gas measures in Avista's Idaho service territory, summarized in Table 3-3. When
summarizing Idaho and Washington in-service rates,the Evaluators achieved ±5.51% precision across
the programs, summarized in Table 3-4.
Table 3-3:State-Level Simple Verification Precision by Program
Sector Program Population Respondents Precision at 90%Cl
Residential Water Heat 156 24 90%±15.49%
Residential HVAC 1,641 131 90%±6.90%
Residential Appliances 115 27 90%±13.91%
Small Home&MF
Residential 132 1 90%±82.25%
Weatherization
Total 2,044 183 90%±5.80%
Table 3-4:Mixed State-Level Simple Verification Precision by Program
Program
Precision at 90' Cl
Residential Water Heat 156 48 90%±15.49%
Residential HVAC 1,641 65 90%±6.90%
Residential Appliances 115 43 90%±13.91%
Residential Small Home& MF 132 45 90%+82.25%
Weatherization
Total 2,044 201 90%±5.51%
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 3-5: Water Heat Program ISRs by Measure
MethodologyState-level Statell'Mixed State- State
Measure Respondents level level level ISR
ISR Respondents
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater 4 100% 21 100% Mixed state ISR
G Tankless Water Heater 20 100% 59 100% Mixed state ISR
Evaluation and Measurement Report 27

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-6:HVAC Program ISRs by Measure
Measure State-level level level State- ISR State- Mixed State- Mixed
Methodology
Respondents
ISR Respondents
ISR
G FURNACE 95%(Multi-Stage or No N/A 54 100% State-specific ISR
Modulating) Participation
G FURNACE 95%(Multi-Stage) No N/A 2 100% State-specific ISR
Participation
G Natural Gas Boiler 96%+ No N/A 1 100% State-specific ISR
Participation
G Natural Gas Boiler 95% 4 100% 14 100% State-specific ISR
G Natural Gas Furnace 58 98% 98 98% State-specific ISR
G Natural Gas Wall Furnace 1 100% 2 100% State-specific ISR
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural 21 100% 52 100% State-specific ISR
Gas Heat
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with 47 100% 121 100% State-specific ISR
Natural Gas Heat
Table 3-7.Small Home& MF Weatherization Program ISRs by Measure
Measure State-level level level State- ISR State- Mixed State- Mixed
Methodology
Respondents
ISR Respondents
ISR
G Multifamily 50 Gallon Natural Gas 0 100% 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Water Heater*
G Multifamily Attic Insulation With 0 100% ° °
Natural Gas Heat* 0 100/ Assume 100% ISR
G Multifamily Energy Star Certified 0 100% 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Insulated Door*
G Multifamily Energy Star Rated Front
0 100% 0 100% Assume 100% ISR
Load Washer*
G Energy Star Rated Front Load No N/A No 100% Assume 100% ISR
Washer* Participation Participation
G Multifamily Energy Star Rated Top 0 100% 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Load Washer*
G Multifamily FURNACE 95%(Multi- No N/A 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Stage)* Participation
G Multifamily Natural Gas Boiler* 0 100% 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
G Multifamily Natural Gas Furnace* 0 100% 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
G Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY 0 100% 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
with Natural Gas Heat*
G Multifamily Smart Thermostat Paid 1 100% 1 100% Assume 100%ISR
Install with Natural Gas Heat*
G Multifamily Tankless Water Heater* 0 100% 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
G Multifamily Window DIY Replc With No N/A 0 100% Assume 100%ISR
Natural Gas Heat* Participation
G Multifamily Window Replc With 0 100% ° °
Natural Gas Heat* 0 100/ Assume 100% ISR
G Multifamily Energy Star Rated No N/A 0 100% Assume 100% ISR
Clothes Dryer* Participation
Evaluation and Measurement Report 28

Avista Idaho PY2023
MethodologyState- Mixed State- Mixed
State-level State-
ISR Respondents
6k� ISR
G Multifamily Wall Insulation With
Natural Gas Heat* 0 100% 0 100% Assume 100% ISR
*These measures did not receive enough responses to meet 90/10 precision and therefore
100%in-service rate is assumed
Table 3-8:Appliances Program ISRs by Measure
Measure State-level level level State- ISR State- Mixed State- Mixed
Methodology
Respondents
ISR Respondents
ISR
G Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 6 100% 10 100% Mixed state ISR
G Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer 14 100% 29 100% Mixed state ISR
G Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer 7 86% 21 95% 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.
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 gas measures offered under this
program.
Table 3-9: Water Heat Program Measures
•1 J Impact Analysis Methodology
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Storage tank natural gas water Avista TRM
Heater heater,50 gallons or 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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 29

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-10: Water Heat Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
PY2023
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Realization
(Therms) (Therms) (Therms) Rate
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water 19 305 414 305 100.00%
Heater
G Tankless Water Heater 137 9,820 9,590 8,746 89.06%
Total 156 10,125 10,004 9,051 89.39%
The Water Heat Program displayed verified savings of 9,051 Therms with a realization rate of 89.39%
against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive costs from
the program.
Table 3-11: Water Heat Program Costs
Measure Incentive
Costs
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater $1,300.00
G Tankless Water Heater $54,800.00
Total $56,100.00
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.
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 six deviations, however.The Evaluators found that for two G 50 Gallon
Natural Gas Water Heaters, no savings were claimed. In addition,the Evaluators found four G Tankless
Water Heater project documentation reflected boilers;the Evaluators therefore removed savings from
these sampled projects.
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?
Evaluation and Measurement Report 30

Avista Idaho PY2023
■ 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.
Table 3-12: Water Heat Verification Survey ISR Results
Number of Number of .•
Measure Rebates* Survey Precision at 90% In-Service Rate
Completes Confidence
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas
Water Heater 78 21 90%±8.31%* 100/
G Tankless Water Heater 355 59 100%
*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.
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 3-13 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 3-13:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Water Heat Program
Isolated-MeasureMeasure Number of Suff icient
Measure Considered for Customers wl Participation
Billing Analysis
Installations Analysis
3 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater ✓ 51
G Tankless Gas Water Heater ✓ 1 225 ✓
*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
Evaluation and Measurement Report 31

Avista Idaho PY2023
matched to 5 similar control customers.The final number of customers in each the treatment and
control group are listed in Table 3-14.
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 3-14 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. However, savings for the G Tankless Water
Heater are lower than RTF savings and therefore not used towards estimating verified savings for the
measure.
Table 3-14:Measure Savings, Water Heat Program
Annual
Treatment Control Savings .0. 90% Adjusted
ModelMeasure Customers Customers per Lower Upper R-
Customer Cl Cl Squared
(Therms) I
G Tankless Water Heater 225 224 23.82 10.1 37.55 .91 Model 2:
PPR
*Not statistically significant
The Evaluators selected to utilize the billing analysis values to estimate verified savings for these
measures. Further details of the billing analysis for the tankless water heater measure can be found
Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results.
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 9,050.75 Therms
with a realization rate of 89.39%, as displayed in Table 3-10.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the tankless and storage tank water heater measures
deviated from 100% realization due to differences in home type, heating zone, cooling zone, and
efficiency level of the water heater.
The Evaluators found that many rebates did not have documentation filled for space heating type.The
Evaluators recommend Avista verify heating type prior to completing rebates and ensure proper Avista
TRM values are assigned for the specifications of the unique project.
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
Evaluation and Measurement Report 32

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 3-15
summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-15: HVAC Program Measures
Measure _ .. . .•
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install Professionally installed connected
with Natural Gas Heat Thermostats in natural gas-heated Avista TRM
home
G Natural Gas Boiler 95% Natural gas boiler Avista TRM
G Natural Gas Furnace Natural gas forced air furnace Avista TRM
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Self-installed connected
Natural Gas Heat Thermostats in natural gas-heated Avista TRM
home _
G Natural Gas Wall Furnace Natural gas forced air furnace Avista TRM
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the HVAC Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-16:HVAC Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
PY2023 Expected qr Adjusted Verified Verified
Measu—qW Savings Savings Realization
re Participation Savings
(Therms) (Therms) (Therms) Rate
G Natural Gas Boiler 95% 708 19,101 19,154 20,374 106.67%
G Natural Gas Furnace 16 1,767 1,798 1,767 100.00%
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas 693 60,726 60,726 59,679 98.28%
Heat
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with 223 6,052 6,112 3,362 55.56%
Natural Gas Heat
G Natural Gas Wall Furnace 1 82 82 82 100.00%
Total 1,641 87,728 87,873 85,264 97.19%
The HVAC Program displayed verified savings of 85,264 Therms with a realization rate of 97.19%against
the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated
with the program.
Table 3-17: HVAC Program Costs
Measure Incentive Costs
G Natural Gas Boiler 95% $106,868.54
G Natural Gas Furnace $7,200.00
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat $314,100.00
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas Heat $26,356.27
G Natural Gas Wall Furnace $450.00
Total $454,974.81
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the HVAC Program in the section below.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 33

Avista Idaho PY2023
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. In addition,the Evaluators asked participants how the COVID19 pandemic stay-at-home
orders have affected their household's energy consumption.The responses to these additional
questions can be found in Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results.
Table 3-18 displays the ISRs for each of the HVAC measures for Idaho natural gas territory alone. The
ISRs resulted in ±6.90% precision at the 90%confidence interval for the program.
Table 3-18:HVAC Verification Survey ISR Results
Number Number of Precision at In-Service
Measure of Survey 90% Rate
Rebates* Completes Confidence
G FURNACE 95%(Multi-Stage or Modulating) 0 No N/A
Participation
G FURNACE 95%(Multi-Stage)
0 No N/A
Participation
G Natural Gas Boiler 96%+ 0 No °
Participation 90% N/A
90%
G Natural Gas Boiler 95% 708 4 ±6. 100%
G Natural Gas Furnace 16 58 98%
G Natural Gas Wall Furnace 694 1 100%
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat 223 21 100%
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas Heat 1 47 100%
*This count includes rebates from Idaho only
Evaluation and Measurement Report 34

Avista Idaho PY2023
Survey respondents described equipment to be currently functioning, leading to a 100% ISR for all
measures except the G Furnace 95% measure. Although less than 100%,the ISR for the referenced
measure still met or exceeded ISRs of 98%.The Evaluators applied the ISRs listed in Table 3-18 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 3-19 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 3-19:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, HVAC Program
Measure Number of Suff icient
Considered for Customers w/ Participation
Billing Analysis Isolated-Measure for Billing
0 Installations* Analysis
G FURNACE 95%(Multi-Stage) ✓ 187 ✓
G Natural Gas Boiler ✓ 2
G Natural Gas Furnace ✓ 1,053 ✓
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat ✓ 427 ✓
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas ✓ 608 ✓
Heat
G FURNACE 95%(Multi-Stage) ✓ 187 ✓
*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 3-20.
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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 35

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-20 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 3-20:Measure Savings, HVAC Program
Annual
..
Customer Cl Cl Squared
G FURNACE 95%(Multi-Stage) 187 183 20.28 37.19 3.36 0.91 Model
2: PPR
G Natural Gas Furnace 1053 1,019 13.82 20.23 7.41 0.92 Model
2: PPR
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install 427 422 13.78 23.69 3.87 0.92 Model
with Natural Gas Heat 2: PPR
G Smart Thermostat DIY with 608 594 -1.5* 5.64 -8.64 0.94 Model
Natural Gas Heat 2: PPR
*Not statistically significant
Because the results from these billing analyses are contradicting and/or inconclusive, the Evaluators
elected to utilize Avista TRM values to estimate verified savings for the smart thermostat measures.
Details for this analysis are provided in the following section. Further details of the billing analysis can be
found Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results.
3.2.2.6 Verified Savings
The HVAC Program in total displays a verified savings of 85,350 Therms with a realization rate of 97.19%
in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-16.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the HVAC Program deviates from 100% due to
verification activities which confirmed that four of the nine sampled G Smart Thermostat DIY with
Natural Gas Heat projects lacked qualification for savings due to lack of occupancy senor or geolocation
capabilities.The Evaluators recommend Avista confirm qualification of smart thermostats prior to
rebating the project.
All other rebates were assigned savings equivalent to the expected savings through Avista TRM values.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 36

Avista Idaho PY2023
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
MethodologyMeasur Impact Analysis
_er� &M. -
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Attic insulation for homes heated with
Avista TRM
Heat natural gas
G Energy Star Certified Insulated ENERGY STAR-certified door for homes
Avista TRM
Door heated with natural gas
G Floor Insulation With Natural Gas Floor insulation for homes heated with Avista TRM
Heat natural gas
G Wall Insulation With Natural Gas Wall insulation for homes heated with Avista TRM
Heat natural gas
High-efficiency window replacement for
G Window DIY Replc With Natural homes heated with natural gas, installed by Avista TRM
Gas Heat the home owner
High-efficiency window replacement for
G Window Replc With Natural Gas homes heated with natural gas, installed by Avista TRM
Heat a contractor
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
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Realization
(Therms) (Therms) (Therms) Rate
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 64 5,284 4,917 3,863 73.12%
G Energy Star Certified Insulated Door 42 1,667 1,147 1,875 112.50%
G Floor Insulation With Natural Gas 8 166 150 84 50.68%
Heat
G Wall Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 11 405.45 431.45 0 0.00%
G Window DIY Replc With Natural Gas 8 353 353 371 105.04%
Heat
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 250 11,666 12,097 11,923 102.20%
Total 383 19,541 19,095 18,117 92.71%
The Shell Program displayed verified savings of 18,117 Therms with a realization rate of 92.71% against
the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated
with the program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 37

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 3-23:Shell Program Costs
Incentive Costs
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $59,286.00
G Energy Star Certified Insulated Door $6,000.00
G Floor Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $5,068.38
G Wall Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $5,246.75
G Window DIY Replc With Natural Gas Heat $1,857.72
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat $127,093.94
Total $204,552.79
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 identified one Energy Star Door measure in which two doors were installed but the
expected savings only accounted for one door, leading to a verified savings that was double the
expected amount.This occurrence increased the realization rate to 113%for Energy Star certified
insulated door measures as shown in Table 3-22
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 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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 38

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 of Suff icient
Considered for Customers W/ Participation
Billing Analysis Isolated-Measure for Billing
Installations* Analysis
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat ✓ 97* ✓
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat ✓ 342* ✓
G Attic Insulation and G Window Replc With ,/ 439* ✓
Natural Gas Heat
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon..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
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
ModelAnnual
Measure Customers Customers per Lower Upper d R-
Customer cl cl Squared
G Attic Insulation With 97 436 132.50* 36.06 228.93 0.92 Model
Natural Gas Heat 2: PPR
G Window Replc With 342 436 140.13* 68.55 211.72 0.93 Model
Natural Gas Heat 2: PPR
G Attic Insulation and G Model
Window Replc With 439 436 148.80 77.00 220.6 0.93 2: PPR
Natural Gas Heat
Evaluation and Measurement Report 39

Avista Idaho PY2023
T The Evaluators found the G Attic Insulation and G Window Replacement measures with Natural Gas
Heat display a statistically significant verified savings value of 148.80 Therms per year. Although the
Evaluators estimated savings for these measures through billing analysis,the verified savings for the
measures were calculated via Avista TRM due to much higher than expected billing analysis results.
Further details of the billing analysis for the Shell measures can be found in Appendix A.
3.2.3.6 Verified Savings
The Shell Program in total displays a realization rate of 92.71%with 18,117 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 higher than 100%due primarily to differences in quantity in the tracking
data and the verified documentation, which indicated for some project insufficient information for
verified savings application, or quantity differences.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 40

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 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.
Table 3-26:Fuel Efficiency Program Measures
Impact- Measure Description
.. . .
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace Electric baseboard or forced air furnace Avista TRM
heat to natural gas forced air furnace
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace& Electric to natural gas furnace and water Avista TRM
Water Heat 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 11,562 Therms and represents an 86.39% realization rate against the expected Therms
penalty amount of 13,384.The following table displays the Therms penalty by measure.
Table 3-27:Fuel Efficiency Program Verified Natural Gas Penalty
low PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Measure Participation Penalty Penalty Penalty Realization
(Therms) (Therms) (Therms) Rate
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 21 -9,429 -9,429 -8,172 86.67%
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace& 7 -3,955 -3,839 -3,390 85.71%
Water Heat
Total 28 -13,384 -13,268 -11,562 86.39%
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 PY2023.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 41

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 ... .
G Energy Star Home- ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured RTF UES
Manufactured,Gas Only home with natural gas furnace
G Energy Star Home- ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured RTF UES
Manufactured,Gas&Electric home with natural gas and electric
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the ENERGY STAR' Homes Program
impact evaluation.
Table 328:ENERGY STAR®Homes Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Realization
(Therms)—- (Therms) (Therms) Rate
G Energy Star Home-Manufactured, 1 134 133 134 100.00%
Gas Only 71
Total 1 134 133 1 134 100.00%
The ENERGY STAR' Homes Program displayed verified savings of 134 Therms 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 329:ENERGY STAR°Homes Program Costs
Measure Incentive Costs
G Energy Star Home-Manufactured,Gas Only $600.00
Total $600.00
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 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators confirm that the Avista TRM and the application of Avista TRM values were correct for
the gas rebates in the program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 42

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 natural gas measures using the most recent RTF workbook
for the ENERGY STAR® Homes 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.
3.2.5.5 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 LIES 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 100.00%with 134 Therms
verified natural gas energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 328.
The Evaluators did not conduct a verification survey for the ENERGY STAR' Homes Program and
therefore did not adjust verified savings with an ISR.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 43

Avista Idaho PY2023
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
MethodologyMeasure Description Impact Analysis
G Multifamily Attic Insulation With Attic insulation for multifamily homes with Avista TRM
Natural Gas Heat natural gas heat
G Multifamily Smart Thermostat Connected thermostat for multifamily homes Avista TRM
Paid with electric heat,contractor-installed
G Multifamily Furnace 95% Install high efficiency furnace water heater in Avista TRM
multifamily home
G Multifamily Smart Thermostat Connected thermostat for multifamily homes Avista TRM
DIY with electric heat,self-installed
G Multifamily Tankless Water Install high efficiency tankless water heater Avista TRM
Heater in multifamily home _
G Multifamily 50 Gallon Natural Install high efficiency 50 gallon tank water Avista TRM
Gas Water Heater heater in multifamily home
G Multifamily Wall Insulation With Wall insulation for multifamily homes with Avista TRM
Natural Gas Heat electric heat
G Multifamily Window Replc With Window replacement for multifamily homes Avista TRM
Natural Gas Heat 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
PY202 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
0'= I Savings Savings Savings Realization
Units (Therms) (Therms) (Therms) Rate
G Multifamily Attic Insulation With Natural Gas 3 199 0 101 50.94%
Heat
G Multifamily Energy Star Rated Top Load 1 6 6 6 100.00%
Washer
G Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural 4 107 107 107 100.00%
Gas Heat
G Multifamily Smart Thermostat Paid Install with 29 773 773 773 100.00%
Natural Gas Heat
G Multifamily Natural Gas Furnace 44 2871 2871 2871 100.00%
G Multifamily 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water 36 523 785 523 100.00%
Heater
G Multifamily Window Replc With Natural Gas 7 629 6 632 100.46%
Heat
Evaluation and Measurement Report 44

Avista Idaho PY2023
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Units Savings Savings Savings Realization
(Therms) (Therms) (Therms) Rate
G Multifamily Energy Star Certified Insulated 2 82 55 82 100.00%
Door
G Multifamily Tankless Water Heater 3 210 210 210 100.00%
G Multifamily Natural Gas Boiler 1 112 112 112 100.00%
G Multifamily Energy Star Rated Front Load 1 6 6 6 100.00%
Washer
G Multifamily Wall Insulation With Natural Gas 1 23 0 23 100.00%
Heat
Total 132 5,540 4,930 1 5,445 98.29%
The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed verified savings of 5,445 Therms with a
realization rate of 98.29% 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
Measure Incentive Costs
G Multifamily Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $2,532.00
G Multifamily Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer $50.00
G Multifamily Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat $451.38
G Multifamily Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas Heat $4,350.00
G Multifamily Natural Gas Furnace $19,800.00
G Multifamily 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater $2,400.00
G Multifamily Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat $3,030.28
G Multifamily Energy Star Certified Insulated Door $300.00
G Multifamily Tankless Water Heater $1,200.00
G Multifamily Natural Gas Boiler $450.00
G Multifamily Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer $50.00
G Multifamily Wall Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $243.75
Total $34,857.41
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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 45

Avista Idaho PY2023
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
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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 46

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 36 0 Assume 100%ISR
Natural Gas Water Heater
G Multifamily Attic Insulation 3 0 Assume 100%ISR
With Natural Gas Heat
G Multifamily Energy Star 2 0 Assume 100%ISR
Certified Insulated Door
G Multifamily Energy Star 1 0 Assume 100%ISR
Rated Front Load Washer
G Energy Star Rated Front 0 No Participation Assume 100%ISR
Load Washer
G Multifamily Energy Star 1 0 Assume 100%ISR
Rated Top Load Washer
G Multifamily FURNACE 95% 0 No Participation Assume 100%ISR
(Multi-Stage)
G Multifamily Natural Gas 1 0 90%±82.25% Assume 100%ISR
Boiler
G Multifamily Natural Gas 44 0 Assume 100%ISR
Furnace
G Multifamily Smart
Thermostat DIY with Natural 4 0 Assume 100%ISR
Gas Heat
G Multifamily Smart
Thermostat Paid Install with 29 1 Assume 100%ISR
Natural Gas Heat
G Multifamily Tankless 3 0 Assume 100%ISR
Water Heater
G Multifamily Window DIY 0 No Participation Assume 100%ISR
Replc With Natural Gas Heat
G Multifamily Window Replc 7 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.
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 Avista
TRM for the Small Home & MF Weatherization measures.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 47

Avista Idaho PY2023
3.2.6.S 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
appropriate Avista TRM values associated with each measure,verified through a sample of projects.The
Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed 98.29% realization with 5,445 Therms saved, as
displayed in Table 3-30.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program
deviated from 100%due to one attic insulation project in which the Avista TRM value was not applied to
the project appropriately.This project resulted in a 20% realization rate and contributed to the 50%
realization rate for the attic insulation measure. All other sampled projects displayed realization rates
between 98%and 102%.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 48

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 3-33
summarizes the measures offered under this program along with the impact evaluation methods for
each measure.
Table 3-33:Multifamily Direct Install Program Measures
ImpactMeasure ... .
Screw-in LED lamp(3.8) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(4.8) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(A-line 100W) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(A-line 40W) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(A-line 60W) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(BR30) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(BR40) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(G25) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(PAR30) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(PAR38) SBW TRM
Screw-in LED lamp(1120) Avista TRM/SBW TRM
Faucet aerator(1 GPM) RTF UES,Aerators_v1_1/SBW TRM
Kitchen Aerator RTF UES,Aerators_v1_1/SBW TRM
VendingMiser SBW TRM
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the Multifamily Direct Install
Program (MFDI) Program impact evaluation.
Table 3-34: Multifamily Direct Install Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
IF-. lrevrifiedEMP Verified
(Therms) (Therms) Rate
Faucet aerator(1 GPM) F 47 187 187 100%
Kitchen Aerator 21 40 40 100%
Total 68 227 227 100%
The Multifamily Direct Install Program displayed verified savings of 227 Therms with a realization rate of
100.00% against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive
and non-incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 3-35:Multifamily Direct Install Program Costs
Measure Incentive Costs
Faucet aerator(1 GPM) $712.00
Kitchen Aerator $168.00
Total $880.00
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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 49

Avista Idaho PY2023
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
The program administrators do not track data separately from the tracking data.Therefore,there were
no documents for the Evaluators to cross-verify for the Multifamily Direct Install Program.
To verify savings,the Evaluators reviewed the tracking data and verified savings using RTF LIES values.
The Evaluators found no discrepancy between the savings values in the tracking database and the RTF
LIES values leading to a realization rate of 100%for these measures. However, more granularity in per
unit savings values could be achieved if the tracking data included data about space heating type for
each unit.The Evaluators recommend verifying space heating type in the tracking data in order to apply
more specific 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.
3.2.7.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct survey verification for the Multifamily Direct Install Program since the
MFDI measure savings values have in-service rates embedded.
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 natural gas measures using the most recent Avista TRM
and SBW TRM values for the Multifamily Direct Install Program measures.These values were applied to
all gas measures in the program data.
3.2.7.5 Verified Savings
The program administrators do not house project-level documents.Therefore,there were no
documents for the Evaluators to cross-verify for the Multifamily Direct Install Program.
To verify savings,the Evaluators reviewed the tracking data and verified savings using Avista TRM and
SBW TRM values.The Evaluators found no discrepancy between the savings values in the tracking
database and the TRM values leading to a realization rate of 100%with 227 Therms saved for these
measures as displayed in Table 3-34. However, more granularity in per unit savings values could be
achieved if the tracking data included data about space heating type for each unit. The Evaluators
recommend verifying space heating type in the tracking data in order to apply more specific savings
values to each project.
The Evaluators did not conduct survey verification for the Multifamily Direct Install Program, as the
MFDI measure savings values have in-service rates embedded.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 50

Avista Idaho PY2023
3.2.8 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
3-36 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-36:Appliance Program Measures
ImpactMeasure 1��Descriptior��� .d. .•
G Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer ENERGY STAR-certified clothes dryer for RTF UES
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 3-37:Appliance Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Realization
(Therms) (Therms) (Therms) Rate
G Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 19 38 182 134 352.59%
G Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer 64 386 262 262 67.92%
G Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer 32 181 131 0 0.00%
Total 115 605 575 396 65.53%
The Appliance Program displayed verified savings of 396 Therms with a realization rate of 65.53%
against the expected savings for the program.The following table summarizes the incentive and non-
incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 3-38:Appliance Program Costs
Measure Incentive Costs
G Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer $650.00
G Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer $3,200.00
G Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer $1,600.00
Total $5,450.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Appliance Program in the section below.
3.2.8.1 Database Review& Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Appliance Program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 51

Avista Idaho PY2023
3.2.8.2 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.
3.2.8.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure described in Section 2.2.2.2.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 3-39 displays the ISRs for each of the Appliance measures for Idaho and Washington natural gas
territory combined, as the Idaho-only territory responses did not meet 90/10 precision goals.The ISRs
resulted in ±9.55% precision at the 90%confidence interval for the program.
Table 3-39:Appliance Verification Survey ISR Results
Number Number of Precision at In-Service
Measure of Survey 90% Rate
Completes .
G Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 40 10 100%*
G Energy Star Rated Top Load Washer 143 21 90%±9.55% 95%*
G Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer 126 29 100%*
*This count includes Idaho and Washington rebates
Survey respondents described equipment to be currently functioning, leading to a 95-100% ISR for all
measures.The Evaluators applied the ISRs listed in Table 3-39 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 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 52

Avista Idaho PY2023
3.2.8.5 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators did not complete a billing analysis for the measures in the Appliance Program.
3.2.8.6 Verified Savings
The Appliance Program in total displays a verified savings of 396 Therms with a realization rate of
65.53% in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-37.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Appliance Program deviates from 100%due
removal of savings from the Top Load Washer measure and the inflated savings from Energy Star Rated
Clothes Dryer measure.The expected savings utilized a 2.72 Therms savings value for clothes dryers, but
the appropriate RTF LIES value is 9.59 Therms.The Evaluators recommend Avista update the clothes
dryer measure to be in alignment with the RTF LIES value.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 53

Avista Idaho PY2023
3.2.9 Midstream Program
Avista converted several residential and nonresidential measures from a downstream delivery channel
to a midstream delivery channel via local distributors. As Avista notes, midstream approaches have
proven successful in other parts of the Pacific Northwest, as well as nationally.The Midstream Program
currently offers midstream incentives to residential customers for measures such as:
Residential natural gas furnace
Residential natural gas tankless water heaters
The nonresidential midstream measures and impact evaluation results are presented in Section 3.2.9.
This change in delivery channel is seen to expand the benefits gained from the consumer with respect to
the midstream incentive design rather than the downstream incentive design, as well as how customers
use this offering.
This section summarizes the estimated savings Avista has calculated for the Midstream Program. The
Evaluators conducted the first impact evaluation for the measures in this program for PY2023. Table
3-40 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-40:Midstream Program Measures
r Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
G Natural Gas Furnace High efficiency natural gas furnace Avista TRM
installation
G Natural Gas Tankless Water High efficiency natural gas water heater Avista TRM
Heater installation
The following table summarizes the estimated electric energy savings for the Midstream Program
impact evaluation.
Table 3-41:Midstream Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
m Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure 9r 023 Units Savings Savings Savings Rate
(Therms) (Therms) (Therms)
G Natural Gas Furnace 524 136,577 158,334 45,104 33.02%
G Natural Gas Tankless Water Heater 54 2,129 2,129 3,726 174.97%
Total 578 138,707 160,463 48,830 35.20%
The Midstream Program displayed estimated savings of 48,830 Therms with a realization rate of 35.20%.
The following table summarizes the incentive and non-incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 3-42:Midstream Program Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive Costs
G Natural Gas Furnace $235,800.00
G Natural Gas Tankless Water Heater $6,750.00
Total $242,550.00
The Evaluators describe the impact evaluation tasks completed for this program in the subsections
below.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 54

Avista Idaho PY2023
3.2.9.1 Database Review& Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Midstream
Pilot.The Evaluators selected a subset of rebates to cross-verify tracking data inputs, summarized in
Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators found all selected rebates documented the information necessary to accurately
characterize savings for the program within the Idaho natural gas service territory.The Evaluators
verified the model number, efficiency, quantity, and Avista TRM values necessary to calculate verified
savings.The Midstream tracking data is tracked and delivered separately from the remaining residential
portfolio, often demonstrating extensive detail on product characteristics.
During review, the Evaluators found that the implementer's engineering algorithms, in which expected
savings are calculated, differed greatly from the UES previously defined for each measure in the Avista
TRM and RTF UES values.That is,the implementer's engineering equations resulted in savings double or
triple the amount for the average air source heat pump and heat pump water heater. In addition, the
Evaluators found that the engineering algorithms applied to the tracking database equipment were not
applied properly to the tracking data inputs.The reasoning for this discrepancy is unclear.The tracking
database displays measure-level savings about 40% inflated compared to measure-level savings had the
designated baseline and annual operating hours aligned with those values defined in the implementer
TRM.This discrepancy is separate from the adjustment for market practice baseline by the RTF.
3.2.9.2 Verification Survey
The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the Midstream Program in PY2023 due to the
nature of the midstream delivery channel; customers are not aware that they are participating in the
program because they are not required to fill out a downstream rebate application.
3.2.9.3 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Midstream Program.The Evaluators
attempted to conduct a billing analysis for each measure with sufficient participation. For measures in
which billing analysis was not feasible or displayed inconclusive results,the Evaluators evaluated verified
savings for the measure through the Regional Technical Forum workbooks in place at the time of the
biennium plan for the Midstream Program.
The Evaluators reviewed the expected savings workbook from the program implementer, Energy
Solutions.The implementer defined expected Therm savings for each measure prior to the rollout of the
program.The Evaluators note that the expected savings workbook values from the implementer vary
from the Avista TRM for the previous prescriptive measure savings expectations. For this reason, it is
expected that the realization rate will portray discrepancies between the expected and verified savings.
The Evaluators estimated verified savings using billing analysis results of participating Midstream
Program customers as well as Avista's TRM developed for residential prescriptive measures.
3.2.9.4 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the Midstream Program are provided in this section.The
methodology for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.3.2.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 55

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 325 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 3-43:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Midstream Program
Measure Number of Sufficient
Measure Considered for Customers w/ Participation
Billing Analysis Isolated-Measure for Billing
Installations* Analysis
G Natural Gas Furnace ✓ 27
G Natural Gas Tankless Water Heater ✓ 7 ✓
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 326 provides annual savings per customer for both measures combined.The post-only heating
load extrapolation method using engineering algorithm was used to estimate the natural gas furnace
savings.This method is further detailed in Section 2.2.3.7.
Table 3-44:Measure Savings, Midstream Program
Measure Annual Savings per Customer(Therms)
G Natural Gas Furnace 47.43
The Evaluators found the G Natural Gas Furnace displayed a statistically significant verified savings value
of 47.43 Therms per year. Although the Evaluators estimated savings for these measures through billing
analysis, the verified savings for the measures were calculated via Avista TRM due to a low adjusted R-
Squared value indicating poor fit. Further details of the billing analysis for the Midstream measures can
be found in Appendix A.
3.2.9.5 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed the Energy Solutions implementer expected savings values along with verified
tracking data to estimate net adjusted program savings for those measures. In order to calculate verified
savings,the Evaluators utilized industry-standard engineering algorithms using purchased equipment
efficiency values and RTF-defined market practice baseline values, where appropriate.The Midstream
Program displayed 35.20% realization with 48,830 Therms saved, as displayed in Table 3-30.
The program verified savings resulted in a low realization rate largely due to the fact that the expected
savings were inflated due to incorporation of baselines that did not represent market baseline, as the
Avista TRM does.The Evaluators compared the implementer-provided expected savings to the
previously defined measure-level expected savings defined in the TRM and concluded that, had the
Avista TRM been used to define program expected savings,the realization rate would have been 100%
realization rather than 35% realization.This difference is seen in the discrepancy between the expected
savings value and the adjusted savings value presented in Table 3-30.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 56

Avista Idaho PY2023
The Evaluators did not make any additional adjustments to the purchased equipment, efficiency level of
the equipment nor the quantity, as the verification efforts confirmed the details were properly tracked.
Therefore,the difference between the established values in the implementer minimum code baseline
and the Avista TRM, as well as incorrectly applied engineering algorithms were the driving factor for the
low realization rate.The Evaluators recommend that Avista and the implementers update the expected
savings calculation methodology to incorporate market practice baseline rather than minimum code
baseline in order to remain consistent with the baseline methods utilized in the downstream measure
programs and more accurately estimate expected savings in future iterations of this program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 57

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 PY2023.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
• .• Realizationected
Low-Income 2,136 2,025 94.82%
Total Low-Income 2,136 2,025 94.82%
In PY2023,Avista completed and provided incentives for low-income gas measures in Idaho and
achieved total natural gas savings of 2,025 Therms.The Low-Income Program met savings expectations
based on reported savings with an achieved realization rate of 94.82%. 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
to utilize which are partially reimbursed.The following table summarizes the measures offered under
this program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 58

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 4-2 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 4-2: Low-Income Program Measures
MethodologyAbi Impact Analysis
Air Infiltration-G-ID
Attic Insulation-G-ID
Duct Insulation-G-ID
Duct Sealing-G-ID
Avista TRM
Exterior Doors-G-ID
Health Safety Repair-G-ID
Natural Gas Furnace-G-ID
Windows-G-ID
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
4F PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Realization
(Therms) (Therms) (Therms) Rate
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater 9 63.45 63.45 63 100.00%
G Air Infiltration 5 61 61 50 81.98%
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 1 108 108 50 45.95%
G Duct Insulation 1 5.25 7 3 61.26%
G Duct Sealing 1 20.17 20.17 9 45.95%
G Exterior Doors 5 57.96 57.96 45 78.35%
G Health Safety and Repair 8 0 0 0 N/A
G Natural Gas Furnace 28 1,743 1,743 1,743 99.99%
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 4 77 62 62 79.96%
Total 62 2,136 2,122 2,025 94.82%
The Low-Income Program displayed verified savings of 2,025 Therms with a realization rate of 94.82%
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
Measure Incentive Costs
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater $53,750.52
G Air Infiltration $422.30
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $1,725.00
G Duct Insulation $82.80
G Duct Sealing $104.08
G Exterior Doors $5,870.74
G Health Safety and Repair $35,796.13
G Natural Gas Furnace $234,177.50
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat $12,200.12
Total $344,129.19
Evaluation and Measurement Report 59

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 the review,the Evaluators found there were several projects with missing data. In total, seven
projects were unable to be verified due to inconsistent tracking data values. One of these projects was
the only attic insulation measure, resulting in the 46% realization rate.
The required information necessary to complete verification activities and proper expected savings
calculations are: measure installed square footage for insulation measures, measure quantity for
appliance measures, and total building annual energy usage in order to calculate proper building savings
cap at 20%annual energy usage.
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 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
Evaluation and Measurement Report 60

Avista Idaho PY2023
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
ModelTreatment Control Savings 90% 90% Adjusted
Measure Customers Customers per Lower Upper R-Squared
Customer Cl Cl
All Gas Measures Model 2:
(Therms) 168 130 13.64* 0 31.23 0.92 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 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
estimated using the Avista TRM.The Low-Income Program in total displays a realization rate of 94.82%
with 2,025 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%.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 61

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 PY2023.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 2023, 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
Program Expected Savings Adjusted Savings Verified Savings Verified
(Therms_ (Therms) (Therms) Realization Rate
HVAC 12,969 12,969 12,969 100.0%
Food Service Equipment 3,930 3,930 3,930 100.0%
Shell 7,117 7,117 7,117 100.0%
Midstream (NR) 18,140 12,737 7,536 41.5%
Site-Specific 24,891 24,891 29,069 116.8%
Total 67,047 61,644 60,621 90.4%
In PY2023,Avista completed and provided incentives for non-residential natural gas measures in Idaho
and reported total natural gas energy savings of 60,621 Therms. All programs exceeded savings claims,
leading to an overall achievement of 90.4%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.
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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 62

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 5-2 displays program populations, sample sizes for document verification and resulting precision.
Table 5-2: Non-Residential Program-level Verification Precision
• .• Population_���� Precision
HVAC 36 36 ±0.0%
Food Service Equipment 16 16 ±0.0%
Shell 12 12 ±0.0%
MidstreaM12 43 43 ±0.0%
Site-Specific 3 3 ±0.0%
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 LIES. The exception to this rule are custom
projects, such as those in the Site-Specific programs. For this the Evaluators conducted two on-site visits
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.
12 By design,the Midstream program tracking data is per measure,rather than per project. The number 43 represents the total
number of measures verified using make/model info included in tracking data.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 63

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 PY2023 under this program.
Table 5-3: Prescriptive HVAC Program Measures
Measure Impact Analysis s
Methodology
Natural Gas Boiler Avista TRM UES
Multi-Stage Furnace Avista TRM UES
Single-Stage Furnace Avista TRM UES
Unit Heater Avista TRM 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
023
O�Participati Expected A.
justed Verified Realization
Measure on Therm Therm Therm Rate
(Savings Savings Savings Savings
Units) I
95 Percent AFUE or greater NG multi stage 21 7,807 7,807 7,807 100.0%
furnace 225
95 Percent or greater AFUE NG single stage 14 4,404 4,404 4,404 100.0%
furnace 225
90 Percent AFUE or greater NG boiler 300 1 1 758 758 758 100.0%
Totals: 36 12,969 12,969 12,969 100.0%
The following table summarizes the incentives associated with the program.
Table 5-5:Prescriptive HVAC Program Incentives
Z_ Incentive Costs
95 Percent AFUE or greater NG multi stage furnace 225 $24,050
95 Percent or greater AFUE NG single stage furnace 225 $13,200
90 Percent AFUE or greater NG boiler 300 $2,376
Total $39,626
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.
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,
Evaluation and Measurement Report 64

Avista Idaho PY2023
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
Population MITI —�, � Precision
36 36 ±0.0%
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
The RTF does not currently offer a savings estimates for non-residential furnaces or the specific
configuration of the non-residential boiler rebated through the PY2023 Program.The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for commercial furnaces and boilers using the Avista TRM. 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 LIES values for commercial furnaces or the
specific commercial boiler resulting in 12,969 verified Therms with a realization rate of 100%, as
displayed in Table 5-4.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 65

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 5-7 summarizes the measures rebated in PY2023 under this program.
Table 5-7:Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Measures
Impact Analysis Methodology
Combination oven Avista TRM
Fryer Avista TRM
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
IPY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified I Realization
Measure Participation
(Projects) Savings Savings Savings
Commercial Convection Oven Natural 2 3,030 3,030 3,030 100.0%
Gas full size
Commercial Fryer Gas 14 900 900 900 100.0%
Total 16 3,930 3,930 3,930 100.0%
The following table summarizes the incentives associated with the program.
Table 5-9:Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Program Costs by Measure
TotalMeasure Count
I- Incentives
Commercial Convection Oven Natural Gas full size 6 $6,000
Commercial Fryer Gas 2 $1,400
Total 8 $7,400
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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 66

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 - 11 - — Precision
16 16 ±0.0%"
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 PY2023 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 3,930 Therms with a
realization rate of 100%, as displayed in Table 5-8.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 67

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 PY2023 under this program.
Table 5-11:Prescriptive Shell Program Measures
MethodologyMeasure W1 Impact Analysis
Attic 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
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified _qF
Measure Participation Therm Therm Therm Realization
(Projects) Savings Savings Savings Rate
Attic=< R11 to R45+ 5 3,603 3,603 3,603 100.0%
Attic=<R11 to R30-R44 3 565 565 565 100.0%
Wall=<R4 to 19+ 3 2,909 2,909 2,909 100.0%
Wall=< R4 to R11-R18 1 41 41 41 100.0%
Totals 12 7,117 7,117 7,117 100.0%
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(Square Feet Incentive Cost;--,
Attic=< R11 to R45+ 27,713 $32,918
Attic=< R11 to R30-R44 6,274 $6,067
Wall=< R4 to 19+ 8,081 $10,101
Wall=< R4 to R11-R18 170 $164
Totals 42,238 $49,250
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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 68

Avista Idaho PY2023
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
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
12 12 ±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. Final verified savings
were calculated by applying the appropriate LIES to a census of measures.
5.2.3.3 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current TRM LIES 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 7,117 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 69

Avista Idaho PY2023
5.2.4 Nonresidential Midstream Program
Avista designed the Midstream Program to shift the onus of applying for rebates from end-use
customers to distributors. Not only does this reduce customers'/contractors' administrative burden (i.e.,
no need to submit paperwork tracking energy efficient installations), but it is also anticipated to increase
high-efficiency equipment options at competitive prices. Midstream rebates provide an immediate
discount on eligible products, which appear as a line item on customer invoices. Starting on July 1, 2023,
the Midstream Program replaced Avista's residential and commercial downstream space-heating and
water-heating programs as well as the commercial food service equipment rebate program.
Through the Midstream Program,Avista seeks to achieve three overall objectives:
Provide greater long-term, cost-effective savings for residential and commercial customers
alike
Reduce Avista's administrative burden in processing space-heating, water-heating, and
commercial kitchen equipment applications
Accelerate the market transformation of energy-efficient equipment
The Midstream Program provides bought-down equipment to both Residential and Commercial entities.
This chapter discusses and presents results only for the non-residential measures. See Section 3.2.9 the
residential portion.
Table 5-15 summarizes the measures rebated in PY2023 under this program.
Table 5-15:Non-Residential Midstream Program Measures
MethodologyIRE Measure Impact Savings
Conveyor Oven Pre-Approved Implementation Workbook
Food Service Dishwasher Pre-Approved Implementation Workbook
Fryer RTF
Griddle RTF
Domestic Water Heating
Instantaneous Water Heater Engineering Algorithm
Storage Water Heater Engineering Algorithm
HVAC Furnace Engineering Algorithm
Boiler RTF
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Midstream Program impact
evaluation.
Table 5-16:Non-Residential Midstream Program Verified Therms Savings
IF PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Realization
Measure Participation Savings Savings Savings Rate
(Measures) (Therms) (Therms) (Therms)
Conveyor Oven 3 1,266 615 615 48.6%
Dishwasher 3 264 264 264 100.0%
Fryer 10 6,228 3,120 3,120 50.1%
Boiler 1 319 730 361 113.5%
Furnace 11 1,157 1,244 1,313 113.5%
Griddle 3 1,517 395 395 26.0%
Instantaneous Water Heater 7 4,642 1,886 1,790 38.6%
Storage Water Heater 5 2,748 2,849 1,064 38.7%
Total 43 18,140 11,104 8,922 49.2%
Evaluation and Measurement Report 70

Avista Idaho PY2023
The following table summarizes the incentive and non-incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 5-17:Non-Residential Midstream Program Incentives
Measure Count Incentive Costs
Conveyor Oven 3 $6,600
Dishwasher 3 $2,650
Fryer 10 $12,000
Boiler 1 $1,710
Furnace 11 $10,800
Griddle 3 $7,200
Instantaneous Water Heater 7 $9,892
Storage Water Heater 5 $7,623
Totals 43 $58,475
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Midstream Program in the section below.
5.2.4.1 Database Review& Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Midstream
Program. Due to the program delivery pathway,the Program does not include project applications. For
this program,the Evaluators examined a representative sample of projects to ensure that program
tracking data accurately reflected measure characteristics used in assessing savings. Data points checked
include: equipment configurations, capacities and efficiency levels.
Table 5-18 shows the project population, the number of measures checked and the overall precision.
Table 5-18:Non-Residential Midstream Program Verification Precision
Population . — Precision
43 43 0.0%
The Evaluators found all rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency requirements for
the Midstream Program and no substantive equipment specifications differed from those in the tracking
data.
5.2.4.2 Impact Analysis
Once verification was completed,to estimate program savings for these measures the Evaluators
reviewed and applied the appropriate UES values from the RTF. If a measure was not covered by an RTF
entry then a UEF from the Avista TRM was used as the source for verified savings. For measures not
included in either the RTF or Avista TRM, verified savings was calculated using standard engineering
algorithms with project-specific specs and RTF inputs.
5.2.4.3 Verified Savings
The verified savings for the program is 7,536 Therms with a realization rate of 41.5%, as displayed in
Table 5-16.Adjusted savings comes from the RTF where available. Where not available, adjusted
savings comes from program planning workbooks used by program implementors.
Results show that UES and prescriptive multipliers for Conveyor Ovens, Furnaces and Storage Water
Heaters did not align with ex ante savings shown in the planning workbook, and were not applied to
tracking data as originally intended.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 71

Avista Idaho PY2023
Savings for food service equipment was assigned using LIES in the program implementation workbook,
however, did not provide the same estimates that were claimed, indicating that expected UES values
were not applied correctly or consistently for Conveyor Ovens and Fryers.
Verified savings for griddles, dishwashers and boilers was taken from the RTF workbook and is specific to
the equipment configuration, capacity and type of facility it is installed in.
Savings for Furnaces, Instantaneous Water Heaters and Storage Water Heaters was calculated using
standard engineering algorithms, with equipment-specific inputs for capacity and efficiency, and EFLH
values from the Midstream planning workbook. Groundwater temps were taken from the RTF and
estimates of gallons of water used per year were taken from the IL TRM 12.0 and assigned to specific
facility types. Expected savings for both instantaneous and storage water heaters assumed annual
water usage that varied between 348%and 461%of usage estimates in the IL and AR TRMs. Verified
savings this for these measures used the more reasonable annual water usage estimates from the IL
TRM 12.0, resulting in low verified savings.
5.2.4.4 Recommendations for Future Program Cycles
■ Administrators should verify that LIES and savings multipliers are applied consistently across
measures.The Evaluators found that in many cases program planning estimates could not replicate
claimed savings.
■ Drivers of differences between implementor and RTF EUS for Food Equipment cannot be assessed,
but are likely due to differences in baseline efficiency assumptions.
■ The Evaluators suggest that program implementors calculated expected savings for HVAC measures
using prescriptive algorithms and measure-specific characteristics. Capacities and efficiency levels
very considerably within these measures and current planning materials only produce very general
savings estimates.
■ Hot water usage varies considerably between commercial facility types. For instantaneous and
storage water heaters, develop expected savings estimates using annual hot water usage (in gallons)
by specific building type.
■ Refer to RTF savings estimates for griddles.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 72

Avista Idaho PY2023
5.2.5 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 PY2023 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 5-19:Site-Specific Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
PY2023 Expected Adjusted Verified Verified Realization
Participation Therm Savings Therm Savings Therm Savings Rate
3 24,891 24,891 29,069 116.8%
The Site-Specific Program displayed verified savings of 29,069 Therms with a realization rate of 116.8%
against the expected savings for the program.
Table 5-20:Site-Specific Program Costs
Program
Site-Specific $87,120
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.
5.2.5.1 Sample Design
In their review,the Evaluators conducted reviews of all three natural gas savings projects completed
during the PY2023 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 two of the three project sites.
5.2.5.2 Impact Approaches
For projects SSOP_108641 and SSOP_109167 whole facility billing analyses (Option C) were feasible and
provided statistically robust savings estimate. For project SSOP_121553 a retrofit isolation approach
was taken using a standard engineering algorithm and project-specific inputs Specified methodology and
Evaluation and Measurement Report 73

Avista Idaho PY2023
inputs are discussed in individual site reports, located in Appendix C: Site-Specific Site Reports. Site-Level
Realization
Adjusted and verified savings were developed for each site. Table 5-21 presents realization at the site
level, with program-level savings.
Table 5-21:Site-Specific Expected,Adjusted and Verified Therm Savings by Project
Project ID Expected Therm Adjusted Therm Verified Therm Realization Rate
Savings Savings Savings
SSOP_121553 228 228 240 105.1%
SSOP_108641 1,667 1,667 18,298 1097.6%
SSOP_109167 22,996 22,996 10,531 45.8%
Total 24,891 24,891 29,069 116.8
5.2.5.3 Discussion of Non-100%Realization
■ SSOP_108641- Measured savings are higher than ex ante predictions.
■ SSOP_109167- Measured savings are lower than ex ante predictions.
■ SSOP_111467 — Verified water heater setpoint was 5 degrees lower than listed in project
documentation.
5.2.5.4 Verified Savings
The Site-Specific Program in total displays a realization rate of 116.8%with 29,069 Therms verified
natural gas energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 5-22.
Table 5-22:Site-Specific Impact Summary
Expected Therm Savings Adjusted Therm Savings Verified Therm Savings Realization Rate
24,891 24,891 29,069 116.8%
Evaluation and Measurement Report 74

Avista Idaho PY2023
6.Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results
This appendix provides additional details on the billing analyses conducted for each program.
6.1 Shell Program
The results of the billing analysis for the Shell program are provided below.Table 6-1 shows customer
counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customers with single-measure installations)
and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis. A billing analysis was completed
for measures that had at least 75 customers with single-measure installations.This ensured that
measures would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data restrictions (e.g. sufficient pre-
and post-period data).The billing analysis included participants in Washington and Idaho service
territories (439 total)to acquire the maximum number of customers possible.The billing analysis on
individual measures did not find significant savings due to variability observed in the data.The results
reported combine measures across Idaho and Washington to produce a statistically significant estimate.
See Table 6-5 for the non-significant results for individual measures.The rest of the section reports the
combined analysis.
Table 6-1:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Shell Program
Measure Number of Sufficient
Measure Considered-for Customers W/ Participation
Billing Analysis Isolated-Measure for Billing
Installations* Analysis
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat ✓ 97* ✓
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat ✓ 342* ✓
G Attic Insulation and G Window Replc With *
Natural Gas Heat ✓ 439 ✓
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
The Evaluators were successful in creating a matched cohort for each of the measures with sufficient
participation. 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, as shown in Table 6-2.
Also shown in Table 6-2, 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 6-2:Cohort Restrictions,Shell Program
Measure Data Restriction Treatment CoLntrol
Customers Customer
Starting Count 357 7,286
G Attic Insulation With Install Date Range:January 1,2023 to June 30,2023 357 7,286
Natural Gas Heat Control Group Usage Outlier(>2X max treatment
355 7,280
usage)
Evaluation and Measurement Report 75

Avista Idaho PY2023
Incomplete Post-Period Bills(<6 months) 107 6,945
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills(<10 months) 103 6,012
Ending Count(Matched by PSM) 97 97
Starting Count 1,057 7,286
Install Date Range:January 1, 2023 to June 30, 2023 1,057 7,286
Control Group Usage Outlier(>2X max treatment
G Window Replc With Natural 1,040 7,281
usage)
Gas Heat Incomplete Post-Period Bills(<6 months) 356 6,946
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills(<10 months) 351 6,013
Ending Count(Matched by PSM) 342 342
Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 display the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching for
the combined measures, before and after conducting matching.
For the combined measures, the covariate balance shows small differences between the treatment and
control groups before and after matching.
Figure 6-1: Covariate Balance Before Matching, Shell Attic Insulation and Shell Window Replacement,
Washington and Idaho
A B
t:mup C:rop
c Pre-period winter Usage is o Pre-perlod Spring Usage ,s
c D
Group G—p
S In
Pre-period Sum—Usage 5 o Pre-pefloa Fall Usage s
Figure 6-2: Covariate Balance After Matching, Shell Attic Insulation and Shell Window Replacement,
Washington and Idaho
Evaluation and Measurement Report 76

Avista Idaho PY2023
A �
c o y
� B
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.
Table 6-3 -provides results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment and control groups
after matching for the Shell 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 6-3:Pre-period Usage T-test forAttic Insulation and Window Replacement Washington and Idaho,
Shell Program
Average Daily Average Daily
Month Usage Usage T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
Control Treatment
Jan 2.227 2.296 -1.059 0.046 0.290 No
Feb 2.222 2.290 -1.053 0.046 0.293 No
Mar 2.218 2.294 -1.182 0.046 0.237 No
Apr 2.199 2.285 -1.334 0.046 0.183 No
May 2.213 2.288 -1.151 0.046 0.250 No
Jun 2.204 2.281 -1.196 0.046 0.232 No
Jul 2.202 2.288 -1.342 0.046 0.180 No
Aug 2.202 2.290 -1.350 0.046 0.177 No
Sep 2.203 2.290 -1.347 0.046 0.178 No
Oct 2.217 2.286 -1.059 0.046 0.290 No
Nov 2.218 2.284 -1.013 0.046 0.311 No
Evaluation and Measurement Report 77

Avista Idaho PY2023
Dec 2.215 2.288 -1.114 0.046 0.265 No
Table 6-4 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 6-4: TMY Weather, Shell Program
Measure USAF Treatment TMY TMY TMYCDD Weighted Weighted
Station ID USAF ID DD TMY HDD TMY CDD
Customers
720322 2 726985 4207 245 6050 422
726817 14 726985 4207 245 6050 422
727827 7 727827 5301 724 6050 422
727830 33 727830 5347 861 6050 422
G Attic Insulation With 727834 68 727834 6773 343 6050 422
Natural Gas Heat and G
Window Replc With 727850 11 727850 6436 224 6050 422
Natural Gas Heat 727855 4 727855 7224 437 6050 422
727856 350 727856 6052 437 6050 422
727857 40 727857 6322 265 6050 422
727870 24 727857 6322 265 6050 422
Table 6-5 provides annual savings per customer for the Shell program for each measure and regression
model.The PPR model was selected for ex post savings because it provided the best fit for the data
(highest adjusted R-squared).
Table 6-5:Measure Savings for All Regression Models,Shell Program
.0. .0. Adjusted
Measure Model Treatment Control Customer Lower CI Upper CI R-Squared
Customers Customers (Therms)
G Attic Diff-in-dill 439 436 23.84* 0.00 85.89 0.61
Insulation and PPR 439 436 148.80 77.00 220.67
G Window
Replc With 0.93
Treatment 439 436 69.44* 0.00 154.61 0.64
Natural Gas Only(Gross)
Heat
*Not statistically significant
Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level for the combined measures and the adjusted R-
squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data. The results of the billing analysis
indicate no statistically significant savings were found for the window replacement measures.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 78

Avista Idaho PY2O23
Table 6-6:Measure Savings,Shell Program
UpperAnnual
j Measure Customers Customers per Lower Model
,Customer Cl cl Squared
G Attic Insulation and G
Window Replc With 439 436 148.80 77.00 220.67 0.93 Model
Natural Gas Heat 2: PPR
Figure 6-3 provides monthly TMY savings per customer for the Shell program. As expected for gas
weatherization measures,the greatest savings occur during the winter months.
Figure 6-3:Monthly Savings, Shell Program
20.0
E 18.0
t 16.0
14.0 11.3 12.1 12.0 12.5 12.5
E
12.0
0 6 12. 12.5 12.5 12.4 �12
U 10.0
12.2
8.0 9.4
6.0
a
t 4.0
c
00 2.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
6.2 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
6-7.The Evaluators used propensity score matching.Also shown in Table 6-7, 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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 79

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 6-7.Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program
Measure Data Restriction Treatment Control
Customers Customers
Starting Count 278 296
Install Date Range:January 1,2022 to Dec 31,2022 278 296
Whole home natural Control Group Usage Outlier(>2X max treatment usage) 223 287
gas Incomplete Post-Period Bills(<6 months) 142 177
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills(<10 months) 136 171
Ending Count(Matched by PSM) 130 168
Figure 6-4 and Figure 65
Figure 6-5 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
after matching, indicating little differences exist on average between the groups prior to matching and
validating the initial selection of control customers.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 80

Avista Idaho PY2023
Figure 6-44:Covariate Balance Before Matching, Low Income Gas Measures
A B
0.3- ii :.4-
I+
Group ,_ Group
0.T-
c n Control C ( n Control
Treatment �'` Treatment
tL
0 5 1�0
Pre-period Winter Usage Pre-period Spring Usage
C D
0 1. Group
� p �:4_ Group
c F Control c n Control
0 0.5- Treatment O 12- Treatment
0.0- ..J-
Pre-period Summer Usage Pre-period Fall Usage
Figure 6-55:Covariate Balance After Matching, Low Income Gas Measures
0.3 i^I
pf =4
a I Group .,_ Group
If il, �I Control m F^, I Control
Treatment '" Treatment
Pre-period Winter Usage Pre-period Spring Usage
C D .e
1.0
� Group ��4_ Group
oIC nI Control m F Control
05- El Treatment ,- +II Treatment
20
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 81

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 6-8 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 6-8: Pre-period Usage T-test for Gas Measures, Low-Income Program
qlffA erage 1L Average P7
a v Usage Daily Usag 7 is
Month (T ily T Statistic Std Error I P-Value Reject Null?
Control Treatment
Jan 3.07 3.60 -3.23 0.16 0.00 Yes
Feb 2.82 3.14 -2.18 0.15 0.03 Yes
Mar 2.20 2.39 -1.57 0.12 0.12 No
Apr 1.48 1.79 -3.32 0.09 0.00 Yes
May 0.73 1.00 -4.46 0.06 0.00 Yes
Jun 0.42 0.46 -1.19 0.04 0.23 No
Jul 0.32 0.26 2.07 0.03 0.04 Yes
Aug 0.30 0.25 1.94 0.03 0.05 No
Sep 0.38 0.40 -0.50 0.03 0.62 No
Oct 1.06 1.24 -2.87 0.06 0.00 Yes
Nov 2.47 2.66 -1.63 0.12 0.10 No
Dec 2.87 3.04 -1.27 0.13 0.20 No
Table 6-9 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 6-9: TMY Weather, Low-Income Program
911111 USAF 19 of TMY USAF Weighted Weighted
Measure Station ID Treatment ID DD TMYCDD
Customers
725895 3 725895 6853 238 5954 416
725970 15 725970 4726 541 5954 416
725975 6 725975 5778 329 5954 416
726817 3 726985 4207 245 5954 416
726886 1 726886 7130 247 5954 416
All Gas 726904 1 726904 4003 323 5954 416
Measures
727830 2 727830 5347 861 5954 416
727834 6 727834 6773 343 5954 416
727850 2 727850 6436 224 5954 416
727855 1 727855 7224 437 5954 416
727856 112 727856 6052 437 5954 416
Evaluation and Measurement Report 82

Avista Idaho PY2023
727857 11 727857 6322 265 5954 416
727870 5 727857 6322 265 5954 416
Table 6-10 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
measures and the adjusted R-squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data (adjusted
R-squared >0.90).
Table 6-10:Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Low-Income Program
#of Annual .0. .0.
Measure Model Treatment #of Control Savings/Custo Lower Upper Adjusted
Customers Customers mer Cl Cl R-Squared
All Gas Diff-in-dill 130 168 59.58* 0 164.49 0.55
Measure PPR 130 168 13.64* 0 31.23 0.92
s Treatment 130 168 69.22* 0 242.63 0.60
Only(Gross)
*Not statistically significant
The results of the billing analysis indicate no statistically significant savings were found for the gas
measures.
6.3 HVAC Program
Four gas measures met the inclusion criteria necessary for billing analyses. Key components of these
inclusion criteria included having at least 75 customers who only installed a single measure,full details
can be found in Section 2.2.3.5.These four measures were Smart Thermostat Contractor Install, Smart
Thermostat Self Install, High Efficiency Natural Gas Furnaces, and Natural Gas Multi-Stage or Modulating
Furnaces.The Evaluators employed a regression-based pre vs. post billing analysis methodology, as
outlined in Section 2.2.3.6,to calculate the savings associated with thermostat installation. Of note,the
PSM process to create matching control cohorts for these two thermostat measures involved a caliper of
0.2, a ratio of 1, and a "nearest" matching methodology. In contrast,the Evaluators used a heating load
estimation methodology, as outlined in Section 2.2.3.7,to assess furnace savings. Heating load
estimation only requires post-period billing data from treatment customers, so PSM was not necessary
for this analysis.
As detailed in Section 2.2.3.6,the regression model with the highest adjusted R-squared was selected
for reporting. For smart thermostats, as outlined in the table below,the PPR regression yielded the best
fit.
Table 6-11: Thermostat Regression Adjusted R-squared
Measure DnD A. Only A.
squared squared squared
Smart Thermostat Contractor 0.58 0.91 0.83
Install
Smart Thermostat Self Install 0.59 0.93 0.83
Evaluation and Measurement Report 83

Avista Idaho PY2023
Both smart thermostat regressions yielded statistically significant results, which suggests that both
contractor and self-installed smart thermostats are associated with a decrease in customer gas usage.
Full regression results for contractor and self-installed thermostats are outlined below in Table 6-12 and
Table 6-13, respectively.
Table 6-12: Contractor Installed Thermostat PPR Results
Metric
Treatment sample population(n) 200
Control sample population (n) 200
Annual savings(Therms) 16.95
Pooled Standard Error 10.55
90%Confidence Interval 17.35
90%Relative Precision 1.02
P value 0.02
Table 6-13:Self Installed Thermostat PPR Results
Treatment sample population(n) 356
Control sample population (n) 356
Annual savings(Therms) 29.46
Pooled Standard Error 6.80
90%Confidence Interval 11.19
90%Relative Precision 0.38
P value <0.01
Meanwhile, the heating load estimation methodology was used to calculate annual savings for High
Efficiency Natural Gas Furnaces and Natural Gas Multi-Stage or Modulating Furnaces. Since this
calculation methodology is based on a deemed savings algorithm (not a regression) it does not produce
measures of goodness of fit or statistical significance. However,the Evaluators did calculate standard
error, 90%confidence and precision metrics for this analysis. A full outline of the key billing analysis
results associated with each HVAC furnace measure can be found below.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 84

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 6-14:Natural Gas Furnace Heating Load Estimation Results
Treatment sample population (n) 109
Control sample population (n) N/A
Baseline Furnace Efficiency 88.5%13
Installed Furnace Efficiency 95%
Annual savings(Therms) 48.22
Pooled Standard Error 0.80
90%Confidence Interval 1.32
90%Relative Precision 0.03
Table 6-15:Natural Gas Multi-Stage or Modulating Furnace Heating Load Estimation Results
Treatment sample population (n) 46.514
Control sample population (n) N/A
Baseline Furnace Efficiency 88.5%
Installed Furnace Efficiency 95%
Annual savings(Therms) 48.25
Pooled Standard Error 1.88
90%Confidence Interval 3.10
90%Relative Precision 0.06
Of note, heating load estimation savings are highly dependent on the baseline used in calculations.The
88.5% baseline outlined in the Regional Technical Forum's gas furnace UES measure workbook
represents a precise regional estimate. However, if the federal minimum standard of 80%was used in
heating load calculations instead, estimated annual savings would reach 123 Therms for both Natural
Gas Furnaces and Natural Gas Multi-Stage or Modulating Furnaces.
6.4 Water Heat Program
The only gas measure that met inclusion criteria for the Water Heat program was Natural Gas Tankless
Water Heaters.The Tankless Water Heater cohort began with 187 treatment customers; however, after
preprocessing, billing data from 129 customers was used in the regression analyses. As with smart
thermostats, a caliper of 0.2, a ratio of 1, and a "nearest" matching methodology was used to develop a
matched control cohort of non-participant customers.The Difference-in-Difference regression yielded
an adjusted R-squared of 0.55,the PPR yielded an adjusted R-squared of 0.98, and the Treatment Only
regression yielded an adjusted R-squared of 0.80. As such PPR was selected for reporting.The following
table outlines the PPR results for Natural Gas Tankless Water Heater program.
13 The Regional Technical Forum outlines current practice furnace efficiency as 88.5%as of the July 2021 publication of the Gas
Furnace UES workbook version 1.1.
14 Heating load estimation is calculated monthly,so 46.5 is the average customers included in each month of valid billing data in
2023.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 85

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 6-16: Natural Gas Tankless Water Heater PPR Results
Treatment sample population(n) 129
Control sample population (n) 129
Annual savings(Therms) 21.62
Pooled Standard Error 10.55
90%Confidence Interval 17.36
90%Relative Precision 0.80
P value <0.01
6.5 Midstream Program
The only billing analyses for the Midstream program that yielded valid results were for the Residential
Furnace and Residential HVAC measures. While the Residential Heat Pump Water Heater and
Residential Water Heater programs passed the PSM, they only had 7 and 4 treatment customers each,
making the results of the regression analysis invalid due to such small sample sizes. As with the HVAC
program, the heating load savings estimate methodology was employed for both of these space heating
measures. Key savings results for the midstream residential furnace and HVAC measures are outlined
below.
Table 6-17.Midstream Residential Furnace Heating Load Estimation Results
Metric Value
Treatment sample population(n) 26.515
Control sample population (n) N/A
Baseline Furnace Efficiency 88.5%
Installed Furnace Efficiency 95%
Annual savings(Therms) 47.43
Pooled Standard Error 1.14
90%Confidence Interval 1.88
90%Relative Precision 0.04
Table 6-18: Midstream Residential HVAC Heating Load Estimation Results
Treatment sample population(n) 13.4
Control sample population (n) N/A
Baseline Furnace Efficiency 88.5%
Installed Furnace Efficiency 95%
Annual savings(Therms) 51.73
Pooled Standard Error 4.81
90%Confidence Interval 7.91
90%Relative Precision 0.15
is As above,heating load estimation is calculated monthly,so 26.5 represents the average customers included in each month of
valid billing data in 2023.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 86

Avista Idaho PY2023
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. This table is missing information from 29 low-income, CEEP, and MFDI survey
respondents who did not indicate the number nor type of measures they received.
Table 7-1: Type and Number of Measures Received by Respondents
Measure Category Total Percent i
No Measures 304 13.8%
One Measure 1218 55.4%
Two Measures 440 20.0%
Three Measures 171 7.8%
Four Measures 47 2.1%
Five or more measures 20 0.9%
HVAC 289 13.1
Water Heater 136 6.2%
Smart Thermostat 515 23.4%
Clothes Washer 297 13.5%
Clothes Dryer 189 8.6%
The Evaluators asked respondents to provide information regarding their home, as displayed in Table
7-2. Similar to previous impact evaluation findings, the majority of respondents noted owning a single-
family home between 1,000-3,000 square feet with central air conditioning.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 87

Avista Idaho PY2023
Table 7-2:Survey Respondent Home Characteristics"
Question Response
Own 93.8%
Rent 1.9%
Do you rent your home? (n=755) Own and rent to someone else 1.3%
1 don't know 0.1%
Prefer not to answer 2.9%
Single-family house detached 86.0%
Single-family house attached to 2 3%
one or more other houses
Mobile or manufactured home 8.2%
Which of the following best Apartment with 2 to 4 units 0.8%
describes your home? (n=755)
Apartment with 5+units 0.3%
Other 1.4%
1 don't know 0.2%
Prefer not to answer 0.7%
Does your home have central air Yes 72.6%
conditioning?(n=755)
Less than 1,OOOft2 6.6%
1,000-1,999ft2 42.4%
About how many square feet is 2 0
your home? (n-629) 2,000-2,999ft2 32.30
3,000-3,999ft 13.5
4,000ft2 or more 5.2%
Before 1950 20.0%
1950 to 1959 10.3%
1960 to 1969 6.6%
When was your home built? 1970 to 1979 15.3%
(n=719) 1980 to 1989 7.7%
1990 to 1999 15.3%
2000 to 2009 13.2%
2010 to 2019 4.7%
2020 to Present 5.6%
1 don't know 1.1%
Prefer not to answer 0.2%
16 Four contractors or construction companies were not asked these questions.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 88

Avista Idaho PY2023
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 89

Avista Idaho PY2023
Project Number SSOP_108641
Project Background
The participant is a school district that received incentives from Avista for replacing an inefficient boiler
with a single efficient model at a senior high school.The Evaluators verified the participant had replaced:
■ (1)Ajax 68%efficient natural gas boiler with (1) Riello Array 90%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 (50 degrees).
The yearly operation does not vary over time. Equipment setpoints and maintenance schedules will also
remain unchanged.
Savings Calculations
Using inputs described above,the Evaluators calculated boiler savings as follows:
HDD and Model Fit
.. .. •. ..
50 1 0.96 1 0.95
Pre/Post Use and Therm Savings
Expected Therm Annual Pre Usage Annual Post Usage Verified Therm Realization Rate
Savings (Therms) (Therms) Savings
1,667 40,280 21,983 1 18,298 1,098%
Results
For project#108641 the therm realization rate is 1,098%.
Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
I ferified Therm Savings Therm Realization Rate
One(1)90%NG boiler replacing one(1)68%NG boiler 18,298 1,098%
Totals: 18,298 1,098%
Measured savings are higher than ex ante predictions.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 90

Avista Idaho PY2023
Project Number SSOP_109167
Project Background
The participant is a hospital that received incentives from Avista for replacing two end of life boilers with
three efficient models.The Evaluators verified the participant had replaced:
■ (2) American Standard 82% efficient natural gas boilers with (3) Lochinvar 96% efficient natural
gas boilers
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 8 months 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 (50 degrees).
The yearly operation does not vary over time. Equipment setpoints and maintenance schedules will also
remain unchanged.
Savings Calculations
Using inputs described above,the Evaluators calculated boiler savings as follows:
HDD and Model Fit
50 0.83 0.97
Pre/Post Use and Therm Savings
Expected Therm Annual Pre Usage " Annual Post Usage Verified Therm Realization Rate
Savings (Therms) (Therms) Savings
22,996 156,648 146,117 10,531 46%
Results
For project#108641 the therm realization rate is 1,098%.
Verified Gross Savings, Realization Rates&Adjustments
Verified Therm Therm Therm
Measure Realization Adjustments
Savings Rate
One(3)96%NG boiler replacing one(2)82% NG boiler 10,531 46% 0
Totals: 10,531 46% 0
Measured savings are lower than ex ante predictions.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 91

Avista Idaho PY2023
Project Number SSOP_121553
Project Background
The participant is an assembly that received incentives from Avista for replacing the facility's three electric
water heaters with a new efficient natural gas system. The Evaluators verified the participant had
installed:
■ (1)Tankless water heater
■ (1) 82 gallon tank water heater
M&V Methodology
The Evaluators reviewed all project documentation including plans, photos, invoices and simulation
outputs, to verify the installation of rebated equipment. The Evaluators attempted to conduct a key
parameter retrofit analysis (Option A).
To verify savings,the Evaluators instead examined materials used to develop expected savings estimates,
scrutinizing each of the inputs and cross-checked the model results using engineering algorithms. The
Evaluators found all assumptions and inputs to be reasonable given the project and prescriptive
calculations yielded similar Therms savings estimated, corroborating savings claims.
Savings Parameters
Specific input parameters assumed in the analysis and confirmed by the Evaluators are:
Measure Parameters/Characteristics
Total
DB Air Tank Therm Therm Therm
Leaving Volume R- Savings Reductions Savings
Value
95% 55 160 52200 0.56
68% 68 160 50 (gal/year) 194.4 45.6 240.0
95% 68 160 82 12.5
*The top row of the efficient columns defines the tankless heater
Results
For project#SSOP_121533,the realization rate is 105.%.
Verified Gross Savings& Realization Rates
Verified
Therms Savings Realization Rate
Water Heater Retrofit 240 105%
Totals: 240 105%
A cause of discrepancy is that the implementer reported the temperature of the water exiting to be 155
F, rather than 160 F.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 92

APPENDIX C - 2023 COST-EFFECTIVENESS TABLES
Electric
Electric Portfolio
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 18,834,190 $ 15,458,671 1.22
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 11,725,343 $ 8,069,657 1.45
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 22,657,795 $ 7,389,014 N/A
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 11,725,343 $ 23,618,605 0.50
Electric Portfolio (Without Low-Income)
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 12,037,002 $ 14,595,785 0.82
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 11,447,282 $ 7,080,337 1.62
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 15,513,031 $ 7,515,448 2.06
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 11,447,282 $ 22,003,649 0.52
Residential
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 3,434,404 $ 2,341,695 1.47
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 2,844,719 $ 1,058,041 2.69
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 6,222,228 $ 1,283,654 4.85
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 2,844,719 $ 6,690,584 0.43
Commercial/Industrial
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 8,602,598 $ 12,254,090 0.70
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 8,602,563 $ 6,022,296 1.43
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 9,290,803 $ 6,231,794 1.49
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 8,602,563 $ 15,313,064 0.56
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Low Income
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 6,797,188 $ 862,886 7.88
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 278,060 $ 989,320 0.28
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 7,144,764 $ (126,434) N/A
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 278,060 $ 1,614,956 0.17
Natural Gas
Natural Gas Portfolio
Cost-Effectiveness Test 1111111
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 2,386,009 $ 6,665,220 0.36
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 2,071,628 $ 2,059,959 1.01
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 28,574,595 $ 4,605,261 N/A
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 2,071,628 $ 30,320,172 0.07
Natural Gas Portfolio(Without Low-Income)
Cost-Effective n ess Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 2,181,858 $ 6,618,921 0.33
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 2,052,532 $ 1,698,835 1.21
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 28,090,503 $ 4,920,086 5.71
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 2,052,532 $ 29,660,012 0.07
Residential
Cost-Effectiveness Test
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 1,642,344 $ 6,167,894 0.27
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 1,526,609 $ 1,256,435 1.22
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 21,366,135 $ 4,911,459 4.35
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 1,526,609 $ 22,506,835 0.07
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Commercial/Industrial
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 539,514 $ 451,026 1.20
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 525,923 $ 442,399 1.19
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 6,724,369 $ 8,627 779.45
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 525,923 $ 7,153,177 0.07
Low Income
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Total Resource Cost(TRC) $ 204,151 $ 46,299 4.41
Utility Cost Test(UCT) $ 19,095 $ 361,124 0.05
Participant Cost Test(PCT) $ 484,091 $ (314,825) N/A
Ratepayer Impact(RIM) $ 19,095 $ 660,159 0.03
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

APPENDIX D - 2023 EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM
Electric Natural Gas
Energy Efficiency
Low-Income/CEEP
Low-Income $ 745,899 $ 344,129 $ 1,090,028
Residential
Water Heat $ 1,615 $ 56,100 $ 57,715
HVAC $ 128,179 $ 454,975 $ 583,154
Shell $ 81,921 $ 204,553 $ 286,474
Fuel Efficiency $ 64,050 $ - $ 64,050
ENERGY STAR Homes $ 14,000 $ 600 $ 14,600
Multifamily Weatherization $ 13,078 $ 34,857 $ 47,936
Multifamily Direct-Install $ 101,263 $ 880 $ 102,143
Appliances $ 38,100 $ 5,450 $ 43,550
Midstream $ 115,290 $ 242,550 $ 357,840
Always-on Home Energy Report $ - $ - $ -
Commercial/Industrial
Prescriptive Lighting $ 1,969,025 $ - $ 1,969,025
Small Business Lighting $ 1,832,804 $ - $ 1,832,804
HVAC $ 8,400 $ 39,626 $ 48,026
Food Service Equipment $ - $ 7,400 $ 7,400
Grocer $ 280 $ - $ 280
Shell $ 2,423 $ 49,250 $ 51,673
Green Motors $ - $ - $ -
Midstream $ 21,350 $ 58,475 $ 79,825
Site-Specific $ 402,074 $ 87,120 $ 489,194
Energy Efficiency Total $ 5,539,751 $ 1,585,968 $ 7,125,716
Market Transformation
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance $ 587,551 $ 176,755 $ 764,306
Market Transformation Total W _W6,755 $ 764,306
Other Programs
General Implementation $ 367,961 $ 35,253 $ 403,214
Labor Costs $ 1,559,330 $ 192,835 $ 1,752,165
Advertising and Outreach $ 97,619 $ 10,846 $ 108,465
Third Party Implementation $ 483,965 $ 235,060 $ 719,025
Pilot Programs $ 28,579 $ 350 $ 28,929
EM"CPA $ 189,452 $ 105,501 $ 294,953
Other $ (7,548) $ - $ (7,548)
Other Programs and Activities Total ' $ L 2,719,358 $ 579,844 $ 3,299,202
Grand Total* 1 $ L 8,846,660 $ 2,342,565 $ 11,189,225
*Totals may differ from tariff rider spend due to differences between vendor invoice cadence and ledger close dates.
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

APPENDIX E - 2023 ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTIVITY BY PROGRAM
NEENEr- Electric Natural Gas
Energy Efficiency Evaluated Evaluated
Program Participants Savings utility Cost Participants Savings Utility Cost
Weatherization 61 Homes 34,080 $ 161,648 17 Homes 219 $ 20,405
HVAC 41 Units 137,090 $ 734,114 28 Units 1,743 $ 234,178
Water Heat - Units - $ - 9 Units 63 $ 47,268
Lighting 17 Units 102 $ 507 NA - $ -
Health and Safety 22 HHS - $ 92,089 8 HHS - $ 35,796
ENERGY STAR 1 Units 39 $ 961 - NA - $ -
Refrigerator
Low-Income Total 142 ' 171,311 $ 989,320 62 2,025 $ 344,129
ENERGY STAR Homes 14 Homes 47,508 $ 27,768 1 Homes 134 $ 805
HVAC 266 Furnace, 307,573 $ 217,313 1,641 Furnace, 85,264 $ 585,556
Tstat Tstat
Water Heat 7 Units 4,066 $ 2,793 156 Units 9,051 $ 69,962
Multifamily Direct- 2,744 Units 172,921 $ 151,375 68 Units 227 $ 1,228
Install (Measures) (Measures)
Shell 158 Windows, 155,539 $ 126,996 383 Windows, 18,117 $ 232,299
Insulation Insulation
Appliances 555 Washer/ 81,599 $ 61,747 115 asher/ 396 $ 6,056
DryerDryer
Fuel Efficiency 28 Units 193,123 $ 120,017 - Units - $ -
Midstream 263 Units 683,356 $ 313,325 578 Units 48,830 $ 317,333
Multifamily 63 Units 81,535 $ 36,707 132 Units 5,445 $ 43,196
Weatherization (Measures) (Measures)
Residential Total 4,098 1,727,220 $ 1,058,041 3,074 167,464 $ 1,256,435
Commercial/industrial 9 J
Commercial Grocer& 20 Projects 1,928 $ 533 16 Projects 3,930 $ 20,109
Food Equipment
Variable Freq Drive/ 3 Projects 42,924 $ 14,024 36 Projects 12,969 $ 81,567
HVAC
Shell 7 Projects 37,320 $ 7,312 12 Projects 7,117 $ 72,266
Green Motors - Motor - $ - - NA - $ -
Rewind
Prescriptive Lighting 60,149 Projects 7,978,849 $ 3,014,360 - NA - $ -
Site-Specific 23 Projects 2,556,219 $ 736,972 3 Projects 29,069 $ 181,128
Midstream 12 Projects 58,355 $ 28,995 43 Projects 8,922 $ 87,328
Small Biz Lighting 11,195 Units 2,956,164 $ 2,220,101 - NA - $ -
Commercial/ 71,409 13,631,759 $ 6,022,296 110 62,007 $ 442,398
Industrial Total
Energy Efficiency 75,649 15,530,290 $ 8,069,657 3,246 231,496 $ 2,042,963
Total
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

APPENDIX F - 2023 PROCESS EVALUATION REPORT
Process Evaluation of
Avista ' s PY2022 - PY2023
Residential ,
Low - Income , and
Nonresidential Energy
Efficiency Programs
SUBMITTED TO: AVISTA UTILITIES
SUBMITTED ON : MARCH 25, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC. &
CADEO GROUP
� I
ADM Associates, Inc Avista Utilities
3239 Ramos Circle 1411 E. Mission Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95827 Spokane, WA 99252
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................9
1.1 Researchable Issues...................................................................................................................................9
1.2 Data Collection and Analysis Methods....................................................................................................10
1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................................10
2 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................19
2.1 Summary of Evaluation............................................................................................................................19
2.2 Organization of the Report......................................................................................................................20
3 Process Evaluation Methods and Data Collection.............................................................................20
3.1 Summary of Approach.............................................................................................................................21
3.2 Database Review.....................................................................................................................................21
3.3 Sampling Methodology............................................................................................................................21
3.4 Web Surveys............................................................................................................................................23
3.5 In-Depth Interviews.................................................................................................................................23
4 Residential Programs Process Evaluation Results..............................................................................24
4.1 Residential Prescriptive Programs...........................................................................................................25
4.2 Multi-family Direct Install Program .........................................................................................................50
4.3 Low-Income Program ..............................................................................................................................54
4.4 Home Energy Audit Program...................................................................................................................62
4.5 On Bill Repayment Program ....................................................................................................................71
4.6 Always On Home Energy Report Pilot Program.......................................................................................77
4.7 Residential Programs Non-Participants...................................................................................................85
5 Non-Residential Programs Process Evaluation Results......................................................................91
5.1 Commercial Prescriptive Rebate Programs.............................................................................................91
5.2 Midstream Program...............................................................................................................................109
5.3 Active Energy Management Program....................................................................................................111
5.4 Clean Buildings Program........................................................................................................................112
5.5 Non-Residential Non-Participants.........................................................................................................113
6 Appendix..........................................................................................................................................117
6.1 Surveys...................................................................................................................................................117

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
6.2 Interview Guides....................................................................................................................................368

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Process Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector ...............................................................10
Table 2-1: Residential Process Evaluation Activities by Program...............................................................20
Table 3-1: PY2022-PY2023 Survey Sample and Precision by Program.......................................................23
Table 3-2: Summary of Stakeholder Interviews and Surveys.....................................................................24
Table 4-1: Source of Information (n=1,291)...............................................................................................28
Table 4-2:Type and Number of Measures Received (n=1,291).................................................................29
Table 4-3: Considerations for New Equipment (n varies)...........................................................................31
Table 4-4: Equipment Fuel Type (n varies).................................................................................................31
Table 4-5: Washer and Dryer Type (n varies).............................................................................................32
Table 4-6: Previous Refrigerator-Freezer Type (n=176).............................................................................32
Table 4-7: Recommended Equipment Upgrades (n=90)............................................................................33
Table 4-8: Demographics (n=1,291, unless otherwise indicated) ..............................................................35
Table 4-9:Type and Number of Measures Received (n=648) ....................................................................37
Table 4-10: Planned to Install Measures Prior to Program Enrollment (n=648)........................................37
Table 4-11: Contractor Recommendations (n=35).....................................................................................40
Table 4-12: Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=77) ..........................................................................................41
Table 4-13: Residence Characteristics and Respondent Demographics (n=varies)....................................42
Table 4-14: Respondent Background (n=24) (multiple selections allowed)...............................................45
Table 4-15: Incentive Recommendations...................................................................................................46
Table 4-16: Recommendations for Improvement (n=8).............................................................................47
Table 4-17: Recommendations for Improvement......................................................................................49
Table 4-18: Implementation Challenges ....................................................................................................56
Table 4-19: Residence Characteristics and Respondent Demographics (n=varies)....................................59
Table 4-20: Summary of HEA projects........................................................................................................62
Table 4-21: Recommendation for HEA Program Improvement.................................................................67
Table 4-22: Residence Characteristics and Respondent Demographics (n=varies)....................................68
Table 4-23: Summary of OBR Projects .......................................................................................................71
Table 4-24: Recommendation for HEA Program Improvement.................................................................74
Table 4-25: Residence Characteristics and Respondent Demographics (n=varies)....................................75

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Table 4-26: Post Email Behaviors (n=100)..................................................................................................81
Table 4-27: Interested in learning about energy usage of specific equipment (n=173).............................81
Table 4-28: Demographics (n=173, unless otherwise indicated) ...............................................................83
Table 4-29: Demographics (n=140, unless otherwise indicated) ...............................................................89
Table 5-1: Barriers to Purchasing Energy Efficient Equipment (n=238) .....................................................96
Table 5-2: Status of Rebated Equipment (n varies)*..................................................................................97
Table 5-3: Firmographics (n=266)...............................................................................................................99
Table 5-4: Company energy efficiency related policies (n=266) ..............................................................100
Table 5-5: Firmographics (n=6).................................................................................................................104
Table 5-6: Company energy efficiency related policies (n=6) ..................................................................105
Table 5-7: Respondents' Business Types (n=22) (multiple selections allowed) .......................................105
Table 5-8: Barriers to Participation ..........................................................................................................106
Table 5-9: Application Challenges............................................................................................................106
Table 5-10: Incentive Suggestions (n=11).................................................................................................106
Table 5-11: Recommendations for Improvement (n=12).........................................................................108
Table 5-12: Demographics (n=56, unless otherwise indicated) ...............................................................116

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1: Program Awareness (n=1,270) 27
Figure 4-2: Factors Influencing Participation (n varies) 27
Figure 4-3: Interest in home improvements that would... (n varies) 28
Figure 4-4:Thermostat Replacement (n=497) 29
Figure 4-5: Smart Thermostat Brand (n=498) 30
Figure 4-6: Frequency of Smart Thermostat Adjustments (n=498) 30
Figure 4-7: Contractor Awareness (n=316) 33
Figure 4-8: Contractor Behaviors (n=551) 33
Figure 4-9: Avista as Reliable Source of Information (n=1,291) 34
Figure 4-10: Program Satisfaction (n=1291) 35
Figure 4-11: Motivations for Installing Energy Efficient Equipment(n=varies) 38
Figure 4-12: Willingness to Pay (n=648) 38
Figure 4-13: Program Awareness (n=648) 39
Figure 4-14: Interest in Additional EE Upgrades (n=varies) 39
Figure 4-15: Finding a Contractor(n=232) 40
Figure 4-16: Contractor Satisfaction (n=232) 41
Figure 4-17: Program Satisfaction (n=648) 41
Figure 4-18: Program Participation's Impact on Satisfaction with Avista (n=648) 42
Figure 4-19:Avista as a Reliable Source of Information (n=648) 42
Figure 4-20: Program Satisfaction (n=24) 47
Figure 4-21: Program Satisfaction (n=10) 53
Figure 4-22: Likelihood to Recommend Avista Program (n=10) 53
Figure 4-23. Change in Satisfaction with Avista (n=10) 53
Figure 4-24: Information Source about the program (n=108) 57
Figure 4-25: 'Very'-'Extremely' Important Reasons for Participation (n=108) 58
Figure 4-26: Program Satisfaction (n=108) 58
Figure 4-27: Likelihood to Recommend Avista Program (n=108) 59
Figure 4-28: Change in Satisfaction with Avista (n=108) 59
Figure 4-29: Information Source about Avista Programs (n=97, multiple responses allowed) 64

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-30: Important Reasons to get HEA(n=97) 65
Figure 4-31: Helpfulness of HEA Recommendations (n=97) 65
Figure 4-32: Recommended Improvements Made Since HEA (n=97) 66
Figure 4-33: Most Interested Improvements Left Undone (n=97) 66
Figure 4-34: Program Satisfaction (n=97) 67
Figure 4-35: Likelihood to Recommend Avista Programs (n=97) 67
Figure 4-36: Change in Satisfaction with Avista (n=97) 68
Figure 4-37: Information Source about OBR (n=27) 73
Figure 4-38: Likelihood of Installing or Purchasing without OBR (n=27) 73
Figure 4-39: Program Satisfaction (n=27) 74
Figure 4-40: Likelihood to Recommend Avista Program (n=27) 74
Figure 4-41: Change in Satisfaction with Avista (n=27) 75
Figure 4-42: Program Awareness (n=173) 79
Figure 4-43: Factors Influencing Participation (n=varies) 80
Figure 4-44: Interest in home improvements that would... (n=varies) 80
Figure 4-45: Response to Email Alert (n=106) 81
Figure 4-46: Program Satisfaction (n=173) 82
Figure 4-47: Changes in Utility Bill (n=173) 82
Figure 4-48: Recommendations (n=173) 82
Figure 4-49: Purchased Equipment (n=145) 86
Figure 4-50: Program Awareness (n=46) 86
Figure 4-51: Interest in Avista Programs (n=140) 87
Figure 4-52: Interest in participating in Avista programs (n=140) 87
Figure 4-53: Factors preventing participation (n=140) 88
Figure 4-54: Perceived energy consumption by product type (n=140) 88
Figure 5-1: Program Awareness (n=266) 93
Figure 5-2: Rebate Awareness, by type (n=97) 94
Figure 5-3: Contacting firms (n=266) 94
Figure 5-4: Motivators for Upgrading Equipment(n=266) 95
Figure 5-5: Reasoning to purchase energy efficient equipment over standard equipment (n=266) 95
Figure 5-6: Supply chain barriers (n=266) 96

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 5-8: Acceptability of Application Process (n=varies) 97
Figure 5-9: Rebate Amount(n=266) 98
Figure 5-10: Program Satisfaction (n=266) 98
Figure 5-11: Satisfaction with Avista (n=266) 99
Figure 5-12: Change in satisfaction after program participation (n=266) 99
Figure 5-13: Program Awareness (n=6) 100
Figure 5-14: Motivation to Participate (n=6) 101
Figure 5-15: Communication channels (n=6) 101
Figure 5-16: Motivations to Participate (n=6) 102
Figure 5-17: Satisfaction with Application Process (n=6) 103
Figure 5-18: Participation Challenges (n=6) 103
Figure 5-19: Program Satisfaction (n=6) 104
Figure 5-20: Program Satisfaction 107
Figure 5-21: Upgraded equipment (n=24) 114
Figure 5-22: Program Awareness (n=30) 114
Figure 5-23: Interest by Category(n=13) 115
Figure 5-24: Participation interest(n=22) 115
Figure 5-25: Heating equipment age (n=42) 116

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a summary of the Residential, Low-Income, and Nonresidential Electric and Natural
Gas Evaluation Process evaluation effort for the 2022 and 2023 program years (PY2022 and PY2023)
portfolio of programs for Avista Corporation (Avista) in the Washington and Idaho service territory.
The evaluation was administered by ADM Associates, Inc. and Cadeo Group, LLC (herein referred to
as the "Evaluators").
1.1 RESEARCHABLE ISSUES
This report addresses research issues established for this evaluation, which include the following:
■ Understanding: Establish a general understanding of the utility's current and past experience
with the Residential, Low-Income, and Nonresidential electric and natural gas programs
■ Communication/Awareness: Characterize how customers first learned about the program and
the best channels to use to reach these customers
■ Point of Entry: Identify ease of application process, barriers to participation, and put together
suggestions to encourage participation in all programs
■ Participation Experience: Identify customers' and market actors' level of satisfaction with
services received, participation drivers,timeliness, suggestions for improvement, customer
preference for online tracking and other potential program features
■ Impact/Effectiveness: Identify satisfaction with program outcome, savings, other benefits
customers perceive from participation
■ Additional Offerings: Establish suggestions for program or service improvement to encourage
customers to meet ongoing energy management needs
In the course of developing the final evaluation research plan,the following additional research issues
applicable to all the Avista programs were identified:
■ Is there a consistent and recognized branding across programs?
■ Are there programs or program elements that are working at cross-purposes with each other?
■ Are there significant overlaps across programs?
■ Are the programs reaching all customer types, and if not, what additional steps or approaches
may be required to reach them?
■ Are important segments of the residential population not participating in any program?
■ Are there elements of programs that can become more standardized and efficient?
■ What are the growth areas within the residential market and residential efficiency potential, and
how can the current programs address these areas of growth?
■ How are the programs performing as determined by their POPMs?
■ What information should be routinely tracked in order to measure progress relative to the
Program Performance Metrics (PPMs) established for these programs?
Additional research issues for specific programs are included as part of the discussion of the individual
program results.These research issues formed the basis evaluation.All of the data collection and
analysis activities were designed to address them.

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
1.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS
The evaluation utilized several data collection and analysis methods:
Web surveys: For programs with data that included valid email addresses and customer names,
the Evaluators fielded a web-based survey to collect information on multiple topics related to
the process evaluation research issues discussed above. A total of 2,905 participant web surveys
were completed. Further detail of the precision is summarized in Section 3.3.1.
In-depth interviews: In addition to the web surveys, the Evaluators completed in-depth
interviews of key market actors involved with the programs, including program staff,trade
allies, builders, and distributors. The in-depth interviews were less structured than the web
surveys; however,this more flexible approach allowed the interviewer to ask follow up
questions and collect additional detail on important evaluation topics. A total of 61 in-depth
interviews were completed, in addition to interviews with Avista program and management
personnel. Further detail of the precision is summarized in Section 3.5.2.
Table 1-1 summarizes the electric programs offered to residential and low-income customers in the
Washington Avista service territory in PY2022-PY2023 as well as the Evaluators' evaluation tasks and
impact methodology for each program.
Table 1-1:Process Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector
Participant/
participantSector Program Non- Contractor Staff
Surveys
Residential Water Heat ✓ ✓ ✓
Residential HVAC ✓ ✓ ✓
Residential Shell ✓ ✓ ✓
Residential ENERGY STAR® Homes ✓ ✓
Residential Small Home&MF Weatherization ✓ ✓ ✓
Residential Appliances ✓ ✓ ✓
Residential AeroBarrier ✓ ✓
Residential Multi-family Direct Install ✓ ✓
Residential Midstream ✓ ✓
Low-Income Low-Income ✓ ✓ ✓
Low-Income Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) ✓ ✓
Nonresidential Lighting ✓ ✓ ✓
Nonresidential HVAC ✓ ✓ ✓
Nonresidential Food Service Equipment ✓ ✓
Nonresidential Grocer ✓ ✓
Nonresidential Shell ✓ ✓
Nonresidential Midstream ✓ ✓
Nonresidential Green Motors ✓ ✓
Nonresidential Site-Specific ✓ ✓ ✓
1.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following section details the Evaluators' conclusions and recommendations for each of the
Residential, Low-Income, and Commercial Portfolio program evaluations.
Process Evaluation Report 10

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
1.3.1 Conclusions
1.3.1.1 Portfolio-Wide
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista's portfolio of electric programs:
1. Satisfaction—Across all programs, satisfaction among participants and trade allies was high.
Respondents appreciate the assistance provided by Avista and the assistance and other program
measures encouraged energy efficient equipment purchases and behavior changes.The most
common reasons for dissatisfaction included insufficient incentives amounts and confusing
program requirements, including the conversion from downstream prescriptive rebates to a
midstream delivery channel.
2. Program Awareness&Marketing—Among non-participants in both the residential and
commercial sectors, program awareness was low. Avista should consider increasing and
modifying marketing efforts to better reach currently underserved populations. Moreover,
responding trade allies in both sectors desire more co-branded marketing materials for program
promotion.
3. Midstream program—Confusion regarding the new midstream program exists across
customers,trade allies, and distributors. Avista should consider increased training and
promotional campaigns related to the new midstream model.
4. Barriers to Engagement—The upfront cost of energy efficient equipment was the largest barrier
to program engagement for both residential and nonresidential customers,followed by
confusion around specific requirements to meet program criteria to redeem incentives.
1.3.1.2 Program-Level
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista's programs:
1.3.1.2.1 Residential Prescriptive Programs
S. Program awareness—Contractors and retailers and the Avista website were the most popular
sources of program awareness for respondents from both the appliance rebate and
weatherization programs.
6. Program motivation—About 50-60%of survey respondents from both the appliance rebate and
weatherization programs were very or moderately interested in upgrading equipment in their
homes for health and safety reasons, improving comfort, and increasing energy efficiency.
7. Popular measures—Among survey respondents, smart thermostats (n=497) and windows
(n=463) were the most popular measures received through the residential single-family homes
program.
8. Experience with contractor—Among the respondents who confirmed their use of a contractor
to install their equipment (appliance rebate=551, weatherization=232),the majority of these
respondents were satisfied with the work completed by their contractor. Previous experience
with the contractor or a personal referral were the most popular ways respondents found
contractors across both the programs. Few respondents indicated that their contractor provided
them recommendations for other energy efficient upgrades (appliance=90,weatherization=35)
9. Satisfaction—In general, respondents were satisfied with all aspects of the appliance rebate and
weatherization programs.The most common reasons for dissatisfaction were related to
Process Evaluation Report 11

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
insufficient rebates and a lack of transparency regarding program requirements and eligibility
criteria.
10. Program tenure—Program tenure varied across the trade allies and midstream distributors
interviewed. Some (n=15) of the interviewed trade allies had been engaged with the program
for multiple years, while the midstream distributors were all new due to the infancy of the
Midstream Program,which launched in the summer of 2023.
11. Program promotion—More than half of the weatherization and appliance rebate focused trade
allies were not aware of Avista sponsored marketing materials (n=14). Across all the trade allies
in both downstream and midstream models,trade allies completed the lion's share of program
marketing and lead generation on their own, relying heavily on word of mouth.
12. Program process—Midstream distributors highlighted some issues with the website and general
application flow of the midstream program, but noted that the program is new. Some appliance
rebate trade allies also cited confusion over the new midstream program and how that might
impact their work and program application processing moving forward.
13. Barriers to energy efficient upgrades—Both groups of trade allies cited upfront costs and low
incentive rates as key barriers for customer engagement and program participation.
1.3.1.2.2 Multi-Family Direct Install
1. Program Suspension—The challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic forced the program
staff to suspend the program in March of 2020.The program was then relaunched in April of
2022 (several months in during the 2022-2023 evaluation year). Despite this challenge,the
program implementer, SBW, continued to operate the program with adjustments to its
operational procedures.
2. Program Satisfaction—The property managers of the participating multi-family buildings
expressed high satisfaction with the program. The program started with a high rate of
participation (an average of 3,000 measures installed per month), but participation had greatly
declined by the end of 2023 (an average of 1,000 measure installs per month).The program staff
assessed the market is on the diminishing curve of opportunity.
1.3.1.2.3 Low-Income
1. Program Implementation—The Low-Income Program continues to effectively leverage existing
CAP agency weatherization program infrastructure. Program integration has allowed the CAP
agencies to take a holistic approach to deep energy efficiency upgrades and expand the
measures available to customers.
2. Program Satisfaction—Most survey respondents expressed satisfaction with the program
overall and reported increased satisfaction with Avista as a result of program participation.
Despite mostly high satisfaction rates, some respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the
quality of work performed by the CAP agencies.
3. Program Challenges—CAP agencies struggle to recruit and retain qualified crew members and
subcontractors that meet prevailing wage requirements. Moreover, many income-qualified
customers remain underserved due to a lack of funding committed to addressing expensive pre-
weatherization health and safety repairs and long application wait times.
Process Evaluation Report 12

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
1.3.1.2.4 Home Energy Audit
1. Program Engagement—Despite a program pause during 2020-2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the program has experienced significant attention and customer interest. Between 2022 and 2023,
home audits nearly quadrupled, increasing from 121 in PY2022 to 463 in PY2023.This increase in
program popularity has resulted in a lengthy waitlist with customers having to wait 5-6 months to
receive an audit.
2. Program Impact—Survey respondents suggested that as result of the program,they are more
interested in energy saving behaviors and in making energy efficient equipment improvements.
Some respondents noted that they engaged in other Avista energy efficiency programs following
their home energy audit, indicating that the HEA program is fueling interest in other offerings.
3. Program Experience—In general,survey respondents were satisfied with the HEA program.The area
with the most dissatisfaction was the amount of time to receive the audit.
1.3.1.2.5 On Bill Repayment
1. Marketing—The OBR program has gained traction through effective marketing campaigns
targeted at customers and trade allies.
2. Increases Energy Efficient Equipment Purchases—Most OBR survey respondents (69%)
reported that they were unlikely to have purchased the energy efficient equipment without the
OBR program assistance, and 85%of respondents indicated that the financing helped them
make these improvements sooner.
3. Program Satisfaction—Survey respondents were generally satisfied with the OBR program and
likely to recommend it to others.
1.3.1.2.6 Always On
1. Program motivation—About half of respondents were very or extremely interested in additional
home improvements that would improve their health and safety, improve their comfort, and
increase their home's overall energy efficiency.
2. Program participation—More than half of respondents remembered receiving an email alert
from the Always On Program (61.3%, n=106).The majority of these respondents noted that
when they receive the email they at least skim through the content (90.6%, n=96). Most
respondents are satisfied with the number of updates provided through the program (68.2%,
n=118).
3. Website engagement—Among the 100 respondents who read at least part of the email alert,
more 16.0% (n=16)visited Avista's website to learn more about"always on" load. Of these, all
but two found the tips Avista provides on the website to be at least somewhat helpful (n=14).
4. Desired information—Respondents indicated that they are interested in learning about other
energy usage and reduction tips for a variety of equipment types including water heating, space
heating, and space cooling.
5. Change in bill—Perceived changes in respondents' utility bill amounts varied. About one-
quarter explained their bill remained the same (26.0%, n=45) while 12.7% (n=22) noted their bill
decreased and 13.9% (n=24) indicated their bill increased; 47.4% (n=82) could not speak to
changes in their bill.
Process Evaluation Report 13

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
1.3.1.2.7 Residential Non-Participants
1. Program Awareness—Most of the non-participant respondents were not aware of Avista's
energy efficiency rebates and program (67.1%, n=94). Among those respondents who were
aware of Avista programs (32.9%, n=46), messages on utilities bill and utility emails were the
most common sources of program awareness.Additionally, respondents who were aware of
Avista's programs were most familiar with the appliance rebates program and less similar with
home energy audit offering and new construction rebates.
2. Energy efficiency familiarity—Just under one-third of non-participant respondents had received
a home energy assessment, purchased new equipment, or had an equipment tune up in the
past three years (32.1%, n=45).
3. Interest in Avista programming-- More than one-third of respondents were somewhat or very
interested in participating in Avista programs. Respondents were most interested in learning
more about the weatherization program (25.0%, n=35) and water heater incentives (23.6%,
n=33).
1.3.1.2.8 Commercial Rebates (Prescriptive Lighting, Appliances, Small Business Direct Install, Site
Specific)
1. Program Awareness—Across the various pathways, survey respondents most commonly
learned about the rebate offerings from contractors, equipment vendors, and/or energy
consultants. Survey respondents indicated email is the most effective way to communicate with
them about rebate opportunities.
2. Marketing Materials—Half of the interviewed trade allies did not know about Avista's program-
specific marketing materials (n=12), but agreed these resources would be useful to have.
3. Barriers to Engagement—The upfront cost of energy efficient equipment was the largest barrier
to program engagement. Survey and interview respondents explained that firms are motivated
to buy energy efficient equipment for the cost savings potential, but often lack the upfront
capital to do so.
4. Prior Energy Efficient Equipment Experience—About half of the survey respondents across the
various pathways noted that they had previously installed energy efficient equipment in their
facilities.
5. Program Experience—Survey and interview respondents tended to be satisfied with all aspects
of the program. Areas of dissatisfaction for both survey respondents and interviewed trade
allies included difficulty finding necessary information on Avista's website and the range of
eligible equipment.
6. Site Specific Program Experience—Interviewed trade allies reported the most challenges with
the site-specific pathway offered through the program.These respondents cited confusion over
the general process and frustration with the length of time required by the M&V review period.
1.3.1.2.9 Midstream
1. Program process—Midstream distributors highlighted some issues with the website and general
application flow of the program, but noted that the program is new.
1.3.1.2.10 Non-Residential Non-participant
1. Program Awareness—About half of all respondents (53.6%, n=30)were aware of Avista's non-
residential focused incentive programs, however a quarter of respondents explained that they
Process Evaluation Report 14

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
did not take advantage of Avista's incentives because they did not have enough information
about the offerings (26.7%, n=24).
2. Energy efficiency familiarity—Almost half of respondents did not replace or upgrade electrical
appliances in the last three years (48.2%, n=27). Among the 24 respondents who did replace
and/or upgrade equipment in the last three years, lighting (29.6%, n=16) and HVAC equipment
(22.2%, n=12)were the most common.
3. Interest in Avista programming--All but two respondents indicated they were at least
somewhat interested in Avista's incentive programs.
1.3.2 Recommendations
The following section details the Evaluator's recommendations resulting from the program evaluations
for each the Residential, Low-Income, and Nonresidential Portfolios.
1.3.2.1 Portfolio-Wide
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista's portfolio of programs:
1. Program requirements—Consider enhancing website and marketing materials to make program
eligible measures, eligibility requirements, and required documentation clearer and more
transparent for each of the offered programs.
2. Support staff training and trade ally development—Staff should consider developing and providing
vetted lists of qualified trade ally contractors that are willing to work with CAP agencies and
incorporate OBR training to contractors to encourage customers to take advantage of financing
opportunities.Additionally, Midstream distributors and various trade allies expressed some
confusion over the transition to a midstream pathway for certain measures. Consider offering these
stakeholder additional training opportunities to explain the transition and the new program
processes and requirements.
3. Increase program marketing—Many of the non-participant respondents did not know Avista
offered rebates and incentives for energy efficient equipment, nor offered home energy audits. Staff
should consider increasing marketing efforts to better promote the programs and reach a larger
audience. Continue to deploy customer-focused promotional and marketing campaigns through
email communication, as customers identified this as the most favorable method of communication.
Increased focus should be placed on the weatherization and appliance,furnace, HVAC, and water
heating rebate offerings as respondents expressed the most interest in those offerings. Continue to
promote the OBR program through various channels, such as bill inserts, newsletters, and trade ally
networks,to maintain and increase customer awareness and participation. Consider a wide
distribution of Avista-branded marketing materials to trade allies so that the trade allies can better
promote and explain the program to their customers.
4. Other programs follow-on activities—Increase coordination with other the Avista energy efficiency
programs to increase the rates of actions taken on customer-level recommended improvements.
Specifically, program staff should share participant information with other programs'staff and suggest
they follow up directly to assist with the auditor recommendations specific to the audited household.
Based on data collected via non-participant surveys,the Evaluators provide the following conclusions
and recommendations for improvement moving forward.
Process Evaluation Report 15

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
1.3.2.1.1 Commercial Non-Participant
1. Increase program marketing—Many of the non-participant respondents did not know Avista
offered rebates and incentives for energy efficient equipment nor did they feel they had enough
information about the offerings to make informed decisions for improving the energy efficiency
of their facility. Staff should consider increasing marketing efforts to better promote the
programs and reach a larger audience for non-residential program participation.
1.3.2.1.2 Always On
1. Expand content provided in alerts—Consider including other energy saving tips and
recommendations in the email alerts and website, aside from information regarding always on
load.Topic areas of interest include information regarding energy efficient equipment as well as
other behavior changes customers can make to reduce their energy usage.
1.3.2.2 Program-Level
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista's programs:
1.3.2.2.1 Residential Prescriptive Rebate Programs
1. Promotional campaigns—Consider increasing promotional campaigns that highlight the impact
energy efficient equipment can have on customers' home safety, comfort, energy bills, and
overall energy efficiency.
2. Contractor training and cobranded marketing materials—Contractors serve as the backbone of
the residential prescriptive rebate programs, serving as the primary awareness source and
marketing avenue. Consider offering contractors more training opportunities to educate them
about the program, as well as providing them co-branded marketing materials to increase
legitimacy and program recognition. During training, encourage contractors to help customers
identify other areas of the home in need of improvement to maximize customers' benefit and
lead to deeper energy retrofits.
3. Increase training opportunities—Midstream distributors and various trade allies expressed
some confusion over the transition to a midstream pathway for certain measures. Consider
offering these stakeholder additional training opportunities to explain the transition and the
new program processes and requirements.
4. Program requirements—Consider enhancing website and marketing materials to make program
eligible measures, eligibility requirements, and required documentation clearer and more
transparent.
1.3.2.2.2 Multi-Family Direct Install
1. Customer Recruitment—If Avista funds a similar program targeting multi-family buildings in the
future, recruitment of property managers who are willing to cooperate and provide time—as
experienced by the program particularly during the post-pandemic period—is anticipated to be
a major hurdle. The program should develop a thoughtful outreach and marketing approach
that leverages motivation and interest to most building owners and property managers
(tenants' satisfaction, increased home security and home comfort,values of upgrades, and
convenience of program participation) in addition to the bill reduction benefits designed for
tenants.
Process Evaluation Report 16

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
1.3.2.2.3 Low-Income
1. Support staff training and trade ally development—A lack of trained crew members and willing
subcontractors in which to partner has reduced CAP agencies' ability to complete projects in a
timely fashion and has resulted in a long wait list for the program.Avista should consider
sponsoring more Building Performance Center training opportunities for more CAP agencies.
Additionally, staff should consider developing and providing vetted lists of qualified trade ally
contractors that are willing to work with CAP agencies in their areas. Expanding the trade ally
network, may also reduce the travel burden for existing trade allies, as CAP agencies are only
able to reimburse travel if five or more projects are scheduled.
2. Establish funding that supports pre-weatherization repairs—Continue to develop a deferral
maintenance program that assists homes in need of pre-weatherization repairs. Once this
deferral maintenance program is rolled out, staff should monitor its usage and determine the
level of funding needed in the long term.
3. Investigate dissatisfied customers due to work quality—Consider working with CAP agencies to
investigate projects of customers who expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of work and
equipment installations conducted by the CAP agencies and their subcontractors.
1.3.2.2.4 Home Energy Audit
1. Address the backlog issue—Program staff should continue to prioritize resolving the pending
application backlog to reduce wait times and improve customer satisfaction. Recommendations
include hiring additional auditors or streamlining the auditing process to lessen burdens on
participating customers.
2. Provide a list of recommended contractors—Consider providing a list of vetted contractors to
customers to help them make the recommended improvements more actionable for homeowners
interested in completing the recommended energy efficiency upgrades.
3. Other programs follow-on activities—Increase coordination with other the Avista energy efficiency
programs to increase the rates of actions taken on the recommended improvements.Specifically,
program staff should share participant information with other programs'staff and suggest they
follow up directly to assist with the auditor recommendations specific to the audited household.
4. Track the HEA referral process—Although it is still too early to analyze the effect of the HEA program
in terms of subsequent participation in other Avista programs,as more than half of the survey
respondents noted they are still planning to implement the audit recommendations,Avista should
develop a system to easily track HEA program participants' participation in other programs.
1.3.2.2.5 On Bill Repayment
1. Education and training of contractors—Provide more education and training to contractors
about the OBR financing process to minimize payment confusion and improve the customer
experience.
2. Online billing information—Enhance Avista's online billing website to clearly separate the OBR
repayment portion from the total billed amount, allowing customers to better understand their
actual energy costs as well as remaining financed amounts.
3. Increased promotion—Continue to promote the OBR program through various channels, such
as bill inserts, newsletters, and trade ally networks,to maintain and increase customer
awareness and participation.
Process Evaluation Report 17

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
1.3.2.2.6 Always On
2. Expand content provided in alerts—Consider including other energy saving tips and
recommendations in the email alerts and website, aside from information regarding always on
load. Topic areas of interest include information regarding energy efficient equipment as well as
other behavior changes customers can make to reduce their energy usage.
1.3.2.2.7 Residential Non-Participant
1. Increase program marketing—Many of the non-participant respondents did not know Avista
offered rebates and incentives for energy efficient equipment, nor offered home energy audits.
Staff should consider increasing marketing efforts to better promote the programs and reach a
larger audience. Increased focus should be placed on the weatherization and appliance,furnace,
HVAC, and water heating rebate offerings as respondents expressed the most interest in those
offerings.
2. Expand energy efficient tips circulation—Consider expanding the pool of people who receive
tips on how to save energy through various behavioral changes, or expand on behavioral
additional energy conservation habits on Avista website. Introducing customers to the concept
of energy efficiency may increase future buy-in for equipment purchases and tune ups.
1.3.2.2.8 Commercial Rebates (Prescriptive Lighting, Appliances, Small Business Direct Install, Site
Specific)
1. Program marketing—Continue to deploy customer-focused promotional and marketing
campaigns through email communication, as customers identified this as the most favorable
method of communication. Consider a wide distribution of Avista-branded marketing materials
to trade allies so that the trade allies can better promote and explain the program to their
customers.
2. Eligible Equipment—Consider expanding equipment eligible for rebates based on trade ally
recommendations.Trade ally respondents had more difficulties with the site-specific program
than the midstream, prescriptive lighting, appliance rebate, and direct install programs.
Integrating more measures into these midstream and downstream rebate pathways may
alleviate pressure put on the site-specific pathway.
1.3.2.2.9 Midstream
1. Increase training opportunities—Midstream distributors and various trade allies expressed
some confusion over the transition to a midstream pathway for certain measures. Consider
offering these stakeholder additional training opportunities to explain the transition and the
new program processes and requirements.
Based on data collected via non-participant surveys,the Evaluators provide the following conclusions
and recommendations for improvement moving forward.
1.3.2.2.10 Commercial Non-Participant
1. Increase program marketing—Many of the non-participant respondents did not know Avista
offered rebates and incentives for energy efficient equipment nor did they feel they had enough
information about the offerings to make informed decisions for improving the energy efficiency
of their facility. Staff should consider increasing marketing efforts to better promote the
programs and reach a larger audience for non-residential program participation.
Process Evaluation Report 18

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
2 INTRODUCTION
ADM evaluated Avista's portfolio of energy efficiency programs for PY2022 and PY2023 combined.This
work was completed in conjunction with the impact evaluation for Avista's portfolio, summarized in
separate impact evaluation reports.
This report focuses on the process evaluation of Avista's PY2022-PY2023 portfolio in the state of
Washington and Idaho for the electric and natural gas programs and pilots offered through Avista.This
report identifies opportunities and offers recommendations to improve the effectiveness of each the
design, implementation, enrollment process, marketing and outreach, quality assurance process, along
with other elements,for all of the programs offered to Avista's customers through its energy efficiency
portfolio.
2.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION
The Evaluators tailored their evaluation questions and activities by program for Avista's portfolio of
programs. However, many of the data collection activities were similar. The main activities the
Evaluators conducted were:
■ Database and records review for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
■ Participant web surveys
■ Non-participant web surveys
■ Stakeholder interviews
■ Trade ally interviews
■ Distributor interviews
The following table lists the evaluation activities conducted for each program during the evaluation
period. A full list of survey instruments is provided in Appendix A of this process evaluation report and
the interview guides displayed in Appendix B of this report.
Process Evaluation Report 19

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Table 2-1:Residential Process Evaluation Activities by Program
Process Evaluation Activity
Program Participant Non- QA,�(QC T Staff Trade Ally
Survey participant Review Interview Interview
Survey
Water Heat X X X X X
HVAC X X X X X
Shell X X X X X
ENERGY STAR Homes X X X X X
Small Home&MF X X X X X
Weatherization
Appliances X X X X X
AeroBarrier X X X X X
Multi-family Direct Install X X X X X
Low-Income X X X X
Prescriptive Lighting X X X X
Prescriptive HVAC X X X X
Prescriptive Food Service X X X X
Equipment
Prescriptive Grocer X X X
Prescriptive Shell X X X X
Prescriptive Green X X X X
Motors
Site-Specific X X X X
2.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
This report includes the process evaluation findings across all programs in the portfolio-wide
assessment'.This section examines the portfolio's overall participant feedback, marketing and outreach,
energy efficiency attitudes and behaviors, and participant decision-making across programs.
Each program is assessed in more detail in the individual chapters that follow. Program chapters contain
a summary of the collected data and evaluation of program-level achievements and barriers. Chapters
are organized according to sector(Residential and Nonresidential).
3 PROCESS EVALUATION METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION
The Evaluators performed a process evaluation on each of the programs summarized in Table 1-1. Our
approach to the process evaluation was to:
■ Gain in-depth understanding of program operations, challenges, and evaluation needs through
Avista and implementation contractor key staff interviews at both the beginning and end of the
evaluation cycle, complemented with program documentation review.
■ Update assessment of Avista success in achieving the goals and objectives.
1 The impact evaluation findings,conclusions,and recommendations for this evaluation period are reported in a separate impact
evaluation report.
Process Evaluation Report 20

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
■ Report findings on customer experiences with the program and demographic characteristics
collected as part of survey efforts.
■ Collect feedback from program participants and non-participants.
Process evaluations in general assess organizational and procedural aspects of programs to provide
feedback on aspects of programs that are functioning well and contribute recommendations when areas
of improvement are identified.The Evaluators completed the above process tasks for projects
completed in the Washington and Idaho electric and natural gas Avista service territory.
The process activities are cross-cutting across programs; however, some program-specific research
objectives are explored for certain programs.The objectives are determined by Avista evaluation goals
as well as the relative contribution of a given program to the overall energy efficiency impacts.The
Evaluators kept data collection instruments, calculation spreadsheets, and monitored/survey data
available for Avista records.
3.1 SUMMARY OF APPROACH
This section presents our general cross-cutting approach to accomplishing the process evaluation of
Avista's Residential, Low-Income, and Nonresidential programs listed in Table 1-1.The Evaluators start
by presenting our general evaluation approach.This chapter is organized by general task due to several
overlapping activities across programs.
Our general approach for this evaluation considers the cyclical feedback loop among program design,
implementation, and process evaluation. Our activities during the evaluation identifies barriers to
program participation or satisfaction as well as characterizes whether a program is meeting its goals.
These activities are aimed to provide guidance for continuous program improvement and program
operations effectiveness for the 2022 and 2023 program years.
3.2 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.
To prepare for and understand program design and delivery,the Evaluator reviewed program materials
and documentation provided by Avista.This included detailed program descriptions, program hand-out
materials, and the Avista website. Additionally,the program team reviewed program tracking data to
understand how the program tracks and documents program participation and key variables.
3.3 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
The Evaluators deployed participant and non-participant surveys for each program.
The Evaluators used the following equations to estimate sample size requirements for each program and
fuel type. Required sample sizes were estimated as follows:
Process Evaluation Report 21

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Equation 3-1:Sample Size for Infinite Sample Size
(ZxCV\Z
n =
d
Equation 3-2:Sample Size for Finite Population Size
n
no = ( l
1 + 0
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
the homogeneity of participationZ, which yields a sample size of 68 for an infinite population. Sample
sizes were adjusted for smaller populations via the method detailed in Equation 3-2.
3.3.1 Sampling Plan
The Evaluators deployed surveys for each of the Residential and Nonresidential programs offered
through Avista in PY2022 and PY2023. The primary purpose of conducting these surveys is to gather
information about customer satisfaction, customer feedback, and to confirm that the measure was
installed and is still currently operational.
The Evaluators summarize the final sample sizes shown in Table 3-1 for the each of the programs in
Washington and Idaho for both the electric and natural gas fuels.The Evaluators developed a sampling
plan that achieved a sampling precision of±1.58%at 90%statistical confidence for participant responses
and ±4.84%at 90%statistical confidence for the non-participant responses at the measure type- level
during web-based survey verification.
z Assumption based off California Evaluation Framework:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFi Ies/CPUC_Pu bl ic_Website/Content/UtiIities_a nd_I nd ustries/Energy/Energy_Programs/De
mand_Side_Management/EE_and_Energy_Savi ngs_Assist/CAEva luation Fra mework.pdf
Process Evaluation Report 22

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Table 3-1:PY2O22-PY2O23 Survey Sample and Precision by Program
ResponsesSector Program Contacts
Contacts
&MMM" I I
Single Family Home- 5,281 648 12.27% 90%±3.03%
Weatherization
Single Family Home- 3,226 1,291 40.02% 90%±1.77%
Appliances
Residential & Low Income 692 108 15.61% 90%±7.28%
Low Income Home Energy Audit 1,252 97 7.75% 90%±8.02%
On Bill Repayment Program 187 27 14.44% 90%±14.68%
Always On Pilot Program 50,060 173 0.35% 90%±6.24%
Non-Participants 1,395 145 10.39% 90%±6.47%
Prescriptive Lighting,
Appliances,Small Business 6,839 266 3.89% 90%±4.94%
Non-Residential Direct Install
Site Specific 82 6 7.32% 90%±32.53%
Non-Participants 1,141 144 12.62% 90%±6.41%
Participants 67,619 2,616 3.87% 90%±1.58%
Total
Non-participants 2,536 289 11.40% 90%±4.56%
3.4 WEB SURVEYS
The Evaluator administered participant surveys to samples of program participants to collect data on the
participant experience with the program to inform the process evaluation.The Evaluator administered a
survey to participants in the residential and non-residential programs throughout 2022 and 2023 in
waves based on customers' participation date. As a key evaluation activity, the Evaluator also conducted
web-based surveys with Avista customers who did not participate in the residential and non-residential
programs in 2022 and 2023.
3.4.1 Survey Administration Procedures
Respondents with available emails were sent an invitation to the survey. Non-respondents were then
sent up to two reminder emails. Customers were offered a $20 visa gift card to complete the survey.
3.5 IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
This section summarizes the Evaluators' approach to conducting in-depth interviews for program staff,
trade allies, builders, and distributors.
Process Evaluation Report 23

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
3.5.1 Program Staff Interviews
The Evaluator completed 13 interviews with program staff to understand any changes made to the
programs and any key successes and challenges. These interviews were qualitative, loosely structured,
and exploratory in nature.
The Evaluators completed interviews with utility staff for each program in Avista's portfolio.The staff
interviews addressed the following topics:
■ The historical context of the energy efficiency programs;
■ Program design and qualification requirements;
■ Processes for recruiting customers into the programs;
■ Data management and tracking processes and issues;
■ Issues or challenges staff face in delivering the energy efficiency programs; and
■ Planned or desired changes in program administration in the future.
The Evaluators spoke with six utility staff in 2022 and seven utility program staff in 2023 to better
understand their role and responsibility for the various programs. In general,the purpose of these
interviews was to understand program goals, customer needs, program performance in meeting
customer needs, and other feedback that they have on the program delivery, process, integration of
previous evaluation recommendations, and planned program changes in the near future.
3.5.2 Stakeholder Surveys and Interviews
The Evaluators completed 61 surveys and interviews with various stakeholders engaged in Avista's
programs (Table 3-2). Respondents were provided a $50 incentive to complete the interview.These
interviews provided an opportunity to collect additional in-depth qualitative information on
stakeholders' experiences with the programs and the impact its availability has had on them.The
interviews were designed to be completed within 30 minutes.
Table 3-2:Summary of Stakeholder Interviews and Surveys
. Contacts Responses
Contacts
Residential trade allies 358 24 6.7%
Commercial trade allies 232 22 9.5%
Midstream distributors 8 5 62.5%
Property Managers 48 Firms, 10 20.8%
176 Buildings (Firms)
Total 646 61 9.4%
4 RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific process analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Residential programs in the section below.
Process Evaluation Report 24

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
4.1 RESIDENTIAL PRESCRIPTIVE PROGRAMS
Avista provides residential customers living in single family, manufactured, and multi-family homes with
a variety of rebates and incentives that encourage the purchase of energy efficient equipment. Avista
residential programs offer rebates for appliance related measures, such as smart thermostats, HVAC
systems, water heaters, clothes washers and dryers, and refrigerators and freezers, as well building shell
and weatherization related measures including windows, doors, duct sealing, and ceiling insulation.
4.1.1 Data Collection Activities
The process evaluation of the Residential Program included the following data collection activities:
■ Avista Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed six utility staff in 2022 and seven
utility program staff in 2023. Staff were involved in the administration of the Single-Family
Homes Rebates Program.These interviews collected information from program staff about
program design, administration, marketing, and stakeholders.
■ Program Participant Surveys. The Evaluators conducted surveys with a series of program
participants.These surveys covered a range of topics, including program awareness,
participation, and satisfaction.
■ Trade Ally Interview. The Evaluators surveyed trade allies who participated in the Residential
Prescriptive Rebates programs.
4.1.2 Staff Interview
Evaluators interviewed two Avista program staff involved in the implementation and administration of
the Residential Prescriptive Rebate program. Staff included the residential program manager as well as
the AeroBarrier pilot program manager. Interviewees participated in two interviews: one in the summer
of 2022 and one in the summer of 2023. During the interviews, staff discussed program design and
implementation, as well as any changes that were made to the program between 2022 and 2023.The
following summary focuses on the Residential Prescriptive Rebates programs in general, with specific
summaries of the AeroBarrier pilot and new midstream program included in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.6,
respectively.
4.1.2.1 Program Design
In 2022 the residential program followed a mostly prescriptive program model, with some measures
transitioning to a midstream model in 2023.The goal of the program is to help customers achieve
energy savings through various energy efficiency retrofits to their existing homes or receive incentives
for purchasing and building energy efficient new construction homes. Program-specific goals are based
on energy savings; there are no measure-specific or participation-level goals.The program's target
audience is customers living in single-family, multi-family, and manufactured homes and contractors
who install equipment in these homes. Specifics of the multi-family direct installation program are
expanded upon in the next chapter in this report.
4.1.2.2 Program Administration
The Residential Prescriptive Rebates programs are self-implemented and include a team of Avista staff
responsible for processing applications and answering customer inquiries.Avista uses iEnergy software
to track applications and project statuses. Staff reported mixed experiences with the iEnergy platform.
Approximately 70-75%of customers and trade allies submit their rebate applications through the web-
based platform. However, staff have received some complaints regarding the software's customer
Process Evaluation Report 25

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
interface and overall user-friendliness. Staff have fixed some of the issues identified, but some
customers and contractors still prefer to submit paper applications instead. Staff explained that typically
the customer submits the application themselves, but in some instances,the contractor will submit the
application on the customer's behalf. Staff prefer iEnergy to paper applications because the software
platform streamlines and automates savings calculations in an organized structure.
In 2022, program staff extended the rebate timeframe from 90 days to 120 days to account for supply
chain issues;this change continued through 2023. Between 2022 and 2023 HVAC and water heating
measures shifted to a midstream model. Although incentive amounts vary between Washington and
Idaho due to differing cost-effectiveness models, staff strive to keep the programs as similar as possible
to reduce confusion among customers, market actors, and program staff.
4.1.2.3 Marketing and Outreach
Staff employ a variety of marketing techniques including email blasts, bill inserts, and social media
advertisements. Staff had stopped contractor focused training events during the pandemic but started
offering them again in 2022.
Staff explained that they have not seen increased interest in program engagement as a result of
increased incentives.Therefore,they are instead exploring other outreach and marketing strategies to
increase engagement moving forward.
4.1.2.4 Aero-Barrier Pilot
The Aero-Barrier pilot program was active between 2021 and June 2022.The program sought to
improve the energy efficiency of building shells, with a strong focus on air sealing. Incentives were based
on the homes ACH (air changes per hour) and square footage.The pilot targeted builders involved in
new home construction but struggled to attract builders. Staff noted that builders did not consider the
incentive lucrative enough to compel engagement. Ultimately,the pilot was discontinued due to a lack
of interest as well as cost-effectiveness issues. Moving forward, staff are considering ways to increase air
sealing offerings for retrofit programs but do not foresee bringing back Aero-Barrier incentives for new
construction.
4.1.2.5 Residential Midstream Program
Beginning in 2023, HVAC and water heating measures were transitioned from the traditional residential
rebate program to a residential midstream program. Avista's motivation for the switch to midstream
delivery mechanism was to achieve high saving goals and minimize customer confusion regarding these
equipment types. Staff explained that the midstream model reduces the paperwork burden for
customers and allows for more market transformation by focusing efforts on equipment distributors
rather than end users.
For residential measures, distributors must pass incentives through to customers. In general, despite a
slow start to the program, staff have appreciated the midstream model, explaining that it is more
efficient and allows for faster rebate processing. At the time of the 2023 interview, staff noted they had
engaged eight distributors across both states, with plans to bring on three more distributors by end of
2023. Staff explained that the biggest pain point of the program is explaining to staff and customers why
the incentive is no longer being offered directly to the customers.
Process Evaluation Report 26

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
4.1.3 Appliance, Furnace, HVAC, and Water Heat Rebate Program Participant Survey Results
Evaluators conducted a survey of appliance, HVAC, and water heat rebate programs participants to
gather feedback about customers' engagement with and experience of the program. Participants were
contacted via email a total of three times and asked to complete a survey. In total, 1,291 participants
who received rebates for energy efficient appliances in 2022 or 2023 responded to survey efforts.
4.1.3.1 Program Awareness
Respondents learned about the program through a variety of avenues, most commonly through their
contractor or retailer(43.1%, n=557) and Avista's website (31.2%, n=403) (Figure 4-1).
Figure 4-1:Program Awareness(n=1,270)
Contractor/Retailer 43.1%
Avista website 31.2%
Avista bill insert M 13.1%
Word of mouth 12.3°%
Avista email 9.6%
Avista mailer � 7.9%
Research/Internet 3.2%
Avista staff 2.2%
Previous participant ■ 1.0%
Community organization/event ■ 1.0%
Social media ■ 0.9%
Print ad 1 0.5%
Radio ad 1 0.2%
Don't remember 1 0.5%
About half of respondents were motivated to participate in the program to reduce their monthly utility
bills (48.1%, n=619) and about one-third were motivated to help the environment (36.3%, n=460)
(Figure 4-2). When deciding on what equipment to purchase, respondents relied on a variety of sources,
including contractors, word of mouth, and personal research (Table 4-1).
Figure 4-2:Factors Influencing Participation (n varies)
Helping the environment(n=1267) ' 18.9% 20.4% Nor 17.6% _
Reducing monthly utility bill(n=1287) M 17.2% - 20.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not applicable ■Not at all A little ■A moderate amount ■A lot ■A great deal
Process Evaluation Report 27

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Table 4-1:Source of Information (n=1,291)
Contractor 38.7% 500
Word of mouth 19.5% 252
Personal research 12.9% 166
Desired features 2.4% 31
Price 2.4% 31
Brand reliability 2.3% 30
Retailer 1.5% 20
Not sure 21.8% 281
A little more than half of respondents were very or extremely interested in additional home
improvements that would improve their health and safety(53.5%, n=685), improve their comfort
(53.7%, n=690), and increase their home's energy efficiency(54.5%, n=701) (Figure 4-3). More than one-
quarter of respondents indicated they would be very or extremely likely to install insulation themselves
if a rebate was available without having to use a contractor (28.9%, n=371).
Figure 4-3: Interest in home improvements that would... (n varies)
Improve your health and safety?(n=1281) t.5% 14.3% 34.7%
Improve your comfort?(n=1284) 14.2% 35.8%
Increase its energy efficiency?(n=1287) 14.5% 25.4% , n°i
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not at all interested Somewhat interested ■Moderately interested
■Very interested ■Extremely interested
More than half of respondents did not know anything about Avista's Home Energy Audit Program
(61.3%, n=784). Similarly, among those respondents who had not participated in the On Bill Repayment
Program (n=740),the vast majority were not familiar with Avista's financing programs (81.6%, n=604).
4.1.3.2 Program Participation
Respondents received rebates for a variety of energy efficient equipment, most notably smart
thermostats, clothes washers, and furnaces (Table 4-9).
Process Evaluation Report 28

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Table 4-2: Type and Number of Measures Received(n=1,291)
Measure Category Installed
Smart Thermostat 497
Furnace 286
Clothes Washer 281
Refrigerator-Freezer Combo 217
Clothes Dryer 178
Water Heater 144
Heat Pump 90
Energy Star doors 59
Stand-Alone Freezer 38
4.1.3.2.1 Smart Thermostat
Smart thermostat rebate recipients replaced a variety of thermostat equipment (Figure 4-4), most
commonly a programmable thermostat (45.3%, n=225). Among the 160 previous standard thermostat
owners, 81.3% (n=130) would adjust their thermostat when they left the house or before going to bed.
Two-thirds of smart thermostat rebate recipients had a contractor install their new thermostat for them
(66.5%, n=336).The majority of smart thermostat recipients confirmed the smart thermostat was
connected to the internet (88.2%, n=439).
Figure 4-4: Thermostat Replacement(n=497)
Programmable thermostat 45.3%
Standard thermostat 32.2%
Smart thermostat 16.3%
No previous thermostat 3.4%
Not sure 2.8%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%
Respondents purchased smart thermostats from a variety of brands, most commonly Nest and
Honeywell (Figure 4-5).
Process Evaluation Report 29

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2O22-PY2O23
Figure 4-5:Smart Thermostat Brand(n=498)
Nest ■ ■ 37.8%
Honeywell ■ ■ i 21.7%
Ecobee ■ ■ 16.3%
Lennox iComfort 6.8%
Diaken 2.6%
Trane 1.6%
Amazon 1.4%
Bryant 1.2%
Carrier W 1.0%
Emerson ■ 0.8%
Sensi 1 0.4%
Mysa 1 0.4%
Nest 1 0.4%
York 1 0.2%
April Air 1 0.2%
Not sure � 6.0%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%
Three-quarters of smart thermostat recipients program their new thermostat to change temperature at
different times of the day(75.7%, n=377) and more than two-thirds program the thermostat to adjust
the temperature automatically(69.7%, n=347). About half of respondents only adjust their thermostat
settings less than a few times a month (50.8%, n=253) (Figure 4-6). More than half of respondents set
their thermostat to "away mode"when they are not home (61.5%, n=306).The majority of respondents
indicated that their smart thermostat controls both their heating and cooling systems (91.0%, n=453)
and that their previous thermostat was working at the time of replacement (93.4%, n=435).
Figure 4-6:Frequency of Smart Thermostat Adjustments(n=498)
'- 19.3% d� 28.7% r: 40.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not sure ■Once a day or more Once to a few times a week ■Once to a few times a month ■Never
Process Evaluation Report 30

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
4.1.3.2.2 Furnace, Heat Pump, and Water Heater Specifics
In general, the most popular factor respondents considered when choosing their furnace, heat pump,
and water heater was based on their contractor's recommendation (Table 4-3). Other population
considerations included rebate availability, lower operating cost, and desired features.
Table 4-3:Considerations for New Equipment(n varies)
Furnace Water Heater(n=144) I Heat Pu mp
Considerations (n=286) ••
Contractor recommendation 72.4% 207 61.8% 89 52.2% 47
Rebate availability 41.6% 119 37.5% 54 7.8% 7
Lower operating cost 40.2% 115 38.9% 56 14.4% 13
Good price 37.4% 107 22.9% 33 6.7% 6
Desired features 26.2% 75 47.2% 68 16.7% 15
ENERGY STAR label 23.8% 68 26.4% 38 5.6% 5
Good for environment 23.4% 67 25.7% 37 4.4% 4
Brand 8.0% 23 7.6% 11 5.6% 5
Only option 4.5% 13 3.5% 5 10.0% 9
Right size/color 4.2% 12 9.7% 14 5.6% 5
Replacing broken equipment 1.0% 3 0.7% 1 0.0% 0
Two-thirds of furnace rebate recipients (66.1%, n=189) and just under three-quarters of water heater
rebate recipients (72.2%, n=104) replaced functional equipment. Across both measure types, natural gas
was the most popular fuel source for the old and new equipment (Table 4-4).
Table 4-4:Equipment Fuel Type(n varies)
Furnace Water Heater IL
Type • . New • . _F New
Natural Gas
87.4% 250 94.8% 271 68.8% 99 86.8% 125
Electricity
5.2% 15 4.5% 13 23.6% 34 11.8% 17
• 1.4% 4 0.0% 0 0.7% 1 0.0% 0
• 1.0% 3 0.7% 2 2.1% 3 1.4% 2
• 4.9% 14 4.9% 7
About half of the 90 heat pump rebate recipients replaced a previous heating and cooling system
(51.1%, n=46),the remaining respondents replaced a heating system only (34.4%. n=31), a cooling
system only(2.2%. n=2), or were part of a new construction project (11.1%, n=10). One respondent was
not sure what type of system the heat pump replaced.
Almost three-quarters of the heating related heat pump rebate recipients had not previously had a heat
pump at their facility (72.7%, n=56). Among those 17 respondents who had a heating-related heat
pump,just under-half were replacing a functional unit (47.01%, n=8).
Process Evaluation Report 31

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
4.1.3.2.3 Clothes Washer/Dryer
A little less than half of respondents had ENERGY STAR rated washers and dryers before purchasing new
equipment through the Avista program (Table 4-5). Most respondents replaced working washers (64.8%,
n=151) and dryers (71.2%, n=104).
Table 4-5: Washer and Dryer Type(n varies)
Type of Equipment
ENERGY STAR rated 45.6% 128 47.8% 85
Standard efficiency 28.5% 80 25.3% 45
A different machine type 8.9% 25 9.0% 16
Not sure 9.6% 27 10.1% 18
1 did not have a clothes washer/dryer 7.5% 21 7.9% 14
4.1.3.2.4 Combination Refrigerator-Freezer and Stand-Alone Freezer
The majority of combination refrigerator-freezer rebate recipients were replacing existing equipment
(81.1%, n=176). Among these respondents, about half were replacing a standard efficiency combination
refrigerator-freezer(49.4%, n=87) (Table 4-5). About two-thirds of the refrigeration equipment being
replaced was working at the time of replacement (68.2%, n=120).
Table 4-6:Previous Refrigerator-Freezer Type(n=176)
Equipment Type % n
Standard efficiency 49.4% 87
ENERGY STAR rated 39.2% _69
Stand-alone refrigerator 2.3% 4
Different type of refrigerate-freezer 9.1% 16
Almost forty percent(39.5%, n=15) of stand-alone freezer rebate recipients did not have a stand-alone
freezer prior to participating in the program. Among those who did (n=22),there was an almost even
split between respondents who had standard efficient (n=10) and ENERGY STAR efficient (n=12)
freezers. More than half of respondents with an existing stand-alone freezer were replacing working
equipment(59.1%, n=13).
4.1.3.2.5 ENERGY STAR Doors
Among the 59 respondents who received a rebate for ENERGY STAR DOORS, a little less than half were
replacing standard efficiency doors (47.5%, n=28);the remaining respondents were replacing ENRGY
STAR doors (27.2%, n=16) or were not sure of the type of door they previously had (25.4%, n=15).
4.1.3.3 Contractor
Five hundred and fifty-one respondents indicated they used a contractor to install their equipment
(42.7).About one-third these respondents used a contractor they had worked with before (34.7%,
n=191) while just over one-quarter of respondents found their contractor through word of mouth
(26.9%, n=148) (Figure 4-7). A little more than half of respondents confirmed their contractor showed
them the discount they would be receiving on their equipment(54.6%, n=301).
Process Evaluation Report 32

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-7.Contractor Awareness(n=316)
Worked with before 34.7%
Word of mouth 26.9°%
Internet search 24.3%
Retailer 11.6%
Avista website - 5.8°%
Advertisement(social media,tv,print) M 1.8%
Avista staff E 1.1%
Builder ■ 0,9%
Not sure 1 0.5%
In general, respondents believed their contractor scheduled and completed the work in a reasonable
amount of time and was courteous and professional (Figure 4-8).
Figure 4-8: Contractor Behaviors(n=551)
The time it took to complete the work was
reasonable. 2�0
The work was scheduled in a reasonable amount of .
time.
The contractor was courteous and professional. ■
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree ■Neither agree nor disagree
■Somewhat agree ■Strongly agree
Sixteen percent of respondents (16.3%, n=90) remember their contractor providing recommendations
for other energy saving equipment upgrades. Specific recommendations included insulation, windows,
and heating and cooling equipment, among others (Table 4-7); seven respondents also noted that their
contractors recommended regular maintenance and behavior changes.
Table 4-7:Recommended Equipment Upgrades(n=90)
Measure n
Insulation 14
Windows 14
Process Evaluation Report 33

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Heat pump 13
Water heater 13
Furnace 12
Programmable or smart thermostat 9
Air conditioner 8
LEDs 2
Solar panels 2
Low-flow showerhead 1
Refrigerator 1
Gas range 1
4.1.3.4 Satisfaction
More than half of respondents considered Avista a very or extremely reliable source of information
regarding energy efficiency(57.7%, n=745) (Figure 4-9).Twelve percent of respondents (12.2%, n=158)
contacted Avista staff while participating in the program. In general,these respondents were satisfied
with how long it took staff to answer their questions (88.0%, n=139) and how thoroughly staff addressed
their questions (89.9%, n=142).
Figure 4-9:Avista as Reliable Source of Information (n=1,291)
12.5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not at all reliable Somewhat reliable ■Moderately reliable ■Very reliable ■Extremely reliable
In general, respondents were satisfied with the program overall,the amount of rebate they received,
and the program participation process (Figure 4-10). One hundred and ten respondents (8.5%)
expressed some level of dissatisfaction with the program. Reasons for dissatisfaction included
insufficient rebate (n=59), lack of transparency regarding program requirements (n=21), negligent
contractor(n=14), equipment issues (n=14) and slow processing times (n=5).
Just over half of respondents indicated they were somewhat or very likely to have participated in the
program if the rebate was 75%of the value provided to them (54.4%, n=702).
Process Evaluation Report 34

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-10:Program Satisfaction (n=1291)
Program overall I 28.4%
Rebate amount you received ' 32. '
Program participation process I
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied ■Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied
■Somewhat satisfied ■Very satisfied
Three-quarters of respondents are satisfied with Avista as their service provider (74.4%, n=960) and half
of respondents indicated that participation in the program increased their satisfaction with Avista
(51.4%, n=663).Three-quarters of respondents indicated they were likely to recommend the rebate
program to others (72.0%, n=930).
4.1.3.5 Demographics
Table 4-8 describes the demographics of survey respondents.
Table 4-8:Demographics(n=1,291, unless otherwise indicated)
Answer % Count
Homeownership
Own 93.5% 1,207
Rent 2.1% 27
Own and rent to someone else 1.2% 15
1 don't know 0.1% 1
Prefer not to answer 3.2% 41
Building Age(n=1222)
Before 1950 17.9% 219
1950 to 1959 8.7% 106
1960 to 1969 6.1% 75
1970 to 1979 14.1% 172
1980 to 1989 6.3% 77
1990 to 1999 16.0% 196
2000 to 2009 16.0% 195
2010 to 2019 6.7% 82
2020 to Present 7.2% 88
1 don't know 0.7% 9
Prefer not to answer 0.3% 3
Heating Fuel Type
Natural Gas 66.3% 856
Electricity 28.1% 363
Wood 2.2% 29
Propane 2.1% 27
Pellet 0.8% 10
Prefer not to answer 0.5% 6
Process Evaluation Report 35

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Oil 0.4% 5
Hydrothermal 0.2% 2
Not sure 0.2% 3
Air Conditioning
Yes 78.3% 1,011
No 19.9% 257
1 don't know 1.5% 19
Prefer not to answer 0.3% 4
Water Heater Fuel Type
Natural Gas 55.8% 720
Electricity 39.3% 508
Not sure 2.8% 36
Propane 1.6% 21
Hydrothermal 0.1% 1
None 0.1% 1
Prefer not to answer 0.5% 7
Home Type
Single-family house detached 88.8% 1,147
Duplex,condo,townhome 2.9% 38
Mobile or manufactured home 6.0% 77
Apartment with 2 to 4 units 0.8% 10
Apartment with 5+units 0.3% 4
Not sure 0.3% 4
Prefer not to answer 0.9% 11
Household Size(n=1277)
1 person 14.3% 182
2 people 50.0% 638
3 people 14.6% 186
4 people 12.4% 158
5 people 4.6% 59
6 people 1.0% 13
7 people 0.3% 4
8 or more people 0.3% 4
Prefer not to answer 2.6% 33
Age
18 to 24 0.7% 9
25 to 34 8.6% 111
35 to 44 14.8% 191
45 to 54 14.6% 189
55 to 64 19.9% 257
65 to 75 27.1% 350
75 or older 7.6% 98
Prefer not to answer 6.7% 86
Household member is 65+years old
Yes 53.0% 684
Household income
Less than$10,000 1.1% 14
$10,000 to$19,999 1.0% 13
$20,000 to$29,999 2.9% 38
$30,000 to$39,999 4.7% 60
Process Evaluation Report 36

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
$40,000 to$49,999 6.6% 85
$50,000 to$74,999 14.8% 191
$75,000 to$99,999 12.2% 158
$100,000 to$149,999 14.3% 185
$150,000 to$199,999 6.0% 77
$200,000 or more 5.6% 72
Prefer not to answer 30.8% 398
Education
Associates degree(or similar) 0.8% 10
Four-year college degree 10.6% 137
Graduate or professional degree 29.3% 378
High school graduate 28.7% 371
Did not graduate high school 21.9% 283
Prefer not to answer 8.7% 112
4.1.4 Weatherization and Shell Measures—Participant Survey Results
The Evaluators conducted a survey with weatherization and shell measure participants to gather
feedback about customers' engagement with and experience of the program. Participants were
contacted via email up to three times and asked to complete a survey. In total, 648 participants who
received weatherization and/or shell measures in 2022 or 2023 responded to survey efforts.
4.1.4.1 Program Participation
Respondents received a variety of different measures through the program (Table 4-9), with windows
being the most common measure received by respondents.
Table 4-9: Type and Number of Measures Received(n=648)
Measure Category Total Percent
Window Replacement 463 71.5%
Attic Insulation 133 20.5%
Wall Insulation 43 6.6%
Floor Insulation 18 2.8%
AeroBarrier Insulation 3 0.5%
Across the different measure types, the majority of respondents planned to install the new equipment
before they learned about Avista's rebate offerings (Table 4-10).
Table 4-10:Planned to Install Measures Prior to Program Enrollment(n=648)
Planned to Install
Measure Category . .
Window Replacement 463 79.1% 366
Attic Insulation 133 62.4% 83
Wall Insulation 43 69.8% 30
Floor Insulation 18 66.7% 12
AeroBarrier Insulation 3 100.0% 3
When deciding on what type of energy efficient equipment to install, respondents often relied on
recommendations from their contractor (53.7%, n=348), personal contact (23.5%, n=137), or the utility
Process Evaluation Report 37

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
(21.1%, n=137). Over half of respondents were highly motivated to participate in the program to reduce
their monthly utility bills (Figure 4-11). Other reasons respondents indicated they were interested in
installing energy efficient equipment included improving the home's temperature control (n=112),
upgrade equipment (n=87), increase home's value and improve aesthetics (n=50), save money(n=42),
reduce noise (n=14), and safety concerns (n=8).
Figure 4-11:Motivations for Installing Energy Efficient Equipment(n=varies)
Helping the environment(n=627) 20.9°%
Reducing your monthly utility bill(n=644) 4010.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not applicable ■Not at all A little ■A moderate amount ■A lot ■A great deal
About one quarter of respondents (n=159, n=24.5%) contacted Avista staff regarding questions about
their projects and twenty-four respondents received an in-home inspection after their project was
completed (3.7%, n=24).
More than half of respondents indicated they would have made the energy efficient upgrades even if
the rebate provided was 75%of what they received (Figure 4-12).
Figure 4-12: Willingness to Pay(n=648)
9.9% - 20.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely ■Neither likely nor unlikely ■Somewhat likely ■Very likely
4.1.4.2 Program Awareness
Respondents most commonly learned about the residential program through a contractor or retailer
communication (Figure 4-13).
Process Evaluation Report 38

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-13:Program Awareness(n=648)
Contractor/Retailer 50.9%
Avista website 25.8%
Avista mailer/bill insert 23.5%
Word of mouth 14.4%
Avista email - 9.6%
Avista program staff 3.2%
Personal research 2.8%
Community event 1.5%
Newspaper 1.5%
Previous customer 1.4%
Social media 1.1%
Don't remember ) 0.3%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
More than half of survey respondents are interested in making additional energy efficiency
improvements that would improve their comfort(61.6%, n=396), increase energy efficiency(60.0%,
n=388), and improve health and safety(56.7%, n=366) (Figure 4-14).
Figure 4-14:Interest in Additional EE Upgrades(n=varies)
Improve your health and safety(n=646) E 12.9%
Improve your comfort(n=643) 41[. 14.0% 42.3%
Increase its energy efficiency(n=647) 4 . 15.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not at all interested Somewhat interested ■Moderately interested
■Very interested ■Extremely interested
4.1.4.3 Contractor
According to tracking data, 232 respondents used a contractor for their equipment installations (35.8%).
Of these respondents, about one quarter had used a contractor they had worked with before (27.6%,
Process Evaluation Report 39

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
n=64), while half of respondents found the contractor through word-of-mouth (27.2%, n=63) or an
internet search (23.3%, n=54) (Figure 4-15).
Figure 4-15:Finding a Contractor(n=232)
Worked with previously 27.6%
Word of mouth 27.2%
Internet search 23.3%
Avista website 8.2%
Retailer 6.0%
Ad 3.0%
Avista representative 2.2%
Home show 11111110 1.3%
Social media E 0.9%
Mailer 1 0.4%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%
Less than half of the respondents who used a contractor indicated their contractor showed them the
discount they would be receiving (41.4%, n=96). Fifteen percent of respondents indicated that their
contractor made recommendations about other energy efficient equipment their home could benefit
from (15.1%, n=35).The most common contractor recommendations included insulation (n=12) and
windows (Figure 4-15).
Table 4-11: Contractor Recommendations(n=35)
..
Insulation 12
Windows 11
Doors 7
HVAC 4
Appliance 2
Solar 1
Siding 1
Most respondents were satisfied with their contractor citing their professionalism and courteousness
(Figure 4-16).
Process Evaluation Report 40

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-16: Contractor Satisfaction (n=232)
The time it took to complete the work was
reasonable. ' 14.7%
The work was scheduled in a reasonable amount of .
time.
The contractor was courteous and professional.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree ■Neither agree nor disagree
■Somewhat agree ■Strongly agree
4.1.4.4 Program Satisfaction
Program participants are generally satisfied with the program (Figure 4-17) and Avista as their energy
service provider.Among the 77 respondents (11.9%)who expressed some dissatisfaction, low rebate
amounts were the most popular reason for dissatisfaction (Table 4-12).
Figure 4-17:Program Satisfaction (n=648)
Avista as service provider . _r 29.2°% '
Program overall I - 30.4% '
Rebate amount ' 32.3%
Participation process I
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied ■Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied
■Somewhat satisfied ■Very satisfied
Table 4-12:Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=77)
Response
Insufficient rebate 47 61.0%
Application process 18 23.4%
Faulty equipment 8 10.4%
Program requirements 2 2.6%
Poor communication with staff 2 2.6%
More than half of survey respondents reported that participating in the residential program has
Process Evaluation Report 41

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
improved their satisfaction with Avista (57.9%, n=375) (Figure 4-18) and 85.5% (n=520) consider Avista a
reliable source for information on saving energy(Figure 4-19). Most respondents (80.1%, n=519) are
likely to recommend the residential program to others.
Figure 4-18:Program Participation's Impact on Satisfaction with Avista(n=648)
I
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Greatly decreased your satisfaction with Avista Somewhat decreased your satisfaction with Avista
■Did not affect your satisfaction with Avista ■Somewhat increased your satisfaction with Avista
■Greatly increased your satisfaction with Avista
Figure 4-19:Avista as a Reliable Source of Information (n=648)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not at all reliable Somewhat reliable ■Moderately reliable ■Very reliable ■Extremely reliable
4.1.4.5 Respondent Demographics and Home Characteristics
Table 4-13 presents respondents' demographic and residence characteristics.
Table 4-13:Residence Characteristics and Respondent Demographics(n=varies)
Response
Homeownership Status(n=610)
Own 94.0%
Own and rent to someone else 0.6%
Rent 2.6%
I don't know 0.3%
Prefer not to answer 2.5%
Housing Type(n=610)
Single-family house detached 88.0%
Process Evaluation Report 42

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Single-family house attached to one or more other
houses(e.g., duplex, condominium,townhouse,
etc.) 3.7
Mobile or manufactured home 5.4%
Apartment with 2 to 4 units 1.5%
Apartment with 5+units 0.5%
1 don't know 0.2%
Prefer not to answer 0.8%
Central A/C Status(n=648)
Yes 66.2%
Home Fuel Type(n=610)
Natural Gas 63.7%
Electricity 28.7%
Wood 2.2%
Propane 1.9%
Oil 1.2%
Pellets 0.6%
Gas and electric 0.5%
Prefer not to answer 0.8%
Water Heater Fuel Type(n=648)
Natural Gas 47.5%
Electricity 48.1%
Propane 1.2%
Gas and electric 0.6%
None 0.0%
I don't know 2.0%
Prefer not to answer 0.5%
Home Size(sq ft)(n=555)
Less than 1,OOOft2 6.7%
1,000-1,999ft2 43.4%
2,000-2,999ft2 30.8%
3,000-3,999ft2 12.8%
4,000ft2 or more 5.4%
Housing Age(n=648)
Before 1950 23.8%
1950 to 1959 14.1%
1960 to 1969 8.5%
1970 to 1979 17.3
1980 to 1989 9.1
1990 to 1999 15.7%
2000 to 2009 9.3
2010 to 2019 0.5
2020 to Present 0.8%
1 don't know 1.1%
Number of people in Home(n=607)
1 person 18.3%
2 people 48.7%
Process Evaluation Report 43

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Response
3 people 13.0%
4 people 10.1%
5 people 3.6%
6 people 2.5%
7 people 0.9%
8 or more people 0.3%
Prefer not to answer 2.6%
Age(years)(n=610)
18 to 24 0.5%
25 to 34 6.2%
35 to 44 14.0%
45 to 54 13.7%
55 to 64 22.8%
65 to 75 26.9%
75 or older 11.0%
Prefer not to answer 4.9%
Anyone in home 65 years or older(n=648)
Yes 57.1%
Annual Household Income(n=648)
Less than$10,000 0.9%
$10,000 to$19,999 2.2%
$20,000 to$29,999 3.7%
$30,000 to$39,999 6.6%
$40,000 to$49,999 5.6%
$50,000 to$74,999 17.9%
$75,000 to$99,999 11.1%
$100,000 to$149,999 15.1%
$150,000 to$199,999 6.2%
$200,000 or more 3.6%
Prefer not to answer 27.2%
Education(n=610)
Did not graduate high school 1.2%
High school graduate 14.2%
Associates degree,vocation/technical school,or
some college 28.9%
Four-year college degree 26.1%
Graduate or professional degree 22.7%
Prefer not to answer 6.9%
4.1.5 Residential Prescriptive Programs Trade Ally Interview Results
The Evaluators conducted phone interviews with 24 residential trade allies who participated in the
Residential Prescriptive programs in 2022 and 2023. A total of 358 contacts were identified and each
trade ally was contacted at least one time via email or phone.
4.1.5.1.1 Background and Program Tenure
Responding trade allies represented a variety of specialties and service territories (Table 4-14).
Process Evaluation Report 44

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Table 4-14:Respondent Background(n=24) (multiple selections allowed)
Contractors/installers 23
Designers/engineers 2
Half of the responding trade allies (n=12) specialize in building shell or weatherization services, such as
windows, doors, insulation, and air sealing. Other specialties included HVAC equipment (n=12), solar
equipment(n=1), and lighting equipment (n=1). Fourteen of the responding trade allies serve customers
in both Idaho and Washington, while six work exclusively in Washington and two work exclusively in
Idaho.
Program tenure varied between the respondents. More than half of responding trade allies have
engaged with the program for multiple years (n=15),while two trade allies noted this was their first year
participating. Four trade allies did not know how long their companies had been participating for.
4.1.5.1.2 Engaging Customers
Respondents'target customers varied; thirteen respondents exclusively serve residential customers,
while 12 serve both residential and commercial customers. More than half of respondents noted they
promote the program and acquire jobs on their own and indicated they were not familiar with Avista-
provided marketing materials (n=14). In general, respondents indicated they rely on word-of-mouth
(n=13), digital and radio advertising (n=4),tables or booths at shows, expos,fairs, and events to engage
customers (n=2), referrals (n=1), and door-to-door sales teams (n=1). Six respondents indicate they use
Avista's marketing materials and four receive leads directly from Avista.
More than half of the responding trade allies (n=16) identified barriers or challenges that prohibit
customers from participating in the program. Key barriers and challenges include upfront costs (n=7),
don't qualify for rebates (n=6), confusion over the application process (n=2), skepticism about the
program (n=1), fear of natural gas (n=1), strict eligibility requirements specifically related to window U-
factor requirements and insulation R-value requirements (n=1), and customer does not own the home
(n=1).
4.1.5.1.3 Application Process and Program Incentives
Ten trade allies complete and submit the rebate applications on behalf of their customers; seven trade
allies indicated their customers or distributors (n=2) complete the application,while three said it varies
based on customer capabilities.The remaining nine respondents did not comment on their application
process. Less than half of the trade allies (n=7) identified challenges with the application process.
Challenges included confusion over program design and requirements (n=3), unclear program language
and terminology(n=2), customers not having computers (n=2), and portal glitches and errors (n=1).
The responding trade allies did not agree on their perspective of current incentive levels provided by
Avista. Three respondents believed the incentives are generous,while three others desired higher
incentives (Table 4-15); 19 respondents did not comment on the incentives.
Among the respondents working in both Idaho and Washington three did not believe the incentive
levels varied considerably, while three explained incentives are higher in Washington than Idaho. One
respondent explained they have more Washington customers than Idaho customers and attributed this
difference to varying incentive amounts. However, all three of these respondents noted that Avista
Process Evaluation Report 45

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
incentive amounts are higher than those of other Idaho utilities. More than half of the responding trade
allies proposed additional measures be included in the program (Table 4-15).
Table 4-15:Incentive Recommendations
Measures n
Incentives too low to encourage adoption(n=3)
A/C units 1
All incentives 1
Higher SEER-rated heat pumps 1
Proposed additions(n=16)
AeroBarrier 1
Aero seal 1
External insulation(e.g. panel insulation) 1
External doors 1
Gas furnaces 1
Gas tankless water heaters 1
SEER 95 furnaces 1
Air purifiers 1
Ductless split system in (ID) 1
Gas incentives 1
Heat pumps(ID) 1
Vinyl 1
Expand window options 1
Expand insulation options 1
4.1.5.1.4 Program Satisfaction and Recommended Improvements
Responding trade allies were most satisfied with the program overall and least satisfied with the range
of eligible measures (Figure 4-20). Some respondents commended the program for its lucrative
incentives (n=3) and ease of participation (n=1).
Process Evaluation Report 46

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-20: Program Satisfaction (n=24)
Program overall 4%M4%
Range of eligible measures 4% 8% 25%
Communication w/program staff 4%M 17%
Application process •��4%4% 17%
Time to receive payment 170%
Marketing materials
■n/a 1-Very dissatisfied 2 ■3 4 ■5-Very satisfied
The most significant challenge responding trade allies face when participating in the program is the
application process (n=8); specifically navigating the website and application portal (n=3); obtaining
customer account information (n=2);time required to fill out the paperwork (n=2);gathering the
separate documents to submit as one file (n=1); and the new guidelines regarding midstream
distributors introduced in 2023 (n=2). One trade ally elaborated on this issue, explaining that while
previously they submitted rebates on behalf of their customers on a rolling basis, distributors are now
responsible for processing the rebates. Because contractors often buy equipment upfront, before they
have an interested customer,they now submit their rebates retroactively and thus there are delays in
payment which results in accounting issues.This challenge has become so cumbersome for this trade
ally that they are disengaging from the program.
Other challenges include incentive level discrepancies between Idaho and Washington (n=2),
discrepancies between lump sum and itemized pricing (n=1), obtaining every tenant's signature for
multi-family projects, as well as poor communication with Avista staff(n=4). Two of the four
respondents who mentioned poor communication cited the new program design as the reason they
now have limited communication with program staff, indicating that distributors are now their point of
contact rather than Avista staff.
Eleven trade allies provided recommendations for program improvement (Table 4-16).
Table 4-16:Recommendations for Improvement(n=8)
Recommendations
Co-branding opportunities 4
Discontinue midstream program 2
Focus on fewer measures and increase incentive amounts rather than 1
spreading funds across multiple measure categories
Process Evaluation Report 47

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Scale window rebates based on price and quality 1
More transparency on program duration and available funds 1
Improved marketing materials 1
Digitizing applications 1
Standardizing incentives across states 1
Drug screening for approved contractors 1
4.1.6 Midstream Trade Ally Interview Results
The Evaluators conducted phone interviews with five participating midstream distributors. Avista's
midstream program encompasses residential and commercial measures;these interviews represent
responses from distributors across both sectors. Eight distributors participated in Avista's midstream
program in 2023. All eight distributors were invited to participate in an interview; distributors were
contacted up to three times via phone and email.
4.1.6.1.1 Respondent Background
Responding distributors sell HVAC, plumbing, mechanical equipment, and food service equipment. All
five respondents supply the greater Avista service area in Idaho and Washington; one respondent also
sells equipment to national and international customers. In general,the responding distributors learned
about Avista's midstream program through Avista staff and their customers.
4.1.6.1.2 Customer Engagement
All five respondents sell exclusively to contractors rather than end-use customers.Two of the
responding distributors explained that they only sell equipment to licensed contractors to minimize
liability issues and reduce competition between the distributors and their contractor-customers,
explaining that selling directly to the end-users would take jobs away from their contractors.
The distributors mentioned using a variety of marketing strategies to engage their customers in the
Avista program. Strategies include an active sales team and targeted marketing materials, app-based
advertisements, and word of mouth.Three of the responding distributors also utilize Avista provided
marketing materials.
4.1.6.1.3 Program Satisfaction and Recommended Improvements
Due to the infancy of the program, distributors noted that it is too soon to tell what, if any, impact the
program has had on their business.
Responding distributors identified program challenges and participation barriers.These challenges
mostly relate to administrative challenges including determining equipment eligibility(n=2), contractor
reluctance (n=2), equipment availability(n=1), and application tracking(n=1).The distributors explained
that some contractors were wary of the program and the related upfront costs. Previously, contractors
received rebates directly from Avista, but now the rebates are routed through the distributors and thus
contractors do not receive a rebate until paperwork is processed by both the distributors and Avista.
In general, respondents were satisfied with the program. Four of the five responding distributors
provided recommendations for program improvement(Table 4-17).
Process Evaluation Report 48

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Table 4-17:Recommendations for Improvement
Recommendation n
Increased engagement between Avista and contractors.Specifically, more guidance on 3
program structure and the benefits of engagement.
Quarterly check-ins to track progress, ask questions, and share updates. 1
Enhance program requirements to further promote efficient equipment. 1
Customer referrals or project leads.
4.1.7 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on data collected via interviews and surveys,the Evaluators provide the following conclusions and
recommendations for improvement moving forward.
4.1.7.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions represent key findings from the appliance rebate and weatherization survey:
1. Program awareness—Contractors and retailers and the Avista website were the most popular
sources of program awareness for respondents from both the appliance rebate and
weatherization programs.
2. Program motivation—About 50-60%of survey respondents from both the appliance rebate and
weatherization programs were very or moderately interested in upgrading equipment in their
homes for health and safety reasons, improving comfort, and increasing energy efficiency.
3. Popular measures—Among survey respondents, smart thermostats (n=497) and windows
(n=463) were the most popular measures received through the residential single-family homes
program.
4. Experience with contractor—Among the respondents who confirmed their use of a contractor
to install their equipment (appliance rebate=551, weatherization=232),the majority of these
respondents were satisfied with the work completed by their contractor. Previous experience
with the contractor or a personal referral were the most popular ways respondents found
contractors across both the programs. Few respondents indicated that their contractor provided
them recommendations for other energy efficient upgrades (appliance=90,weatherization=35)
S. Satisfaction—In general, respondents were satisfied with all aspects of the appliance rebate and
weatherization programs.The most common reasons for dissatisfaction were related to
insufficient rebates and a lack of transparency regarding program requirements and eligibility
criteria.
The following conclusions represent key findings from the appliance,furnace, HVAC, water heat, and
weatherization rebate program trade ally and distributor interviews.
6. Program tenure—Program tenure varied across the trade allies and midstream distributors
interviewed. Some (n=15) of the interviewed trade allies had been engaged with the program
for multiple years,while the midstream distributors were all new due to the infancy of the
Midstream Program,which launched in the summer of 2023.
7. Program promotion—More than half of the weatherization and appliance rebate focused trade
allies were not aware of Avista sponsored marketing materials (n=14). Across all the trade allies
in both downstream and midstream models,trade allies completed the lion's share of program
marketing and lead generation on their own, relying heavily on word of mouth.
Process Evaluation Report 49

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
8. Program process—Midstream distributors highlighted some issues with the website and general
application flow of the midstream program, but noted that the program is new. Some appliance
rebate trade allies also cited confusion over the new midstream program and how that might
impact their work and program application processing moving forward.
9. Barriers to energy efficient upgrades—Both groups of trade allies cited upfront costs and low
incentive rates as key barriers for customer engagement and program participation.
4.1.7.2 Recommendations
Based off of the above conclusions,the Evaluators suggest the following recommendations for the
Residential Prescriptive Rebate programs moving forward.
1. Promotional campaigns—Consider increasing promotional campaigns that highlight the impact
energy efficient equipment can have on customers' home safety, comfort, energy bills, and
overall energy efficiency.
2. Contractor training and cobranded marketing materials—Contractors serve as the backbone of
the residential prescriptive rebate programs, serving as the primary awareness source and
marketing avenue. Consider offering contractors more training opportunities to educate them
about the program, as well as providing them co-branded marketing materials to increase
legitimacy and program recognition. During training, encourage contractors to help customers
identify other areas of the home in need of improvement to maximize customers' benefit and
lead to deeper energy retrofits.
3. Increase training opportunities—Midstream distributors and various trade allies expressed
some confusion over the transition to a midstream pathway for certain measures. Consider
offering these stakeholder additional training opportunities to explain the transition and the
new program processes and requirements.
4. Program requirements—Consider enhancing website and marketing materials to make program
eligible measures, eligibility requirements, and required documentation clearer and more
transparent.
4.2 MULTI-FAMILY DIRECT INSTALL PROGRAM
The Multi-family Direct Install Program (MFDI) is administered by SBW Consulting, Inc (SBW).This
program provides direct installation and audits for customers to install direct install measures, such as
screw-in LEDs and water saving measures, as well as identifies additional energy efficiency opportunities
customers can pursue.This program is available to customers who receive electric service from Avista
and live in a five-unit or more multi-family property.The program serves Avista's low-and limited-
income population, a traditionally hard-to-reach customer segment and. Originally launched in 2015
with a focus on small businesses, MFDI sunset at the end of December 2023. In this report, we have
separated the MFDI process evaluation results due to large differences between the Residential
Prescriptive programs and the MFDI energy savings delivery methods.
4.2.1 Data Collection Activities
The process evaluation of the MFDI program included the following data collection activities:
■ Avista and SBW Program and Implementation Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed two
staff at Avista involved in the administration of the MFDI Program in 2022 and 2023.These
Process Evaluation Report 50

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
interviews were to collect information from program staff about program design,
administration, marketing, and stakeholders.
■ Property Manager Surveys. The Evaluators surveyed property managers representing buildings
that participated in the program.These interviews covered a range of topics, including program
awareness, participation, and satisfaction.
4.2.2 Staff Interview
ADM conducted in-depth interviews with program staff in 2022 and 2023. Interviewees included Avista's
MFDI program manager(August 2022 and 2023) and the lead contact of the implementation contractor,
SBW (September 2022 and December 2023).
4.2.2.1 Program Objectives and Design
MFDI's primary goals are to achieve savings and help customers in the multi-family market reduce their
energy bills. MFDI was developed to provide additional assistance to multi-family tenants who are often
difficult for utilities to reach given dynamic and transitional living patterns.Through collaborative efforts
with property management firms and housing authorities,the program offers an easy and accessible
way for multi-family complexes to enroll in the program and receive energy-saving measures.
Participants of the program receive a variety of high efficiency direct install measures, as well as building
audits to identify opportunities for replacing inefficient common area and exterior lighting with more
efficient options.Though the MFDI program tracked participation of complexes in named communities
and with higher concentration of tenants that are energy burdened to assure equitable distribution of
energy benefits,the program serves across market-rate and income-eligible properties.All residential
buildings with five or more units are eligible to participate.
Since its inception in 2015,the MFDI program has undergone several changes and adaptations, most
notably the temporary suspension of its operations in March of 2020 in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. Between March 2020 and April 2022,the program attempted alternative methods of
engagement such as socially distanced events and drop-offs,with modest success. In April 2022 the
program was able to fully relaunch by adopting new health and safety protocols to ensure the safety of
both staff and participants in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the suspension and phased restart,
the program maintained its commitment to serving its customers, albeit with adjustments to its
operational procedures.
4.2.2.2 Program Administration and Staffing
The MFDI program had the same program manager and implementer(SBW) from inception to sunset.
As the primary implementation contractor, SBW is responsible for project recruitment and installation.
SBW contracted with five different lighting subcontractors, located in Spokane and a few other locations
for rural reach associated with the supplemental lighting component.Throughout 2022-2023, program
staff reported staffing challenges which impacted program performance (one key staff extended
absence for medical leave and loss of subcontractors due to the COVID-19 disruption).
4.2.2.3 Marketing and Outreach
In 2022-2023,the MFDI program relied on phone outreach based on Avista lists to fill project pipelines.
Program staff reported the program had high participation rates throughout 2018 and 2019, but by the
end of 2023 the program was "on the diminishing curve of opportunity," even though the market had
Process Evaluation Report 51

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
not yet reached saturation. Staff attributed recruitment challenges to post pandemic changes in staffing
practices (property managers,facility or maintenance staff going remote) at multi-family complexes
which increased the rate of flake-out, no show, last-minute cancellation, or unwillingness to show up on
site. In response,the program increased attempts of staff visits at complexes to follow up on calls with
limited success. Program staff reported finding property/facility managers who are interested and can
make themselves available for walk-through and installation was one of the main challenges for the
MFDI program.
4.2.2.4 Implementation and Delivery
After obtaining an approval from a property owner,the program provides advanced notice to building's
tenants and an option to opt out. SBW installation staff is accompanied by buildings property or facility
managers to go into willing tenant units to conduct simple direct installation of energy efficiency
measures (screw-in LEDs, aerator, showerhead, and leaving behind materials). For the supplemental
lighting component, SBW installation staff conducts an audit of the facility during the direct install visit.
SBW's lighting subcontractors then go into those buildings with high saving potential to complete a full
audit. Upon SBW's approval,these subcontractors proceed with installation,free for the property
owners. SBW tracks a detailed database of measures installed, and reports to Avista each month with
extracted progress summary and invoice. Avista reported that these implementation and delivery
processes are working well and praised the work of SBW.
Program staff mentioned that MFDI experienced a supply chain challenge, especially noting significant
price increases of lighting fixtures and some other equipment during the evaluation years.
4.2.3 Property Manager Survey Results
Since the program did not track the tenants,whose units were treated by the program,the Evaluators
surveyed contacts of property management firms of 10 randomly selected unique multi-family buildings
that participated in Avista's MFDI program in programs years 2022 and 2023.The Evaluators conducted
the survey by email and phone. Between 2022 and 2023, the program treated a total of 176 multi-family
buildings which were represented by 48 property management firms.
4.2.3.1 Awareness and Motivation
Most property manager contacts (n=7) indicated they first learned about the program opportunity
directly from program staff(Avista or SBW) and most of them said program staff were the most
influential source of information to their participation decision. A few contacts also reported that they
heard about the program from their contractors (n=2) and through other word-of-month (n=2).
While the majority of these contacts reported bill reduction and environmental benefits greatly
contributed to their participation decisions (70%and 90%said "a lot"- "a great deal"), more than half of
these property managers also mentioned they were motivated by other practical benefits such as
tenants' satisfaction, increased security,values of upgrades, and convenience of program participation.
4.2.3.2 Program Satisfaction
In general, responding property managers were satisfied with the MFDI program (Figure 4-21).All but
one of the 10 contacts indicated they were satisfied with the program overall.The one dissatisfied
property manager indicated dissatisfaction with the quality of the equipment installed, saying they
Process Evaluation Report 52

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
received some complaints from their tenants about the quality of the light bulbs and faucet aerators the
program installed.
Figure 4-21: Program Satisfaction (n=10)
Participation process
Equipment received
Contractor
Process of scheduling
Overall program
Dissatisfied ■ Neutral ■Satisfied
As a result of their high satisfaction with the program, a majority of the property managers (8 of 10) said
they are 'very' or'extremely'to recommend the Avista program to other.
Figure 4-22:Likelihood to Recommend Avista Program (n=10)
1 1 1
■Somewhat likely Moderately likely ■Very likely ■Extremely likely
Additionally, most surveyed property managers (7 of 10) noted that participation in the program
increased their satisfaction with Avista.
Figure 4-23. Change in Satisfaction with Avista(n=10)
1
■Decreased ■Same ■Increased
4.2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on data collected via interviews and surveys,the Evaluators provide the following conclusions and
recommendations.
4.2.4.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions represent key findings from the Multi Family Direct Install program survey:
Process Evaluation Report 53

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
1. Program Suspension—The challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic forced the program
staff to suspend the program in March of 2020.The program was then relaunched in April of
2022 (several months in during the 2022-2023 evaluation year). Despite this challenge,the
program implementer, SBW, continued to operate the program with adjustments to its
operational procedures.
2. Program Satisfaction—The property managers of the participating multi-family buildings
expressed high satisfaction with the program.The program started with a high rate of
participation (an average of 3,000 measures installed per month), but participation had greatly
declined by the end of 2023 (an average of 1,000 measure installs per month).The program staff
assessed the market is on the diminishing curve of opportunity.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Based off of the above conclusions,the Evaluators suggest the following recommendations:
1. Customer Recruitment—If Avista funds a similar program targeting multi-family buildings in the
future, recruitment of property managers who are willing to cooperate and provide time—as
experienced by the program particularly during the post-pandemic period—is anticipated to be
a major hurdle.The program should develop a thoughtful outreach and marketing approach
that leverages motivation and interest to most building owners and property managers
(tenants' satisfaction, increased home security and home comfort, values of upgrades, and
convenience of program participation) in addition to the bill reduction benefits designed for
tenants.
4.3 LOW-INCOME PROGRAM
The Low-Income Program delivers energy efficiency measures to low-income residential customers in
Avista's Washington and Idaho service territory via a partnership with eight Community Action Agencies
("CAP agencies") and one tribal weatherization organization.The CAP agencies qualify customers based
on income and several home characteristics and then in-house or contracted crews install approved
program measures. In addition to Avista funds,the agencies have access to other monetary resources
which allow them to weatherize a home or install additional energy efficiency measures.The Evaluators
report process-level findings for the Low-Income Program separately from the Residential and MFDI
Programs due to large differences in program operations, goals, and target community.
4.3.1 Data Collection Activities
The process evaluation of the Low-Income Program included the following data collection activities:
■ Staff Interviews.The Evaluators conducted in-depth interviews with program staff in August
2022 and 2023. Interviewees included Avista's Low-Income program managers and
representatives from six of the Community Action Partnership (CAP) agencies that implement
the program. Interviews occurred in November-December 2022 and October-November 2023.
■ Customer Surveys. The Evaluators surveyed customers who participated in the program during
2022-2023. Surveys covered a range of topics, including program awareness, participation, and
satisfaction.
Process Evaluation Report 54

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
4.3.2 Staff Interview
This section summarizes the Evaluators findings from the Low-Income program manager in-depth
interviews.
4.3.2.1 Program Design
The Low-Income program was designed to help fund pre-existing weatherization programs operated by
Community Action Partnership (CAP) agencies. It leverages the infrastructure CAP agencies already have
for income qualifying participants and implementing weatherization projects. CAP agencies have a list of
pre-approved measures they can implement for reimbursement. Washington state also has its own list
of pre-approved measures. Avista expands on these lists by offering additional measures that are pre-
approved for reimbursement funding through Avista with a goal of delivering additional energy savings
and reducing energy burdens for its low-income customers.
The program allows CAP agencies to take a holistic approach to energy efficiency upgrades, including
making health and safety improvements to homes, as up to 30%of a project's budget can go towards
health and safety repairs. Most CAP agencies praised Avista for allowing funds to be used flexibly and
appreciated their expansive measure list.
Program staff and CAP agencies addressed several challenges with the current program model:
• The program struggles with lower rates of energy savings as the estimated savings often do not
materialize due to the low energy usage starting point, typical of low-income customers.This
baseline also leads to lower cost-effectiveness than desired, making significant energy savings
challenging to achieve.
• Many CAP agencies mentioned a desire to waive or incorporate flexible income requirements in
order to expand the program's reach, however, doing so would mean forgoing federal funding,
which has implications for the program's funding model.
• Reaching rental customers through the program is challenging as renters worry their property
managers might use upgrades to increase rent,thus resulting in more benefits for the landlords
than the tenants.
4.3.2.2 Program Administration and Staffing
The Low-Income program experienced a staff transition between 2022 and 2023 when the longstanding
program manager retired.The staff indicated that this program manager transition went smoothly.
Avista works with eight Community Action Agencies ("CAP agencies") and one tribal weatherization
organization who implement the programs in their designated counties or tribal communities in
Washington and Idaho. CAP agencies organize their staff similarly;they have in-house administrative
staff and weatherization crew members, as well as auditors and inspectors (who are often members of
their crew). CAP agencies also subcontract for HVAC, electrical, and plumbing work for other specialty
areas that exceed their technical capacity.
CAP agencies highlighted a variety of staffing challenges that impact their programs. Most CAP agencies
shared their struggles with recruiting and retaining qualified crew members, especially among CAP
agencies that serve in rural areas.This issue is often related to their lack of workforce development
resource (cost of travel, mileage reimbursement, and per diem, etc.). In response to this issue,Avista
started a new initiative in 2023 in which they contracted the Building Performance Center to travel to
Process Evaluation Report 55

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
rural areas and provide training. CAP agencies in rural areas also consistently cited challenges findings
subcontractors who are willing to work with them due to prevailing wage documentation requirements.
Interviewed CAP agencies expressed high satisfaction with Avista, citing positive personal relationships
with Avista staff and responsiveness to their concerns and challenges.
4.3.2.3 Marketing and Outreach
Interviewed CAP agencies reported that most of their energy bill assistance customers are asked if they
are interested in weatherization services as well and that this cross-program promotion is their top
referral pathway.
CAP agencies cited additional outreach methods including flyers, newspaper ads, outreach through food
banks, and door-to-door outreach in targeted neighborhoods. Most agencies explained that they do not
need to do much marketing or outreach as they have long wait lists from the bill assistance referral
system.
4.3.2.4 Implementation and Delivery
CAP agencies handle most of the day-to-day implementation,while Avista supports through measure
approvals, rebates and incentives, and data tracking support.
CAP agencies handle the application process and verify applicants' income eligibility. Agencies send their
auditor to assess customer's home to identify weatherization repair needs.Auditors determine the
home's weatherization and repair needs and then create a scope of work, pulling from federal, state,
and Avista-approved measures. CAP agencies complete the weatherization work using a mix of in-house
crews and subcontractors. In-house crews often handle insulation, air sealing, and basic HVAC while
contractors are brought in for specialized work such as electrical or plumbing. Upon completion of the
project, an inspector conducts a final inspection quality check.
CAP agencies collect required documentation and report project completions to Avista for
reimbursement. Avista also provides some CAP agencies access to their iEnergy tracking system to
streamline this process.
CAP agencies and Avista staff identified a variety of implementation challenges including deferrals,
supply chain and inflation, wait times, and service territory boundaries(Table 4-18).
Table 4-18:Implementation Challenges
Challenge Description
Deferrals CAP agencies often have to walk away from potential projects
due to necessary pre-weatherization repairs(roof repair is
among the most commonly mentioned repairs) because the
federal,state, or Avista funds currently do not support these
pre-weatherization repairs.One CAP agency mentioned they
defer about 50%of homes assessed due to this problem. In
response to this recurring issue,Avista staff shared that a
deferral maintenance pilot program is in development that is
designed to assist homes needing pre-weatherization repairs
by setting aside funds that is specifically intended to address
this issue.
Process Evaluation Report 56

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Supply chain and inflation General issues impacting the construction industry are also
affecting CAP agencies and their ability to stretch dollars to
serve more customers.One CAP agency cited 20-30%cost
increase for equipment and material compared to a few years
ago.
Wait times The long wait times are a persistent challenge for most
interviewed CAP agencies for delivering timely weatherization
assistance to customers in need.One agency estimated the
wait time was at a minimum of three years and noted 95%of
them are income-qualified.
Service territory A few CAP agencies expressed that they want to understand
Avista's service territory more accurately and easily to help
with their outreach and project planning and thought a
detailed map that shows its electric and gas service areas
would be useful.
4.3.3 Program Participant Survey Results
The Evaluators surveyed 108 unique customers that participated in Avista's Low-Income program in
October 2023 and in March 2024 using an email survey approach. Customers with a valid email were
sent the survey via an email invitation.The Evaluators completed 29 surveys from participants in PY2022
and 79 surveys from participants in PY2023.
4.3.3.1 Program Information Sources
Respondents learned about the low-income program through a variety of sources including directly from
the CAP agencies, Avista's bill messages, and word of mouth (Figure 4-24).
Figure 4-24:Information Source about the program (n=108)
CAP agency 43.5%
Avista bill message 21.3%
Word of mouth 19.4%
Social media 5.6%
Avista website 5.6%
Printed ad 4.6%
Energy fair, community events 2.8%
Food Bank 1.9%
Other 1.9%
4.3.3.2 Participation Motivation
Respondents indicated they consider a number of factors when deciding to engage with the program.
More than 70%of respondents consider health and safety, savings on energy bill, improving the energy
efficiency of their home, and improving their comfort as very or extremely important reason for
participating in the program (Figure 4-25). Fewer respondents (42%) mentioned environmental benefits
Process Evaluation Report 57

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
and other benefits like the opportunity to update their home, replace failed equipment, reduce, and
address needs for disabilities.
Figure 4-25: 'Very'-'Extremely'Important Reasons for Participation (n=108)
Improving health and safety 77.8%
Reducing bill 77.1%
Increasing energy efficiency 71.3%
Improving comfort 70.4%
Environmental benefits 42.3%
4.3.3.3 Program Satisfaction
Most surveyed program participants (76.9%) reported they were satisfied with the program overall, but
10.2%expressed dissatisfaction (Figure 4-26). Reasons for dissatisfaction included poor quality of work,
such as inadequate installation of windows, furnaces, fans, and weather-stripping materials,failed
equipment upgrades, discomfort in their home following the upgrades, long wait times, as well as
energy bill increases. Very few participants (2.5%) expressed dissatisfaction with the program
participation process.
More than three-quarters of respondents (77.8%)were satisfied with the overall performance of the
CAP agency. Among the respondents who expressed dissatisfaction with the CAP agencies, most were
dissatisfied with the time it took to complete the work.
Figure 4-26:Program Satisfaction (n=108)
Time it took for CAP agencies complete the
29.6%
work
Thoroughness of CAP agencies 14.8%
Overall performance of CAP agency 22.2%
Program participation process 20
Program overall
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
■Dissatisfied ■Neutral ■Satisfied
Process Evaluation Report 58

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
The majority of respondents indicated they were likely to recommend the program to others (Figure
4-27). Moreover, about two-thirds of the respondents (64.8%) said their participation in the program
increased their satisfaction with Avista (Figure 4-28).
Figure 4-27:Likelihood to Recommend Avista Program (n=108)
5.6%M�§ 33.3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
■Not at all likely Somewhat likely ■Moderately likely ■Very likely ■Extremely likey
Figure 4-28: Change in Satisfaction with Avista (n=108)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Decreased ■No Change ■Increased
4.3.3.4 Respondent Demographics and Home Characteristics
In this section, the Evaluators present the demographic and home characteristic results from the
responding Low-Income Program customers.Table 4-19 presents respondents' demographic and
residence characteristics.
Table 4-19:Residence Characteristics and Respondent Demographics(n=varies)
Response
Homeownership Status(n=108)
Own 86.1%
Rent 10.2%
Own and rent to someone else 0.0%
I don't know 0.0%
Prefer not to answer 3.7%
Housing Type(n=108)
Single-family house detached J 56.5%
Single-family house attached to one or more other
houses(e.g., duplex, condominium,townhouse, 0.9%
etc.)
Mobile or manufactured home 39.8%
Apartment with 2 to 4 units 0.0%
Apartment with 5+units 0.0%
Other, please specify 2.8%
I don't know 0.0%
Process Evaluation Report 59

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Response
Central A/C Status(n=108)
Yes 49.1%
Home Fuel Type(n=108)
Electricity 33.3%
Natural Gas 62.0%
Propane 0.0%
Other, please specify 4.6%
1 don't heat my home 0.0%
I don't know 0.0%
Prefer not to answer 0.0%
Water Heater Fuel Type(n=108)
Natural Gas 40.7%
Electricity 53.7%
Propane 0.0%
Other, please specify 0.9%
None 0.0%
I don't know 4.6%
Prefer not to answer 0.0%
Home Size(sq ft)(n=70)
Less than 1,OOOft2 30.3%
1,000-1,999ft2 51.5
2,000-2,999ft2 15.2%
3,000-3,999ft2 0%
4,000ft2or more 3.0%
Housing Age(n=108)
Before 1950 35.5%
1950 to 1959 12.9%
1960 to 1969 5.4%
1970 to 1979 28.0%
1980 to 1989 7.5
1990 to 1999 2.2
2000 to 2009 4.3
2010 to 2019 0.0%
2020 to Present 0.0%
I don't know 4.3%
Number of people in Home(n=108)
1 person 32.4%
2 people 30.6%
3 people 15.7%
4 people 10.2%
5 people 4.6%
6 people 1.9%
7 people 0.9%
8 or more people 3.7%
Prefer not to answer 0.0%
Age(years)(n=108)
Process Evaluation Report 60

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Response
18 to 24 0.0%
25 to 34 7.4%
35 to 44 19.4%
45 to 54 15.7%
55 to 64 13.9%
65 to 75 27.8%
75 or older 13.0%
Prefer not to answer 2.8%
Anyone in home 65 years or older(n=108)
Yes 54.6%
Annual Household Income(n=108)
Less than$10,000 8.3%
$10,000 to$19,999 24.1%
$20,000 to$29,999 25.0%
$30,000 to$39,999 14.8%
$40,000 to$49,999 8.3%
$50,000 to$74,999 5.6%
$75,000 to$99,999 0.9%
$100,000 to$149,999 0.9%
$150,000 to$199,999 0.0%
$200,000 or more 0.0%
Prefer not to answer 12.0%
Education(n=108)
Did not graduate high school 0.9%
High school graduate 26.9%
Associates degree,vocation/technical school,or 48.1%
some college
Four-year college degree 13.0%
Graduate or professional degree 6.5%
Prefer not to answer 4.6%
4.3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on data collected via interviews and surveys,the Evaluators provide the following conclusions and
recommendations for improvement moving forward.
4.3.4.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions represent key findings from the Low-Income program survey:
1. Program Implementation—The Low-Income Program continues to effectively leverage existing
CAP agency weatherization program infrastructure. Program integration has allowed the CAP
agencies to take a holistic approach to deep energy efficiency upgrades and expand the
measures available to customers.
2. Program Satisfaction—Most survey respondents expressed satisfaction with the program
overall and reported increased satisfaction with Avista as a result of program participation.
Despite mostly high satisfaction rates, some respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the
quality of work performed by the CAP agencies.
Process Evaluation Report 61

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
3. Program Challenges—CAP agencies struggle to recruit and retain qualified crew members and
subcontractors that meet prevailing wage requirements. Moreover, many income-qualified
customers remain underserved due to a lack of funding committed to addressing expensive pre-
weatherization health and safety repairs and long application wait times.
4.3.4.2 Recommendations
Based on the above conclusions,the Evaluators suggest the following recommendations for the Low-
Income program moving forward.
1. Support staff training and trade ally development—A lack of trained crew members and willing
subcontractors in which to partner has reduced CAP agencies' ability to complete projects in a
timely fashion and has resulted in a long wait list for the program.Avista should consider
sponsoring more Building Performance Center training opportunities for more CAP agencies.
Additionally, staff should consider developing and providing vetted lists of qualified trade ally
contractors that are willing to work with CAP agencies in their areas. Expanding the trade ally
network, may also reduce the travel burden for existing trade allies, as CAP agencies are only
able to reimburse travel if five or more projects are scheduled.
2. Establish funding that supports pre-weatherization repairs—Continue to develop a deferral
maintenance program that assists homes in need of pre-weatherization repairs. Once this
deferral maintenance program is rolled out, staff should monitor its usage and determine the
level of funding needed in the long term.
3. Investigate dissatisfied customers due to work quality—Consider working with CAP agencies to
investigate projects of customers who expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of work and
equipment installations conducted by the CAP agencies and their subcontractors.
4.4 HOME ENERGY AUDIT PROGRAM
The Residential Home Energy Audit program (HEA) offers customers a comprehensive in-home energy
evaluation at no cost to customers. Certified third-party contractors conduct audits that identify areas of
concern and make personalized recommendations to improve customer homes' overall efficiency,
comfort, and health. Table 4-20 summarizes HEA program activities in 2022 and 2023.
Table 4-20:Summary of HEA projects
WA 97 376
ID 24 87
Total 121 463
4.4.1 Data Collection Activities
The process evaluation of the HEA program included the following data collection activities:
■ Staff Interviews.The Evaluators conducted in-depth interviews with program staff in August
2022 and 2023.
■ Customer Surveys. The Evaluators surveyed customers who participated in the program during
2022-2023. Surveys covered a range of topics, including program awareness, participation, and
satisfaction.
Process Evaluation Report 62

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
4.4.2 Staff Interview
This section summarizes the findings from the HEA program in-depth staff interviews.
4.4.2.1 Program Design
The HEA program is designed to educate and generate interest in energy efficiency in general and, more
specifically, in Avista's portfolio of residential energy efficiency and renewable-energy programs.
Following a successful pilot effort in 2019,Avista received approval to expand the HEA pilot to full
program status in both Washington and Idaho in early 2020. Avista, however, had to suspend the
program's launch due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although Avista conducted some virtual audits in the
peak of the pandemic,the majority of interested customers opted to wait for an in-person audit.
Following the peak of the pandemic,the program experienced an increase in HEA requests in late 2022.
4.4.2.2 Program Administration and Staffing
Avista contracts with a third-party energy auditor in Spokane with a background in professional home
inspections.This auditor employs a few additional crew members to help with the program; they are
also considering contracting with another company based in the southern region of the states to better
meet program needs. Program staff explained that following a lull in program interest during the
pandemic,there was an influx of requests in late 2022 resulting in a backlog of customers. At the time of
the staff interview in August 2023, program staff reported that managing this backlog had been one of
the program's biggest challenges, noting that customer wait times can range from five to six months.
4.4.2.3 Marketing and Outreach
Program staff reported that the aforementioned influx of HEA applications occurred without any
advertisements aside from an update on the Avista website in 2022.The staff speculated that the surge
of applications related to the time of year when heating bills increase, and customers were looking for
solutions. Program staff said they are not planning any advertisements or outreach campaigns until the
program resolves the pending application backlog.
4.4.2.4 Implementation and Delivery
Program staff streamlined the program process in 2022 by administering an web-based program
application form. Once an interested customer completes the online form, a job is created and Avista
staff can confirm their qualifications, obtain the necessary customer data (including two years of billing
data), and set up a customer job using the "Snugg Pro" reporting system. Once the job is created in
Snugg Pro, the auditor receives the application, reaches out to the customer, and conducts the audit.
During the audit,the auditor inspects the customer's entire home—from crawl space to attic including
appliances, mechanical systems, air leak detection with an infrared scan, and health and safety
inspection—and, with customer's approval, installs direct install equipment like LED lightbulbs and
water saving measures. Following the audit, the auditor details what occurred into the Snugg Pro
system, including photos taken and findings and recommendations provided.The system then produces
a report which is sent to both Avista and the customer.
Program staff estimated this process—from the time of online application submission to an audit visit—
takes approximately two weeks without a backlog.
Process Evaluation Report 63

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
4.4.3 Program Participant Survey Results
Evaluators surveyed 97 unique customers that participated in Avista's HEA program in 2022-2023.
Participants were invited to complete a survey via email; contacts received one initial invitation and two
reminder emails.
4.4.3.1 Awareness and Motivation
The most popular avenue for program awareness was the Avista website,follow by a bill message
(Figure 4-29).
Figure 4-29:Information Source about Avista Programs (n=97, multiple responses allowed)
Avista webiste 37.1%
Avista bill message 26.8%
Email from Avista 16.5%
Word-of-mouth 14.4%
Avista staff 12.4%
Contractor 12.4%
Retailer — 6.2%
Newspaper, magazine,other printed ad - 3.1%
Other — 7.2%
Across survey respondents who did not participate in the Home Energy Audit program (n=21102), more
than half did not know anything about the program (60.3%, n=1,267).
Respondents cited a variety of reasons that impacted their decision to request a Home Energy Audit,
most notably a desire to reduce energy costs,to understand their home energy usage,to improve
comfort, and to help the environment (Figure 4-30).
Process Evaluation Report 64

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-30: Important Reasons to get HEA (n=97)
To learn how I can reduce my energy costs 90.7%
To learn about how I use energy in my home 68.0%
To improve home comfort 53.6%
To help the environment 38.1%
To learn how to become as energy efficient 13.4%
To learn how I can increase the value of my home 13.4%
To improve the air quality in my home 11.3%
1 had one on a previous home 6.2%
To get free light bulbs/LEDs installed 6.2%
Contractor recommended it 2.1%
To get free water-saving equipment installed 2.1%
4.4.3.2 Efficacy of HEA
The majority of respondents (90.7%) reported the information they received from the audit was at least
'somewhat' helpful, with almost half(46.4%) rating it 'extremely' helpful. (Figure 4-31).
Figure 4-31:Helpfulness of HEA Recommendations(n=97)
3.1%6.2% 19.6% • '',
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
r Not at all helpful Slightly helpful ■Somewhat helpful Moderately helpful ■Extremely helpful
Since engaging in the program, 82.3%of respondents reported that they acted on at least some of the
audit recommendations (Figure 4-32). Moreover, more than half of the respondents reported they have
plans to make improvements based on the recommendations in the future. Notably, 23%of the
surveyed HEA participants reported they have participated in other Avista energy efficiency programs
since receiving HEA. Half of these respondents (50%) said HEA recommendations were 'somewhat'to
'extremely' influential in their decisions to do so.
Process Evaluation Report 65

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-32:Recommended Improvements Made Since HEA (n=97)
17.7% d 75.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Didn't make any Made some but not all ■Made a112
Among the recommended improvements, respondents reported they are most interested in but have
not yet moved forward with were building shell measures such as insulation and efficient windows and
efficient doors (Figure 4-33). Respondents explained that cost (68%), current equipment still being
operational (16%), not knowing what to do (12%), and a lack of time (12%)were the biggest barriers to
making improvements.
Figure 4-33:Most Interested Improvements Left Undone(n=97)
Wall,floor,attic insulation 52.6%
Efficient windows/doors 43.3%
Water heating equipment 27.8%
Efficient refrigerator 21.6%
Space heating equipment 21.6%
Efficient induction stove 14.4%
Smart thermostats 14.4%
Advanced power strips 12.4%
Lighting 12.4%
Energy efficient washer/dryer 11.3%
A/C tune-up 10.3%
Low-flow faucet aerators ■ 4.1%
Low-flow showerheads ■ 3.1%
Other ■ 2.1%
4.4.3.3 Program Satisfaction
A majority of the surveyed HEA participants reported they were satisfied with the participation process
and overall experience with HEA(Figure 4-34).Among respondents who expressed dissatisfaction,the
time it took to complete the project was the biggest complaint,followed by the thoroughness of the
audit.
Process Evaluation Report 66

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-34: Program Satisfaction (n=97)
Time it took for project completion 23.1%
Thoroughness of the audit 7.7%
Program participation process 4.1%
Program overall
■Dissatisfied ■Neutral ■Satisfied
Respondents suggested a variety of recommendations for program improvement (Table 4-21).
Table 4-21:Recommendation for HEA Program Improvement
Recommendation
Provide a list of recommended contractors for recommended improvements.Several
participants mentioned that offering vetted contractors that perform each of the
recommended improvements would be even more actionable and would provide great
value.
Reduce waiting times and improve scheduling.As expressed by the dissatisfied participants
with the time it took for project completion,this is another area mentioned frequently. One
participant said,"it took 7 months to get done after applying".
Increase awareness and advertising of the program.These mentions are in response to their
positive experience with HEA. Some participants wished that they had learned about HEA
offering earlier.
Provide more information beyond just cost savings.Some participants thought that the
improvement recommendations focused on cost benefits, but they wished they learned
more about non-energy benefits by making recommended improvements including
contribution to carbon footprints.
More than three quarters of respondents (77.3%) indicated they were `very' or `extremely' likely to
recommend the HEA program to others (Figure 4-35). Additionally, more than two-thirds of the HEA
participants (67.0%) said their participation in the HEA program increased their satisfaction with Avista
as their service provider.
Figure 4-35:Likelihood to Recommend Avista Programs(n=97)
1.1%9.3% = 30.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not at all likely Somewhat likely ■Moderately likely ■Very likely ■Extremely likely
Process Evaluation Report 67

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-36:Change in Satisfaction with Avista(n=97)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Decreased ■No change ■Increased
4.4.3.4 Respondent Demographics and Home Characteristics
The Evaluators summarize the HEA program respondent demographics and home characteristics in this
section of the report.Table 4-22 presents respondents' demographic and residence characteristics.
Table 4-22:Residence Characteristics and Respondent Demographics(n=varies)
Response
Homeownership Status(n=97)
Own 97.9%
Rent 0.0%
Own and rent to someone else 1.0%
I don't know 0.0%
Prefer not to answer 1.0%
Housing Type(n=97)
Single-family house detached 90.7%
Single-family house attached to one or more other
houses(e.g., duplex, condominium,townhouse, 2.1%
etc.)
Mobile or manufactured home 4.1%
Apartment with 2 to 4 units 0.0%
Apartment with 5+units 1.0%
Other, please specify 2.1%
1 don't know 0.0%
Central A/C Status(n=97)
Yes 77.3%
Home Fuel Type(n=97)
Electricity 19.6%
Natural Gas 73.2%
Propane 2.1%
Other, please specify 4.1%
1 don't heat my home 0.0%
I don't know 1.0%
Prefer not to answer 0.0%
Total 19.6%
Water Heater Fuel Type(n=97)
Natural Gas 40.7%
Electricity 53.7%
Propane 0.0%
Other, please specify 0.9%
Process Evaluation Report 68

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Response
None 0.0%
I don't know 4.6%
Prefer not to answer 0.0%
Home Size(sq ft)(n=86)
Less than 1,000ft2 3.5%
1,000-1,999ft2 44.2%
2,000-2,999ft2 30.2%
3,000-3,999ft2 16.3
4,000ft2 or more 5.8%
Housing Age(n=96)
Before 1950 29.2%
1950 to 1959 10.4%
1960 to 1969 3.1%
1970 to 1979 18.8%
1980 to 1989 8.3
1990 to 1999 15.6%
2000 to 2009 9.4%
2010 to 2019 3.1
2020 to Present 1.0%
I don't know 1.0%
Number of people in Home(n=96)
1 person 22.9%
2 people 41.7%
3 people 12.5%
4 people 9.4%
5 people 7.3%
6 people 1.0%
7 people 2.1%
8 or more people 0.0%
Prefer not to answer 3.1%
Age(years)(n=97)
18 to 24 1.0%
25 to 34 12.4%
35 to 44 16.5%
45 to 54 8.2%
55 to 64 15.5%
65 to 75 34.0%
75 or older 8.2%
Prefer not to answer 4.1%
Anyone in home 65 years or older(n=97)
Yes 53.6%
Annual Household Income(n=97)
Less than$10,000 0.0%
$10,000 to$19,999 2.1%
$20,000 to$29,999 3.1%
$30,000 to$39,999 5.2%
$40,000 to$49,999 10.3%
Process Evaluation Report 69

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Response
$50,000 to$74,999 17.5%
$75,000 to$99,999 11.3%
$100,000 to$149,999 15.5%
$150,000 to$199,999 7.2%
$200,000 or more 3.1%
Prefer not to answer 24.7%
Education(n=97)
Did not graduate high school 0.0%
High school graduate 7.2%
Associates degree,vocation/technical school,or
16.5%
some college
Four-year college degree 28.9%
Graduate or professional degree 41.2%
Prefer not to answer 6.2%
4.4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on data collected via interviews and surveys,the Evaluators provide the following conclusions and
recommendations for improvement moving forward.
4.4.4.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions represent key findings from the Home Energy Audit program survey:
1. Program Engagement—Despite a program pause during 2020-2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the program has experienced significant attention and customer interest. Between 2022 and 2023,
home audits nearly quadrupled, increasing from 121 in PY2022 to 463 in PY2023.This increase in
program popularity has resulted in a lengthy waitlist with customers having to wait 5-6 months to
receive an audit.
2. Program Impact—Survey respondents suggested that as result of the program,they are more
interested in energy saving behaviors and in making energy efficient equipment improvements.
Some respondents noted that they engaged in other Avista energy efficiency programs following
their home energy audit, indicating that the HEA program is fueling interest in other offerings.
3. Program Experience—In general,survey respondents were satisfied with the HEA program.The area
with the most dissatisfaction was the amount of time to receive the audit.
4.4.4.2 Recommendations
Based on of the above conclusions,the Evaluators suggest the following recommendations for the Home
Energy Audit program moving forward.
1. Address the backlog issue—Program staff should continue to prioritize resolving the pending
application backlog to reduce wait times and improve customer satisfaction. Recommendations
include hiring additional auditors or streamlining the auditing process to lessen burdens on
participating customers.
2. Provide a list of recommended contractors—Consider providing a list of vetted contractors to
customers to help them make the recommended improvements more actionable for homeowners
interested in completing the recommended energy efficiency upgrades.
Process Evaluation Report 70

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
3. Other programs follow-on activities—Increase coordination with other the Avista energy efficiency
programs to increase the rates of actions taken on the recommended improvements.Specifically,
program staff should share participant information with other programs'staff and suggest they
follow up directly to assist with the auditor recommendations specific to the audited household.
4. Track the HEA referral process—Although it is still too early to analyze the effect of the HEA program
in terms of subsequent participation in other Avista programs,as more than half of the survey
respondents noted they are still planning to implement the audit recommendations,Avista should
develop a system to easily track HEA program participants' participation in other programs.
4.5 ON BILL REPAYMENT PROGRAM
The On-Bill Repayment(OBR) Program offers homeowners and small business customers in Washington
access to financing options for qualified energy-efficiency upgrades;this program is not currently
available in Idaho. Beginning in October 2021,Avista started offering OBR through a third-party lending
partner,the Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union (PSCCU). OBR offers zero-down and low-rate loans
for energy-efficient projects that can be more easily tracked and paid back through their monthly utility
bill. OBR is not intended for customers who qualify for Avista's Low-Income Weatherization program
and who can therefore be served directly through the partnering community action agencies.
Table 4-23 summarizes OBR program activities in 2022 and 2023.
Table 4-23:Summary of OBR Projects
Measure Type 2022 2023
HVAC 56 60
Insulation 9 23
Windows&doors 12 19
Water heater 2 0
Appliance 1 0
4.5.1 Data Collection Activities
The process evaluation of the On Bill Repayment Program included the following data collection
activities:
■ Staff Interviews.The Evaluators conducted in-depth interviews with program staff in August
2022 and 2023.
■ Customer Surveys.The Evaluators surveyed customers who participated in the program during
2022-2023. Surveys covered a range of topics, including program awareness, participation, and
satisfaction.
4.5.2 Staff Interview
In this section, the Evaluators summarize the findings from the OBR program staff in-depth interviews.
4.5.2.1 Program Design
The main goal of the On Bill Repayment (OBR) program is to provide additional support and
encouragement for customers to choose energy-efficient options by participating in Avista's portfolio of
residential energy efficiency and renewable-energy programs. OBR is not designed to generate its own
Process Evaluation Report 71

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
savings, but savings are claimed by native programs.The program was constructed in response to a
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission order.
Customers qualify for OBR financing for a wide range of energy-saving measures such as HVAC, windows
and doors, insulation, lighting, appliances; loans last up to 180 months and can be as high as$30,000 for
residential customers and $75,000 for small business customers. Program staff underscored an ongoing
concern regarding federal interest rate; they explained high interest rates have made it difficult for the
program to buy down interest rates, and thus the APR has increased precipitously since program
inception,topping out at 5%at the time of the interview in August 2023 and 7.5% in March 2024.
4.5.2.2 Program Administration and Staffing
Avista contracts with a third-party lending partner, Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union (PSCCU),for
loan management.This partnership is supported by the Clean Energy Fund grant from the Washington
State Department of Commerce and is part of a broader effort to maintain low interest rates for
participants. Program staff reported high satisfaction with this partnership.
4.5.2.3 Marketing and Outreach
At the onset of the program in October 2021,Avista advertised OBR opportunity through bill inserts and
newsletters. Avista also promoted the program through its trade ally network via sweepstake incentives
for successful loan applications. Program staff reported that these campaigns proved successful, and
OBR is gaining traction.
4.5.2.4 Implementation and Delivery
Program staff indicated that the OBR process has been straightforward, citing a lack of implementation
challenges so far. Interested customers apply for loans via a PSCCU online form. PSCCU then reviews and
approves the application and distributes the loan balance to the contractor upon project completion.
The OBR loan payment then appears on the customer bills within 30-60 days.
4.5.3 Program Participant Survey Results
Evaluators contacted all available OBR participants and received responses from 27 unique customers
who participated in Avista's OBR program in 2022-2023. Participants were invited to complete a survey
via email; contacts received one initial invitation and up to two reminder emails.
4.5.3.1 Awareness
Most surveyed OBR participants (48%) reported that they first learned about OBR opportunity from
sources of Avista—including its website, emails from Avista, or Avista program staff.A third of the
participants (33%) said they heard about it from their contractors.
Process Evaluation Report 72

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-37: Information Source about OBR(n=27)
Avista's website 48.1%
Contractor 33.3%
Program representative 14.8%
Word of mouth 3.7%
Avista email 3.7%
Other - 7.4%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Across survey respondents who did not participate in the On Bill Repayment program (n=1,410),the vast
majority did not know anything about the program (81.8%, n=1,154)
4.5.3.2 Efficacy of OBR
More than two-thirds of the respondents (69.4%) reported it was unlikely('not at all'—'somewhat')that
they would have moved forward with the purchase or installation of the energy saving equipment
without the OBR assistance (Figure 4-38). Moreover, 85%of the participants said that due to OBR,they
purchased or installed the equipment sooner than they would have if OBR was not offered. All of these
respondents estimated they would have delayed the purchase or installation by at least one year.
Figure 4-38:Likelihood of Installing or Purchasing without OBR(n=27)
30.8% 38.5% 19.2%
Am
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not at all likely Somewhat unlikely ■Somewhat likely ■Very likely
4.5.3.3 Program Satisfaction
The vast majority of respondents (96.3%) expressed satisfaction with the OBR program overall (Figure
4-39). A notable portion of the participants felt neutral about the range of equipment that qualified for
OBR (19.0%) and the ease of enrollment process (19.0%).
Process Evaluation Report 73

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-39:Program Satisfaction (n=27)
Range of equipment qualifies for OBR 19.0%
Ease of enrollment process 19.0%
Time it took for program staff to addres questions 15.4% 84.6%
Thoroughness of program staff addressing questions
Program overall
■Dissatisfied ■Neutral ■Satisfied
Respondents suggested a variety of recommendations for program improvement (Table 4-24).
Table 4-24:Recommendation for HEA Program Improvement
Recommendation
Some respondents who had issues with enrollment or qualification wished that the
program could have helped homes with delivered fuel heating or low credit scores.
Respondents mentioned that their contractors did not understand the OBR financing they
had arranged and encountered issues with payments.
One respondent wished that Avista's website for online billing could be improved by
separating repayment portion from the total billed so that they can more easily understand
actual energy cost.
Almost three quarters of the surveyed OBR participants reported that were 'very' or'extremely' likely to
recommend the OBR program to others (Figure 4-40). Additionally,three-quarters of the respondents
noted that their participation in the OBR program increased their satisfaction with Avista (Figure 4-41).
Figure 4-40:Likelihood to Recommend Avista Program (n=27)
3.7% 25.9% 1 22.2% '
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Somewhat likely Moderately likely ■Very likely ■Extremely likely
Process Evaluation Report 74

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-41:Change in Satisfaction with Avista(n=27)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Decreased ■No change ■Increased
4.5.3.4 Respondent Demographics and Home Characteristics
Table 4-25 presents respondents' demographic and residence characteristics.
Table 4-25:Residence Characteristics and Respondent Demographics(n=varies)
Response
Homeownership Status(n=27)
Own 96.3%
Rent 0.0%
Own and rent to someone else 3.7%
1 don't know 0.0%
Prefer not to answer 0.0%
Housing Type(n=27)
Single-family house detached 92.6%
Single-family house attached to one or more other
houses(e.g.,duplex,condominium,townhouse, 3.7%
etc.)
Mobile or manufactured home 3.7%
Apartment with 2 to 4 units 0.0%
Apartment with 5+units 0.0%
Other, please specify 0.0%
I don't know 0.0%
Central A/C Status(n=27)
Yes 70.4%
Home Fuel Type(n=27)
Electricity 25.9%
Natural Gas 63.0%
Propane 0.0%
Other, please specify 11.1%
I don't heat my home 0.0%
I don't know 0.0%
Prefer not to answer 0.0%
Total 25.9%
Water Heater Fuel Type(n=27)
Natural Gas 48.1%
Electricity 48.1%
Propane 0.0%
Other, please specify 3.7%
None 0.0%
I don't know 0.00
Prefer not to answer 0.0%
Process Evaluation Report 75

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Response
Home Size(sq ft)(n=25)
Less than 1,000ft2 0%
1,000-1,999ft2 48.0%
2,000-2,999ft2 28.0%
3,000-3,999ft2 20.0%
4,000ft2 or more 4.0%
Housing Age(n=27)
Before 1950 29.6%
1950 to 1959 29.6%
1960 to 1969 3.7%
1970 to 1979 7.4%
1980 to 1989 3.7%
1990 to 1999 11.1%
2000 to 2009 11.1%
2010 to 2019 0.0%
2020 to Present 0.0%
I don't know 0.0%
Number of people in Home(n=27)
1 person 7.4%
2 people 44.4%
3 people 25.9%
4 people 14.8%
5 people 0.0%
6 people 3.7%
7 people 0.0%
8 or more people 0.0%
Prefer not to answer 3.7%
Age(years)(n=27)
18 to 24 0.0%
25 to 34 11.1%
35 to 44 11.1%
45 to 54 25.9%
55 to 64 29.6%
65 to 75 18.5%
75 or older 3.7%
Prefer not to answer 0.0%
Anyone in home 65 years or older(n=27)
Yes 22.2%
Annual Household Income(n=27)
Less than$10,000 0.0%
$10,000 to$19,999 0.0%
$20,000 to$29,999 3.7%
$30,000 to$39,999 7.4%
$40,000 to$49,999 3.7%
$50,000 to$74,999 14.8%
$75,000 to$99,999 14.8%
$100,000 to$149,999 33.3%
$150,000 to$199,999 3.7%
$200,000 or more 3.7%
Process Evaluation Report 76

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Response
Prefer not to answer 14.8%
Education(n=27)
Did not graduate high school 0.0%
High school graduate 0.0%
Associates degree,vocation/technical school,or 40 7°/
some college
Four-year college degree 33.3%
Graduate or professional degree 22.2°%
Prefer not to answer 3.7%
4.5.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on data collected via interviews and surveys,the Evaluators provide the following conclusions and
recommendations for improvement moving forward.
4.5.4.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions represent key findings from the On Bill Repayment program survey:
1. Marketing—The OBR program has gained traction through effective marketing campaigns
targeted at customers and trade allies.
2. Increases Energy Efficient Equipment Purchases—Most OBR survey respondents (69%)
reported that they were unlikely to have purchased the energy efficient equipment without the
OBR program assistance, and 85%of respondents indicated that the financing helped them
make these improvements sooner.
3. Program Satisfaction—Survey respondents were generally satisfied with the OBR program and
likely to recommend it to others.
4.5.4.2 Recommendations
Based on the above conclusions,the Evaluators suggest the following recommendations for On Bill
Repayment program moving forward.
1. Education and training of contractors—Provide more education and training to contractors
about the OBR financing process to minimize payment confusion and improve the customer
experience.
2. Online billing information—Enhance Avista's online billing website to clearly separate the OBR
repayment portion from the total billed amount, allowing customers to better understand their
actual energy costs as well as remaining financed amounts.
3. Increased promotion—Continue to promote the OBR program through various channels, such
as bill inserts, newsletters, and trade ally networks,to maintain and increase customer
awareness and participation.
4.6 ALWAYS ON HOME ENERGY REPORT PILOT PROGRAM
The Always On Home Energy Report Pilot(Always On Pilot) seeks to provide customers with more
precise information about the types of equipment in their home that are using the most energy and
provides suggestions on how to reduce that energy load.
Process Evaluation Report 77

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
4.6.1 Data Collection Activities
The process evaluation of the Always On Pilot Program included the following data collection activities:
■ Avista Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed two staff at Avista involved in the
administration of the Always On Pilot.These interviews were to collect information from
program staff about program design, administration, marketing, and stakeholders.
■ Program Participant Surveys. The Evaluators conducted surveys with a series of program
participants.These surveys covered a range of topics, including program awareness,
participation, and satisfaction.
4.6.2 Staff Interview
The Evaluators summarize the findings from the staff in-depth interviews in this section.
4.6.2.1 Program Design
The Always On pilot program launched in July 2022 and encourages residential households to reduce
energy usage contributing to the "always-on" load.This "always-on" load, or"idle" load is the portion of
daily household energy usage consumed from household devices that have been turned off or are in
standby mode, but still drawing power. Desktop and laptop computers, cable modems,video game
consoles, and microwaves are some examples of equipment contributing to always-on load.This portion
of household load can amount to 20 to 30 percent of a customer's bill.This portion of household energy
usage can easily be reduced with low-or no-cost behavioral changes, such as turning off computers
when not in use.
The Residential Always-On Load Behavioral Pilot Program makes use of territory-wide AMI deployment
by integrating AMI data with machine learning algorithms to identify the always-on load in each
household.Avista has identified the top third of residential customers with always-on load and has
created three potential groups: two treatment arms and one control group. For the first treatment
group,Avista uses this AMI and algorithm information to send communications to customers including
personalized information regarding always-on usage, associated costs,tips to reduce the load, and
anticipated cost savings each month. For the second treatment group, Avista also delivered an incentive
for reducing their always-on load compared to their baseline; however, starting in PY2023,this incentive
was removed from the program design.This variation in treatment within similar groups of households
will allow cost effectiveness for each treatment type as well as incremental energy savings.
This pilot program was implemented in the second quarter of 2022 and targeted the top third (nearly
25,000 customers) of residential always-on loads.
4.6.2.2 Program Administration
The pilot enrolled 50,000 treatment participants and 25,000 control participants.Treatment participants
were split into two groups: group one received monthly emails with energy saving tips and group two
received the same monthly emails along with a participation incentive. Staff explained that this pilot
represented the first internally implemented behavioral program and cited multiple implementation
challenges related to data tracking and data quality.
Despite these challenges as well as low saving results in 2022,the pilot continued in 2023, but with a
simplified design. Instead of two treatment groups and one control group,the 2023 version of the pilot
Process Evaluation Report 78

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
had one treatment and one control group; all treatment participants in 2023 received the same
messaging and incentives were removed.
4.6.3 Program Participant Survey Results
The Evaluators conducted a survey of Always On Home Energy Report Pilot program participants to
gather feedback about customers' engagement with and experience of the program. Participants were
contacted via email up to three times and asked to complete a survey. In total, 173 participants who
participated in the Always On Home Energy Report Pilot program in 2022 or 2023 responded to survey
efforts.
4.6.3.1 Program Awareness
Respondents learned about Avista's energy efficiency offerings through a variety of avenues, most
commonly a contractor or retailer(41.6%, n=72) (Figure 4-42).
Figure 4-42:Program Awareness(n=173)
Contractor/Retailer 41.6%
Avista website 29.5%
Avista bill insert 14.5%
Avista email 13.9%
Word of mouth 12.1%
Avista mailer 9.8%
Social media � 2.3%
Program staff M 1.7%
Interent M 1.7%
Advertisement M 1.2%
Community event ■ 0.6%
CAP Agency ■ 0.6%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%
More than one-third of respondents were motivated to participate in the program to reduce their
monthly utility bills (44.1%, n=75) and help the environment (34.9%, n=59) (Figure 4-43).
Process Evaluation Report 79

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-43:Factors Influencing Participation (n=varies)
Helping the environment(n=169) 17.2%W 17.2% EW 17.2%
Reducing monthly utility bill(n=170) lk 15.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not applicable ■Not at all A little ■A moderate amount ■A lot ■A great deal
About half of respondents were very or extremely interested in additional home improvements that
would improve their health and safety (48.5%, n=83), improve their comfort (47.1%, n=81), and increase
their home's energy efficiency(52.6%, n=91) (Figure 4-44).
Figure 4-44:Interest in home improvements that would... (n=varies)
Improve your health and safety?(n=171) 9 14.6% M 36.8% M
Improve your comfort?(n=172) 311.14.5% 39.5% U
i
Increase its energy efficiency?(n=173) 31/0 15.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not at all interested Somewhat interested ■Moderately interested
■Very interested ■Extremely interested
4.6.3.2 Program Participation
More than half of respondents remembered receiving an email alert from the Always On Pilot (61.3%,
n=106).The majority of these respondents noted that when they receive the email they skim through
the content (71.7%, n=76);just under one-fifth of respondents read the whole email (18.9%, n=20)
(Figure 4-45).Among the 100 respondents who read at least part of the email alert, more than one-third
reacted by unplugging their appliances when they are not in use (37.0%, n=37) and 16.0% (n=16)visited
Avista's website to learn more about"always on" load (Table 4-26). Among the 16 respondents who
visited Avista's website, all but two respondents found the tips in the website to be at least somewhat
helpful (n=14).
Process Evaluation Report 80

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-45:Response to Email Alert(n=106)
5.7%3.8% 71.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■I do not look at the alert at all
Glance at the pictures,graphs,or headlines
■Skim some of the content
■Read them thoroughly and continue onto the website for more information
Table 4-26:Post Email Behaviors(n=100)
Started unplugging appliances when they are not in 37.0% 37
use
Save one or more emails for reference 22.0% 22
Discuss one or more emails with others 19.0% 19
Visited Avista website to learn about"always on"load 16.0% 16
Installed advanced power strips 9.0% 9
None of the above 28.0% 28
Respondents indicated that they are interested in learning about other energy usage and reduction tips
for a variety of equipment types including water heating, space heating, and space cooling (Table 4-27).
Just over two-thirds of respondents would like to receive the same number of updates through the
Always On Pilot (68.2%, n=118); 18.5% (n=32) requested more updates and 13.3% (n=23) requested
fewer updates.
Table 4-27:Interested in learning about energy usage of specific equipment(n=173)
Water Heating 39.3% 68
Space Heating 28.3% 49
Space Cooling 26.6% 46
Lighting 22.0% 38
Laundry 20.2% 35
Cooking 14.5% 25
4.6.3.3 Program Satisfaction
Most respondents were satisfied with the program and Avista as their service provider (Figure 4-46).The
majority of respondents considered Avista at least moderately reliable source of information about
energy efficient products (82.1%, n=142).
Process Evaluation Report 81

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-46:Program Satisfaction (n=173)
Program overall
Program participation process
Avista as service provider .
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied ■Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied
■Somewhat satisfied ■Very satisfied
Perceived changes in respondents' utility bill amounts varied (Figure 4-47), with 12.7% (n=22) of
respondents noting their bill decreased, 26.0% (n=45) indicating their bill stayed the same, and 13.9%
(n=24) of respondents explaining that their bill had increased.
Figure 4-47: Changes in Utility Bill(n=173)
13.9% 1 26.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not sure ■Yes,it increased ■No change ■Yes,it decreased
Respondents provided recommendations for portfolio-wide improvements, including providing financial
incentives for more products and providing larger financial incentives (Figure 4-48)
Figure 4-48:Recommendations(n=173)
Provide financial incentives for additional products 54.9% 95
Provide larger financial incentives 53.2% 92
Share more personalized information about your energy 31.8% 55
use
More contractor information 1.7% 3
Reduce utility rates 0.6% 1
Not sure 16.8% 29
4.6.3.4 Demographics
Table 4-8 describes the demographics of survey respondents.
Process Evaluation Report 82

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Table 4-28:Demographics(n=173, unless otherwise indicated)
Homeownership
Own 96.0% 166
Rent 1.7% 3
Own and rent to someone else 1.7% 3
1 don't know 0.0% 0
Prefer not to answer 0.6% 1
Building Age(n=169)
Before 1950 18.9% 32
1950 to 1959 13.6% 23
1960 to 1969 7.1% 12
1970 to 1979 12.4% 21
1980 to 1989 9.5% 16
1990 to 1999 14.2% 24
2000 to 2009 17.2% 29
2010 to 2019 4.7% 8
2020 to Present 0.0% 0
1 don't know 1.8% 3
Prefer not to answer 0.6% 1
Heating Fuel Type it
Electricity 24.9% 43
Natural Gas 74.0% 128
Wood 1.2% 2
Oil 0.6% 1
Pellet 0.6% 1
Air Conditioning
Yes 78.0% 135
No 20.2% 35
1 don't know 1.7% 3
Water Heater Fuel Type
Natural Gas 60.1% 104
Electricity 38.7% 67
Propane 1.2% 2
Not sure 1.7% 3
Home Type Er
Single-family house detached 93.6% 162
Duplex,condominium,townhouse 1.2% 2
Mobile or manufactured home 3.5% 6
Apartment with 2 to 4 units 0.6% 1
Apartment with 5+units 0.6% 1
Not sure 0.6% 1
Household Size(n=172)
1 person 9.9% 17
2 people 50.0% 86
3 people 16.3% 28
4 people 13.4% 23
5 people 7.6% 13
6 people 2.3% 4
7 people 0.6% 1
Process Evaluation Report 83

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
8 or more people 0.0% 0
Prefer not to answer 0.0% 0
Age
18 to 24 0.0% 0
25 to 34 3.5% 6
35 to 44 17.9% 31
45 to 54 17.9% 31
55 to 64 22.0% 38
65 to 75 23.1% 40
75 or older 12.1% 21
Prefer not to answer 3.5% 6
Household member is 65+years old
Yes 42.8% 74
Household income
Less than$10,000 0.6% 1
$10,000 to$19,999 1.2% 2
$20,000 to$29,999 2.9% 5
$30,000 to$39,999 1.7% 3
$40,000 to$49,999 5.8% 10
$50,000 to$74,999 15.6% 27
$75,000 to$99,999 10.4% 18
$100,000 to$149,999 16.8% 29
$150,000 to$199,999 9.3% 16
$200,000 or more 6.9% 12
Prefer not to answer 28.9% 50
Education
Did not graduate high school 0.6% 1
High school graduate 11.0% 19
Associates degree,vocation/technical school, 32.4% 56
or some college
Four-year college degree 27.8% 48
Graduate or professional degree 23.7% 41
Prefer not to answer 4.6% 8
4.6.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on data collected via interviews and surveys, the Evaluators provide the following conclusions and
recommendations for improvement moving forward.
4.6.4.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions represent key findings from the Always On Pilot survey:
1. Program motivation-About half of respondents were very or extremely interested in additional
home improvements that would improve their health and safety, improve their comfort, and
increase their home's overall energy efficiency.
2. Program participation-More than half of respondents remembered receiving an email alert
from the Always On Program (61.3%, n=106). The majority of these respondents noted that
when they receive the email they at least skim through the content (90.6%, n=96). Most
respondents are satisfied with the number of updates provided through the program (68.2%,
n=118).
Process Evaluation Report 84

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
3. Website engagement—Among the 100 respondents who read at least part of the email alert,
more 16.0% (n=16)visited Avista's website to learn more about "always on" load. Of these, all
but two found the tips Avista provides on the website to be at least somewhat helpful (n=14).
4. Desired information—Respondents indicated that they are interested in learning about other
energy usage and reduction tips for a variety of equipment types including water heating, space
heating, and space cooling.
S. Change in bill—Perceived changes in respondents' utility bill amounts varied.About one-
quarter explained their bill remained the same (26.0%, n=45)while 12.7% (n=22) noted their bill
decreased and 13.9%(n=24) indicated their bill increased;47.4% (n=82) could not speak to
changes in their bill.
4.6.4.2 Recommendations
Based on the above conclusions,the Evaluators suggest the following recommendations for the Always
On Pilot program moving forward.
1. Expand content provided in alerts—Consider including other energy saving tips and
recommendations in the email alerts and website, aside from information regarding always on
load.Topic areas of interest include information regarding energy efficient equipment as well as
other behavior changes customers can make to reduce their energy usage.
4.7 RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS NON-PARTICIPANTS
The Evaluators delivered surveys to a sample of residential non-participants in order to assess barriers
to entry, current satisfaction with Avista as a utility provider, and additional insights.
4.7.1 Data Collection Activities
The Evaluators conducted a survey of customers who did not participate in Avista's residential incentive
programs to gather feedback on customer knowledge of Avista's offerings, as well as their energy saving
behaviors.
4.7.2 Non-Participant Survey Results
Tracking data included 1,278 customers with an email address. Customers were contacted via email up
to three times and invited to complete the survey. One hundred and forty participants responded to the
survey.
4.7.2.1 Program Awareness and Engagement
About half of the 140 respondents had not received a home energy assessment, equipment tune up, or
replaced equipment in the past three years (48.6%, n=68); 19.3%were not sure if they had received any
of those services. Across the 45 respondents (32.1%)who had had an assessment,tune up, or purchased
new equipment, HVAC equipment(44.4%, n=20), lighting equipment(44.4%, n=20), and A/C tune ups
(42.2%, n=19) were the most popular purchases and services (Figure 4-49).
Process Evaluation Report 85

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-49:Purchased Equipment(n=145)
HVAC equipment 44.4%
Lighting 44.4%
A/C tune-up 42.2%
Smart thermostat(s) 31.1%
Low flow faucet aerator(s) 13.3%
Low flow showerhead(s) 11.1%
Furnace 8.9%
Advanced power strip(s) 8.9%
Water hater 6.7%
Refridgerator/freezer 6.7%
Home energy assessment 4.4%
New home M 2.2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
More than two-thirds of respondents had never heard of Avista's residential energy efficiency programs
(67.1%, m=94). Among those respondents who were aware of Avista programs (32.9%, n=46), messages
on utilities bill (32.6%, n=15) or Avista emails (32.6%, n=15) were the most common program awareness
sources (Figure 4-50).
Figure 4-50: Program Awareness (n=46)
Avista bill insert 00000 32.6%
Avista email 32.6%
Avista mail 00000000 26.1%
Avista website 23.9%
Word of mouth 19.6%
Radio advertisement � 6.5%
Contractor 4.3%
Newspaper ad 4.3%
Retailer 2.2%
Avista program staff =11111111 2.2%
Social media M111111 2.2%
Don't know 4.3%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
Among the 46 respondents who were aware of Avista's programs, about two-thirds were aware of the
incentives to replace inefficient equipment(63.0%, n=29); fewer respondents were aware of heating
and cooling specific programs (45.7%, n=21), home energy audits (32.6%, n=15), and new construction
incentives (23.9%, n=11).
Respondents were most interested in learning more about the weatherization program (25.0%, n=35)
and water heater incentives (23.6%, n=33).
Process Evaluation Report 86

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-51:Interest in Avista Programs(n=140)
Home weatherization 25.0%
Water heater 23.6%
Home energy audit or assessment 17.1%
Smart thermostats 17.1%
Lighting 16.4%
Water heater conversion 11.4%
HVAC equipment 1 10.0%
ENERGY STAR Appliances 9.3%
ENERGY STAR Homes Program 8.6%
Low flow faucet aerators 8.6%
ENERGY STAR Room Air Conditioners 7.9%
Low flow showerheads 7.9%
On Bill Repayment Program 5.7%
Always On Home Energy Report Program 4.3%
HVAC fuel switching 4.3%
Windows 1 0.7%
Solar panels 1 0.7%
Interested,but not decision maker 5.0%
Don't know 37.1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
More than one-third of respondents were somewhat are very interested in participating in Avista
programs (35.7%, n=50) (Figure 4-52).
Figure 4-52:Interest in participating in Avista programs(n=140)
11.4% 15.7% 12.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■1 don't know ■Not at all interested
Somehwhat disinterested ■Neither interested nor disinterested
■Somewhat interested ■Very interested
Respondents cited a lack of information about the programs and cost as the most common reasons for
not participating in Avista's energy efficient offerings (Figure 4-53). Most respondents (67.9%, n=102)
had some authority to make improvements to their building.
Process Evaluation Report 87

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 4-53:Factors preventing participation (n=140)
Don't know enough about the program 34.9%
Cost 17.2%
Unlikely to replace any equipment 14.4%
Do not have the authority to participate 11.6%
Equipment is not worth the trouble 7.4%
The paperwork 5.6%
Prefer not to deal with Avista 5.6%
Planning to move away 2.3%
Other ■ 0.9%
don't know � 4.2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
4.7.2.2 Home Equipment
Two thirds of respondents indicated that their HVAC equipment were their homes' biggest energy
consumers (65.9%, n=81) (Figure 4-54).
Figure 4-54:Perceived energy consumption by product type(n=140)
HVAC 58.6%
Lighting 10.7%
Refrigeration 9.3%
Computer equipment E 2.1%
Water heater ■ 1.4%
Windows ■ 1.4%
Washer&dryer 1 0.7%
Window AC 1 0.7%
Don't know 13.6%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
Seventy-one percent of respondents had air conditioning (n=100) and more than half of these
respondents had central A/C (60.0%, n=60); half of the A/C systems were less than 10 years old (51.8%,
n=71). More than half of respondents had gas furnaces (57.1%, n=80); heating systems ranged in age,
with a little less than half being less than ten years old (46.9%, n=60). Half of respondents had their
HVAC system serviced in the last three years (50.0%, n=70).
More than half of respondents used programmable thermostats (39.3%, n=55) or smart thermostats
(19.3%, n=27). More than half of respondents use LED bulbs in their homes (53.6%, n=75).
Process Evaluation Report 88

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
4.7.2.3 Demographics
Table 4-29 demonstrates respondents' demographic characteristics.
Table 4-29:Demographics(n=140, unless otherwise indicated)
Home ownership status
Own 63.6% 89
Rent 32.9% 46
Own and rent to someone else 1.4% 2
Prefer not to answer 0.7% 1
Don't know 1.4% 2
Building age(n=91)
1980 to 1989 5.5% 5
1960 to 1969 6.6% 6
2000 to 2009 6.6% 6
1950 to 1959 8.8/ 8
1970 to 1979 9.9/ 9
2020 to Present 9.9/ 9
Before 1950 15.4% 14
1990 to 1999 15.4% 14
2010 to 2019 19.8% 18
Don't know 2.2/ 2
Heating Type
Natural Gas 56.4% 79
Electricity 35.0% 49
Pellet/wood stove 3.6% 5
Propane 1.4% 2
Both Gas&Electric 1.4% 2
Oil 0.7% 1
Don't know 1.4% 2
Building type
Single-family house detached 65.0% 91
Apartment with 5+units 12.1% 17
Single-family house attached to one or
more other houses(e.g., duplex, 9.3% 13
condominium,townhouse,etc.)
Mobile or manufactured home 6.4% 9
Apartment with 2 to 4 units 5.0% 7
Prefer not to answer 0.7% 1
Don't know 1.4% 2
Household size
1 person 23.6% 33
2 people 33.6% 47
3 people 10.7% 15
Process Evaluation Report 89

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
4 people 14.3% 20
5 people 5.7% 8
6 people 3.6% 5
7 people 1.4% 2
8 or more people 2.1% 3
Prefer not to answer 5.0% 7
Age
18 to 24 3.6% 5
25 to 34 15.7% 22
35 to 44 20.7/ 29
45 to 54 22.1% 31
55 to 64 15.7% 22
65 to 75 12.1% 17
75 or older 6.4% 9
Prefer not to answer 3.6% 5
4.7.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on data collected via non-participant surveys, the Evaluators provide the following conclusions
and recommendations for improving the Residential programs moving forward.
4.7.3.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions represent key findings from the residential non-participant survey:
1. Program Awareness—Most of the non-participant respondents were not aware of Avista's
energy efficiency rebates and program (67.1%, n=94). Among those respondents who were
aware of Avista programs (32.9%, n=46), messages on utilities bill and utility emails were the
most common sources of program awareness. Additionally, respondents who were aware of
Avista's programs were most familiar with the appliance rebates program and less similar with
home energy audit offering and new construction rebates.
2. Energy efficiency familiarity—Just under one-third of non-participant respondents had received
a home energy assessment, purchased new equipment, or had an equipment tune up in the
past three years (32.1%, n=45).
3. Interest in Avista programming-- More than one-third of respondents were somewhat or very
interested in participating in Avista programs. Respondents were most interested in learning
more about the weatherization program (25.0%, n=35) and water heater incentives (23.6%,
n=33).
4.7.3.2 Recommendations
Based on the above conclusions, the Evaluators suggest the following recommendations for residential
programming moving forward.
1. Increase program marketing—Many of the non-participant respondents did not know Avista
offered rebates and incentives for energy efficient equipment, nor offered home energy audits.
Staff should consider increasing marketing efforts to better promote the programs and reach a
Process Evaluation Report 90

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
larger audience. Increased focus should be placed on the weatherization and appliance,furnace,
HVAC, and water heating rebate offerings as respondents expressed the most interest in those
offerings.
2. Expand energy efficient tips circulation—Consider expanding the pool of people who receive
tips on how to save energy through various behavioral changes, or expand on behavioral
additional energy conservation habits on Avista website. Introducing customers to the concept
of energy efficiency may increase future buy-in for equipment purchases and tune ups.
5 NON-RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS PROCESS 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.
5.1 COMMERCIAL PRESCRIPTIVE REBATE PROGRAMS
Avista offers a variety of rebates for commercial customers interested in upgrading equipment.
Commercial equipment rebates range from lighting measures to HVAC equipment, insulation,food
service equipment, and more specialized equipment like grocery store appliances and variable
frequency drivers.The following summary includes information pertaining to commercial lighting,
appliances, small business direct install, and site-specific programs. Midstream program details are
outlined in the next section (Section 1).
5.1.1 Data Collection Activities
The process evaluation of the Commercial prescriptive rebate programs included the following data
collection activities:
■ Avista Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed four staff at Avista involved in the
administration of the Commercial prescriptive rebate programs.These interviews collected
information from program staff about program design, administration, marketing, and
stakeholders.
■ Program Participant Surveys. The Evaluators conducted surveys with a series of program
participants.These surveys covered a range of topics, including program awareness,
participation, and satisfaction.
■ Trade Ally Interviews. The Evaluators surveyed trade allies who participated in the Commercial
prescriptive rebate programs.
5.1.2 Staff Interview
The Evaluators interviewed four Avista program staff involved in the commercial prescriptive rebate
programs.The following summary includes information pertaining to commercial lighting, appliances,
small business direct install, and site specific. Midstream program details are outlined in Section 5.1.6.
5.1.2.1 Prescriptive Lighting and Small Business Direct Install
Non-residential lighting measures display the largest energy savings in the commercial portfolio. Lighting
measures are available to customers via prescriptive, site-specific, and small business direct install
pathways.The prescriptive pathway follows a generalized incentive structure and process, site specific
Process Evaluation Report 91

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
projects are tailored to individual buildings and customer needs, and small business projects are geared
towards small business owners.The lighting pathway covers a variety of lighting measures including
lamps and lighting controls. Staff noted that prescriptive lighting measures are more popular in Idaho
than Washington.
In response to low participation rates among small businesses,Avista has increased promotional efforts
for the Small Business Direct Install (SBDI) program.The SBDI program is implemented by a third-party
implementer who contacts approximately 23 local contractors to go into small business and install a
variety of direct install measures. Measures are offered to business owners for free and focus primarily
on lighting-related equipment.Although the SBDI program has moved some customers away from the
prescriptive lighting program, staff noted that it helps fill a programmatic gap and attract previously
underserved business owners.
Both the prescriptive lighting and SBDI programs utilize the same trade ally network while the Site-
Specific program typically connects with in-house contractors who work directly for the businesses
participating in the pathway. Although program marketing is mostly driven by trade allies, Avista
account managers also promote the programs to their contacts and Avista advertises the programs via
social media.
5.1.2.2 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.
5.1.2.3 Commercial Appliances
In addition to lighting measures, Avista offers rebates for a variety of other measures like variable
frequency drivers, HVAC equipment, food service, grocer equipment, and insulation. Between 2022 and
2023 HVAC equipment and food service measures moved to a midstream program,which is further
outlined in Section 5.1.6. Most appliance rebate applications are submitted online via iEnergy. Most
program outreach is done by trade allies and Avista account managers; Avista staff also market the
program online.
Beginning in 2022, compressed air measures moved to a pay-for-performance model, which rebated
customers based on energy saved, rather than a flat rate for the equipment purchase. Additionally, staff
added a new commercial thermostat measure and clothes washer measure in Washington only (these
measures are not offered in Idaho due to cost effectiveness results).
Process Evaluation Report 92

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2O22-PY2O23
5.1.3 Prescriptive Lighting, Appliances, and Small Business Direct Install Participant Survey Results
The Evaluators conducted a survey to assess Avista's non-residential rebate program. Survey questions
focused on participants' awareness of, participation in, and satisfaction with Avista's non-residential
prescriptive lighting, appliance rebate, and small business direct install offerings. Participants were
contacted via email up to three times and asked to complete a survey. In total, 266 participants who
received measures through the non-residential rebate program in 2022 or 2023 responded to survey
efforts.
5.1.3.1 Program Awareness
Almost half of the 266 respondents learned about the program via contractors, equipment vendors or
energy consultants (48.9%, n=130) (Figure 5-1). Half of the respondents were aware of the program for
at least two years (49.6%, n=132). A little more than one-third of respondents were aware that
additional rebates exist for non-residential customers (36.5%, n=97).Among these respondents, about
half of the respondents were aware of gas-HVAC system rebates and prescriptive lighting related
rebates (
Figure 5-2).
Figure 5-1:Program Awareness(n=266)
Contractor,equipment vendor,or energy consultant 48.9%
Avista's website 11.7%
From an Avista account representative 10.2%
Word of Mouth 8.3%
Avista staff 4.9%
Other M 4.1%
Informational brochure M 4.1%
Email or E-newsletter M 4.1%
Professional Recommendation M 2.6%
Online ■ 1.5%
Event or tradeshow 1 0.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Process Evaluation Report 93

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 5-2:Rebate Awareness, by type(n=97)
HVAC(Gas) 50.5%
Prescriptive lightning 50.5%
Site-specific 34.0%
HVAC(variable frequency drive) 33.0%
Food Service � 12.4%
Business Partners Program 10.3%
Washington State Clean Building Act 9.3%
Compressed Air 8.2%
Green Motors 8.2%
Grocer Programs 7.2%
Energy Use Index Retrofit Pilot Program M 3.1%
Active Energy Management Pilot Program ■ 1.0%
Smart Buildings Center Tool ■ 1.0%
Fleet Heat ■ 1.0%
Shell ■ 1.0%
None of the above � 8.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
More than two-thirds of respondents indicated that email was the most effective way to promote
rebates to non-residential customers (68.0%, n=180) (Figure 5-3).
Figure 5-3: Contacting firms(n=266)
Email 68.0%
Visits from contractors or program staff 28.2%
Direct mail 26.3%
Bill inserts 23.3%
Target the owners or upper management of the
business 19.2%
Phone 7.5%
Other j 1.9%
Advertising 1 1.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Process Evaluation Report 94

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
5.1.3.2 Energy Efficient Equipment Purchasing Behaviors
When replacing equipment,firms tended to focus on reducing costs (75.6%, n=201) and improving
performance (65.8%, n=175) (Figure 5-4).The majority of respondents explained that their firms choose
to purchase energy efficient equipment instead of standard equipment to save money on utility bills
(89.5%, n=238) (Figure 5-5).
Figure 5-4:Motivators for Upgrading Equipment(n=266)
Improving customer and/or employee comfort ■ -
Improving equipment aesthetics =% 16.9% 29.0%
Improving equipment performance 9.8%M
Reducing energy consumption for reasons other than
� 18.1%
cost
Reducing energy costs I
■Not at all important Somewhat important ■Moderately important
■Very important ■Extremely important
Figure 5-5:Reasoning to purchase energy efficient equipment over standard equipment(n=266)
Saving money on your energy bills 89.5%
Financial incentive 66.9%
Saving energy 64.3%
The participation process was easy 47.7%
Replacing equipment that was broken 42.9%
Protecting the environment 35.7%
Recommendation from a contractor 28.9%
Recommendation from Avista program staff 14.3%
Other ■ 3.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Process Evaluation Report 95

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
The majority of respondents indicated they faced challenges when trying to install energy efficient
equipment (89.5%, n=238).The most common challenges included high initial costs and lack of rebate
awareness (Table 5-1).
Table 5-1:Barriers to Purchasing Energy Efficient Equipment(n=238)
High initial cost 56.3% 134
Lack of rebate awareness 46.6% 111
Understanding areas for improvement 31.5% 75
Funding competition 23.9% 57
Long payback period or return on 23.5% 56
investment
Do not own the building(s) 20.2% 48
Lack of staff 19.3% 46
Lack of corporate support 2.1% 5
Difficulty finding a contractor 1.7% 4
I don't know 2.9% 7
About half of respondents explained that supply chain issues had not caused major barriers when
purchasing, receiving, or installing new energy efficient equipment (Figure 5-6)
Figure 5-6:Supply chain barriers (n=266)
Install new equipment I6.4% 15.0%
Receive new equipment 9.4% :' 11.7%
Purchase new equipment 15.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Extreme barrier Major barrier ■Moderate barrier ■Somewhat of a barrier ■Not a barrier
5.1.3.3 Program Participation
Respondents received rebates for a variety of measures, most notably lighting (Table 5-2). Aside from a
small proportion of lighting rebate recipients (n=11), all respondents indicated the equipment they
received rebates for was still installed and operational. Most lighting (92.7%, n=190) and food service
(83.3%, n=5) rebate recipients replaced existing equipment.
Process Evaluation Report 96

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Table 5-2:Status of Rebated Equipment(n varies)*
Rebated Equipment Installed Uninstalled Don't
All some know
Lighting(n=205) 194 10 0 1
Furnace(n=16) 16 0 0 0
Insulation(n=12) 12 0 0 0
Food service equipment(n=6) 6 0 0 0
Variable Frequency Drive(n=2) 2 0 0 0
*Does not include 29 small business direct install recipients
Before participating in the commercial rebate program, more than half of respondents had previously
installed energy efficient products (54.9%, n=146). Less than one-quarter of respondents had concerns
about the program before deciding to participate (21.4%, n=57).Among those respondents who
expressed concerns, financial considerations (n=19) and skepticism about the program's legitimacy
(n=17)were the most common hesitations.
Most respondents found the application clear and easy to complete (78.9%, n=210). In general,
applications were completed by the contractor or equipment vendor(53.8%, n=143) or the respondent
themselves (35.0%, n=93). More than half of respondents found all aspects of the application process to
be acceptable (Figure 5-7).The most problematic aspect of the application process was the ease with
which applicants were able to find the information they needed on the Avista website, with 16.2%
indicating this process was less than moderately acceptable (n=42).
Figure 5-7:Acceptability of Application Process (n=varies)
The overall application processes.(n=262) 6.9% 40.1%
The effort required to provide the required supporting
documentation.(n=261) �•3° 41.8%
The time it took for your application to be approved. r L
3° 38.2%
(n=262)
The ease of completing the application process.(n=264) �.8° _ 39.4%
The ease of finding the information needed on the Avista
website.(n=260) 114.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not all acceptable Somewhat acceptable ■Moderately acceptable
■Very acceptable ■Completely acceptable
More than half of respondents confirmed that the rebate amount was what they expected (62.4%,
n=166) and 22.2% (n=59) indicated it was more than they expected (Figure 5-8). Most respondents
received their rebate about a month after project completion and (61.7%, n=164) and more than two-
thirds of respondents were satisfied with the time it took them to receive the rebate (69.6%, n=185).
Process Evaluation Report 97

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 5-8:Rebate Amount(n=266)
■
E4.9% 14.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■1 don't know ■It was much less
It was somewhat less ■It was about the amount expected
■It was somewhat more ■It was much more
More than one-quarter of respondents confirmed that Avista program staff inspected their project after
completion (27.3%, n=73).
5.1.3.4 Satisfaction
Respondents tended to be satisfied with all aspects of the program;the areas with the most
dissatisfaction included the range of equipment that qualifies for rebates (5.3%, n=10) and the time it
took to install equipment(5.6%, n=14) (Figure 5-9).
Figure 5-9:Program Satisfaction (n=266)
The program overall '
How well the service provider explained the program
15.8%
rules and processes
The amount of time it took to install the new
equipment _ 15.8% '
The range of equipment that qualifies for a rebate 17.3%
The amount of time it took to your rebate 13.9% '
The steps you had to take to get through the program ' 18.8%
The quality of the installation
The equipment that was installed i� 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
■Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied ■Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
■Somewhat satisfied ■Very satisfied
Process Evaluation Report 98

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
The majority of respondent were satisfied with Avista as their service provider(85.0% n=226) (Figure
5-10) and participating in the program increased more than half of respondents'satisfaction with Avista
(67.3% n=179) (
Figure 5-11).The majority of respondents indicated they were likely to recommend the program to
others (84.2%, n=143).
Figure 5-10:Satisfaction with Avista(n=266)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied ■Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
■Somewhat satisfied ■Very satisfied
Figure 5-11: Change in satisfaction after program participation (n=266)
IMMEMEL06MIL-
33.1% '
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Greatly decreased Somewhat decreased ■Did not affect your satisfaction
■Somewhat increased ■Greatly increased your satisfaction
5.1.3.5 Firmographics
Table 5-3 describes the firmographic composition of respondents' businesses and Table 5-4 describes
firms' policies regarding energy efficiency and energy savings.
Table 5-3:Firmographics(n=266)
Answer % Count
Facility Type
Your company's only location 54.5% 145
One of several locations owned by your company 28.2% 75
Headquarters with other locations 10.2% 27
1 don't know 7.1% 19
acility ownership
Own and occupy 62.0% 165
We own and rent to someone else 10.2% 27
Rent 20.7% 55
1 don't know 3.4% 9
Process Evaluation Report 99

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Prefer not to answer 3.8% 10
Respondent role
Proprietor/Owner 33.1% 92
Board member 15.4% 11
Facilities Manager 12.8% 34
Manager 12.4% 33
President/CEO 12.0% 32
Other financial/administrative position 5.6% 27
Other facilities management/maintenance position 5.3% 14
Energy Manager 1.9% 10
Chief Financial Officer 1.5% 7
Table 5-4:Company energy efficiency related policies(n=266)
Does company . I don't
...defined roles for monitoring and/or managing 54.1% 41.0% 4.9%
energy usage?
...defined energy savings goals? 56.0% 36.1% 7.9%
...specific policy requiring that energy efficiency be 66.9% 24.4% 8.7%
considered when purchasing equipment?
...carbon reduction goals? 73.3% 15.8% 10.9%
5.1.4 Site-Specific Participant Survey Results
Evaluators conducted a survey to assess Avista's non-residential site-specific program. Survey questions
focused on participants' awareness of, participation in, and satisfaction with Avista's non-residential
site-specific program. Participants were contacted via email three times and asked to complete a survey.
In total, six participants who received measures through the site-specific program in 2022 or 2023
responded to survey efforts.
5.1.4.1 Program Awareness
Respondents learned about the program through Avista account representatives, contractors, vendors,
or energy consultants, and/or Avista staff(Figure 5-12). Five respondents had been aware of Avista's
energy efficient offerings for at least two years; in addition to the site-specific program, respondents
were aware of prescriptive lighting program (n=2), the compressed air offering (n=2), and the variable
frequency drive offering (n=1).
Figure 5-12:Program Awareness(n=6)
From an Avista account representative 3
From a contractor,equipment vendor,or energy
consultant Z
From a program representative or Avista staff member 1
Process Evaluation Report 100

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
When replacing equipment, respondents noted that reducing their company's energy costs (n=5) and
improving customer and employee comfort(n=5) were important motivating factors (Figure 5-13).
Figure 5-13:Motivation to Participate(n=6)
Improving customer and/or employee comfort
Improving equipment aesthetics 2 1
Improving equipment performance
Reducing energy consumption for reasons other than 1 0
cost
Reducing energy costs
■Not at all important Somewhat important ■Moderately important
■Very important ■Extremely important
Half of the respondents noted that they prefer utilities connect with them via email regarding new
rebates and energy saving opportunities (Figure 5-14).
Figure 5-14:Communication channels(n=6)
Email 3
Phone 2
Bill inserts 2
Target the owners or upper management 2
Visits from contractors or program staff 2
Saving money on energy bills and saving energy more generally were respondents'top two motivating
factors for installing energy efficient equipment at their facilities (Figure 5-15).
Process Evaluation Report 101

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 5-15:Motivations to Participate(n=6)
Saving money on your energy bills 6
Saving energy 5
Financial incentive 4
The participation process was easy 3
Protecting the environment 3
Maintenance costs 1
Replacing equipment that was broken 1
Recommendation from Avista program staff 1
5.1.4.2 Program Participation
Half of the respondents indicated that participation in the site-specific program marked the first time
they purchased energy efficient equipment for their facility(n=3). Respondents noted that prior to
participation, equipment cost was a concern, but that the rebates helped fill the gap (n=2).
Five of the respondents confirmed an Avista representative came to inspect the project upon
completion.These respondents indicated the inspector was very courteous, professional, efficient, and
knowledgeable regarding the program (n=5).
Experiences with the program application process was mixed (Figure 5-16). Respondents noted that the
information provided on Avista's website was insufficient, application processing times were long, and
the process was not always easy. Half of the respondents sought assistance when completing the
application to overcome some of these burdens (n=3).
Process Evaluation Report 102

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 5-16:Satisfaction with Application Process(n=6)
The overall application processes. 1 1
The effort required to provide the required supporting
documentation. 2
The time it took for your application to be approved. © 1 0
The ease of completing the application process. 1
The ease of finding the information needed on the
Avista website. 3 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
■Not all acceptable Somewhat acceptable ■Moderately acceptable
Very acceptable ■Completely acceptable
Once applications were processed, program participation experience improved. Five of the respondents
confirmed that the rebate amount was what they expected (n=5), and one respondent noted it was
larger than they expected (n=1). For most of the respondents the rebate arrived two to four weeks after
project completion; the two respondents who waited more than six weeks for their rebate expressed
dissatisfaction with the delay.
Respondents cited a variety of program participation barriers including the high initial costs (n=5) and
long payback periods (n=3) associated with energy efficient equipment, as well as a general difficulty
understanding equipment was most in need of an upgrade (n=3) (Figure 5-17).Three respondents noted
that supply chain issues created issues when purchasing new equipment for the planned facility
upgrades.
All but one respondent communicated with Avista staff during the program. Half of the respondents
noted that staff answered questions in a thorough and timely fashion (n=3).
Figure 5-17:Participation Challenges(n=6)
High initial cost 5
Long payback period or R01 3
Understanding areas for improvement 3
Funding difficulties 2
Lack of awareness about rebates 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Process Evaluation Report 103

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
5.1.4.3 Satisfaction
Program satisfaction varied across the six respondents. Respondents expressed higher satisfaction with
the quality of the installation (n=4) and equipment quality (n=4), and lower satisfaction with the time it
took to receive the rebate (n=3), followed by the range of qualifying equipment (n=2) and program
overall (n=2).
Figure 5-18:Program Satisfaction (n=6)
Program overall 1
Time to receive the realate 2 1
Time to install equipment
Range of qualifying equipment 1
Installation qualtiy
Equipment quality
Throughness of response
Time for staff to answer questions 1
■Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied ■Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
■Somewhat satisfied ■Very satisfied
All respondents were either very (n=5) or soemwhat (n=1) satisfied with Avista as thier service provider
(n=5). Four of the respondents explained that participation in the site specific program increased their
satisfaction with Avista and five respondents indicated they were likely to recommedn the program to
others.
5.1.4.4 Firmographics
Table 5-5 describes the firmographic composition of respondents' businesses and Table describes firms'
policies regarding energy efficiency and energy savings.
Table 5-5:Firmographics(n=6)
Answer 0
� •
Facility type
Your company's only location 50.0% 3
One of several locations owned by your company 33.3% 2
The headquarter location of a company with several locations 16.7% 1
Facility ownership
We own and occupy the facility 83.3% 5
We own the facility and rent it to someone else 16.7% 1
Respondent role
Facilities Manager 16.7% 1
Other facilities management/maintenance position 16.7% 1
Chief Financial Officer 16.7% 1
Process Evaluation Report 104

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Engineer 16.7% 1
President/CEO 16.7% 1
Manager 16.7% 1
Table 5-6:Company energy efficiency related policies(n=6)
Does company . I don't
...defined roles for monitoring and/or managing 6 0 0
energy usage?
...defined energy savings goals? 3 3 0
...specific policy requiring that energy efficiency be 6 0 0
considered when purchasing equipment?
...carbon reduction goals? 0 3 3
5.1.5 Trade Ally Interview Results
The Evaluators conducted phone interviews with 22 participating non-residential trade allies in 2022 and
2023.A total of 232 contacts were identified and each trade ally was contacted at least three times via
email.
5.1.5.1 Background and Program Tenure
Responding trade allies represented a variety of business types (Table 5-7).
Table 5-7:Respondents'Business Types(n=22) (multiple selections allowed)
Business Type n
Contractors/installers 7t3m
Designers/engineers 2
Distributor 6
Energy service company 1
Manufacturer/Wholesaler 1
Power company 1
Most respondents specialize in lighting equipment (n=18); other specialties included building shell or
weatherization services (n=2),food service equipment(n=2), horticulture equipment (n=1), and HVAC
equipment(n=1).Thirteen of the responding trade allies serve customers in both Washington and Idaho,
while the remaining eight work exclusively in Washington. More than half of the respondents have been
involved with the program for several years (n=16);three respondents indicated 2023 was their first
year in the program.
5.1.5.2 Engaging Customers
Respondents'target customers varied;five respondents serve residential and commercial customers, 17
respondents serve commercial customers only, and one respondent focuses on horticulture customers.
Some respondents rely on word-of-mouth to generate project leads (n=7); other customer engagement
strategies include sales team outreach, cold calls, and company marketing materials.
Half of respondents did not know about Avista's program specific marketing materials (n=12), but
agreed that it would be beneficial to have. One respondent who was aware of the materials indicated
they are confusing(n=1).
Process Evaluation Report 105

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
"if they could lay out the rebate in a way that makes sense to everybody
you know, not everybody's the best communicators or salespeople, 1 think
I'm a terrible salesperson, so if they had someone in marketing that made
us a nice brochure of it, probably would help."—Trade Ally
Respondents cited a variety of barriers preventing customers from engaging in the program (Table 5-8).
Table 5-8:Barriers to Participation
Barrier n
Upfront costs 8
Time to participate 5
Skepticism towards program 2
Available equipment 2
Reluctance towards new technology 1
Application process 1
Rebate requirements 1
Disinterest 1
Lack of autonomy on building design 1
5.1.5.3 Application Process and Program Incentives
Six of the responding trade allies completed the rebate application on behalf of their customers; other
respondents noted that customers (n=2) or distributors (n=1) completed the application. Among the six
respondents who complete the application for customers, five identified challenges with the process
(Table 5-9).Trade allies who were interviewed in 2022 did not comment on the application process.
Table 5-9:Application Challenges
Confusion over which program to apply 7 1
Lack of descriptions for eligible light 1
fixtures
Process for site-specific projects 1
Address validation tool not always 1
working equipment
Midstream program 1
There was no consensus regarding current incentive levels. Eight respondents indicated that the current
incentives are comprehensive and generous, while 12 respondents identified incentive level concerns.
Eleven respondents also proposed additional measures be added to the program (Table 5-10).
Table 5-10:Incentive Suggestions(n=11)
Measures n
Incentives too low to encourage adoption 4
LED flat panel light fixtures 1
Greenhouse equipment 1
Windows 1
Sports field lighting 1
High output bulbs 1
Sign work 1
Increase lighting incentives in general
Process Evaluation Report 106

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Increase all incentives 1
Proposed additions 7
Bathroom fan timer switches 1
Dehumidifiers 1
Duct wrap 1
Expanded heat pump options 1
Retrofits for incandescent to LED bulbs 1
Tankless water heaters 1
1500 watt lighting 1
Expanded options for sports lighting 1
F rye rs 1
New griddle technology 1
Higher wattage bulbs 1
5.1.5.4 Program Satisfaction and Recommendations
In general, responding trade allies were satisfied with the program. Respondents were most satisfied
with the range of measures eligible for a rebate, and least satisfied with the application process (Figure
5-19). Some respondents praised the program's simplicity(n=3), program incentives (n=3), program staff
(n=2) comprehensiveness (n=1), and promotion of efficient equipment (n=1).
Figure 5-19:Program Satisfaction
Range of measures � 14%
Communication w/program staff 05%= 23%
Application process 5%5% 27%
Program overall 9% 32%
Time to receive incentive 18% 9% '
Program marketing materials "5%
■n/a ■Don't know 1-Completeey dissatisfied 2 ■3 4 ■5-Completely satisfied
Respondents reported the most challenges with the site-specific pathway(n=4).These respondents
highlighted challenges with this pathway, citing confusion over the general process (n=1) and frustration
with the length of the M&V review period (n=1). One respondent elaborated on a site-specific project
that took over a year to receive a rebate, comparing this wait time to that of other neighboring utilities.
Additional challenges include the new application process regarding midstream distributors introduced
in 2023 (n=1), lack of clarity on eligible equipment (n=1), confusion on who receives the rebate (n=1),
Process Evaluation Report 107

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
confusion on the customer portal (n=1), discrepancies in required information for applications (n=1),
getting customer account number or meter numbers for the application (n=1).
Responding trade allies provided recommendations for program improvement.These recommendations
ranged from increasing the availability of marketing materials to modifying the application process
(Table 5-11).
Table 5-11:Recommendations for Improvement(n=12)
Recommendations n
Provide Avista branded marketing materials 3
Streamline standard projects via instant rebate Z
options
Create a formal trade ally network 1
Add trade ally bonuses 1
Discontinue Midstream program 1
Improve M&V period for site-specific jobs 1
Improve clarity of application process 1
Loosen qualifications for attic insulation 1
Add option for customers to go in and fill out 1
application in-person
5.1.6 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on data collected via participant surveys and trade ally interviews,the Evaluators provide the
following conclusions and recommendations for improvement for the commercial rebate program
moving forward.
5.1.6.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions represent key findings from the commercial prescriptive rebate program
across the prescriptive lighting, appliances, small business direct install, and site-specific pathways:
1. Program Awareness—Across the various pathways, survey respondents most commonly
learned about the rebate offerings from contractors, equipment vendors, and/or energy
consultants. Survey respondents indicated email is the most effective way to communicate with
them about rebate opportunities.
2. Marketing Materials—Half of the interviewed trade allies did not know about Avista's program-
specific marketing materials (n=12), but agreed these resources would be useful to have.
3. Barriers to Engagement—The upfront cost of energy efficient equipment was the largest barrier
to program engagement. Survey and interview respondents explained that firms are motivated
to buy energy efficient equipment for the cost savings potential, but often lack the upfront
capital to do so.
4. Prior Energy Efficient Equipment Experience—About half of the survey respondents across the
various pathways noted that they had previously installed energy efficient equipment in their
facilities.
5. Program Experience—Survey and interview respondents tended to be satisfied with all aspects
of the program. Areas of dissatisfaction for both survey respondents and interviewed trade
allies included difficulty finding necessary information on Avista's website and the range of
eligible equipment.
Process Evaluation Report 108

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
6. Site Specific Program Experience—Interviewed trade allies reported the most challenges with
the site-specific pathway offered through the program.These respondents cited confusion over
the general process and frustration with the length of time required by the M&V review period.
5.1.6.2 Recommendations
Based on the above conclusions,the Evaluators suggest the following recommendations for non-
residential commercial rebate programming moving forward.
1. Program marketing—Continue to deploy customer-focused promotional and marketing
campaigns through email communication, as customers identified this as the most favorable
method of communication. Consider a wide distribution of Avista-branded marketing materials
to trade allies so that the trade allies can better promote and explain the program to their
customers.
2. Eligible Equipment—Consider expanding equipment eligible for rebates based on trade ally
recommendations.Trade ally respondents had more difficulties with the site-specific program
than the midstream, prescriptive lighting, appliance rebate, and direct install programs.
Integrating more measures into these midstream and downstream rebate pathways may
alleviate pressure put on the site-specific pathway.
5.2 MIDSTREAM PROGRAM
Avista designed the Midstream Program to shift the onus of applying for rebates from end-use
customers to distributors. Not only does this reduce customers'/contractors' administrative burden (i.e.,
no need to submit paperwork tracking energy efficient installations), but it is also anticipated to increase
high-efficiency equipment options at competitive prices. Midstream rebates provide an immediate
discount on eligible products, which appear as a line item on customer invoices. Starting on July 1, 2023,
the Midstream Program replaced Avista's residential and commercial downstream space-heating and
water-heating programs as well as the commercial food service equipment rebate program.
Through the Midstream Program,Avista seeks to achieve three overall objectives:
■ Provide greater long-term, cost-effective savings for residential and commercial customers alike
■ Reduce Avista's administrative burden in processing space-heating, water-heating, and
commercial kitchen equipment applications
■ Accelerate the market transformation of energy-efficient equipment
The Midstream Program provides bought-down equipment to both Residential and Commercial entities.
This chapter discusses and presents results only for the non-residential measures.
5.2.1 Data Collection Activities
The process evaluation of the Commercial Midstream Program included the following data collection
activities:
■ Avista Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed one staff at Avista involved in the
administration of the Commercial Rebates Program.This interview collected information from
program staff about program design, administration, marketing, and stakeholders.
Process Evaluation Report 109

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
■ Trade Ally Interviews. The Evaluators surveyed trade allies who participated in the Commercial
Midstream program.
5.2.2 Staff Interviews
The Evaluators summarize the findings from the Midstream Program staff in-depth interviews in this
section.
5.2.2.1 Program Design
Beginning in 2023, Avista transitioned to a midstream program for a subset of commercial measures.
Avista's motivation for the switch to midstream was to achieve high saving goals and minimize customer
confusion regarding these equipment types. Staff explained that the midstream model reduces the
paperwork burden for customers and allows for more market transformation by focusing efforts on
equipment distributors rather than end users. Measures rebated through the commercial midstream
program included HVAC and water heating measures, as well as food service measures.
5.2.2.2 Program Administration
Distributors have flexibility in regard to how they utilize the HVAC and water heating incentives provided
to them, as incentives can be used for equipment marketing, discounts, and education. Although many
distributors pass the rebate onto the customer, they are not required to do so. Food service measure
incentives must be passed through to the customer.
In general, despite a slow start to the program, staff have appreciated the midstream model, explaining
that it is more efficient and allows for faster rebate processing. At the time of the 2023 interview, staff
noted they had engaged eight distributors across both states, with plans to bring on three more. Staff
explained that the biggest pain point of the program is explaining to staff and customers why the
incentive is no longer being offered directly to the customers.
5.2.3 Midstream Trade Ally Interview Results
The Evaluators conducted phone interviews with five participating midstream distributors. Eight
distributors participated in Avista's midstream program in 2023.All eight distributors were invited to
participate in an interview; distributors were contacted up to three times via phone and email. Avista's
midstream program encompasses both residential and commercial measures;these interviews
represent responses from distributors across both sectors. More information regarding the results of
these interviews can be found in the residential chapter in Section 4.1.6: Midstream Trade Ally Interview
Results.
5.2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on data collected via non-participant surveys, the Evaluators provide the following conclusions
and recommendations for improvement moving forward.
5.2.4.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions represent key findings from the midstream program data collection activities.
1. Program process—Midstream distributors highlighted some issues with the website and general
application flow of the program, but noted that the program is new.
Process Evaluation Report 110

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
5.2.4.2 Recommendations
Based off of the above conclusions,the Evaluators suggest the following recommendations for
residential programming moving forward.
1. Increase training opportunities—Midstream distributors and various trade allies expressed
some confusion over the transition to a midstream pathway for certain measures. Consider
offering these stakeholder additional training opportunities to explain the transition and the
new program processes and requirements.
5.3 ACTIVE ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Active Energy Management (AEM) pilot program provides commercial customers with information
on how to improve their energy usage.
5.3.1 Data Collection Activities
The process evaluation of the Active Energy Management Program included the following data
collection activities:
■ Avista Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed one staff member at Avista involved
in the administration of AEM pilot.This interview collected information from program staff
about program design, administration, marketing, and stakeholders.
5.3.2 Staff Interviews
Starting as a pilot program,the Active Energy Management(AEM) pilot program provides commercial
customers with information on how to improve their energy usage. Data collection procedures and
information dissemination procedures were based off of data collected from two Avista owned "smart"
buildings located in Spokane, WA.The Evaluators interviewed program staff involved with the AEM pilot
to learn more about the program design and administration.
5.3.2.1 Program Design
The AEM pilot is a strategic energy management(SEM) program focused on non-capital-based energy
efficiency measures.This pilot marks Avista's first foray into an SEM program. Staff recruited customers
to participate in the pilot throughout 2021 and experienced some challenges due to the COVID-19
pandemic and staff turnover.The pilot seeks to provide customers with whole building solutions to
energy usage, blending technology, engineer expertise, and strategic energy management best
practices.
Staff originally hoped to target high energy using customers, but ultimately relied on existing
relationships to recruit companies to participate.The pilot is offered in Washington and Idaho and
customers represent a variety of business types.
Program participants benefit from receiving real time data on energy usage and identifying equipment
in need of improvement.To date, participants have discovered maintenance issues with some of their
equipment and made behavioral changes that have resulted in reductions in their utility bills.
5.3.2.2 Program Administration
The AEM pilot is administered by Edo, a third-party implementer. Edo technicians install a box at the
participants' building automation server that connects to Avista's larger network so that they can track
Process Evaluation Report 111

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
specific energy usage data. Edo then uses this data to determine which equipment is and is not working
optimally. Edo representatives meet with participants once a month to discuss progress and provide
suggestions for improvement. Based on energy usage patterns, Edo representatives may also
recommend equipment updates and refer customers to the commercial rebate offerings.
5.3.2.3 Marketing and Outreach
Staff noted the recruitment for the program was slow and eventually relied heavily on existing
relationships. Program staff originally underestimated the extent of engineering knowledge the
customer contacts needed to have to fully understand, appreciate, and implement program
recommendations.
5.3.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
There are no process evaluation related conclusions nor recommendations for the Active Energy
Management program.
5.4 CLEAN BUILDINGS PROGRAM
The Clean Buildings Accelerator program provides building owners assistance with meeting Clean
Building requirements and support with energy saving efforts.The Evaluators interviewed the program
manager of the program at Avista to learn more about the program design and implementation
strategy.
5.4.1 Data Collection Activities
The process evaluation of the Clean Buildings Program included the following data collection activities:
■ Avista Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed one staff member at Avista involved
in the administration of the Clean Buildings Program.This interview collected information from
program staff about program design, administration, marketing, and stakeholders.
5.4.2 Staff Interviews
The Evaluators summarize the findings from the Clean Buildings Program staff in-depth interviews in this
section.
5.4.2.1 Program Design
The Clean Building Accelerator(CBA) program consists of an initial orientation session, monthly 2-2.5-
hour workshops for four months, a virtual energy scan, monthly 30-min coaching calls, an ENERGY STAR
portfolio manager training, and three 2-hour workshops for recent graduates to discuss results and best
practices.The program targets commercial building owners in Washington impacted by the HB1257
Clean Building Law and provides them assistance with meeting the law's requirements.
5.4.2.2 Program Administration
The CBA program is implemented by a third-party implementer, Stillwater Energy. Stillwater is
responsible for the overall administration and day-to-day communication of the program. Participants
receive the various coaching services for free and benefit from specific suggestions tailored to meet
their buildings' needs and capabilities.
Process Evaluation Report 112

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
As of the 2023 interview, one cohort had completed its entire progression through the program, one
cohort was midway through the program, and one cohort (cohort number three) was preparing to
begin. Each cohort has about six to seven customers. In addition to preparing customers to become
compliant with the Clean Building law, program implementers refer customers to Avista's commercial
rebate programs if customers need new appliances and/or lighting measures.
5.4.2.3 Marketing and Outreach
Staff market the program through the Avista website and commercial account managers. When
recruiting participants, staff prioritize duel-fuel buildings. Staff noted that program recruitment proved
challenging, and they have to reduce cohort size goals.
5.4.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
There are no process evaluation related conclusions nor recommendations for the Clean Buildings
program.
5.5 NON-RESIDENTIAL NON-PARTICIPANTS
5.5.1 Data Collection Activities
The Evaluators surveyed non-residential customers who did not participate in Avista's energy efficiency
programs to gather feedback on customer knowledge of Avista Programs and their company's energy
efficient behaviors.
5.5.2 Non-Participant Survey Results
Tracking data included 1,278 customers with an email address. Customers were contacted via email up
to three times and invited to complete the survey. One hundred and forty participants responded to the
survey.
5.5.2.1 Respondent Behavior
Most of the respondents had the authority to make improvements to their building(s) (62.5%, n=35).
Almost half of respondents did not replace or upgrade electrical appliances in the last three years
(48.2%, n=27).Among the 24 respondents who did replace and/or upgrade equipment in the last three
years, lighting(29.6%, n=16) and HVAC equipment (22.2%, n=12) were the most common (Figure 5-20).
None of these respondents were aware of Avista's incentives programs.
Process Evaluation Report 113

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 5-20: Upgraded equipment(n=24)
Lighting 29.6%
HVAC equipment 22.2%
A/C tune-up 11.1%
Kitchen equipment
Other 5.6%
Lighting controls 5.6%
Advanced power strips 3.7%
Low flow showerheads 3.7%
Low flow faucet aerators 3.7%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
More than a quarter of respondents explained that they did not take advantage of Avista's incentives
because they did not have information about the offerings (26.7%, n=24). About half of all respondents
(53.6%, n=30)were aware of Avista's non-residential focused incentive programs.These respondents
predominantly learned about programs directly from Avista through emails (18.2%, n=10), mail (16.4%,
n=9), and messages on bills (14.6%, n=8) (Figure 5-21).
Figure 5-21:Program Awareness(n=30)
Email from Avista 18.2%
Mail from Avista 16.4%
Utility bill message 14.6%
Word of mouth 10.9%
Contractor 10.9%
Avista website 9.1%
Avista program staff 5.5%
Other 3.6%
Social media 3.6%
Print advertisement 3.6%
A retailer 1.8%
Radio advertisement 1.8%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
Respondents were most aware of lighting incentives (31.5%, n=17), equipment replacement incentives
(27.8%, n=15), and HVAC incentives (25.9%, n=14). Almost a quarter of respondents were interested in
energy-efficient upgrades (23.2%, n=13); of these respondents, most were interested in weatherization
(69.2%, n=9) and lighting equipment(61.%%, n=8) (Figure 5-22).
Process Evaluation Report 114

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 5-22:Interest by Category(n=13)
Weatherization 69.2%
Lighting equipmnent 61.5%
ENERGY STAR appliances 46.2%
Smart thermostats 46.2%
Water heater 46.2%
HVAC equipment 38.5%
Energy assessment 30.8%
Low flow water fixtures 23.1%
Commercial kitchen equipment 15.4%
EV's 7.7%
Don't know 0.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
All but two respondents (9.1%) indicated they were at least somewhat interested in Avista's incentive
programs (9.1%, n=2) (Figure 5-23).
Figure 5-23:Participation interest(n=22)
9.1% 18.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■Not at all interested ■Slightly interested ■Somewhat interested
■Moderately interested■Very interested
5.5.2.2 Equipment Status
More than half of the respondents indicated that their HVAC equipment was the largest energy
consumer at their facility(57.1%, n=32). Almost three-quarters of respondents had air-conditioning at
their facilities (71.4%, n=40). Most of the air-conditioned facilities relied on central A/C(63.6%, n=28)
and a third of these systems were less than 10 years old (36.0%, n=18). More than half of the
respondents noted that their facilities had a gas furnace (55.0%, n=33), and a tenth used electrical
resistance heating(11.7%, n=7).The age of the heating systems varied greatly(Figure 5-24) and half of
these systems had been serviced in the last year(50.0%, n=28).
Process Evaluation Report 115

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Figure 5-24:Heating equipment age(n=42)
10 to 20 years old 31.0%
Less than 10 years old 31.0%
More than 20 years old 26.2%
Don't know ' 11.9%
0% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Half of the respondents used programmable thermostats (51.0%, n=29) for temperature control, while a
quarter used manual thermostats (25.0%, n=14). Half of the respondents indicated they had LED lights
at their facilities (51.8%, n=29) and
Almost all respondents receive electricity from Avista (92.8%, n=52) two-thirds receive natural gas
(66.0%, n=37).
5.5.2.3 Firmographics
Table 5-12 includes firmographic characteristics of survey respondents.
Table 5-12:Demographics(n=56, unless otherwise indicated)
Ownership status
Own and occupy 66.1% 37
Rent 21.4% 12
Own and rent to someone else 12.5% 7
Facility description
Your company's only location 63.2% 12
One of several locations owned by your company 26.3% 5
1 don't know 10.5% 2
Utility bill
We are billed directly by Avista 100.0% 56
Not billed directly by Avista 0.0% 0
Building type
Retail 12.5% 7
Religious worship 12.5% 7
Industrial/manufacturing 10.7% 6
Small office 10.7% 6
Health clinic 8.9% 5
Lodging 7.1% 4
Large office 5.4% 3
Government building 3.6% 2
Restaurant(sit down) 3.6% 2
Process Evaluation Report 116

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Assembly hall/gathering space 3.6% 2
Agricultural 1.8% 1
Warehouse or distribution center 1.8% 1
Vacant lot 1.8% 1
Other 8.9% 5
1 don't know 5.4% 3
Prefer not to answer 1.8% 1
5.5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on data collected via non-participant surveys, the Evaluators provide the following conclusions
and recommendations for improvement moving forward.
5.5.3.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions represent key findings from the residential non-participant survey:
1. Program Awareness—About half of all respondents (53.6%, n=30) were aware of Avista's non-
residential focused incentive programs, however a quarter of respondents explained that they
did not take advantage of Avista's incentives because they did not have enough information
about the offerings (26.7%, n=24).
2. Energy efficiency familiarity—Almost half of respondents did not replace or upgrade electrical
appliances in the last three years (48.2%, n=27). Among the 24 respondents who did replace
and/or upgrade equipment in the last three years, lighting (29.6%, n=16) and HVAC equipment
(22.2%, n=12)were the most common.
3. Interest in Avista programming--All but two respondents indicated they were at least
somewhat interested in Avista's incentive programs.
5.5.3.2 Recommendations
Based on the above conclusions,the Evaluators suggest the following recommendations for non-
residential programs moving forward.
1. Increase program marketing—Many of the non-participant respondents did not know Avista
offered rebates and incentives for energy efficient equipment nor did they feel they had enough
information about the offerings to make informed decisions for improving the energy efficiency
of their facility. Staff should consider increasing marketing efforts to better promote the
programs and reach a larger audience for non-residential program participation.
6 APPENDIX
In this appendix,the Evaluators provide the survey and interview guide instruments deployed during
this process evaluation.
6.1 SURVEYS
6.1.1 Residential Participant Survey
Avista-Residential Participant Survey (STANDARD)
Process Evaluation Report 117

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Start of Block:Screener
Q194 Welcome! Thank you for taking this survey to tell us about your experience with Avista's
residential energy efficiency programs! Your feedback is very important to us and will help us improve
programs for customers like you. This survey should take about 15 minutes. Your responses are
confidential and will be used for research purposes only. If you have questions about how we treat
collected data, please see ADM's privacy policy at https://www.admenergy.com/privacy.
Upon completion of the survey we will collect your email address to send a $20 electronic gift card as a
token of our thanks.
Q1 To start off this survey, we will ask you about your participation in the program.
Program records indicate that you received a rebate through Avista's Residential Energy Efficiency
Program at${e://Field/ADDRESS}in 2022 or 2023. Is that correct?
Yes (1)
I participated BUT my address is incorrect(Please provide correct address.) (2)
No, I did not participate (3)
Skip To:End of Block If To start off this survey, we will ask you about your participation in the program. Program
record... . . not participate
End of Block:Screener
Start of Block: Program Participation
Process Evaluation Report 118

Avista Process Evaluation -•• PY2022-PY2023
If HVAC TYPE1 Is Not Empty
Or HVAC TYPE2 Is Not Empty
Or DRYER>0
Or WASHER>0
Or RFC>0
Or FREEZER>0
Or WH TYPE1 Is Not Empty
Or WH TYPE21s Not Empty
Or TSTAT>0
Or HP>0
Or ES DOORS>0
Process Evaluation -•• •

Avista Process Evaluation -•• PY2022-PY2023
Q2 Please confirm • -•
(If you ore unsure if the measure was installed, pleose select the "No"option.)
Display This Choice:
If HVAC TYPE1 Is Not Empty
Display This Choice:
If HVAC TYPE21s Not Empty
Display This Choice:
If DRYER>0
Display This Choice:
If WASHER>0
Display This Choice:
If RFC>0
Display This Choice:
If FREEZER>0
Display This Choice:
If WH TYPE1 Is Not Empty
Display This Choice:
If WH TYPE21s Not Empty
Display This Choice:
If TSTAT>0
Display This Choice:
IfHP>0
Display This Choice:
If ES DOORS>0
Process Evaluati• -•• 120

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Yes (1) No(2)
Display
If HVAC TYPE1 Is Not Empty 0
${e://Field/HVAC_TYPE1)(1)
Display
If HVAC TYPE2 Is Not Empty 0 0
${e://Field/HVAC_TYPE2)(2)
Display
0 0
Clothes Dryer(3)
Display
If WASHER>0 0 0
Clothes Washer(4)
Display
0 0
Refrigerator-Freezer Combo (S)
Display
If FREEZER>0 0 0
Stand-Alone Freezer(6)
Display
0 0
$(e://Field/WH_TYPE1)(7)
Display
If WH TYPE2 Is Not Empty 0
${e://Field/WH_TYPE2)(8)
Display
0
Smart Thermostat (9)
Process Evaluation Report 121

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display
Heat Pump (10)
Display
E5�_DOORS> i
Energy Star doors (11)
DisplayQuestion:
Or
•
Or
Or
Or
Or
OrAB1>0
13
Process Evaluation Report 122

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q3 According to program records you also received the following improvements. Can you confirm that
this is correct?
i
Process Evaluation Report 123

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Yes (1) No (2)
Display
O O
Air Infiltration (1)
Display
O O
Ceiling Insulation (2)
Display
O O
Attic Insulation (3)
Display
O O
Wall Insulation (4)
Display
O O
Floor Insulation (5)
Display
O O
Weather Stripping (6)
Display
O O
Window Replacement (7)
VispTay
O O
Aerobarrier Insulation (8)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Process Evaluation Report 124

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
Carry Forward Selected Choicesfirom "According to program records you also received thefollowing improvements.
Can you confirm that this is correct?"
If According to program records you also received the following improvements. Can you confirm that t...[Yes]
Process Evaluation Report 125

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q4 Did you plan to install the following measures before you learned about the assistance offered
through Avista's Residential Energy Efficiency Program?
i
Process Evaluation Report 126

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Yes (1) No (2) 1 don't know(98)
Display
Air Infiltration (x1)
Display
O
Ceiling Insulation (x2)
Display
O O
Attic Insulation (x3)
Display
O O
Wall Insulation (x4)
Display
O O O
Floor Insulation (x5)
Display
O O O
Weather Stripping (x6)
Display
If WR>0
Window Replacement
(x7)
Display
Aerobarrier Insulation
(x8)
End of Block: Program Participation
Start of Block: Program Awareness
Process Evaluation Report 127

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q5 In this section we will ask you questions about your awareness of the program.
Process Evaluation Report 128

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
How did you learn about Avista's Residential Energy Efficiency Program?
(Please select all that apply.)
U Mailed information from Avista (1)
OEmail from Avista (2)
ONewspaper or magazine article or advertisement (3)
OContractor (4)
OCommunity Action Program (CAP Agency) (5)
OTribal Housing Authority (6)
OFood Bank (7)
OEnergy fair or other community events (8)
Word of mouth from a personal contact(e.g.,family member,friend, neighbor,
colleague, etc.) (9)
ORadio advertisement (10)
OUtility bill message (11)
OUtility website (12)
OAnother website (13)
OSocial media(i.e., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tik Tok, etc.) (14)
Process Evaluation Report 129

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
OAvista program staff (15)
OInformation at a retailer (16)
Other, please specify (96)
Q6 How much did each of the following contribute to your decision to purchase/install the energy
efficient equipment you received the program?
Not at all A moderate A great deal Not
(1) A little (2) amount (3) A lot (4) (5) applicable
(97)
Reducing
your
monthly
utility bill (1)
Helping the
environment
(2)
Other
benefits,
please
specify (3)
Process Evaluation Report 130

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q7 When thinking about purchasing/installing the energy efficient equipment you received through the
program, what sources of information were important in your decision making?
(Please select all that apply.)
U Contractor recommendation (1)
DUtility recommendation or information (2)
ORecommendation from a personal contact(e.g.,family member,friend, neighbor,
colleague, etc.) (3)
U Other, please specify (4)
O ®None of the above (5)
O ®I don't know (6)
M1 •
If•:
Or
Process Evaluation Report 131

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q8 How important was the Avista rebate in your decision to purchase/install the energy efficient
equipment you received through the program?
Not at all important (1)
Somewhat important (2)
Moderately important (3)
Very important (4)
0 Extremely important (S)
Display This •
Q9 What is your level of awareness about Avista's home audit/assessment program, an in-home energy
evaluation that identify recommendations to improve the home's overall energy efficiency, comfort, and
health??
I have never heard of it before now (1)
0 1 have heard of it but don't know anything about it (2)
0 1 know a little about it (3)
1 know a lot about it (4)
Process Evaluation Report 132

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q118 What is your level of awareness about Avista's Energy Efficiency Financing program that allows
you to access zero down, low-interest energy efficiency project financing by repaying loan amount
added on your Avista's monthly bill?
J 1 have never heard of it before now (1)
I have heard of it but don't know anything about it (2)
1 know a little about it (3)
1 know a lot about it (4)
End of Block: Program Awareness
Start of Block: Home Energy Audit(HEA) Pilot
M
Q119 Were you planning on having a home energy audit BEFORE you learned about the program?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 133

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q120 What were the most important reasons why you decided to get a Home Energy Audit?
OTo learn more about how I use energy in my home (1)
OTo learn how I can reduce my energy costs (2)
OTo get free light bulbs/LEDs installed (3)
OTo get free water-saving equipment installed (4)
OTo improve home comfort (5)
OTo improve the air quality in my home (or other health reason) (6)
OTo learn how I can increase the value of my home (7)
OTo help the environment (8)
OTo learn how to become as energy efficient as my friends/neighbors (9)
OContractor recommended it (10)
OI had one on a previous home (11)
OOther (please specify) (96)
O ®Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 134

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 135

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q121 How helpful did you find the recommendations and other information you received as a result of
the Home Energy Audit?
Not at all helpful (1)
O Slightly helpful (2)
O Somewhat helpful (3)
Moderately helpful (4)
Extremely helpful (5)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 136

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If How helpful. . you find the recommendationsother information you received as a result of th... =Not
,at all helpful
Q122 Why was that audit not helpful to you?
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 137

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q123 Since the home energy audit, would you say you have made all of the recommended energy
efficiency improvements, made some of them, or not made any?
Made all (1)
O Made some but not all (2)
O Have not made any (3)
Don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 138

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
If Since the home energy audit, would you say you have made a//of the recommended energy efficiency...
Made some but not a//
Or Since the home energy audit, would you say you have made
Have not made any
C
Process Evaluation Report 139

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q124 What are the main reasons you have not made those recommended improvements? Select all
that apply.
U Cost (1)
ODo not have time (2)
OWaiting for current equipment to fail (3)
ONeed help/Don't know how (4)
ODo not feel they need to be done (5)
ORecommended improvements will not save energy (6)
ODo not own the property (7)
ONeed more information (8)
OStill planning to make improvements in the future (9)
OOther (please specify) (96)
O ®Don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 140

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q150 Are you interested in making additional energy efficiency improvements?
0 Yes (1)
0 No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 141

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
If Are you interested in g additional energy efficiency improvements?
Process Evaluation Report 142

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q151 What additional improvements are you most interested in?Select all that apply
U Lighting (1)
OSpace heating equipment (2)
OA/C tune-up (3)
OSmart thermostats (4)
OLow-flow faucet aerators (5)
OLow-flow showerheads (6)
OWater heating equipment (7)
OAdvanced power strips (8)
OEfficient refrigerator (9)
OEfficient induction stove (10)
DWall insulation,floor insulation, attic insulation (11)
OEfficient windows/doors (12)
OEnergy efficient washer/dryer (13)
OOther—please specify (96)
Process Evaluation Report 143

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 144

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question:
-MUMV877MI
Q1 Program records indicate the auditor installed ${e://Field/LED_QTY} LED light bulbs. Is that correct?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't Know (98)
Display •
If Program rec. . . r auditor inst. . $(e.11Fie1d1LEQ_QTYj LED light
Q2 How many LED light bulbs did you receive?
Display •
If Program rec. . . r auditor inst. . $(e.11Fie1d1LEQ_QTYj LED light
Or Or How . I light bulbs . . you receive?Text ResponseGreater
M
Q3 Are all the LED light bulbs you received currently in use and working properly?
0 Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 145

ProcessAvista • -•• PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question:
Q4 How many of the LED light bulbs are currently installed?
If Are all the LED light bulbs you received currently in use and working properly?=No
And Program records indicate the auditor installed${e://Field/LED QTY}LED light bulbs. Is that corn.. =Yes
Display This Question:
If If How many LED light bulbs did you receive? Text Response Is Greater Than 0
And Are all the LED light bulbs you received currently in use and working properly?=No
Q5 Howof •se$IQ2/ChoiceTextEntryValuel LED light bulbs are currently installed?
Display This Question:
If Are all the LED light bulbs you received currently in use and working properly?=No
Process Evaluation -•. 146

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q6 Why aren't all the LED light bulbs still in use?
U Burnt out (1)
OToo bright (2)
ONot bright enough (3)
OOther (Please specify) (96)
O ®Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 147

ProcessAvista • -•• PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question:
Q11 Program records indicate you received $fe://Field/SHOWER_QTYI showerhead(s). Is that correct?
If SHOWER QTY>0
D• • •:
Display This Question:
Q12 How many low flow showerhead(s) did you receive?
Q13 How many of the$fe://Field/SHOWER_QTYI low flow showerhead(s) are currently installed?
If Program records indicate you received${e://Field/SHOWER QTV}showerhead(s}. Is that correct?=No
Display This Question:
If Program records indicate you received${e://Field/SHOWER QTY}showerhead(s}. Is that correct?=Yes
Display This Question:
If If How many low flow showerhead(s}did you receive? Text Response Is Greater Than 0
Process . -•. 148

Avista Process Evaluation -•• PY2022-PY2023
Q14 How many of the$fQ12/ChoiceTextEntryValuej low flow showerhead(s) are currently installed?
Display This Question:
Q191 Why aren't all showerhead(s) still installed?Select all that apply
Li
If If How many of the${e://Field/SHOWER_QTV}low flow showerhead(s}are currently installed?Text
Response Is Not Equal to ${e://Field/SHOWERHEAD_QTV}
Or If
If How many of the${q://QID1214783894/ChoiceTextEntryValue}low flow showerhead(s)are currently in...
Text Response Is Not Equal to ${q://QID1214783894/ChoiceTextEntryValue}
And And How many of the${q://QID1214783894/ChoiceTextEntryValue}low flow showerhead(s)are currently
in... Text Response Is Not Empty
Not enoughpressure (1)
• Was not • properly (4)
0 -• my • • • better■ •ther—please explain

ProcessAvista • -•• PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question:
Q15 Records indicate you received $fe://Field/AERATOR_QTYI faucet aerators(s). Is that correct?
If AERATOR QTY>0
D• • •:
Display This Question:
Q16 How many faucet aerator(s) did you receive through the program?
Q17 How many of the$fe://Field/AERATOR_QTYI faucet aerator(s) are currently installed?
If Records indicate you received${e://Field/AERATOR QTV}faucet aerators(sJ. Is that correct?=No
Display This Question:
If Records indicate you received${e://Field/AERATOR QTY}faucet aerators(sJ. Is that correct?=Yes
Display This Question:
If If How many faucet aerators}did you receive through the program?Text Response Is Greater Than 0
Process Evaluati• -•• 150

Avista Process Evaluation -•• PY2022-PY2023
Q18 How • • • • -•
Display This Question:
Q189 Why aren't the aerator(s) still installed?Select all that apply
Li
If If How many of the${e://Field/AERATOR QTY}faucet aerators}are currently installed?Text Response Is
Not Equal to ${e://Field/AERATOR QTY}
Or If
If How many of the${q://QID1214783898/ChoiceTextEntryValue}faucet aerators}are currently installed?
Text Response Is Not Equal to ${q://QID1214783898/ChoiceTextEntryValue}
And And How many of the${q://QID1214783898/ChoiceTextEntryValue}faucet aerators}are currently
installed?Text Response Is Not Empty
Not enoughpressure (1)
• Was not • properly (4)
0 -• my • • • better■ •ther—please explain
Page Break
Process Evaluati• Report 151

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 152

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q128 Have you participated in in any other residential programs through Avista since your home energy
assessment?
0 ®1 have not participated in other residential programs through Avista (1)
OWater Heater program (2)
OHVAC program (3)
OShell program (4)
OFuel Efficiency Progtam (5)
OENERGY STAR Homes Program (6)
OIncome Qualified Program (7)
OSmall Home & Multifamily Weatherization Program (8)
OAppliance Program (9)
OMultifamily Direct Install Program (10)
OAlways on Home Energy Report Program (11)
OOn Bill Repayment Program (12)
OOther (please specify) (96)
Process Evaluation Report 153

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 154

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If Have you participated programs
have not participated programs
M
Q129 How influential were the recommendations you received from the Home Energy Audit for you to
decide to participate in that program?
0 Not at all influential (1)
0 Slightly influential (2)
Somewhat influential (3)
Very influential (4)
Extremely influential (5)
0 Not sure (98)
Process Evaluation Report 155

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q130 Do you have any suggestions about how Avista can improve the Home Energy Audit?
End of Block: Home Energy Audit(HEA) Pilot
Start of Block: On-Bill Repayment(OBR) Pilot
M
Q132 Program records indicate your home at${e://Field/ADDRESS)is enrolled in Avista's On Bill
Repayment Program. Is this correct?
0 Yes (1)
0 No (2)
1 don't know (3)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 156

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
If Program records indicate your home at$fe.-IlFieldIADDRESS]is enrolled in Avista's On Bill Repaym... =Yes
Process Evaluation Report 157

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q131 How did you first learn about the On Bill Repayment Program?Select all that apply
UContractor (1)
OProgram representative (4)
OAvista's website (5)
OCustomer engagement portal (6)
OWord-of-mouth (7)
OBill inserts or utility mailer (8)
OEmail from Avista (9)
OSocial media (10)
DInternet ad (11)
ORadio or TV ad (12)
OPrint advertisement (13)
ORetailer (14)
OOther—please specify (15)
O ®I don't know (16)
Process Evaluation Report 158

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 159

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question:
-,If Program records indicate your home at$fe.-IlFieldIADDRESS]is enrolled in Avista's On Bill Repaym... =Yes M
Q133 Using a scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means "very difficult" and 5 means "very easy", how would
you rate the process of enrolling in the On Bill Repayment program?
1—Very difficult (1)
2 (2)
0 3 (3)
0 4 (4)
5—Very easy (5)
1 don't know (6)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 160

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
If . . scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means "very difficult"and 5 means "very easy",how would y... =1—
Very difficult
Or Using . scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means "very difficult"and 5 means"very easy", how would y... =2
Q134 Why was the enrollment process difficult?
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 161

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display •
If Program rec. . , rte your home . . I I' enrolled in Avista'sOn Bill Repaym...
Q135 Using a scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means "Not at all satisfied" and 5 means "Very satisfied",
how satisfied were you with the range of equipment that qualifies for financing?
1 - Not at all satisfied (1)
2 (2)
3 (3)
4 (4)
0 5 -Very satisfied (5)
0 1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 162

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display •
If Program rec. . , rte your home . . I I' enrolled in Avista'sOn Bill Repaym...
Q136 If the program financing was not available, how likely would you have been to purchase and install
$1e://Field/013R_MEASURE)?
Not at all likely (1)
Somewhat unlikely (2)
Somewhat likely (3)
Very likely (4)
0 1 don't know (5)
Process Evaluation Report 163

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display •
If Program rec. . , rte your home . . I I' enrolled in Avista'sOn Bill Repaym...
Q137 With the availability of the financing options, did you purchase and install
${e://Field/OBR_MEASURE}sooner than you would have if the program was not available?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (3)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 164

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
availabilityIf With the financing options, . . you purchase and install... =Yes
Q138 When would you have otherwise purchased and install $(e://Field/OBR_MEASURE)?
Within 6 months (1)
7 months to 1 year (2)
More than 1 year up to 2 years (3)
More than 2 years up to 3 years (4)
0 More than 3 years up to 5 years (5)
0 More than 5 years (6)
1 don't know (7)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 165

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
#isplay •
Program rec. . . .te your home .t$fe.-IlFieldIADDRESSIenrolled in Avisto'sOn e..
Q140 Have you participated in in any other residential programs through Avista since your enrollment in
the On Bill Repayment program?
J Yes (please specify which program): (1)
O No (2)
Process Evaluation Report 166

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If Have you participated programs
(please specify which . .. .
Q139 How influential was the On Bill Repayment program in your decision to participate in that other
program or programs?
0 Not at all influential (1)
0 Slightly influential (2)
Somewhat influential (3)
Very influential (4)
Extremely influential (5)
0 Not sure (6)
Process Evaluation Report 167

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display •
If Program rec. . , rte your home . . I I' enrolled in Avista'sOn Bill Repaym...
Q141 Do you have any suggestions about how Avista can improve the On Bill Repayment program?
End of Block: On-Bill Repayment (OBR) Pilot
Start of Block:Always On Home Energy Report
M
Q142 In the past six months, do you remember receiving an email alert from Avista about your always
on energy use? "Always on" energy use refers to the energy used by appliances while they are plugged
in, but turned off.
Yes (1)
No (2)
I don't know/I am not sure (98)
Display •
If In the past six months, do you remember receiving an email olertfrom Avista about your always on... =Yes
Process Evaluation Report 168

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q143 In general, what do you do when you receive an always on email alert?
Read them thoroughly and continue onto the website for more information (1)
Skim some of the content (2)
Glance at the pictures, graphs, or headlines (3)
I do not look at the alert at all (4)
Display •
If In general, what.. you .. thoroughlyand
continue onto the website for more information
Or In general, what.. you .. when you receive an always on email alert?=Skim some of the content
Or In general, what.. you .. graphs,
headlines
Process Evaluation Report 169

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q144 After reviewing your always on alert, which of the following do you do?Select all that apply.
UDiscuss one or more emails with others (1)
OSave one or more emails for reference (2)
OStarted unplugging appliances when they are not in use (3)
OInstalled advanced power strips (4)
OVisited Avista's website to learn more about your always on load" (5)
OOther (please specify) (6)
O ®None of the above (7)
Display •
If After reviewing your always on alert, which of the . ..you .. apply.
Avista's website to learn more about your always on load"
Process Evaluation Report 170

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q145 How helpful were the tips and information on Avista's website to help you identify and evaluate
your always on load?
Not at all helpful (1)
Slightly helpful (2)
Somewhat helpful (3)
Moderately helpful (4)
0 Very helpful (9)
Q146 What other types of electric consumption would you be interested in learning more about and
reducing? Please select all that apply.
OWater Heating (1)
OSpace Heating (2)
OSpace Cooling (3)
OLighting (4)
OLaundry (5)
OCooking (6)
O ®None of the above (7)
Process Evaluation Report 171

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 172

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q147 Would you prefer to receive
More frequent updates about specific energy use in your home (1)
0 Less frequent updates about specific energy use in your home (4)
0 About the same number of updates about specific energy use in your home (5)
Process Evaluation Report 173

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q148 How would you suggest Avista improve efforts to help you save energy?
OShare more personalized information about your energy use (1)
OProvide larger financial incentives (2)
OProvide financial incentives for additional products (3)
OOther (please specify) (4)
O ®I don't know (5)
Q149 Since enrolling in the On Bill Repayment program have you noticed any changes in your utility bill
from Avista?
Yes, it decreased (1)
Yes, it increased (2)
No change (3)
I don't know (4)
End of Block:Always On Home Energy Report
Start of Block: HVAC
Q10 In this section we will ask you about the HVAC equipment you installed.
Process Evaluation Report 174

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Why did you select the model/type for your HVAC replacement?
(Please select all that apply.)
U It was a good price (1)
OThere was a rebate for it (2)
OIt costs less to operate it (3)
OIt's good for the environment (4)
OIt was all that was available/only choice (5)
OThe contractor/retailer recommended it (6)
OIt had features I wanted (7)
OIt was the right size, color (8)
OWanted that brand (9)
OIt had an ENERGY STAR label (10)
OOther, please specify (11)
Q11 How old was your previous HVAC system at the time you installed the $(e://F1ield/HVAC_TYPE1}?
(Your best estimate is fine.)
Process Evaluation Report 175

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q12 What type of fuel did your old HVAC system use before installing the ${e://Field/HVAC_TYPE1}?
Natural Gas (1)
Electricity (2)
Wood (3)
Oil (4)
0 Other, please specify (5)
0 1 don't know (98)
Q13 Did the old, replaced HVAC system still work at the time you replaced it?
0 Yes (1)
0 No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 176

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q14 What type of fuel does your new${e://Field/HVAC_TYPE1}use?
Natural Gas (1)
Electricity (2)
Wood (3)
Oil (4)
0 Other, please specify (5)
0 1 don't know (98)
Q15 Is the new${e://Field/HVAC_TYPE1}that you received a rebate for currently installed and
working?
Yes (1)
No, it is installed BUT not working(Please explain what is wrong to the best of your knowledge)
(2)
No, it is not installed BUT it is working(Please explain why it is not installed) (3)
No, it is not installed AND not working (Please explain) (4)
1 don't know (98)
End of Block: HVAC
Start of Block: 2nd HVAC
Process Evaluation Report 177

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q16 In this section we will ask you about the second HVAC equipment you installed, which according to
program records is a ${e://Field/HVAC_TYPE2}.
Why did you select the model/type for your HVAC replacement?
(Please select all that apply.)
U It was a good price (1)
OThere was a rebate for it (2)
OIt costs less to operate it (3)
OIt's good for the environment (4)
OIt was all that was available/only choice (S)
OThe contractor/retailer recommended it (6)
OIt had features I wanted (7)
OIt was the right size, color (8)
OWanted that brand (9)
OIt had an ENERGY STAR label (10)
OOther, please specify (11)
Process Evaluation Report 178

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q17 How old was your previous HVAC system at the time you installed the ${e://Field/HVAC_TYPE2}?
(Your best estimate is fine.)
Q18 What type of fuel did your old HVAC system use before installing the ${e://Field/HVAC_TYPE2}?
Natural Gas (1)
O Electricity (2)
O Wood (3)
O Oil (4)
Other, please specify (5)
1 don't know (98)
Q19 Did the old, replaced HVAC equipment still work at the time you replaced it?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 179

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q20 What type of fuel does your new${e://Field/HVAC_TYPE2)use?
Natural Gas (1)
Electricity (2)
Wood (3)
Oil (4)
O Other, please specify (5)
O 1 don't know (98)
Q21 Is the new${e://Field/HVAC_TYPE2)that you received a rebate for currently installed and
working?
Yes (1)
No, it is installed BUT not working(Please explain what is wrong to the best of your knowledge)
(2)
No, it is not installed BUT it is working(Please explain why it is not installed) (3)
No, it is not installed AND not working (Please explain) (4)
1 don't know (98)
End of Block: 2nd HVAC
Start of Block: Clothes Dryer
Process Evaluation Report 180

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q22 In this section we will ask you about the clothes dryer you installed.
What type of clothes dryer did you have before installing your new ENERGY STAR-rated clothes dryer?
Standard efficiency clothes dryer (1)
O ENERGY STAR rated clothes dryer (2)
O A different clothes dryer (3)
1 did not have a clothes dryer (4)
1 don't know (98)
Display This •
If In this section we will ask you ... Standard
efficiency clothes dryer
Or In this section we will ask you about
STAR rated clothes dryer
Or In this section we will ask you about
different clothes dryer
Q23 Did the old, replaced clothes dryer still work at the time you replaced it?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 181

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If In this section we will ask you ... Standard
efficiency clothes dryer
Or In this section we will ask you about
STAR rated clothes dryer
Or In this section we will ask you about
different clothes dryer
00
Q24 How old was your old, replaced clothes dryer at the time you installed the ENERGY STAR-rated
clothes dryer?
(Your best estimate is fine.)
Q25 Is the new ENERGY STAR-rated clothes dryer that you received a rebate for currently installed and
working?
Yes (1)
No, it is installed BUT not working(Please explain what is wrong to the best of your knowledge)
(2)
No, it is not installed BUT it is working(Please explain why it is not installed) (3)
No, it is not installed AND not working (Please explain) (4)
0 1 don't know (5)
End of Block: Clothes Dryer
Start of Block:Clothes Washer
r
Process Evaluation Report 182

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q26 In this section we will ask you about the clothes washer you installed.
What type of clothes washer did you have before installing your new ENERGY STAR-rated clothes
washer?
0 Standard efficiency clothes washer (1)
ENERGY STAR rated clothes washer (2)
A different clothes washer (3)
1 did not have a clothes washer (4)
1 don't know (98)
Display •
aboutIf In this section we will ask you
Standard efficiency clothes washer
Or In this section we will ask you about
ENERGY STAR rated clothes washer
Or In this section we will ask you about
different clothes washer
Q27 Did the old, replaced clothes washer still work at the time you replaced it?
Yes (1)
No (2)
0 1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 183

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
aboutIf In this section we will ask you
,Standard efficiency clothes washer
Or In this section we will ask you about
ENERGY • rated clothes
Or In this section we will ask you about
different clothes washer
00
Q28 How old was your old, replaced clothes washer at the time you installed the ENERGY STAR-rated
clothes washer?
(Your best estimate is fine.)
Q29 Is the new ENERGY STAR-rated clothes washer that you received a rebate for currently installed and
working?
Yes (1)
No, it is installed BUT not working(Please explain what is wrong to the best of your knowledge)
(2)
No, it is not installed BUT it is working(Please explain why it is not installed) (3)
No, it is not installed AND not working (Please explain) (4)
0 1 don't know (98)
End of Block: Clothes Washer
Start of Block: Refrigerator-Freezer combo
r
Process Evaluation Report 184

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q30 In this section we will ask you about the refrigerator-freezer you installed.
What was the purpose of the new ENERGY STAR-rated refrigerator-freezer that you purchased?
0 A replacement for existing equipment in your home (1)
A new purchase, because you did not have a refrigerator and/or freezer in your home (2)
A purchase of an additional refrigerator-freezer for your home (3)
Display This •
If In this section we will ask you about the refrigerator-freezer ..
replacementfor existing equipment in your home
Q31 What type of refrigerator-freezer did your new ENERGY STAR rated refrigerator-freezer replace?
Standard efficiency refrigerator-freezer (1)
ENERGY STAR rated refrigerator-freezer (2)
A stand-alone refrigerator only (3)
A stand-alone freezer only (4)
A different type of refrigerator-freezer (5)
Display •
If In this section we will ask you about the refrigerator-freezer ..
replacementfor existing equipment in your home
Process Evaluation Report 185

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q32 Did the old, replaced refrigerator-freezer still work at the time you replaced it?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Display Question:
If In this section we will ask you about the refrigerator-freezer ..
replacementfor existing equipment in your home
ORPq
Q33 How old was your old, replaced refrigerator-freezer at the time you installed the ENERGY STAR-
rated refrigerator-freezer?
(Your best estimate is fine.)
Process Evaluation Report 186

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q34 Is the new ENERGY STAR-rated refrigerator-freezer that you received a rebate for currently installed
and working?
Yes (1)
Yes (2)
No, it is installed BUT not working(Please explain what is wrong to the best of your knowledge)
(3)
No, it is not installed BUT it is working(Please explain why it is not installed) (4)
No, it is not installed AND not working (Please explain) (5)
0 1 don't know (98)
End of Block: Refrigerator-Freezer combo
Start of Block: Stand-alone Freezer
r
Q35 In this section we will ask you about the stand-alone freezer you installed.
What type of stand-alone freezer did you have before installing your new ENERGY STAR-rated stand-
alone freezer?
Standard efficiency freezer (1)
ENERGY STAR freezer (2)
0 A different type of freezer (3)
0 1 did not have a stand-alone freezer (4)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 187

Avista Process Evaluation -•• PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question:
If In this section we will ask you about the stand-alone freezer you installed. What type of stand-a... =Standard
efficiency freezer
Or In this section we will ask you about the stand-alone freezer you installed. What type of stand-a... _
ENERGY STAR freezer
Or In this section we will ask you about the stand-alone freezer you installed. What type of stand-a... =A
different type of freezer
Q36 1 • the • • replaced stand-alone freezer still work • -• -•
•
•• • •'
Display This Question:
Q37 How old was your old, replaced stand-alone freezer at the time you installed the ENERGY STAR-
If In this section we will ask you about the stand-alone freezer you installed. What type of stand-a... =Standard
efficiency freezer
Or In this section we will ask you about the stand-alone freezer you installed. What type of stand-a... _
ENERGY STAR freezer
Or In this section we will ask you about the stand-alone freezer you installed. What type of stand-a... =A
different type of freezer
-• stand-alone freezer?
(Your best
Process • -•• 188

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q38 Is the new ENERGY STAR-rated stand-alone freezer that you received a rebate for currently installed
and working?
Yes (1)
No, it is installed BUT not working(Please explain what is wrong to the best of your knowledge)
(2)
No, it is not installed BUT it is working(Please explain why it is not installed) (3)
No, it is not installed AND not working (Please explain) (4)
1 don't know (98)
End of Block:Stand-alone Freezer
Start of Block: Water Heater
Q39 In this section we will ask you about the water heater you installed.
Process Evaluation Report 189

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Why did you select the model/type for your water heater replacement?
(Please select all that apply.)
U It was a good price (1)
OThere was a rebate for it (2)
OIt costs less to operate it (3)
OIt's good for the environment (4)
OIt was all that was available/only choice (S)
OThe contractor/retailer recommended it (6)
OIt had features I wanted (7)
OIt was the right size, color (8)
OWanted that brand (9)
OIt had an ENERGY STAR label (10)
OOther, please specify (11)
Q40 How old was your old, replaced water heater at the time you installed the ${e://F1ield/WH_TYPE1)?
(Your best estimate is fine, please provide a numeric value.)
Process Evaluation Report 190

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q41 What type of fuel did your old water heater use before installing the$(e://Field/WH_TYPE1)?
Natural Gas (1)
Electricity (2)
Wood (3)
Oil (4)
0 Other, please specify (5)
0 1 don't know (98)
Q42 Did the old, replaced water heater still work at the time you replaced it?
0 Yes (1)
0 No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 191

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q43 What type of fuel does your new${e://Field/WH_TYPE1}use?
Natural Gas (1)
Electricity (2)
Wood (3)
Oil (4)
0 Other, please specify (5)
0 1 don't know (98)
Q44 Is the new${e://Field/WH_TYPE1}that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
Yes (1)
No, it is installed BUT not working(Please explain what is wrong to the best of your knowledge)
(2)
No, it is not installed BUT it is working(Please explain why it is not installed) (3)
No, it is not installed AND not working (Please explain) (4)
1 don't know (98)
End of Block:Water Heater
Start of Block: 2nd WH
Process Evaluation Report 192

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q45 In this section we will ask you about the second water heater you installed,which according to
program records is a ${e://Field/WH_TYPE21.
Why did you select the model/type for your water heater replacement?
(Please select all that apply.)
U It was a good price (1)
OThere was a rebate for it (2)
OIt costs less to operate it (3)
OIt's good for the environment (4)
OIt was all that was available/only choice (5)
OThe contractor/retailer recommended it (6)
OIt had features I wanted (7)
OIt was the right size, color (8)
OWanted that brand (9)
OIt had an ENERGY STAR label (10)
OOther, please specify (11)
Process Evaluation Report 193

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q46 How old was your old, replaced water heater at the time you installed the${e://Field/WH_TYPE2)?
(Your best estimate is fine.)
Q47 What type of fuel did your old water heater use before installing the${e://Field/WH_TYPE2)?
Natural Gas (1)
O Electricity (2)
O Wood (3)
Oil (4)
Other, please specify (5)
1 don't know (98)
Q48 Did the old, replaced water heater still work at the time you replaced it?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 194

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q49 What type of fuel does your new${e://Field/WH_TYPE2}use?
Natural Gas (1)
Electricity (2)
Wood (3)
Oil (4)
O Other, please specify (5)
O 1 don't know (98)
Q50 Is the new${e://Field/WH_TYPE2)that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
Yes (1)
No, it is installed BUT not working(Please explain what is wrong to the best of your knowledge)
(2)
No, it is not installed BUT it is working(Please explain why it is not installed) (3)
No, it is not installed AND not working (Please explain) (4)
1 don't know (98)
End of Block: 2nd WH
Start of Block:Smart Thermostat
M
Process Evaluation Report 195

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q51 In this section we will ask you about the smart thermostat you installed.
What type of thermostat did you have installed before installing a smart thermostat?
A programmable thermostat (not connected to Wi-Fi)that allows you to schedule the
temperature settings for different times of day (1)
A standard thermostat that lets you set on/off temperatures (2)
A different Wi-Fi smart thermostat (3)
Did not previously have a thermostat (4)
1 don't know (98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• . . •
If In this section we will ask you about the smart thermostat you installed. What type .
standard thermostat that lets you set onloff temperatures
M
Q52 You stated that the old thermostat was a standard thermostat that was not programmable. Did you
manually change the temperature higher or lower when leaving the home or retiring for the night?
Yes (1)
No (2)
O 1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 196

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q53 Who installed the smart thermostat that you received a rebate for?
Self- installed (1)
Contractor installed (2)
Other, please specify (3)
Q54 Is the smart thermostat connected to the internet?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 197

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q55 What brand of smart thermostat do you have?
Nest (1)
Ecobee (2)
Honeywell (3)
Lennox iComfort (4)
O Trane (5)
O Emerson (6)
Bryant (7)
Carrier (8)
Other, please specify (9)
1 don't know (98)
Q56 Thinking about the smart thermostat that you received a rebate for, did you program a schedule to
change the temperature setting at different times of day?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 198

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q57 Do you let the smart thermostat manage the temperature of your home automatically?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Q58 Which of the following best describes how often you make manual adjustments to the thermostat
settings?
Never (1)
Once to a few times a month (2)
Once to a few times a week (3)
Once a day or more (4)
O 1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 199

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q59 Do you have your thermostat set to run in `away' or `vacation mode' when you are not home?
Note your thermostat my refer to this feature by another name such as "home way assist," "smart away
mode,"or "smart away."
Yes (1)
V No (2)
1 am not aware of an "away mode" setting (3)
1 don't know (98)
- - - - - - - - -
Display This Question:
If D. 'vacationmode'
Process Evaluation Report 200

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q60 Why do you have "away mode" (or the similarly named featured on your smart thermostat)
disabled?
(Please select all that apply.)
U I want my home to keep a comfortable temperature while I am gone (1)
O1 am worried about privacy (2)
O1 have pets that need to stay comfortable (3)
O1 can't figure out how to set it up (4)
O1 have had problems with "away mode" (5)
l , "Away mode" requires a smart phone connection and there are other people in my
home who do not have phones connected to the thermostat (6)
aSomeone is normally home (7)
OOther, please specify (8)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• . . •
If•. 'vacation ..
Yes
Q61 What temperature is your"away" setting for heating during the colder months?
(Please provide a numeric value.)
Process Evaluation Report 201

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
•. 'vacation ..
Yes If
a
Q62 What temperature is your"away" setting for cooling during the warmer months?
(Please provide a numeric value.)
Display This •
If•. 'vacation .
Yes
Q63 How is your thermostat set up to detect if you are home?
Thermostat occupancy sensor (1)
0 Phone location (2)
0 Both occupancy sensor and phone location (3)
1 don't know (98)
Display This •
And Who installed the smart thermostat that you received a rebate for? Self-installed
Process Evaluation Report 202

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q64 Did you connect a C-wire to your thermostat when you installed it?
Yes (1)
Yes, but used an adapter kit (2)
No (3)
1 don't know (98)
Q65 Which of the following does the smart thermostat control
Central Air Conditioning Only (1)
Heating System Only (2)
0 Both central air conditioning and heating (3)
0 1 don't know (98)
DisplayQuestion:
If Which of thefollowing does the smart thermostat control=Heating System Only
Or g does the smart thermostat control=Both central air conditioning . . heating
IM
Process Evaluation Report 203

Avista Process Evaluation -•• PY2022-PY2023
Q66 What type of heating system does your smart thermostat control in your home?
Central heat pump
Electric baseboard
Gas furnace (4)
Electric furnace (3)
Propane
• does not • •
•• • •'
Display This Question:
If In this section we will ask you about the smart thermostat you installed. What type of thermostat... =A
programmable thermostat(not connected to Wi-FiJ that allows you to schedule the temperature settings for
Q67 Did your old, replaced thermostat still work at the time you replaced it?
different times of day
Or In this section we will ask you about the smart thermostat you installed. What type of thermostat... =A
standard thermostat that lets you set on/off temperatures
Or In this section we will ask you about the smart thermostat you installed. What type of thermostat... =A
different Wi-Fi smart thermostat
•• • •:

Avista Process Evaluation -•• PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question:
Q68 How old was your thermostat at the time you replaced it?
If In this section we will ask you about the smart thermostat you installed. What type of thermostat... =A
programmable thermostat(not connected to Wi-FiJ that allows you to schedule the temperature settings for
different times of day
Or In this section we will ask you about the smart thermostat you installed. What type of thermostat... =A
standard thermostat that lets you set on/off temperatures
Or In this section we will ask you about the smart thermostat you installed. What type of thermostat... =A
different Wi-Fi smart thermostat
(Your best estimate is fine.)
Q69 Is the new smart thermostat that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
•• • •'
Display This Question:
If Is the new smart thermostat that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?=No
Process Evaluati• -•• 205

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q70 Why did you remove or replace the smart thermostat?
(Please select all that apply.)
U It was no longer working properly (1)
OI purchased a different, new smart thermostat that I like better (2)
OI liked my old thermostat better, so I re-installed it (3)
I performed some remodeling or maintenance that required the removal of the smart
thermostat (4)
U Other, please specify (5)
O ®I don't know (98)
End of Block:Smart Thermostat
Start of Block: Heat Pump
Q71 In this section we will ask you about the heat pump you installed.
Process Evaluation Report 206

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Why did you select the model/type for your central heat pump replacement?
(Please select all that apply.)
U It was a good price (1)
OThere was a rebate for it (2)
OIt costs less to operate it (3)
OIt's good for the environment (4)
OIt was all that was available/only choice (5)
OThe contractor/retailer recommended it (6)
OIt had features I wanted (7)
OIt was the right size, color (8)
OWanted that brand (9)
OIt had an ENERGY STAR label (10)
OOther, please specify (11)
Process Evaluation Report 207

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q72 Is the central heat pump that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
Yes (1)
No, please explain: (2)
1 don't know (98)
Q73 What type of equipment did you replace with the central heat pump you received a rebate for?
Cooling equipment only (1)
Heating equipment only (2)
Both cooling and heating equipment (3)
O None- It was a new installation that did not replace any equipment. (4)
O 1 1 1 don't know (98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• . . •
If What type of equipment didyou replace with the central heatpump you received a rebatefor?
equipment only
Or What type . . . Both
cooling . . equipment
Process Evaluation Report 208

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q74 Did the central heat pump replacement that you received a rebate for replace an existing heating
pump?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (3)
Display This •
If• . the central heat pump replacement that you received a rebatefor replace .
w
Q75 What type of heating system did you have before you installed the central heat pump replacement?
Electric resistance heating (1)
Air source heat pump (2)
C Other, please specify (3)
C No heating equipment (4)
1 don't know (98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• . . •
If• . the central heat pump replacement that you received a rebatefor replace .
M
Process Evaluation Report 209

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q76 Was your old, replaced heat pump functioning at the time of replacement?
Functioning (1)
Not functioning (2)
1 don't know (98)
Q77 If you had not replaced the central heat pump, how much longer do you think it would have
operated?
Less than 2 years (1)
2 to 4 years (2)
5 to 10 years (3)
More than 10 years (4)
1 don't know (98)
Q78 What is the approximate age of the central heat pump that was replaced?
Process Evaluation Report 210

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q79 Around what year did you install the old central heat pump that you replaced?
Before 2006 (1)
Between 2006 and 2014 (2)
After 2014 (3)
1 don't know (98)
End of Block: Heat Pump
Start of Block: Energy Star Doors
Q80 In this section we will ask you about the ENERGY STAR doors you installed.
Are the ENERGY STAR doors still installed?
Yes (1)
No, please explain: (2)
Q81 What type of door did your new ENERGY STAR door replace?
ENERGY STAR efficiency door (1)
Standard efficiency door (2)
1 don't know (98)
End of Block: Energy Star Doors
Start of Block: Contractor Satisfaction
Process Evaluation Report 211

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Mis-p-lay This Quest
If CONTRACTOR
Or Who installed the smart thermostat . rebate for?=Contractor installed md�
Q82 Where did you find the contact information for the contractor that implemented the measure(s)
you installed through the Residential Energy Efficiency Program?
Avista website (1)
A Residential Energy Efficiency Program representative referred you to the contractor (2)
The contractor was someone who you worked with before (3)
Through a personal contact(e.g.,family member,friend, colleague, neighbor, etc.) (4)
O Internet search (5)
O Other, please specify (6)
Display •
If CONTRACTOR
Or Who installed the smart thermostat that you received a rebate
Q83 Did the contractor show you the discount you were receiving through Residential Energy Efficiency
Program for implementing the measure(s) you installed?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 do not recall (98)
Process Evaluation Report 212

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question:
If Who installed the smart thermostat that you received a rebatefor?=Contractor installed
Or • ••
Q84 Please rate your agreement with the following statements regarding your experience with the
contractor.
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly agree
disagree (1) disagree (2) nor d(s gree agree (4) (5)
The contractor
was courteous
and
professional.
(1)
The work was
scheduled in a
reasonable
amount of
time. (2)
The time it
took to
complete the
work was
reasonable. (3)
Display This Question:
If CONTRACTOR
Or
3
Process Evaluation Report 213

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q85 In addition to the work your contractor completed on the measure(s) installed through the
program, did the contractor identify other energy saving opportunities in your house?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't recall (98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• . . •
If In ... program...
Q86 What types of energy saving opportunities did the contractor suggest?
End of Block: Contractor Satisfaction
Start of Block: Satisfaction
Q87 In this section of the survey, we will ask you questions about your satisfaction with the service and
offerings related to Avista's Residential Energy Efficiency Program.
Process Evaluation Report 214

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q88 How interested are you in making improvements in your home that would...
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Very Extremely
interested (1) interested (2) interested (3) interested (4) interested (5)
Increase its
energy
efficiency? (1)
Improve your
comfort? (2)
Improve your
health and O
safety? (3)
Other
benefits,
please specify: Q
(4)
Q89 What is the likelihood you would install insulation yourself if you were able to receive a rebate?
0 Not at all likely (1)
Somewhat likely (2)
Moderately likely (3)
Very likely (4)
Extremely likely (5)
Process Evaluation Report 215

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q90 How reliable is Avista as a source for information about saving energy in your home?
Not at all reliable (1)
Somewhat reliable (2)
Moderately reliable (3)
Very reliable (4)
O Extremely reliable (5)
Q195 Did you contact CAP agency staff with questions about your project?
Yes (1)
No (2)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 216

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q91 Did you contact Avista staff with questions about completing your project?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Process Evaluation Report 217

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q92 Did an Avista representative ever visit your home to inspect any work associated with your project?
O Yes (1)
O No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 218

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 219

Avista Process Evaluation -•• PY2022-PY2023
Q93 Please rate your • • •
Display This Choice:
If Did you contact Avista staff with questions about completing your project?=Yes
Display This Choice:
If Did you contact Avista staff with questions about completing your project?=Yes
Display This Choice:
If OBR=0
OrHEA=O
Display This Choice:
If CONTRACTOR=1
Or Who installed the smart thermostat that you received a rebate for?=Contractor installed
Display This Choice:
If Who installed the smart thermostat that you received a rebate for?=Contractor installed
Or CONTRACTOR=1
Display This Choice:
If Did an Avista representative ever visit your home to inspect any work associated with your project?=Yes
Display This Choice:
If Did an Avista representative ever visit your home to inspect any work associated with your project?=Yes
Display This Choice:
If Did you contact CAP agency staff with questions about your project?=Yes
Display This Choice:
If Did you contact CAP agency staff with questions about your project?=Yes
Display This Choice:
If Did you contact CAP agency staff with questions about your project?=Yes
Process Evaluati• -•• 220

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Neither
Very Somewhat dissatisfied Somewhat Very satisfied
dissatisfied (1) dissatisfied (2) nor satisfied satisfied (4) (5)
(3)
Display
If Did you
contactAvista
staff with
O O
How long it
took program
staff to
address your
questions or
concerns (1)
Display
If Did you
contactAvista
staff with
O O O
v
How
thoroughly
program staff
addressed
your questions
or concerns (2)
The program
participation v O O O O
process (3)
Display
O O O O O
The rebate
amount you
received (16)
Process Evaluation Report 221

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
The rebate
amount you O O O O
received (5)
Display
If
C#HTRACT#R
Or Who
installed the
smart
. . O O O O O
you received a
rebate for?=
Contractor
—�,installed
The contractor
who you
worked with
(13)
Display
If Who
installed the
smart
you received a
rebate for?=
Contractor
installed O O O O O
•
CONTRACTOR
The quality of
the work
provided by
the contractor
(6)
Process Evaluation Report 222

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display
If Did an
Avista
representative
ever visit your
any workO O O O O
project?your
Yes
The process of
scheduling the
inspection (7)
Display
If Did an
Avista
representative
ever visit your
any work O O O O O
project?your
Yes
The process of
conducting the
inspection (8)
Display
If Did you
contact . .
agency staff
with questions
aboutyour
project?=Yes O O O O O
How long it
took the CAP
agency to
address your
questions or
concerns (17)
Process Evaluation Report 223

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display
If Did you
contact . .
agency staff
with questions
aboutyour
project? O
How
thoroughly the
CAP agency
addressed
your questions
or concerns
(18)
Display
If Did you
contact . .
agency staff
with questions
aboutyour
project?=Yes O O O O O
Overall
performance
of the CAP
agency you
worked with
(19)
The program
overall (9)
Process Evaluation Report 224

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If Please rate your satisfaction with the following:[Very dissatisfied](Count)>0
Or Please .te your satisfaction . . r
Q94 You indicated some dissatisfaction. Please provide details about why you were dissatisfied.
Process Evaluation Report 225

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q95 How satisfied are you with Avista as your energy service provider?
Very dissatisfied (1)
0 Somewhat dissatisfied (2)
0 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (3)
Somewhat satisfied (4)
Very satisfied (5)
Q96 How has your participation in Avista's Energy Efficiency Programs changed your satisfaction with
Avista?
0 Greatly decreased your satisfaction with Avista (1)
0 Somewhat decreased your satisfaction with Avista (2)
Did not affect your satisfaction with Avista (3)
Somewhat increased your satisfaction with Avista (4)
Greatly increased your satisfaction with Avista (5)
Process Evaluation Report 226

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q97 How likely is it that you would recommend the Avista's Energy Efficiency Programs to a friend,
relative, or colleague?
Not at all likely (1)
Somewhat likely (2)
Moderately likely (3)
Very likely (4)
0 Extremely likely (5)
Process Evaluation Report 227

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q98 Please rate your level of health and safety concern with allowing contractors or others into your
home for the following:
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Very Extremely
concerned concerned concerned (3) concerned concerned
(1) (2) (4) (5)
Repairs/maintenance
of equipment(1)
Identifying energy
savings opportunities
(2)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 228

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If Please rate your level of health and safety concern with allowing contractors or others into your..[Not at all
concerned](Count)<2
Q99 You indicated some health and safety concerns about allowing contractors or others into your
home. What are the reasons for your concern?
(Please select all that apply.)
OCOVID-19 (1)
OConcerns about other transmissible diseases (2)
OPersonal safety concerns (3)
OOther, please specify (4)
O ®No specify reasoning (98)
O ®Prefer not to answer (99)
End of Block:Satisfaction
Start of Block: Willingness to Pay
Process Evaluation Report 229

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q100 How likely would you have been to complete the same energy efficiency upgrades, if the incentive
was 75%of what you received?
Very unlikely (1)
Somewhat unlikely (2)
Neither likely nor unlikely (3)
Somewhat likely (4)
0 Very likely (5)
Display •
If How likely would you have been . complete the some energy
unlikely
Q101 How likely would you have been to complete the same energy efficiency upgrades, if the incentive
was 50%of what you received?
Very unlikely (1)
Somewhat unlikely (2)
0 Neither likely nor unlikely (3)
0 Somewhat likely (4)
Very likely (5)
Display This •
If How likely would you have been . complete the some energy efficiency upgrades,
unlikely
Process Evaluation Report 230

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q102 How likely would you have been to complete the same energy efficiency upgrades, if the incentive
was 25%of what you received?
Very unlikely (1)
Somewhat unlikely (2)
Neither likely nor unlikely (3)
Somewhat likely (4)
0 Very likely (5)
End of Block:Willingness to Pay
Start of Block: Demographics
r
Q103 This last set of questions will help Avista develop more effective programs that may best serve the
needs of the community. Your answers will remain anonymous and aggregated, so no information will
be linked with you or your household. You may choose "Prefer not to answer."
Do you own or rent the home at${e://Field/ADDRESS}?
Own (1)
Rent (2)
0 Own and rent to someone else (3)
0 1 don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Process Evaluation Report 231

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If This lost set of questions will help Avista develop more effective programs that may best serve t.. =Own
Or This lastof questions .Avistadevelop more effective programs thr
and rent to someone
Q104 When was your home built?
Before 1950 (1)
1950 to 1959 (2)
1960 to 1969 (3)
1970 to 1979 (4)
0 1980 to 1989 (5)
0 1990 to 1999 (6)
2000 to 2009 (7)
2010 to 2019 (8)
2020 to Present (9)
0 1 don't know (98)
0 Prefer not to answer (99)
Process Evaluation Report 232

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q105 How many square feet is your home?
(Your best estimate is fine.)
Square Feet: (1)
I don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Q106 What is the main fuel used to heat your home?
Electricity (1)
Natural Gas (2)
Propane (3)
Other, please specify (4)
0 1 don't heat my home (5)
0 1 don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Process Evaluation Report 233

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q107 Do you use a central air conditioning system in your home?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Display This Question:
If D. you use a central air conditioning system in your home?=Yes
0
Q108 Is the central air conditioning system part of a heat pump?
0 Yes (1)
0 No (2)
0 1 don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Process Evaluation Report 234

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q109 What type of fuel does your water heater use?
Natural Gas (1)
Electricity (2)
Propane (3)
Other, please specify (4)
0 None (5)
0 1 don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Process Evaluation Report 235

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q110 Which best describes your home?
Single-family house detached (1)
Single-family house attached to one or more other houses (e.g., duplex, condominium,
townhouse, etc.) (2)
Mobile or manufactured home (3)
Apartment with 2 to 4 units (4)
0 Apartment with 5+ units (5)
0 Other, please specify (6)
1 don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Q111 Including yourself, how many people live in your house year-round?
♦ 1 person (1) ... Prefer not to answer(99)
Q112 What is your age?
♦ 18 to 24 (1) ... Prefer not to answer(99)
Process Evaluation Report 236

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If What is your age?=18 to 24
Or What is your..
Or What is your..
Or What is your age?=55 to 64
Q113 Is any member of your household age 65 or older?
0 Yes (1)
0 No (2)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Q114 Including all money earned from wages, salaries,tips, commissions, workers' compensation,
unemployment insurance, child support, or other sources, about how much was your total annual
household income before taxes in 2022?
♦ Less than $10,000 (1) ... Prefer not to answer(99)
Process Evaluation Report 237

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q115 What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Did not graduate high school (1)
High school graduate (2)
Associates degree,vocation/technical school, or some college (3)
Four-year college degree (4)
0 Graduate or professional degree (5)
0 Prefer not to answer (99)
End of Block: Demographics
Start of Block: Incentive
Q116 This is the end of the survey. As a thank you for your time answering our questions, we would like
to provide you a $20 gift card for all respondents that qualify.
The email address we have for you is ${e://Field/EMAIL}. Please let us know if you would like us to send
your electronic gift card to this address or a different address.
Please send my electronic gift card to the above email address (1)
Please send my electronic gift card to the following email address: (2)
End of Block: Incentive
6.1.2 Residential MFDI Survey (Property Managers)
Avista- Residential Participant Survey(MFDI)
Start of Block:Screener
Process Evaluation Report 238

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
QA What is your name?
QB What is the name of the building you manage?
QC How many units are in the building you manage?
Q1 To start off this survey, we will ask you about your participation in the program.
Our program records indicate that your apartment building participated in one of Avista's Residential
Energy Efficiency Program in 2022. Is that correct?
Yes (1)
0 No (4)
Skip To:End of Survey If To start off this survey, we will ask you about your participation in the program. Our
program
End of Block:Screener
Start of Block: Program Awareness
EM
Q2 In this section we will ask you questions about your awareness of the program.
Process Evaluation Report 239

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
How did you learn about Avista's Residential Energy Efficiency Program?
(Please select all that apply.)
U Mailed information from Avista (1)
OEmail from Avista (2)
ONewspaper or magazine article or advertisement (3)
OContractor (4)
OCommunity Action Program (CAP Agency) (5)
OTribal Housing Authority (6)
OFood Bank (7)
OEnergy fair or other community events (8)
Word of mouth from a personal contact(e.g.,family member,friend, neighbor,
colleague, etc.) (9)
ORadio advertisement (10)
OUtility bill message (11)
OUtility website (12)
OAnother website (13)
OSocial media(i.e., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tik Tok, etc.) (14)
Process Evaluation Report 240

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
OAvista program staff (15)
OInformation at a retailer (16)
Other, please specify: (96)
Q3 How much did each of the following contribute to your decision to install the energy efficient
equipment you received through the program?
Not at all A moderate A great deal Not
(1) A little (2) amount (3) A lot (4) (5) applicable
(97)
Reducing
your
monthly
utility bill (1)
Helping the
environment
(2)
Other
benefits,
please
specify: (3)
Process Evaluation Report 241

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q4 When thinking about purchasing/installing the energy efficient equipment you received through the
program, what sources of information where important in your decision making?
(Please select all that apply.)
U Contractor recommendation (1)
DUtility recommendation or information (2)
ORecommendation from a person contact(e.g.,family member,friend, neighbor,
colleague, etc.) (3)
U Other, please specify: (96)
O ®None of the above (97)
O ®I don't know (98)
Q5 How important was the Avista funding in your decision to install the energy efficient equipment you
received through the program?
0 Not at all important (1)
Somewhat important (2)
Moderately important (3)
Very important (4)
Extremely important (5)
Process Evaluation Report 242

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q6 What is your level of awareness about Avista's home audit/assessment program?
I have never heard of it before now (1)
I have heard of it but don't know anything about it (2)
1 know a little about it (3)
1 know a lot about it (4)
End of Block: Program Awareness
Start of Block: Satisfaction
Q7 In this section of the survey,we will ask you questions about your satisfaction with the service and
offerings related to Avista's Residential Energy Efficiency Program.
How interested are you in making improvements in your home that would...
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Very Extremely
interested (1) interested (2) interested (3) interested (4) interested (5)
Increase its
energy O
efficiency? (1)
Improve your
comfort? (2) Q
Improve your
health and O
safety? (3)
Process Evaluation Report 243

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q8 What is the likelihood you would install insulation yourself if you were able to receive a rebate?
Not at all likely (1)
Somewhat likely (2)
Moderately likely (3)
Very likely (4)
0 Extremely likely (5)
Q9 How reliable is Avista as a source for information about saving energy in your home?
Not at all reliable (1)
Somewhat reliable (2)
0 Moderately reliable (3)
0 Very reliable (4)
Extremely reliable (5)
Q10 Did you contact Avista staff with questions about completing your project?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Process Evaluation Report 244

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q12 Did an Avista representative ever visit your building to inspect any work associated with your
project?
Yes (1)
0 No (2)
0 1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 245

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q13 Please rate your satisfaction with the following:
Neither
Very Somewhat dissatisfied Somewhat Very
dissatisfied dissatisfied nor satisfied satisfied (4) satisfied (5) N/A (6)
(1) (2) (3)
The
program
participation Q Q
process (3)
Energy
saving
equipment O O O O O
you
received (4)
The
contractor
who did the O O O O
installation
(5)
The process
of
scheduling
the Q Q Q Q
inspection
(7)
The
program O O O O
overall (10)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Display This Question:
If Please rate your satisfaction with the following: . i
Or Please rateyour . . •n with the following:[S. . dissatisfied](C. 1
Q14 You indicated some dissatisfaction. Please provide details about why you were dissatisfied.
Process Evaluation Report 246

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q15 How satisfied are you with Avista as your energy service provider?
Very dissatisfied (1)
0 Somewhat dissatisfied (2)
0 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (3)
Somewhat satisfied (4)
Very satisfied (5)
Q16 How has your participation in Avista's Residential Energy Efficiency Program changed your
satisfaction with Avista?
0 Greatly decreased your satisfaction with Avista (1)
0 Somewhat decreased your satisfaction with Avista (2)
Did not affect your satisfaction with Avista (3)
Somewhat increased your satisfaction with Avista (4)
Greatly increased your satisfaction with Avista (5)
Process Evaluation Report 247

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q17 How likely is it that you would recommend the Avista Residential Energy Efficiency Program to a
friend, relative, or colleague?
Not at all likely (1)
Somewhat likely (2)
Moderately likely (3)
Very likely (4)
O Extremely likely (5)
End of Block:Satisfaction
Start of Block: Incentive
Q33 This is the end of the survey.As a thank you for your time answering our questions, we would like
to provide you a $10 gift card for all respondents that qualify.
Please let us know what email you would like us to send your electronic gift card to.
End of Block: Incentive
6.1.3 Residential Non-Participant Survey
Avista Residential Nonparticipant
Start of Block: Default Ouestion Blocl'
Q2 Welcome! Thanks for agreeing to provide your feedback about your experience using Avista's service
and programs. Your feedback is very important to us and will help us improve programs for customers
like you.This survey should take about 15 minutes.Your responses are confidential and will be used for
research purposes only. If you have questions about how we treat collected data, please see ADM's
privacy policy at https://www.admenergy.com/privacy. Upon completion of the survey we will collect
your email address to send a $10 electronic gift card as a token of our thanks.
Process Evaluation Report 248

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
To start, we have a few questions about your awareness of some of Avista's programs and services.
Process Evaluation Report 249

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q1 According to program records, Avista provides electric and/or gas services to your residence at
${e://Field/ADDRESS). Is that correct?
Yes (1)
0 Yes, but address is incorrect(please write in correct address) (2)
0 No (3)
End of Block: Default Question Block
Start of Block: Block 2
0
Q3 To the best of your knowledge have you had a home energy assessment, HVAC tune-up, or replaced
or upgraded equipment that requires electricity, in the last three years?This could have been related to
lighting, HVAC, or refrigeration equipment.
- Yes (1)
0 No (2)
0 Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 250

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If To the best of your knowledge have you .. . home energy assessment, HVAC tune-up, or replaced or..
Yes
Q4 What types of services or equipment upgrades have you done in the last three years?Select all that
apply
Lighting (1)
OHVAC equipment (98)
OA/C tune-up (99)
OSmart thermostat(s) (100)
OLow flow faucet aerator(s) (101)
OLow flow showerhead(s) (102)
OAdvanced power strip(s) (103)
DHome energy assessment (104)
OOther—please specify (105)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 251

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If To the best of your knowledge have you .. . home energy assessment, HVAC tune-up, or replaced or..
Yes
Q5 Did you receive an incentive from Avista for any of those upgrades or services?
O Yes (1)
0 No (2)
1 don't know (98)
End of Block: Block 2
Start of Block: Block 1
M
Q7 Before today, have you heard that Avista offers a Residential Energy Efficiency Program?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 252

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
If Before today, have you heard that Avista offers a Residential Energy Efficiency Program?=Yes
Process Evaluation Report 253

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q8 How did you learn about Avista's energy efficiency program offerings?Select all that apply
UMailed information from Avista (1)
OEmail from Avista (2)
ONewspaper or magazine article or advertisement (3)
OContractor (4)
Word of mouth from a personal contact(e.g.,family member,friend, neighbor,
colleague, etc.) (5)
ORadio advertisement (6)
OUtility bill message (7)
OUtility website (8)
OAnother website (9)
OSocial media (i.e., Facebook, Instagram,Twitter,Tik Tok, etc.) (10)
OAvista program staff (11)
OInformation at a retailer (12)
OOther, please specify (13)
O ®Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 254

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 255

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question:
I If Before today, have you heard that Avista offers a Residential Energy Efficiency Program?=Yes
Q9 What programs or services were you already aware of?Select all that apply
UIncentives to replace inefficient equipment in your home (1)
OIncentives to incorporate energy efficiency into new construction designs (2)
OIncentives for heating and cooling equipment (3)
OFree home energy audit (4)
OOther—please specify (5)
O ®Don't know (6)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 256

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q10 Are you interested in making any energy efficiency upgrades and participating in any of Avista's
energy efficiency programs?
Yes (1)
O No (2)
O Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 257

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q11 What energy efficiency upgrades or programs are you interested in?Select all that apply
U Lighting (1)
OHVAC equipment (2)
OHVAC fuel switching (3)
OWater heater (4)
OWater heater conversion (5)
Smart thermostats (6)
OLow flow faucet aerators (7)
OLow flow showerheads (8)
OENERGY STAR Homes Program (9)
ENERGY STAR Room Air Conditioners (10)
OHome energy audit or assessment (11)
OENERGY STAR Appliances (e.g.,washer, dryer, refrigerator,freezer) (12)
OHome weatherization (e.g., pipe wrap insulation, attic insulation, insulated door) (13)
On Bill Repayment Program (14)
Process Evaluation Report 258

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
OAlways On Home Energy Report Program (15)
OOther—please specify (96)
O ®Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 259

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q12 On a scale of 1 through 5,where 1 means "not at all interested" and 5 means "very interested",
how interested are you in participating in Avista's energy efficiency programs?
- 1—Not at all interested (1)
0 2 (2)
0 3 (3)
0 4 (4)
5—Very interested (5)
Don't know (98)
Page Break —
Process Evaluation Report 260

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q6 What might prevent you from participating in Avista's programs?Select all that apply
ODon't know enough about the program (1)
J Energy savings from the equipment replacements or upgrades was not worth the
trouble (2)
U Unlikely to replace any equipment (3)
OToo much time or trouble required to fill out the required paperwork (4)
OIncentives are not high enough to offset the cost of high efficiency equipment,
compared to standard efficiency equipment (5)
OPrefer not to deal with Avista (6)
O1 am financially able to make the upgrades without the incentives (7)
ONot interested in what Avista is offering (8)
ODon't have the authority to participate in any of the Avista programs (9)
OOther—please specify (96)
O ®Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 261

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 262

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q14 We understand that it is not always possible to make improvements and energy efficiency upgrades
to your home. Which of the following best describes your authority to make decisions?
No authority—as a renter I am not permitted to make improvements and energy efficiency
upgrades (1)
0 Some authority—as a renter I am permitted to make some improvements or upgrades (2)
0 Full authority—I am the owner (3)
Full authority—as part of my rental agreement I am required to maintain/repair the home (4)
Don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 263

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q15 What do you feel is the largest energy consumer in your home?
0 Computer equipment (1)
0 Refrigeration (2)
U HVAC (3)
Lighting (4)
Other—please specify (96)
Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 264

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q16 Are you aware of the current lighting type(s) installed in your home?
0 Yes (1)
0 No (2)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 265

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If Are you aware of the current lighting type(s)installed in your home?=Yes
Q17 Which of the following lighting technologies are currently installed?Select all that apply
U Incandescent (1)
OHalogen (2)
OFluorescent (3)
OCFL bulbs or fluorescent tubes (4)
OLED (5)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 266

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q18 Is your home air conditioned?
0 Yes (1)
0 No (2)
Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 267

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q19 What type of A/C do you currently have in your home?
Central A/C (1)
Heat pump (2)
Mini-split (3)
Wall or window mounted A/C unit (4)
0 Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 268

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
#isploy •
.. you currently have in your . Don't know
M
Q20 Approximately how old is the air conditioning system?
Less than 10 years old (1)
10 to 20 years old (2)
More than 20 years old (3)
Don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 269

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q21 What type of heating system do you currently have in your home?
0 Electric resistance (i.e. baseboard) (1)
0 Gas furnace (2)
Heat pump (3)
Mini-split (4)
Don't heat the home (5)
Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 270

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
If What type of heating system .. Don't know
And What type of heating system .. Don't heat the home
Q22 Approximately how old is the heating system?
Less than 10 years old (1)
10 to 20 years old (2)
More than 20 years old (3)
0 Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 271

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question:
If What type of heating system .. Don't heat the home
Q23 When was the last time your heating and/or cooling system was serviced?
Less than 1 year ago (1)
1 to 3 years ago (2)
More than 3 years ago (3)
It's never been serviced (4)
0 Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 272

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q24 What type of thermostat do you use?
J Manual (1)
0 Programmable (2)
Smart thermostat (3)
Don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 273

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q25 This last set of questions will help Avista develop more effective programs that may best serve the
needs of the community. Your answers will remain anonymous and aggregated, so no information will
be linked with you or your household. You may choose "Prefer not to answer."
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 274

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q41 What type of energy services do you receive from Avista?Please select all that apply
OElectricity (1)
ONatural gas (2)
Process Evaluation Report 275

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q26 Do you own or rent the home at${e://Field/ADDRESS)?
0 Own (1)
0 Rent (2)
Own and rent to someone else (3)
Don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 276

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display Question:
If I. you own or rent the homeat$fe.IlFieldIADDRESS)? Own
Or I. you own or rent the home . . A►I' Own and rent to someone else
Q32 When was your home built?
Before 1950 (1)
1950 to 1959 (2)
1960 to 1969 (3)
0 1970 to 1979 (4)
0 1980 to 1989 (5)
1990 to 1999 (6)
2000 to 2009 (7)
2010 to 2019 (8)
0 2020 to Present (9)
0 Don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 277

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q33 How many square feet is your home? (Your best estimate is fine)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 278

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q34 What is the main fuel used to heat your home?
0 Electricity (1)
0 Natural Gas (2)
Propane (3)
Pellet/wood stove (100)
Other, please specify (4)
0 1 don't heat my home (5)
0 Don't know (98)
0 Prefer not to answer (99)
Process Evaluation Report 279

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q35 Do you use a central air conditioning system in your home?
Yes (1)
0 No (4)
0 Don't know (5)
Prefer not to answer (6)
Process Evaluation Report 280

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If•. you use a central air conditioning system in your home?
Q36 Is the central air conditioning system part of a heat pump?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 281

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q37 What type of fuel does your water heater use?
0 Natural Gas (1)
0 Electricity (2)
Propane (3)
Other, please specify (4)
None (5)
0 Don't know (98)
0 Prefer not to answer (99)
Process Evaluation Report 282

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q38 Which best describes your home?
0 Single-family house detached (1)
0 Single-family house attached to one or more other houses (e.g., duplex, condominium,
townhouse, etc.) (2)
Mobile or manufactured home (3)
Apartment with 2 to 4 units (4)
Apartment with S+ units (S)
Other, please specify (6)
Don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Process Evaluation Report 283

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q39 Including yourself, how many people live in your house year-round?
0 1 person (1)
0 2 people (2)
3 people (3)
4 people (4)
5 people (5)
0 6 people (6)
0 7 people (7)
0 8 or more people (8)
Prefer not to answer (99)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 284

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q40 What is your age?
318 to 24 (1)
0 25 to 34 (2)
35 to 44 (3)
45 to 54 (4)
55 to 64 (5)
0 65 to 75 (6)
0 75 or older (7)
0 Prefer not to answer (99)
Process Evaluation Report 285

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q42 Is there anything else you would like Avista to know?
Process Evaluation Report 286

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q30 Thank you for taking the time to provide us with this valuable information. As a thank you for
completing this survey,we will send you a $10 gift card. You should expect to receive your gift card
within 5-10 business days via email. Please be sure to check your Spam and junk folders.To confirm, the
correct email address to send the gift card to is ${e://Field/EMAIL)?
Please send my electronic gift card to the above email address (1)
Please send my electronic gift card to the following email address: (2)
End of Block: Block 1
6.1.4 Nonresidential Participant Survey
Avista - Nonresidential Participant Survey
Start of Block:Screening
Q77 Welcome! Thank you for taking this survey to tell us about your experience with Avista's Non-
Residential programs! Your feedback is very important to us and will help us improve programs for
customers like you.This survey should take about 15 minutes. Your responses are confidential and will
be used for research purposes only. If you have questions about how we treat collected data, please see
ADM's privacy policy at https://www.admenergy.com/privacy. Upon completion of the survey we will
collect your email address to send a $20 electronic gift card as a token of our thanks.
Q1 Our program records indicate your organization received a rebate through Avista's
${e://Field/PROGRAM}Program for installing${e://Field/ALL_MEASURES}. Is that correct?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Process Evaluation Report 287

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question:
If Our programorganization
Q2 Is there someone else in your business who may be able to answer questions about your business's
participation in the program?
0 Yes (1)
0 No (2)
-
,- - - - - - - - - -
Display This Question:
If Is there someone else in your business who may be able to . about
Q3 Can you provide me with their contact information?
0 Name (1)
Phone Number (2)
Email (3)
End of Block:Screening
Start of Block: Background
Process Evaluation Report 288

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q4 Which of the following most closely represents your job title/role?
(Note, if your job title/role is not listed below please use "Other, please specify.')
Facilities Manager (1)
Energy Manager (2)
Other facilities management/maintenance position (3)
Chief Financial Officer (4)
0 Other financial/administrative position (5)
0 Proprietor/Owner (6)
President/CEO (7)
Manager (8)
Other, please specify: (9)
Process Evaluation Report 289

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q5 Does your company have any of the following policies or procedures in place?
Yes (1) No (2) 1 don't know(98)
A person or people
responsible for
monitoring and/or
managing energy usage
(1)
Defined energy savings
goals (2)
A specific policy
requiring that energy
efficiency be
considered when
purchasing equipment
(3)
Carbon reduction goals
(4)
Process Evaluation Report 290

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q6 How did you FIRST learn about Avista's rebates for efficient equipment upgrades?
From a contractor, equipment vendor, or energy consultant (1)
From an Avista account representative (2)
From a program representative or Avista staff member (3)
From a search engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.) (4)
0 At an event or tradeshow (S)
0 Received an email blast or electronic newsletter (6)
Received an informational brochure (7)
From Avista's website (8)
From a personal contact (e.g.,friend,family member, colleague, neighbor, etc.) (9)
Other, please specify: (10)
I don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 291

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q7 How long have you known about Avista's commercial rebates program?
Less than a year (1)
More than 1 year to 2 years (2)
More than 2 years to 3 years (3)
More than 3 years (4)
O 1 don't know (98)
Q8 Besides the rebate for installing${e://Field/ALL_MEASURES}, are you aware of any other offerings
from Avista for commercial and industrial customers?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Display This •
If Besides the rebatefor installing$[e.11Fie1d1ALL MEASURES], are you aware of any other offerings... =Yes
Process Evaluation Report 292

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q9 Which of the other programs are you aware of?
(Please select all that apply.)
U Site-specific (1)
OPrescriptive lightning (2)
OHVAC (Gas) (3)
OHVAC (variable frequency drive) (4)
OShell (5)
OFood Service (6)
OGreen Motors (7)
OGrocer Programs (8)
OFleet Heat (9)
OCompressed Air (10)
OBusiness Partners Program (11)
OWashington State Clean Building Act Early Adopter Pilot Program (12)
OEnergy Use Index Retrofit Pilot Program (13)
OSmart Buildings Center Tool Lending Pilot Program (14)
Process Evaluation Report 293

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
OActive Energy Management Pilot Program (15)
O ®None of the above (16)
Q10 How important was each of the following in your organization's decision to replace existing
equipment with the new equipment?
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Very Extremely
important (1) important (2) important(3) important (4) important (5)
Reducing
energy costs
(1)
Reducing
energy
consumption
forreasons
otherthan
cost (2)
Improving
equipment
performance Q p Q Q
(3)
Improving
equipment O O O O
aesthetics (4)
Improving
customer
and/or O O O O
employee
comfort(5)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Process Evaluation Report 294

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q11 What are the best ways to reach companies like yours with information about rebates for energy
savings opportunities?
(Please select all that apply.)
Visits from contractors or program staff (1)
OTarget the owners or upper management of the business (2)
OBill inserts (3)
OEmail (4)
ODirect mail (5)
OPhone (6)
OOther, please specify: (7)
Process Evaluation Report 295

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q12 Which of the following considerations helped you decide to purchase energy efficient equipment
instead of standard efficiency equipment?
(Please select all that apply.)
Saving money on your energy bills (1)
OSaving energy (2)
OProtecting the environment (3)
ORecommendation from a contractor (4)
ORecommendation from Avista program staff (5)
OFinancial incentive (6)
OReplacing equipment that was broken (7)
OThe participation process was easy (8)
Other, please specify: (9)
Q13 Before participating in the program, had you installed any other energy efficient equipment or
measures?
0 Yes (1)
U No (2)
End of Block: Background
Process Evaluation Report 296

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
start of Block: r,.,b,u,,, r-ffici,..,,
F
Q15 When you were first approached about the program, did you have any concerns about
participating or was it an easy decision?
0 1 had some concerns (1)
It was an easy decision (2)
1 don't know (98)
Display This Question:
If When you werefirst approached about theprogram, didyou have anyconcerns about participating a... =
.. some
Q16 What were your concerns?
DisplayQuestion:
If When you were first approached about the program, did you have any concerns about participating a... =I
.. some concerns
Q17 Why did you decide to participate despite your concerns?
Process Evaluation Report 297

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q20 Who helped you complete the application for the program?
(Please select all that apply.)
U Another member of your company (1)
OA contractor (2)
OAn equipment vendor (3)
OOther, please specify: (4)
O ®None, I completed the application myself (5)
Q21 How clear was the application to complete?
Extremely unclear (1)
Somewhat unclear (2)
Neither clear nor unclear (3)
Somewhat clear (4)
Extremely clear (5)
Display This •
applicationIf How clear was the
Or How clear was the application
Process Evaluation Report 298

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q22 What additional information would need to be provided to make the application process more
clear?
Q23 Please rate how acceptable the following were:
Not all Somewhat Moderately Very Completely
acceptable (1) acceptable (2) acceptable (3) acceptable (4) acceptable (5)
The ease of
finding the
information
needed on the
Avista website.
(1)
The ease of
completing the
application
process. (2)
The time it took
for your
application to
be approved.
(3)
The effort
required to
provide the
required
supporting
documentation.
(4)
The overall
application
processes. (5)
Process Evaluation Report 299

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q24 Did you have a clear sense of whom you could go to for assistance with the application process?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Q25 How did the rebate amount compare to what you expected?
J It was much less (1)
It was somewhat less (2)
It was about the amount expected (3)
It was somewhat more (4)
O It was much more (5)
O 1 don't know (98)
Display This •
If How. . the rebate
Or How did the rebate amount compare to what you expected?=It was somewhat less
Q26 You indicated the rebate amount was less than what you expected. What led you to believe you
would get a higher rebate than you did?
Process Evaluation Report 300

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q27 Once the project was complete, how much time passed until your organization received the rebate
payment?
Less than 2 weeks (1)
2 to 4 weeks (5)
More than 4 weeks to 6 weeks (2)
More than 6 weeks to 8 weeks (3)
O Other, please specify: (4)
Q28 How satisfied were you with the amount of time it took to receive the rebate?
Very dissatisfied (1)
Somewhat dissatisfied (2)
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)
O Somewhat satisfied (4)
O Extremely satisfied (5)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• . . •
If How satisfied were you with the amount ..
Or How satisfied were you with the amount of time it took
Q29 You indicated some dissatisfaction with the time it took to receive the rebate. What could be
improved
Process Evaluation Report 301

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
r-nd of Blocn. . -—b.w... �...........Y
Start of Block: Measurement and Verification
DisplayQuestion:
If LIGHTING=1
Q30 In this section we will ask you about the lighting you installed.
Is the lighting you purchased currently installed and operating?
Yes, all (1)
Some, but not all (100)
No (98)
Don't know (101)
Q31 Did the lighting that you received a rebate for replace an existing lamps/fixtures?
Yes (1)
O No (2)
O 1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 302

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Aisplay ints •
If •
Q32 In this section we will ask you about the Variable Frequency Drive (VFD)you installed.
Is the VFD currently installed and operating?
,Dyes (1)
C No, please explain: (2)
1 don't know (3)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• . . Question:
If In this section we will ask you about the Variable •
I"
Q33 What type of equipment is the VFD installed on?
Cooling Pump (1)
Fan (2)
Heating pump or combo (3)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 303

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
Q34 In this section we will ask you about the ${e://Field/ALL_MEASURES)i you installed.
Is the equipment currently installed and operating?
0 Yes (1)
0 No. please explain: (2)
1 don't know (3)
Display This •
aboutIf In this section we will ask you
Q35 What type of equipment is it?
Single stage furnace (1)
Multi stage furnace (2)
Boiler (3)
Unit heater (4)
Smart thermostat (99)
1 don't know (98)
Display This •
aboutIf In this section we will ask you
Process Evaluation Report 304

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q36 What is the capacity of the equipment?
(Please provide numeric value, if you are unsure please state "1 don't know.")
Process Evaluation Report 305

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q37 In this section we will ask you about the insulation you installed.
Approximately how many square feet of insulation was installed?
(Please provide numeric value, if you are unsure please state "I don't know.")
Q38 What is the final R-value of the insulation?
0 R11-R18 (1)
0 R19+ (2)
R30-R44 (3)
1 don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 306

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If • ••
Q39 In this section we will ask you about the motor you had rewound.
Is the newly rewound motor currently installed in operating?
Yes (1)
No, please explain: (2)
1 don't know (98)
Display This •
If • ••
M
Q40 Is the motor being used for industrial or agricultural needs?
Industrial (1)
Agricultural (2)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 307

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
-71s. . •
BLOCKIf
FA
Q41 In this section we will ask you about the block heater controls you installed.
Are the block heater controls currently installed in operating?
Yes (1)
No, please explain: (2)
1 don't know (98)
DisplayQuestion:
BLOCKIf
NOR
Q42 Are the controls engine-mounted or wall-mounted?
Engine-mounted (1)
Wall-mounted (2)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 308

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q43 In this section we will ask you about the food service equipment you installed.
Is the $(e://Field/ALL_MEASURES}installed OR in regular use?
Yes (1)
No, please explain: (2)
I don't know (98)
Display •
•P
Q44 Did the$(e://Field/ALL_MEASURES}that you received a rebate for replace existing equipment?
Yes (1)
No (2)
I don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 309

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q45 In this section we will ask you about the refrigeration equipment you installed.
Is the $(e://Field/ALL_MEASURES}installed and currently operating?
Yes (1)
No, please explain: (2)
I don't know (98)
Display This • .�
• ••
Q46 Did the$(e://Field/ALL_MEASURES}that you received a rebate for replace existing equipment?
Yes (1)
No (2)
I don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 310

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
Q75 In this section we will ask you about the site specific equipment you installed.
Is the $(e://Field/ALL_MEASURES}installed and currently operating?
Yes (1)
No, please explain: (2)
I don't know (98)
Display This •
Q76 Did the${e://Field/ALL_MEASURES}equipment that you received a rebate for replace existing
equipment?
Yes (1)
No (2)
I don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 311

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q47 After your project was complete, did a program representative inspect the work completed through
the program?
- Yes (1)
O No (2)
O 1 don't know (98)
Q48 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements:
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly agree
disagree (1) disagree (2) nor disagree agree (4) (S)
The inspector
was courteous. O O
(1)
The inspector
was efficient. O O
(2)
The inspector
was
knowledgeable. p p p
(3)
The inspector
was
professional. p p p p
(4)
End of Block: Measurement and Verification
Start of Block: Small Business Direct Install
Process Evaluation Report 312

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q63 Program records indicate that your business received lighting equipment through Avista's Small
Business Direct Install program. Is this correct?
Yes (1)
O No (2)
O 1 don't know if we received lighting equipment (98)
Process Evaluation Report 313

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
#isploy •
If Program records that your business received lighting equipment through Avista's Small Bu...
'don't know if we received lighting equipment
Q64 Is there someone else we should speak with that might know about the lighting equipment
receiving through the Small Business Direct Install Program?
Yes—Please provide their name and email address or phone number (1)
O No (4)
O Don't know (5)
Process Evaluation Report 314

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q65 Did you receive a project proposal/assessment through the program?A project
proposal/assessment may have been provided if someone from the SBDI program team completed an
assessment of the lighting in your facility prior to installation.
Yes (1)
O No (2)
O Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 315

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q66 Using the scale below, how helpful was that project proposal to you?
J 1—Not at all helpful (1)
0 2 (2)
0 3 (3)
4 (4)
5—Very helpful (5)
Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 316

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
projectIf Using the scale below, how helpful was that proposal
Or Using the scale below,how helpful was that project proposal
Q67 Why do you think the project proposal was not helpful?
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 317

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q68 Are you interested in making additional energy efficiency improvements?
J Yes (1)
0 No (2)
Don't know (3)
Process Evaluation Report 318

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If Are you interested in g additional energy efficiency improvements?
Q69 What additional improvements are you most interested in?Select all that apply
U HVAC equipment (1)
ODemand Control Ventilation (4)
OCommercial A/C tune-up (5)
OPool Covers (6)
OPumps (7)
OHeat Pump Water Heaters (8)
OCustom projects (9)
OOther—please specify (10)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 319

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q70 Have any of the bulbs from SBDI been removed since initial installation?
Yes—how many have been removed: (1)
O No (4)
O Don't know (S)
Process Evaluation Report 320

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
#isploy •
been
Q71 Why were the bulbs removed?Select all that apply
J They were too bright (1)
O They were too dim (4)
They stopped working (5)
They flickered (6)
Didn't like the color of the light (7)
For another reason—please specify (8)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 321

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q72 Did the contractors who installed the lighting, leave behind any uninstalled, spare equipment(e.g.,
lighting, lamps, bulbs)?
Yes (1)
O No (2)
O Don't know (3)
Process Evaluation Report 322

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
If D . the contractors who installed the lighting,leave behind. .. -
Q73 What kind of uninstalled equipment did they leave behind?
End of Block:Small Business Direct Install
Start of Block: Barriers and Satisfaction
EM
Process Evaluation Report 323

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q49 What are the most significant challenges that your organization faces when making energy efficient
improvements?
(Please select all that apply.)
U High initial cost (1)
DUnderstanding the potential areas for improvement (i.e., lack of technical knowledge)
(2)
OFunding competition with other investments or improvements (3)
OLong payback period or return on investment (4)
OLack of awareness about available rebates for energy efficient equipment (5)
OLack of corporate support for energy efficiency investments (6)
OLack of staff time dedicated to energy efficiency upgrades (7)
OWe do not own the building(s) (8)
OOther, please specify: (9)
O ®No challenges or barriers (10)
O ®I don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 324

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q50 How much of a barrier have supply chain issues been on your organization's ability to:
Not a barrier Somewhat of Moderate Major barrier Extreme
(1) a barrier(2) barrier(3) (4) barrier(5)
Purchase new
equipment (1)
Receive new
equipment (2) Q p Q
Install new
equipment(3) Q p Q
Q51 During your project did you interact or contact any Avista staff?
Yes (1)
O No (2)
Process Evaluation Report 325

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q52 Please provide your satisfaction with each of the following:
Display
Sm If During your project. . you interact or contact any Avista staff?=Yes
Display
If During your project. . you interact or contact any Avista staff?=Yes
Process Evaluation Report 326

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Very Somewhat Neither Somewhat Very satisfied
dissatisfied (1) dissatisfied (2) satisfied nor satisfied (4) (S)
dissatisfied (3)
Display
If During
. .
contact any
Avisto staff?
Yes
you interact or
How long it
took program
staff to
address your
questions or
concerns (1)
Display
If During
. .
you interact or
contact any
Avisto staff?
Yes O 0 0 0 0
How
thoroughly
they
addressed
your questions
or concerns
(2)
The
equipment
that was n 0 0 0 0
installed (3)
The quality of
the 0 0 0 0
installation (4)
Process Evaluation Report 327

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
The steps you
had to take to
get through O O O O
the program
(5)
The amount of
time it took to
your rebate p p Q Q
(6)
The range of
equipment
that qualifies O O O O
for a rebate
(7)
The amount of
time it took to
install the new r1 Q Q Q Q
equipment (8)
How well the
service
provider
explained the O 0
program rules
and processes
(9)
The program
overall (10) C C
Display •
provideIf Please
Or Please provide y. , . .n with each of thefollowing:
Q53 You indicated some dissatisfaction; can you please provide further details?
Process Evaluation Report 328

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q54 What is your level of satisfaction with Avista as your service provider?
Very dissatisfied (1)
Somewhat dissatisfied (2)
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)
Somewhat satisfied (4)
O Very satisfied (5)
Q55 How has your participation in the program affected your satisfaction with Avista as your service
provider?
Greatly decreased your satisfaction with Avista as your service provider (1)
Somewhat decreased your satisfaction with Avista as your service provider (2)
Did not affect your satisfaction with Avista as your service provider (3)
O Somewhat increased your satisfaction with Avista as your service provider (4)
O Greatly increased your satisfaction with Avista as your service provider (5)
Process Evaluation Report 329

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q56 How likely is it that you would recommend the program to a personal contact, such as a friend,
family member, neighbor, or colleague?
Not at all likely (1)
Somewhat likely (2)
Moderately likely (3)
Very likely (4)
0 Extremely likely (5)
End of Block: Barriers and Satisfaction
Start of Block: Firmographics
r
Q57 What best describes the facility located ${e://Field/ADDRESS}?
Your company's only location (1)
0 One of several locations owned by your company (2)
0 The headquarter location of a company with several locations (3)
1 don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 330

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q58 What is the status of your organization's facility where the installation of
${e://Field/ALL_MEASURES)took place?
We own and occupy the facility (1)
We own the facility and rent it to someone else (2)
We rent the facility (3)
1 don't know (98)
O Prefer not to answer (99)
Process Evaluation Report 331

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q59 Do you have any other comments that you would like to provide to Avista about energy efficiency
in the commercial or industrial sector and/or the programs they offer?
Q74 Do you have any other comments about your satisfaction and participation in Avista's Energy
Efficiency programs?
End of Block: Firmographics
Start of Block: Incentive
Q60 Thank you for taking the time to provide us with this valuable information. As a thank you for
completing this survey,we will send you a $20 gift card. You should expect to receive your gift card
within 5-10 business days via email. Please be sure to check your Spam and junk folders.To confirm, the
correct email address to send the gift card to is $(e://Field/EMAIL}?
Please send my electronic gift card to the above email address (1)
Please send my electronic gift card to the following email address: (2)
End of Block: Incentive
6.1.5 Nonresidential Non-Participant Survey
Avista Nonresidential Nonparticipant
Start of Block: Default Question Block
Q2 Welcome! Thanks for agreeing to provide your feedback about your experience using Avista's service
and programs. Your feedback is very important to us and will help us improve programs for customers
like you. This survey should take about 15 minutes. Your responses are confidential and will be used for
Process Evaluation Report 332

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
research purposes only. If you have questions about how we treat collected data, please see ADM's
privacy policy at https://www.admenergy.com/privacy. Upon completion of the survey we will collect
your email address to send a $10 electronic gift card as a token of our thanks.
To start, we have a few questions about your awareness of some of Avista's programs and services.
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 333

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q1 According to program records, Avista provides electric and/or gas services to your business at
${e://Field/PREMISE_ADDRESS). Is that correct?
Yes (1)
0 Yes, but address is incorrect(please write in correct address): (2)
0 No (3)
Skip To:End of Survey If According to program records,Avista provides electric andlor gas services to your business
Process Evaluation Report 334

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q3 To the best of your knowledge has your organization replaced or upgraded equipment that requires
electricity, in the last three years?This could have been lighting, HVAC equipment, or refrigeration?
Yes (1)
O No (2)
O Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 335

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
organizationIf To the best of your knowledge has your .. ..
Q4 What types of equipment or upgrades did your organization replace or upgrade in the last three
years?Select all that apply
U Lighting (1)
OLighting controls (2)
OHVAC equipment (3)
OKitchen equipment (4)
OA/C tune-up (5)
OSmart thermostat(s) (6)
OLow flow faucet aerators (7)
OLow flow showerheads (8)
OAdvanced power strips (9)
OOther—please specify (97)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 336

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
-Display •
If To the best of your knowledge has your organization replaced or upgraded equipment that requires... Yes
Q5 Did your organization receive an incentive from Avista for any of that equipment?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (98)
End of Block: Default Question Block
Start of Block: Block 1
Q7 Before today, have you heard that Avista offers incentives to businesses that install energy-efficient
equipment?
Yes (1)
No (2)
1 don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 337

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
today,If Before a offers incentives to .
Fie
Process Evaluation Report 338

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q8 How did you learn about Avista's energy efficiency program offerings?Select all that apply
UMailed information from Avista (1)
OEmail from Avista (2)
ONewspaper or magazine article or advertisement (3)
OContractor (4)
Word of mouth from a personal contact(e.g.,family member,friend, neighbor,
colleague, etc.) (S)
ORadio advertisement (6)
OUtility bill message (7)
OUtility website (8)
OAnother website (9)
OSocial media (i.e., Facebook, Instagram,Twitter,Tik Tok, etc.) (10)
OAvista program staff (11)
OInformation at a retailer (12)
OOther, please specify (13)
O ®Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 339

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 340

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question:
today,If Before a offers incentives to .
Q9 What programs or services were you already aware of?Select all that apply
U Incentives to replace inefficient equipment in your business (1)
OIncentives to incorporate energy efficiency into new construction designs (2)
OIncentives for heating and cooling equipment (3)
OIncentives for lighting and lighting controls (4)
OIncentives for commercial kitchen equipment (5)
OOther—please specify (6)
O ®Don't know (7)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 341

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q10 Are you interested in making any energy efficiency upgrades through Avista's energy efficiency
programs?
Yes (1)
O No (2)
O Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 342

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
If Are you interested in any energy efficiency upgrades through Avista's energy efficiency pr.. =Yes
Process Evaluation Report 343

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q11 What energy efficiency upgrades or programs are you interested in?Select all that apply
U Lighting (1)
OLighting controls (2)
OHVAC equipment (3)
OCommercial kitchen equipment (4)
OWater heater (5)
OSmart thermostats (6)
OLow flow faucet aerators (7)
OLow flow showerheads (8)
OENERGY STAR room air conditioners (9)
OEnergy audit or assessment (10)
OENERGY STAR appliances (i.e. washer, dryer, refrigerator,freezer) (11)
OWeatherization (i.e. pipe wrap insulation, attic insulation, insulated door) (12)
OOther—please specify (96)
O ®Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 344

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 345

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
. . Question:
If Are you interested in any energy efficiency upgrades through Avista's energy efficiency pr.. =Yes
Fq
Q12 On a scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means "not at all interested" and 5 means "very interested",
how interested are you in participating in Avista's energy efficiency programs?
1—Not at all interested (1)
2 (2)
3 (3)
0 4 (4)
C 5—Very interested (5)
Process Evaluation Report 346

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q13 What might prevent you from participating in Avista's programs?Select all that apply
ODon't know enough about the program (1)
J Energy savings from the equipment replacements or upgrades was not worth the
trouble (2)
U Unlikely to replace any equipment (3)
OToo much time or trouble required to fill out the required paperwork (4)
OIncentives are not high enough to offset the cost of high efficiency equipment,
compared to standard efficiency equipment (5)
OPrefer not to deal with Avista (6)
O1 am financially able to make the upgrades without the incentives (7)
ONot interested in what Avista is offering (8)
ODon't have the authority to participate in any of the Avista programs (9)
OOther—please specify (96)
O ®Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 347

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 348

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q14 We understand that it is not always possible to make improvements and energy efficiency upgrades
to your building. Which of the following best describes your authority to make decisions?
No authority—as a renter I am not permitted to make improvements and energy efficiency
upgrades (1)
0 Some authority—as a renter I am permitted to make some improvements or upgrades (2)
0 Full authority—I am the owner (3)
Full authority—as part of my rental agreement I am required to maintain/repair the facility (4)
Don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 349

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q15 What do you feel is the largest energy consumer in your facility?
0 Computer equipment (1)
0 Refrigeration (2)
U HVAC (3)
Lighting (4)
Kitchen equipment (5)
O Other—please specify (96)
O Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 350

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q16 Are you aware of the current lighting type(s) installed in your facility?
0 Yes (1)
0 No (2)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 351

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
If Are you aware of the current lighting type(s)installed in yourfacility?=Yes
Q17 Which of the following lighting technologies is currently installed?Select all that apply
U Incandescent (1)
OHalogen (2)
OFluorescent (3)
OCFL bulbs or fluorescent tubes (4)
OLED (5)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 352

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q18 Is your facility air conditioned?
0 Yes (1)
0 No (2)
Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 353

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This Question: IN"
If Is yourfacility air conditioned?=Yes
Q19 What type of A/C do you currently have in your facility? Please choose all that apply
U Central A/C (1)
OHeat Pump (2)
OMini-split (3)
OWall or window mounted a/c unit (4)
O ®Don't know (98)
Process Evaluation Report 354

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
#isploy •
If What type of AIC do you currently have in yourfacility?Please choose a//that apply!=Don't know
Q20 Approximately how old is the air conditioning system?
Less than 10 years old (1)
10 to 20 years old (2)
More than 20 years old (3)
Don't know (98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page Break -
Process Evaluation Report 355

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q21 What type of heating system do you currently have in your facility? Please choose all that apply
OElectric resistance (i.e. baseboard) (1)
OGas furnace (2)
OHeat Pump (3)
OMini split (4)
O ®Don't heat the facility (5)
O ®Don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 356

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display This •
know
And What type of heating system do you currently have in yourfacility?Please choose all that apply Don't
heat thefacility
If What type of heating system do you currently have in yourfacility?Please choose all that apply!=Don't
Q22 Approximately how old is the heating system?
0 Less than 10 years old (1)
0 10 to 20 years old (2)
More than 20 years old (3)
Don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 357

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q23 When was the last time your heating and/or cooling system was serviced?
0 Less than 1 year ago (1)
0 1 to 3 years ago (2)
More than 3 years ago (3)
It's never been serviced (4)
Don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 358

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q24 What type of thermostat do you use?
J Manual (1)
0 Programmable (2)
Smart thermostat (3)
Don't know (98)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 359

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q25 This last set of questions will help Avista develop more effective programs that may best serve the
needs of the community. Your answers will remain anonymous and aggregated, so no information will
be linked with you or your household. You may choose "Prefer not to answer."
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 360

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q32 What type of energy services does Avista provide to your business
at${e://Field/PREMISE_ADDRESS)?Please select oll that apply
OElectricity (1)
ONatural gas (2)
Q26 Does your organization own or rent the facility at$(e://Field/PREMISE_ADDRESS)?
Rent (1)
Own and occupy (2)
0 Own and rent to someone else (3)
0 1 don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 361

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Display Question:
If Does yourorganization own or . at . •' A11'
Or Does yourorganization own or • at . " A11' Own . • rent to
someone
Q27 Which describes your facility at${e://Field/PREMISE_ADDRESS}?Would you say the facility is...
Your company's only location (1)
One of several locations owned by your company (2)
The headquarter location of a company with several locations (3)
Don't know (98)
0 Prefer not to answer (99)
Process Evaluation Report 362

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q31 What are your building(s)' hours of operations?
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 363

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q28 Which of the following best describes how your organization is billed for electricity/gas used at this
location?
We are billed directly by Avista (1)
We are NOT billed directly by Avista, our bill is handled by another part of our company or a
third-party service provider (2)
We are NOT billed directly by Avista,the cost for our utilities is included in our rent/lease (3)
1 don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 364

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 365

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q29 What type of building is the facility at$(e://Field/PREMISE_ADDRESS)?
Industrial/manufacturing (1)
Agricultural (2)
Warehouse or distribution center (3)
Education -College (4)
0 Education - K-12 (5)
0 Education—Pre-K (6)
Daycare/childcare center (7)
Government building (8)
Fast food restaurant (9)
0 Restaurant(sit down) (10)
0 Grocery (11)
Hospital (12)
Health clinic (13)
Small office (14)
0 Large office (15)
0 Lodging (16)
Religious worship (17)
Assembly hall/gathering space (18)
Process Evaluation Report 366

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Retail (19)
Parking garage (20)
Vacant lot (21)
Other—please specify (96)
1 don't know (98)
Prefer not to answer (99)
Page Break
Process Evaluation Report 367

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
Q30 Thank you for taking the time to provide us with this valuable information. As a thank you for
completing this survey,we will send you a $10 gift card. You should expect to receive your gift card
within 5-10 business days via email. Please be sure to check your Spam and junk folders.To confirm, the
correct email address to send the gift card to is $(e://Field/EMAIL}?
Please send my electronic gift card to the above email address (1)
Please send my electronic gift card to the following email address: (2)
End of Block: Block 1
6.2 INTERVIEW GUIDES
6.2.1 Residential Trade Allies
6.2.1.1 Introduction and General Program Information
To begin with, I have a few questions about your firm.
Q1. How would you describe your business?Are you a(n)...
1. Distributor
2. Contractor/Installer
3. Designer/Engineer
4. Energy Service Company
5. Builder
5. Other, please specify:
98. 1 don't know
99. Refuse to answer
Q2. What services does your company provide to residential customers as an Avista Trade ally?
1. Water heaters (gas or electric)
2. HVAC equipment(gas or electric)
3. Smart thermostats
3. Building shell/weatherization (insulation,windows, doors, air sealing, etc.)
4. New construction ENERGY STAR homes
5. Lighting
6. Faucet aerators; showerheads
7. Power strips
8. Washer/Dryer Appliances
9. Refrigerator/Freezer
10. Other(please specify)
Process Evaluation Report 368

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
98. 1 don't know
99. Refuse
Q3. Which state(s) do you operate in?
1. Washington
2. Idaho
Q4. How would you describe your typical customer? [multifamily homes, single family homes, low-
income homes]
6.2.1.2 Program Experience& Participation
My next few questions are about your experiences and satisfaction with using Avista programs and
services.
Q5. How long have you been working with Avista? How did you first become involved?
Q6. In the last year, how often have you incorporated Avista incentives into project bids and sales
pitches?Would you say you....
1. Almost always incorporate Avista incentives (90%to 100%)
2. Mostly(60%to 89%)
3. Sometimes (40%to 59%)
4. Rarely(10%to 39%)
5. Almost Never(0%to 9%)
98. Don't know
99. Refuse
NOTES: (probe for why they don't incorporate incentives, types of people who do not qualify)
Q7. How many projects have you completed in the last year that received support from Avista?
(total number and%of total work)
Q8. What are some of the primary reasons customers provide for not wanting to enroll in the Avista
programs and install energy efficient equipment?
Q9. We've heard a lot about supply chain disruptions affecting programs across the U.S. Have you
observed any such disruptions? If so, what types of equipment do they involve?Where is the
disruption occurring? (Manufacturing,transportation, etc.). What impact, if any, have supply
chain disruptions had on your work with Avista?
6.2.1.3 Program Implementation & Incentives
Q10. APPLICATION PROCESS
• Do you submit the rebate application? (or do you provide the customer with the
information they need and they submit the application)
• If they submit the application...
Process Evaluation Report 369

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
o How satisfied have you been with the process of applying for incentives over
the last year?
o What changes, if any,would you make to the process of applying for Avista
incentives?Why would you make those changes?
o How long does it take for you to receive an incentive once you submit an
application?
Q11. INCENTIVES
• Is there any energy-saving equipment that is not currently being incentivized through
Avista's residential program,that you would like to see incentivized?What equipment is
that?
• Are there any specific types of qualifying program equipment for which the incentive
payments are not high enough to encourage your customers to install it?What type of
equipment?
• Are there any specific types of qualifying program equipment for which the incentive
payments are higher than they need to be to encourage your customers to install it?
What type of equipment?
• Do you have any recommendations for how Avista might improve the incentive process?
Q12. What are your quality assurance procedures? Does Avista conduct any review of your projects
after you have completed them?
Q13. Are there any differences in program experience based on the measures provided or
jurisdictions?
6.2.1.4 Marketing & Communications
Q14. How does your company handle marketing of high efficiency equipment? Do you have a specific
sales approach? (Do you promote the benefits of high efficiency equipment?What benefits do
customers most respond to?)
Q15. Does Avista provide your firm with any marketing materials to assist with program participation
and customer engagement? If yes, how do you feel about the materials provided?
Q16. How do you typically acquire projects?Are you generally cold calling to customers, are
customers seeking you out, are you providing marketing materials by mail, something else?
6.2.1.5 Satisfaction & Conclusion
Q17. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means not at all satisfied, and 5 means completely satisfied, how
would you rate the following factors? (N/A if not applicable)
1.The program application process
2.The range of measures that qualify for the program
3.The amount of time it takes to receive the incentive
4. Communication with program staff
Process Evaluation Report 370

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
5. Marketing materials you received from Avista
6.Training materials you received from Avista
7.The program overall
Q18. [Ask only if any of the above factors are<3] What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with
those aspects of the program?
Q19. What do you think works particularly well about the Avista program that you participated in?
Q20. What do you find challenging about working with Avista program?
Q21. Do you have any suggestions for improving Avista program?
6.2.2 Nonresidential Trade Allies
6.2.2.1 Introduction to Interview
Thanks for taking time to talk with me today about your experience with Avista. We will cover topics
such as how well, or not, Avista has supported your customer's projects and your experience with Avista
staff and forms.
Our chat will take about 30 minutes. All your responses will be treated as confidential. We will report
only the overall findings to Avista, not any individual responses.
I will be taking notes throughout the call, but I would also like to record our conversation to make sure I
capture what you are telling me accurately.The recording is confidential. Is it ok that I record the call?
[IF YES] Start recording
[IF NO] Take notes as best as possible
6.2.2.2 Introduction and General Program Information
To begin with, I have a few questions about your firm.
Q22. How would you describe your business?Are you a(n)...
1. Distributor
2. Contractor/Installer
3. Designer/Engineer
4. Energy Service Company
5. Other, please specify:
98. 1 don't know
99. Refuse to answer
Q23. What services does your company provide to commercial customers as an Avista Trade ally?
1. Water heaters (gas or electric)
2. HVAC equipment(gas or electric)
3. Smart thermostats
4. Building shell/weatherization (insulation,windows, air sealing, etc.)
5. Lighting
Process Evaluation Report 371

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
6. Grocer equipment
7. Food service equipment
8. Motors
9. Air compressors
10. Other(please specify)
98. 1 don't know
99. Refuse
Q24. Which state(s) do you operate in?
1. Washington
2. Idaho
Q25. How would you describe your typical customer? [For example, are you serving small businesses,
serving large Fortune 500-type companies,government entities, schools, manufacturing
facilities, or something else?]
6.2.2.3 Program Experience& Participation
My next few questions are about your experiences and satisfaction with using Avista programs and
services.
Q26. How long have you been working with Avista? How did you first become involved?
Q27. In the last year, how often have you incorporated Avista incentives into project bids and sales
pitches?Would you say you....
1. Almost always incorporate Avista incentives (90%to 100%)
2. Mostly(60%to 89%)
3. Sometimes (40%to 59%)
4. Rarely(10%to 39%)
5. Almost Never(0%to 9%)
98. Don't know
99. Refuse
NOTES: (probe for why they don't incorporate incentives; types of people who do not qualify)
Q28. How many projects have you completed in the last year that received support from Avista?
(total number and%of total work)
Q29. What are some of the primary reasons customers provide for not wanting to enroll in the Avista
programs and install energy efficient equipment?
Q30. We've heard a lot about supply chain disruptions affecting programs across the U.S. Have you
observed any such disruptions? If so, what types of equipment do they involve?Where is the
disruption occurring? (Manufacturing,transportation, etc.). What impact, if any, have supply
chain disruptions had on your work with Avista?
6.2.2.4 Program Implementation & Incentives
Q31. APPLICATION PROCESS
Process Evaluation Report 372

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
• Do you submit the rebate application? (or do you provide the customer with the
information they need and they submit the application)
• if they submit the application...
o How satisfied have you been with the process of applying for incentives over
the last year?
o What changes, if any,would you make to the process of applying for Avista
incentives?Why would you make those changes?
o How long does it take for you to receive an incentive once you submit an
application?
Q32. INCENTIVES
• Is there any energy-saving equipment that is not currently being incentivized through
Avista's residential program,that you would like to see incentivized?What equipment is
that?
• Are there any specific types of qualifying program equipment for which the incentive
payments are not high enough to encourage your customers to install it?What type of
equipment?
• Are there any specific types of qualifying program equipment for which the incentive
payments are higher than they need to be to encourage your customers to install it?
What type of equipment?
• Do you have any recommendations for how Avista might improve the incentive process?
Q33. What are your quality assurance procedures? Does Avista conduct any review of your projects
after you have completed them?
6.2.2.5 Marketing & Communications
Q34. How does your company handle marketing of high efficiency equipment? Do you have a specific
sales approach? (Do you promote the benefits of high efficiency equipment?What benefits do
customers most respond to?)
Q35. Does Avista provide your firm with any marketing materials to assist with program participation
and customer engagement? If yes, how do you feel about the materials provided?
Q36. How do you typically acquire projects?Are you generally cold calling to customers, are
customers seeking you out, are you providing marketing materials by mail, something else?
6.2.2.6 Satisfaction & Conclusion
Q37. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means not at all satisfied, and 5 means completely satisfied, how
would you rate the following factors? (N/A if not applicable)
1.The program application process
2.The range of measures that qualify for the program
3.The amount of time it takes to receive the incentive
4. Communication with program staff
5. Marketing materials you received from Avista
6.Training materials you received from Avista
Process Evaluation Report 373

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
7.The program overall
Q38. [Ask only if any of the above factors are<3] What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with
those aspects of the program?
Q39. What do you think works particularly well about the Avista program that you participated in?
Q40. What do you find challenging about working with Avista program?
Q41. Do you have any suggestions for improving Avista program?
Q42. Confirm email for gift card:
6.2.3 Midstream Distributors
6.2.3.1 Background, Roles& Responsibilities
1. Can you tell me a little bit about your organization and the type of work you do?
2. What types of equipment or services do you work with?
3. What type of customers do you typically work with through Avista's Midstream program? (probe
for contractors, direct sales to businesses, types of businesses, etc.)
4. About what share of your program sales are to contractors versus customers making the
installation or upgrades themselves?
S. Does your company work with national or regional chains?
6. Approximately how much of your work is with repeat clients?
6.2.3.2 Awareness& Motivation
7. How long have you been with the Avista program?
8. How did you first get involved with the program?
9. What motivated you to participate?
10. What interactions do you have with program staff throughout the program process?
11. How, if at all, did you expect that participating in the program would affect your sales? Has your
participation met those expectations?
6.2.3.3 Marketing & Customer Interactions
12. How do you market the program to your customers?
1. Do you use any marketing or informational materials provided through the program?
Process Evaluation Report 374

Avista Process Evaluation Report PY2022-PY2023
13. Are there additional materials or support you would like to receive through the program?
14. What kinds of strategies do you use to sell the program-qualified equipment?
15. What concerns or barriers exist, prohibiting customers from purchasing program-qualifying
equipment/participating in the program?
16. What kinds of questions do customers usually ask around energy-efficiency equipment?
6.2.3.4 Program Influence
17. Have you increased your stocking of program-qualified equipment because of the program?
18. [IF YES] Can you tell me a little bit about how the program led you to increase stocking for that
equipment?
19. Do you believe you would have sold the same amount of program-qualifying equipment if the
program was not available?Why or why not?
20. How has participating in the program affected your business?
6.2.3.5 Program Satisfaction & Feedback
21. What was the process to enroll in the program like?Anything confusing?
22. What aspects of the program works well?
23. What aspects of the program are challenging?
24. Are there any parts of the program that customers seem to find challenging?
25. Is there any equipment that should be added into the program?
26. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations to improve the program?
Process Evaluation Report 375

APPENDIX G - NEEA 2023 ANNUAL SAVINGS REPORT - ELECTRIC
Memorandum V
April 3,2024 need
TO: Nicole Hydzik, Director of Energy Efficiency,Avista Utilities; Meghan Pinch, Manager
of Program Managers,Avista Utilities; Kim Boynton, Manager of Planning and
Analytics,Avista Utilities
CC: Stephanie Rider, Director, NEEA Data, Planning,and Analytics;
Susan Hermenet,Vice President, NEEA Research, Evaluation and Analytics;
Virginia Mersereau,Senior Manager of Strategy,NEEA Corporate Strategy
FROM: Christina Steinhoff, Principal Planning Analyst, NEEA Data, Planning and Analytics
SUBJECT: Final 2023 Annual Savings Report for Avista's Idaho Service Territory(Electric)
................................................................................
NEEA is an alliance of utilities and energy efficiency organizations that pools resources and shares
risks to transform markets toward energy efficiency that benefits consumers in the Northwest.
The alliance works together to accelerate the innovation and adoption of energy-efficient
products,services,and practices in the Northwest. By pooling together regional resources, NEEA:
• Leverages relationships with the Department of Energy,trade allies,and national and
regional manufacturers to identify and advance new efficient technologies, product
designs,test procedures, product specifications and standards to increase the
availability and demand for energy-efficient products,services and practices,
• Conducts research and energy use analysis, market characterization studies,and stock
assessments to help the region identify the best efficiency opportunities and inform
utilities resource planning efforts,
• Defines and executes program strategies to remove market barriers leading to
increased adoption of the most energy efficient products available,
• Builds relationships with midstream supply chain partners such as distributors,
retailers,and trade allies to collect regional data and build market capability and
infrastructure to increase availability within the Northwest of the most efficient
products,
• Gathers,cleans,and analyzes sales,shipment,and distributor data to track markets and
inform regional investment decisions.
NEEA's end goal is to make energy efficiency a self-sustaining standard of practice in markets.
Codes and standards are a core element of locking in that permanent market change,so NEEA
works at state and national levels to influence more efficient building codes and equipment
neea.org I [e-mail]
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

efficiency standards to save customers energy and ensure that Northwest needs are represented
in the process.
Utilities,energy efficiency administrators,and the Regional Technical Forum(RTF)all benefit from
NEEA's work through knowledge sharing,the development of new energy efficiency measures,
and the resulting market changes leading to energy savings.
NEEA accesses and analyzes market data for each program in order to track the effects of these
market transformation efforts over time as well as to report incremental energy savings in the
region each year. Avista Utilities(Idaho) has asked NEEA to report savings specific to its service
territory where possible as part of NEEA's annual report out.
This memo provides the final energy savings estimates for 2023. Details about baseline and
technical assumptions are in Appendix A and the attached Excel spreadsheet.
Please contact Christina Steinhoff at [e-mail] with any questions about this report.
Final 2023 Savings Estimate Summary
NEEA estimates Avista Utilities'(Idaho)2023 annual electric energy savings associated with its
initiatives is 0.68 aMW(Table 1).To calculate the savings, NEEA removes an estimate of savings
occurring from naturally occurring adoption based on baseline trends in the Northwest,and
savings reported through Avista Utilities' (Idaho)local incentive programs(Appendix A).
Table 1:2023 Annual Report Savings Estimates(aMW)
• . 0.68
Residential 0.29
Commercial 0.35
Industrial 0.04
Agricultural 0.00
Notes:The values represented are rounded to the hundredth decimal in this summary table.See the accompanying excel workbook
for the detailed figures.These are site-based,first year electric savings.Net Market Effects=Total Regional Savings-Local Program
Savings-Baseline Savings'
• I Net Market Effects is savings above the Naturally Occurring Market Baseline established at the start of a
program net of utility program savings.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
421 SW Sixth Avenue,Suite 600, Portland,OR 97204
503.688.5400 1 Fax [phone] Page 2 of 7
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

2023 Highlights
NEEA supports the region meet energy efficiency goals through market transformation work that
spans in-market programs,codes and standards,emerging technology,as well as complementary
data collection and research efforts.The sections below highlight that work for 2023.
In-market Programs
NEEA operates a portfolio of Market Transformation programs in seven cross-sector groups—
consumer products, building envelope, HVAC, lighting, motors,new construction,and water
heating.The programs within these sectors intervene in markets to create lasting change by
removing barriers and leveraging opportunities.
Consumer Products
Dryers
NEEA was a founding member in a national coalition of efficiency advocates(the Super-Efficient
Dryer Initiative)that helped introduce heat pump clothes dryers in North America through early
test procedure and specification development. NEEA followed this with incentives and other
engagement with manufacturers to help spur adoption and reduce the first cost barrier for early
generations of heat pump dryers. In 2023,two manufacturers introduced new combination
washer/dryer units that utilize heat pump drying technology,showing continued evolution of the
technology for this end use.
Televisions
NEEA is able to report savings from its work on ENERGY STAR televisions. NEEA's efforts began
several years ago, resulting in a NEEA-developed test procedure to better estimate energy usage.
The test procedure was adopted by ENERGY STAR and the Consumer Technology Association(CTA-
2045-C and D).Additionally,as part of NEEA's work on TVs, major manufacturers have committed
to a voluntary agreement to provide their TV energy performance,which will provide consumers
with more transparent information on TV energy consumption and inform future midstream
incentives through the program.The agreement should lead to a more complete set of product
test data becoming publicly available, increasing NEEA's ability to track changes in the full market.
Retail Products Portfolio
During 2023,three new utility sponsors joined the ENERGY STAR RPP program, bringing the share
of US households represented by program sponsors up to 24.2%. Achieving greater scale is one
way NEEA and the ESRPP program increases the collective influence that the program can have on
retailer assortment decisions and ultimately manufacturer product roadmaps and new ENERGY
STAR specifications.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
421 SW Sixth Avenue,Suite 600, Portland,OR 97204
503.688.5400 1 Fax [phone] Page 3 of 7
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

New Construction
Manufactured Homes
NEEA completed a Transition Market Progress Evaluation Report to assess the market progress of
the Northwest Energy Efficient Manufactured Housing(NEEM)+specification—a certification NEEA
supports that is more stringent than ENERGY STAR.The study verified that home sales of NEEM+
has been steady over the past two years and that NEEA should continue to monitor the market to
ensure that the homes remain a viable alternative on an ongoing basis.
Standards and Test Procedures
To speed up the rule-making process, NEEA and energy efficiency advocates entered into a multi-
product agreement with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers(AHAM)to negotiate
several appliance standards.AHAM agreed to more stringent efficiency levels in most cases.
Meanwhile NEEA and the advocates conceded more time for manufacturers to comply.The
agreement helped avoid lawsuits that could have delayed the standards process for many
products,including clothes washers,clothes dryers,and refrigerators.
Overall, NEEA responded to more than 27 requests for comment from the Department of Energy
regarding Federal standards and test methods.These comment letters covered more than 25
products including consumer furnaces,water heaters,circulating pumps,and clothes dryers.
NEEA's comments provided regional data and recommendations to help the DOE set appropriate
rules that provide Northwest benefits and are supportable by the market.
Notably,the DOE adopted a new Electric Motors standard. NEEA influence the development of
this standard through working with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association(NEMA)to
find common ground and through providing comments throughout the rule-making process based
on its experience with motor market transformation programs in the Northwest. NEEA now is
planning for savings modeling and influence evaluation work to quantify the value of this
achievement.
Building Energy Codes
Draft results of a third-party review of NEEA's work show that NEEA is influencing code
development both nationally and in the region by bringing proposals to decision makers in
Oregon,Washington and to the Internal Energy Conservation Code(IECC),which is the basis for
Montana and Idaho codes. NEEA is also filling gaps in the energy code process in each state.
Additionally, more than half of commercial and residential market actors report that NEEA-
supported training is positively influencing their knowledge, behaviors,or attitudes. NEEA expects
to publish the report in Q2 2024.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
421 SW Sixth Avenue,Suite 600, Portland,OR 97204
503.688.5400 1 Fax [phone] Page 4 of 7
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Emerging Technology
Six ENERGY STAR product categories went into effect,which NEEA provided input. Most
significantly, Residential HVAC products,including central and ductless AC and heat pumps,went
into effect in January 2023,and ENERGY STAR integrated several key pieces of feedback from
NEEA. ENERGY STAR Version 5.0 for water heaters went into effect in April 2023,encompassing
heat pump water heaters,whole home tankless,and high efficiency gas storage units.Work on
updating the water heater specification began in 2021,and ENERGY STAR incorporated NEEA
feedback on performance and connectivity in the final specification.The updated residential
Windows, Doors,and Skylights specification went into effect in October 2023. NEEA played a
significant role in advancing the specification through our leadership in the Partnership for
Advanced Window Solutions. Residential Dishwashers and Light Commercial HVAC also went into
effect in 2023,and ENERGY STAR added Residential Cooking products as a category in 2023. Lastly,
a Clothes Dryers revision and a new Micro Heat Pump specification opened in late 2023.
Data Collection and Research
Building Stock Assessments
NEEA finished collecting building characteristic and energy consumption data on single-family and
multi-family homes and will publish data and reports in Q12024.The Residential Building Stock
Assessment(RBSA) provides data on the existing housing stock in the Northwest to help with
planning.The 2022 RBSA includes the addition of tracking solar panels,electric vehicle chargers,
presence of electric vehicles and accessory dwelling units. NEEA also began planning for the next
Commercial Building Stock Assessment,which will be in field in 2024.
Market Data and Research
Several programs are in the midst of their first market progress evaluation report, including the
Commercial HVAC programs(High-Performance HVAC and gas Efficient Rooftop Units)and the
Extended Motor Products program.These evaluations will bring increased understanding of the
market opportunity for these measures,as well as NEEA's progress toward its Market
Transformation goals. NEEA is also conducting several state energy code compliance and standard
influence evaluations in the field.
End Use Load Research(EULR)
The EULR project is an ongoing regional study designed to gather accurate end-use load profiles
for electrically powered equipment in homes and businesses. In 2023, NEEA completed
installations for 400 residential homes and 70 commercial office/retail buildings.The Regional
Technical Forum used the information from previous years to calibrate its new Energy Efficiency
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
421 SW Sixth Avenue,Suite 600, Portland,OR 97204
503.688.5400 1 Fax [phone] Page 5 of 7
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

and Demand Response(REEDR)tool,which analyzes residential building energy models in
EnergyPlus. Regional utilities and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory used the data to
update/calibrate their energy use load shapes. Meanwhile, universities,consultants, utilities,and
other organizations from all over the world are downloading the 15-minute interval public data
available on neea.org. Now,the project's steering committee and working group will consider
proposals to fund and conduct joint analyses of the EULR data. Funders of the project can submit a
proposal or sponsor others submitting proposals.
Monitoring&Tracking
NEEA is monitoring the progress in the ductless heat market. NEEA formally began its DHP
program in 2008 with a goal to displace inefficient electric heating(such as baseboard heaters and
inefficient electric forced-air furnaces)from single-family homes. NEEA's Long-term Monitoring
and Tracking Report showed that the total number of counties with access to DHP installers has
continued to increase to a total of 135, incented installations for DHPs continues to increase,and
the total proportion of HVAC contractors installing DHPs in the Northwest has maintained a steady
level.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
421 SW Sixth Avenue,Suite 600, Portland,OR 97204
503.688.5400 1 Fax [phone] Page 6 of 7
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Appendix A
Allocation Methodology
Avista Utilities(Idaho)requested that NEEA use a service territory allocation approach where
possible starting in 2023. NEEA uses the best available data to estimate these shares. More details
about the allocation approaches by program is available on the Service Territory Shares worksheet
of the attached spreadsheet.
Baseline and Technical Assumptions
This report follows NEEA's method of measuring electric energy savings from market
transformation efforts. The baseline is an estimate of the market adoption for the region without
intervention by NEEA,the Bonneville Power Administration,the Energy Trust of Oregon,and
utilities. Prior to reporting the savings above the baseline, NEEA removes the savings counted
through the local programs.This effort avoids double counting energy savings.
The technical assumptions come from third-party research including NEEA-contracted research
and the Regional Technical Forum.
More details about the assumptions are available here:
neea.org
Go to the Portal Login4Savings Reports
neea.org I [e-mail]
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

APPENDIX H - NEEA 2023 ANNUAL SAVINGS REPORT - NATURAL GAS
Memorandum
April 3,2024 n ea
TO: Nicole Hydzik, Director of Energy Efficiency,Avista Utilities; Meghan Pinch, Manager
of Program Managers,Avista Utilities; Kim Boynton, Manager of Planning and
Analytics,Avista Utilities
CC: Peter Christeleit, Manager of Natural Gas Portfolio and Strategy, NEEA;Stephanie
Rider, Director, Data, Planning,and Analytics, NEEA; Becky Walker, NEEA,Vice
President, Market Development and Transformation, NEEA;Susan Hermenet,Vice
President, Research, Evaluation and Analytics, NEEA;Virginia Mersereau,Vice
President of Corporate Strategy and Communications, NEEA
FROM: Christina Steinhoff, Principal Planning Analyst, NEEA
SUBJECT: Avista Utilities'2023 Annual Savings Report for Idaho(Natural Gas)
................................................................................
NEEA is an alliance of utilities and energy efficiency organizations that pools resources and shares
risks to transform markets toward energy efficiency that benefits consumers in the Northwest.
The alliance works together to accelerate the innovation and adoption of energy-efficient
products,services,and practices in the Northwest. By pooling together regional resources, NEEA:
• Leverages relationships with the Department of Energy,trade allies,and national and
regional manufacturers to identify and advance new efficient technologies, product
designs,test procedures,product specifications and standards to increase the
availability and demand for energy-efficient products,services and practices,
• Conducts research and energy use analysis, market characterization studies,and stock
assessments to help the region identify the best efficiency opportunities and inform
utilities resource planning efforts,
• Defines and executes program strategies to remove market barriers leading to
increased adoption of the most energy efficient products available,
• Builds relationships with midstream supply chain partners such as distributors,
retailers,and trade allies to collect regional data and build market capability and
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
700 NE Multnomah Street,Suite 1300,Portland,OR 97232
503.688.5400 1 Fax [phone]
neea.org I [e-mail]
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

infrastructure to increase availability within the Northwest of the most efficient
products,
• Gathers,cleans,and analyzes sales,shipment,and distributor data to track markets and
inform regional investment decisions.
NEEA's goal is to make energy efficiency a self-sustaining standard of practice in markets.Codes
and standards are a core element of locking in that permanent market change,so NEEA works at
state and national levels to influence more efficient building codes and equipment efficiency
standards to save customers energy and ensure that Northwest needs are represented in the
process.
Utilities,energy efficiency administrators,and the Regional Technical Forum all benefit from
NEEA's work through knowledge sharing,the development of new energy efficiency measures,
and the resulting market changes leading to energy savings.
NEEA reports these energy savings to Avista Utilities(Idaho)as they develop over time. Because
most programs in the gas portfolio are still in the early stages of Market Transformation,the
savings are mostly comprised of early work on building energy codes. NEEA is focused on
advancing new technologies,implementing strategies to remove market barriers and leveraging
market opportunities to increase the adoption of new efficient products,which should lead to
additional savings over time.The attached Frequently Asked Questions document provides an
overview of this work.
NEEA tracks energy savings based on the work described as a lagging indicator of progress.This
memo provides energy savings estimates for 2023. Details about baseline and technical
assumptions are in the attached Excel spreadsheet. Please contact Christina Steinhoff at
[e-mail] with any questions.
2023 Savings Estimate Summary
Avista Utilities'(Idaho)share of the 2023 natural gas energy savings associated with NEEA's
initiatives is 217,045 annual therms'(Table 1).To calculate the savings, NEEA removes an estimate
of savings occurring from naturally occurring adoption based on baseline trends in the Northwest,
and savings reported through regional local incentive programs.Appendix A provides more details
about the calculation and allocation methodology.
Annual therms represent first-year savings and a sustained reduction in load.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance -2-
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Table 1:2023 Energy Savings*(Annual Therms)
Residential -w Commercial Products
• • •. •
216,883 161 0 217,045
*Net Market Effects=Total Regional Savings-Local Program Savings-Baseline Savings
Regional Gas Savings Portfolio
NEEA is developing and advancing new energy efficiency measures to add to its savings portfolio.
Annual gas savings will increase over time as programs in the portfolio advance into full-scale
market development.Table 2 lists NEEA's expectations for gas savings.
Table 2:Savings Expectations
•• -]a I Year ExpectedReporting*
Commercial Code Working on future code TBD
development
Residential Code IECC 2018 with Idaho amendments 2021
Efficient Rooftop Units Efficient Rooftop Units 2022(expected to ramp up in
2026/2027)
Products(Standards) Commercial Boilers,Residential Gas 2023,2029
Furnaces
High-Performance ENERGY STAR version 7,where U
2025
Windows* Factor<_0.22
Efficient Gas Water Heater* Gas Heat Pump Water Heater 2025
*Years are pending program advancements.
The table above only includes programs that were in the portfolio for the whole year.Advanced
Commercial Gas Water Heating was advanced in December of 2023 and other potential programs
are expected to be part of the portfolio in Cycle 7starting in 2025.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance -3-
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Appendix A: Methodology to Estimate Energy Savings
Allocation Methodology
NEEA allocates code savings for gas measures using a state/service territory approach. NEEA
models code savings rates by state and applies the state-level savings rates to state-level new
construction square footage estimates from Dodge Data&Analytics and units from the U.S.
Housing and Urban Development to calculate energy savings. NEEA allocates the state-level
savings to service territories based on the utility's share of the state residential customers
(Residential Codes)and commercial energy sales(Commercial Codes)from the Energy Information
Administration(EIA-861).
Table 3:State Code Savings Allocation Share for Avista Utilities(Idaho)
• ' �
Residential 0.00% 0.00% 18.33%
Commercial 0.00% 0.00% 15.38%
For voluntary programs, NEEA allocates regional savings(Idaho,Oregon,and Washington)using
the utility's share of investment in NEEA's natural gas portfolio(Table 4).
Table 4:Avista Utilities'(Idaho)Share of Regional Savings
Share of • •
2020-2024 3.55%
Naturally Occurring Baseline
NEEA approximates the share of the savings that would have occurred without market
intervention.To calculate these savings, NEEA forecasts the naturally occurring baseline adoption
at the regional level for energy efficiency measures within each Market Transformation program.
NEEA uses the best available data—historical sales data, industrial reports, market studies,etc.A
third-party evaluation reviews the methodology as well as provides recommendations for
adjustments. NEEA also presents the methodology and forecast to its Cost Effectiveness Advisory
Committee,which includes funder representatives from each funder in the alliance,state
regulators from across the region,and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
700 NE Multnomah Street,Suite 1300,Portland,OR 97232
503.688.5400 1 Fax [phone]
neea.org I [e-mail]
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Local Programs
NEEA avoids reporting savings from units already counted through local utility programs by
subtracting an estimate of the incentives associated with NEEA's Market Transformation efforts.
NEEA surveys its gas funders annually to estimate the overlap at the regional level and removes
the utility's funder share of this overlap prior to reporting energy savings.
Technical Assumptions
The technical assumptions are assumptions NEEA uses when calculating the savings rates such as
hours of operation, HVAC interaction factors,and climate zone weights. NEEA uses the best
available information such as regional stock assessments,the Regional Technical Forum,third-
party research,and the 2021 Power Plan. NEEA also presents the assumptions to its Cost
Effectiveness Advisory Committee.
The savings rate is measured against the energy consumption of the alternative. In cases where
NEEA works on different efficiency levels of the same product,the savings rate is incremental to
the lower efficiency measure.The resulting value represents the incremental energy savings of the
measure in comparison to the alternative.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
421 SW Sixth Avenue,Suite 600, Portland,OR 97204
503.688.5400 1 Fax [phone] Page 5 of 5
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

APPENDIX I - IDAHO NEEA EVALUATION REPORT
Evaluation of NEEA
Impacts Allocated to
Idaho Power Company
and Avista Utilities
Within the State of
I d a h o
SUBMITTED TO: IDAHO POWER COMPANY &
AVISTA UTILITIES
SUBMITTED ON : APRIL 61 2023
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC.
l
ADM Associates, Inc Idaho Power Company Avista Utilities
3239 Ramos Circle 1221 W Idaho St 1411 E Mission Ave
Sacramento, CA 95827 Boise, ID 83702 Spokane, WA 99202
916-363-8383
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Prepared by:
Melissa Kosla
Heather Polonsky
Hannah Lopez
Adam Thomas
J

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the staff at NEEA for their time and effort in contributing to the evaluation of the
Idaho-specific NEEA impacts.This evaluation was conducted with regular coordination with staff at
NEEA, Idaho Power Company, and Avista, who each provided quick feedback and turnaround to the
requests of the evaluation team as well as open and forthright insights into the operations of their
initiatives and efforts.
iii

Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................11
1.1 Evaluation Objectives..................................................................................................13
1.2 NEEA Background........................................................................................................14
1.3 Data Provided..............................................................................................................15
1.4 Findings and Recommendations.................................................................................15
2 Impact Evaluation Approach ............................................................................................................19
2.1 Activity-Specific M&V..................................................................................................22
2.2 Step 1: Database Review.............................................................................................24
2.3 Step 2: Document-Based Verification .........................................................................24
2.4 Step 3: UES Review......................................................................................................24
2.5 Step 4: Market Transformation Baseline Review........................................................25
2.6 Step 5: Staff Interviews...............................................................................................25
2.7 Step 6: Cost-Effectiveness Testing ..............................................................................26
3 Evaluation Results.............................................................................................................................28
3.1 Ex Ante Savings ...........................................................................................................30
3.2 Verified Ex Post Savings...............................................................................................38
3.3 Allocation Methodology Review.................................................................................49
3.4 Cost Effectiveness Methodology Review....................................................................55
3.5 Utility Staff Interview Results......................................................................................57
3.6 Impact Evaluation Results...........................................................................................64
4 Appendix A: Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative............................................................................95
4.1 Efficiency Measures ....................................................................................................95
4.2 Standards ..................................................................................................................100
4.3 Codes.........................................................................................................................103
5 Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results..........................................................................................106
5.1 Efficiency Measures ..................................................................................................106
5.2 Standards ..................................................................................................................113
5.3 Codes.........................................................................................................................115
6 Appendix C: NEEA-Allocated Costs.................................................................................................118
7 Appendix D: Summary of Missing Values.......................................................................................120
iv

List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Net Market Effects...................................................................................................................28
Figure 3-2: Illustration of Naturally Occurring Market Adoption Approach...............................................28
Figure 3-3: Contributions to Ex-Ante Avista Idaho Electric Savings by Measures, Standards, and Codes .32
Figure 3-4: Contributions to Ex-Ante Idaho Power Idaho Electric Savings by Measures, Standards, and
Codes..........................................................................................................................................................33
Figure 3-5: Efficiency Measure Avista Idaho Electric Savings—WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante
(Funder Share) vs Ex-Post (Service Territory).............................................................................................34
Figure 3-6: Code Avista Idaho Electric Savings—WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante (Funder Share)vs
Ex-Post (Service Territory)..........................................................................................................................34
Figure 3-7: Standards Avista Idaho Electric Savings—WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante (Funder Share)
vs Ex-Post (Service Territory)......................................................................................................................35
Figure 3-8: Efficiency Measure Idaho Power Idaho Electric Savings—WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante
(Funder Share) vs Ex-Post (Service Territory).............................................................................................35
Figure 3-9: Code Idaho Power Idaho Electric Savings—WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante (Funder
Share) vs Ex-Post (Service Territory) ..........................................................................................................36
Figure 3-10: Standards Idaho Power Idaho Electric Savings—WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante (Funder
Share) vs Ex-Post (Service Territory) ..........................................................................................................36
Figure 3-11: Efficiency Measure Avista Idaho Gas Savings—WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante (Funder
Share) vs Ex-Post (Service Territory) ..........................................................................................................37
Figure 3-12: Code Avista Idaho Gas Savings—WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante (Funder Share) vs Ex-
Post (Service Territory)...............................................................................................................................38
Figure 3-13: Current NEEA Electric Funding Share by Organization...........................................................51
Figure 3-14: Example of Single-Family Code Savings Claimed by NEEA.....................................................89
v

List of Tables
Table 1-1 Summary of Idaho Power ID Verified Electric Savings................................................................11
Table 1-2 Summary of Avista ID Verified Electric Savings..........................................................................11
Table 1-3 Summary of Avista ID Verified Gas Savings................................................................................11
Table 1-4: Idaho Power Electric Idaho Overall Cost Effectiveness by Program Year..................................12
Table 1-5: Avista Electric Idaho Overall Cost Effectiveness by Program Year............................................13
Table 1-6: Avista Gas Idaho Overall Cost Effectiveness by Program Year..................................................13
Table 2-1: Impact Evaluation Tasks by NEEA Activity.................................................................................20
Table 2-2: Summary of NEEA Initiatives.....................................................................................................21
Table 2-3: Summary of NEEA Efficiency Measures by Sector.....................................................................23
Table 2-4: Summary of NEEA Codes &Standards Measures......................................................................24
Table 2-5: Summary of Staff Interviews.....................................................................................................26
Table 2-6: Data Sources to Answer Research Questions............................................................................26
Table 3-1: Summary of Idaho Power Electric Idaho Ex Ante Savings .........................................................31
Table 3-2: Summary of Avista Electric Idaho Ex Ante Savings....................................................................31
Table 3-3: Summary of Avista Gas Idaho Ex Ante Savings..........................................................................31
Table 3-4: Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Program Year.................39
Table 3-5: PY2017 Summary of Idaho Power Electric Idaho Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative............39
Table 3-6: PY2018 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative............40
Table 3-7: PY2019 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative............41
Table 3-8: PY2020 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative............42
Table 3-9: PY2021 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative............43
Table 3-10: Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Program Year .........................43
Table 3-11: PY2017 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative ....................44
Table 3-12: PY2018 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative ....................45
Table 3-13: PY2019 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative ....................46
Table 3-14: PY2020 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative ....................47
Table 3-15: PY2021 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative ....................48
Table 3-16: Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post Savings by Program Year...............................48
Table 3-17: PY2019 Summary of Avista Gas Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative....................................49
Table 3-18: PY2020 Summary of Avista Gas Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative....................................49
Table 3-19: PY2021 Summary of Avista Gas Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative....................................49
Table 3-20: Avista Electric Funder Share....................................................................................................52
vi

Table 3-21: Avista Gas Funder Share..........................................................................................................52
Table 3-22: Idaho Power Electric Funder Share .........................................................................................53
Table 3-23: Summary of Allocation Share Findings and Recommendations..............................................54
Table 3-24: NEEA and IPC/Avista Cost Effectiveness Methodology Comparison.......................................56
Table 3-25: Summary of Allocation Share Findings and Recommendations..............................................62
Table3-26:NEEA Code Initiatives ..............................................................................................................64
Table 3-27: Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings by
ProgramYear..............................................................................................................................................68
Table 3-28: Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings by Program
Year............................................................................................................................................................68
Table 3-29: Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings by Program Year
....................................................................................................................................................................69
Table 3-30: Idaho Power Electric Idaho Efficiency Measures Cost Effectiveness by Program Year...........70
Table 3-31: Avista Electric Idaho Efficiency Measures Cost Effectiveness by Program Year......................70
Table 3-32: Avista Gas Idaho Efficiency Measures Cost Effectiveness by Program Year............................70
Table 3-33: Summary of Efficiency Measure Findings and Recommendations..........................................71
Table 3-34: NEEA Standards Initiatives ......................................................................................................73
Table 3-35: Summary of NEEA Standards Influence Evaluations...............................................................75
Table 3-36: NEEA Measure-Level Standards ..............................................................................................78
Table 3-37: Idaho Power Electric Standards Ex-Ante Savings by Influence Evaluation Completion ..........78
Table 3-38: Idaho Power Electric Standards Ex-Post Savings by Influence Evaluation Completion...........79
Table 3-39: Avista Electric Standards Ex-Ante Savings by Influence Evaluation Completion.....................79
Table 3-40: Avista Electric Standards Ex-Post Savings by Influence Evaluation Completion......................79
Table 3-41: Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by Program Year
....................................................................................................................................................................81
Table 3-42: Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by Program Year........81
Table 3-43: Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by Program Year.............81
Table 3-44: Idaho Power Electric Idaho Standard Cost Effectiveness by Program Year.............................82
Table 3-45: Avista Electric Idaho Standard Cost Effectiveness by Program Year.......................................82
Table 3-46: Summary of Federal Standards Findings and Recommendations...........................................83
Table 3-47: NEEA Code Initiatives Claimed in 2017-2021 ..........................................................................84
Table 3-48: Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Program Year.....90
Table 3-49: Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Program Year...............91
Table 3-50: Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Program Year.....................91
vii

Table 3-51: Idaho Power Electric Idaho Code Cost Effectiveness by Program Year...................................92
Table 3-52: Avista Electric Idaho Code Cost Effectiveness by Program Year .............................................92
Table 3-53: Avista Gas Idaho Code Cost Effectiveness by Program Year...................................................92
Table 3-54: Summary of Code Findings and Recommendations................................................................93
Table 4-1: PY2017 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings
byInitiative.................................................................................................................................................95
Table 4-2: PY2018 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings
byInitiative.................................................................................................................................................96
Table 4-3: PY2019 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings
byInitiative.................................................................................................................................................96
Table 4-4: PY2020 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings
byInitiative.................................................................................................................................................97
Table 4-5: PY2021 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings
byInitiative.................................................................................................................................................97
Table 4-6: PY2017 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings by
Initiative .....................................................................................................................................................97
Table 4-7: PY2018 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings by
Initiative .....................................................................................................................................................98
Table 4-8: PY2019 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings by
Initiative .....................................................................................................................................................98
Table 4-9: PY2020 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings by
Initiative .....................................................................................................................................................99
Table 4-10: PY2021 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings by
Initiative .....................................................................................................................................................99
Table 4-11: PY2019 Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings by
Initiative ...................................................................................................................................................100
Table 4-12: PY2020 Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings by
Initiative ...................................................................................................................................................100
Table 4-13: PY2021 Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post Efficiency Measure Savings by
Initiative ...................................................................................................................................................100
Table 4-14: PY2017 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by
Initiative ...................................................................................................................................................100
Table 4-15: PY2018 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by
Initiative ...................................................................................................................................................101
Table 4-16: PY2019 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by
Initiative ...................................................................................................................................................101
viii

Table 4-17: PY2020 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by
Initiative ...................................................................................................................................................101
Table 4-18: PY2020 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by
Initiative ...................................................................................................................................................101
Table 4-19: PY2017 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by Initiative 102
Table 4-20: PY2018 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by Initiative 102
Table 4-21: PY2019 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by Initiative 102
Table 4-22: PY2020 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by Initiative 102
Table 4-23: PY2021 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Standards Savings by Initiative 103
Table 4-24: PY2017 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative
..................................................................................................................................................................103
Table 4-25: PY2018 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative
..................................................................................................................................................................103
Table 4-26: PY2019 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative
..................................................................................................................................................................104
Table 4-27: PY2020 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative
..................................................................................................................................................................104
Table 4-28: PY2021 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative
..................................................................................................................................................................104
Table 4-29: PY2017 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative........105
Table 4-30: PY2018 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative ........105
Table 4-31: PY2019 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative ........105
Table 4-32: PY2020 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative ........105
Table 4-33: PY2021 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative........106
Table 4-34: PY2019 Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative..............106
Table 4-35: PY2020 Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative..............106
Table 4-36: PY2021 Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post Code Savings by Initiative..............106
Table 5-1: PY2017 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative........107
Table 5-2: PY2018 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative........107
Table 5-3: PY2019 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative........108
Table 5-4: PY2020 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative........108
Table 5-5: PY2021 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative........109
Table 5-6: PY2017 Avista Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative..................109
Table 5-7: PY2018 Avista Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative..................110
Table 5-8: PY2019 Avista Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative..................110
ix

Table 5-9: PY2020 Avista Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative..................111
Table 5-10: PY2021 Avista Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative................112
Table 5-11: PY2019 Avista Gas Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative......................112
Table 5-12: PY2020 Avista Gas Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative......................112
Table 5-13: PY2021 Avista Gas Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative......................112
Table 5-14: PY2017 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative....................113
Table 5-15: PY2018 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative....................113
Table 5-16: PY2019 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative....................113
Table 5-17: PY2020 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative....................113
Table 5-18: PY2021 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative....................114
Table 5-19: PY2017 Avista Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative ..............................114
Table 5-20: PY2018 Avista Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative ..............................114
Table 5-21: PY2019 Avista Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative ..............................114
Table 5-22: PY2020 Avista Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative ..............................115
Table 5-23: PY2021 Avista Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative ..............................115
Table 5-24: PY2017 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative..........................116
Table 5-25: PY2018 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative..........................116
Table 5-26: PY2019 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative..........................116
Table 5-27: PY2020 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative..........................116
Table 5-28: PY2021 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative..........................116
Table 5-29: PY2017 Avista Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative.....................................117
Table 5-30: PY2018 Avista Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative.....................................117
Table 5-31: PY2019 Avista Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative.....................................117
Table 5-32: PY2020 Avista Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative.....................................117
Table 5-33: PY2021 Avista Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative.....................................118
Table 5-34: PY2019 Avista Gas Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative...........................................118
Table 5-35: PY2020 Avista Gas Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative...........................................118
Table 5-36: PY2020 Avista Gas Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative...........................................118
Table 6-1: 2014—2019 5-Year Actual NEEA Costs ...................................................................................119
Table 6-2: 2020-2022 Actual NEEA Costs.................................................................................................119
Table 7-1: Avista Electric Summary of Missing Values.............................................................................120
Table 7-2: Avista Gas Summary of Missing Values...................................................................................120
Table 7-3: Idaho Power Electric Summary of Missing Values...................................................................121
x

NEEA Impacts on IPC and Avista Within the State of Idaho
1 Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) effort of the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) activities and energy impact estimates as it relates to
savings allocated to Idaho Power Company(IPC) and Avista Utilities (Avista)within the state of Idaho for
the program years 2017-2021. The evaluation was administered by ADM Associates, Inc (herein referred
to as the "Evaluators").
The Evaluators collected data for the evaluation through review of NEEA codes and standards
methodology documents, NEEA cost-effectiveness methodology documents, previously completed NEEA
measure evaluations, application of prescriptive unit energy savings (UES), annual savings reports, and
collection of historical funding invoices.The Evaluators estimated the energy impacts of the energy
efficiency measures and codes and standards updates through application of Regional Technical Forum
(RTF) prescriptive savings, International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) simulation models, and data
documented from field studies. Table 1-1 through Table 1-3 summarizes NEEA's ex-ante electric savings
(aMW) for the past 5 years (2017 through 2021) for Idaho Power Company electric savings in the state
of Idaho, Avista electric savings in the state of Idaho, Avista gas savings in the state of Idaho,
respectively.
Table 1-1 Summary of Idaho Power ID Verified Electric Savings
Ex Ante X Post Realization
Year aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
2017 2.65 1.72 64.75%
2018 2.77 1.04 37.65%
2019 1.99 2.43 122.00%
2020 1.91 2.72 142.28%
2021 1.82 1.71 93.51%
Total 11.15 9.61 86.23%
Table 1-2 Summary of Avista ID Verified Electric Savings
Ex Ante Ex Post 7 Rate
Mai Savings Savings
2017 0.60 0.31 51.19%
2018 0.57 0.36 63.33%
2019 0.43 0.50 115.22%
2020 0.41 0.48 118.44%
2021 0.39 0.40 103.32%
Total 2.41 2.06 85.41%
Table 1-3 Summary of Avista ID Verified Gas Savings
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Year Therms Therms Rate
Savings Savings
2019 43,745 22,808 52.14%
2020 5,678 385 6.79%

Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Year Therms Therms Rate
Savings Savings
2021 1 15 2,881 1 15 2,881 100.00%
Total 1 202,304 1 176,074 87.03%
During this evaluation work, the Evaluators compared service territory share to funder share allocation.
The Evaluators ultimately used service territory allocation methodology to estimate total verified
savings and cost-effectiveness of efforts benefitting Idaho customers within Avista's and Idaho Power's
service territories, as seen in the tables above.The tables present the average megawatt hours (aMW)
and Therms verified to claim within the state of Idaho for each utility.The Evaluators estimated verified
savings by multiplying verified net market units, verified UES, and verified savings allocation share.
The Evaluators concluded that the savings estimates for the 2017 through 2021 program years verified
to be allocated to Idaho Power electric is 9.61 aMW at 86.23% realization rate.The verified Idaho
electric savings for Avista during this period is 2.06 aMW at 85.41% realization rate.The verified Idaho
gas savings for Avista during this period is 176,074 Therms at 87.03% realization rate.
The Evaluators also conducted cost-effectiveness testing for each measure, initiative, and program year.
The Evaluators summarize the overall cost-effectiveness by program year.The Evaluators found that
codes and standards efforts were cost effective for all program years,with cost-benefit ratios ranging
between 8 to 49.The Evaluators believe that the cost effectiveness and the savings of the code efforts
are currently overestimated, due to lack of estimation of NEEA influence over code updates.The
Evaluators describe this caveat in detail under the Codes section of the report.
The Evaluators found that all efficiency measure efforts were not cost effective for all program years,
with cost-benefit ratios ranging between 0 and 0.7.Therefore, Avista and Idaho Power funding towards
NEEA remains cost effective due to codes and standards efforts. Further cost-effectiveness testing for
each efficiency measure, standard, and code effort is further detailed in the results section below.
Table 1-4:Idaho Power Electric Idaho Overall Cost Effectiveness by Program Year
Program Year UCT Costs' UCT Benefits UCT
2017 $2,532,792.41 $13,374,742.01 5.28
2018 $2,492,098.69 $9,900,643.72 3.97
2019 $2,491,376.81 $18,155,345.04 7.29
2020 $2,612,183.81 $20,639,160.48 7.90
2021 $2,762,562.35 $11,091,961.06 4.02
Total $12,891,014.08 $73,161,852.31 5.68
Due to carry over dollars between quarters and program years,the total annual funding amounts may not match with Idaho
Power reported spend towards NEEA efforts.
Executive Summary 12

Table 1-5:Avista Electric Idaho Overall Cost Effectiveness by Program Year
Program Year UCT Costs' UCT Benefits UCT
2017 $576,173 $3,040,522 5.28
2018 $566,915 $4,279,882 7.55
2019 $510,076 $5,984,066 11.73
2020 $432,580 $5,237,060 12.11
2021 $480,617 $3,408,526 7.09
Total $2,566,361 $21,950,055 8.55
Table 1-6:Avista Gas Idaho Overall Cost Effectiveness by Program Year
Program Year UCT Costs' UCT Benefits UCT
2019 $154,261 $315,142 2.04
2020 $139,208 $6,048 0.04
2021 $157,375 $2,491,877 15.83
Total $450,844 $2,813,068 6.24
As seen in the tables above, NEEA efforts by program year remained cost-effective using the Idaho
Power and Avista avoided costs and updated verified Ex Post savings to demonstrate savings and cost-
effectiveness in their respective Idaho service territories.
1.1 Evaluation Objectives
The Evaluators identified the following research objectives for the energy efficiency and codes and
standards impact evaluations as it pertains to IPC and Avista within the state of Idaho:
1. Verify and validate the energy and demand (kWh,Therms) impacts attributable to NEEA
activities taking the following into account:
a. The savings calculation methodologies NEEA employs for claiming savings
b. The allocation method of those savings to IPC And Avista
c. The cost-effectiveness of those savings for IPC and Avista;
2. Interview NEEA, IPC, and Avista staff to understand the NEEA savings methodology, NEEA
baseline creation for market transformation and energy saving impacts of NEEA efforts;
2 Due to carry over dollars between quarters and program years,the total annual funding amounts may not match with
Avista reported spend towards NEEA efforts.
3 Due to carry over dollars between quarters and program years,the total annual funding amounts may not match with
Avista reported spend towards NEEA efforts.
Executive Summary 13

3. Report findings and observations. Make recommendations as applicable;
4. Review and comment on NEEA assumptions and methods for determining and calculating
savings;
5. Review and verify the methodologies and claimed energy impacts that are attributable to IPC
and Avista; and,
6. Complete reviews and verify calculations with 90/10 confidence and precision, where applicable
7. If applicable, propose alternate methods that would result in more accurately quantified and
allocated savings.
This evaluation was requested from Idaho Power and Avista staff due to the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission (IPUC or Commission) Order Number 35270 in case IPC-E-21-04 and Order Number 35129
in AVU-E-20-13/AVU-G-20-08.The Evaluators cite language from Order Number 35270 for which similar
language was used in Order Number 35129:
"The Commission notes Staffs concern with NEEA claimed energy savings and directs the
Company to conduct an independent EM&V to clarify the NEEA claimed savings. We agree it is
concerning for NEEA to claim savings from electrical codes in jurisdictions outside of Idaho. We
direct the Company to verify the accuracy of these claimed savings through an independent
EM&V. If the savings from interjurisdictional codes and standards cannot be verified, then the
method for claiming NEEA savings should be adjusted to remove non-Idaho electrical code
savings. If NEEA is no longer cost-effective after an independent EM&V is conducted, the
Company should reexamine its continued participation. (1PUC Order Nos. 35129 and 35270)
To the extent possible, the Company may work with other Idaho regulated electric utilities that
are conducting a similar EM&V to examine NEEA claimed savings."(IPUC Order No. 35270)
1.2 NEEA Background
NEEA was established in 1997 by the energy efficiency community in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and
Montana. NEEA operates on the philosophy that the region can accomplish more energy savings than
that of the sum of its individual organizations.The alliance works at a regional and national level to
influence the supply chain and increase the market's ability to deliver energy efficiency at a larger scale.
NEEA claims savings for three types of programs:
1. Efficiency measures
2. Federal standards
3. Building codes
The methodology for calculating net market effects differs between each of the above program types.
NEEA completes efforts for each of the above program types throughout the Northwest region to garner
regional savings that benefit all utilities and customers throughout.This involves training and education
for contractors, outreach, collaboration with large manufacturers and market actors, and maintaining an
overall involvement in standards and codes updates to ensure maximum energy efficiency potential is
reached.
Executive Summary 14

NEEA plays a large and significant role in energy efficiency within the Northwest. Its contributions have
amounted to large energy efficiency savings across the region. The goal of this evaluation work is to
determine the energy efficiency benefits are benefitting Idaho customers directly. Although NEEA's
work contributes to the entire region, how much of those savings are accrued within Idaho and how
much of those savings affect the local Idaho grid?
The Evaluators' approached this project with those questions in mind as they verified energy efficiency
savings attributable within the state of Idaho to each Avista and Idaho Power.
1.3 Data Provided
The Evaluators requested and received the following documentation from NEEA to facilitate this
evaluation work:
■ Allocation methodology documentation
■ Cost effectiveness documentation
■ 2017-2021 invoices for Avista electric, Avista gas, and Idaho Power electric
■ 2017-2021 annual savings reports for Avista electric,Avista gas, and Idaho Power electric
■ Idaho codes documentation, codes contracts completed, market progress evaluation reports,
and logic models
■ Consumer products, HVAC,water heating, next step homes, and federal standards UES
methodology documentation
■ Federal standards influence evaluation reports
1.4 Findings and Recommendations
The Evaluators offer the following findings and recommendations for the evaluation of NEEA efforts in
Idaho.
1.4.1 Findings
■ Overall,the Evaluators found that contribution to NEEA efforts for standards, and codes
remained cost-effective across program years 2017 through 2021,with cost-benefit ratios
ranging between 11.92 to 167.66,with the exception of one codes program in Avista Gas.
However,the Evaluators found that all efficiency measure efforts were not cost effective for all
program years, with cost-benefit ratios ranging between 0.0 and 0.7. Using the service territory
methodology, measures and codes had overestimated savings accrued out-of-state and had
underestimated savings accrued within Idaho.The Evaluators estimated savings using service
territory allocation methodology, which led to realization rates for individual measures under
100%and over 100%; however,the overall effect of this change revealed NEEA efforts remained
cost-effective for each Idaho Power electric, Avista electric, and Avista gas due to codes and
standards savings.
General Findings
Executive Summary 15

■ Finding#1: Utilities that fund NEEA can choose whether savings are reported by allocation share
methodology or service territory methodology.The allocation share methodology
overrepresents out-of-state and out-of-service territory savings across measures, codes, and
standards while simultaneously underrepresenting in-state and in-service-territory savings
across measures, codes, and standards. However,the service territory methodology accurately
represents benefits directed to Avista and Idaho Power customers within the state of Idaho.
■ Finding#2:The data NEEA utilizes to estimate net market savings is available at resolutions that
allow NEEA to estimate precise savings for each utility service territory.
■ Finding#3:The Evaluators found that the methodology in which savings were estimated across
measures were inconsistent. For some measures, service territory methodology was used, and
for others,funder share allocation methodology was used.
■ Finding#4: NEEA prioritizes cost-effective savings in terms of regional benefit.Therefore,
savings and cost-effectiveness are distributed across the region evenly, despite observed
distribution of savings across states. Although this philosophy has merit, more precise estimates
of utility-level and program-level savings help NEEA's stakeholders relay relevant savings and
cost-effectiveness results to their respective regulatory commissions.This remains critical, due
to some state-level commission orders to pursue all cost-effective energy efficiency efforts.
■ Finding#5:The interviews revealed that although the three parties fundamentally want to
improve energy efficiency and increase market adoption of emerging technologies,their
preferred approaches to this shared goal vary. Unlike the utilities, who strive to demonstrate the
cost-effectiveness of their initiatives and investments on an annual or bi-annual cycle, NEEA
operates on a five-year funding cycle,which is different than the typical annual or biannual
utility planning cycle.
■ Finding#6: NEEA's programs are designed with a broader constituency in mind than that of its
member utilities. While the Idaho utilities' programs are targeted to produce benefits for their
ratepayers,—NEEA is tasked with developing programs that need to consider what is best for
the entire four-state region. At its core, NEEA's ethos assumes that changes made in one state
will eventually spillover into another state and that in the long run, regional change will be
realized.
■ Finding#7: NEEA currently allocates code savings via funder share methodology, which
estimates a proportion of total NEEA funding to each utility based on number of electric retail
customers and overall load.Therefore, savings from code adoption in other states are in-part
assigned to Idaho.The Evaluators found that out-of-state code building savings are currently
being attributed to Idaho utilities.The Evaluators are skeptical that spillover from out-of-state
code changes result in energy savings within the state of Idaho. Although the barriers to code
adoption from one state to the next may be similar, there is no evidence to suggest that these
learnings transfer to observable and measurable savings. NEEA has stated that starting in 2022,
code savings will be allocated via service territory allocation.
■ Finding#8:The NEEA Cost Effectiveness Advisory Committee (CEAC) meets quarterly with the
NEEA objectives to provide space for discussion around results of recently completed
Executive Summary 16

evaluation, progress of field studies, relevant updates to programs, and acceptance or
questioning of NEEA methodology towards calculation of savings.
Efficiency Measure Findings
■ Finding#9:The Evaluators estimated verified Ex Post aMW for the efficiency measures to
display 39%, 52%, and 0% realization rates for Idaho Power electric,Avista electric, and Avista
gas savings within the state of Idaho, respectively.The difference in claimed savings and verified
savings is due to the change to using service territory allocation rather than funder share
allocation.The efficiency measures category Ex Ante savings included savings for measures
completed in Washington, Oregon, and Montana—therefore,for some measures,the funder
share allocation methodology underestimated Idaho-specific savings while others
overestimated out-of-state savings.The overall effect of this change resulted in a lower than
100% realization rate.
■ Finding#10:The database review revealed that a variety of fields (measure life, UES)were
empty across measure types due to lack of savings claimed for the measure, which made
verification of values difficult and complicates tracking of a measure progress over time.
■ Finding#11:The database review revealed that NEEA's current method for distribution of
modeled naturally occurring baseline units between local program and NEEA efforts is not
reasonable. A portion of energy efficient technology sales are due to naturally occurring
baseline. NEEA nets out modeled naturally occurring baseline in order to avoid claiming savings
for units that would have been sold had no program or NEEA-effort been provided within the
market. However,the method in which these baseline units are netted out is not distributed
equitably. For some measures, NEEA estimates that a large proportion of local program units are
baseline, and therefore a larger proportion of the remaining net market effects is assigned to
NEEA efforts.The Evaluators raise concern for this assumption, as it is unlikely locally
incentivized, rebated measures display the same free ridership as non-incentivized measures in
the region.
■ Finding#12:The Evaluators reviewed the utilized UES via the Regional Technical Forum (RTF)
workbooks,field study data, and simulation analysis findings and note no large concerns with
NEEA UES methodology or market baseline assumptions.
■ Finding#13:The Evaluators found that NEEA calculates cost-effectiveness of its portfolio using
the total regional savings rather than the net market effects.The Evaluators determined that
this methodology raises concern, and the NEEA cost-effectiveness tests currently account for all
measure, standard, and code completions across the entire region, effectively double counting
local program savings and simultaneously claiming naturally occurring baseline savings. Because
Avista and Idaho Power calculate their own internal cost effectiveness tests,this finding does
not impact Idaho Power or Avista reporting. However,the Evaluators highlight this finding, as
NEEA savings allocation and cost allocation methods are not currently consistent with regulatory
requirements.
Standards Findings
Executive Summary 17

■ Finding#14:The Evaluators estimated verified Ex Post aMW for the standards efforts to display
34%and 50% realization rates for Idaho Power electric and Avista electric within the state of
Idaho, respectively. Avista gas did not claim any savings for standards.The difference between
claimed savings and verified savings is due to the change to using service territory allocation
rather than funder share allocation. A minor cause of discrepancy is due to corrected baseline
units using influence evaluation values.
■ Finding#15: NEEA contracts third-party evaluators to conduct "influence evaluations"for each
standard, which summarizes NEEA's overall qualitative and quantitative influence towards
federal standards updates. NEEA uses the quantitative assessment as an estimate of federal
standards naturally occurring baseline.The Evaluators found that some of these influence scores
were not integrated properly to estimate baseline units.The Evaluators also found more than
half(13 of 25)federal standard measures lack influence evaluations.
Code Findings
■ Finding#16:The Evaluators estimated verified Ex Post aMW for the code efforts to display
137%, 125%, and 87% realization rates for Idaho Power electric, Avista electric, and Avista gas
savings within the state of Idaho, respectively.The difference between claimed savings and
verified savings is due to the change to using service territory allocation rather than funder
share allocation. Overall,the funder share allocation underestimated Idaho-specific code savings
using the current NEEA policy of claiming 100%code after code is implemented.
■ Finding#17: Currently, NEEA does not complete third-party evaluations of NEEA"influence"
towards codes updates as is currently done for federal standards updates.Therefore, NEEA
currently claims 100%savings for code-built homes.As summarized in the standards influence
evaluations summarized in Table 3-35, NEEA influence towards standards ranges between 2.6%
and 61%. If codes are evaluated similarly, and portray a similar range of influence, NEEA code
savings could be significantly overrepresenting savings. NEEA's current policy is to report 100%
of code-built residential and commercial building savings (while integrating compliance rates)
for 10 years after the effective code update date. Currently, NEEA does not maintain a model to
estimate naturally occurring baseline over time, as it does for its energy efficiency measures.
Essentially,the current NEEA methodology assumes that there would be a 10-year lag in current
residential and commercial building code if NEEA did not participate in code update efforts.
■ Finding#18:The Evaluators reviewed simulation model methodology used by NEEA to estimate
code savings and found that UES methodology for code savings do not present any concerns.
1.4.2 Recommendations
■ Recommendation#1:The Evaluators recommend Avista and Idaho Power request NEEA to
report annual savings via the service territory methodology for each measure claimed by NEEA
for each Idaho Power electric,Avista electric, and Avista gas. (Based on Finding#1, #2, #3)
Executive Summary 18

■ Recommendation#2:The Evaluators recommend that Avista and Idaho Power request annual
savings reports to include estimates of administrative costs, incentive costs, and non-incentive
costs by service territory.This will allow each utility to calculate more accurate cost-
effectiveness tests for each initiative to determine whether extension of funding is a viable
option within each utility's regulatory environment. (Based on Finding#4)
■ Recommendation#3:The Evaluators recommend that NEEA work with utilities to accurately
produce service territory-level savings and to best serve each state's current regulatory
environment and utility's localized concerns. (Based on Finding#5)
■ Recommendation#4:The Evaluators recommend that NEEA track progress for each code
change relative to administrative dollars spent towards state-level codes and associated energy
savings accrued by each state-level code. With the 20-year market transformation in mind,the
service-territory-level savings will still accrue over the 20-year horizon, however, using this
methodology, actual market transformation effects of co-created savings will be more
accurately tracked. (Based on Finding#6,#7)
■ Recommendation#5:The Evaluators recommend that measure-level values are detailed as
accurately as possible, and that each field is completed in the workbook to allow for year-over-
year tracking of regional units, baseline units, retirement units, and unit energy savings values
overtime. (Based on Finding#10)
■ Recommendation#6 The Evaluators recommend that NEEA distribute naturally occurring
baseline units more equitable between local program units and total regional units. (Based on
Finding#11)
■ Recommendation#7: In the case that cost effectiveness tests are completed using NEEA-
reported savings,the Evaluators recommend that Avista and Idaho Power calculate cost-
effectiveness using net market effects rather than total regional savings, as is consistent with
current regulatory requirements to report gross savings that would not have occurred without
program intervention. (Based on Finding#13)
■ Recommendation#8:The Evaluators recommend that third-party evaluations are completed for
the federal standards claimed by NEEA, as well as any federal standards in which NEEA hopes to
claim savings for in the future. Using the quantitative estimate of NEEA influence,the Evaluators
recommend that NEEA calculate a naturally occurring baseline for each standard. (Based on
Finding#15)
■ Recommendation#9:The Evaluators recommend an evaluation is completed for each code
update to estimate NEEA's qualitative and quantitative influence towards the code update.
(Based on Finding#17)
2 Impact Evaluation Approach
The primary objective of the impact evaluation was to determine ex-post verified net energy savings.
This section describes the impact evaluation activities that performed for the evaluation of NEEA's net
market savings impacts attributed to Idaho service territory as well as the partition of those Idaho
Impact Evaluation Approach 19

savings to IPC and Avista, respectively.The Evaluators summarize the general approach to validate the
energy and demand impacts attributable to NEEA activities in relation to savings calculation
methodologies for claiming energy savings, allocation of those savings to IPC and Avista, and cost-
effectiveness of those savings for IPC and Avista.
The Evaluators used the following approaches to review and validate NEEA's energy savings assumptions
associated with the efficiency measures, market transformation, and codes and standards efforts
employed by NEEA. Each of these approaches are in accordance with the protocols defined by the
International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocols (IPMVP) and the Uniform Methods
Project(UMP).Table 2-1 summarizes the impact evaluation activities by initiative.
Table 2-1:Impact Evaluation Tasks by NEEA Activity
Initiative Database D. Impact
Review Verif. Methodology
Efficiency measures ✓ ✓ Deemed Savings/
Codes and standards ✓ ✓ Engineering Algorithms
The M&V methodologies are activity-specific and determined by ex-ante methodology as well as relative
contribution of a given activity to NEEA's overall energy efficiency impacts.The Evaluators reviewed
relevant information on infrastructure,framework, and guidelines set out for EM&V work in several
guidebook documents that have been published over the past several years.These included the
following:
■ Northwest Power& Conservation Council Regional Technical Forum (RTF)
■ Workpapers of previous NEEA measure savings estimate evaluations
■ 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 by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE)5
All components of the data collection and analysis are available to stakeholders and will remain
available through prudence review and investigation as required by the Idaho Public Utilities
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.
Impact Evaluation Approach 20

Commission subsequent to the evaluation period. Table 2-2 summarizes the measures, codes, and
standards implemented by and claimed by NEEA between the 5-year period of 2017 through 2021.
Table 2-2:Summary of NEEA Initiatives
measure, Electric or
Sector lnitiati����� Standard, Gas
orCode
Agriculture Other Non-Residential Standards Standard Electric
Building Operator Certification Expansion Measure Electric
Commercial Code Enhancement Code Electric
Commissioning Buildings Measure Electric
Condensing Rooftop Units Measure Electric
Desktop Power Supplies Measure Electric
Efficient Rooftop Units Measure Gas
Extended Motor Products Measure Electric
Commercial
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Measure Electric
Other Codes(Commercial) Code Electric/Gas
Other Non-Residential Standards Standard Electric
Other Strategic Energy Management Measure Electric
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement Measure Electric
Window Attachments Measure Electric
XMP Pumps Measure Electric
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES) Measure Electric
Commissioning Buildings Measure Electric
Drive Power Measure Electric
Industrial
Other Non-Residential Standards Standard Electric
Other Strategic Energy Management Measure Electric
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement Measure Electric
Ductless Heat Pumps Measure Electric
Efficient Gas Water Heater Measure Gas
Efficient Homes Code Electric
Extended Motor Products Measure Electric
Heat Pump Water Heaters Measure Electric
Manufactured Homes Measure Electric
Next Step Homes Measure Electric/Gas
Residential Other Codes(Multifamily) Code Electric
Other Residential Standards Standard Electric
Residential Lighting Measure Electric
Residential New Construction Code Electric
Residential New Construction/Next Step Homes Measure Electric/Gas
Retail Product Portfolio Measure Electric
Super-Efficient Dryers Measure Electric
Televisions Measure Electric
XMP Pumps Measure Electric
Impact Evaluation Approach 21

The Evaluators estimated savings for each of the initiatives listed in the table above by verifying total
regional units,total local program units,total baseline units, and total retirement units are incorporated
correctly, in addition to measure UES values. Once the net market units and UES values were verified,
the Evaluators then verified that the most reasonable methods for allocating savings to the Idaho and
utility service territory are incorporated to estimate savings for each Avista and IPC service territories.
2.1 Activity-Specific M&V
In this section, the Evaluators detail our evaluation activities to evaluate the following activities that
result in energy impact savings from NEEA in Idaho:
■ Efficiency Measures
■ Standards
■ Codes
2.1.1 Efficiency Measures
NEEA offers a variety of energy efficiency measures to residential and nonresidential customers in the
Northwest region by working with manufacturers and retailers to lower barriers for customers to
purchase and install energy efficiency measures.This effort allows NEEA the ability to identify
opportunities to increase the overall efficiency of entire product categories, such as air conditioners,
furnaces, and clothes washers and dryers. For the purpose of this report,we refer to the energy
efficiency measures and the energy savings claimed through each of these measures in the ESRPP and
measure initiatives as: "Efficiency Measures".
One of the main objectives of this evaluation is to review and verify NEEA's methodology for claiming
energy and demand savings through the efficiency measures offered through various NEEA efforts.The
Evaluators presents the following measure list for this activity in the table below.
Impact Evaluation Approach 22

Table 2-3:Summary of NEEA Efficiency Measures by Sector
Sector
Building Operator Certification Expansion
Commissioning Buildings
Condensing Rooftop Units
Desktop Power Supplies
Efficient Rooftop Units
Commercial Extended Motor Products
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
Other Strategic Energy Management
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement
Window Attachments
XMP Pumps
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES)
Commissioning Buildings
Industrial Drive Power
Other Strategic Energy Management
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement
Ductless Heat Pumps
Efficient Gas Water Heater
Extended Motor Products
Heat Pump Water Heaters
Manufactured Homes
Residential Next Step Homes
Residential Lighting
Residential New Construction/Next Step Homes
Retail Product Portfolio
Super-Efficient Dryers
Televisions
XMP Pumps
The Evaluators summarize the initiative-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities and
requirements for the Efficiency Measures in the section below.
2.1.2 Codes and Standards
NEEA has supported code activities in the Northwest states since its founding in 1997, principally by
funding staff positions or organizations responsible for code adoption and education. NEEA's goals with
these efforts are to encourage the adoption of more stringent residential and nonresidential energy
codes and to improve energy code program adherence and effectiveness.
Energy codes function to lock into place energy efficiency measures that are commonly used within the
building construction industry.This occurs by eliminating the option of having an efficiency less than
that mandated by code for newly constructed buildings.This can effectively produce significant energy
savings even when the code minimum is set at the market average efficiency by eliminating the option
to install less-than-average efficient products still in the marketplace today.
Impact Evaluation Approach 23

One of the main objectives of this evaluation is to review NEEA's impact on adopted code and the
associated claimed energy savings allocated by NEEA towards NEEA's energy codes and standards
efforts, and furthermore, to verify the allocation of those estimated savings to each IPC and Avista.
Table 2-4:Summary of NEEA Codes&Standards Measures
Initiative
Commercial Code Enhancement
Other Codes(Commercial)
Code Efficient Homes
Other Codes(Multifamily)
Residential New Construction
Other Non-Residential Standards—Commercial
Standard Other Non-Residential Standards—Industrial
Other Non-Residential Standards—Agricultural
Other Residential Standards
The following sections detail the impact methods used for each of the codes and standards NEEA has
implemented and in which NEEA claims energy efficiency savings.
2.2 Step 1: Database Review
Before conducting each impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for each of the
measures.The Evaluators requested all available program tracking data from NEEA that pertains to the
2017 through 2021 program years and consolidated these datasets into one consistently formatted
summary of NEEA's efforts and initiative impacts.This exists as a unified dataset with indicator variables
for calendar year and for applicability to Avista, IPC, or both utilities.
This dataset was then reviewed thoroughly to identify and address any inconsistencies in formatting,
data entry,formula entry, and functionality.
2.3 Step 2: Document-Based Verification
This section describes the Evaluator's general methodology for conducting document-based verification
for NEEA's initiatives in which energy efficiency savings are achieved and quantified.
Documentation for this task will include documented measure specifications, UES workbooks,
whitepapers,testing procedures, previous evaluations, logic models, and presentations that
communicate details used to estimate Idaho-level savings for each measure. In the case that the
Evaluators found any deviations between the sales data, model qualifications, UES values, engineering
algorithms, or assumed input values,the Evaluators noted and summarize these differences in the
aggregated workbooks.
2.4 Step 3: UES Review
To facilitate our review of savings calculations, the Evaluators reviewed and documented whether(1)
NEEA's methodology used for the calculation was appropriate, (2) NEEA's assumptions used were
reasonable and appropriate, and (3) NEEA's savings calculations were completed correctly. With these
Impact Evaluation Approach 24

findings,the Evaluators report observations as well as make recommendations to revise such
methodologies.
The Evaluators employed the following approaches to complete impact evaluation activities for
reviewing and evaluating NEEA estimated energy savings:
■ Deemed Savings
■ Engineering Algorithms
The Evaluators did not explore simulation model analysis or billing analysis, as reliable deemed savings
estimates, field data, and technical reference manuals were readily available to verify savings estimates
used in NEEA's analysis. In the following sections,we summarize the general guidelines and activities the
Evaluators followed while conducting each of the above analyses.
2.5 Step 4: Market Transformation Baseline Review
One of the main objectives of this evaluation is to review and verify NEEA's methodology for baseline
creation for NEEA's market transformation and energy savings impact efforts.The Evaluators
interviewed NEEA staff to gain further context on the documentation, procedures, and assumptions
used during baseline creation, and second, review such documentation and the application of the
assumed values to each measure in which a market transformation baseline is created.
The Evaluators also reviewed, in detail, documentation, previous evaluations, and whitepapers,for each
to gather more understanding of how NEEA calculates naturally occurring baseline for each of its
measures, codes, and standards.
NEEA's product baselines represent the market share of qualified products that would exist at a given
time in absence of NEEA's intervention in the market. NEEA develops baseline curves or forecasts to
anticipate the proportions each qualified product market share will naturally occur long-term by
employing available market data and assumptions.
2.6 Step 5: Staff Interviews
The Evaluators conducted thorough interviews with NEEA, IPC, and Avista staff to further understand
the NEEA savings methodology for estimating measure and codes impact savings and the methodology
and assumptions in creating the NEEA baseline for market transformation. As detailed below,the staff
interviews addressed all the objectives identified in the RFP.
The following subsections present overviews of our approach to staff interviews,followed by
information on how we identified and answered important research questions, how we approached
data collection, and how we implemented these interviews.
Table 2-5 summarizes our data collection approaches for each initiative.
Impact Evaluation Approach 25

Table 2-5: Summary of Staff Interviews
Efficiency Measures ■ 4 NEEA staff
■ 2 IPC staff
Codes and Standards ■ 2 Avista staff
The Evaluators used the various information sources—program documentation review and staff
interviews to provide convergent information to address the identified research questions. We made
effective use of each source by identifying which sources will provide the most applicable information to
each question, as shown in Table 2-6.
Table 2-6: Data Sources to Answer Research Questions
Process Evaluation Research 41
Are initiatives run per design and efficiently/effectively? ✓ ✓
Is staffing/organization sufficient and appropriate? ✓ ✓
What is the methodology for allocating co-created energy savings to Idaho ✓ ✓
Power Company,Avista, and other utilities in Idaho?
Are the methodologies employed for calculating and allocating savings ✓ ✓
documented and followed consistently across measures and initiatives?
What is the basis of the assumptions used in each the calculating and ✓ ✓
allocation of savings across measures and initiatives?
What is the methodology for NEEA's baseline creation for market ✓ ✓
transformation and energy savings impacts of NEEA's efforts?
Are the baseline creation methodologies followed consistently across ✓ ✓
initiatives and measures?
How has cost-effectiveness changed over the past years and why? ✓ ✓
Are quality assurance procedures appropriate and effective? ✓ ✓
Are management and implementation tools appropriate and effective? ✓ ✓
Are program materials effective and complete? ✓ ✓
2.7 Step 6: Cost-Effectiveness Testing
Finally, the Evaluators calculated each utility's cost-effectiveness, avoided energy costs, and
implementation costs. We used our in-house-developed cost-effectiveness tool to provide cost-
effectiveness assessments for the IPC and Avista Portfolios by NEEA energy savings activity. NEEA
calculated cost effectiveness for the NEEA portfolio using avoided costs from the 71" Power Plan, a least-
cost power plan for the Pacific Northwest created by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council
and updated approximately every 6 to 7 years.
Impact Evaluation Approach 26

However,the Evaluators calculate cost-effectiveness assessments for this evaluation work using Idaho
Power's and Avista's specific avoided cost relevant to each program year.
As Idaho utilizes the Utility Cost Test (UCT)to evaluate a program,the Evaluators determined the
economic performance with UCT.This test assists with identifying avenues to improve cost-
effectiveness, such as adjustments to measure incentive levels, administration spending, or adjustment
to program offerings. Cost-effectiveness workbooks were built"ground-up", at the highest granularity
level supported by the program data.The Evaluators calculated cost effectiveness at the measure-level,
which was then aggregated to initiative-and portfolio-level values.This allows IPC and Avista to address
individual NEEA offerings and potentially select lower-performing initiatives to consider for funding
reductions or reallocations.
Impact Evaluation Approach 27

NEEA Impacts on IPC and Avista Within the State of Idaho
3 Evaluation Results
This section provides the results of the overall impact evaluation, as well as the results between
efficiency measures and codes and standards measures.The Evaluators calculated the verified electric
and natural gas savings estimated to reasonably claim as NEEA net market effects within the state of
Idaho for each Avista and Idaho Power.
Net market effects are summarized by NEEA in the following figure:
Figure 3-1:Net Market Effects'
RegionalNet Market Effects Total .• Occurring
Savings Savings Baseline Savings
Market transformation is achieved through removing barriers from consumers, manufacturers, and the
market so that consumers adopt these technologies at a faster pace than without these efforts.The
following figure displays the philosophy behind NEEA's market transformation progress.
Figure 3-2:Illustration of Naturally Occurring Market Adoption Approach'
100%
90%
Market
8D% Transformation
70%
v
Y
cN 60%
G l
A 50%
o I
40% -
o -
30% -
20% -
10% -
0%
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
—Total Market —Naturally Occurring Baseline
The Evaluators outline NEEA's general Ex Ante savings methodology steps as the following:
6 NEEA Operational Guidelines for Estimating Electric Energy Savings, 2022.
1 NEEA Operational Guidelines for Estimating Electric Energy Savings, 2022.

1. Total regional units are quantified using regional program and sales data
2. Local program units are quantified using local program data
3. Baseline units are quantified using market transformation baseline models
4. Retired units are quantified using market transformation baseline models
S. Net market units for the Pacific Northwest region are calculated using the above inputs
6. Net market units for the funding utility are allocated using service territory or funder share
allocation methodology
7. Claimable net savings allocated to funding utilities are calculated by multiplying net market units
by the measure-level LIES
The Evaluators outline the above steps in each of the equations detailed below. Each equation input
listed below were reviewed by the Evaluators to confirm that the estimates are reasonable for current
use.The Evaluators also identify opportunities to improve estimates using currently available data.
NEEA calculates net market units to represent energy efficiency upgrades that would not have occurred
without NEEA intervention in the Northwest. Net market units are calculated in a way that nets out
upgrades completed due to local program intervention, upgrades completed due to naturally occurring
baseline, and units estimated to retire.The net market units are calculated for each individual measure
as follows:
Equation 3-1:Regional Net Market Units
Net Market UnitsNorthwest Region
= Total Regional UnitsNorthwest Region — Local Program UnitsNorthwest Region
— Baseline UnitsNorthwest Region —Retirement UnitsNorthwest Region
Where,
Total Regional Units =The total number of measures installed within the northwest region
(Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington)
Local Program Units =The total number of measures rebated by local programs, estimated
using Energy Trust of Oregon, Bonneville Power Administration, and local utility program data
Baseline Units =The estimated baseline units using the measure-level NEEA market
transformation baseline models
Retirement Units =The estimated retired units, also calculated using NEEA market
transformation baseline models
In order to convert the net market units for the northwest region into net market units for the Idaho-
specific region, an allocation method is utilized to allocate a portion of those savings to the Avista and
Idaho Power utilities within the state of Idaho.The utilities are provided a choice as to whether savings
are reported with one of the following two options:
■ Funder Share Allocation:This methodology was developed by NEEA and allocates a percent
share of total funding amounts to each utility.These values include inputs such as: total load
growth forecasts,weighted retail customers by utility, weighted retail energy sales by utility,
Evaluation Results 29

and caps on funding share increases. Further details of this methodology are provided in Section
3.3.2.
■ Service Territory Allocation:This methodology produces a percent share of total measure
completes or new construction completes estimated to occur within the utility shareholder's
utility.This value is aggregated using utility-provided data within the Northwest region, which
provides resolution that allows NEEA to assign each project to a specific utility service territory.
Further details of this methodology are provided in Section 3.3.1.
Further details of each allocation method are presented in Section 3.3.The following equation details
how the service territory allocation value chosen above is incorporated to calculate the utility-specific
net market units.
Equation 3-2:Service Territory Allocation of Savings
Net Market UnitSutility service Territory
= Net Market UnitSNorthwest Region *Service Territory Allocationutility Territory
The following equation details how the funder share territory allocation value chosen above is
incorporated to calculate the utility-specific net market units.
Equation 3-3:Funder Share Allocation of Savings
Net Market UnitSutility service Territory
= Net Market UnitSNorthwest Region
* Funder Share Allocationutility service Territory
As depicted above,the Idaho-specific share of total Avista service territory net market units is estimated
by multiplying against the estimated proportion of Idaho service territory within the Avista Utilities
service territory. Further details are presented in Section 3.3.
Finally, the initiative-level savings are calculated by multiplying the net market units by the verified UES,
by program year. NEEA references the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) UES for the majority of measures
offered.The resulting equation is as follows:
Equation 3-4: Verified Ex-Post Idaho-Specific Savings
Veri f led Ex Post Savings = Net Market UnitSutility Idaho service Territory * Veri f ied UES
The verified Ex-Post savings are then divided by the NEEA Ex-Ante savings to calculate the resulting
realization rate.The verified Ex-Post Idaho-specific savings and realization rate is calculated by initiative
and sector for each individual year and 5-year period evaluated.
3.1 Ex Ante Savings
In this section, the Evaluators summarize the Ex-Ante savings estimated by NEEA and reported on an
annual basis to Avista and Idaho Power.
Evaluation Results 30

Table 3-1:Summary of Idaho Power Electric Idaho Ex Ante Savings
Ex-Ante Savings: Ex-Ante Savings: Ex-Ante Savings: Ex-Ante Savings:
Program Year Measures Codes(aMW) Standards
2017 0.31 0.89 1.45 2.65
2018 0.40 1.23 1.15 2.77
2019 0.28 1.32 0.40 1.99
2020 0.39 1.12 0.41 1.91
2021 0.42 1.00 0.41 1.82
Total 1.78 5.56 3.81 11.15
Table 3-2:Summary of Avista Electric Idaho Ex Ante Savings
Ex-Ante Savings: Ex-Ante S Ex-Ante Savings: Ex-Ante Savings:
Program Year Measures Codes(aMW) Standards
2017 0.06 0.18 0.37 0.60
2018 0.06 0.22 0.30 0.57
2019 0.06 0.28 0.09 0.43
2020 0.08 0.24 0.09 0.41
2021 0.08 0.21 0.09 0.39
Total 0.34 1.13 0.94 2.41
Table 3-3:Summary of Avista Gas Idaho Ex Ante Savings
Ex-Ante Savings: Ex-Ante Savings:
Program Year Measures Ex-Ante Savings: Standards
Codes
(Therms) Total(Therms)
2019 636 43,109 0 43,745
2020 0 5,678 0 5,678
2021 0 152,881 0 152,881
Total 636 201,667 0 202,304
One of the objectives of this evaluation was to review the proportional savings of measures, codes, and
standards savings attributed to Avista and Idaho Power. During in-depth interviews, Avista and Idaho
Power staff noted that they had noticed savings from codes and standards have increased in proportion
to total savings over the years, whereas the proportion of savings from measures have decreased over
time.The following figures summarize the proportional contributions of each the measures, codes, and
standards Ex-Ante savings determined by NEEA between 2017 and 2021 for each utility. As seen below,
the proportion of savings developed through code and standards efforts has slowly decreased across the
5-year time period, starting from 92% and ending at 77%for Avista and starting at 89% and ending at
77%for Idaho Power.
Evaluation Results 31

Figure 3-3: Contributions to Ex-Ante Avista Idaho Electric Savings by Measures, Standards, and Codes
U.(,U
0.50 F
Ln
0.37 0.30
V 0.40 (61%) (52%) 0.09
2 (21%) 0.09 0.09
(23%)
(23%)
030
Q
x
w
0.20 0.28 0.24 0.21
0.22 (65%) (58%) (58%)
0.18 (37%)
(29%)
0.10
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
■Measure Code ■Standard
Evaluation Results 32

Figure 3-4:Contributions to Ex-Ante Idaho Power Idaho Electric Savings by Measures, Standards, and
Codes
2.50
1.15
(41%)
2.00
oA
0.40
(2�) 0.41
(21%) 0.41
(22%)
1.00 1.23
(44%) 1.32 1.12 1.00
0.89 (66%) (58%) (55%)
(34%)
0.50
0.00
■ ■
2017 2018 2019 ?- 2021
■Measure Code ■Standard
Although codes and standards contributions to savings are slowly decreasing over this 5-year evaluation
period,the Evaluators note that a significant proportion of codes and standards savings originate from
regional measure, standards, and code projects completed out-of-state.The Evaluators summarize the
Ex-Ante savings categorized by state-level source of savings.The figures below depicts the total Ex-Ante
savings attributed to Avista and IPC that had been accrued outside the state of Idaho under the funder
share methodology versus the Ex-Post savings based on the service territory methodology.
Evaluation Results 33

Figure 3-5:Efficiency Measure Avista Idaho Electric Savings—WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante
(Funder Share) vs Ex-Post(Service Territory)
0.50
0.45
0.40
c�
0.35
oa
0.30
0.25
c�
�^ 0.20
0.15 0.02 0.03
Q 0.10 (30%) (39%)
0.05 Emm M N
0.00
Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
■ID ■WA/OR/MT
Figure 3-6: Code Avista Idaho Electric Savings— WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante(Funder Share) vs Ex-
Post(Service Territory)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35 0.23
0.30 (80%) 0.19
(79%) 0.18
•5 0.25 (82%)
Ln 0.20
0.15
Q 0.10
0.05
0.00
Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
■ID ■WA/OR/MT
Evaluation Results 34

Figure 3-7:Standards Avista Idaho Electric Savings- WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante(Funder Share)
vs Ex-Post(Service Territory)
0.50
0.45
0.40
2 0.35
0.30 0.19
0.25
c�
�^ 0.20 0.06
0.15 (51%) 0.01 0.01
Q 0.10 (12%) (15%)
0.05 mlmm � mm � m
0.00
Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
■ID ■WA/OR/MT
Figure 3-8: Efficiency Measure Idaho Power Idaho Electric Savings- WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante
(Funder Share) vs Ex-Post(Service Territory)
7.00
6.00
g 5.00
c�
as 4.00
c
3.00
c 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
a (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%)
1.00 0.31 0.12 Nfij� 0.28 0.12 0.14
OWN15
0.00
Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
■ID ■WA/OR/MT
Evaluation Results 35

Figure 3-9: Code Idaho Power Idaho Electric Savings- WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante(Funder
Share) vs Ex-Post(Service Territory)
7.00
6.00
g5.00 4.69
c�
4.00 (8
c
3.00 1.14 1.06
a�6 (92%) (80%) 0.87 0.87
2.00 (85%) (78%) (86%)
a
1.00
0.00
Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
■ID ■WA/OR/MT
Figure 3-10:Standards Idaho Power Idaho Electric Savings- WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante(Funder
Share) vs Ex-Post(Service Territory)
7.00
6.00
g 5.00
4.00 2.34
3.00 (85%)
c 2.00 1.16 0.86 0.03
Q 90% (90%) 0.26 (11%) 0.03
1.00 (50%) (18%)
- 0.04mm" 0.09 0. 5 0. 4
0.00
Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
■ID ■WA/OR/MT
Figure 3-6 confirms that service territory allocation was utilized for 2017 and 2018 for Avista, which is
portrayed by the lack of Washington, Oregon, or Montana-contributed savings towards Avista annual
savings.
In addition,the proportion of code savings from out-of-state efforts are significantly higher than the
proportion of measure or standards savings from out-of-state efforts.Therefore, code savings reported
to Avista and IPC currently claim the majority of savings, (nearly 80%of savings) due to Washington,
Evaluation Results 36

Oregon, or Montana code change efforts and benefits by utilizing the funder share allocation
methodology.
The trends seen in each of the figures above for each Avista and Idaho Power are similar, as expected,
due to identical total regional units, total local program units,total baseline units, and total retirement
units.The differences among the two utilities are determined solely through allocation methodology
and values of each allocation methodology.Therefore, proportions of savings between the two should
be similar, while magnitudes differ.
For Avista gas service territory in Idaho, NEEA-assigned Ex Ante savings consisted of almost entirely code
savings, as seen in the figure below.
Figure 3-11:Efficiency Measure Avista Idaho Gas Savings— WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante(Funder
Share) vs Ex-Post(Service Territory)
180,000
160,000
E 140,000
a�
120,000
po 100,000
c
M> 80,000
Ln
60,000
40,000
Q
20,000
636 0 0 0 0 0
0
Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post
2019 2020 2021
■ID ■WA/OR/MT
Evaluation Results 37

Figure 3-12:Code Avista Idaho Gas Savings—WA/OR/MT Contribution to Ex-Ante(Funder Share) vs Ex-
Post(Service Territory)
180,000
160,000
N
E 140,000
120,000
100,000
C
80,000 23,655
`A (55%)
60,000 5,603
Q40,000 (99%)
20,000 Nil
0
Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post
2019 2020 2021
■ID ■WA/OR/MT
The Avista gas measure savings reported by NEEA in 2019 consisted of no projects completed within the
state of Idaho. Additionally, 55%and 99%of the code savings claimed consisted of projects originating
outside the state of Idaho in 2019 and 2020, respectively. However, NEEA reported the 2021 annual
savings via service territory methodology and therefore no savings were accrued outside the state of
Idaho in 2021.
It is important to note the significant impact to savings that each the funder share methodology and
service territory methodology contribute to overall savings for each of the measure, standards, and
codes programs. In addition,the Evaluators note that inconsistencies among allocation methodology are
seen within these two Idaho utilities, within service territories, within fuel types, and within initiatives.
3.2 Verified Ex Post Savings
In this section, the Evaluators summarize verified Ex Ante and Ex Post electric and gas savings for Avista
and Idaho Power, along with realization rates across program years and NEEA initiatives.
3.2.1.1 Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings
The Evaluators summarize the verified electric savings and realization rates for Idaho Power within the
state of Idaho by program year in the table below.
Evaluation Results 38

Table 3-4:Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Program Year
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Year aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
2017 2.65 1 1.72 64.75%
2018 2.77 1.04 37.65%
2019 1.99 2.43 122.00%
2020 1.91 2.72 142.28%
2021 1.82 1.71 93.51%
Total 11.15 9.61 86.23%
Table 3-5 through Table 3-9 summarizes the Idaho Power Idaho verified electric savings and realization
rates by initiative for each of the program years between 2017 and 2021. The Evaluators note that for
the entirety of the report,the realization rates are based off more than two significant figures.
Table 3-5:PY2017 Summary of Idaho Power Electric Idaho Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Measure, Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Standard, .
Code Savings Savings
Certified Refrigeration Energy
Measure Industrial Specialist(CRES) 0.00 0.00 0.00/
Measure Commercial Commissioning Buildings 0.03 0.00 0.00%
Standard Industrial Drive Power 0.03 0.06 216.45%
Measure Residential Ductless Heat Pumps 0.06 0.00 6.72%
Code Residential Efficient Homes 0.35 0.60 172.50%
Measure Residential Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.10 0.01 5.68%
Measure Commercial Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Code Commercial Other Codes(Commercial) 0.38 0.34 90.56%
Code Residential Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.05 0.02 46.03%
Standard Commercial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.27 0.29 108.52%
Standard Residential Other Residential Standards 1.15 0.00 0.12%
Measure Commercial Reduced Wattage Lamp 0.03 0.06 198.85%
Replacement
Code Residential Residential New Construction/Next 0.11 0.26 245.22%
Step Homes
Measure Residential Retail Product Portfolio 0.02 0.02 75.23%
Measure Residential Super-Efficient Dryers 0.05 0.02 32.89%
Measure Residential Televisions 0.02 0.02 103.12%
Total 2.65 1.72 64.75%
Evaluation Results 39

Table 3-6:PY2018 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Measure, Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Standard, Sector -Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Code M Savings Savings
Building Operator Certification
Measure Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Expansion
Measure Industrial Certified Refrigeration Energy 0.03 0.00 0.00%
Specialist(CRES)
Measure Commercial Commissioning Buildings 0.02 0.00 0.00%
Measure Industrial Commissioning Buildings 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Desktop Power Supplies 0.15 0.11 73.13%
Standard Industrial Drive Power 0.02 0.00 0.00%
Measure Residential Ductless Heat Pumps 0.03 0.00 0.00%
Code Residential Efficient Homes 0.38 0.81 215.05%
Measure Residential Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.04 0.00 0.00%
Measure Residential Manufactured Homes 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Code Commercial Other Codes(Commercial) 0.62 0.00 0.00%
Code Residential Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.05 0.04 73.04%
Standard Commercial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.08 0.02 29.61%
Standard Industrial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.22 0.02 8.49%
Standard Residential Other Residential Standards 0.82 0.00 0.16%
Measure Industrial Other Strategic Energy Management 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Other Strategic Energy Management 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Reduced Wattage Lamp 0.05 0.00 0.00%
Replacement
Reduced Wattage Lamp
Measure Industrial 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Replacement
Code Residential Residential New Construction/Next 0.18 0.00 0.00%
Step Homes
Measure Residential Retail Product Portfolio 0.02 0.01 57.04%
Measure Residential Super-Efficient Dryers 0.05 0.03 65.20%
Measure Residential Televisions 0.00 0.00 104.70%
Total 2.77 1.04 37.65%
Evaluation Results 40

Table 3-7.PY2019 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Measure, Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Standard, Sector Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Code Savings Savings
Measure Commercial Commissioning Buildings 0.03 0.00 1 0.00%
Measure Industrial Commissioning Buildings 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Desktop Power Supplies 0.01 0.01 79.15%
Standard Industrial Drive Power 0.01 0.00 11.90%
Measure Residential Ductless Heat Pumps 0.05 0.00 1.02%
Code Residential Efficient Homes 0.37 0.81 217.23%
Measure Residential Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.04 0.00 3.74%
Measure Commercial Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Residential Manufactured Homes 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Code Residential Next Step Homes 0.21 0.47 225.25%
Code Commercial Other Codes(Commercial) 0.69 0.92 132.61%
Code Residential Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.04 0.02 38.13%
Standard Commercial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.08 0.03 40.51%
Standard Industrial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.23 0.00 0.00%
Standard Residential Other Residential Standards 0.07 0.06 81.29%
Measure Industrial Other Strategic Energy Management 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Other Strategic Energy Management 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Reduced Wattage Lamp 0.04 0.04 85.46%
Replacement
Measure Industrial Reduced Wattage Lamp 0.01 0.01 85.46%
Replacement
Measure Residential Retail Product Portfolio 0.01 0.00 6.92%
Measure Residential Super-Efficient Dryers 0.08 0.06 81.85%
Measure I Residential Televisions 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total 1.99 2.43 122.00%
Evaluation Results 41

Table 3-8:PY2O2O Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Measure, Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Standard, Sector Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Code A Savings Savings
Measure Industrial Certified Refrigeration Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Specialist(CRES)
Measure Commercial Commissioning Buildings 0.03 0.00 0.00%
Measure Industrial Commissioning Buildings 0.00 0.00 18.80%
Measure Commercial Desktop Power Supplies 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Standard Industrial Drive Power 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Residential Ductless Heat Pumps 0.06 0.00 5.17%
Code Residential Efficient Homes 0.32 0.89 281.70%
Measure Residential Extended Motor Products 0.01 0.00 5.00%
Measure Commercial Extended Motor Products 0.01 0.00 28.78%
Measure Residential Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.08 0.00 4.17%
Measure Commercial Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.01 0.01 56.71%
Measure Residential Manufactured Homes 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Code Residential Next Step Homes 0.22 0.50 222.51%
Code Commercial Other Codes(Commercial) 0.54 0.77 142.92%
Code Residential Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.04 0.02 41.94%
Standard Commercial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.09 0.04 43.64%
Standard Industrial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.23 0.30 128.37%
Standard Agriculture Other Non-Residential Standards 0.00 0.00 257.68%
Standard Residential Other Residential Standards 0.08 0.06 75.37%
Measure Industrial Other Strategic Energy Management 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Other Strategic Energy Management 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Reduced Wattage Lamp
Measure Commercial 0.04 0.04 105.76%
Replacement
Reduced Wattage Lamp
Measure Industrial 0.01 0.01 105.09/0
Replacement
Measure I Residential Retail Product Portfolio 0.12 0.08 65.79%
Total 1.91 2.72 142.28%
Evaluation Results 42

Table 3-9:PY2O21 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Measure, Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Standard, Sector Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Code Savings Savings
Measure Commercial Desktop Power Supplies 0.01 0.00 1 0.00%
Measure Residential Ductless Heat Pumps 0.05 0.00 2.96%
Code Residential Efficient Homes 0.27 0.60 223.90%
Measure Residential Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.10 0.00 4.18%
Measure Commercial Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.01 0.00 51.59%
Measure Residential Manufactured Homes 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Code Commercial Other Codes(Commercial) 0.40 0.46 113.98%
Standard Commercial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.10 0.04 43.48%
Standard Industrial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.24 0.30 128.37%
Standard Agriculture Other Non-Residential Standards 0.00 0.00 257.68%
Standard Residential Other Residential Standards 0.07 0.06 74.00%
Measure Commercial Reduced Wattage Lamp 0.02 0.02 105.99%
Replacement
Measure Industrial Reduced Wattage Lamp 0.00 0.00 105.99%
Replacement
Code Residential Residential New Construction 0.33 0.09 27.15%
Measure Residential Retail Product Portfolio 0.17 0.11 67.14%
Measure Commercial Window Attachments 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Residential XMP Pumps 0.03 0.00 4.19%
Measure Commercial XMP Pumps 0.02 0.01 26.24%
Total 1.82 1.71 93.51%
3.2.1.2 Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings
The Evaluators summarize the verified electric savings and realization rates for Avista within the state of
Idaho by program year in the table below.
Table 3-10:Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Program Year
2017 0.60 0.31 51.19%
2018 0.57 0.36 63.33%
2019 0.43 0.50 115.22%
2020 0.41 0.48 118.93%
2021 0.39 0.40 103.32%
Total 2.41 2.06 85.41%
Table 3-11 through Table 3-15 summarizes the Avista Idaho verified electric savings and realization rates
by initiative for each of the program years between 2017 and 2021.
Evaluation Results 43

Table 3-11:PY2017 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Measure, Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Standard, Sector Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Code Savings Savings
Measure Commercial Commissioning Buildings 0.00 0.00 1 0.00%
Standard Industrial Drive Power 0.01 0.02 111.91%
Measure Residential Ductless Heat Pumps 0.01 0.00 10.20%
Code Residential Efficient Homes 0.09 0.09 100.00%
Measure Residential Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.03 0.02 68.73%
Measure Commercial Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Code Commercial Other Codes(Commercial) 0.07 0.07 100.00%
Code Residential Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.01 0.01 100.00%
Standard Commercial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.09 0.08 91.43%
Standard Residential Other Residential Standards 0.26 0.00 0.16%
Reduced Wattage Lamp o
Measure Commercial 0.00 0.00 98.27/0
Replacement
Code Residential Residential New Construction/Next 0.01 0.01 96.99%
Step Homes
Measure Residential Retail Product Portfolio 0.00 0.00 42.21%
Measure Residential Super-Efficient Dryers 0.01 0.01 94.03%
Measure Residential Televisions 0.01 0.01 100.00%
Total 0.60 0.31 51.19%
Evaluation Results 44

Table 3-12:PY2O18 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Measure, Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Standard, Sector Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Code Savings Savings
Measure Commercial Commissioning Buildings 0.00 0.00 1 0.00%
Measure Industrial Commissioning Buildings 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Desktop Power Supplies 0.02 0.02 100.00%
Standard Industrial Drive Power 0.01 0.01 100.00%
Measure Residential Ductless Heat Pumps 0.01 0.00 6.02%
Code Residential Efficient Homes 0.11 0.11 100.00%
Measure Residential Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.01 0.00 57.22%
Measure Commercial Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 N/A
Measure Residential Manufactured Homes 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Code Commercial Other Codes(Commercial) 0.08 0.08 100.00%
Code Residential Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.01 0.01 100.00%
Standard Commercial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.02 0.01 63.92%
Standard Industrial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.08 0.08 100.00%
Standard Residential Other Residential Standards 0.19 0.00 0.22%
Measure Commercial Other Strategic Energy Management 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Reduced Wattage Lamp 0.00 0.00 98.89%
Replacement
Measure Industrial Reduced Wattage Lamp 0.00 0.00 98.89%
Replacement
Code Residential Residential New Construction/Next 0.01 0.01 100.00%
Step Homes
Measure Residential Retail Product Portfolio 0.00 0.00 54.86%
Measure Residential Super-Efficient Dryers 0.01 0.01 93.09%
Measure Residential Televisions 0.00 0.00 99.98%
Total 0.57 0.36 63.33%
Evaluation Results 45

Table 3-13:PY2O19 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Measure, Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Standard, Sector Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Code Savings Savings
Measure Commercial Commissioning Buildings 0.01 0.00 1 0.00%
Measure Industrial Commissioning Buildings 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Desktop Power Supplies 0.00 0.00 79.14%
Standard Industrial Drive Power 0.00 0.01 293.18%
Measure Residential Ductless Heat Pumps 0.01 0.00 4.01%
Code Residential Efficient Homes 0.08 0.12 154.66%
Measure Residential Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.01 0.00 43.16%
Measure Commercial Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Residential Manufactured Homes 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Code Residential Next Step Homes 0.05 0.11 236.51%
Code Commercial Other Codes(Commercial) 0.15 0.20 133.91%
Code Residential Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.01 0.00 42.77%
Standard Commercial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.02 0.01 69.19%
Standard Industrial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.05 0.00 0.00%
Standard Residential Other Residential Standards 0.02 0.02 99.67%
Measure Industrial Other Strategic Energy Management 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Other Strategic Energy Management 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Reduced Wattage Lamp 0.01 0.00 30.55%
Replacement
Measure Industrial Reduced Wattage Lamp 0.00 0.00 31.71%
Replacement
Measure Residential Retail Product Portfolio 0.00 0.00 11.15%
Measure Residential Super-Efficient Dryers 0.02 0.02 109.48%
Total 0.43 0.50 115.22%
Evaluation Results 46

Table 3-14:PY2O2O Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Measure, Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Standard, Sector Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Code A Savings Savings
Measure Industrial Certified Refrigeration Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Specialist(CRES)
Measure Commercial Commissioning Buildings 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Measure Industrial Commissioning Buildings 0.00 0.00 41.60%
Measure Commercial Desktop Power Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Standard Industrial Drive Power 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Residential Ductless Heat Pumps 0.01 0.00 9.35%
Code Residential Efficient Homes 0.06 0.10 161.42%
Measure Residential Extended Motor Products 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Extended Motor Products 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Residential Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Residential Manufactured Homes 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Code Residential Next Step Homes 0.05 0.06 134.25%
Code Commercial Other Codes(Commercial) 0.12 0.17 142.74%
Code Residential Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.01 0.00 52.83%
Standard Commercial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.02 0.01 63.24%
Standard Industrial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.05 0.08 157.01%
Standard Agriculture Other Non-Residential Standards 0.00 0.00 258.22%
Standard Residential Other Residential Standards 0.02 0.02 92.40%
Measure Industrial Other Strategic Energy Management 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Other Strategic Energy Management 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Reduced Wattage Lamp
Measure Commercial 0.01 0.00 27.67%
Replacement
Reduced Wattage Lamp o
Measure Industrial 0.00 0.00 27.49/0
Replacement
Measure Residential Retail Product Portfolio 0.02 0.03 114.446
Measure Residential Televisions 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total 0.41 0.48 118.4%
Evaluation Results 47

Table 3-15:PY2021 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Measure, Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Standard, Sector Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Code Savings Savings
Measure Commercial Commissioning Buildings 0.00 0.00 1 0.00%
Measure Commercial Desktop Power Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Residential Ductless Heat Pumps 0.01 0.00 20.19%
Code Residential Efficient Homes 0.06 0.07 123.85%
Measure Residential Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.02 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Residential Manufactured Homes 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Code Commercial Other Codes(Commercial) 0.09 0.10 111.55%
Standard Commercial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.02 0.01 62.90%
Standard Industrial Other Non-Residential Standards 0.05 0.08 157.01%
Standard Agriculture Other Non-Residential Standards 0.00 0.00 258.22%
Standard Residential Other Residential Standards 0.02 0.02 102.71%
Measure Commercial Reduced Wattage Lamp 0.00 0.00 27.73%
Replacement
Measure Industrial Reduced Wattage Lamp 0.00 0.00 27.73%
Replacement
Code Residential Residential New Construction 0.07 0.08 112.68%
Measure Residential Retail Product Portfolio 0.03 0.04 112.24%
Measure Commercial Window Attachments 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Measure Residential XMP Pumps 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Measure Commercial XMP Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total 0.39 0.40 103.20%
3.2.1.3 Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post Savings
The Evaluators summarize the verified natural gas savings and realization rates for Avista within the
state of Idaho by program year in the table below.
Table 3-16:Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post Savings by Program Year
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Year Therms Therms Rate
Savings Savings
2019 43,745 22,808 52.14%
2020 5,678 385 6.79%
2021 15 2,881 15 2,881 100.00%
Total 202,304 176,074 87.03%
Table 3-17 through Table 3-19 summarizes the Avista Idaho verified natural gas savings and realization
rates by initiative for each of the program years between 2019 and 2021.
Evaluation Results 48

Table 3-17:PY2019 Summary of Avista Gas Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Measure, Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Standard, Sector Initiative Therms Therms Rate
Code Savings Savings
Measure Commercial Condensing Rooftop Units 636 0 0.00%
Code Residential Next Step Homes 43,109 22,808 52.91%
Total 43,745 22,808 52.14%
Table 3-18:PY2020 Summary of Avista Gas Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Standard,Measure, Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
.
Code Savings Savings
Code Residential I Next Step Homes 5,678 1 385 1 6.79%
Total 5,678 1 385 1 6.79%
Table 3-19:PY2021 Summary of Avista Gas Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
Measure, -1 Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Standard, Sector Initiative Therms Therms Rate
Code Savings Savings
Code Residential I Residential New Construction 1 152,881 1 152,881 1 100.00%
Total 152,881 1 152,881 1 100.00%
3.3 Allocation Methodology Review
Allocation methodology review was a key component of this evaluation in this section. It is the method
by which NEEA splits total regional net market transformation savings between each NEEA funding
utility.The allocation methodology is applicable for each efficiency measure as well as for codes and
standards. As described in the equations above,the allocation of savings is currently calculated using
one of the following two methodologies:
■ Service Territory Methodology
■ Funder Share Methodology
Currently, NEEA allows the utility to choose which of the two methodologies is employed to calculate
utility-level savings in the end-of-year annual reporting of savings.
Idaho Power had elected to report NEEA savings using funder share methodology, as indicated by NEEA
annual reports between 2017 and 2021. Avista had elected to report NEEA savings using service
territory methodology in 2017 and 2018. In 2019, Avista changed their preferred reporting to funder
share methodology. However, NEEA continues to provide estimates of service territory share for each
measure, despite allocation methodology chosen.
Evaluation Results 49

NEEA reports both the service territory allocation and the funder share allocation for each measure in
each of NEEA's annual report of savings to each funder utility. During this evaluation work,the
Evaluators compared service territory share to funder share allocation and ultimately used service
territory allocation methodology to estimate total verified savings and cost effectiveness of efforts
benefitting Idaho customers within Avista's and Idaho Power's service territories.
The Evaluators further summarize each methodology in the section below.
3.3.1 Service Territory Allocation
The service territory allocation methodology estimates the proportion of projects completed within a
measure that can reasonably be allocated to a specific funding utility.This is completed by reviewing
and aggregating the source data in a way that preserves the originating location of the projects,which
can include zip code information, city information, county information, or state information.
The Evaluators were unable to review total regional and local program unit values reported by NEEA, as
this data is provided to NEEA under individual non-disclosure agreements with local utilities, Energy
Trust of Oregon, BPA, manufacturers, and market actors. However,the calculations reviewed confirm
that the data NEEA aggregates for use in the annual savings reports contains fields that grant NEEA the
ability to calculate service territory allocation based on either zip-code level data, county-level data, or
state-level data. Therefore, it is possible to estimate net market units for smaller segments of the
Northwest region, which can then be aggregated to the utility service territory for each utility that
currently funds NEEA initiative efforts.
The benefit of this service territory method is that NEEA stakeholders can identify states or regions that
are performing well and are cost-effective, and states or regions that are underperforming and are not
cost-effective.This level of transparency assists NEEA staff and stakeholders by identifying real, unique
barriers to energy efficiency in local regions. Once these areas and barriers are identified, work
performed to remove these barriers benefits the entire region, while creating equitable benefits within
the NEEA service territory.
In order to report transparency of program benefits, it is necessary to estimate savings at a higher
resolution than northwest regional savings. For example, it is recommended to report savings at the
state-level, utility-level, or county-level, if source data permits.As the Evaluators have verified that such
source data exists,the Evaluators recommend that NEEA utilize this resolution of data to more
accurately estimate,track, and report savings to its stakeholders.
3.3.2 Funder Share Allocation
One of the main objectives for this evaluation was to review and validate NEEA's methodology for
allocating co-created savings to Idaho Power Company and Avista Utilities. Currently, NEEA employs a
"funder share" allocation method to allocate claimable savings to each Avista and IPC. NEEA staff
describe the funder share allocation as a "core tenet" of how NEEA allocates savings.This funding
mechanism was built 20 years ago.The following figure displays the current NEEA electric funding share
by organization. It is worth noting that a large portion of the current NEEA funding share is owned by
Evaluation Results 50

Bonneville Power Administration, an organization that is not a utility, and therefore serves no electric
customers directly. Despite lack of electric customers,this organization receives claimable energy
efficiency savings through contribution to NEEA.
Figure 3-13: Current NEEA Electric Funding Share by Organization'
Chelan PUD(1.0%) Tacoma Power(.95%)
Clark PUD(1.3%) Snohomish PUD(0.7%)
PacifiCorp(2.6%)
Seattle City Light(3.5%)
Northwestern Energy(4.0%)—
Avista Utilities(5.7%)
Bonneville Power
Administration (37%)
Idaho
Power(9.2%)
Energy Trust(20.2%)
The calculation NEEA built to estimate the allocation share of funding to each utility is built on the
following components and assumptions:
1. A forecast of load growth: Estimated load growth during funding cycle, determined by Pacific
Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC) and Northwest Power and Conservation
Council.
2. Number of retail customers: Estimated by Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form 861 at
the time of establishing funding shares for a funding period.A 12.5%weighting is applied to this
value.
3. Retail energy sales: Native electricity sales to "bundled" retail customers as reported in the EIA
Form 861.All wholesale "energy only" or"transmission only" sales are excluded.An 87.5%
weighting is applied to this value.
8 https://neea.org/resources/neea-current-funder-share-by-organization
Evaluation Results 51

4. Capon funding share increases:To minimize the impacts to anyone direct funder, a maximum
40%funder share growth cap is applied for each investor.
The funder share methodology above is founded on the following NEEA principles:
■ Keep the alliance and collaboration between the funding utilities and regional market actors
intact;
■ Be fair and equitable to funders;
• Equitably distribute burden of cost and allocation of benefits;
■ Incorporate number of utility customers and loads to address utilities dominated by few large
industrial customers; and,
■ Provide funding diversification.
These allocation shares are determined at the beginning of NEEA's 5-year program cycle and are
invoiced to each utility on a quarterly basis. In the event that a funder is lost,the total funding amount is
recalculated such that other funders' dollar amounts are unchanged and total funding is reduced. In the
event that a funder is gained,the total funding amount is recalculated such that other funder's dollar
amounts are unchanged and total funding is increased.The NEEA Board reviews the funder allocation
methodology policy during the first year of each funding cycle.
The savings due to NEEA regional market transformation is allocated to utility stakeholders using each
utility's current funding share (Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho, combined).Therefore, since
Avista contributed 5.7%of NEEA's funding to the total NEEA-region,Avista is allocated 5.7%of savings
achieved through NEEA.To estimate Avista savings within the Avista's service territory in Idaho, NEEA
allocates 30%of total Avista regional savings to Avista Idaho territory.To estimate Idaho Power savings
within the Idaho Power service territory in Idaho, Idaho Power internally allocates 95%of savings to
Idaho and 5%of savings to Oregon.The Evaluators followed these breakouts when allocating savings to
the state of Idaho.
The following tables summarize the funder allocation share values between 2017 and 2021 assigned to
Avista and Idaho to estimate savings within the state of Idaho.
Table 3-20:Avista Electric Funder Share
Business Plan Avista Total Avista Idaho
Funding Share Funding Share*
2020-2024 5.65% 1.69%
2015-2019 5.77% 1.73%
2010-2014 5.56% 1.67%
Prior 3.95% 1.19%
*NEEA allocates 30%of overall Avista funder share to Avista service territory in Idaho
Table 3-21:Avista Gas Funder Share
Business Plan Avista Total Avista Idaho
Funding Share Funding Share*
2019 15.63% 3.37%
2020-2021 12.04% 3.55%
Evaluation Results 52

*NEEA allocates 30%of overall Avista funder share to Avista service territory in Idaho
Table 3-22:Idaho Power Electric Funder Share
Idaho Power Idaho Power
Business Plan Total Funding Idaho Funding
Share Share*
2020-2024 9.23% 8.77%
2015-2019 8.01% 7.61%
2010-2014 8.67% 8.24%
Prior 6.42% 6.10%
*Idaho Power allocates 95%of overall Idaho Power funder share to the Idaho Power service territory in Idaho
The values presented in the tables above were cross verified by reviewing total annual dollars invoiced
by NEEA to Avista and to IPC, as well as reviewing each NEEA annual savings report and associated
funder share value attributed to each measure.
3.3.3 Allocation Methodology Findings and Recommendations
During this evaluation work, the Evaluators reviewed whether the high-level allocation strategy is
reasonable for Idaho stakeholders and whether the funding share is accurately represented for each
organization through documentation and invoices.Although the Evaluators were unable to cross-
reference NEEA-aggregated sales and utility data due to non-disclosure agreements between NEEA and
utility stakeholders in the Northwest region, we reviewed whether the funder share allocation method
is reasonably estimates actual energy efficiency product uptake documented in sales data.
It is critical to understand that the funder share allocation methodology allocate a proportion of the
costs of NEEA's efforts to be invoiced to the utility, despite initiative focus, initiative service, or
customer/regional targeting.This means that savings from Washington are allocated to Montana, Idaho,
and Oregon based on each utility's funder share. For Idaho, this methodology underestimates observed
local service territory savings while simultaneously overestimating out-of-state energy savings.
In order to report transparency of initiative benefits, it is necessary to estimate savings at a higher
resolution than northwest regional savings. For example, it is recommended to report savings at the
state-level, utility-level, or county-level, if source data permits.
The Evaluators were unable to review total regional and local program unit values reported by NEEA, as
this data is provided to NEEA under individual contract with local utilities, Energy Trust of Oregon, BPA,
manufacturers, and market actors with NDA's. However, NEEA confirms that the data provided from
each of these stakeholders includes data at the zip code-level resolution.Therefore, it is possible to
estimate net market units by zip code, which can then be aggregated to the utility service territory for
each utility that currently funds NEEA initiative efforts.
The Evaluators also estimated Idaho local program units using the service territory allocation share.This
assumption assumes that the aggregated local program units from all utilities funding NEEA displays
similar distribution to the total regional units distributed across the Pacific Northwest region. In the case
that NEEA has utility-specific local program unit estimates,those values should be used instead.
Evaluation Results 53

The funder share methodology and the service territory methodology do not rely on the same inputs.
For example,the funder share methodology attempts to estimate utility regional growth in demand
requirements, number of customers, and retail energy sales. This is then applied to program savings,
regardless of the actual observed geographic distribution of measure completes. However,the service
territory methodology does not attempt to forecast future growth. Instead, it estimates the proportion
of total project completions that actually occurred during the evaluation period in question by
summarizing,to the highest detail possible with the data provided,the total aMW most likely to have
been saved within the Idaho Power or Avista service territory for the specific program and measure in
question.
Therefore,the funder share methodology and the service territory methodology do not share any
relationship or interaction.The Evaluators are unable to estimate how selection of service territory
allocation rather than funder share allocation would change the magnitude of savings for a program
without additional information, such as the type of program being claimed,the regional distribution of
measure completes in which savings are being claimed, and the utility service territory in which savings
are being claimed. Each of these considerations have the ability to cause an increase or decrease in
savings.
Based on the findings detailed above,the Evaluators present the following findings and
recommendations based on our review of NEEA's allocation methodology:
Table 3-23:Summary of Allocation Share Findings and Recommendations
Findings Recommendations
Finding#1: Utilities that fund NEEA can choose
whether savings are reported by allocation share
methodology or service territory methodology.The
allocation share methodology overrepresents out-
of-state and out-of-service territory savings across
measures,codes,and standards while
simultaneously underrepresenting in-state and in-
service-territory savings across measures,codes,
and standards. However,the service territory
methodology accurately represents benefits Recommendation#1:The Evaluators recommend
directed to Avista and Idaho Power customers Avista and Idaho request NEEA to report annual
within the state of Idaho. savings via the service territory methodology for
Finding#2:The data NEEA utilizes to estimate net each measure claimed by NEEA for Idaho Power
market savings is available at resolutions that allow electric,Avista electric,and Avista gas.
NEEA to estimate precise savings for each utility
service territory.
Finding#3:The Evaluators found that the
methodology in which savings were estimated
across measures were inconsistent. For some
measures,service territory methodology was used,
and for others,funder share allocation methodology
was used.
Evaluation Results 54

Findings Recommendations
Finding#4: NEEA prioritizes cost-effective savings in
terms of regional benefit.Therefore,savings and Recommendation#2:The Evaluators recommend
cost-effectiveness are distributed across the region that Avista and Idaho Power request annual
evenly,despite observed distribution of savings savings reports to include estimates of
across states.Although this philosophy has merit, administrative costs, incentive costs, and non-
more precise estimates of utility-level and program- incentive costs by service territory.This will allow
level savings help NEEA's stakeholders relay relevant each utility to calculate more accurate cost-
savings and cost-effectiveness results to their effectiveness tests for each initiative to determine
respective regulatory commissions.This remains whether extension of funding is a viable option
critical, due to some state-level commission orders within each utility's regulatory environment.
to pursue all cost-effective energy efficiency efforts.
Based on the findings and recommendations of allocation methodology above,the remainder of the
report estimates Ex Post electric and natural gas savings for NEEA efforts using the service territory
methodology.The service territory allocation values are estimated by NEEA using confidential program
and sales data from various organizations within the Pacific Northwest.Although the Evaluators are
unable to review or replicate these values,the Evaluators have reviewed NEEA's service territory
allocation methodology and find the steps to be reasonable.
3.4 Cost Effectiveness Methodology Review
Although the Evaluators calculated cost effectiveness for this evaluation work independently from
NEEA's cost effectiveness procedures and assumptions,the Evaluators provide in this section a
comparison of cost effectiveness methodology between NEEA and Idaho Power and Avista.
In response to a request for cost effectiveness methodology documentation, NEEA delivered the
following information:
■ NEEA's 2021 portfolio cost effectiveness analysis
■ NEEA's Electric Cost Effectiveness Operational Guidelines
■ 2022 Q1 and Q2 Cost Effectiveness Advisory Committee PowerPoints summarizing NEEA
introduction to savings and cost effectiveness procedures
Within NEEA's Electric Cost Effectiveness Operational Guidelines document, NEEA states:
"NEEA's purpose is to look at the total societal impact of transforming a market to ensure that
the regional investment is an appropriate use of funds for the long term. Working under this
perspective NEEA considers all incremental quantifiable costs and benefits of the total regional
savings achieved through transformation, regardless of who accrues them. Ultimately, NEEA, as
a regional organization, is attempting to answer the question: "will costs to society be reduced
relative to an alternate resource?"
The Evaluators note that NEEA's procedures to include total regional savings in NEEA's cost effectiveness
calculations is in direct opposition to the RTF's Guidelines in which "costs and benefits should reflect the
Evaluation Results 55

differences between the efficient and baseline cases."'This methodology does not accurately represent
the cost effectiveness of NEEA activities, rather,the cost effectiveness of NEEA activities in combination
with naturally occurring baseline as well as locally incented measures through local utilities. NEEA's
current cost effectiveness methodology essentially estimates the cost effectiveness of total current
gross, non-incremental energy savings for the entire Northwest region, effectively double counting the
benefits and costs already attributed to utilities.The Evaluators conclude that NEEA's current
methodology for calculating cost effectiveness does not accurately reflect NEEA contributions.
In addition to the difference in methodology summarized above, the Evaluators compare and contrast
NEEA's and Idaho Power and Avista cost effectiveness methodology in the table below.The NEEA Cost
Effectiveness Methodology column indicates the methodology NEEA employs to calculate portfolio cost
effectiveness for each planning period.The Idaho Power/Avista Cost Effectiveness Methodology column
indicates the methodology the Evaluators employed to estimate cost effectiveness for NEEA-related
activities in the Idaho Power and Avista service territories for this work.
Table 3-24:NEEA and IPC/Avista Cost Effectiveness Methodology Comparison
IdahoInput NEEA Cost Effectiveness Methodology Power/Avista
Cost Test TRC UCT
■ Energy-related costs avoided
by the utility ■ Energy-related costs avoided
■ Capacity-related costs by the utility
avoided by the utility, ■ Capacity-related costs
Benefits Included including generation, avoided by the utility,
transmission,and distribution including generation,
■ Additional resource savings transmission,and distribution
(non-energy benefits)
■ 10%conservation adder
■ Program overhead costs ■ Program overhead costs
Costs Included ■ Program installation costs ■ Utility/program administrator
■ Incremental measure costs incentive costs
Source of Avoided Costs 6th or 7th Power Plan Avoided costs from each utility IRP
Total Regional: includes gross costs
Net Market: includes net costs and
and benefits within the total region, benefits accrued by the utility's
regardless of who accrues it,or how it
Scope of Costs/Benefits tracked.This includes only local
is accrued.This includes units
program units with naturally occurring
categorized as naturally occurring
baseline removed.
baseline units and local program units.
9 https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/rtf-operative-guidelines/
10 Idaho Power and Avista methodology in regards to this evaluation.
Evaluation Results 56

Input NEEA Cost Effectiveness Methodology Idaho Power/Avista Cost Effectiveness
Formally analyzed for each market
transformation initiative in the Market
Development phase, listed below
(codes and standards are not included
in NEEA cost effectiveness portfolio
testing) Analyzed for each measure,standard,
1. Efficiency Measures: or code in which net market effect
Programs Included in savings are claimed, listed below:
a. Manufactured
Portfolio 1. Efficiency Measures
Homes
b. Luminaire Level 2. Standards
Lighting Controls 3. Codes
c. Heat Pump Water
Heaters
d. Retail Product
Portfolio
Calculated based on estimated Calculated based on unit/savings
Period of Analysis portfolio savings during the 20-year achieved for each calendar year
planning horizon. evaluated,separately.
As seen in the table above,the methodology employed by NEEA significantly differs from the
methodology the Evaluators employed for both Idaho Power and Avista.The Evaluators aligned cost
effectiveness methodology for Idaho and Avista to the procedures the utilities employ to report cost
effectiveness of the utility portfolio to Idaho Commission each year.These methodologies portray large
differences in inputs, scope of costs and benefit, definition of'portfolio', and period of analysis. Because
these large differences exist,the Evaluators recommend that Idaho Power and Avista continue to
evaluate cost effectiveness of NEEA impacts internally, and separate from NEEA cost effectiveness
results.
3.5 Utility Staff Interview Results
As part of this work,the Evaluators met with representatives from Idaho Power, Avista, and NEEA to
discuss NEEA's market transformation work.The Evaluators also spoke with each of the Idaho utilities to
gather additional information for the motivations for the evaluation of NEEA's initiatives.The
conversations with the utility staff largely focused on:
■ Utility staffs' concerns towards NEEA's services and methodology;
■ Utility staffs' understanding of NEEA's current savings allocation and cost effectiveness models;
and,
■ Utility staffs' perceived benefits of NEEA's regional market transformation efforts.
The conversations with NEEA sought to better understand NEEA's operations;their baseline savings,
savings allocation, and cost effectiveness models; as well as their opinions of the current market climate.
This section summarizes the key findings from these interviews, highlighting areas of gaps in agreement
or understanding across the three parties.
Evaluation Results 57

3.5.1 Cost Effectiveness Advisory Committee
Before summarizing the results of the staff interviews,the Evaluators find it necessary to outline the
Cost-Effectiveness Advisory Committee (CEAC).The CEAC is a committee consisting of NEEA funding
stakeholders with the objective of reviewing and advising NEEA staff on methods, data sources, and
inputs for use in NEEA's cost-effectiveness analysis and savings reporting.The Committee, composed of
NEEA funders and additional regional stakeholders, meets quarterly to track and review components of
planned and completed market research and evaluation work. CEAC's responsibilities include:
1. Review and advise regarding NEEA cost-effectiveness and savings information to inform annual
reporting
2. Review and advise regarding market transformation cost and savings measurement and
estimation methods
3. Review evaluation findings that affect cost and savings information to inform annual regional
tracking and reporting purposes
4. Work with your organization to provide NEEA staff with relevant incentive data for regional
tracking and reporting purposes
5. Review and advise regarding new market research and evaluation methodologies
Avista staff and Idaho Power staff participate in the quarterly CEAC meetings.
NEEA provided the following documentation regarding the purpose of the CEAC and content of the CEAC
meetings:
■ Cost Effectiveness Advisory Committee Charter: Describes CEAC's purpose, responsibilities,
membership, meeting schedule, and charter review schedule
■ Q1 and Q2 2022 CEAC meeting slides
In addition,the Evaluators asked NEEA Staff,Avista staff, and Idaho Power staff to describe the purpose
of CEAC,the content of CEAC meetings, the frequency of CEAC meetings, and thoughts as to how CEAC
meetings can be improved.
The Cost Effectiveness Advisory Committee Charter document provided by NEEA supports NEEA's
perspective regarding the purpose of CEAC meetings to be focused on reviewing and advising NEEA cost
effectiveness and savings information towards annual reporting. In addition, the first slides in each of
the 2022 CEAC meeting slides reiterate the direct responsibilities of the CEAC to review and advise NEEA
on cost effectiveness and savings information used towards annual reporting. However,the slides
following summarize year-over-year program market progress,forecasted number of units vs. actual
number of units, and overall market growth for each measure, and co-created savings rather than the
specific inputs and assumptions included in those values.The Evaluators reviewed each document for
reference to codes and standards assumptions, however, mention of these topics were not included at
detail greater than forecasted savings.
Although the Evaluators did not review all CEAC meeting slides from 2017 through 2022,the Evaluators
asked NEEA and utility staff to describe CEAC's purpose and the content of CEAC meetings to build a
Evaluation Results 58

more complete narrative of CEAC understanding.Through these in-depth interviews, NEEA staff
indicated that the meetings are provided to allow utilities to question and provide recommendations for
assumptions, inputs, and results. However, the Evaluator found that utility staff described the CEAC
meetings as informative.
3.5.2 Evaluation Motivation
Idaho Power and Avista launched an evaluation to test the cost-effectiveness of NEEA's market
transformation services. Idaho Commission staff have noticed that an increasing portion of the shared
savings the Idaho utilities receive from NEEA's efforts stem from Washington and Oregon based codes
and standard changes.As a result, commission staff"is concerned that NEEA claims savings it is not
directly responsible for"and that "to support the continued funding of NEEA, an independent EM&V
should be conducted to clarify the savings NEEA claimed plus the allocation and cost effectiveness of
those savings to its member utilities based on the utilities'DSM avoided cost" (IPUC Order Nos. 35129
and 35270). Utility staff noted that a large portion of their energy efficiency-related budget is devoted to
NEEA—one that is continually increased year after year--and "if NEEA is no longer cost-effective after an
independent EM&V is conducted, the[companies]should reexamine its continued participation" (IPUC
Order Nos. 35129 and 35270).
Both sets of utility staff stated that they recognize the value and importance of NEEA's regionally-
focused philosophy and acknowledge that NEEA's model depends on collaboration from as many
utilities as possible within the region to succeed.The utility staff noted that NEEA began as a regional
effort that sought to increase the market power of the four states through an alliance; it was founded
on the notion that "if it's good for one area, it's good for all the areas and therefore the savings, the
benefit of the program should be recognized regionally rather than to a specific jurisdiction or state"
(utility staff). According to NEEA staff,when combined into a four-state region, the Pacific Northwest
represents 5%of the national US market;they emphasize that although 5% may seem low, "with a
consolidated, aggregated voice in that marketplace, it's pretty amazing what we've been able to ask
from the national market actors"(NEEA staff). Utility staff cited the residential and commercial building
stock assessments and other regional research efforts NEEA manages are useful in their initiatives and
analyses. However, utility staff indicated they are skeptical of NEEA's customer-focused initiatives,
noting that these initiatives overlap with their own programs. Utility staff explained they would prefer
NEEA to focus more on upstream programs and the manufacturer and distributor levels of the supply
chain. In general, utility staff recognize NEEA's value and the importance of regional collaboration, and
see to ensure Idaho residents are directly benefitting from NEEA's efforts.
3.5.3 NEEA's Market Transformation Model
NEEA staff explained that NEEA stemmed from the recognition that "utility programs are seeking to
influence consumer behavior, ultimately, which includes the whole supply chain that deliver those
products and services to consumers.And if we're going to do that, we need to understand better what
are the mechanisms that bring those products and services to market. What are the things that
consumers think about when they're deciding to buy those things and what are the sort of other
dimensions to the problem?"(NEEA staff).
Evaluation Results 59

At its inception, NEEA achieved funding from various utilities from four states in the Pacific Northwest—
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana—as well as support from those states' regulatory
commissions, consumer groups, and trade associations. Since NEEA's original three-year pilot phase in
the late 1990s, it has received approval and funding on a five-year cycle. NEEA depends on this longer
funder circle, as market transformation work takes time (typically viewed on a 20-year cycle),therefore
the benefits are not seen immediately.
When explaining their model, NEEA staff use a traditional S-curve to demonstrate the "diffusion of
innovation theory" in which a new technology enters the market at the bottom end of the spectrum, is
first adopted by a specific set of people known as "innovators,"followed by"early adopters," and
eventually hits the mainstream market and becomes standardized via code and standards changes.
NEEA staff explain that their role is to accelerate market adoption and get new technologies into the
mainstream market stage of the S-curve quicker. When NEEA conducts market transformation work,
they focus in on what it will take "to make market adopt[this product]at a high rate?...[we're]doing
market characterization work, [we're]doing market test studies to see what kind of things[we]can do to
help overcome barriers to market adoption"(NEEA staff).
When forecasting their baseline market transformation calculations, NEEA works with third-party
evaluators to collect data on current adoption rates and market trends. NEEA staff noted that they
develop a baseline picture for every initiative in their portfolio and use this data to determine which
initiative to move forward with. NEEA staff explained that throughout each five-year funding cycle they
focus on a variety of technologies in all stages of the market transformation S-curve, noting that
different technologies move through the curve, and ultimately the market adoption process, at varying
speeds. Once NEEA decides which "energy savings opportunities"to focus on,they "spend a lot of time
and effort often getting the[measure]ready for market adoption in the mainstream market adoption,
sort of the middle of the S-curve. But once the market takes off, [their]basic theory is that the market
itself will drive that adoption because[they]have readied the market to do that"(NEEA).
3.5.4 Defining Savings
Utility staff explained that NEEA uses a funder share savings model to allocate savings. Under this
model,the utilities receive a proportion of savings equal to their share of NEEA's overall budget. Funder
share amounts are determined by each utility's electric load, with higher load utilities contributing more
money than lower load utilities. Funder share amounts are reviewed and approved each funding cycle
by NEEA's CEAC.
Under NEEA's funder share and savings allocation model, it does not matter where the savings were
garnered, and thus Idaho may receive savings that resulted from codes and standard changes that
occurred in Washington or Oregon and not Idaho. Although the Idaho utilities staff understand why
NEEA has structured their savings model in this way,they expressed concern that Idaho residents are
not directly benefitting as much from NEEA's work, and simultaneously are funding efforts that are
benefitting customers out-of-state rather than within Idaho, and as a result, NEEA may not be cost
effective for Idaho. In IPUC Order No. 35270, Idaho Power"stated it believed customers benefited from
its participation in NEEA but expressed that it had mentioned similar concerns to Staffs concerns in a
past case, including its concerns about savings attributed to codes and standards, the allocation method
Evaluation Results 60

of savings to customers, and cost effectiveness impacts from declining avoided cost in the current NEEA
cycle;"this sentiment was echoed by Avista in IPUC Order No. 35129. Staff from both utilities noted that
NEEA provides detailed data about where all their savings are coming from. Utility staff indicated that
NEEA are very organized, and that each year, the utilities are provided an annual spreadsheet with
detailed megawatt hour calculations and rolled up savings for each category. However, utility staff
noted that there is a less transparency regarding how NEEA operationalizes their efforts and
subsequently calculates those efforts into savings. Moreover, utility staff do not always agree with some
of the assumptions NEEA includes in their cost-effectiveness models. For example, NEEA relies on winter
capacity benefits for heat pumps, even though Idaho Power is a summer peaking utility.Additionally,
NEEA uses total regional savings that includes baseline numbers, rather than net market effects.
Lastly, although Idaho Power and Avista staff are members of NEEA's CEAC, neither utility's staff feel
empowered to question NEEA's cost effectiveness calculations during those meetings. Utility staff
described the committee's quarterly meetings as a basic report out of their activities over the past few
months, rather than an opportunity to discuss the models and assumptions.This sentiment contradicts
NEEA's perception of the Cost Effectiveness Advisory Committee meetings. NEEA staff indicated that
CEAC meetings are an opportunity for member utilities, regulators, and other stakeholders to review
and question NEEA's saving assumptions:
"Every year every single input assumption to every savings claim that's reported to the utilities is
reviewed by CEAC. That's a lot of work so I won't represent that everybody on the CEAC looks at
every single assumption, but in theory, everything is open and available for comment and
adjustment as needed."(NEEA staff)
3.5.5 Emphasis on Codes &Standards
Referencing the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Order Nos. 35129 and 35270, one of the main
impetuses of this evaluation has been the perceived shift away from measures and equipment upgrade
programs towards codes and standards changes. When asked about this perceived shift, NEEA staff
explained that their budget has remained consistent across their efforts and that codes and standards
are one of the minority investments when comparing against all other NEEA efforts. One theory that
could explain the disconnect between Idaho utilities' perception that there has been increased focus on
codes and standards, rather than efficiency measures and emerging technologies, is the notion that
much of the time and effort invested into the early stages of market transformation work does not
result is substantial savings. It is feasible,that NEEA continues to invest the bulk of budget on the earlier
stages of the market transformation S-curve, but that these savings are not realized until the codes and
standards stage. When asked how they prioritize projects, NEEA staff noted that they consider the
potential market transformation pathway for all proposed "energy savings opportunities" and prioritize
those opportunities with clear paths.They explained that codes and standards changes are the clearest
indicator of market transformation success, as codes and standards make the energy savings
opportunities standard practice.Thus, NEEA tends to focus their work on energy savings opportunities
that can ultimately result in codes and standards changes.
In addition to concerns that NEEA's work has shifted more towards codes and standards changes,the
Idaho utilities expressed the most trepidation over the fact that much of NEEA's codes and standards
Evaluation Results 61

work is located outside of Idaho. As stated in the IPUC Order No. 35270, commission staff is "concerned
that NEEA claim[s]savings it was not directly responsible for producing"and stated "if savings from
codes and standards are removed, NEEA would not be cost-effective." NEEA staff indicated "[they]pay
attention to what[they]call "regional equity", how do[they]have a balanced portfolio that has a
chance of really delivering the allocation of savings back to the states, not down to the service territory"
(NEEA staff).They went on to explain that they focus on state and regional efforts, rather than service
territory efforts, because markets are not that different between the states and there's a lot "self-
referencing between[their]states" (NEEA staff).
Although NEEA's regional lens makes sense to the Idaho utility staff in theory, utility staff noted that this
theory often falls short in practice. Idaho utility staff emphasized the contrasting political climate of their
state versus that of Washington, Oregon, and Montana, noting that what works in one state may not
work in another state.
When asked about the political differences across the state, NEEA recognized the varying political
climates across their four member states and acknowledged the hesitancy towards codes and regulation
environment currently present in Idaho. However, NEEA staff went on to explain that current political
climate does not worry them, as politics constantly change and evolve: "those political winds blow
irrespective of kind of the code environment and the building construction industry"(NEEA staff).
Because of their future forward visioning and five-year cycle planning, NEEA focuses more on long-term
engagement and relationship building among the construction and manufacturing industries, assuming
that politics will eventually catch up with market demands. NEEA staff indicated that much of this long-
term engagement and relationship building with construction and manufacturing industries involves
training and education, meeting with builders, manufacturers, and enforcement personnel.
NEEA admitted that tracking and quantifying their code-based activities—like training, education, and
outreach—is challenging.They noted "it's an evolving piece" and they have engaged third party
evaluators to help them develop better and more effective metrics for these activities that focus more
on actual behavioral changes that resulted from their activities, rather than just raw attendance and
participation numbers.
3.5.6 Interview Findings and Recommendations
It is evident from these interviews that there is a disconnect between the Idaho utilities and NEEA's
understanding of the purpose and expectations of NEEA's market transformation work.
"This disconnect between when NEEA's budget is being applied to the market and when we're
seeing the benefits and being unable to report those benefits is one really key distinction
between a traditional efficiency acquisition program and what we do in market transformation."
(NEEA staff)
The Evaluators present the following findings and recommendations based on our review of NEEA's
allocation methodology:
Table 3-25:Summary of Allocation Share Findings and Recommendations
Evaluation Results 62

Findings Recommendations
Finding#5:The interviews revealed that although
the three parties fundamentally want to improve
energy efficiency and increase market adoption of
emerging technologies,their preferred approaches Recommendation#3:The Evaluators recommend
to this shared goal vary. Unlike the utilities,who that NEEA work with utilities to best serve each
strive to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of their state's current regulatory environment and utility's
initiatives and investments on an annual or bi- localized concerns.
annual cycle, NEEA operates on a five-year funding
cycle,which is different than the typical annual or
biannual utility planning cycle.
Finding#6: NEEA's programs are designed with a
broader constituency in mind than that of its
member utilities.While the Idaho utilities' programs
are targeted to produce benefits for their
ratepayers,—NEEA is tasked with developing
programs that need to consider what is best for the
entire four-state region.At its core, NEEA's ethos
assumes that changes made in one state will
eventually spillover into another state and that in
the long run, regional change will be realized. Recommendation#4:The Evaluators recommend
Finding#7: NEEA currently allocates code savings via that NEEA track progress for each code change
funder share methodology,which estimates a relative to administrative dollars spent towards
proportion of total NEEA funding to each utility state-level codes and associated energy savings
based on number of electric retail customers and accrued by each state-level code.With the 20-year
overall load.Therefore,savings from code adoption market transformation in mind,the service-
in Washington State are in-part assigned to Idaho. territory-level savings will still accrue over the 20-
The Evaluators found that out-of-state code building year horizon, however, using this methodology,
savings are currently being attributed to Idaho actual market transformation effects of co-created
utilities.The Evaluators are skeptical that spillover savings will be more accurately tracked.
from out-of-state code changes result in energy
savings within the state of Idaho.Although the
barriers to code adoption from one state to the next
may be similar,there is no evidence to suggest that
these learnings transfer to observable and
measurable savings. NEEA has stated that starting in
2022,code savings will be allocated via service
territory allocation.
Finding#8:The NEEA Cost Effectiveness Advisory
Committee(CEAC) meets quarterly with the NEEA
objectives to provide space for discussion around
results of recently completed evaluation, progress of
field studies, relevant updates to programs,and
acceptance or questioning of NEEA methodology
towards calculation of savings.
Evaluation Results 63

The remainder of this report delivers the quantitative analysis of NEEA's claimable savings within the
state of Idaho along with the associated cost effectiveness tests.The Evaluators balanced
acknowledgments that NEEA's regional efforts provide intangible, and often difficult to quantify benefits
to its member states, along with the recognition that the Idaho utilities want to invest their efforts into
activities that are best for their customers within their service territories.
3.6 Impact Evaluation Results
In this section, the Evaluators summarize the verified savings for each Idaho Power and Avista for each
program year between 2017 and 2021, summarized by:
■ Efficiency measures
■ Standards
■ Codes
3.6.1 Efficiency Measures
The Evaluators reviewed savings attributed to the efficiency measures in each of the 2017 through 2021
annual NEEA reports to each Idaho Power and Avista. In the table below,the Evaluators summarize the
energy efficiency measure initiatives NEEA has claimed savings for between 2017 and 2021.
Table 3-26:NEEA Code Initiatives
Sec Initiative
Ductless Heat Pumps Ductless heat pumps
Heat Pump Water Heat pump water heaters
Heaters
Air purifiers
Clothes washers
Retail Product Portfolio Freezers
Soundbars
Televisions
Residential Window AC
Super-Efficient Dryers Clothes dryers
Televisions Televisions
Manufactured Homes HUD code/NEEM 2
Residential Lighting CFL bulb in existing
LED bulb in existing
Extended Motor Residential hydronic heating circulation w/EE ECM
Products Residential circulator pumps with EE ECM/motor
XMP Pumps DHW ECM circulator
Commercial Commissioning Nonresidential new construction commissioning
Buildings Retro commissioning commercial existing
Evaluation Results 64

Initiative Measures
Luminaire Level Luminaire level lighting controls
Lighting Controls
Reduced Wattage Lamp 25W 4ft T8s
Replacement 28W 4ft T8s
Building Operator Building operator certification
Certification Expansion
Desktop Power ENERGY STAR desktop
Supplies
Other Strategic Energy
Strategic energy management
Management
Extended Motor Commercial hydronic heating circulation w/EE ECM
Products Commercial circulator pumps with EE ECM/motor
Commercial variable speed clean water pump
Window Attachments Commercial secondary windows
XMP Pumps DHW ECM circulator
Certified Refrigeration Savings from projects submitted by Certified Refrigeration
Energy Specialist(CRES) Energy Specialists
Commissioning Nonresidential new construction commissioning
Industrial Buildings Retro commissioning industrial existing
Other Strategic Energy
Strategic energy management
Management
Reduced Wattage Lamp 25W 4ft T8s
Replacement 28W 4ft T8s
NEEA claimed efficiency measure savings for measures completed in Washington, Oregon, Montana,
and Idaho. Instead of claiming 100%savings for all efficiency measures completed in the region, NEEA
nets out the number of measures completed through local utilities and naturally occurring baseline.
To calculate verified savings,the Evaluators verified local program units and baseline units were netted
out correctly. Where discrepancies were identified,the Evaluators updated the Ex-Post formulas to
correctly account for NEEA influence values.
The Evaluators also removed non-Idaho federal measure savings from all standards initiatives to
estimate savings that benefit Idaho customers directly.Therefore,this section reports verified efficiency
measure savings accrued within the state of Idaho only.The Evaluators summarize verified savings and
cost effectiveness results in the tables below using service territory allocation methodology.
The sections below detail the reviews completed to estimate verified savings through NEEA code efforts:
■ Impact methodology review
■ Cost effectiveness results
■ Findings and recommendations
3.6.1.1 Impact Methodology Review
In this section, the Evaluators summarize findings and recommendations for each of the following
components towards verified impact results of NEEA's energy efficiency measures:
Evaluation Results 65

■ Database and document review (Section 3.6.1.1.1)
■ UES review (Section 3.6.1.1.2)
■ Market transformation baseline review(Section 3.6.1.1.3)
■ Funder share methodology review(Section 3.6.1.1.4)
3.6.1.1.1 Database and Document Review
The Evaluators reviewed the 2017-2021 annual savings reports for Avista electric,Avista gas, and Idaho
Power electric to identify and address any inconsistencies with data tracking methods and opportunities
to improve year-over-year tracking of NEEA efforts.
The Evaluators found during database review that a variety of fields are empty across measure types (for
example, service territory share, UES, or comment, due to lack of savings claimed for the measure).This
makes verification of values difficult and complicates tracking of a measure progress over time.The
Evaluators summarize the missing values further in Appendix D.The Evaluators recommend that
measure-level values are detailed as accurately as possible, and that each field is completed in the
workbook, whether or not regional net units exist.This allows for year-over-year tracking of regional
units, baseline units, retirement units, and unit energy savings values over time.
Additionally,the Evaluators found that for some measures,the net regional unit calculations were
completed incorrectly.Therefore,the local program units, baseline units, and retirement units were
incorrectly netted out of total regional net savings. For some measures, this change resulted in lower
savings, and for others,this change resulted in higher savings.
The Evaluators also note that the distribution of baseline and retirement units differ across total
regional units and local program units.That is,for some measures, NEEA estimates that a large
proportion of local program units are baseline.The Evaluators raise concern for this assumption, as local
program units are incentivized, and free ridership of programs is also tracked by local utilities. It is
unreasonable to assume that locally incentivized, rebated measures display the same free ridership as
non-incentivized measures in the region.Therefore,the Evaluators calculated verified net energy
savings assuming that distribution of baseline units is equal, proportionally to each total regional units
and local units.The Evaluators recommend, however, that NEEA integrate more accurate assumptions
regarding free ridership to estimate baseline units within locally incentivized units.
3.6.1.1.2 UES Review
The Evaluators reviewed the following documents and spreadsheets for this evaluation work:
■ 2017-2021 annual savings reports for Avista electric,Avista gas, and Idaho Power electric
■ Regional Technical Forum (RTF) UES workbooks
■ Consumer products UES methodology documentation
Field studies completed
■ Engineering algorithms utilized by NEEA
The Evaluators reviewed each document listed above in order to identify and address any
inconsistencies in UES value application and engineering algorithms employed by NEEA to estimate total
regional savings.
Evaluation Results 66

The Evaluators found that for the efficiency measures,the majority of measure UES are referenced from
the RTF workbooks, weighted to regional climate zones, average household heating type, and average
square footage.The majority of measure savings are also reviewed by third-party evaluators in order to
verify correct per-unit savings allocation. Due to the high-level of third-party evaluator reviews
conducted for each of the claimed efficiency measures,the Evaluators focused on the application of the
UES values within the annual workbook rather than the validity of the UES themselves.
3.6.1.1.3 Market Transformation Baseline Review
Calculates a naturally occurring baseline for each initiative in order to track the market transformation
of each product in order to follow the market transformation S-curve displayed in Figure 3-2. NEEA
models the counterfactual scenario of market potential that demonstrates how the market would have
progressed without NEEA and utility intervention. NEEA accomplishes this by conducting market
characterization studies early in program design, conducting large customer survey efforts, and
collecting data which identifies trends of current level of practice.
In the case that an event has occurred which has changed the market transformation of a product,for
instance, a federal standard is implemented which updates the product's minimum efficiency, NEEA
reconfigures the model which forecasts naturally occurring baseline.
The Evaluators found that third-party evaluations are completed for the majority of modeled measure
market transformation baselines.The Evaluators reviewed the evaluation reports and concluded that
the market transformation baseline is thoroughly reviewed and defended.Therefore,the Evaluators
focused on how the market transformation baselines are integrated to the annual savings workbook
rather than investigating the assumptions involved in the creation of the baseline itself.
3.6.1.1.4 Funder Share Methodology Review
As described in Section 3.3, the Evaluators calculated verified savings using the service territory
allocation methodology.The service territory values were calculated by NEEA using confidential datasets
from NEEA stakeholders.The Evaluators were unable to review the data or replicate the service territory
values because the originating data is delivered to NEEA with non-disclosure agreements.The Evaluators
used the service territory values as displayed in the NEEA annual workbooks.
The Evaluators note that NEEA calculated Ex Ante savings for energy efficiency measures using a mix of
service territory share and funder share allocation for the measures it claims savings for.The rationality
behind using one methodology over the other is unclear.
As described previously,the Evaluators conclude that the funder share methodology does not accurately
reflect benefits claimed by Idaho utility customers.Therefore,the results displayed in this report reflect
service territory savings. Additionally, the Evaluators recommend that Avista and Idaho Power request
NEEA utilize service territory methodology for future NEEA annual savings reports in order to calculate
energy savings and cost-effectiveness testing for the Commission.
3.6.1.2 Verified Ex Post Savings
The Evaluators summarize verified Ex Post efficiency measure savings results by utility,fuel type, and
program year in the tables below.The Evaluators provide initiative-level savings in Appendix A.
Evaluation Results 67

Table 3-27:Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Program Year
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Savings Savings Rate
2017 0.31 0.12 39.20%
2018 0.40 0.15 38.34%
2019 0.28 0.12 43.78%
2020 0.39 0.14 37.32%
2021 0.42 0.15 36.93%
Total 1.78 0.69 38.78%
The overall verified realization rate for Idaho Power measure efforts due to NEEA was 39%.The
discrepancy between Ex Ante and Ex Post savings are largely due to the difference between funder
share allocation and service territory share among measures. Funder share allocation for Idaho Power
ranged between 6.42%and 9.23%, as displayed in Table 3-22. In contrast,the service territory allocation
share ranged between 0%and 16%for individual measures.The overall impact of this change resulted in
a low realization rate, indicating that the majority of claimed measure savings accrue outside the state
of Idaho.
Table 3-28:Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Program Year
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Year aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
2017 0.06 0.03 57.68%
2018 0.06 0.04 73.37%
2019 0.06 0.03 46.97%
2020 0.08 0.03 39.76%
2021 0.08 0.04 48.21%
Total 0.34 0.18 52.11%
The overall verified realization rate for Avista electric measure efforts due to NEEA was 52%. Similarly,
the discrepancy between Ex Ante and Ex Post savings are also due to the difference between funder
share allocation and service territory share among measures. Funder share allocation for Idaho Power
ranged between 1.19%and 1.73%, as displayed in Table 3-22. In contrast,the service territory allocation
share ranged between 0%and 19%for individual measures.The overall impact of this change resulted in
a low realization rate, indicating that the majority of claimed measure savings accrue outside the state
of Idaho.
Evaluation Results 68

Table 3-29:Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Program Year
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Year Therms Therms Rate
Savings Savings
2019 636 0 0.00%
2020 0 0 N/A
2021 0 0 N/A
Total 636 0 0.00%
NEEA allocated natural gas savings to Avista within the Idaho region for the program year 2019. Program
years 2020 and 2021 did not claim savings for any measure initiatives for Avista Idaho gas measures. In
2019,the only initiative NEEA claimed energy savings for was the condensing rooftop unit initiative.The
condensing rooftop units initiative estimated 636 Therms allocated to Avista Idaho via the funder share
methodology. However,the associated service territory allocation for these measure completes was
zero, and therefore, 0 Therms savings are verified to have benefitted Idaho customers for this initiative.
3.6.1.3 Cost Effectiveness Results
The Evaluators found that NEEA calculates cost-effectiveness of its portfolio using the total regional
savings rather than the net market effects. NEEA's rationality for this is the following:
"We use the Total Resource Cost test(TRQ to assess the cost effectiveness of a product.
As mentioned in the guidelines, NEEA's purpose is to look at the total societal impact in a
market to ensure that the regional investment is an appropriate use of funds for the long
term. Working under this perspective, NEEA considers all incremental quantifiable costs
and benefits of the total regional savings achieved through transformation, regardless of
where or how they are accrued. This is achieved through a total, regional framework.As
a result, we include data from naturally occurring baseline in order to capture the full
spectrum of costs and benefits for society. Note that the savings rates and costs we use
do account for pre-market intervention baseline estimates, similar to the approach the
Regional Technical Forum uses."(NEEA staff)
The Evaluators determined that this methodology raises concern, and the NEEA cost-effectiveness tests
currently account for all measure, standard, and code completions across the entire region, effectively
double counting local program savings and simultaneously claiming naturally occurring baseline savings.
The Evaluators recommend that Avista and Idaho Power do not implement this methodology, and
instead calculate cost effectiveness using the reported net market effects (which nets out local program
savings and naturally occurring baseline savings).
Additionally, NEEA calculates cost-effectiveness using the current Power Plan, as stated in Section 2.7.
The Evaluators calculated cost-effectiveness using Avista and Idaho Power avoided costs, rather than the
avoided costs presented in the Power Plan
The Evaluators summarize verified cost effectiveness results in the tables below. Further detail of
measure-level cost-effectiveness is provided in Appendix B.
Evaluation Results 69

Table 3-30:Idaho Power Electric Idaho Efficiency Measures Cost Effectiveness by Program Year
Program Year UCT Costs UCT Benefits UCT
2017 $2,186,140.38 $466,619.15 0.21
2018 $2,151,016.22 $463,122.26 0.22
2019 $2,150,393.15 $448,341.19 0.21
2020 $2,215,102.95 $610,854.65 0.28
2021 $2,342,622.29 $602,148.92 0.26
Total $11,045,275.00 $2,591,086.18 0.23
Table 3-31:Avista Electric Idaho Efficiency Measures Cost Effectiveness by Program Year
Program Year UCT Costs UCT Benefits UCT
2017 $497,315 $166,784 0.37
2018 $489,324 $145,951 0.30
2019 $440,264 $140,466 0.32
2020 $366,823 $152,948 0.42
2021 $407,558 $166,540 0.41
Total $2,201,284 $772,688 0.35
Table 3-32:Avista Gas Idaho Efficiency Measures Cost Effectiveness by Program Year
Program Year UCT Costs UCT Benefits UCT
2019 $152,294 $0 0.00
2020 $126,061 $0 0.00
2021 $142,512 $0 0.00
Total $420,867 $0 0.00
Although NEEA provided gas efficiency measure efforts in the form of condensing rooftop units and
efficient gas water heaters,the Evaluators found that none of the savings were allocated within the
Idaho service territory. Therefore, the costs for each program year were distributed entirely towards
code savings, and efficiency measure cost effectiveness for Avista gas Idaho NEEA efforts is not
applicable.
As seen in the tables above, all efficiency measure efforts were found to be not cost effective using
Idaho Power's and Avista's avoided costs and updated verified Ex Post savings within the state of Idaho,
as displayed by the annual measure UCT values ranging between 0.00 and 0.41.
3.6.1.4 Findings and Recommendations
Overall,the efficiency measures Ex Ante savings claimed savings for measures completed in
Washington, Oregon, and Montana—therefore, some measures underestimated Idaho-specific savings,
Evaluation Results 70

while others overestimated out-of-state savings.The overall effect of this change resulted in a lower
than 100% realization rate.
Based on the findings detailed above,the Evaluators present the following findings and
recommendations based on our review of NEEA's efficiency measures:
Table 3-33:Summary of Efficiency Measure Findings and Recommendations
Findings Recommendations
Finding#9:The Evaluators estimated verified Ex Post
aMW for the efficiency measures to display 39%, 52%,
and 0%realization rates for Idaho Power electric,Avista
electric, and Avista gas savings within the state of Idaho, The Evaluators reference Recommendation
respectively.The difference in claimed savings and #1:The Evaluators recommend Avista and
verified savings is due to the change to using service
territory allocation rather than funder share allocation. Idaho request NEEA to report annual savings
The efficiency measures category Ex Ante savings via the service territory methodology for each
measure claimed by NEEA for each Idaho
included savings for measures completed in Washington, power electric,Avista electric,and Avista gas.
Oregon, and Montana—therefore,some measures
underestimated Idaho-specific savings,while others
overestimated out-of-state savings.The overall effect of
this change resulted in a lower than 100%realization rate.
Recommendation#5:The Evaluators
Finding#10:The database review revealed that a variety recommend that measure-level values are
of fields(measure life, UES)were empty across measure detailed as accurately as possible,and that
types due to lack of savings claimed for the measure, each field is completed in the workbook to
which made verification of values difficult and allow for year-over-year tracking of regional
complicates tracking of a measure progress overtime. units, baseline units, retirement units,and
unit energy savings values over time.
Finding#11:The database review revealed that NEEA's
current method for distribution of modeled naturally
occurring baseline units between local program and NEEA
efforts is not reasonable.A portion of energy efficient
technology sales are due to naturally occurring baseline.
NEEA nets out modeled naturally occurring baseline in
order to avoid claiming savings for units that would have Recommendation#6:The Evaluators
been sold had no program or NEEA-effort been provided recommend,that NEEA distribute naturally
within the market. However,the method in which these occurring baseline units more equitable
baseline units are netted out is not distributed equitably. between local program units and total
For some measures, NEEA estimates that a large regional units.
proportion of local program units are baseline,and
therefore a larger proportion of the remaining net market
effects is assigned to NEEA efforts.The Evaluators raise
concern for this assumption, as it is unlikely locally
incentivized, rebated measures display the same free
ridership as non-incentivized measures in the region.
Finding#12:The Evaluators reviewed the utilized UES via
the Regional Technical Forum (RTF)workbooks,field
Evaluation Results 71

study data,and simulation analysis findings and note no
large concerns with NEEA UES methodology or market
baseline assumptions.
Finding#13:The Evaluators found that NEEA calculates
cost-effectiveness of its portfolio using the total regional
savings rather than the net market effects.The Evaluators
determined that this methodology raises concern,and Recommendation#7: In the case that cost
the NEEA cost-effectiveness tests currently account for all effectiveness tests are completed using
measure,standard,and code completions across the NEEA-reported savings,the Evaluators
entire region,effectively double counting local program recommend that Avista and Idaho Power
savings and simultaneously claiming naturally occurring calculate cost-effectiveness using net market
baseline savings. Because Avista and Idaho Power effects rather than total regional savings,as is
calculate their own internal cost effectiveness tests,this consistent with current regulatory
finding does not impact Idaho Power or Avista reporting. requirements.
However,the Evaluators highlight this finding,as NEEA
savings allocation and cost allocation methods are not
currently consistent with regulatory requirements.
3.6.2 Standards
In the table below,the Evaluators summarize the federal standards NEEA has claimed savings for within
Avista Idaho and Idaho Power Idaho annual reports between 2017 and 2021.
Evaluation Results 72

Table 3-34:NEEA Standards Initiatives
Sector Initiative Measure
Battery chargers
Clothes dryers
Residential Other Residential Standards Central AC
Furnace fans
Heat pumps
Fluorescent lamp ballasts
Air compressors
Beverage vending machines
Ceiling fan light kits
Ceiling fans
Commercial fryers
Commercial PRSVs
Commercial refrigeration equipment
Commercial Other Non-Residential Standards Commercial unitary ACs
Electric motors
External power supply
Rooftop units
Small electric motors
Steam cookers
Walk-in coolers/freezers
Pumps
Fluorescent lamp ballasts
Industrial Drive Power Motors
Industrial Other Non-Residential Standards Air compressors
Pumps
Agriculture Other Non-Residential Standards Pumps
NEEA claimed federal standard savings for measures completed in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and
Idaho. Instead of claiming 100%savings for all federal standard equipment measures completed in the
region, NEEA completes an influence evaluation in which a third-party evaluator estimates the
qualitative and quantitative influence NEEA contributed towards these federal standard updates.The
quantitative value represents the percent of savings from the federal standard update that was
influenced by NEEA.This value is incorporated in NEEA Ex-Ante calculations to estimate the baseline
units.Therefore, if the influence evaluation concludes that NEEA contributed 3%of the code update
energy savings, NEEA estimates that 97%of the total regional units for that measure is equivalent to the
baseline regional units for the measure.The Evaluators reviewed and verified that these values were
integrated correctly in NEEA workbooks. Where discrepancies were identified,the Evaluators updated
the Ex-Post formulas to correctly account for NEEA influence values.
The Evaluators also removed non-Idaho federal standards savings from all standards initiatives to
estimate savings that benefit Idaho customers directly.Therefore, this section reports verified federal
standards savings accrued within the state of Idaho only.
The sections below summarize the reviews completed to estimate verified savings through NEEA code
efforts:
Evaluation Results 73

■ Impact methodology review
■ Staff interview conclusions
■ Cost effectiveness results
• Findings and recommendations
3.6.2.1 Impact Methodology Review
In this section, the Evaluators summarize findings and recommendations for each of the following
components towards verified impact results of NEEA's federal standards:
■ Database and document review(Section 3.6.2.1.1)
■ UES review (Section 3.6.2.1.2)
■ Market transformation baseline review(Section 3.6.2.1.3)
■ Funder share methodology review(Section 3.6.2.1.4)
3.6.2.1.1 Database and Document Review
The Evaluators reviewed each of the supplemental documents provided by NEEA, which included the
following:
■ 2017-2021 annual savings reports for Avista electric,Avista gas, and Idaho Power electric
■ Completed influence evaluations
The Evaluators reviewed each of the documents above to identify and address any inconsistencies with
data tracking methods and opportunities to improve year-over-year tracking of NEEA efforts.
The Evaluators found during database review that a variety of fields are empty across code tracking
data, similar to our finding for efficiency measure database review.The Evaluators summarize the
missing values further in Appendix D.The Evaluators recommend that measure-level values are detailed
as completely as possible.
The Evaluators found that naturally occurring baseline is calculated through "influence evaluations"
completed by third-party evaluations (summarized in the following sections). The Evaluators found that
the influence evaluation findings were not properly integrated into each standard savings estimate,
thereby underestimating baseline units and overestimating overall net market effects.
3.6.2.1.2 UES Review
The Evaluators reviewed each of the unit energy savings (UES) values assigned to each federal standard
in which savings are claimed by NEEA. NEEA utilizes UES values determined by third-party evaluators for
each of the measures claimed. Each measure unit-level savings is weighted by heating and cooling zone
across three housing types (single family, multifamily, and manufactured home), if applicable.These
values are then multiplied by the net market units for each measure after netting out baseline units for
each measure, described in further detail in 3.6.2.1.3.1.The Evaluators summarize the measure-level
standards and UES methodologies employed by NEEA between 2017 and 2021 in the table below.
Evaluation Results 74

Due to the thorough third-party evaluations and estimates of UES verified for use by NEEA,the
Evaluators do not note any concern for discrepancies with the standards UES values applied to estimate
NEEA savings. Instead,the Evaluators focused on the rationality of NEEA's high-level application of
regional units, baseline methodology, allocation methodology, and overall calculations for each Avista
and Idaho Power.
3.6.2.1.3 Market Transformation Baseline Review
This section summarizes NEEA's methodology for estimating naturally occurring baseline for federal
standards in which NEEA contributed.
NEEA does employ baseline models for federal standards updates. Alternatively, an "influence
evaluation" is completed by a third-party evaluator, which summarizes NEEA's overall qualitative and
quantitative influence towards federal standards updates,which result in energy savings. NEEA uses the
quantitative assessment from each of these evaluations to estimate the proportion of total regional
units to categorize towards naturally occurring baseline.Therefore, NEEA nets out any units that would
have occurred in the absence of NEEA efforts towards increasing the energy efficiency of measures
through standard updates.
In the section below, the Evaluators provide further detail of the integration of influence evaluations
towards estimation of federal standards baseline units.
3.6.2.1.3.1 Influence Evaluation Review
The Evaluators reviewed third party independent evaluations of NEEA's "influence"towards updates in
measure standards.The table below summarizes the third-party standards "influence evaluations"
provided by NEEA.
Table 3-35:Summary of NEEA Standards Influence Evaluations
QuantitativeStandard Third Evaluation Qualitative Assessment
Party Completed A
NEEA achieved most of the activities
Beverage Vending identified in NEEA's Codes&Standards logic
mode. NEEA submitted comments in the
Machines Standard TRC 2019 20%
Evaluation public review process, including written
comments and participation in public
meetings.
TRC found that NEEA engaged in most of the
Ceiling Fan activities identified in NEEA's Codes and
Standard TRC 2019 Standards. NEEA focused particularly on 9%
Evaluation Report submitting comments in the public review
process and participating in public meetings.
TRC found that NEEA engaged in most of the
Commercial and activities identified in NEEA's Codes&
Industrial Pumps Standards logic model. NEEA participated in o
Standard TRC 2021 the Working Group,comments submitted in 24/
Evaluation Report the public review process, including written
comments and participation in public
meetings.
Commercial Pre- TRC 2021 TRC found that NEEA engaged in most of the 4%
Evaluation Results 75

Quantitative
Standard Third Evaluation Qualitative Assessment
Party Completed Assessment
Rinse Spray Valves activities identified in NEEA's Codes&
Standard Standards logic model. NEEA submitted
Evaluation comments in the public review process,
including written comments and
_participation in public meetings.
TRC found that NEEA played a moderate role
Commercial in the development and adoption of this
Refrigeration standard. In the early stages of the standard
Equipment TRC 2018 development process, NEEA submitted 15%
Evaluation independent comments on the test
_procedure.
Commercial TRC found that NEEA engaged in several
activities prescribed in the codes and
Unitary Air Conditioners TRC 2018 standards logic model, particularly through 19%
Evaluation the NEEA staff member's participation in the
_ASRAC Working Group.
The Motor Coalition,of which NEEA was a
key member, heavily influenced the
rulemaking, recommending expansion of the
scope of the standard to cover all motors First year:
Electric Motors 100%
Cadmus 2016 except specifically defined exceptions. NEEA
Evaluation After first
was found to provide technical expertise to
the Motor Coalition and served as a trusted Year:61%
voice in a negotiation process that has been
_contentious historically.
Overall,TRC found that NEEA played a small
role in the development and adoption of this
standard.This is because there were a few
barriers to this standard once the DOE
External Power removed battery chargers for separate
Supply Evaluation TRC 2017 regulation, manufacturer opposition to the 2.60%
EPS standard was minimal. In addition,
NEEA's contribution to the federal process is
generally to provide technical comments or
analysis, but there were few technical needs
_ _for this standard.
TRC believes that efficiency stakeholders
had a "moderate to low"effect on this
Fluorescent Lamp TRC 2016 standard,and TRC translates this influence 23%
Ballasts Evaluation of all efficiency stakeholder efforts into a
range between 12%and 24%of all energy
_savings from the standard.
TRC found that NEEA played a moderate role
Residential in the development and adoption of this
Furnace Fans TRC 2018 standard. However,in the development of 15%
Evaluation the test procedure, NEEA played a
significant role.
Small Electric Cadmus 2016 The majority of the responding 33%
Evaluation Results 76

Quantitative
Standard Third Evaluation Qualitative Assessment
Party Completed Assessment
Motors Evaluation manufacturer interviewees(5 of 6)said
NEEA was"somewhat effective"or"very
effective" in supporting the small motors
standard adoption.
For the 2014 standard,TRC found that NEEA
engaged in several activities prescribed in
the codes and standards logic model,
Walk In Coolers particularly through comments submitted in
Freezers TRC 2019 the public review process. 2014: 12%
Evaluation For the 2017 standard,TRC found that NEEA 2017: 20%
engaged in several activities prescribed in
the codes and standards logic model,
particularly through comments submitted in
the public review process.
As described above, NEEA makes use of the quantitative assessments from each of these evaluations as
follows:
Equation 3-5:Standards Baseline Units Estimation
Baseline Unitsstandard = Total Regional Unitsstandard * Quantitative Assessmentstandard
First, NEEA uses the quantitative assessment percentage to estimate regional baseline units.Then, NEEA
calculates net market units for the standard by netting out baseline units from the total regional units
for the standard.
Equation 3-6:Net Market Units Estimation
Net Market Unitsstandard = Total Regional Unitsstandard — Baseline Unitsstandard
This methodology ensures that NEEA only claims electric or gas savings towards a standard update
resulted due to their participation and efforts in standard update meetings, proposals, and comments.
The Evaluators carefully reviewed each of the third-party evaluation reports above in order to identify
whether these evaluations result in independent and reasonable quantitative assessments for
estimating claimed savings. We considered the following key topics in our analysis:
• Evaluation indicated that NEEA staff attended standards update meetings
■ Evaluation conducted interviews with NEEA Staff
■ Evaluation conducted interviews with other parties participating in standards update meetings
■ Evaluation reviewed NEEA-specific proposed changes to standards
■ Evaluation reviewed and estimated NEEA-specific energy-savings changes dependent on NEEA-
specific proposed changes only
■ Evaluation qualitative assessment concluded that NEEA contributed a decent amount of effort
towards standards updates
■ Evaluation quantitative assessment estimated the percentage of savings contributed by each
individual NEEA-specific change, supported by documentation that NEEA submitted as proposed
changes to the standard
■ Each evaluation is conducted consistently and thoroughly
Evaluation Results 77

Through careful review,the Evaluators determined that each of the influence evaluations were
adequately conducted and that the resulting quantitative assessment for each standard is a sufficient
way to estimate NEEA contributions and therefore claimable savings towards each measure.The
Evaluators recommend that NEEA continue to complete independent third-party evaluations of NEEA
influence towards standards.
The Evaluators note that 13 of the 25 federal standard measures lacked influence evaluations.The
Evaluators summarize the federal standard measures in which a third-party evaluation has not been
completed to estimate NEEA's quantitative influence towards updates in the table below.
Table 3-36:NEEA Measure-Level Standards
Initiative Federal Standard
Ceiling Fan Kits
Residential Central AC
Other Residential Residential Heat Pumps
Residential Residential Heat Pump Water Heaters
Standards New Construction Heat Pump Water Heaters
Battery Chargers
Clothes Dryers
Ceiling Fans
Other Non-Residential Ceiling Fan Light Kits
Commercial Standards Commercial Air Compressors
Steam Cookers
Commercial Fryers
Industrial Other Non-Residential Industrial Air Compressors
Standards
The Evaluators provide a summary of the contributions to standards and overall portfolio Ex-Ante and
Ex-Post savings for the standards in which an influence evaluation was conducted vs. standards in which
an influence evaluation was not conducted.
Table 3-37:Idaho Power Electric Standards Ex-Ante Savings by Influence Evaluation Completion
Ex-Ante Ex-Ante Ex-Ante Ex-Ante Ex-Ante Ex-Ante
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
Ex-Ante Ex-Ante Savings of Savings of Savings of Savings of Savings of Savings of
Program Standard Portfolio Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards
Year Savings Savings with without with without with without
(aMW) (aMW) Influence Influence Influence Influence Influence Influence
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
Standards) Standards) Total) Total)
2017 1.45 2.65 0.31 1.14 21% 79% 12% 43%
2018 1.15 2.77 0.35 0.80 30% 70% 13% 29%
2019 0.40 1.99 0.40 0.00 100% 0% 20% 0%
2020 0.41 1.91 0.41 0.00 100% 0% 21% 0%
2021 0.41 1.82 0.41 0.00 100% 0% 22% 0%
Total 3.81 11.15 1.87 1.94 49% 51% 17% 17%
Evaluation Results 78

Ex-Post Ex-Post Ex-Post Ex-Post
Standard Standard Ex-Post t Standard Standard Standard Standard
Ex-Post Ex-Post Savings of Savings of Savings of Savings of Savings of Savings of
Program Standard Portfolio Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards
Year Savings Savings with without with without with without
Influence Influence Influence Influence
(aMW) (aMW) Influence Influence Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
Evaluation Evaluation(aMW) (aMW) (as%of (as%of (as%of (as%of
i Standards) Standards) Total) Total)
�'.
-Ante x-Ante -Ante Ex-Ante
Ex-Ante x-Ante ndar Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
Sta
Ex-Ante Ex-Ante Savings Savings of Savings of Savings of Savings of Savings of
Program Standard Portfolio Standard Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards
Year Savings Savings with without with without with without
(aMW) (aMW) Influence Influence
Influence Influence Influence Influence
Evaluation Evaluation
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
(aMW) (aMW) (as%of (as%of (as%of (as%of
Standards) Standards) Total) Total)
Eye M
Ex-Post Ex-Post Ex-Post Ex-Post
Ex-Post Standard
Ex-Post Standard Standard Standard Standard
Standard Standard
Ex-Post Ex-Post Savings of Savings of Savings of Savings of Savings of Savings of
Program Standard Portfolio Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards
Year Savings Savings with without with without with without
Influence Influence Influence Influence
(aMW) (aMW) Influence Influence Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
Evaluation Evaluation (as%of (as%of (as%of (as%of
(aMW) (aMW) Standards) Standards) Total) Total)

The Evaluators conclude that standards in which no influence evaluation was completed for contributed
1.94 aMW(51%) of total evaluation period Ex-Ante savings towards standards Idaho Power electric,
which is equivalent to 17%of total Ex-Ante measure, code, and standards savings combined.The
Evaluators conclude that standards in which no influence evaluation was completed for contributed 0.49
aMW (47%) of total evaluation period Ex-Ante savings towards standards for Avista electric, which is
equivalent to 18%of total Ex-Post measure, code, and standards savings combined. No savings from
standards were claimed for Avista gas measures.
However, after removing savings accrued in Oregon, Montana, and Washington by using the service
territory allocation methodology, standards savings in which no influence evaluation was completed
contributed less than 0.02 aMW (less than 1%)towards total Ex-Post savings for Idaho Power Electric,
and 0.0 aMW (0%)towards Ex-Post savings for Avista electric.
This demonstrates that the standards that lack influence evaluations contributes the majority(over 50%)
of standards Ex-Ante savings and that the integration of influence evaluations for the standards which
lack them could drastically reduce savings for standards overall.
In order to ensure that only energy savings above market baseline is claimed by NEEA,the Evaluators
recommend that third-party evaluations are completed for the federal standards claimed by NEEA in the
table above, as well as any federal standards that NEEA claims savings for in the future. It is
unreasonable to claim 100%of savings due to a federal standard update. Unless an evaluation is
completed to quantify and validate NEEA influence towards federal standards updates,the savings
should be categorized as naturally occurring baseline.
3.6.2.1.4 Funder Share Methodology Review
As described in Section 3.3, the Evaluators calculated verified savings using the service territory
allocation methodology.The service territory values were calculated by NEEA using confidential datasets
from NEEA stakeholders. The Evaluators were unable to review the data or replicate the service territory
values because the originating data is delivered to NEEA with non-disclosure agreements.The Evaluators
used the service territory values as-displayed in the NEEA annual workbooks.
The Evaluators note that NEEA calculated Ex-Ante savings for federal standards using funder share
allocation. As described previously,the Evaluators conclude that the funder share methodology does
not accurately reflect benefits claimed by Idaho utility customers.Therefore,the results displayed in this
report reflect service territory savings. Additionally,the Evaluators recommend that Avista and Idaho
Power request NEEA utilize service territory methodology for future NEEA annual savings reports in
order to calculate energy savings and cost-effectiveness testing for the Commission.
3.6.2.2 Verified Ex Post Savings
The Evaluators summarize verified Ex Post federal standards savings results by utility,fuel type, and
program year in the tables below.The Evaluators provide initiative-level savings in Appendix A.
Evaluation Results 80

Table 3-41:Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Program Year
Ex Ante Ex Post M6-
Savings Savings Rate
2017 1.45 0.36 24.70%
2018 1.15 0.04 3.88%
2019 0.40 0.09 23.49%
2020 0.41 0.40 97.88%
2021 0.41 0.40 98.46%
Total 3.81 1.29 34.01%
The overall verified realization rate for Idaho Power standards efforts due to NEEA was 34%. The
Evaluators conclude this realization rate is due to two reasons: first,the Evaluators used the service
territory allocation share to estimate Idaho savings. Second, the Evaluators identified and corrected any
standards that lacked integration of influence evaluation quantitative estimates towards baseline units.
Table 3-42:Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Program Year
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Year aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
2017 0.37 0.10 26.87%
2018 0.30 0.10 34.85%
2019 0.09 0.04 41.00%
2020 0.09 0.11 124.51%
2021 0.09 0.12 125.13%
Total 0.94 0.47 49.71%
The overall verified realization rate for Avista electric standards efforts due to NEEA was 50%.
Table 3-43:Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Program Year
MW x Ante Ex Post ' Realization
Year Therms Therms Rate
Savings Savings
2019 0 0 N/A
2020 0 0 N/A
2021 0 0 N/A
Total 0 0 N/A
NEEA did not claim any standards gas initiatives in this timeframe.
3.6.2.3 Cost Effectiveness Results
The Evaluators summarize verified cost effectiveness results in the tables below.The Evaluator allocated
14%of electric costs to codes and standards for 2017-2019 and 15% of electric costs to codes and
standards for 2020-2021.The Evaluator allocated 1%of gas costs to codes and standards for 2019 and
9%of gas costs to codes and standards for 2020-2021.The distribution of costs aligns with NEEA's
Evaluation Results 81

reported actual spending towards codes and standards. Further detail of measure-level cost-
effectiveness is provided in Appendix B and further detail of NEEA cost breakdown is provided in
Appendix C.
Table 3-44:Idaho Power Electric Idaho Standard Cost Effectiveness by Program Year
Program Year UCT Costs UCT Benefits UCT
2017 $77,800.13 $1,173,841.02 15.09
2018 $17,010.57 $270,271.44 15.89
2019 $13,790.76 $529,252.85 38.38
2020 $61,513.62 $2,433,071.48 39.55
2021 $108,258.31 $2,168,234.69 20.03
Total $278,373.40 $6,574,671.48 23.62
Table 3-45:Avista Electric Idaho Standard Cost Effectiveness by Program Year
2017 $28,374 $717,397 25.28
2018 $25,286 $708,443 28.02
2019 $5,458 $283,445 51.94
2020 $16,403 $871,386 53.12
2021 $23,256 $623,376 26.81
Total $98,777 $3,204,048 32.44
NEEA does not provide any gas standards efforts in the Northwest region and therefore there is no cost-
effectiveness testing completed for Avista Gas Idaho standards. As seen in the tables above, all
standards efforts remained cost-effective using Idaho Power's and Avista's avoided costs and updated
verified Ex Post savings within the state of Idaho.
3.6.2.4 Findings and Recommendations
Similar to the efficiency measures findings, NEEA claimed savings for measures completed in
Washington, Oregon, and Montana—therefore, some measures underestimated Idaho-specific savings,
while others overestimated out-of-state savings.The overall effect of this change resulted in a lower
than 100% realization rate.
Based on the findings detailed above,the Evaluators present the following findings and
recommendations based on our review of NEEA's federal standards measures:
Evaluation Results 82

Table 3-46:Summary of Federal Standards Findings and Recommendations
Findings Recommendations
Finding#14:The Evaluators estimated verified Ex
Post aMW for the standards efforts to display 34%
and 50%realization rates for Idaho Power electric The Evaluators reference Recommendation#1:
and Avista electric savings within the state of Idaho, The Evaluators recommend Avista and Idaho
respectively.The difference between claimed request NEEA to report annual savings via the
savings and verified savings is due to the change to service territory methodology for each measure
using service territory allocation rather than funder claimed by NEEA for each Idaho Power electric,
share allocation.A minor cause of discrepancy is due Avista electric,and Avista gas.
to corrected baseline units using influence
evaluation values.
Finding#15: NEEA contracts third-party evaluators
to conduct"influence evaluations"for each
standard,which summarizes NEEA's overall Recommendation#8:The Evaluators recommend
qualitative and quantitative influence towards that third-party evaluations are completed for the
federal standards updates. NEEA uses the federal standards claimed by NEEA, as well as any
quantitative assessment as an estimate of federal federal standards in which NEEA hopes to claim
standards naturally occurring baseline.The savings for in the future. Using the quantitative
Evaluators found that some of these influence estimate of NEEA influence,the Evaluators
scores were not integrated properly to estimate recommend that NEEA calculate a naturally
baseline units.The Evaluators also found more than occurring baseline for each standard.
half(13 of 25)federal standard measures lack
influence evaluations.
3.6.3 Codes
In the table below,the Evaluators summarize the codes and new construction initiatives NEEA has
claimed savings for within Avista Idaho and Idaho Power Idaho annual reports between 2017 and 2021.
Evaluation Results 83

Table 3-47.NEEA Code Initiatives Claimed in 2017-2021
Sector Initiative WA OR MT ID
2006 IECC
2003 IECC w MT 2009 IECC
2009 WSEC 2009 Specialty amend. 2012 IECC w ID
Efficient 2009 IECC w MT amend.
Homes
Residential 2012 WSEC 2011 Specialty amend. 2006 WSEC
2015 WSEC 2012 Specialty 2012 IECC w MT 2009 WSEC
amend. 2012 WSEC
Above code SF/MF Above code SF Above code SF/MF Above code SF
Next Step building building building building
Residential ENERGY STAR MF ENERGY STAR ENERGY STAR SF ENERGY STAR
Homes Next Step Homes SF SF/MF 2018 IECC SF/MF
Next Step Homes SF
2018 IECC SF
ID HERS
Residential WSEC 2015 MF 2011 Specialty SF 2018 IECC SF ID National ENERGY
Residential New WSEC 2018 MF 2011 Specialty MF 2012 IECC w MT STAR Homes
Construction WSEC 2018 SF 2017 Specialty MF amend. MF 2009 IECC MF
2018 IECC MF 2012 IECC w Idaho
amend. MF
2018 IECC MF
2008 Or. Res
Specialty
2011 Or. Res 2006 IECC
Other Codes 2006 WSEC Specialty 2009 IECC
Residential 2009 IECC
(Multifamily) 2015 WSEC 2012 Or. Res 2012 IECC 2012 IECC
Specialty
2017 Or. Res
Specialty
Commercial
Commercial Code 2018 WSEC N/A N/A N/A
Enhancement
2012 WSEC 2006 IECC
Other Codes 2019 OZERCC 2012 IECC 2009 IECC
Commercial (Commercial) 2015 WSEC 2021 OZERCC 2018 IECC 2012 IECC
2018 WSEC 2015 IECC
As displayed in the table above, NEEA claimed codes and new construction savings for new construction
single family and multifamily homes constructed in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho.The
Evaluators are unable to reasonably assign out-of-state savings to Idaho without an evaluation verifying
that out-of-state code updates lead to market transformation effects in Idaho.
Additionally,the Evaluators recommend that influence evaluations are completed for each code update
in order to estimate the proportion of savings NEEA may claim for its efforts towards building code
updates, similarly to the NEEA influence evaluations completed for federal standards. It is likely that
savings attributed to NEEA is currently being significantly overestimated, assuming that it is likely that
Evaluation Results 84

similar code updates would have naturally occurred without NEEA participation in code update
meetings.
However,without NEEA influence evaluations completed for these code updates, the Evaluators
assumed 100%code savings due to NEEA influence.The Evaluators did, however, remove non-Idaho
code savings from all code initiatives to estimate savings that benefit Idaho customers directly.
Therefore,this section reports verified code savings accrued within the state of Idaho only.
The sections below summarize the reviews completed to estimate verified savings through NEEA code
efforts:
■ Impact methodology review
■ Cost effectiveness results
• Findings and recommendations
3.6.3.1 Impact Methodology Review
In this section, the Evaluators summarize findings and recommendations for each of the following
components towards verified impact results of NEEA's code updates:
■ Database and document review (Section 3.6.3.1.1)
■ LIES review (Section 3.6.3.1.2)
■ Market transformation baseline review(Section 3.6.3.1.3)
■ Funder share methodology review(Section 3.6.3.1.4)
3.6.3.1.1 Database and Document Review
The Evaluators reviewed each of the supplemental documents provided by NEEA, which included the
following:
■ 2017-2021 annual savings reports for Avista electric,Avista gas, and Idaho Power electric
■ 2015 Idaho IECC UEC residential calculation approach
■ 2018 Idaho IECC UEC commercial calculation approach
■ Codes program logic model evaluations
■ Codes and standards contracts, including NEEA employee roles and responsibilities towards the
codes program
■ Idaho energy code collaborative 5-year strategic plan
■ 2018 Idaho field study
■ Residential commercial codes logic models
■ Codes program market progress evaluation reports
The Evaluators reviewed each of the documents above to identify and address any inconsistencies with
data tracking methods and opportunities to improve year-over-year tracking of NEEA efforts.
The Evaluators found during database review that a variety of fields are empty across code tracking
data, similar to our finding for efficiency measure database review.The Evaluators summarize the
Evaluation Results 85

missing values further in Appendix D.The Evaluators recommend that measure-level values are detailed
as completely as possible.
Most importantly, the Evaluators found that NEEA claims 100%of code-built home and facility savings
10 years after the code is implemented. Although NEEA integrates a compliance rate referenced from
recent field studies,the Evaluators conclude that it is unreasonable to claim that 100%of code-built
homes occur due to NEEA and stakeholder efforts. Code development and progress also displays a
naturally occurring baseline. However, NEEA does not estimate a market baseline for code initiatives.
In response to a data request for documents supporting code savings, NEEA delivered the following
documentation:
■ Codes contracts:A workbook summarizing each of the contracts in progress and completed in
relation to code education and training, code proposals, code analysis, code sponsorship, and
code reporting for the 2017 through 2021 years.
■ Market progress evaluation reports(MPER): Reports summarizing the effectiveness of training
and education activities and its associated outcomes
■ Savings methodology: Documentation regarding IECC unit energy calculations approach for
newly updates codes
■ Code development:The history of Idaho's code adoptions of IECC over the last twenty years, an
overview of code proposals NEEA funded or coordinated to have submitted, documentation of
the process NEEA followed to prepare code proposals for 2018 IECC, including details of how
NEEA commonly works with contractors to analyze and prepare code proposals that will benefit
the Northwest, and documentation for how NEEA used the results of 2018 code proposals to
prepare for the 2021 IECC code.
■ Field studies:The 2015 Idaho residential field study report
The delivered documentation adequately summarizes NEEA's approach to collecting and submitting
proposed changes to IECC codes, NEEA's scope for training and education within the region, estimation
of total code-to-code savings, and compliance rates in the region.
The above documents support NEEA claimed savings for Idaho code changes by estimating gross energy
savings differences between previously implemented IECC code and newly implemented IECC code, as
well as estimating regional compliance rates for new construction. However,the documentation
provided does not provide details or support NEEA's policy for claiming 100%of code savings as NEEA-
generated savings, nor does it provide any evaluation requests or estimation of NEEA-specific
quantitative contributions to code savings.
The Evaluators requested information, supporting documents, and/or evaluations of NEEA's
contributions to support NEEA's policy to claim 100%of code savings. NEEA staff responded by stating
the following:
"[We claim] 100%of the amount of savings that we can measure through our code compliance
studies. We have an ongoing building practices measurement where we go out into the field and
find out how much of the code is being complied with. We don't assume 100%compliance.The
Evaluation Results 86

agreement for NEEA to be 100%attributable was a settlement between the 4 states about 10
years ago.This was decided upon by the Cost Effectiveness Advisory Committee. Where we are
today is a direct result of the settlement. NEEA has played such a large role in the code making
process that CEAC decided this was a reasonable way to address NEEA's part in the code making
process.This was a stipulated agreement between NEEA and state regulators." (NEEA Staff)
The Evaluators asked NEEA staff how frequently this agreement is revisited and/or voted on. NEEA staff
indicated that "every year, every single input assumption to every single savings claim is reviewed by
CEAC. In theory, everything is open for comment and adjustment as needed. Which includes this 100%
code savings factor."
The Evaluators conclude that although compliance rate is integrated into claimed savings, it is likely that
code savings are significantly overestimated due to this lack of baseline value, assuming that it is likely
that similar code updates would not have been made without NEEA participation in code update
meetings. The Evaluators highlight this lack of support as a large concern moving forward for claiming
code savings. However, without proper evaluation work completed, and without prior similar work to
reference for literature review,the Evaluators assume 100%savings for this evaluation work, with the
expectation and recommendation for NEEA to integrate a baseline for code savings through evaluation
of NEEA contributions in future program years.
The Evaluators therefore recommend that an evaluation is completed for each code update to estimate
NEEA's qualitative and quantitative influence towards the code update, which is currently completed for
federal standard updates.This evaluation work will enable NEEA to estimate a baseline of homes that
would have occurred without NEEA intervention in code meetings and updates. However, without NEEA
influence evaluations completed for these code updates, the Evaluators assumed 100%code savings
due to NEEA influence.
Finally, as previously stated,the Evaluators conclude that out-of-state code buildings are currently being
attributed to Idaho utilities.The Evaluators are skeptical that spillover from out-of-state code changes
result in energy savings within the state of Idaho.The Evaluators recommend that if NEEA continue to
allocate out-of-state code savings to Idaho utilities, an evaluation is completed that defends such
assumptions.
3.6.3.1.2 UES Review
The Evaluators reviewed each of the supplemental documents provided by NEEA, which included the
following:
■ 2017-2021 annual savings reports for Avista electric,Avista gas, and Idaho Power electric
■ 2015 Idaho IECC UEC residential calculation approach
■ 2018 Idaho IECC UEC commercial calculation approach
■ 2018 Idaho field study
■ Codes program market progress evaluation reports
Evaluation Results 87

The Evaluators reviewed each of the unit energy savings (LIES) values assigned to each code update in
which savings are claimed by NEEA. NEEA utilizes LIES values determined by third-party evaluators for
each of the code updates claimed. Each measure unit-level savings is weighted by heating and cooling
zone across three housing types (single family, multifamily, and manufactured home), and across facility
types for nonresidential code updates.These values are then multiplied by the net market units for each
measure after netting out baseline units for each measure, described in further detail in 3.6.2.1.3.1.
NEEA gathers the electric use, natural gas use, and total building area values developed by third-party
evaluators to calculate the difference in energy use per square foot of building between code changes in
IECC-code-built buildings.
Due to the thorough third-party evaluations and estimates of UES verified for use by NEEA,the
Evaluators do not note any concern or discrepancies with the code's energy per square-foot values
applied to estimate NEEA savings for code-built buildings. Instead,the Evaluators focused on the
rationality of NEEA's high-level application of regional units, baseline methodology, allocation
methodology, and overall allocation of savings for each Avista and Idaho Power.
3.6.3.1.3 Market Transformation Baseline Review
As described previously, NEEA claims savings for each IECC standard in Washington, Montana, Idaho,
and Oregon.The current baseline for each of the IECC codes is the previously implemented IECC code.
Therefore,to claim savings for residential buildings completed to meet IECC 2009 in Idaho, NEEA
estimates the regional baseline as the total number of households built to prior code (IECC 2006).
Similarly, to claim savings for residential buildings completed to meet IECC 2012 in Idaho with Idaho
amendments, NEEA estimates the baseline regional units as the total number of households built to
IECC 2009 code.The Evaluators provide the following figure to summarize NEEA's general methodology
for claiming savings for code-built households in the Northwest region.
Evaluation Results 88

Figure 3-14:Example of Single-Family Code Savings Claimed by NEEA
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
IECC 2006 IECC 2009 IECC 2012 with Idaho Amendments
■NEEA-claimed savings for IECC 2012 with Idaho amendments
■NEEA-claimed savings for IECC 2009
■NEEA-claimed savings for IECC 2006
*Proportions in figure above are not indicative of actual incremental savings
The Evaluators note that NEEA does not assume 100%compliance rate. NEEA savings calculations
integrate observed code compliance rates for each state based on code compliance studies, which are
completed every one or two years.Therefore, each of the IECC code update savings are weighted by
actual compliance within each state using the most recent, third party-evaluated, state-level field study.
Currently, NEEA currently assumes a compliance rate of 75%for Idaho. The Evaluators agree with this
approach and recommend continuing to include compliance rates in order to prevent claiming savings
from homes that are not 100%compliant.
The Evaluators note concern about specific code savings methodologies and policies currently
implemented by NEEA:
■ Currently, NEEA does not complete third-party evaluations of NEEA"influence"towards codes
updates as is currently done for federal standards updates.Therefore, NEEA currently claims
100%savings for code-built homes. As summarized in the standards influence evaluations
summarized in Table 3-35, NEEA influence towards standards ranges between 2.6%and 61%. If
codes are evaluated similarly, and portray a similar range of influence, NEEA code savings could
be significantly overrepresenting savings.
■ NEEA's current policy is to report 100%of code-built residential and commercial building savings
(while integrating compliance rates)for 10 years after the effective code update date. Currently,
NEEA does not maintain a model to estimate naturally occurring baseline over time, as it does
for its energy efficiency measures. Essentially, the current NEEA methodology assumes that
there would be a 10-year lag in current residential and commercial building code if NEEA did not
participate in code update efforts.
■ NEEA currently allocates out-of-state code compliance savings to Idaho utilities. Similarly, NEEA
currently allocates Idaho code compliance savings to out-of-state utilities. However, NEEA has
Evaluation Results 89

stated that starting in 2022, code savings will be allocated via service territory allocation. If this
NEEA converts all code savings calculations to utilize service territory methodology, state-level
code savings will be claimed only by utilities within the state. However, if NEEA continues to
utilize funder share methodology for code savings,the Evaluators recommend that NEEA
complete an evaluation which can demonstrate energy savings from out-of-state code updates
can be realized across states, and specifically, within Idaho.
3.6.3.1.4 Funder Share Methodology Review
As described in Section 3.3, the Evaluators calculated verified savings using the service territory
allocation methodology.The service territory values were calculated by NEEA using confidential datasets
from NEEA stakeholders.The Evaluators were unable to review the data or replicate the service territory
values because the originating data is delivered to NEEA with non-disclosure agreements.The Evaluators
used the service territory values as displayed in the NEEA annual workbooks.
The Evaluators note that NEEA calculated Ex-Ante savings for code measures using a mix of service
territory share and funder share allocation for the measures it claims savings for.The rationale behind
using one methodology over the other is unclear.
As described previously,the Evaluators conclude that the funder share methodology does not accurately
reflect benefits claimed by Idaho utility customers.Therefore,the results displayed in this report reflect
service territory savings. Additionally, the Evaluators recommend that Avista and Idaho Power request
NEEA utilize service territory methodology for future NEEA annual savings reports in order to calculate
energy savings and cost-effectiveness testing for the Commission.
3.6.3.2 Verified Ex Post Savings
The Evaluators summarize verified Ex Post code savings results by utility, fuel type, and program year in
the tables below.The Evaluators provide initiative-level savings in Appendix A.
Table 3-48:Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Program Year
Ex Post Realization
Ex Ante Rate
Savings Savings
2017 0.89 1.24 138.75%
2018 1.23 0.85 68.91%
2019 1.32 2.22 168.03%
2020 1.12 2.17 194.85%
2021 1.00 1.15 115.07%
Total 5.56 7.63 137.25%
The Evaluators emphasize that the savings from codes are likely overestimated due to lack of influence
evaluations.The Evaluators pose that it is unreasonable to claim 100%of code savings due to NEEA
participation in code update meetings. As stated previously,the Evaluators recommend that influence
evaluations are completed for all code updates NEEA claims savings for.The resulting influence score
will then be used to allocate a portion of total code savings towards NEEA efforts.
Evaluation Results 90

The overall verified realization rate for Idaho Power code efforts due to NEEA was 137%.Although the
Evaluators zeroed out non-Idaho code savings, the Idaho service territory allocation share for Idaho
code new construction completes outweighed the deficit created by out-of-state new construction
completes.The funder share methodology overestimated out-of-state code savings while
underestimating Idaho code savings.
The overall effect of this was a larger savings effect than estimated using the funder share allocation
methodology. However,the Evaluators note again that these code savings are likely still overestimated
due to lack of influence evaluation towards a naturally occurring baseline for code updates.
Table 3-49:Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Program Year
Ex Ante I Ex Post Realization
Year aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
2017 0.18 0.18 99.88%
2018 0.22 0.22 100.00%
2019 0.28 0.43 153.74%
2020 0.24 0.34 143.02%
2021 0.21 0.25 115.20%
Total 1.13 1.41 125.40%
The overall verified realization rate for Avista electric code efforts due to NEEA was 125%, also for the
reasons listed above.
Table 3-50:Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Program Year
Ex Ante Ex Post
Year Therms Therms Realization
Savings Savings Rate
2019 43,109 22,808 52.91%
2020 5,678 385 6.79%
2021 15 2,881 15 2,881 100.00%
Total 201,667 176,074 87.31%
The overall verified realization rate for Avista gas code efforts due to NEEA was 87%, also for the reasons
listed above. A large portion of Ex Ante code savings accrued in 2019 and the large majority of Ex Ante
code savings accrued 2020 due to Washington, Oregon, and Montana new construction projects. In
2021, NEEA claimed savings only for Idaho code updates.The overall realization rate across these
program years for code gas saving is less than 100%.
3.6.3.3 Cost Effectiveness Results
The Evaluators summarize verified cost effectiveness results in the tables below.The Evaluator allocated
14%of electric costs to codes and standards for 2017-2019 and 15%of electric costs to codes and
standards for 2020-2021.The Evaluator allocated 1%of gas costs to codes and standards for 2019 and
Evaluation Results 91

9%of gas costs to codes and standards for 2020-2021.The distribution of costs aligns with NEEA's
reported actual spending towards codes and standards. Further detail of measure-level cost-
effectiveness is provided in Appendix B and further detail of NEEA cost breakdown is provided in
Appendix C.
Table 3-51:Idaho Power Electric Idaho Code Cost Effectiveness by Program Year
Program Year UCT Costs UCT Benefits UCT
2017 $268,851.90 $11,734,281.85 43.65
2018 $324,071.89 $9,167,250.01 28.29
2019 $327,192.90 $17,177,751.00 52.50
2020 $335,567.24 $17,595,234.34 52.43
2021 $311,681.75 $8,321,577.44 26.70
Total $1,567,365.68 $63,996,094.65 40.83
Table 3-52:Avista Electric Idaho Code Cost Effectiveness by Program Year
Program Year UCT Costs UCT Benefits UCT
2017 $50,484 $2,156,341 42.71
2018 $52,305 $3,425,488 65.49
2019 $79,600 $7,331,020 92.10
2020 $49,354 $4,212,726 85.36
2021 $49,803 $2,618,611 52.58
Total $281,545 $19,744,185 70.13
Table 3-53:Avisto Gas Idaho Code Cost Effectiveness by Program Year
Program Ye JCT Costs UCT Benefits
2019 $1,967 $315,142 160.23
2020 $13,147 $6,048 0.46
2021 $14,863 $2,491,877 167.66
Total $29,977 $2,813,068 93.84
As seen in the tables above, all code efforts remained cost-effective using the Idaho Power and Avista
avoided costs and updated verified Ex Post savings within the state of Idaho.
3.6.3.4 Findings and Recommendations
Similar to the efficiency measures findings, NEEA claimed savings for measures completed in
Washington, Oregon, and Montana—therefore, some measures underestimated Idaho-specific savings,
while others overestimated out-of-state savings. The overall effect of this change resulted in a higher
than 100% realization rate.
Evaluation Results 92

Based on the findings detailed above,the Evaluators present the following findings and
recommendations based on our review of NEEA's code initiatives:
Table 3-54:Summary of Code Findings and Recommendations
Findings Recommendations
Finding#16:The Evaluators estimated verified Ex
Post aMW for the code efforts to display 137%,
125%,and 87%realization rates for Idaho Power
electric,Avista electric,and Avista gas savings within The Evaluators reference Recommendation#1:
the state of Idaho, respectively.The difference The Evaluators recommend Avista and Idaho
between claimed savings and verified savings is due request NEEA to report annual savings via the
to the change to using service territory allocation service territory methodology for each measure
rather than funder share allocation. Overall,the claimed by NEEA for each Idaho Power electric,
funder share allocation underestimated Idaho- Avista electric,and Avista gas.
specific code savings using the current NEEA practice
of claiming 100%code savings for 10 years after
code is implemented.
The Evaluators reference Finding#10 also applies The Evaluators reference Recommendation#6:
for the codes review:The database review revealed The Evaluators recommend that measure-level
that a variety of fields(measure life, UES)were values are detailed accurately and that each field is
empty across measure types due to lack of savings completed in the workbook to allow for year-over-
claimed for the measure,which made verification of year tracking of regional units, baseline units,
values difficult and complicates tracking of a retirement units,and unit energy savings values
measure progress over time over time.
Finding#17:Currently, NEEA does not complete
third-party evaluations of NEEA"influence"towards
codes updates as is currently done for federal
standards updates.Therefore, NEEA currently claims
100%savings for code-built homes.As summarized
in the standards influence evaluations summarized
in Table 3-35, NEEA influence towards standards
ranges between 2.6%and 61%. If codes are
evaluated similarly,and portray a similar range of
influence, NEEA code savings could be significantly Recommendation#9:The Evaluators recommend
overrepresenting savings. NEEA's current policy is to an evaluation is completed for each code update
report 100%of code-built residential and to estimate NEEA's qualitative and quantitative
commercial building savings(while integrating influence towards the code update.
compliance rates)for 10 years after the effective
code update date.Currently, NEEA does not
maintain a model to estimate naturally occurring
baseline over time,as it does for its energy
efficiency measures. Essentially,the current NEEA
methodology assumes that there would be a 10-year
lag in current residential and commercial building
code if NEEA did not participate in code update
efforts.
Finding#18:The Evaluators reviewed simulation
Evaluation Results 93

Findings Recommendations
model methodology used by NEEA to estimate code
savings and found that UES methodology for code
savings do not present any concerns.
Evaluation Results 94

NEEA Impacts on IPC and Avista Within the State of Idaho
4 Appendix A: Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative
This section summarizes the Evaluator's verified Ex Post savings for each Avista electric,Avista gas, and
Idaho Power electric, parsed by program year, and initiative.
4.1 Efficiency Measures
This section summarizes the realization rates for efficiency measure savings.
4.1.1 Idaho Power Electric
This section summarizes the realization rates for Idaho Power electric measure verified savings.
Table 4-1:PY2017 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post
Savings Savings Rate
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES) 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Commissioning Buildings 0.03 0.00 0.00%
Ductless Heat Pumps 0.06 0.00 6.72%
Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.10 0.01 5.68%
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement 0.03 0.06 198.85%
Retail Products Portfolio 0.02 0.02 75.23
Super-Efficient Dryers 0.05 0.02 32.89%
Televisions 0.02 0.02 103.12%
Total 0.31 0.12 39.20%

Table 4-2:PY2018 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
ive aMW aMW 7
Savings Savings Rate
Building Operator Certification Expansion 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES) 0.03 0.00 0.00%
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial 0.02 0.00 0.00%
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Desktop Power Supplies 0.15 0.11 73.13%
Ductless Heat Pumps 0.03 0.00 0.00%
Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.04 0.00 0.00%
Other Strategic Energy Management-Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Other Strategic Energy Management- 0.00%
Commercial 0.00 0.00
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-
Commercial 0.05 0.00 0.00%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Retail Product Portfolio 0.02 0.01 57.04%
Super-Efficient Dryers 0.05 0.03 65.20%
Televisions 0.00 0.00 104.70%
Total 0.40 0.15 38.34%
Table 4-3:PY2019 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Initiative aMW aMW Realization
Savings Savings Rate
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial 0.03 0.00 0.00%
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Desktop Power Supplies 0.01 0.01 79.15%
Ductless Heat Pumps 0.05 0.00 1.02%
Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.04 0.00 3.74%
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Manufactured Homes 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Other Strategic Energy Management-Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Other Strategic Energy Management- 0.00%
Commercial 0.00 0.00
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-
Commercial 0.04 0.04 85.46%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial 0.01 0.01 85.46%
Retail Product Portfolio 0.01 0.00 6.92%
Super-Efficient Dryers 0.08 0.06 81.85%
Televisions 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total 0.28 0.12 43.78%
Appendix A:Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative 96

Table 4-4:PY2020 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post
Savings Savings Rate
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES) 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial 0.03 0.00 0.00%
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial 0.01 0.00 18.80%
Desktop Power Supplies 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Ductless Heat Pumps 0.06 0.00 5.17%
Extended Motor Products-Residential 0.01 0.00 5.00%
Extended Motor Products-Commercial 0.01 0.00 28.78%
Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.08 0.00 4.17%
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.01 0.01 56.71%
Manufactured Homes 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Other Strategic Energy Management-
Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Other Strategic Energy Management-Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-
Commercial 0.04 0.04 105.76%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial 0.01 0.01 105.09%
Retail Product Portfolio 0.12 0.08 65.79%
Total 0.39 0.14 37.32%
Table 4-5:PY2021 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Savings Savings
Commissioning Buildings 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Desktop Power Supplies 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Ductless Heat Pumps 0.05 0.00 2.96%
Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.10 0.00 4.18%
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.01 0.00 51.59%
Manufactured Homes 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement- 0.02 0.02 105.99/
Commercial
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial 0.00 0.00 105.99%
Retail Product Portfolio 0.17 0.11 67.14%
Window Attachments 0.00 0.00 0.00%
XMPPumps-Residential 0.03 0.00 4.19%
XMPPumps-Industrial 0.02 0.01 26.24%
Total 0.42 0.15 36.93%
4.1.2 Avista Electric
This section summarizes the realization rates for Avista electric measure verified savings.
Table 4-6: PY2017 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Appendix A:Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative 97

Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Commissioning Buildings 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Ductless Heat Pumps 0.01 0.00 10.20%
Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.03 0.02 68.73%
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement 0.00 0.00 98.27%
Retail Product Portfolio 0.00 0.00 42.21%
Super-Efficient Dryers 0.01 0.01 94.03%
Televisions 0.01 0.01 100.00%
Total 0.06 0.03 57.68%
Table 4-7: PY2018 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Desktop Power Supplies 0.02 0.02 100.00%
Ductless Heat Pumps 0.01 0.00 6.02%
Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.01 0.00 57.22%
Manufactured Homes 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Other Strategic Energy Management-
Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-
Commercial 0.00 0.00 98.89%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial 0.00 0.00 98.89%
Retail Product Portfolio 0.00 0.00 54.86%
Super-Efficient Dryers 0.01 0.01 93.09%
Televisions 0.00 0.00 99.98%
Total 0.06 0.04 73.37%
Table 4-8: PY2019 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings I
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Desktop Power Supplies 0.00 0.00 79.14%
Ductless Heat Pumps 0.01 0.00 4.01%
Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.01 0.00 43.16%
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Manufactured Homes 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Other Strategic Energy Management-Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Other Strategic Energy Management-Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Commercial 0.01 0.00 30.55%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial 0.00 0.00 31.71%
Appendix A:Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative 98

Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Retail Product Portfolio 0.00 0.00 11.15%
Super-Efficient Dryers 0.02 0.02 109.48%
Total 0.06 0.03 46.97%
Table 4-9: PY2020 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post T Realization
Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES) 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial 0.00 0.00 41.60%
Desktop Power Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Ductless Heat Pumps 0.01 0.00 9.35%
Extended Motor Products-Residential 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Extended Motor Products-Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.01 0.00 0.00%
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Manufactured Homes 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Other Strategic Energy Management-Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Other Strategic Energy Management-Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Commercial 0.01 0.00 27.67%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial 0.00 0.00 27.49%
Retail Product Portfolio 0.02 0.03 114.44%
Televisions 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total 0.08 0.03 39.76%
Table 4-10: PY2021 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Savings Savings
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Desktop Power Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Ductless Heat Pumps 0.01 0.00 20.19%
Heat Pump Water Heaters 0.02 0.00 0.00%
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Manufactured Homes 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-
Commercial 0.00 0.00 27.73%
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial 0.00 0.00 27.73%
Retail Product Portfolio 0.03 0.04 112.24%
Window Attachments 0.00 0.00 0.00%
XMPPumps-Residential 0.01 0.00 0.00%
XMP Pumps Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total 0.08 0.04 48.21%
Appendix A:Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative 99

4.1.3 Avista Gas
This section summarizes the realization rates for Avista gas measure verified savings.
Table 4-11: PY2019 Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post
—WInitiative Therm Therm Realization
Savings Savings Rate
Condensing Rooftop Units 636 0 0.00%
Total 636 0 0.00%
Table 4-12: PY2020 Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante tx • .
—V"rinitiative Therm Therm Rate
Savings Savings I
Condensing Rooftop Units 0 0 1 N/A
Efficient Gas Water Heaters 0 0 L N/A
Total 0 0 N/A
Table 4-13: PY2021 Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post
Efficiency Measure Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Initiative Therm Therm Rate
Savings Savings
Efficient Gas Water Heaters 0 0 N/A
Efficient Rooftop Units 0 0 N/A
Total 0 0 N/A
4.2 Standards
This section summarizes the realization rates for standards savings.
4.2.1 Idaho Power Electric
This section summarizes the realization rates for Idaho Power electric standards verified savings.
Table 4-14: PY2017 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Initiative
_tx Ant Ex Post Realization
soma- Savingfs Savings
Drive Power 0.03 0.06 216.45%
Other Non-Residential Standards 0.27 0.29 108.52%
Other Residential Standards 1.15 0.00 0.12
Total 1.45 0.36 24.70%
Appendix A:Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative 100

Table 4-15: PY2018 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante x os
_�lllllllllllllllllllllll�W7niti�ative aMW aMW 7Realization
Savings Savings Rate
Drive Power 0.02 0.00 0.00%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial 0.08 0.02 29.61%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Industrial 0.22 0.02 8.49%
Other Residential Standards 0.82 0.00 0.16%
Total 1.15 0.04 3.88%
Table 4-16: PY2019 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Initiative
1111111pr__ Ex Ante lorwx Post
Savings Savings Rate
Drive Power 0.01 0.00 11.90%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial 0.08 0.03 40.51%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Industrial 0.23 0.00 0.00%
Other Residential Standards 0.07 0.06 81.29%
Total 0.40 0.09 23.49%
Table 4-17: PY2020 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Initiative
Ante Ex Post
Initiative MWaMW aMW
Rate
Savings Savings
Drive Power 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial 0.09 0.04 43.64%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Industrial 0.23 0.30 128.37%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Agricultural 0.00 0.00 257.68%
Other Residential Standards 0.08 0.06 75.37%
Total 0.41 0.40 97.88%
Table 4-18:PY2O2O Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante I Ex Post I Realization
_1007nitiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial 0.10 0.04 43.48%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Industrial 0.24 0.30 128.37%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Agricultural 0.00 0.00 257.68%
Other Residential Standards 0.07 0.06 74.00%
Total 0.41 0.40 98.46%
Appendix A:Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative 101

4.2.2 Avista Electric
This section summarizes the realization rates for Avista electric standards verified savings.
Table 4-19: PY2017 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Initiative
Savings Savings Rate
Drive Power 0.01 0.02 111.91%
Other Non-Residential Standards 0.09 0.08 91.43%
Other Residential Standards 0.26 0.00 0.16%
Total 0.37 0.10 26.87%
Table 4-20:PY2018 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Initiative
or- Ex Ante MTMMEx ost Realization
or initiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Drive Power 0.01 0.01 100.00%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial 0.02 0.01 63.92%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Industrial 1 0.08 0.08 100.00%
Other Residential Standards 0.19 0.00 0.22%
Total 0.29 0.10 34.85%
Table 4-21: PY2019 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Initiative
X x AneV,,x Post Realization
MWaMW aMW
Rate
Savings Savings
Drive Power 0.00 0.01 293.18%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial 0.02 0.01 69.19%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Industrial 0.05 0.00 0.00%
Other Residential Standards 0.02 0.02 99.67%
Total 0.09 0.04 41.00%
Table 4-22: PY2020 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post IrRealization
Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Drive Power 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial 0.02 0.01 63.24%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Industrial 0.05 0.08 157.01%
Other Non-Residential Standards-Agricultural 0.00 0.00 258.22%
Other Residential Standards 0.02 0.02 92.40%
Total 0.09 0.11 122.33%
Appendix A:Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative 102

Table 4-23: PY2021 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Standards Savings by Initiative
Savings Savings Rate
Drive Power 0.00 0.00 N/A
Other Non-Residential Standards—Commercial 0.02 0.01 62.90%
Other Non-Residential Standards—Industrial 0.05 0.08 157.01%
Other Non-Residential Standards—Agricultural 0.00 0.00 258.22%
Other Residential Standards 0.02 0.02 102.71%
Total 0.09 0.12 125.13%
4.2.3 Avista Gas
NEEA did not claim any standards update savings for gas measures.
4.3 Codes
This section summarizes the realization rates for code savings. As stated in Section 3.6.3,the following
results are presented with a caveat: currently, NEEA does not conduct influence evaluations for code
updates. It is likely that these code savings are overestimated since a naturally occurring baseline is not
integrated. However, without NEEA influence evaluations completed for these code updates, and with
no literature to reference on similar code-based evaluations,the Evaluators assumed 100%code savings
due to NEEA influence.
4.3.1 Idaho Power Electric
This section summarizes the realization rates for Idaho Power electric code verified savings.
Table 4-24: PY2017 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post 17 Realization
Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Efficient Homes 0.35 0.60 172.50%
Other Codes(Commercial) 0.38 0.34 90.56%
Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.05 0.02 46.03%
Residential New Construction/Next Step Homes 0.11 0.26 245.22%
Total 0.89 1.24 138.75%
Table 4-25: PY2018 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
—m'W Mlni�tiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Efficient Homes 0.38 0.81 215.05%
Other Codes(Commercial) 0.62 0.00 0.00%
Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.05 0.04 73.04%
Appendix A:Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative 103

Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Residential New Construction/Next Step Homes 0.18 0.00 0.00%
Total 1.23 0.85 68.91%
Table 4-26: PY2019 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post Realizations
Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Efficient Homes 1 0.37 0.81 217.23%
Next Step Homes 0.21 0.47 225.25%
Other Codes(Commercial) 0.69 0.92 132.61%
Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.04 0.02 38.13%
Total 1.32 2.22 168.03%
Table 4-27: PY2020 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post
Initiative aMW aMW Realization
Savings Savings Rate
Efficient Homes 0.32 0.89 281.70%
Next Step Homes 0.22 0.50 222.51%
Other Codes(Commercial) 0.54 0.77 142.92%
Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.04 0.02 41.94%
Total 1.12 2.17 194.85%
Table 4-28:PY2021 Summary of Idaho Power Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante x •.
'P lnitia'q aMW aMW Realization
Savings Savings Rate
Efficient Homes 0.27 0.60 223.90%
Other Codes(Commercial) 0.40 0.46 113.98%
Residential New Construction 0.33 0.09 27.15%
Total 1.00 1.15 115.07%
4.3.2 Avista Electric
This section summarizes the realization rates for Avista electric code verified savings.
Appendix A:Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative 104

Table 4-29: PY2017 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Efficient Homes 0.09 0.09 100.00%
Other Codes(Commercial) 0.07 0.07 100.00%
Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.01 0.01 100.00%
Residential New Construction/Next Step Homes 0.01 0.01 96.99%
Total 0.18 0.18 99.88%
Table 4-30: PY2018 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
-Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Savings Savings
Efficient Homes 0.11 0.11 100.00%
Other Codes(Commercial) 0.08 0.08 100.00%
Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.01 0.01 100.00%
Residential New Construction/Next Step Homes 0.01 0.01 100.00%
Total 0.22 0.22 100.00%
Table 4-31: PY2019 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization
Initiative aMW aMW Rate
Savings Savings
Efficient Homes 0.08 0.12 154.66%
Next Step Homes 0.05 0.11 236.51%
Other Codes(Commercial) 0.15 0.20 133.91%
Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.01 0.00 42.77%
Total 0.28 0.43 153.74%
Table 4-32: PY2020 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante x ost
Initiative aMW aMW Realization
Savings Savings Rate
Efficient Homes 0.06 0.10 161.42%
Next Step Homes 0.05 0.06 134.25%
Other Codes(Commercial) 0.12 0.17 142.74%
Other Codes(Multifamily) 0.01 0.00 52.83%
Total 0.24 0.34 143.02%
Appendix A:Verified Ex Post Savings by Initiative 105

Table 4-33: PY2021 Summary of Avista Idaho Electric Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
Savings Savings
Efficient Homes 0.06 0.07 123.85%
Other Codes(Commercial) 0.09 0.10 111.55%
Residential New Construction 0.07 0.08 112.68%
Total 0.21 0.25 115.20%
4.3.3 Avista Gas
This section summarizes the realization rates for Avista electric code verified savings.
Table 4-34: PY2019 Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante X os
Initiative Therm Therm Realization
Savings Savings Rate
Next Step Homes 43,109 22,808 52.91%
Total 43,109 22,808 52.91%
Table 4-35: PY2020 Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante I Ex Post Realization
iative Therm Therm Rate
Savings Savings
Next Step Homes 5,678 385 6.79%
Total 5,678 385 6.79%
Table 4-36: PY2021 Summary of Avista Idaho Gas Verified Ex Post
Code Savings by Initiative
Ex Ante Ex Post � Realization
Initiative Therm Therm Rate
Savings Savings
Residential New Construction 152,881 152,881 100.00%
Other Codes(Commercial) 0.00 0.00 N/A
Total 152,881 152,881 100.00%
5 Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results
5.1 Efficiency Measures
This section summarizes the cost effectiveness tests for efficiency measure savings.
Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results 106

5.1.1 Idaho Power Electric
This section summarizes the cost effectiveness results for Idaho Power electric measures.
Table 5-1:PY2017 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Building Operator Certification Expansion -Commercial-
$0 $0 0.00
Large
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES)-industrial $0 $0 0.00
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Ductless Heat Pumps-Residential $76,441 $17,513 0.23
Heat Pump Water Heaters-Residential $101,261 $28,386 0.28
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Commercial-Large $1,155,809 $235,198 0.20
Residential Lighting-Residential $0 $0 0.00
Retail Product Portfolio-Residential $273,673 $61,990 0.23
Super-Efficient Dryers-Residential $275,738 $72,602 0.26
Televisions-Residential $303,217 $50,931 0.17
Total $2,186,140 $466,619 0.21
Table 5-2:PY2018 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Building Operator Certification Expansion-Commercial-
$0 $0 0.00
Large
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES)-Industrial $0 $0 0.00
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial $0 $0 0.00
Desktop Power Supplies-Commercial - Large $1,537,781 $241,160 0.16
Ductless Heat Pumps-Residential $0 $0 0.00
Heat Pump Water Heaters-Residential $0 $0 0.00
Manufactured Homes-Residential $0 $0 0.00
Other Strategic Energy Management-Industrial $0 $0 0.00
Other Strategic Energy Management-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial $0 $0 0.00
Retail Product Portfolio-Residential $121,903 $58,449 0.48
Super-Efficient Dryers- Residential $453,479 $155,218 0.34
Televisions-Residential $37,852 $8494 F 0.22
Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results 107

Total $2,151,016 $463,122 0.22
Table 5-3:PY2019 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Building Operator Certification Expansion-Commercial- $0 $0 0.00
Large
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES)-Industrial $0 $0 0.00
Commercial Code Enhancement-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial $0 $0 0.00
Desktop Power Supplies-Commercial-Large $159,989 $17,355 0.11
Ductless Heat Pumps-Residential $9,673 $1,973 0.20
Heat Pump Water Heaters-Residential $23,768 $6,127 0.26
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Manufactured Homes-Residential $0 $0 0.00
Other Strategic Energy Management-Industrial $0 $0 0.00
Other Strategic Energy Management-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Commercial-Large $675,913 $123,236 0.18
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial $167,547 $30,548 0.18
Residential Lighting-Residential $0 $0 0.00
Retail Product Portfolio-Residential $8,693 $2,510 0.29
Super-Efficient Dryers-Residential $1,104,808 $266,593 0.24
Televisions-Residential $0 $0 0.00
Total $2,150,393 $448,341 0.21
Table 5-4:PY2020 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Building Operator Certification Expansion-Commercial-
$0 $0 0.00
Large
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES)-Industrial $0 $0 0.00
Commercial Code Enhancement-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial $13,915 $1,780 0.13
Desktop Power Supplies-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Ductless Heat Pumps-Residential $48,160 $11,844 0.25
Extended Motor Products-Residential $8,254 $2,381 0.29
Extended Motor Products-Commercial- Large $61,653 $23,976 0.39
Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results 108

Heat Pump Water Heaters-Residential $48,619 $14,973 0.31
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls-Commercial-Large $82,678 $25,433 0.31
Manufactured Homes-Residential $0 $0 0.00
Other Strategic Energy Management-Industrial $0 $0 0.00
Other Strategic Energy Management-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Commercial-Large $584,542 $126,571 0.22
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial $143,053 $30,975 0.22
Residential Lighting-Residential $0 $0 0.00
Retail Product Portfolio-Residential $1,224,230 $372,922 0.30
Super-Efficient Dryers-Residential $0 $0 0.00
Televisions-Residential $0 $0 0.00
Total $2,215,103 $610,855 0.28
Table 5-5:PY2O21 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Desktop Power Supplies-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Ductless Heat Pumps-Residential $23,906 $6,085 0.25
Heat Pump Water Heaters- Residential $61,897 $16,483 0.27
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls-Commercial- Large $65,807 $16,850 0.26
Manufactured Homes-Residential $0 $0 0.00
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Commercial-Large $309,492 $51,618 0.17
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial $61,851 $10,316 0.17
Retail Product Portfolio-Residential $1,713,122 $465,264 0.27
Window Attachments-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
XMP Pumps-Residential $17,362 $4,294 0.25
XMP Pumps-Commercial-Large $89,185 $31,239 0.35
Total $2,342,622 $602,149 0.26
5.1.2 Avista Electric
This section summarizes the cost effectiveness results for Avista electric measures.
Table 5-6:PY2017Avista Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Ductless Heat Pumps-Residential $18,720 $10,772 0.58
Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results 109

Heat Pump Water Heaters-Residential $257,390 $99,636 0.39
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Commercial-Large $22,674 $4,869 0.21
Retail Product Portfolio-Residential $25,272 $5,313 0.21
Total $324,057 $120,589 0.37
Table 5-7:PY2018 Avista Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Building Operator Certification Expansion -Commercial- $0 $0
Large
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES)-Industrial $0 $0
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial $0 $0
Desktop Power Supplies-Commercial-Large $270,624 $39,975 0.15
Ductless Heat Pumps-Residential $5,821 $3,998 0.69
Heat Pump Water Heaters-Residential $54,146 $26,752 0.49
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Manufactured Homes-Residential $0 $0
Other Strategic Energy Management-Industrial $0 $0
Other Strategic Energy Management-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Commercial-Large $24,912 $6,871 0.28
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial $6,532 $1,801 0.28
Residential Lighting-Residential $0 $13,096
Retail Product Portfolio-Residential $21,719 $7,552 0.35
Super-Efficient Dryers-Residential $96,709 $43,964 0.45
Televisions-Residential $8,861 $1,943 0.22
Total $489,324 $145,951 0.30
Table 5-8:PY2019 Avista Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Building Operator Certification Expansion-Commercial- $0 $0
Large
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES)-Industrial $0 $0
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial $0 $0
Desktop Power Supplies-Commercial-Large $31,059 $3,631 0.12
Ductless Heat Pumps- Residential $7,380 $3,902 0.53
Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results 110

Heat Pump Water Heaters-Residential $53,241 $20,220 0.38
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Manufactured Homes-Residential $0 $0
Other Strategic Energy Management-Industrial $0 $0
Other Strategic Energy Management-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Commercial-Large $46,915 $9,968 0.21
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial $12,068 $2,564 0.21
Residential Lighting-Residential $0 $0
Retail Product Portfolio-Residential $2,721 $1,029 0.38
Super-Efficient Dryers-Residential $286,880 $99,151 0.35
Televisions-Residential $0 $0
Total $440,264 $140,466 0.32
Table 5-9:PY202O Avista Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Building Operator Certification Expansion -Commercial- $0 $0
Large
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES)-Industrial $0 $0
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial-Large $4,566 $588 0.13
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial $0 $0
Desktop Power Supplies-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Ductless Heat Pumps-Residential $15,135 $9,700 0.64
Extended Motor Products-Residential $0 $0
Extended Motor Products-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Heat Pump Water Heaters-Residential $0 $0
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Manufactured Homes-Residential $0 $0
Other Strategic Energy Management-Industrial $0 $0
Other Strategic Energy Management-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Commercial-Large $33,048 $8,262 0.25
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial $0 $0
Residential Lighting-Residential $0 $0
Retail Product Portfolio-Residential $314,074 $134,398 0.43
Super-Efficient Dryers- Residential $0 $0
Televisions-Residential $0 $0
Total $366,823 $152,948 0.42
Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results 111

Table 5-10:PY2021 Avista Electric Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Certified Refrigeration Energy Specialist(CRES)-Industrial $0 $0
Commissioning Buildings-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Commissioning Buildings-Industrial $0 $0
Desktop Power Supplies-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Ductless Heat Pumps-Residential $24,660 $15,454 0.63
Heat Pump Water Heaters-Residential $0 $0
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Manufactured Homes-Residential $0 $0
Other Strategic Energy Management-Industrial $0 $0
Other Strategic Energy Management-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Commercial-Large $12,254 $2,801 0.23
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement-Industrial $2,449 $560 0.23
Retail Product Portfolio-Residential $368,195 $147,725 0.40
Window Attachments-Commercial-Large $0 $0
XMP Pumps-Residential $0 $0
XMP Pumps-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Total $407,558 $166,540 0.41
5.1.3 Avista Gas
This section summarizes the cost effectiveness results for Avista gas measures.
Table 5-11:PY2O19 Avista Gas Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Condensing Rooftop Units $152,294 $0 0.00
Efficient Gas Water Heaters $0 $0 N/A
Total $152,294 $0 0.00
Table 5-12:PY2020 Avista Gas Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Condensing Rooftop Units $126,061 $0 0.00
Efficient Gas Water Heaters $0 $0 N/A
Total $126,061 $0 0.00
Table 5-13:PY2O21 Avista Gas Idaho Efficiency Measure Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Condensing Rooftop Units $21,077 $0 0.00
Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results 112

Efficient Gas Water Heaters $121,435 $0 0.00
Total $142,512 $0 0.00
5.2 Standards
This section summarizes the cost effectiveness tests for standards savings.
5.2.1 Idaho Power Electric
This section summarizes the cost effectiveness results for Idaho Power standards.
Table 5-14:PY2O17 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
it- Initiative UCT Costs LICT Benefits LICT
Drive Power-Industrial $14,017 $238,156 16.99
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Large $63,494 $929,391 14.64
Other Residential Standards-Residential $289 $6,294 21.76
Total $77,800 $1,173,841 15.09
Table 5-15:PY2O18 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Drive Power- Industrial $0 $0 0.00
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Large $9,238 $129,369 14.00
Other Non-Residential Standards-Industrial $7,263 $134,391 18.50
Other Residential Standards-Residential $510 $6,512 12.76
Total $17,011 $270,271 15.89
Table 5-16:PY2O19 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Drive Power- Industrial $238 $5,290 22.21
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Large $5,014 $155,648 31.04
Other Non-Residential Standards-Industrial $0 $0 0.00
Other Residential Standards-Residential $8,538 $368,315 43.14
Total $13,791 $529,253 38.38
Table 5-17:PY2O2O Idaho Power Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Drive Power- Industrial $0 $0 0.00
Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results 113

Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Large $6,395 $194,435 30.40
Other Non-Residential Standards-Industrial $46,092 $1,859,240 40.34
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Small $50 $1,567 31.37
Other Residential Standards-Residential $8,977 $377,830 42.09
Total $61,514 $2,433,071 39.55
Table 5-18:PY2021 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Large $11,346 $168,080 14.81
Other Non-Residential Standards- Industrial $81,969 $1,682,475 20.53
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Small $0 $0 0.00
Other Residential Standards-Residential $14,943 $317,680 21.26
Total $108,258 $2,168,235 20.03
5.2.2 Avista Electric
This section summarizes the cost effectiveness results for Avista standards.
Table 5-19:PY2017 Avista Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Drive Power-Industrial $4,526 $53,952 11.92
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Large $23,730 $661,032 27.86
Other Residential Standards-Residential $118 $2,413 20.46
Total $28,374 $717,397 25.28
Table 5-20:PY2018 Avista Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Drive Power-Industrial $2,878 $37,923 13.18
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Large $2,859 $64,760 22.65
Other Non-Residential Standards- Industrial $19,449 $603,853 31.05
Other Residential Standards-Residential $101 $1,907 18.97
Total $25,286 $708,443 28.02
Table 5-21:PY2O19 Avista Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Drive Power-Industrial $1,149 $26,591 23.15
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Large $1,913 $70,589 36.90
Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results 114

Other Non-Residential Standards-Industrial $0 $0
Other Residential Standards-Residential $2,396 $186,265 77.75
Total $5,458 $283,445 51.94
Table 5-22:PY202O Avista Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Drive Power-Industrial $0 $0
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Large $14,047 $695,980 49.55
Other Non-Residential Standards-Industrial $0 $0
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Small $0 $0
Other Residential Standards- Residential $2,356 $175,406 74.45
Total $16,403 $871,386 53.12
Table 5-23:PY2O21 Avista Electric Idaho Standards Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Drive Power-Industrial $0 $0
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Large $2,722 $47,891 17.59
Other Non-Residential Standards- Industrial $17,002 $489,978 28.82
Other Non-Residential Standards-Commercial-Small $16 $338 20.60
Other Residential Standards-Residential $3,515 $85,169 24.23
Total $23,256 $623,376 26.81
5.2.3 Avista Gas
There were no gas standards efforts completed by NEEA between 2017 and 2021.
5.3 Codes
This section summarizes the cost effectiveness tests for code savings.
As stated in Section 3.6.3, the following results are presented with a caveat: currently, NEEA does not
conduct influence evaluations for code updates. It is likely that these code savings are overestimated
since a naturally occurring baseline is not integrated. However, without NEEA influence evaluations
completed for these code updates, and with no literature to reference on similar code-based
evaluations, the Evaluators assumed 100% code savings due to NEEA influence.
5.3.1 Idaho Power Electric
This section summarizes the cost effectiveness results for Idaho Power codes.
Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results 115

Table 5-24:PY2O17 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Efficient Homes-Residential $131,145 $6,357,207 48.47
Other Codes(Commercial)-Commercial-Large $74,954 $2,335,114 31.15
Other Codes(Multifamily)-Residential $5,311 $257,465 48.47
Residential New Construction/Next Step Homes- $57,442 $2,784,496 48.47
Residential
Total $268,852 $11,734,282 43.65
Table 5-25:PY2018 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Efficient Homes-Residential $309,663 $8,759,652 28.29
Other Codes(Commercial)-Commercial-Large $0 $0 0.00
Other Codes(Multifamily)-Residential $14,409 $407,598 28.29
Residential New Construction/Next Step Homes- $0 $0 0.00
Residential
Total $324,072 $9,167,250 28.29
Table 5-26:PY2O19 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Efficient Homes-Residential $119,241 $7,245,659 60.76
Next Step Homes-Residential $69,869 $4,245,586 60.76
Other Codes(Commercial)-Commercial - Large $135,576 $5,534,205 40.82
Other Codes(Multifamily)-Residential $2,506 $152,301 60.76
Total $327,193 $17,177,751 52.50
Table 5-27:PY2O2O Idaho Power Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Efficient Homes-Residential $137,603 $8,160,111 59.30
Next Step Homes-Residential $76,718 $4,549,508 59.30
Other Codes(Commercial)-Commercial - Large $118,840 $4,742,908 39.91
Other Codes(Multifamily)-Residential $2,406 $142,707 59.30
Total $335,567 $17,595,234 52.43
Table 5-28:PY2O21 Idaho Power Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Efficient Homes-Residential $163,529 $5,047,965 30.87
Other Codes(Commercial)--commercial-Large $123,982 $2,527,467 20.39
Residential New Construction- Residential $24,171 $746,146 30.87
Total $311,682 $8,321,577 26.70
Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results 116

5.3.2 Avista Electric
This section summarizes the cost effectiveness results for Avista codes.
Table 5-29:PY2017Avista Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Efficient Homes-Residential $24,720 $1,300,997 52.63
Other Codes(Commercial)-Commercial-Large $21,355 $623,326 29.19
Other Codes(Multifamily)-Residential $2,490 $131,049 52.63
Residential New Construction/Next Step Homes-Residential $1,919 $100,969 52.63
Total $50,484 $2,156,341 42.71
Table 5-30:PY2018 Avista Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Efficient Homes-Residential $26,671 $2,295,012 86.05
Other Codes(Commercial)-Commercial-Large $19,900 $637,087 32.01
Other Codes(Multifamily)-Residential $2,902 $249,716 86.05
Residential New Construction/Next Step Homes-Residential $2,832 $243,673 86.05
Total $52,305 $3,425,488 65.49
Table 5-31:PY2019 Avista Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
J
Commercial Code Enhancement-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Efficient Homes-Residential $17,357 $1,956,279 112.71
Next Step Homes-Residential $16,810 $1,895,989 112.79
Other Codes(Commercial)-Commercial-Large $29,567 $1,638,091 55.40
Other Codes(Multifamily)-Residential $619 $69,796 112.71
Total $64,354 $5,560,155 86.40
Table 5-32:PY2020 Avista Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Commercial Code Enhancement-Commercial-Large $0 $0
Efficient Homes-Residential $15,245 $1,770,866 116.16
Next Step Homes-Residential $9,239 $1,073,163 116.16
Other Codes(Commercial)-Commercial-Large $24,233 $1,294,717 53.43
Other Codes(Multifamily)-Residential $637 $73,981 116.16
Total $49,354 $4,212,726 85.36
Appendix B: Cost Effectiveness Results 117

Table 5-33:PY2021 Avista Electric Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Efficient Homes-Residential $14,341 $772,522 53.87
Other Codes(Commercial)-Commercial-Large $20,011 $1,013,693 50.66
Residential New Construction-Residential $15,452 $832,395 53.87
Total $49,807 $2,618,614 52.57
5.3.3 Avista Gas
This section summarizes the cost effectiveness results for Avista gas codes.
Table 5-34:PY2019 Avista Gas Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Next Step Homes $1,967 $315,142 160.23
Total $1,967 $315,142 160.23
Table 5-35:PY2020 Avista Gas Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Next Step Homes $13,147 $6,048 0.46
Total $13,147 $6,048 0.46
Table 5-36:PY2020 Avista Gas Idaho Codes Cost Effectiveness by Initiative
Residential New Construction-Residential $14,863 $2,491,877 167.66
Other Codes(Commercial)-Commercial-Large $0 $0 N/A
Total $14,863 $2,491,877 167.66
6 Appendix C: NEEA-Allocated Costs
This section summarizes the total NEEA budget for the 5-year 2015-2019 and the 2020 to 2024 business
plans. The proportion of NEEA-allocated funds is used to distribute Avista-and Idaho Power-provided
NEEA funding between the efficiency measures, codes, and standards.
6.1.1 2014-2019 Business Plan
This section summarizes the actual costs reported by NEEA for the 2014 to 2019 5-year business plan.
Appendix C: NEEA-Allocated Costs 118

Table 6-1:2014—2019 5-Year Actual NEEA Costs
Primary Strategies 5-Year Electric 5-Year Natural
Actual Costs Gas Actual Costs
Emerging technology $10,534,740.00 $2,364,765.00
Effective Portfolio Execution $25,762,239.00 $3,619,888.00
Building Envelope $698,671.00
Consumer Products $12,785,010.00 $394,407.00
HVAC $6,702,005.00 $1,777,354.00
Lighting $3,188,446.00
Motor-Driven Systems $1,525,470.00
New Construction $8,772,362.00 $400,000.00
Water Heating $19,665,505.00 $1,777,800.00
Enabling Infrastructure $10,819,593.00
LTMT $10,725,919.00
Codes&Standards $15,959,117.00 $102,923.00
Market Intelligence $9,518,708.00 $606,019.00
Convene and Collaborate $9,149,857.00 $0.00
Administration $21,276,009.00 $0.00
Allocate Shared Services ($3,012,494.00) $2,533,527.00
Total $164,071,157.00 $13,576,683.00
Highlighted in orange in the table above represents the total costs allocated to efficiency measures.
Highlighted in light blue in the table above represents the total costs allocated to codes &standards.
Based on the table provide above,the Evaluators distributed costs using the following methodology:
Electric costs:
o Efficiency measures capture 86%of shared category
o Codes &Standards capture 14%of shared category
Natural gas costs:
o Efficiency measures capture 99%of shared category
o Codes &Standards capture 1% of shared category
NEEA codes and standards contribute a minority of total funding from NEEA, however, based on the
impact evaluation, codes and standards provides the majority of claimable savings by NEEA.
6.1.2 2020-2024 Business Plan
This section summarizes the actual costs reported by NEEA between 2020 and 2022 for the 2020 to
2024 5-year business plan.
Table 6-2:2020-2022 Actual NEEA Costs
2020-2022 Electric 2020-2022
Primary Strategies Actual Costs Natural
,.
Actual
st
Emerging Technology $9,566.00 $1,958.00
Effective Portfolio Execution $74,149.00 $8,361.00
Appendix C: NEEA-Allocated Costs 119

Codes&Standards $13,292.00 $872.00
Market Intelligence $5,122.00 $488.00
Convene and Collaborate $7,700.00 $0.00
Administration $21,858.00 $0.00
Allocate Shared Services -$4,715.00 $3,136.00
Total Core Activities $126,972.00 $14,815.00
Highlighted in orange in the table above represents the total costs allocated to efficiency measures.
Highlighted in light blue in the table above represents the total costs allocated to codes &standards.
Based on the table provide above,the Evaluators distributed costs using the following methodology:
Electric costs:
o Efficiency measures capture 85%of shared category
o Codes &Standards capture 15%of shared category
Natural gas costs:
o Efficiency measures capture 91%of shared category
o Codes &Standards capture 9% of shared category
7 Appendix D: Summary of Missing Values
In this section,the Evaluators summarize the elements missing from the tracking data delivered by NEEA
to estimate total regional and utility savings for each Idaho Power Electric, Avista Electric, and Avista Gas
savings reports.
Table 7-1:Avista Electric Summary of Missing Values
020 2021
Load shape 6(11%) 23(12%) 23(12%) 25(11%) 101(100%)
Measure Life 7(13%) 12(6%) 0(0%) 17(8%) 0(0%)
kWh/unit energy savings 2(4%) 56(30%) 61 (32%) 64(29%) 43(43%)
Total Regional Units 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
Local Program Units 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
NEEA Baseline 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
Retirements 6(11%) 8(4%) 13(7%) 12(5%) 14(14%)
Retirements allocated to local 3(5%) 9(5%) 11 (6%) 10(5%) 15(15%)
programs
Retirements allocated to baseline 9(16%) 17(9%) 23(12%) 22(10%) 29(29%)
Initiative Start Year 55(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 101(100%)
Table 7-2:Avista Gas Summary of Missing Values
Initiative 2019 2020 2021
Load shape N/A N/A N/A
Appendix D: Summary of Missing Values 120

Measure Life 24(100%) 25(100%) 43(100%)
Therm/unit energy savings 3(13%) 0(0%) 8(19%)
Total Regional Units 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
Local Program Units 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
NEEA Baseline 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
Retirements 24(100%) 25(100%) 43(100%)
Retirements allocated to local 24(100%) 25(100%) 43 (100%)
programs
Retirements allocated to baseline 24(100%) 25(100%) 43 (100%)
Initiative Start Year 24(100%) 25(100%) 43(100%)
Table 7-3:Idaho Power Electric Summary of Missing Values
020 2021
Load shape 14(9%) 12(11%) 23(12%) 24(11%) 101(100%)
Measure Life 7(4%) 8(7%) 1(1%) 17(8%) 0(0%)
kWh/unit energy savings 49 (31%) 0(0%) 61 (32%) 64(29%) 0 (0%)
Total Regional Units 0 (0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0 (0%)
Local Program Units 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
NEEA Baseline 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
Retirements 11(7%) 3(3%) 13(7%) 12(5%) 11(11%)
Retirements allocated to local 8(5%) 5(5%) 11(6%) 11(5%) 3(3%)
programs
Retirements allocated to baseline 18(11%) 7(7%) 23(12%) 22(10%) 14(14%)
Initiative Start Year F 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 101(100%)
The Evaluators imputed a likely load shape and appropriate measure life in cases in which the load
shape or measure life was not defined by NEEA. For the line items missing kWh/unit or Therm/unit
energy savings values, the Evaluators note that the number of units in which savings apply are zero do
not affect savings, as the number of units claimed for those examples was zero. Although the total net
market units for these measures are zero, and total net market effects are effectively zero,the
Evaluators recommend that appropriate kWh/unit and Therm/unit energy savings values are still
defined appropriately.
NEEA includes in the tracking data estimates of total retired units in the region. The Evaluators note that
in some instances,total regional retirement units are defined in aggregate, whereas in other instances,
local program retirement and baseline retirement units are defined. The Evaluators recommend that in
any instances where local program, baseline, or total regional retirement units is above 0, that those
retirement units are then categorized under the local program or baseline retirement units.This will
help with tracking how retirement units are partitioned between each category, for each measure, over
time.
Appendix D: Summary of Missing Values 121

APPENDIX J - BRIO EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE STUDY
BR1*0
EASTSI DE COLLABORATIVE
MARKET TRANSFORMATION :
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT
September 28, 2023
2023 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

EXECUTIVE SUM MARY
Established in 2019,the Eastside Collaborative, With full rationale and analysis provided in
which includes Avista Corporation (Avista) and Idaho the following report,the pilot team's key
Power Company(IPC), completed its fourth year in recommendations are as follows:
2023. Created to assess the feasibility of localized
market transformation opportunities and the market's • Continue to diversify market transformation
willingness to partner and invest in regional, smaller- investments that prioritize Avista's and IPC's
scale efforts,the Eastside Collaborative's activities respective territories, customers and local
were extended by a year when the COVID pandemic economies.
introduced supply chain delays. 0 Leverage shared commitments and interests
across organizations, when applicable and/
When pandemic disruptions subsided,the Eastside or desired.There are economies of scale and
Collaborative moved forward with an initial ductless increased impact opportunities that can be
heat pump (DHP) market transformation pilot achieved with combined forces, though these
to understand the supply chain's willingness to efforts do not necessarily require constant
partner and invest prior to the undertaking of a collaboration or perfectly parallel paths.
comprehensive market transformation effort.The • Continue the partnership with NEEA to leverage
pilot efforts resulted in direct investments from the regional resources, research, data and tools,while
market of more than $1.5 million across both utility continuing to undertake regional activities.
territories, every dollar of which directly benefited • Continue deeper DHP-specific engagement
Avista's and IPC's respective customers and local to further develop Eastside markets, with a
economies. focus on increasing installations in electrically
heated homes and maximizing energy-savings
The pilot efforts demonstrated a market enthusiasm opportunities.
for localized market transformation efforts that Invest in contracting support to administer
establishes an opportunity for Avista and IPC to localized market transformation efforts.
move forward with comprehensive localized market
transformation efforts, either jointly or individually.As This Eastside Collaborative's pilot has proven that
such,this report includes recommendations that: the market is not only willing to invest in localized
market transformation efforts, but also enthusiastic
• Highlight a pathway to establishing a localized about taking a leadership role in transforming the
market transformation model. market in partnership with Avista and IPC. In whatever
• Capture market effects savings through resource way Avista and IPC chooses to actualize the pilot's
acquisition programs. findings, Brio looks forward to supporting the next
• Cover DHP technology, specifically. steps that lead to total market transformation,with
a continued focus on providing economic benefit to
In addition to detailing key activities, market Avista's and IPC's customers and local economies.
partner experience, and the findings of a third-party
evaluation of the DHP pilot,the following report
provides recommendations on how Avista and IPC
can continue to diversify their market transformation
activities.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

•
EASTSI DE COLLABORATIVE INTRODUCTION
To support their localized market transformation Therefore, before deploying a full-scale market
efforts,Avista contacted Brio for consultation transformation effort,the Eastside Collaborative
and eventually contracted with Brio to assess decided to run a pilot to determine:
the opportunity of deploying localized market
transformation efforts that would occur in addition to • Whether the market would invest and support
and beyond the market transformation efforts already localized efforts without the four-state-regional
taking place in the four-state region. scale.
• How IPC and Avista would experience the
A few key assumptions informed this work: opportunity to collaborate.
• Whether we could build a flexible framework that
• Not all products, practices or services that offers levels of customization in the respective
are well-suited for Avista's and IPC's markets territories, including varied approaches to data
are appropriate for or of interest to the entire access and availability.
Northwest region. • The ease and feasibility of:
• Avista and IPC have potential interest in market o Working with NEEA
transformation opportunities that the region as a o Evaluation efforts
whole may not have interest in pursuing.
• The needs and motivators of customers east of Given this focus,this pilot scope did not include
the Cascades differ from those of customers in investing in building 1) a cost-effectiveness approach
other areas. For example,the market adoption and associated models, 2) unique market research,
rate east of the Cascades often develops at a or 3) baseline development. By doing so, the pilot
different pace and trajectory than that of the team proceeded as careful stewards of ratepayers'
more western states in the four-state region. funds, avoiding the expenses associated with long-
• Opportunity exists to achieve optimal results by term market transformation portfolio development at
timing certain market transformation interventions a point before the pilot had yet established whether
when Avista's and IPC's markets are at peak this opportunity warranted longer term investment.
readiness.
While the team was confident that the principles
and tools of market transformation could be right-
sized and successfully deployed without a four-state
or national effort, they knew it would be critical to
test whether local and national market actors would
respond to and participate in interventions without
the heft of the full four-state region in play.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

.\Ili
MARKET TRANSFORMATION
FRAMEWORK
The initial objective of the Eastside Collaborative In addition to testing the potential of localized market
was to identify and select a residential pilot to test transformation efforts,the pilot was also designed
the supply chain's willingness to actively participate to test the ability of these efforts to bring positive
and invest in smaller, more localized efforts. beneficial impact to the local economy.At each step,
Simultaneously,the Eastside Collaborative researched the pilot featured close cross-team collaboration
and defined a market transformation framework between Avista, IPC and the local region to avoid
and partnership structure that allowed Avista market confusion while leveraging, sharing and
and IPC to work more closely together,while also maximizing collective resources.And finally,the pilot
remaining flexible and nimble to meet the needs of was flexibly designed so that each utility could exit
their individual organizations.Throughout,the team pilot activities at any point should the efforts prove
leveraged the established best practices of market ineffective or wasteful of ratepayer funds.
transformation to ensure these efforts and their
results could be replicated in future localized market
transformation efforts.
KEY ACTIVITIES OUTCOMES
Research and discovery 0 Decided collectively to use the established
market transformation definition from ACHE
• Scanned industry for market transformation to remain consistent with other national market
definitions and models(both existing and transformation efforts.
potential)for market transformation. 9 Decided collectively to utilize a hybrid market
• Reviewed documentation, including potential transformation model to maintain alignment
study, regional studies and plans to uncover across Avista and IPC while continuing to engage
product opportunities. the four-state-regional model by funding and
• Interviewed staff to better understand participating in NEEA.
current organizational challenges, motivators,
opportunities and staff experience with market
transformation programs.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

KEY ACTIVITIES OUTCOMES
Framework development Identified the foundational elements necessary for
an effective and replicable market transformation
• Built market transformation tools and initiative:
templates for designing pilots and initiatives o Selection criteria for pilots and initiatives
using market transformation best practices. o Tool to document and align on risks and
mitigation strategies
o Clearly defined target market
o Measurability and progress indicators
o Assumed impediments to market transformation
• Developed the foundational strategic and tactical
elements necessary for an effective and replicable
market transformation initiative:
o Theory of market transformation
o Logic models
o Market progress indicators
o Data plans
o Market characterization approach
o Activities, intervention strategies and leverage
points to overcome assumed impediments
o Estimated timeline to market transformation
o A definition of completeness to indicate that
market transformation has occurred
The Eastside Collaborative structure 0 Created a high-level Three-Year Activities plan.
• Created a resource plan that established roles and
• Facilitated meetings and developed an responsibilities, including:
Eastside Collaborative communication plan. o Arranging a steering committee to make
• Recommended establishing market decisions and identify internal utility resources to
transformation training curriculum for utility support efforts.
staff. o Designating a Pilot team to support pilot design.
• Explored risk and mitigation strategies. o Determining that utilities would deploy
marketing and communications internally.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

KEY ACTIVITIES OUTCOMES
Pilot identification and preparation 0 Collectively selected ductless heat pumps(DHP) as
the pilot technology(for selection criteria, see Pilot
Developed five pilot concepts using selection Planning section below).
criteria for market transformation pilots,with 0 Informed pilot efforts by developing market
the assumption that RTF savings numbers snapshots using culled regional data and other
could be leveraged. research to understand market trends and resident
demographics.
• Established a regular meeting cadence and shared
pilot decision with NEEA and other identified points
of collaboration.
Evaluation and investigation 0 Developed interim success metrics, including
metrics that measure the expected success of
Facilitated discussions regarding cost- future efforts, including:
effectiveness for localized market o Customer and market satisfaction
transformation. o The comparative measurable impact of money
• Created a process for evaluating the Eastside invested in the market in relation to prior
Collaborative's progress. efforts
• Explored for firms to support recommended o Achievement of energy-savings targets
cost-effectiveness models and evaluate the o Measurable economic benefit to the
pilot. communities
o Note: Several evaluation firms declined o Documented and ongoing process
to participate, citing concerns that it improvement
would impact current or future contracts o Demonstrated evidence of local market
with NEEA. transformation
• Selected Cadeo Group as the third-party evaluator
of pilot efforts.
Note:Should localized efforts continue,
a tailored cost-effectiveness approach
will be required. This tailored approach
can account for any differences in
approach between Avista and IPC, while
also finding a middle ground between
existing utility and NEEA models.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

.\Ili
PILOT OUTCOMES DEMONSTRATE FEASIBILITY OF LOCALIZED
MARKET TRANSFORMATION
At the start of the project,the team decided to adopt ACEEE's
definition of market transformation to instill an internal consistency
of meaning and shared terminological understanding. However, as 66
The strategic process of
new organizations have since emerged, each one has infused their intervening in a market
own unique approach and definition, creating a bigger pool of to create lasting change
experiences to leverage and learn from. in market behavior by
removing identified barriers
Despite this flux in market definitions,the pilot team believes the
or exploiting opportunities
outcomes of the Eastside Collaborative's pilot indicate that efforts
successfully motivated the supply side to participate and make to accelerate the adoption
economic investments in Avista and IPC that directly benefit their of all cost-effective energy
respective customers.This progress demonstrates the required efficiency as a matter of
foundations of initial market transformation interventions, setting standard practice."
the stage for continued market transformation advancement
should the Eastside Collaborative choose to build on these —ACEEE's definition of
achievements. market transformation
The following report details the successes and lessons from the
pilot project from an implementation perspective. For a deeper
look into the pilot's success from a market and utility perspective,
see the attached report from third-party evaluator, Cadeo Group.
PILOT OUTCOMES PROGRESS INDICATORS
The supply side made 0 The supply chain invested more than $1.5 million in human and financial capital
investments in the local throughout the pilot's run.
market. 0 Distributors assigned dedicated staff members to support the pilot.
• Distributors and manufacturers recruited and trained installers and dealers.
• Manufacturers, distributors and contractors created additional financial
offerings to lower product costs for customers.
• Manufacturers additionally invested in buying down the interest rates for
installers' consumer-financing offers.
• Partners at every level of the supply chain invested in local marketing.
Dealers and installers 0 64 dealers/installers participated in the pilot, including installers from areas of
participated in the pilot the respective utility territories that had not been previously covered.
and trainings. 0 Distributors provided historical and promotional-period sales data by branch,
by model number and by date for participating and non-participating installers.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS - - E

PILOT OUTCOMES PROGRESS INDICATORS
Dealers and installers sold 0 Participating dealers in IPC territory increased sales by 60%from
more DHP. January 2021—April 2023.
• Participating dealers in Avista territory increased sales by 48%from
January 2022—April 2023.
Dealers/installers 0 Increased sales and promotion participation.
and manufacturers 0 Non-participating installers, dealers, distributors and manufacturers
demonstrated an increased contacted the pilot team to get involved.
interest in the technology.
Contractors targeted 0 Fifty-four contractors each received 50 postcards and 50 flyers,with 21
electrically heated homes. contractors also downloading digital marketing tools from the online
contractor partner portal.
The pilot successfully 0 Promotion achieved over 200,000 impressions through utility
increased customer communications,website and paid advertising activities.
awareness of technology.
Key lessons and experience from the Eastside Collaborative include:
• While coordination began with in-person meetings,the Eastside Collaborative shifted to virtual
meetings as one group, which again shifted to separate virtual meetings for each utility. To ensure
that everyone stayed informed throughout these transitions,the pilot team developed a monthly
reporting tool to provide on-demand access to pilot activities and up-to-date data.
• The evaluation team didn't interview Brio,the pilot implementor,which would have been a valuable
opportunity to provide insight and context for their evaluation efforts.
• The pilot team worked with NEEA to collect annual and aggregate regional sales data from the
territory.Though these total sales numbers were valuable, granular data would have provided an
even stronger understanding of sales activity in the local market.
• Since launching this effort and undergoing the initial exploration, new models of market
transformation have emerged across the country as more states engage in statewide market
transformation efforts. Such efforts include those in Minnesota, California and Wisconsin.These
emerging market transformation efforts have added complexity to the previously central and
consistent definition of market transformation, including ACEEE's definition cited above.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS - E

•\
PILOT PLANNING
Pilot Design
Avista and Idaho Power each assigned pilot teams to Pilot Objectives
support Brio. Once the steering committee selected Use market transformation principles to drive local
DHP as the pilot technology, Brio took the next economic impacts and residential customer uptake of
step of aligning the group on overall pilot design by DHP technology.
orienting the pilot teams on the rationale for DHP as Collaborate with DHP manufacturers, distributors
the selected pathway to test the market's willingness and contractors to increase installations and
to invest and bring value to the Eastside markets. remove market barriers, including specific goals
Further,we highlighted the collaborative partnership of 600 installations and market investment in the
between Avista and IPC, including the primary local communities.
drivers that led their respective leadership teams to Establish a motivated and enthusiastic installer
determine that DHP technology was prime for a new network to support the pilot.
approach: Support the execution of a transparent
measurement and verification process to capture
• Potential studies showcased substantial savings potential program impacts.
opportunities existed for DHP in both Avista
and IPC territories, priming the path for a
collaborative approach.
• NEEA was transitioning their DHP initiative from
market development to long-term monitoring
Avista and IPC Incentives 2017-2019
and tracking in 2020, which reduced concerns and mm0 R
risks of the pilot overlapping with those market
efforts. 200
• Incentives claimed in both utility territories have
ebbed and flowed without significant gains as 150
regional efforts continued, as indicated in the
chart to the right.
goo
While the pilot was focused on determining whether
the market had interest and would participate, as 50
opposed to focusing on market transformation theory
or energy savings,the team nevertheless primed
these efforts for future replicability by designing Avista Incentives PC Incentives
a pilot logic model including Eastside barriers,
interventions, assumed outcomes and measurement
approach, and then used all the framework elements
to cultivate market transformation experience and
test the strategic foundation.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS •

Target Audiences PILOT IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE I
Based on market potential and ideal product
applications,the following audiences were identified Phase I: Manufacturer and Distributor
as optimal targets. Note that marketing for the pilot Engagement
focused specifically on the primary audience.
RFP Process
To solicit innovative ideas,we released an RFP
Primary 0 Existing single-family homes to distributors, manufacturers and manufacturer
with permanently installed representatives. We chose this approach to
electric heat understand if the market would show up and also how
• Duplexes,triplexes or they would show up if and when they did. In addition
fourplexes with permanently to sharing our own targets,we asked respondents
installed electric heat to define what they could achieve, how they would
achieve it, and what resources and efforts they would
require from the pilot to drive results and support the
growth of the DHP market.
Secondary • New construction,
site-built The RFP process generated local and national
• Multifamily homes
attention, including from four distributors and the
• Manufactured homes
country's top three manufacturers.While we didn't
select every partner that responded to the RFP,their
combined proposals showcased that all respondents
Two-Phased Approach were willing to train and onboard contractors and
The team designed a two-phased pilot approach to invest in marketing and discounts on products
allow the team to acquire hands-on local experience (ranging from single-unit to multi-head systems) of
to help identify gaps and gain new insights to more than $1 million—a significant influx of funds that
potentially inform modifications to our intervention would directly benefit Avista and IPC customers.
strategies and tactics. Further, these efforts would
help the pilot gather important on-the-ground Partner Selection and Planning
intelligence, including finding out if opportunities Brio received multiple proposals and conducted
existed, if the efforts were successful, if the pilot interviews alongside members of IPC and Avista staff.
should scale up or down, or if the pilot was producing
uptake at a size that budgets would not support. After reviewing proposals and interviewing
respondents, Brio ranked proposals based upon the
following categories:
• Innovative approach
• Experience in market
• Overall value (i.e., estimated investment in local
economy, committed resources and reach of
funding)
• Grasp of submission requirements
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS 1

Below are the partners the pilot team selected along Once partners were identified, Brio negotiated
with a few key pieces of their offerings that were agreements and developed Pilot Project Plans with
particularly attractive to the team. Originally,the pilot each of them.Throughout the planning process, Brio
team planned to only select one partner; however,the worked to leverage each partner's understanding of
team decided to expand the partner pool because their business and desired approach, allowing the
Thermal Supply did not request additional incentives. partners to lead as much of the process as possible,
as opposed to telling them what to do in a limiting
and prescriptive manner.This approach resulted
in distributors and manufacturers showcasing their
Thermal Supply and Daikin in both Avista commitment to the pilot with active and enthusiastic
and IPC territory participation throughout the planning process.
Inspired to take a leading role in the pilot,the partners
Offering highlights: agreed to manage the dealer/installer recruitment
• Product discounts process in partnership with their manufacturers,with
• $10,000 marketing campaign a shared strategy to focus on the most skilled dealers
investment with capacity to support the pilot. Partners further
• Provided sales data during the RFP agreed to utilize their internal resources to manage
process and distribute leads to participating installers, based
• Came with substantial experience on the location of the lead.
delivering programs in the field
Additional committed partner participation included:
Note: Daikin acquired Thermal Supply during
the first phase of the pilot. Russel Sigler, AIREFCO POWERED BY FERGUSON
("Airefco"), Carrier and Bryant conducted
recruitment and training webinars,
in partnership with Brio, and held one-on-one
Russel Sigler, Carrier and Bryant in IPC meetings with contractors.
•territory Thermal Supply and Daikin managers conducted
AIREFCO POWERED BY FERGUSON one-on-one meetings to recruit and train installers.
("Airefco"), Carrier and Bryant in They also distributed pilot overview flyers at each
Avista territory meeting.
Offering highlights:
• Substantial product rebates
• Wells Fargo financing and interest-rate
buy down to provide contractors with
a powerful tool to reduce upfront costs
for customers.
Note:Airefco was formerly represented by
FE Partners at the time of their proposal
submission. They are now owned by
Ferguson.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

Phase I: Customer Support Phase I: Marketing
To ensure that customers received a clear call to Brio developed a marketing strategy that largely
action when Avista and IPC began marketing efforts, leveraged utility marketing channels due to their
the pilot shared costs with the market to customize low cost and high effectiveness, as based on
individual partner websites and provide individual past campaigns and program successes.These
phone numbers though Ruby Receptionist, a virtual channels were augmented with plug-and-play
receptionist service provider.The websites and Ruby digital tools that contractors could use to drive
Receptionist touchpoints were optimized to capture leads directly.
customer contact information. Distributors facilitated
this customer information by 1) delivering the leads to The team started by developing messaging
dealers/installers, and 2)following up with installers/ options for testing, as based on perceived
dealers to ensure they supported customers by drivers and barriers unique to the Avista and IPC
scheduling quotes. markets, including messages that focused on
energy savings, comfort, reduced waste and zonal
To ensure positive customer experiences, Brio worked control. Each utility selected a different message
with utilities to develop call scripts, ensure customer to customize the campaign for their own territory,
engagement protocols were followed, and support which allowed the pilot to compare and contrast
phone inquiries to distributors and utilities, as needed. messaging efficacy as the pilot unfolded.
In addition, phone scripts and FAQs were provided Custom Lead-Generation Websites
to the utilities' call-center staffs to equip them with To make customer participation easy,the team
promotional information so they could respond developed, designed and launched unique, single-
confidently to ad hoc inquiries. page websites for both Carrier and Daikin wherein
customers could enter their contact information
to be assigned a contractor and receive a free
CUSTOMER SUPPORT estimate. Leads were evenly distributed to
HIGHLIGHTS participating contractors by their distributor.
The websites in Phase I were manufacturer-
branded,with "in partnership" messaging for each
Distributors investment respective utility.
$5,200 (equaling 42%of
Utility Communications Channels
total cost of service)
To make promotional efforts easier for utility staff,
the team:
950 Calls fielded • Coordinated with Avista and Idaho Power
(461 Avista/489 IPC) on their promotions through each utilities'
marketing channels.
Leads yielded from • Created content to inform each utility's
855 customer calls creation of branded direct-mail letters, emails
(411 Avista/444 IPC) and social media posts.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

•
Contractor and Distributor Marketing Materials
The team created a digitally distributed contractor
marketing toolkit that included a campaign
overview flyer, customer-facing promotional flyer,
postcard, and email and social copy. All materials
were designed for easy co-branding to reduce the
CONTROL YOUR COMFORT. _
burden on contractors, many of whom have limited CONTROL YOUR COSTS.
in-house marketing resources.
Paid Advertising (IPC only)
To extend campaign reach in IPC territory and drive y t
qualified leads,the team followed a suggestion
from Thermal Supply and Daikin to launch a Google
Search Ads campaign targeting IPC customers
(Avista declined the suggestion, opting instead
to focus solely on direct customer outreach). In ee..,epeoy..
addition to capturing customers already searching
for related products and services, Google Search �,-� -•
Ads provided the pilot an opportunity to A/B test
messaging to see which messages received the
most traction. (See Phase I Pilot Paid Ad report for
full details).
�00.40
rOA/K/N 1 POWER
Reach Per Utility Channel
Double your rebates.
20,600 Double your • •
Double your
Ilon sa this limrtedtime.doublerebete
opportunity to save up to t1.950 on a du 11—
hem pump lar your alaclricNly AesuM home.
Lbr�Wvey,rawu'w-pmAmm-.d,-.eo�ea
esw,ww+�pNJMYnOwn MrUenw tiw Pao m+r,Y eunorewM
rM a wry rM radro wrre-•roe ebMr em e.r
— u.m.yr..,.ramr.r e.rwew.olar •ener,....e...r..w-w..w
•e.w.errerrn..e+mwwe,e.
rwme w or+on...p•ea p.e.....a
I. .,.m..v.ee.
•tw.rwre�rrooaer..rwr
•cwwwrew..wrrhre• wre�mw
To Q Wv.complete v ur ductless
heel Vump uypredn by Merth 15.2=Y
Av to IPC
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

Phase I: Installation and Incentive Results
PILOT INSTALLATION HIGHLIGHTS
422 DHP pilot installations (210 IPC and 212 Avista)
Avista
The team again used the DSAT-distributor sales allocation tool (a modeling tool developed by
the Bonneville Power Administration)to guide the number of sales allocated to Avista based on
estimated installers served by each branch, and the customers those installers reach.
The Airefco, Carrier and Bryant promotion ran May 2022—September 2022. During this
timeframe, Carrier Factory Authorized dealers moved 329 units,with 212 allocated to Avista.
Airefco's total branch and pilot installer sales are shown below.
Avista Phase I - AIREFCO POWERED BY FERGUSON
(Carrier/Bryant)
Promotional Period:May 1 -September 30,2022
Pilot Installer Sales
(non territory)(117)
Distributor Branch
Sales(in territory)
(345)
Distributor Branch---
Sales(non territory)
(191)
Pilot Installer Sales(in
territory(212)
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

IPC
In Phase I,the team used the DSAT-distributor
sales allocation tool (a modeling tool developed
by the Bonneville Power Administration)to guide
the number of sales allocated to IPC based on
estimated installers served by each branch, and the Idaho Power Phase I - Russel Sigler(Carrier/Bryant)
customers those installers reach. Promotional Period:April 1-August 31,2022
Distributor Branch - — —Pilot Installer Sales
Sales(non territory) (non territory)(7)
The Russel Sigler, Carrier and Bryant promotion (9)
ran April 2022—August 2022. During this timeframe,
Carrier Factory Authorized dealers moved 167 units
in IPC territory that received pilot incentives. Russell
Sigler's total branch and pilot installer sales are Distributor Branch
Pilot Installer Sales(in--— Sales(in territory)
shown to the right. territory(162) (186)
The Thermal Supply and Daikin promotion ran
October 2021—April 2022. During this timeframe,
Daikin Comfort Specialists reported moving 48
units in total; as this total was derived by matching
leads generated to IPC incentives received
and Daiken warranty data,we suspect the total
may be overstated. Following the promotion,
we learned that Thermal Supply experienced
inventory shortages on eligible equipment, leading
Idaho Power Phase I -Thermal (Daikin)
dealers and installers to purchase units from other
Promotional Period:October 1,2021-April 15,2022
distributors to support customer demand. To
Distributor Branch Pilot Installer Sales
reconcile the installation data,Thermal Supply Sales(non territory) (non territory)(2)
(26)
reached out to contractors to collect data on units Pilot Installer Sales(in
sold from non-Thermal branches and collected territory(48)
limited Daikin warranty data.The pilot team
compared that data against customers that entered
their contact information via the pilot website or
virtual receptionist, and IPC further cross-checked
this information against their completed mail-
in incentives.Additionally,Thermal Supply did
not provide pilot sales outside of IPC territory; Distributor Branch
p p Y sales(in territory)
therefore, it is reflected as zero in the chart to the (559)
right, which otherwise shows Thermal Supply's total
branch and pilot installer sales.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

Phase I: What We Learned
In addition to the installation results of the promotion,the following insights, as collected during regular meetings and
face-to-face engagements with market partners,were used to inform and revise the design of the promotion's Phase II.
• The supply chain is willing to partner and make financial and human investments in the
local economy.
• Distributors are willing to share category total sales data, both historically and for the
promotional period,with small-scale programs.
• Distributors are willing to set up systems to track activities for localized promotions.
• There are some identified supply-chain inventory and stocking issues.While the market
reported ample inventory to support the product,supply-chain issues caused a lack of
product that resulted in delayed launches(Carrier) and installers retrieving products
from other distributors(IPC/Thermal).
Manufacturers • The market is unfamiliar with RFP responses. Many potential partners lacked the time and
and distributors resources required to respond and were unsure how to create a winning proposal.
o Because of this, the RFP process did not result in creative responses and the
response was less than expected.
• Access to the utilities' marketing channels was perceived as the most valuable support
to market partners.
• Distributors need more direct guidance in their support of installers, including training
installers on the pilot,setting installer expectations and ensuring installers meet those
expectations.
• Industry consolidation is on the rise, as two of the three partners had merged during
Phase I.This impacted partner workloads and may have shifted their focus and
availability.
• Customer leads from utility outreach efforts frequently came with detailed questions
about the product and promotion.The contractor's phone staff would benefit from
more upfront training on how to handle these calls.
• Several dealers/installers reported that many of the leads they received during the
promotion were not quality.
Dealers and Some installers were slower to follow up with customers than would be preferable.
• Some dealers/installers were either slow to submit or did not submit installer
installers
information to distributors.
• While financing was available and access fees were reduced, contractors did not
leverage it.
• Contractor consolidation is also on the rise.At the end of Phase I, one of the
contractors was purchased by a national organization and had plans to move purchasing
to another distributor.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

\I Jim
• More than we expected, customers used their phones to contact the promotion.
• Dramatic spikes of customer activity followed utility marketing activity.
• Though response time by installers can lag, customers were eager and expected a
Customer response within hours.
support 0 The pilot saw infrequent customer calls directly to utilities.
• Supporting Ruby Receptionist required extensive time and resources from the pilot
team.
• Direct mail generated more leads than social media and IPC's Google Search Ads.
• A/B testing from paid search campaigns revealed that "Comfort" and "Savings"
messages outperformed those emphasizing "Waste" and "Control".
• Participants reported that the digital marketing templates were useful, but few if any
contractors took the next step of printing materials.This feedback indicated that
providing already-printed materials would increase the likelihood of them being used.
• With a large portion of customers visiting the websites from a mobile device,the sites
were fully optimized for mobile use in Phase II.
Marketing Additional customer education on the promotional websites could motivate customers
to progress from the consideration phase to requesting a free contractor estimate.This
would also aid perceptions of overall site legitimacy and credibility—especially when
requesting customers to enter personal data.
• Contractors found tremendous value in utilities promoting through their
communications channels and lending their brand—and thereby stamp of approval and
legitimacy—to the campaign's website and promotional materials.
• As internal timing didn't align for the utilities to launch promotions at the same time,
the ability and willingness to be flexible was welcomed by both utility teams.
• Regarding meetings and activities, it was helpful to have ongoing alignment on when
Avista and IPC should join forces and when to be independent.
• Avista and IPC staff were successful in partnering with the market and promoting
Eastside specific partner brands.
Collaborative 0 Both the steering committee and the pilot teams were responsive, providing prompt
partnership direction and support, as needed.
• Avista and IPC were initially deeply engaged. Overtime,they provided Brio with more
autonomy and reduced the ongoing meeting schedules for Avista and IPC staff.
• The group successfully navigated a variety of staffing changes and shifts.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

PHASE II PILOT IMPLEMENTATION The pilot developed one customer instant rebate
to be offered by all pilot partners.
Building on everything we learned during Phase I of
the pilot,the pilot team tweaked Phase II design at Once partners were identified,they were once again
every stage to continue optimizing our approach to extremely active in the planning process, including by:
motivating the supply chain to enthusiastically engage
and take ownership of the promotion. • Leading the dealer/installer recruitment process
in partnership with their manufacturers.
Phase II: Partner Engagement • Partnering with the pilot team to deliver webinars
that extended the invitation to not only sales staff,
Instead of releasing an RFP in Phase 11,the team but to phone and marketing staff as well.
announced that the pilot would instead conduct
Phase II: Customer Support
direct outreach to perspective partners.We informed
prospective partners that the pilot would provide a
standard set of guidelines for participation but would While again maintaining a phone number in each
remain open to innovative ideas. After inviting them to territory,the pilot switched call center providers to
contact the pilot team,we contacted potential partners Specialty Answering Service (SAS), which improved
to explore interest. Through this process,we ultimately upon the Phase I service by offering:
selected the same partners as during Phase 1. The team
The ability to listen in on calls for better insight
made this decision because the manufacturers were:
and real-time feedback.
• Willing to share access to the utility marketing
• Better reporting.
channel with other brands being marketed
alongside them. The pilot team further refined phone scripts and
Open to having all participating installers listed on FAOs, which were again provided to equip utilities'
• call-center staffs with detailed information on the
the same installer finder.
• Excited to build on our shared commitment and promotion and product.
lessons learned from Phase 1.
Additional Phase 11 changes to manufacturer and , CUSTOMER SUPPORT
distributor engagement included: HIGHLIGHTS
• The pilot required installation ZIP-code data for
pilot incentives, instead of using the regional DSAT. Distributors investment
• Alongside distributors,the team offered co-created $3,000 (equaling 100%of total
and co-delivered promotional launch webinars to cost of service)
recruit and train installers.
o The team further supported distributors in Calls fielded
educating dealer/installer organizations on the 387 (268 Avista/ 119 IPC)
importance of educating phone staff on the
nature of utility leads. Leads yielded from
• Pilot distributor partnerships were expanded to 658 customer calls
allow alternate distributors to meet customer (404 Avista/254 IPC)
demand in the event of supply-chain delays.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS ;

•
Phase II: Marketing
In Phase II, marketing focused on streamlining the
customer and contractor experience by hosting ENE
a single website and contractor finder, per utility. �
All materials and messages were refined based on am,.uPf•:,
comfw-•nh, c
Phase I findings, and new tactics were deployed _ t ductless h•a
to further engage contractors with outreach and •.�m ® «••� «-
sra ��ar<a.•
marketing.
Custom Lead-Generation Websites C _ C
Phase II website changes included: " "
Is
• Shifting to one website per utility that featured -
utility branding to increase familiarity and
credibility with customers. py ;t•yrl pm„ + •-•
• Revising the contractor finder tool to allow ,„«", ,,•�
customers to search by ZIP code instead Customimble
of requiring them to enter their personal Cankoctor
fqonotlonal
information. This allowed the pilot to continue
capturing basic customer information for mnapyou.. nonapram rom,ummd-tlm•awlmcuuom.r.
Mkpr I,p sule•o1 Elpl,pl mork•ling IpalatMt yov[pn OpMn,•aY•n0 data analysis purposes, but without requiring bran•
any personal contact information to access
the finder.This provided more options and
control for the customer and generated healthyf
competition among contractors to inspire
speedier response times.
• Providing more robust educational content and
value proposition messaging to help guide and
ready customers to move from consideration to
a purchase decision. KEYNIGG lnl'TS CONSERVATION POTENTIAL
0 345,285 331,343
70,914w.. .+...,..r.r+..�
720 - -
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS •

Utility Communications Channels
Based on the success of utility communications channels CONTRACTOR
in Phase I,we refined our messaging based on Phase I MARKETING HIGHLIGHTS
findings and repurposed the same channels for Phase II. 11
Contractor and Distributor Marketing Materials Distributors investment
The team once again created contractor marketing $4,500 covering 50% of the
materials, including a campaign overview flyer, customer- total cost of printing
facing promotional flyer, postcard, and email and social and shipping
copy. For Phase II,these materials were all available via
custom online partner portals where contractors could
$1,000 Distributor co-op funding
download what they needed and/or request free printed for contractor promotion
and shipped materials through the portal.
Co-branded direct mail
And,to increase the likelihood of contractors printing 5,400 postcards and flyers
distributed across 54
and using materials,we negotiated for distributors to
contractors
co-fund the co-branding, printing and distribution of
50 postcards and 50 flyers to each of their participating Visits to online partner
contractors. 154 marketing portal
(45 Avista and 109
Paid advertising (IPC only)
Idaho Power)
Building on the findings from top-performing ad
messages and keywords from Phase I, we launched
digital search ads and introduced display ads during the
last month of the Phase II promotion. In addition to the
digital ads,we tested a series of three 1/3-page print ads
in The Idaho Statesman in March and early April 2023.
The increase in web traffic resulting from paid media is
reflected in the website traffic results in the chart below.
Total Reach Per Channel
Direct Mail ElEmail JF Website
IPc 28,992
.._._..... ._.............................._...............................................................................................................
...........
Avista 22,106
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS 1

•
Phase II: Installation and Incentives Results
PILOT INSTALLATION HIGHLIGHTS
222 DHP pilot installations (150 IPC and 72 Avista)
Avista
The Airefco, Carrier and Bryant promotion installers sold 38 DHPs in the Avista ZIP codes that
received pilot incentives.
In Phase II, the Thermal Supply and Daikin promotion generated 34 DHP sales in the Avista ZIP
codes that received pilot incentives. As Thermal Supply did not provide pilot installers with sales
outside of Avista territory, it is reflected as zero sales in the chart below.
Avista Phase II -Thermal - Spokane
Promotional Period:February 8-April 30,2023
Pilot Installer Sales(in
territory(34) - -
Distributor Branch
sales(non territory)
(246)
Distributor Branch
Sales(in territory)
(408)
Avista Phase II -AIREFCO POWERED BY FERGUSON
(Carrier/Bryant)
Promotional Period:February 8-April 30,2023
Pilot Installer Sales(in
territory(38)
Distributor Branch
Sales(non territory)
(75)
Distributor Branch
Pilot Installer Sales Sales(in territory)
(non territory)(134) (341)
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

IPC
In Phase II,the Thermal Supply and Daikin promotion generated 47 DHP sales in the IPC ZIP
codes that received pilot incentives. As Thermal Supply did not provide pilot installers with
sales outside of IPC territory, it is reflected as zero sales in the chart below.
The Phase II Russel Sigler, Carrier and Bryant promotion resulted in 103 sales in the IPC ZIP
codes that received pilot incentives, as shown in the chart below.
Idaho Power Phase II - Thermal (Daikin)
Promotional Period:February 8-April 30,2023
Distributor Branch
Pilot Installer Sales(in - - Sales(non territory)
territory(47) (30)
Distributor Branch
Sales(in territory)
(616)
Idaho Power Phase II - Russel Sigler (Carrier/Bryant)
Promotional Period:February 8-April 30,2023
Distributor Branch
Sales(non territory)
(6)
Pilot Installer Sales
(non territory)(34)
Pilot Installer Sales(in
territory(103)
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

\I Jim
Phase II: What We Learned
• Interest and willingness to participate was generated across the market.
• While distributors initially advocated heavily to manage customer leads instead of promoting
Manufacturers
and their brand alongside competitors, once the pilot shifted,they expressed satisfaction when
customers had direct access to contractor information.
distributors
• The sales in both Avista and IPC territories have grown substantially since 2020 and it doesn't
appear that the utility incentive programs are growing at the same pace.
• Additional non-participating dealers/installers expressed interest in participating.
Dealers and 0 Even when contractors offered the discount,they occasionally did not submit required
installers ZIP-code data to receive manufacturer, distributor and utility discounts and incentives.This
indicates the potential that pilot-generated sales numbers are under-represented.
• As with Phase I, Phase II customers continue to use the phone frequently to contact the
Customer pilot—more so in Avista's territory than in IPC's.
support 0 The SAS operating service required less engagement time from the pilot team than the
previous service, and their systems were easier to navigate.
• It would be beneficial to include more lead time to create and deliver contractor co-branded
marketing materials to increase the likelihood of timely use.
• Paid advertising resulted in a big boost in website traffic, but not as many visitors converted
to leads, relative to other outreach channels. It would be beneficial to begin paid advertising
Marketing at the start of campaign launch,so our audience has time to consider and act within the
campaign timeframe.This is especially true for print advertising,which can take several
impressions before motivating results.
• Utility marketing channels continue to be the most effective in driving site traffic that
translates to sales leads.
Collaborative 0 Phase II pilot delivery efforts were streamlined, requiring less internal navigation and fewer
partnership approvals.
• Partners continued to share data.
• NEEA was agreeable to sharing the regional data collection tool. Our assessment is that
their numbers are generally conservative, but as the market has catapulted in the last two
Data collection years,there is a potential they are underestimating sales.
• Avista and IPC DHP incentive programs continue to remain relatively consistent,with slight
elevations during some periods,while total distributor sales are increasing.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

•
MARKET TRANSFORMATION OPTIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Avista and IPC have several options from which to
choose as pathways to actualize the delivery of market RECOMMENDED STEPS FORWARD
transformation locally. The below recommendations
(including market transformation portfolio models,
The Eastside Collaborative made the early
metrics, and approaches to evaluation, cost-
effectiveness and budgeting) represent potential, decision to deploy a hybrid approach to
flexible and customizable steps forward that provide market transformation, exploring activities
IPC
Avista and IPC the opportunity to choose their next at a local level that were tailored to 's
moves toward market transformation, should the and Avista's territories,while continuing
utilities choose to individually or collectively work to involvement and participation with NEEA.
build on the positive developments and findings of The pilot findings and experiences have
the Eastside Collaborative's work to date. confirmed the efficacy of this approach and
have illuminated a flexible path forward for
POTENTIAL STEPS FORWARD Avista and IPC to continue to build on this
work, individually or together.
Regardless of the pilot outcomes,Avista and IPC
have always had three post-pilot options from which By continuing forward with this hybrid
to choose to continue their market transformation approach, both Avista and IPC have the
efforts: ability to join forces when advantageous
while maintaining their respective ability to
Option 1 undertake solo activities when appropriate.
Continue adopting a hybrid approach to market Similarly,we believe that this approach would
transformation that combines localized market also prove effective should either utility
transformation efforts with continued participation decide to continue the work on a purely
with NEEA. individual basis.
Option 2
Establish localized market transformation efforts
without participating in NEEA.
Option 3
Maintain the status quo by continuing to partner
with NEEA without undertaking localized market
transformation efforts.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL PORTFOLIO FOCUSES POTENTIAL PORTFOLIO METRICS
Throughout the country, many organizations Establishing the following metrics would help identify,
undergoing market transformation activities have track and weigh new or existing opportunities:
established boundary conditions to help them • Energy savings
identify when a product or practice is at the prime 0 Direct benefit to all customers
state of maturity for market transformation efforts. 0 Local economic investment
The following examples demonstrate such conditions • Timeline to transformation
instituted by various organizations: • Positive customer experience
• Workforce development
Option 1 9 Hard-to-reach customer opportunities
Focus the portfolio(s) on commercialized
technologies. In addition to any or all of the metrics above, each
individual initiatives should also establish unique,
Option 2 measurable market progress indicators to track
Focus the portfolio(s) on commercialized and non- market momentum and progress to goal.
commercialized technologies.
Option 3 RECOMMENDED PORTFOLIO METRICS
Focus the portfolios on commercialized and non-
commercialized technologies and the advancement of At a minimum,we recommend that each
codes and standards. utility track energy savings and local economic
investment to ensure that efforts benefit the local
economy and workforce in addition to delivering
energy savings.
RECOMMENDED PORTFOLIO
FOCUS
We recommend a continued portfolio focus
on commercialized technology improvements,
as pre-commercialized technologies often RECOMMENDED EVALUATION
require years of research and development APPROACH
investment across multiple funding sources.
If Avista and IPC continue funding NEEA Regardless of specific evaluation approach
efforts,we recommend leveraging NEEA to decisions,the evaluation process should begin
scan for and test emergent energy-efficient by establishing clear goals and market progress
technology and driving codes and standards indicators for each program or initiative.Together
development through national emerging or separately,the utilities should leverage theory-
technology groups. based evaluation principles to measure progress
and market impact. An established evaluation firm
that regularly evaluates market transformation
activities should be leveraged to ensure
established best practices are followed.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

\I Jim
We recommend utilizing established market RECOMMENDED APPROACHES TO
transformation evaluation principles, as COST-EFFECTIVENESS
followed by NEEA, the Midwest region,
and the California Market Transformation We recommend exploring Option 2, which
Administration.With Brio serving in a would allow the use of similar tools and inputs
consulting role, California is in the midst to those being used by existing acquisition
of establishing a statewide approach to programs.This approach acknowledges the
evaluation, measurement and verification longer runway required to develop markets
of market transformation efforts.This group while also limiting the need for staff resources
is further exploring cost-effectiveness and that would otherwise be required to update
benefit calculations,which we see as an multiple models.
opportunity to potentially complement
NEEA's established method.
POTENTIAL APPROACHES TO
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Option 1 RECOMMENDED PORTFOLIO
Create an alternative cost-effectiveness modeling BUDGETING CYCLE
approach for localized market transformation that
acknowledges and supports the investment needed We recommend the initial establishment
(e.g., research, expanded marketing,training, market of three-year budgets to support localized
actor engagement and data analysis)to create mature market transformation efforts.This timeframe
markets that support energy-efficient technology. will provide the opportunity for program
identification and design, and to gain some
Option 2 market traction.Additionally, it provides
Leverage existing cost-effectiveness models and Avista and IPC with easy off-ramps, should
provide market transformation programs or initiatives efforts not proceed as expected, or should
with a grace period before requiring them to meet greater opportunity emerge at the regional
those targets. This approach mirrors Minnesota CEE's level. This flexibility ensures that the needs
new approach to market transformation. of Avista's and IPC's customers will always be
met, regardless of changing circumstances.
Option 3
Hire an outside firm to evaluate existing models and
provide recommendations on appropriate approach.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL APPROACHES TO PORTFOLIO
ADMINISTRATION
In addition to directing and supervising consultants, a portfolio administrator
will help Avista and IPC define how to plan, design, develop, implement and
optimize the market transformation portfolios and individual initiatives as
defined in the recommended activities chart below. IPC and Avista,whether
together or individually, have two general options in their selection of a portfolio
administrator:
Option 1
Internally resource market transformation portfolio administration on two-year
budget cycles and procure and manage consultants, as needed.
Option 2
Externally resource market transformation portfolio administration with an
internal resource overseeing the administrator.
RECOMMENDED PORTFOLIO ADMINISTRATION
We recommend Option 2, as this approach will provide Avista
and IPC with the flexibility to engage internal resources only when
necessary,while providing plenty of opportunity to pull back or exit
activities, as needed. Hiring an experienced, locally knowledgeable
external portfolio consultant such as Brio will provide streamlined
activity startup, alignment between the needs of customers and the
market, and a strategic approach to 1) creating positive customer
experiences, and 2) driving market funds to the direct benefit of
Avista's and IPC's customers and local economies. By hiring an
external portfolio administrator,Avista and IPC can maintain control
of all decisions and activities without straining internal staff resources.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS

"AI1,%,
RECOMMENDED THREE-YEAR MARKET TRANSFORMATION ACTIVITIES
To support the continued development of an Eastside model for market transformation, the following activities and outcomes are recommended
over the next three years. These activities and their specific sequence have been designed to enhance their repeatability across diverse programs.
PHASE 2024 2025 2026 OUTCOMES
Identify and • Design and deploy DHP Assess results Assess and engage Prioritized opportunities based on budgetary
assess possible Eastside Collaborative program and overall industry and market and organizational focus areas and goals,with
market or initiative. progress, for ideas(potentially particular emphasis on:
transformation • Refine initiative selection continuing by issuing a Request o Initiatives well-suited to the Eastside
concepts. criteria(developed by Eastside DHP efforts, if for Ideas)to seek Collaborative.
Collaborative)for the selection positive. innovative concepts o Initiatives well-suited to the respective
and prioritization of localized that are ready for individual needs ofAvista and IPC.
market transformation initiative market transformation 0 Avista and IPC select programs to progress
ideas. programs. into initial program design.
o For example,refined criteria • A bi-annual report detailing emerging
may exclude any idea for which opportunities for market transformation.
cost is the only barrier to entry.
Program 0 Conduct market research and Identify new entrants 0 Market transformation strategies developed:
development literature review to support to portfolio and begin o Product definition
program design. development activities. o Target market
• Engage market actors with o Theory of market transformation
selected ideas to gain market o Logic models
insights,socialize efforts and o Market progress indicators
inform design. o Points of leverage
• Capture and identify relevant o Data and savings estimates
market data. o Evaluation,risk and mitigation
approach
o Transition strategy to adapt into
a resource acquisition program and
transition ownership to the market
• Market research reports and literature
reviews.
• Established market transformation framework
for prioritized programs.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS ;

PHASE 2024 2025 2026 OUTCOMES
Program 0 Develop annual program goals and metrics. 6 Monthly initiative reports
implementation 0 Define specific activities,success metrics and 6 Bi-annual initiative score cards
reporting approach. 0 Market progress evaluation reports
• Deploy intervention strategies and tactics, assessing program logic and market
with specific approaches tailored to general progress,and quantification of adoption
program activities, including: trends
o Supply-chain engagement and support 6 Unique deliverables per program
o Product and installation support
o Marketing
o Data collection,analysis and reporting
Evaluation and 0 Finalize cost-effectiveness Continue exploring Launch evaluation 0 An evaluation plan for each initiative
analysis approach. for regional data efforts for any to support program development,
• Assess baselines for each sets and baseline active programs or including:
selected program or initiative. approaches to initiatives. o Baseline and forecasts
• Explore how to leverage existing support Eastside o Cost-effectiveness model and net-
Avista and IPC evaluation efforts. market-effects calculator
teams and contractors to • Provide data to NEEA for any program
support market transformation that overlaps with NEEA activities,
evaluation activities. allowing NEEA to analyze the data and
• Explore for regional data sets avoid duplicative tracking.
and baseline approaches to
support Eastside efforts.
NEEA • Request research and baseline • Continue exploring and monitoring NEEA • Avista and IPC budgets are maximized
Coordination development,where applicable, research activities for oversampling or and leveraged across four-state-regional
so that these activities are only inclusion of additional research questions to and local investments to maximize
paid for once by Avista and IPC. support Eastside efforts. services offered by NEEA to support
• Explore and monitor NEEA • Continue coordinating on any emerging local efforts,ensuring that Avista and IPC
research activities for technology projects and special funding don't pay twice for the same effort.
oversampling or inclusion of opportunities. • Data sharing agreements are negotiated
additional research questions to and executed to share market data,as
support Eastside efforts. needed.
• Avista and IPC report market
transformation sales and savings to avoid
duplicative tracking.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS •

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
CAPTURING MARKET EFFECTS
If either Avista or IPC chooses not to invest in market transformation,
we recommend considering the capturing of market-effects savings
through resource acquisition programs that focus on short-term
energy savings while continuing to design and implement programs
that drive longer-term market changes.This approach is currently
being undertaken by a number of utilities and implementers,
including Brio on behalf of Ameren Illinois, and Cadmus Group on
behalf of Focus on Energy.
DHP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Eastside Collaborative pilot has proven that untapped
opportunity exists in the local region. The market demonstrated
eager interest in the technology and the pilot data shows that sales
have increased dramatically over the past three years. To build on this
momentum, we recommend:
• Developing a multi-year DHP strategy that includes:
o Continuing market engagement and support.
o Partnering with manufacturers to develop and support
a training program aimed at increasing installations in
electrically heated homes.
o Working with market partners and community
organizations to support DHP installations in residences of
hard-to-reach customers.
o Additional promotional opportunities.
o Exploring research opportunities, including research to
help understand where DHPs are being installed and why
utility incentives in both Avista and IPC territories are not
increasing exponentially.
• Continuing to request NEEA's DHP data with an aim to acquire
more granular data.
EASTSIDE COLLABORATIVE:FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS 1

(r-
.M1
NORTH I D A H 0 CE NTENN I A L T R A I L
zy
.106
�M'!Z `tea(`"/.y�� a� 7�•
�i._ �.v� ,7 ` -. �_ �.mil r \ '1J-• , ,��