20241220Application Attachment 1 Supplements.pdf

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
2023 ANNUAL REPORT
SUPPLEMENT 1: IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT

Impact Evaluation of
Intermountain Gas
Company Residential
Rebate Program
( PY2021 - 2023 )
SUBMITTED TO: Intermountain Natural Gas Company
SUBMITTED ON: October 16, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: ADM Associates, Inc.
ADM Associates, Inc Intermountain Gas
3239 Ramos Circle 555 Cole Road
Sacramento, CA 95827 Boise, ID 83709

Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................. 5
2 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 6
3 GENERAL METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................ 7
4 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 18
5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................... 56
6 APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT SURVEY INSTRUMENT..................................................................................... 63

List of Tables
Table 1-1: Residential Portfolio Verified Natural Gas Savings......................................................................5
Table 1-2: Impact Evaluation Activities by Measure.....................................................................................6
Table 3-1: Heating and Cooling Zone Definition...........................................................................................8
Table 3-2: Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Measure...........................................12
Table 3-3: Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Measure...................................................13
Table 4-1: Whole Home Rebate Measures.................................................................................................19
Table 4-2:Verified Savings for Population of Whole Home Rebates .........................................................19
Table 4-3:Verified Savings for Sample of Whole Home Rebates...............................................................19
Table 4-4: Whole Home Rebate Sampling Strategy....................................................................................20
Table 4-5: Whole Home Sample Size by Task.............................................................................................21
Table 4-6: Whole Home Rebate Furnace Requirement Summary .............................................................23
Table 4-7: Whole Home Rebate Natural Gas Water Heater Summary.......................................................23
Table 4-8: Whole Home Rebate Infiltration Rate Summary.......................................................................24
Table 4-9: Whole Home Rebate HERS Score Summary..............................................................................24
Table 4-10: Whole Home Rebate Ceiling Insulation Summary...................................................................25
Table 4-11: Whole Home Rebate Duct Leakage to Outside Summary.......................................................25
Table 4-12: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis................................................................................25
Table 4-13: Savings Summary for Billing Analysis.......................................................................................26
Table 4-14: Billing Data Cleaning Steps.......................................................................................................26
Table 4-15: PSM Customer Matches...........................................................................................................27
Table 4-16: Whole Home Regression Parameters......................................................................................27
Table 4-17: Whole Home Regression Results.............................................................................................27
Table 4-18: Whole Home Model Fit............................................................................................................28
Table 4-19: Summary of Annual Program Savings......................................................................................28
Table 4-20: Other Utility Residential New Construction Evaluation Methods...........................................30
Table 4-21: Insulation and Fenestration Requirements by Component ....................................................33
Table 4-22: Average Modeled Therms Savings per Home..........................................................................34
Table 4-23: Natural Gas Furnace Measures................................................................................................34
Table 4-24: Verified Savings for Population of Natural Gas Furnace Rebates............................................35
Table 4-25: Verified Savings for Sample of Natural Gas Furnace Rebates .................................................35
Table 4-26: Furnace Verification Survey ISR Results...................................................................................36
Table 4-27: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace............................37
Table 4-28: Cohort Restrictions, 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace ..............................................................37

Table 4-29: Pre-period Usage T-test for the 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace............................................38
Table 4-30:TMY Weather, 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace.......................................................................39
Table 4-31: Measure Regression Savings, 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace................................................39
Table 4-32: Smart Thermostat Measures...................................................................................................40
Table 4-33: Verified Savings for Population of Smart Thermostat Rebates...............................................40
Table 4-34: Verified Savings for Sample of Smart Thermostat Rebates.....................................................40
Table 4-35: Smart Thermostat Verification Survey ISR Results..................................................................41
Table 4-36: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Smart Thermostats...............................................43
Table 4-37: Cohort Restrictions, Smart Thermostats..................................................................................43
Table 4-38: Pre-period Usage T-test for the Smart Thermostats ...............................................................44
Table 4-39:TMY Weather, Smart Thermostats..........................................................................................44
Table 4-40: Measure Regression Savings, Smart Thermostats...................................................................45
Table 4-41: Storage Tank Water Heater Measures.....................................................................................45
Table 4-42: Verified Savings for Population of Storage Tank Water Heater Rebates ................................46
Table 4-43: Verified Savings for Sample of Storage Tank Water Heater Rebates......................................46
Table 4-44: Storage Tank Water Heater Verification Survey ISR Results ...................................................47
Table 4-45: Verified Savings for Population of Storage Tank Water Heater Rebates, by Tank Size...........48
Table 4-46: Verified Savings for Sample of Storage Tank Water Heater Rebates, by Tank Size.................48
Table 4-47:Tankless Water Heater Measures............................................................................................49
Table 4-48: Verified Savings for Population of Tankless Water Heater Rebates........................................49
Table 4-49: Verified Savings for Sample of Tankless Water Heater Rebates .............................................49
Table 4-50:Tankless Water Heater Verification Survey ISR Results...........................................................51
Table 4-51: Boiler and Combination Boiler Measures................................................................................52
Table 4-52: Verified Savings for Population of Boiler and Combination Boiler Rebates............................52
Table 4-53: Boiler and Combination Boiler Rebate Verification Survey ISR Results...................................53
Table 5-1: Whole Home Rebates Findings and Recommendations............................................................57
Table 5-2: 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace Rebates Findings and Recommendations...............................58
Table 5-3: Smart Thermostat Rebates Findings and Recommendations....................................................59
Table 5-4: Storage Tank Water Heater Rebates Findings and Recommendations.....................................60
Table 5-5:Tankless Water Heater Rebates Findings and Recommendations............................................61
Table 5-6: Boiler and Combination Boiler Rebates Findings and Recommendations ................................62
Table 6-1: Overview of Data Collection Activity.........................................................................................63
Table6-2: Survey Variables.........................................................................................................................63

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a summary of the Residential Natural Gas Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification
(EM&V) effort of the 2021-2023 program year(PY2021-PY2023) portfolio of programs for Intermountain
Gas Company(IGC) in the Idaho service territory.The evaluation was administered by ADM Associates,
Inc. (herein referred to as the "Evaluators").
1.1 SAVINGS RESULTS
The Evaluators conducted an impact evaluation for Intermountain Gas Company's Residential programs
for PY2021-PY2023.This includes projects rebated between April 1, 2021 and December 31, 2023.The
Residential portfolio savings amounted to 925,454.78 Therms with a 62.88% realization rate.The
Evaluators conducted an impact evaluation for Intermountain Gas Company's Whole Home, 95%AFUE
Natural Gas Furnace, Smart Thermostat, Storage Tank Water Heater,Tankless Water Heater, Boiler, and
Combination Boiler Rebates.The Evaluators summarized the verified savings in Table 1-1 below.
Table 1-1:Residential Portfolio Verified Natural Gas Savings
Expected Verified Reali- Incentive
Measure Rebates Savings Savings zation Costs
(Therms) (Therms) Rate
Whole Home Rebate Tier 1 3 483.00 550.20 113.91% $2,700.00
Whole Home Rebate Tier 11 3,171 405,888.00 348,888.19 85.96% $2,219,700.00
95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace 7,846 682,602.00 348,513.44 51.06% $2,746,100.00
Smart Thermostat 6,190 272,360.00 129,216.25 47.44% $619,000.00
Storage Tank Water Heater 74 2,812.00 1,032.42 36.71% $8,510.00
Tankless Water Heater Tier 1 1,535 99,775.00 90,633.94 90.84% $498,875.00
Tankless Water Heater Tier II 29 1,682.00 1,379.95 82.04% $8,700.00
95%AFUE Boiler 23 3,657.00 2,380.23 65.09% $18,400.00
95%AFUE Combination Boiler 17 2,635.00 2,860.16 108.55% $13,600.00
Total 18,888 1,471,894.00 925,454.78 62.88% $6,135,585.00
Table 1-2 summarizes the gas rebates offered to residential customers in the Idaho Intermountain Gas
Company service territory in PY2021 through PY2023 as well as the Evaluators' evaluation tasks and
impact methodology for each program.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 5

Table 1-2:Impact Evaluation Activities by Measure
Measure Database Survey Impact Methodology
Review Verification
Whole Home Tier I ✓ Modeling
Whole Home Tier 11 ✓ Modeling
Furnace-95%AFUE ✓ ✓ RTF UES
Smart Thermostat ✓ ✓ RTF UES
Storage Tank Water Heater ✓ ✓ RTF UES
Tankless Water Heater Tier I ✓ ✓ RTF UES
Tankless Water Heater Tier II ✓ ✓ RTF UES
95%AFUE Boiler ✓ ✓ Illinois TRM with RTF inputs
95%AFUE Combination Boiler ✓ ✓ Illinois TRM with RTF inputs
2 INTRODUCTION
ADM Associates evaluated Intermountain Gas Company's (IGC) Residential Rebate program. This work
was completed in conjunction with the process evaluation for IGC's portfolio, summarized in a separate
process evaluation report.
This report focuses on the impact evaluation of IGC's PY2021 through PY2023 portfolio in the state of
Idaho for the natural gas programs offered by IGC. This includes projects rebated between April 1, 2021
and December 31, 2023.This report identifies our impact findings and offers recommendations to
improve the cost-effectiveness of the programs offered to IGC's customers through its energy efficiency
portfolio.
2.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION APPROACH
The Evaluator tailored their evaluation questions and activities by program for IGC's portfolio of
programs. However, many of the data collection activities were similar.The main activities the Evaluator
conducted were:
Database review
Document verification
Survey verification
Deemed savings analysis
Whole facility billing analysis
Energy Modeling
Copies of the survey instruments are provided in Appendix A of this impact evaluation report.
2.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
This report includes the impact evaluation findings across all programs in the portfolio-wide assessment.
The report is organized as follows
Section 3 presents an overview of the impact evaluation approach and data collection and
analysis activities;
Evaluation and Measurement Report 6

■ Section 4 presents the impact evaluation of the residential programs;
■ Section 5 provides an overview of findings and recommendations;
■ Section 6 is an appendix that contains the participant survey instruments used to gather in-
service rates for each measure.
3 GENERAL METHODOLOGY
The Evaluators performed an impact evaluation on each of the programs summarized in Table 1-2.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)z:
■ Database review
■ Simple verification (web-based surveys)
■ Document verification (review project documentation)
■ Deemed savings (RTF LIES and Illinois TRM values)
■ Whole facility billing analysis (IPMVP Option C)
■ Energy Modeling(IPMVP Option D)
The Evaluators completed the above impact tasks for the natural gas impacts for projects completed in
the Idaho Intermountain Gas Company service territory.
The M&V methodologies are program-specific and determined by previous Intermountain Gas Company
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 by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE)5
The Evaluators kept analysis code, calculation spreadsheets, and survey data available for Intermountain
Gas Company records.
1 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fyo2osti/31505.pdf
z https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70472.pdf
3 https://rtf.nwcouncii.org/measures
' 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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 7

3.1 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
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.
■ 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 Illinois 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.
■ 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.
3.2 HEATING AND COOLING ZONES
Instead of assigning weather-related savings estimates by climate zones,the heating and cooling zones
referenced in report are associated with the heating and cooling zone calculated by the Regional
Technical Forum.
The following heating zone and cooling zone definitions are used for RTF analyses, calculated from
weather station temperature data with 65°F base6:
Table 3-1: Heating and Cooling Zone Definition
Zone Definition
HZ1 0 to 6,000 Heating Degree Days
HZ2 6,001 to 7,499 Heating Degree Days
HZ3 Greater than 7,500 Heating Degree Days
CZ1 0 to 300 Cooling Degree Days
CZ2 301 to 599 Cooling Degree Days
CZ3 Greater than 600 Cooling Degree Days
ADM provides the Regional Technical Forum zip code-level heating and cooling zone assignment' in the
Technical Reference Manual developed for Intermountain Gas Company.
3.3 IMPACT EVALUATION APPROACH
This section presents our general cross-cutting approach to accomplishing the impact evaluation of
Intermountain Gas Company's Residential Programs listed in Table 1-2.The Evaluators start by
6 https://nwcounci1.app.box.com/v/201905RTFCIimateZnMethodology
https://nwcouncil.app.box.com/v/rtfclimteznecalcv3-2
Evaluation and Measurement Report 8

presenting our general evaluation approach.This section is organized by general task due to overlap in
evaluation methodology across rebates.
The Evaluators outline the approach to verifying, measuring, and reporting the residential portfolio
impacts and summarizing potential program and portfolio improvements.The primary objective of the
impact evaluation is to determine ex-post verified net energy savings.
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 towards increasing cost effectiveness future program
years.
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 Intermountain
Gas Company'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 Modeling Analysis, used for the Whole Home Program involves the use of computer software
to predict household energy use for the as-built efficient home and a baseline efficiency home.
This analysis does not include billing data from nonparticipant customers.This approach aligns
with the IPMVP Option D.
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 or Illinois TRM values 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 RTF UES
and Illinois TRM and results from the database review.The Evaluators calculated verified savings for
each measure based on the RTF UES, Illinois TRM, or modeling in combination with the results from
document review and literature review.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 9

Aggregate
Reported Database Document Review& Evaluated
Savings Review Review Analysis Savings
The Evaluators assigned methodological rigor level for each measure and program based on its
contribution to the portfolio savings, availability of data, and impact evaluation methods utilized by
other electric and natural gas utilities in the state of Idaho.
The Evaluators attempted billing analysis for all natural gas measure participants in the Residential
programs offered by Intermountain Gas Company. Although the Evaluators calculated billing analysis
results to determine evaluated savings 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
evaluated impacts are estimated through use of RTF and Illinois TRM values to remain consistent with
the evaluation methodologies employed by other Idaho utilities to evaluate their natural gas residential
programs.
The Evaluators provided two methods for deriving savings from the Whole Homes measure.The
recommended method involved a whole building modeling (IPMVP Option D).The Evaluators also
provided billing analysis method in which the Evaluators used consumption data from a matched control
group in a panel linear regression (IPMVP Option C) While the billing analysis method is not
recommended for future evaluation of the Whole Homes rebates, further details of each method were
summarized in the following sections.
3.3.1 Database Review
The Evaluators first reviewed the data tracking systems for the measures to ensure required materials
for the evaluation effort were successfully collected.To facilitate our extraction of data from the
tracking systems,the Evaluators requested documentation from IGC detailing their data collection
procedures, descriptions of their tracking systems, and copies of the tracking database.The Evaluators
reviewed each tracking system for ease of delivery, inconsistencies, and completeness.They also
assessed whether the data is satisfactory for use in assessing program impacts, regulatory reporting, and
other requirements.
3.3.2 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 3-1 Sample Size for Infinite Sample Size
n - (ZXCV�2
d J
Evaluation and Measurement Report 10

Equation 3-2 Sample Size for Finite Population Size
n
no = (( ll
1 + \NI
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 participation', which yields a sample size of 68 for an infinite population. Sample
sizes were adjusted for smaller populations.
The following sections describe the Evaluator's methodology for conducting document-based
verification and survey-based verification.
For each measure,the Evaluators used tracking data to prepare a set of sample customers to be
selected for web surveys and a set of sample customers to be selected for project documentation
review. Web surveys were used in the process evaluations to collect customer satisfaction levels with
the program, barriers to program participation, and effectiveness of program efforts. Documentation
reviews were conducted to verify measure installation and parameters for gross impact estimation.
Sample designs provide 90%confidence and ±10% precision for evaluation results.
3.3.2.1 Document-Based Verification
The Evaluators requested rebate documentation for a subset of participating customers.These
documents included invoices, rebate applications, and pictures for the programs listed in the table
above.
This sample of documents was used to cross-verify tracking data inputs with verified AHRI certifications
aggregated from the AHRI directory. 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 4.
The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieves a sampling precision of±4.04%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. For each measure category,the sampling precision is within
10%at 10%confidence.
8 Assumption based off California Evaluation Framework:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_PubIic_Website/Content/Utilities_and_lndustries/Energy/Energy_Program
s/Demand_Side_Management/EE_and_Energy_Savings_Assist/CAEvaluationFramework.pdf
Evaluation and Measurement Report 11

The Evaluators developed the following samples for each measure's document review using Equation
3-1 and Equation 3-2. The Evaluators ensured representation for each measure's population of
participants.
Table 3-2:Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Measure
Sample
Measure Population (With Finite Precision at 90%
Population cl
• ,Whole Home Tier 1 3 3 90%±0.00%
Whole Home Tier II 3,171 73 90%±9.52%
95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace 7,846 71 90%±9.72%
Smart Thermostats 6,190 80 90%±9.14%
Storage Tank Water Heater 74 38 90%±9.37%
Tankless Water Heater Tier 1 1,535 71 90%±9.54%
Tankless Water Heater Tier II 29 29 90%±0.00%
95%AFUE Boilers 23 23 90%±0.00%
95%AFUE Combination Boilers 17 17 90%±0.00%
Total 18,888 405 90%±4.04%
"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.The Evaluators first verified
tracking data by reviewing invoices for a sample of participant households. Tracking data and ENERGY
STAR certificates, HERS certificates, and Ekotrope files were reviewed to verify that each household
satisfied all program efficiency requirements for the Whole Homes Rebate Program. The Evaluators also
reviewed supporting documentation to verify energy models used in ex-ante calculations for a sample of
participating homes.
The evaluation team used IGC's tracking database to gather information on the population of homes
and builders.The Evaluators utilized the whole building energy modeling program called Ekotrope
during the review and verification efforts in the impact evaluation for this measure. Ekotrope is software
used by organizations to conduct HERS Ratings. Ekotrope and REM/Rate files were reviewed for a
sample of participating homes.
3.3.2.2 Survey-Based Verification
The Evaluators conducted survey-based verification for each of the Residential natural gas measures.
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 Intermountain Gas Company projects
shown in Table 3-3 for the programs listed. The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieved a
sampling precision of±4.70% at 90% statistical confidence for in-service rates (ISRs) estimates at the
measure-level during web-based survey verification.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 12

Table 3-3:Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Measure
RespondentsProgram Population •0
Whole Home Tier 1 3 N/A N/A
Whole Home Tier 11 3,171 N/A N/A
95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace 7,846 125 90%±7.30%
Smart Thermostats 6,190 93 90%±8.47%
Storage Tank Water Heater 74 5 90%±35.76%
Tankless Water Heater Tier 1 1,535 66 90%±9.91%
Tankless Water Heater Tier II 29 5 90%±34.05%
95%AFUE Boilers 23 3 90%±45.28%
95%AFUE Combination Boilers 17 5 90%±31.86%
Total 18,888 302 90%±4.70%
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.
3.3.2.3 Make Adequate Preparations for Contacting IGC Customers
Customer satisfaction with the energy efficiency programs is also affected by EM&V.The Evaluators
have taken the following steps to ensure that the data acquisition process is smooth and that the
customers have a full understanding of the EM&V process.The Evaluators have taken the following
steps with IGC to ensure transparency and reliability to customers and to preserve IGC's customer
relations with residential customers:
■ The Evaluators have worked with IGC to instruct their call centers on answering customer inquiries
regarding ADM's role as the EM&V contractor.
The Evaluators have also maintained a 'do not contact' list for customers that have expressed a desire to
be removed from call lists for future EM&V work. For many residential programs, however, maintaining
a 'do not contact' list will not seriously compromise the impact evaluation process.
3.3.3 Method 1: Deemed Savings
This section summarizes the deemed savings analysis method the Evaluators employed for the
evaluation of a subset of measures for each program.The Evaluators completed the validation for
specific measures across each program using the RTF unit energy savings (UES)values, where available.
The Evaluators ensured the proper measure unit savings were recorded and used in the calculation of
Intermountain Gas Company's ex-ante measure savings.The Evaluators also used the Illinois technical
reference manual to estimate verified savings for measures that are not included in the RTF measure
list.
In cases where the RTF has existing unit energy savings (UES) applicable to IGC's measures,the
Evaluators verified the quantity and quality of installations and apply the RTF's UES to determine
verified savings. In cases where the RTF does not have existing UES workbooks,the Evaluators utilized
the Illinois TRM V12.0 engineering algorithms and applicable RTF regional estimates, including market
practice baseline efficiency values, gallons per day consumption for boilers, and delta water
temperature for use in the TRM engineering algorithms. Where applicable,the Evaluators employed
Evaluation and Measurement Report 13

Intermountain Gas Company consumption data to estimate input values, such as effective full load
heating hours for space heating measures. Precise engineering algorithm inputs are further detailed in
the program-level impact evaluation results section in Section 4.
3.3.4 Method 2: Billing Data Linear Regression
To conduct a linear regression billing analysis for Whole Homes,furnaces, and smart thermostats,the
Evaluators required billing data for a control group to compare against treatment households via quasi-
experimental methods. A household was considered a treatment household if it received a rebate. It
was considered a control household if it did not receive a rebate.The evaluation team requested billing
data for existing and new construction residential homes to serve as the control group.This method
assumed that IGC was able to provide consumption data for a group of non-participating, existing and
newly built homes in the service area.
The control group had to consist of similar residential homes without the energy efficiency standards
required in IGC's programs.The Evaluators attempted to create a statistically similar control group using
propensity score matching (PSM), a method that allowed them to find the most similar household based
on a range of independent variables.
If a sufficient control group could be constructed,The Evaluators compared participant billing data to
the control billing data, as detailed in IPMVP Option C. We then fit a fixed effects panel linear regression
model to estimate weather-dependent daily consumption differences between efficient homes and
baseline homes.The Evaluators included independent variables such as Heating Degree Days for
weather controls, square footage, and other household characteristics where applicable to improve
model confidence.
3.3.4.1 Furnace and Smart Thermostat Rebates
The following equation summarized the model specifications The Evaluators used for the furnace and
smart thermostat rebate billing analyses.
The following equation displays the 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:
Evaluation and Measurement Report 14

Equation 3-3:Post-Program Regression (PPR)Model Specification
ADCit = ao +f31(Treatment)i +F'2 (PreUsageSpring)i +f33(PreUsageSummer)i
+f34(PreUsageFall)i +f3s(PreUsageWinter)i +&(Month)t
+f37(Month x PreUsageSpring)it +f38(Month x PreUsageSummer)it
+f39(Month x PreUsageFall)it +Q10(Month x PreUsageWinter)it +Q11(HDD)it
+Q12(Treatment x HDD)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 i s available
pre-treatment billing reads
■ HDDit =Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
■ Eit =Customer-level random error
■ a0=The model intercept for home i
• Q1-14 = Coefficients determined via regression
The coefficient!'1 represents the average change in consumption between the pre-period and post-
period for the treatment group and F'12 represent the change in weather-related daily consumption in
the post-period between the groups.Typical monthly and annual savings were estimated by
extrapolating the F'12 and coefficient with Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) HDD data.
The equation below displays how savings were extrapolated for a full year utilizing the coefficients in the
regression model and TMY data.
Equation 3-4:Savings Extrapolation
Annual Savings = f31 * 365.25 +f311 * TMY HDD
The following lists the data requirements for billing analysis:
■ Monthly billing data for a group of non-program participants (control)
■ Monthly billing data for program participants (treatment)
The period of billing data should cover the same timeframe for both groups.To evaluate the 2021 and
2023 program years, ranging from April 2021 through December 2023,the Evaluators requested billing
Evaluation and Measurement Report 15

data ranging from the earliest date from each household through the most recent date available from
each household.The Evaluators only considered the billing data as valid in our analyses once the home
has been occupied.
The following steps were taken to prepare data:
1. Gather billing data for homes that participated in the furnace and smart thermostat rebates.
2. Exclude participant homes that also participated in other rebates.
3. Gather billing data for existing, occupied homes that did not participate in any rebates.
4. Create a matched control group using non-participant billing and household characteristic data.
5. Exclude homes missing winter-season billing history.
6. Exclude bills with consumption indicated to be outliers.
The Evaluators reported parameters necessary to portray model accuracy and significance, such as
coefficient p-values, adjusted r-squared values, and household-level and program-level Therm savings at
the 90%confidence intervals. Program-year savings estimates at the monthly and annual levels were
also reported.
One major caveat of this method was that The Evaluators had to gather a sufficiently large sample of
control households that were statistically similar to the treatment households.
3.3.4.2 Whole Home Rebates
The following equation summarized the model specifications The Evaluators used for the Whole Home
rebate billing analyses.
Equation 3-5:Fixed-Effects Panel Regression Model Specification
Daily Thermsit
= ao +Q1(Treatment)it + fl2(HDD)it +fl3(SQFT)i +Q4(HDD x Treatment)it
+ Eit
Where,
■ Daily Thermsit = Estimated energy usage (dependent variable) in home i during period t
■ HDDit =Average heating degree days (base 65 Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t at home i
■ SQFTi = Square footage of household i. ADM will include additional household characteristics
where applicable
■ sit =Customer-level random error
■ ao=The model intercept for home i
■ F'1_4 = Coefficients determined via regression
Qi and !'4 represent the average change in daily baseload in the post-period between the treatment and
control group, and the change in weather-related daily consumption in the post-period between the
groups respectively.Typical monthly and annual savings will then be estimated by extrapolating the Rl
and F'4 coefficients with Typical Meteorological Year(TMY) weather data.
This option was used to determine the collective savings of all measures applied to the Whole Home
Rebate participant household monitored by the energy meter. It is important to note that because
whole household consumption was used,the savings value included the positive or negative effects of
any non-measure changes made in the household.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 16

The following lists the data requirements for billing analysis:
■ Monthly billing data for a group of non-program participants (control)
■ Monthly billing data for program participants (treatment)
■ Household-level data provided by HERS raters and public sources
The period of billing data should cover the same timeframe for both groups.To evaluate the 2021
through 2023 program years, the Evaluators requested billing data ranging from the earliest date from
each household through the most recent date available from each household.The Evaluators only
considered the billing data as valid in our analyses once the home has been occupied.
The following steps were taken to prepare data:
1. Gather billing data for homes that participated in the Whole Home Rebate.
2. Gather billing data for new, occupied homes that did not participate in the Whole Home Rebate
Program.
3. Exclude new construction nonparticipant homes that also participated in other IGC measure
rebates.
4. Create a matched control group using non-participant billing and household characteristic data.
5. Exclude homes missing winter-season billing history.
6. Exclude bills with consumption indicated to be outliers.
The Evaluators reported parameters necessary to portray model accuracy and significance, such as
coefficient p-values, adjusted r-squared values, and household-level and program-level Therm savings at
the 90% confidence intervals. Program-year savings estimates at the monthly and annual levels were
also reported.
One major caveat of this method was that The Evaluators had to gather a sufficiently large sample of
control households that were statistically similar to the treatment households. Because the Evaluators
are unable to collect pertinent information from participating and nonparticipating newly constructed
homes,we cannot confirm whether the control group was statistically different from the treatment
homes.Therefore,this analytical approach would not provide robust, meaningful results. For this
reason, and because the standard method for evaluating newly constructed residential programs
administered by other Idaho utilities is through energy modeling, the Evaluators followed through with
the procedures detailed in Method 3 for this rebate. Regardless, the Evaluators provide the results of
the Whole Home Rebate billing analysis in Section 4.1.5.
3.3.5 Method 3: Energy Modeling
Method 3 was used for the Whole Homes Rebate to determine primary evaluated savings.This
recommended approach involved the comparison of participating homes with a User Defined Reference
Home (UDRH).The methodology detailed in this section was supported by IPMVP Option D as a whole
building energy modeling.The Evaluators used the energy models to compare a sample of participating
homes with a User Defined Reference Home (UDRH), an agreed-upon set of efficiency standards built to
represent the baseline residential home in the region.The UDRH was defined in more detail in the
following subsection.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 17

The Evaluators used the program Ekotrope software to complete whole building modeling efforts.The
UDRH feature in Ekotrope allowed energy consumption to be calculated using energy efficiency input
values for both the efficient home and the baseline home. The UDRH was designed as an exact replica of
each program participating home in terms of size, structure, and climate zone. However, instead of
using the actual as-built efficiency values, they used the energy codes defined in the UDRH.The
Evaluators gathered energy characteristics for the efficient, rebated home by requesting HERS and
Ekotrope datafiles from the certified HERS raters or by requesting information transferred from
Ekotrope, facilitated by Intermountain Gas Company approving access for bulk data transfer while
protecting personal identifying information (PII) in the transfer process.
To calculate the ex-post savings for a given home,first,the as-built home was verified using building
characteristics found in supporting documentation. Once the efficient home was modeled,the energy
model calculated the ex-post savings by subtracting the energy use of the as-built home from the energy
use of its UDRH baseline home.
Energy savings were calculated per home with the following calculation:
Equation 3-6:Method 2 Whole Building Model Energy Savings
Therm Savings = ConsumptionvDRH - Consumptionwhole Home
Where,
■ ConsumptionuDRH = Simulated energy consumption values from Ekotrope for a household
under the UDRH efficient code standards
■ ConsumptionENERCY STAR = Simulated energy consumption from REMRate for a household
built referencing the HERS certification values and/or Ekotrope files
3.3.5.1 User Defined Reference Home (UDRH)
The UDRH represents a home built to meet the state of Idaho's current minimum energy efficiency code
requirements. Idaho currently uses the residential 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
with amendments'for newly constructed residential homes.The Evaluators used the residential 2018
IECC with Idaho-specific amendments efficiency values when creating the UDRH in Ekotrope.This
comparison provided an accurate model of a newly constructed minimum efficient code residential
home to compare against efficient, program-participating homes.
In order to build the UDRH, parameters for building envelope, mechanical systems, and lighting and
appliances all needed to be obtained.These values were corroborated with tracking database values as
well as required documentation submitted through the rebate process.
4 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS
This section of the report summarizes the measure-level impact evaluation results for all residential
measure rebates offered by Intermountain Gas Company.
9 https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/idaho
Evaluation and Measurement Report 18

4.1 WHOLE HOME REBATES
The Whole Home rebate offers incentives to home builders and buyers for new construction residential
homes that meet the energy efficiency standards of the program. Originally,the Whole Home Program
required the homes to meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY
STAR certified homes program. However, due to the impact evaluation results reported in 2020, the
program adjusted its requirements to include minimum efficiency levels for the most impactful
components of home construction. The table below summarizes the Whole Home rebates offered to
IGC's residential customers as well as incentive amounts and impact analysis methodology.
Table 4-1: Whole Home Rebate Measures
T Measure 1W I Description ir Impact Analysis
. . . .•
Whole Home Rebate Tier I Homes built to higher efficiency standards Modeling
Whole Home Rebate Tier II than minimum Idaho code Modeling
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the Whole Home Rebate Program
impact evaluation.
Table 4-2: Verified Savings for Population of Whole Home Rebates
ir Population Expected Verified Realization Incentive
Measure Rebates Savings Savings Rate Costs
(Therms) (Therms)
Whole Home Rebate Tier 1 3 483.00 550.20 113.91% $2,700.00
Whole Home Rebate Tier II 3,171 405,888.00 348,888.19 85.96% $2,219,700.00
Total 3,174 406,371.00 349,438.39 85.99% $2,222,400.00
The Whole Home Rebate Program displayed verified savings of 349,438.39 Therms with a realization
rate of 85.99%against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the
verified natural gas savings for the sampled projects reviewed in the Whole Home Rebate Program
impact evaluation.
Table 4-3: Verified Savings for Sample of Whole Home Rebates
Sample Expected Verified Realization Incentive
Measure Rebates Savings Savings Rate Costs
(Therms) (Therms)
Whole Home Rebate Tier 1 2 322.00 366.80 113.91% $1,800.00
Whole Home Rebate Tier 11 73 9,344.00 8,031.80 85.96% $51,100.00
Total 75 9,666.00 8,398.60 J 86.89% $52,900.00
The evaluation team sampled two Whole Home Tier I rebates and 73 Whole Home Tier II rebates.The
remaining Whole Home Tier I project not sampled for verified savings was not included due to lack of
energy modeling file availability during the time of the evaluation. However, the sample selected for the
Whole Home Rebates Program still met 90/10 precision and confidence estimates.
The Evaluators made an effort to select the same methodologies and savings sources used to evaluate
other measures and programs provided to customers in the state of Idaho:
Evaluation and Measurement Report 19

■ Idaho Power Company
■ Avista Utilities (Idaho)
■ Rocky Mountain Power(Idaho)
Further detail of the methodologies used to evaluate the new construction residential programs for the
above utilities is presented in Section 4.1.5.
During review,the Evaluators confirmed that:
■ Prescriptive HVAC and water heating measures are evaluated in Idaho using the Regional
Technical Forum workbooks or other applicable technical reference manuals (Illinois TRM)
■ Residential new construction programs are generally evaluated using modeling software,
compared against current minimum IECC code baseline
■ These methodologies have long-standing precedence in program evaluation in Idaho
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Whole Home Rebate Program in the section below.
4.1.1 Sample Size
The Whole Home Program evaluation sampling strategy is summarized in the table below.The selected
sample meets the 90/10 precision and confidence requirements, with precision at±9.38%.
Table 4-4: Whole Home Rebate Sampling Strategy
RespondentsProgram I Population •0
Whole Home Rebates 3,174 75 90%±9.38%
The Whole Home Rebate Program evaluation activities are summarized in the table below. Researchable
issues and the sampling strategy are also discussed in this section.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 20

Table 4-5: Whole Home Sample Size by Task
ObjectiveWhole Whole
Activity Home Tier I Home Tier 11
Sample Size Sample Size
Database and Review program tracking system to document
tracking system ✓ ✓ participation,tracked project fields and values, and
review projected savings and incentives.
Review project-level documentation, modeling files,
Document Sampled and building component insulation, equipment
verification Census (3) (73) efficiency, and program requirements for a sample
review
of projects.
Review and update Ekotrope model inputs according
Model analysis Sampled (2) Sampled to documented project equipment specifications to
(73) verify model outputs and reliable energy impact
estimates.
Estimate statistically significant savings comparing
program participant new construction home
Billing analysis ✓ ✓ monthly consumption data and nonparticipating
new construction home monthly consumption data
through a quasi-experimental design.
4.1.2 Verification Efforts
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Whole Home measures.
4.1.2.1 Database Review& Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis,the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Whole Home
Rebate Program measures.The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify
tracking data inputs. Most Whole Home Rebate new construction certification data is retrieved from the
Ekotrope database, which is submitted by the home rater. Intermountain Gas Company staff then pull
this information directly from the RESNET API. However, a number of rebates are submitted by the
builder through an application. Once Whole Home applications are integrated into the tracking
software, IGC staff validate the projects and then pay out the incentives to the respective participant.
The IGC database tracks information such as addresses, project status, home type, square footage,
builder name, rater name, space heating equipment model, water heating equipment model, insulation
level, and received incentive.
The Evaluators found all but one sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency
requirements for the Energy Efficiency Program. The one project that did not meet the Whole Home
Program requirements was a Whole Home Rebate Tier I project in which the efficiency of the furnace
displayed was 96.5%AFUE instead of the required 97%AFUE.
To acquire accurate equipment efficiencies and tank sizes,AHRI certifications are required to be
reviewed for each sampled project. Although rebate applications do not require AHRI certifications,
sufficient information was available through documentation for the Evaluators to verify each model
number's efficiency values with the AHRI database resource.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 21

Overall,the tracking database was well-organized and complete.The large majority of values in the
tracking database matched the Ekotrope report outputs. However, for the one Whole Home Tier I
project in which the furnace AFUE did not meet the program requirements,there was a mismatch in the
tracking database model number and therefore AFUE value and the validated model number's
associated efficiency in the AHRI directory. No other deviations were identified during document
verification or database review.
4.1.2.2 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct any survey verification efforts for this program, as the home has been
constructed as-built, and it is highly unlikely that the new equipment has been uninstalled. Therefore,
in-service rates were not applied to this program.
4.1.3 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Whole Home Rebate Program.The
Evaluators calculated verified savings for the remaining measures using the energy modeling approach
detailed in Section 3.3.5. 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.
4.1.4 Requirements Met
The Evaluators reviewed the verified tracking data to ensure that each home met the program
requirements.The requirements for the Whole Home Tier I and Tier II Rebates in the PY2021 through
PY2023 evaluation period are defined below:
■ Whole Home Tier I
o HERS rated
o Air sealing at or below 3 ACH at 50 Pa
o Ceiling insulation at or above R-49
o Ducts and air handler located inside conditioned space or duct leakage to outside of less
than 4 CFM25/100 ft2 CFA
o Furnace efficiency at or above 97%AFUE
■ Whole Home Tier II
o HERS rated
o Air sealing at or below 4 ACH at 50 Pa
o Ducts and air handler located inside conditioned space or duct leakage to outside of less
than 4 CFM25/100 ft2 CFA
o Furnace efficiency at or above 95%AFUE
The following tables summarize the requirements met by the projects rebated in PY2021 though
PY2023.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 22

Table 4-6: Whole Home Rebate Furnace Requirement Summary
Whole Home Whole Home Whole Home Whole Home
Space Heating Tier I Tier 11 Tier I Tier 11
Sampled Sampled Unmet Unmet
Rebates Rebates Requirements Requirements
95.0 AFUE 0 6 0 0
95.5 AFUE 0 3 0 0
96.0 AFUE 0 20 0 0
96.1 AFUE 0 35 0 0
96.3 AFUE 0 1 0 0
96.5 AFUE 1 15 1 0
97.0 AFUE 1 0 0 0
98.0 AFUE 1 0 0 0
Total 3 80 1 0
Whole Home Tier I Rebates require gas furnace efficiency of 97%AFUE or above and the Whole Home
Tier II Rebates require gas furnace efficiency of 95%AFUE or above. Each of the Tier I and Tier II rebates
incented in PY2021 though PY2023 met the minimum requirements for gas furnace efficiency of 97%or
95%AFUE, respectively, except one Tier I rebate. One of the Tier I rebates incented in this evaluation
period did not meet the minimum AFUE requirements through the program. This project should
therefore have been categorized as a Tier II rebate incentive. The Evaluators recommend IGC staff
thoroughly review the model efficiencies in the applications before dispersing incentives to the
customers, and more clearly communicate the tiered requirements.
Table 4-7: Whole Home Rebate Natural Gas Water Heater Summary
Whole Home Whole Home Whole Home
Water Heating Tier I Tier 11 Tier I Tier 11
Sampled Sampled Unmet Unmet
Rebates Rebates Requirements Requirements
0.62 EF 0 2 0 0
0.63 EF 1 15 0 0
0.64 EF 0 36 0 0
0.65 EF 0 7 0 0
0.66 EF 0 1 0 0
0.69 EF 0 2 0 0
0.93 EF 0 1 0 0
0.95 EF 0 5 0 0
0.96 EF 2 10 0 0
0.97 EF 0 2 0 0
Total 3 80 0 0
There are no explicit HERS score requirements for the Whole Home Rebate. All sampled projects
installed natural gas water heaters at various efficiency levels and all met the requirements for efficiency
levels at each tier.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 23

Table 4-8: Whole Home Rebate Infiltration Rate Summary
Whole Home Whole Home Whole Home Whole Home
Infiltration Rate Tier I Tier II Tier I Tier 11
Sampled Sampled Unmet Unmet
Rebates Rebates Requirements Requirements
0>ACH !51 0 0 0 0
1 >ACH !52 1 2 0 0
2 >ACH !53 2 29 0 0
3 >ACH !54 0 49 0 0
4>ACH 0 0 0 0
Total 3 80 0 0
Whole Home Tier I Rebates require infiltration rates at 3 ACH or lower and the Whole Home Tier II
Rebates require infiltration rates at 4 ACH or lower. Each of the Tier I and Tier II rebates incented in
PY2021 through PY2023 met the minimum requirements for duct leakage to outside at 3 and 4 ACH or
lower, respectively.
Table 4-9: Whole Home Rebate HERS Score Summary
Whole Home Whole Home Whole Home Whole Home
HERS Rating Tier I Tier 11 Tier I Tier 11
Sampled Sampled Unmet Unmet
Rebates Rebates Requirements Requirements
35 > HERS Score<_40 1 0 0 0
40> HERS Score<_45 0 0 0 0
45 > HERS Score<_50 0 0 0 0
50> HERS Score<_55 1 4 0 0
55 > HERS Score<_60 0 35 0 0
60> HERS Score<_65 0 34 0 0
65 > HERS Score<_70 1 5 0 0
70> HERS Score<_75 0 2 0 0
Total 3 80 0 0
There are no explicit HERS score requirements for the Whole Home Rebate. HERS score requirements
were removed from the program due to recommendations from the 2019-2020 impact evaluation
report.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 24

Table 4-10: Whole Home Rebate Ceiling Insulation Summary
Whole Home Whole Home Whole Home Whole Home
Ceiling Insulation Tier I Tier 11 Tier I Tier 11
Sampled Sampled Unmet Unmet
Rebates Rebates Requirements Requirements
34> R-value<_39 0 63 0 0
39 > R-value<_44 0 2 0 0
44> R-value<_49 0 9 0 0
49 > R-value<_54 2 4 0 0
54> R-value<_59 1 1 0 0
59 > R-value<_64 0 0 0 0
64> R-value 0 1 0 0
Total 3 80 0 0
There are no explicit requirements for ceiling insulation in Whole Home Tier II Rebates. However, Whole
Home Tier I Rebates require ceiling insulation at R-49 or greater. Each of the Tier I rebates incented in
PY2021 through PY2023 met the minimum requirements for ceiling insulation at R-49 or greater.
Table 4-11: Whole Home Rebate Duct Leakage to Outside Summary
pr V Whole Whole Home-Ir Whole Home Whole Home
DuctLeakage Home Tier I Tier 11 Tier I Tier 11
Sampled Sampled Unmet Unmet
Rebates Rebates Requirements Requirements
CFM25/100 ft2<_ 1 2 6 0 0
1 >CFM25/100 ft2<_2 1 20 0 0
2 >CFM25/100 ft2<_3 0 26 0 0
3 >CFM25/100 ft2<_4 0 28 0 0
4>CFM25/100 ft2 0 0 0 0
Total 3 80 0 0
Both Whole Home Tier I and Tier 11 Rebates require duct leakage to outside of less than 4 CFM25/100 ft2.
Each of the Tier I and Tier II rebates incented in PY2021 through PY2023 met the minimum requirements
for duct leakage to outside of less than 4 CFM25/100 ft2, respectively.
4.1.5 Whole Home Billing Analysis Results
The following section details the Evaluators' impact evaluation findings for the Whole Home Rebate
when evaluated through a billing analysis using monthly billing data.
Table 4-12 displays customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with
single-measure installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
Table 4-12:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis
PF Measure Number of Sufficient
Measure Considered for Customers w/ Participation
Billing Analysis Isolated-Measure for Billing
Installations* Analysis
Whole Home Rebate Tier 1 ✓ 3
Whole Home Rebate Tier 11 ✓ 3,171 ✓
Evaluation and Measurement Report 25

The Evaluators estimated savings for Whole Home Rebate measure using a matched control group.
Table 4-13 presents the overall ex-ante and ex-post savings for the Whole Home Tier II rebates. Across
all program years,the program achieved a 29.41% realization rate, with annual ex-post savings per
Whole Home Rebate of 37.66 Therms.
Table 4-13:Savings Summary for Billing Analysis
Ex-Ante Ex-Post Program- Program-
Number
Measure of per per Ante Post zation
ti
Rebates Rebate Rebate Savings Savings Rate
(Therms) (Therms) (Therms) (Therms)
Whole Home Rebate Tier 1 3 161.00 37.66 483.00 112.98 23.39%
Whole Home Rebate Tier II 3,171 128.00 37.66 405,888.00 119,418.19 29.42%
Total 3,174 - 37.66 406,371.00 119,531.17 29.41%
4.1.5.1 Data Cleaning
The Evaluators requested billing data for all 3,174 Whole Home Rebate customers (treatment
customers) and a random sample of 10,000 residential new construction homes (control customers)
constructed between PY2021 through PY2023.The following tables summarize the number of
customers filtered out due to the above criteria,for each of the treatment and control groups.
Table 4-14: Billing Data Cleaning Steps
Program Non-
Criteria
Program
Homes
Total number of premises 3,174 8,784
After removing customers with multiple accounts for one premise 2,538 8,784
After merging with billing data 2,537 8,784
After calendarizing 2,537 8,784
After removing non-program premises with year built outside of treatment 2,537 8,784
customer year builds
After removing bill outliers 2,537 8,776
After removing premises without sufficient post-period for each program 2,535 8,550
year
After removing premises without gas usage throughout the year 2,535 8,550
The typical treatment period of an analysis contains at least twelve months of billing data in the post-
period. All customers which had billing data had sufficient post-period data due to the timing of the
evaluation; all homes installed in PY2021 through PY2023 had at least 9 months of post-period data
available.
4.1.5.2 Propensity Score Matching
The Evaluators used propensity score matching to create a statistically similar group of control
households for each program year. Customers were matched on the following household-level
characteristics:
Zip code
Evaluation and Measurement Report 26

■ Square footage of home
The Evaluators had a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon, as shown in Table 4-15.The
Evaluators used nearest neighbor for all the above characteristics, and exact matching for zip code with
a 1:1 ratio for matching. It is important the homes being compared are in as similar geography as
possible.Therefore, during the matching process, the 5-digit zip code must match exactly to the control
household,with all other variables matched at the nearest household.This accounts for small
geographic differences between the groups.
Table 4-15:PSM Customer Matches
Status Control Treated
All 8,545 2,534
Matched 21651 2,532
Unmatched 5,894 2
4.1.5.3 Regression Results After Matching
This section details the regression results after performing propensity score matching for program
premises.The Evaluators associated 3-digit zip codes with the nearest weather station with historical
weather data and found all homes in the program to match with Boise weather station.As discussed in
Section 3.3.4, savings are determined through parameters B1 and B3,which are defined again in Table
4-16, along with all the other model parameters. In any given month, per program home savings are
calculated as follows: (B1*Days in Month) + (B3*HDD). In computing HDD for each month, the
Evaluators used TMY3 data for the Boise International Airport weather station. Monthly HDDs were
calculated from the TMY data as the sum of daily average temperature values under 68°F in a given
month.
Table 4-16: Whole Home Regression Parameters
Variable Parameter Interpretation
Treatment B1 Average daily heating load usage for the treatment group
Daily HDD B2 Average daily heating load usage per HDD
Treatment*Daily HDD B3 Average daily heating load usage per HDD for the treatment
group
Table 4-17 summarizes the results of the billing analysis for program participant households by program
year. A p-value less than 0.05 indicates that the parameter estimate is statistically significant at the 95%
confidence level.The coefficient estimates for Treatment*Daily HDD (133) are negative, indicating lower
usage per HDD in the post-period for treatment customers. In addition,this coefficient is statically
significant at the 95% level.
The estimate for Treatment(131) is positive, indicating negative savings that are independent of the
weather or HDDs.This coefficient is not statistically significant.This indicates that the treated homes
display a statistically significant difference in heating load usage, but no differences were detected for
non-weather-related gas usage.
Table 4-17: Whole Home Regression Results
(Intercept) 2.22E-01 1.05E-02 <2E-16 -1.56E-04 -1.35E-04
Evaluation and Measurement Report 27

Treatment 9.01E-02 1.49E-02 1.52E-09 3.52E-06 3.41E-05
Daily HDD 1.26E-01 3.25E-04 <2E-16 5.69E-05 5.80E-05
Treatment*Daily HDD -6.26E-03 4.69E-04 <2E-16 -6.54E-06 -4.94E-06
The model showed goodness of fit for the data, as seen by the high Adjusted R-square in Table 4-18.
Table 4-18: Whole Home Model Fit
Adjusted R2 Number of Observations Number of Premises
0.8011 12,409 5,183
Method 2 using billing analysis provides the Whole Home Rebate measure an overall realization rate of
29.41%with 119,531.17 Therms savings in PY2021 through PY2023.There was insufficient Whole
Homes Rebate Tier I participation to establish a separate billing analysis;therefore,this analysis includes
all completed Whole Home Rebates.Table 4-19 presents the ex-ante, ex-post, and realization rate for
the program.
Table 4-19:Summary of Annual Program Savings
Measure Ex-Ante Program Verified Program Realization Rate
Savings(Therms) Savings (Therms)
Whole Homes Rebate Tier 1 483.00 112.98 23.39%
Whole Homes Rebate Tier 11 405,888.00 119,418.19 29.42%
Total 406,371.00 119,531.17 29.41
It is important to note that this billing analysis compares homes in the program-rebated homes to non-
program homes built in the past few years.This analysis suggests that newer homes are being built at
standards greater than the current residential building code. Energy modeling with Ekotrope compares
these homes to a code-built home and shows typical Therms savings values. Although new homes are
built to meet current building codes,they are often more energy efficient and can incorporate more
recent technology.Therefore,there is a baseline difference between the modeling results displayed in
Section 4.1.5 and the billing analysis results displayed here.
The Evaluators provide several caveats for this analysis in the section below.
4.1.5.4 Caveats
The Evaluators provide the billing analysis results for the Whole Home Rebate Program in the
subsections above. However,the Evaluators recommend that this measure is evaluated through energy
modeling because evaluation through billing analysis includes potential bias that is unable to be
reversed or rectified,for the reasons defined in this section.
The Evaluators present the Method 2 billing analysis results in this program results section to fulfill the
Commission request to analyze program and non-program home billing data in the evaluation of this
program. However,the Commission also provided an opportunity to explore alternative avenues for
evaluation that provide statistical rigor and defensible results.Although the data exists to complete this
analysis,the Evaluators do not recommend evaluating Intermountain Gas Company's residential new
construction program through billing analysis for the reasons listed below.
1. Other Idaho Utilities: Other Idaho utilities evaluate their residential new construction programs
through energy modeling software, in line with the methods completed in Section 4.1.5.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 28

2. RTF New Homes Protocol:The Regional Technical Forum has published a "New Homes
Protocol",which stipulates that residential new construction programs are evaluated through
energy modeling software
3. Lack of RCT: Billing analysis with matched control groups are unable to eliminate bias in control
group creation due to lack of randomization
4. Further Increased Bias: Further bias is introduced in control group creation due to lack of pre-
period consumption data and occupancy data for the program and non-program homes
Further detail of each of the above caveats is provided in the subsections below.
Other Idaho Utilities
The Evaluators completed a literature review of recent evaluations of other residential new construction
programs implemented and evaluated in the state of Idaho and found that these programs are currently
evaluated utilizing regionally deemed savings via the Regional Technical Forum or utilizing energy
modeling software to estimate verified household savings (IPMVP Option C). Not only is it useful to
evaluate these programs similarly due to regulatory requirements, doing so also allows the program
implementers and the Commission to identify whether a program is beneficial to the utility customers. If
a residential new construction program is evaluated on a different yardstick than others in the state, this
may inequitably remove valid incentives and energy savings for a proportion of customers, while other
customers benefit from those incentives,for the same program. For this reason,the Evaluators have
provided examples of other Idaho residential new construction program impact evaluations that are
reasonably in line with the implementation of Intermountain Gas Company's Whole Home Rebate
Program. We provide these examples to define the Commission-approved precedence of impact
evaluation methodologies for these programs and recommend that Intermountain Gas Company's
program be evaluated similarly.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 29

Table 4-20:Other Utility Residential New Construction Evaluation Methods
ProgramIdaho Idaho
utility . .
Name
Idaho Residential ■Energy efficient all- ■Evaluated by reviewing the Idaho Power
Power New electric homes that use model output reports in Residential
Construction heat pump technology; Ekotrope or REM/Rate New
Program must be 10%, 15%, or software for a random Construction
20% more energy sample of homes Programlo
efficient than homes
built to standard energy
code
Avista ENERGY ■ENERGY STAR Home— ■Evaluated referencing the Avista Utilities
Utilities STAR Homes Manufactured, Electric deemed savings estimated ENERGY STAR
Program Only in the Regional Technical Homes
■ENERGY STAR Home— Forum New Manufactured Program
Manufactured, Gas & Homes and HVAC UES (Idaho service
Electric Workbook territory)"
Rocky Whole ■Whole Home ■Whole home performance Rocky
Mountain Home Performance Tier I Tier I &Tier II: Reviewed Mountain
Power Program ■Whole Home Ekotrope or REM/Rate Power Whole
Performance Tier II model files for each home Home
■ENERGY STAR Home— in a sample of homes Program
Manufactured, Electric claimed during the (Idaho service
Only evaluation period territory)12
(integrates an 88% NTG
rate)
■ENERGY STAR
manufactured homes:
Evaluated referencing the
TRL deemed savings for
ENERGYSTAR
manufactured homes
All of these program evaluations have shown verified impacts within reasonable range of the expected
savings due to referencing previous year modeling output and deemed savings values.Additionally,
these programs have been offered for several years and are cost-effective through these evaluation
expectations.
RTF New Homes Protocol
The RTF is a technical advisory committee to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council established
in 1999 to develop standards to verify and evaluate energy efficiency savings.This advisory committee
utilizes region-wide sales data, utility program data, and program evaluation results to produce robust
10 https://docs.idahopower.com/pdfs/EnergyEfficiency/Reports/2023DSMSupplement2.pdf
11 No public link available
12https://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pcorp/documents/en/pacificorp/environment/dsm/idaho/Rocky_Mounta
in_Power Idaho_EMV_Report_2019-2020.pdf
Evaluation and Measurement Report 30

energy savings for over 80 measures. Funding utilities13 and evaluators then use these developed
savings estimates to estimate and verify claimed savings for prescriptive rebate measures.
In October 2020,the Regional Technical Forum established the New Homes Protocol14, which lays out
the method to estimate energy savings (kWh and Therms)for an above-code new construction home
over a pre-determined baseline.Typically,the RTF calculates a market practice baseline for energy
efficient equipment upgrades.This protocol defines the market practice baselines as the energy code in
effect in each state or current market averages.The Protocol includes details modeling guidance to
promote consistency in data tracking and savings estimation, and it provides a detailed, concrete
demonstration of the Protocol savings method.The models Ekotrope and REM/Rate estimates heating
and cooling energy consumption for a project and an equivalent baseline home.
The Protocol establishes that savings are calculated by subtracting the calibrated project heating energy
consumption estimate from the baseline home heating energy consumption, using energy modeling
software such as Ekotrope, REM/Rate, or another approved modeling software.The Evaluators highlight
this protocol because this document provides further support for the validity of energy modeling for
residential new construction homes because the RTF has provided guidance for such programs to be
evaluated using this method, in line with the results provided in Section 4.1.5.
Lack of RCT
Billing analyses conducted on retrofit homes utilizing pre-period (12 months prior to equipment
installation) and post-period (12 months after equipment installation) provide an accurate estimation of
the gross impacts of participation in the program and rebate. However, when including a control group
to estimate net savings, it is ideal to have a randomized control trial (RCT)to eliminate bias between
each group. A randomized control trial is an experimental design in which customers are randomly
assigned into a treatment group or a control group.The randomization ensures that unmeasurable
characteristics are equal and unbiased between each group.This includes seasonal and non-seasonal
consumption behaviors, likely occupancy, geography, income demographics, and other behavioral
characteristics that are unmeasurable over time.
Although billing data is deliverable for residential new construction program and non-program homes,
randomized control trial design is not possible for a residential new construction program. Due to the
nature of this program, and like many downstream programs, RCT experimental design is not feasible;
that is, customers self-select into the program.Therefore, non-program participants are inherently
different than program participants.
Further Increased Bias
Quasi-experimental designs, such as ad-hoc control group creation through propensity score matching,
as that defined in Section 3.3.4.1, are able to reasonably reduce bias between the groups by matching
non-program participants to program participants using pre-period consumption data.This assumes that
seasonal consumption behaviors displayed through billing data encompass a large amount of the
behaviors that are important to disentangle the true treatment effect(the provided program rebate).
1s Puget Sound Energy, Idaho Power, Pacific Power, Cascade Natural Gas, Avista Utilities, NW Natural, Tacoma
Power, Seattle City Light, Idaho Power, among many others.
14 https://nwcounciI.app.box.com/v/NewHomesSP-v2-1
Evaluation and Measurement Report 31

However, because residential new construction programs, by virtue, do not have pre-participation data,
the Evaluators are unable to accurately match a control group or reasonably validate that the control
group matches the treatment group. In order to eliminate bias in treatment and control group match,
pre-period consumption data and occupancy data is not possible to collect for the program and non-
program homes.
Although it is possible to calculate the difference in consumption between the program homes and non-
program homes,the Evaluators are unable to come to the conclusion whether the differences are due
to the customer receiving the rebate and following the program requirements, due to differences in
occupancy between the treatment and control group, due to differences in energy consumption
behaviors between the treatment and control group, or due to income demographics or other
unmeasurable characteristics between each group.This issue is emphasized in residential new
construction billing analysis because there are reduced characteristics to match a control group to and
therefore validate it. For these reasons, and the reasons above,the Evaluators strongly recommend that
Intermountain Gas Company's Whole Home Rebate Program is evaluated through regionally accepted
modeling analysis, which has a track record of precedence in other utilities in the area.
4.1.6 Modeling Results
The Regional Technical Forum (RTF) and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) have created
specific modeling requirements and program guidelines to ensure the program provides reliable energy
savings for utilities across the Northwest.These homes feature high-performance HVAC systems, high-
efficiency windows, increased insulation values, and tighter building shells to improve comfort and save
energy.This is the method of evaluation each of the other utilities in Idaho utilize to estimate verified
savings for residential new construction programs. In an effort to align Intermountain Gas Company's
evaluation methods with other utilities in Idaho,the Evaluators report verified savings with this
regionally-approved methodology.
In the Whole Home Rebate Program, builders must contract with a Residential Energy Services Network
(RESNET)-certified rater to ensure the home design will meet program qualifications.The rater will work
with the builder from the design stages through project completion; perform the required energy
modeling using REM/Rate or Ekotrope modeling software; perform site inspections and tests; and enter,
maintain, and submit all required technical documentation in the REM/Rate or Ekotrope modeling
software and the accompanying Ekotrope database.
The evaluation team combined the data from the model output reports for the 83 sampled projects into
one spreadsheet estimate the average household level savings for each rebate tier. Further modeling
methodology is presented in Section 3.3.5, Method 3: Energy Modeling. Further detail of the user-
defined reference home (UDRH) and results are summarized in the sections below.
4.1.6.1 UDRH
This approach involves the comparison of participating homes with a User Defined Reference Home
(UDRH).The UDRH represents a home built to meet the state of Idaho's current minimum energy
efficiency code requirements.
The Idaho energy code increased on January 1, 2021, moving from the 2012 IECC (amended to 2009)to
the 2018 IECC,with Idaho amendments. Each of the homes evaluated in this report were constructed on
or after January 1, 2021 and therefore are certified under the 2018 IECC.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 32

The Evaluators used the residential 2018 IECC with Idaho-specific amendments efficiency values when
creating the UDRH in Ekotrope and REM/Rate.This comparison provides an accurate model of a newly
constructed minimum efficient code residential home to compare against efficient, program-
participating homes for the upcoming program year.
The 2018 IECC with Idaho amendments is referenced from the Idaho Administrative Code, Division of
Building Safety, IDAPA 07.03.01—Rules of Building Safety.The UDRH incorporates the required
minimum efficiency values for insulation,fenestration, air leakage, and lighting for Idaho.The minimum
requirements for each building component are shown in the table below. For air leakage, a building
must have less than five air changes per hour(ACH) when tested with a blower door at 50 Pascals. For
lighting, a building must have at least 75% percent efficient lights.
Table 4-21:Insulation and Fenestration Requirements by Component
FloorCrawlspace
Climate stration U_ R- Frame Wall R- Wall R- Value Wall R-
Zone U_ Factor Value Wall R- R- Value Value & Value
Factor Value Value Depth
5 0.32 0.55 38 20 or 13/17 30 15/19 10, 2ft 15/19
13+5
6 0.3 0.55 49 22 or 15/20 30 15/19 10, 4ft 15/19
13+5
4.1.6.2 Results
Energy models of the as-built house were created by HERS raters to model the energy use of the actual
house.This model was compared to the User Defined Reference Home (UDRH).The UDRH reflects the
2018 International Energy Conservation Code with Idaho's amendments.The UDRH was developed by
inspecting building codes, HVAC equipment codes, and appliance codes. Most of the energy saving in
the as-built home comes from the home's sealing of its envelope and ducts. Furthermore, the as-built
home's windows and HVAC systems are more efficient than the code minimum house.The primary goal
of the desk review verification effort is to verify as much data as possible using supporting
documentation.The Evaluators can verify the following metrics through this type of desk review:
■ Efficiency of furnaces and water heaters;
■ Size, layout, shape, and location of the home
Table 4-22 displays the average of the per-home annual usage differences between UDRH and Whole
Home-rebated homes for each tier level. Both Tiers display a zero savings value for lighting and
appliances. The participating Tier I homes saved an average of 183.40 Therms per home and the
participating Tier II homes saved an average of 110.02 Therms.
The occupancy and home characteristics between the UDRH model and the as-built model remain
constant, which means the as-built efficient home, with all else constant, uses less energy to heat the
space of the home than the code-built home, leading to savings for those categories.The majority of the
gas savings (91-98%) are displayed in space heating due to higher home sealing and more efficient HVAC
equipment.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 33

Table 4-22:Average Modeled Therms Savings per Home
Space Heating Water Heating Lights&
Measure (Therms) (Therms) Appliances Total (Therms)
Whole Home Rebate Tier 1 179.75 3.65 0 183.4
Whole Home Rebate Tier II 100.79 9.37 0 110.02
Verified Savings
The Whole Home Rebate Program in total displays a verified savings of 349,438.39 Therms with a
realization rate of 85.99% in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 4-2.
The Evaluators concluded that all other Idaho utilities (Idaho Power,Avista, and Rocky Mountain Power)
use modeling against code baseline to evaluate their programs and that evaluating the Whole Home
Rebates Program through billing analysis is not recommended because it would lead to potential bias
that is unable to be reversed or rectified.
The Evaluators therefore recommend that Intermountain Gas align evaluation methods with the utilities
present in Idaho with residential new construction programs, which allows for programs to be evaluated
and compared across utilities with the same measuring stick with results that are supported through
peer reviewed and approved documentation.
The Evaluator's verified savings summarized align with the RTF New Home Protocol and we recommend
that Intermountain Gas evaluate their Whole Home Program using the RTF New Home Protocol.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Whole Home Rebate Program deviates from 100%
due to deviations in expected savings per unit estimated through previous impact evaluation projections
and actual project efficiency details.
The Evaluators also used the impact evaluation results from this program to create a residential program
technical reference manual to calculate expected savings for this program, as well as the remainder of
programs evaluated through this report, for all future program years.
4.2 95%AFUE NATURAL GAS FURNACES
The 95%AFUE natural gas furnace rebate provides rebates for customers who install a furnace
according to current code with a minimum efficiency of 95%AFUE. Existing or new construction homes
are eligible to participate in the program. Table 4-23 summarizes the measures offered under this
program.
Table 4-23:Natural Gas Furnace Measures
Measure Description mpact Analysis
Methodology
95%AFUE Natural Gas High efficiency natural gas furnace RTF UES
Furnace
The table below summarizes the verified energy savings for the natural gas 95%AFUE furnace rebate
impact evaluation.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 34

Table 4-24: Verified Savings for Population of Natural Gas Furnace Rebates
Population Expected Verified Realization Incentive
Measure Rebates Savings Savings Rate Costs
(Therms) (Therms) 1
95%AFUE Natural
Gas Furnace 7,846 682,602.00 348,513.44 51.06% $2,746,100.00
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the sampled projects reviewed in the
natural gas furnace impact evaluation.
Table 4-25: Verified Savings for Sample of Natural Gas Furnace Rebates
Sample Expected Verified Realization Incentive
Measure Rebates Savings Savings Rate Costs
(Therms) (Therms)
95%AFUE Natural
Gas Furnace 71 6,177.00 3,153.77 51.06% $24,850.00
The evaluation team sampled 71 rebated 95%AFUE natural gas furnaces, which met 90/10 precision
and confidence estimates. The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact
analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the Whole Home Rebate Program in
the section below.
4.2.1 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Natural Gas
95%AFUE Furnace Program.The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-
verify tracking data inputs.
The Evaluators found all rebates to have project documentation with the associated HVAC model
number and efficiency values in either the program application or project invoices.The majority of
project files detailed appropriate manufacturer and model number information in order for the
Evaluators to locate the 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 projects in the tracking database provided contained existing/new
construction field and single family home/manufactured home fields.This field is an input to apply
correct RTF UES values;therefore,to properly assign RTF UES savings,the Evaluators imputed these
values via a search on Zillow.This field did not affect the ability for IGC to apply expected savings to the
measures as they stand.The Evaluators recommend ensuring this field is properly tracked in IGC's
database and is consistent with the information provided in the completed rebate applications, both
mail-in and web-based.
The Evaluators found all other sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency
requirements for the 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace Program.
4.2.2 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:
Evaluation and Measurement Report 35

■ Was this Natural Gas Furnace a new construction, or did it replace another heating source?
■ Was the previous heating source functional?
■ Is the newly installed furnace still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for Natural Gas Furnaces.The
responses to these additional questions can be found in Appendix A.Table 4-26 displays the ISR for the
furnace measure in the Idaho territory.
Table 4-26:Furnace Verification Survey ISR Results
Number of Program-Level
Measure Number of Survey Precision at In-Service Rate
Rebates Completes 90%
Confidence
95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace 7,878 1 125 90%±7.3W 100.00%
All survey respondents described equipment to be currently functioning, leading to a 100% ISR for this
measure.The Evaluators applied the ISRs listed in the table above to each rebate to quantify verified
savings for each measure, due to responses meeting the 90/10 precision goal.
4.2.3 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace Program.The
Evaluators calculated verified savings for the rebated furnaces using the RTF Residential Gas Furnaces
Workbook 15.The RTF defines unit-level energy savings for natural gas furnaces based on efficiency tier,
heating zone, and housing type. RTF savings are calculated against a current practice baseline,which the
RTF estimates using regional sales data.
The appropriate unit-level RTF deemed savings value was applied to the random sample of 71 projects
based on the verified project's efficiency level, home heating zone, and home construction type. Each
project's inputs were verified with project documents such as rebate applications to verify installation,
quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
The Evaluators verified that all 71 sampled rebates met or exceeded the 95%AFUE efficiency
requirement by verifying the manufacturer and model number with the appropriate AHRI certificates
from the AHRI directory. In addition, the Evaluators verified that all homes were single family homes.
The Evaluators then further categorized each sampled project under CEE Tier 2 or CEE Tier 3, and
categorized each project under HZ1, HZ2, or HZ3 in order to assign appropriate RTF savings.
4.2.4 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators provide the billing analysis results for the 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace Program in this
section. However,the Evaluators recommend that this measure is evaluated through RTF UES workbook
savings because evaluation through billing analysis includes potential bias that is unable to be reversed
or rectified, such as:
■ Requires assumption that inconsistent occupancy occurs randomly,which cannot be proven true,
which therefore biases the results towards homes that are consistently occupied, and therefore
inflating energy consumption behaviors of consistently occupied homes.
is https://nwcounci1.box.com/v/ResESGasFurnacesv1-1
Evaluation and Measurement Report 36

■ Many homes have insufficient pre-period billing data, due to new construction or new move in
customers and therefore are not included in the billing analysis.This led to the exclusion of 68%
of the furnace customers in the billing analysis, as seen in the criteria restrictions this section.
The table below shows 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.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 the
Idaho service territory to acquire the maximum number of customers possible.The billing analysis for
the 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnaces displayed statistically significant savings of 31.65 Therms per
rebate.The following section reports the combined analysis.
Table 4-27:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace
Measure Number of Suff icient
Measure Considered for Customers w/ Participation
Billing Analysis Isolated-Measure for Billing
Installations Analysis
95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace ✓ 5,592 11 ✓
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 the table
below.Also shown in this table 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 4-28: Cohort Restrictions, 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace
Data Restriction Treatment Control
Customers Customers
Customers with isolated measure installations 5,592 24,390
Customers with install dates ranging between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 4,944 24,390
2023 _
Remove customers with multiple accounts for one premise ID 4,944 24,390
Control group Usage Outlier(>25 Therms per day) 4,817 24,380
Incomplete Post-Period Bills (<6 months) 4,715 24,370
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills (<10 months) 1,537 24,369
Remove customers that do not use gas throughout the year 1,534 24,145
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 1,532 2,807
The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
Evaluation and Measurement Report 37

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 the 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, except for one month, April.
Table 4-29 provides results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment and control groups
after matching for the 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace measure. 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 4-29:Pre-period Usage T-test for the 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace
Average DaiIVy7 Average Daily
Month Usage Usage T Statistic Stcl Error P-Value Reject Null
. .
Control Treatment
Jan 4.921 4.941 0.023 0.053 0.982 No
Feb 4.523 4.529 0.333 0.049 0.739 No
Mar 3.147 3.141 0.958 0.029 0.338 No
Apr 2.170 2.141 1.995 0.023 0.046 Yes
May 1.239 1.244 0.237 0.020 0.813 No
Jun 0.733 0.753 -1.003 0.015 0.316 No
Jul 0.529 0.551 -1.638 0.011 0.101 No
Aug 0.533 0.554 -1.312 0.013 0.190 No
Sep 0.755 0.753 0.407 0.018 0.684 No
Oct 1.781 1.760 1.477 0.023 0.140 No
Nov 3.397 3.482 -1.782 0.038 0.075 No
Dec 4.594 4.634 -0.461 0.049 0.645 No
The following table 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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 38

Table 4-30: TMY Weather, 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace
USAF Station ID #of Treatment DD Weighted TMY HDD
Customers
720734 2,127 17,572.64 6,292.74
725780 939 21,045.65 6,292.74
725785 702 23,321.63 6,292.74
725866 176 18,713.59 6,292.74
725867 15 18,850.7 6,292.74
726810 1225 16,409.77 6,292.74
726816 52 18,713.59 6,292.74
726818 154 23,321.63 6,292.74
The table below provides annual savings per customer for the 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace. The PPR
model was selected for ex post savings because it provided the best fit for the data (highest adjusted R-
squared).
Table 4-31:Measure Regression Savings, 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace
#of Annual
Model Treatment #of Control Savings per •0 90%Upper Adjusted R-
Customers
PPR Model 1,532 2,807 31.65 14.23 49.08 0.803
Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level for the combined measures and the adjusted R-
squared shows the model provided a good fit for the data.
4.2.5 Verified Savings
The 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace Program in total displays a realization rate of 51.06%with
348,513.44 Therms verified natural gas energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in
Table 4-24. The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the program deviates from 100% due to
the difference between the minimum federal baseline in which the ex-ante savings were estimated
against, and the RTF market practice baseline. The ISRs for each of these measures was 100% and
therefore did not affect the verified savings realization rates.
The Evaluators recommend that Intermountain Gas align evaluation methods with the utilities present
in Idaho with gas furnace measures. This allows for programs to be evaluated and compared across
utilities with the same measuring stick with results that are supported through peer reviewed and
approved documentation.Therefore,the Evaluators recommend that Intermountain Gas evaluate their
natural gas furnace rebates using the RTF Gas Furnace UES Workbook.
Furthermore, the Evaluators recommend that Intermountain Gas Company utilize the residential TRM
developed using the RTF savings values to estimate expected measure savings for the program moving
Evaluation and Measurement Report 39

forward.This methodology is in line with the evaluation method other utilities in Idaho use to evaluate
their programs.
4.3 SMART THERMOSTATS
The smart thermostat rebate is provided to IGC customers who install an ENERGY STAR-certified smart
thermostat in a residential home with natural gas used for space heating. Existing or new construction
homes are eligible to participate in the program.Table 4-32 summarizes the measures offered under
this program.
Table 4-32:Smart Thermostat Measures
MethodologyMeasure Description Impact Analysis
ENERGY STAR-certified smart thermostat in
Smart Thermostat residential home with natural gas space heating RTF UES
_L
The table below summarizes the verified energy savings for the smart thermostat rebate impact
evaluation.
Table 4-33: Verified Savings for Population of Smart Thermostat Rebates
Population Expected Verified Realization Incent' e
Measure Rebates Savings Savings Rate C.
(Therms) (Therms) I
Smart Thermostat 6,190 272,360.00 129,216.25 47.44% $619,000.00
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the sampled projects reviewed in the
smart thermostat impact evaluation.
Table 4-34: Verified Savings for Sample of Smart Thermostat Rebates
Expected Verified Realization Incentive
Sample Savings Savings
Rebates (Therms) (Therms) Rate Costs
Smart Thermostat 80 1 3,520.00 1,670.00 47.44% $8,000.00
The evaluation team sampled 80 rebated smart thermostats, which met 90/10 precision and confidence
estimates.The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis
activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the Smart Thermostat Rebate Program in the
section below.
4.3.1 Database Review & Document Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator's database review and document verification findings for
the Smart Thermostat measures.
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Smart
Thermostats.The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs.
The Evaluators found all sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency
requirements for the Energy Efficiency Program by identifying equipment specifications in the ENERGY
Evaluation and Measurement Report 40

STAR qualified products list. All rebates were accompanied with appropriate manufacturer and model
number information in order to verify smart thermostat qualification for verified savings.
4.3.2 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 smart thermostat a new construction, or did it replace another smart thermostat?
■ Was the previous thermostat functional?
■ Is the newly installed thermostat still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for smart thermostats.The table
below displays the ISRs for each of the HVAC measures for Idaho service territory.The ISRs resulted in
8.47% precision at the 90%confidence interval for the program.
Table 4-35:Smart Thermostat Verification Survey ISR Results
Program-LevelNumber of Number of
Measure Rebates Survey Precision at In-Service Rate
I Completes 90%Confidence
Smart Thermostat 6,191 93 90%±8.47% 98.02%
Survey respondents displayed an in-service rate of 98.02%.This value closely matches the RTF ISR
assumptions and therefore no adjustments were made to RTF UES values.
4.3.3 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Smart Thermostat Rebate Program. The
Evaluators calculated verified savings for the rebated smart thermostats using the RTF Connected
Thermostats Workbook16.The RTF defines unit-level energy savings for smart thermostats based on
delivery mechanism, heating zone, heating system type, and home construction type. RTF savings are
calculated via a meta-analysis of various smart thermostat billing analysis impact results.
The appropriate unit-level downstream RTF deemed savings value was applied to the random sample of
80 projects based on the smart thermostat's ENERGY STAR certification, heating zone, heating system
type, and home construction type. Each project's inputs were verified with project documents such as
rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and model number.
The Evaluators identified whether the 80 sampled rebates met other RTF smart thermostat
requirements to apply energy savings.The Evaluators then further categorized each sampled project
under single family or multifamily home type, and categorized each project under HZ1, HZ2, or HZ3 in
order to assign appropriate RTF savings.
The Evaluators found that in many cases, project documentation does not verify baseline smart
thermostat type or qualification.The Regional Technical Forum requires that the smart thermostats
replace non-qualifying thermostat. Pre-retrofit equipment type was not a requirement for this measure
offering at the time of being evaluated; however, in order to accurately assign RTF UES savings moving
forward,the pre-retrofit equipment would need to be verified.Therefore,the Evaluators recommend
16 https://nwcounci1.box.com/v/ResConTstats-v2-1
Evaluation and Measurement Report 41

IGC add a question to the smart thermostat rebate form which asks for the install type of the new smart
thermostat and details of the replaced smart thermostat model. If replaced thermostat also meets RTF
qualifications,the project does not qualify for claimed savings.
The Evaluators found that all rebate applications and tracking data contain smart thermostat
manufacturer and model number. The Evaluators searched smart thermostat models through the
ENERGY STAR database and general searches to verify if thermostat met all conditions required from the
RTF measure specifications.The Evaluators verified that 18 of the 80 sampled smart thermostats did not
qualify due to lack of occupancy sensor or geolocation capabilities. For these projects,verified savings
amounted to 0 Therms. For this reason,the Evaluators recommend that IGC require the rebated product
to be RTF-qualified before applying incentive,verify qualification before providing incentive for rebates
and document model number, and document qualification in database. With this method, only products
that meet the RTF specifications of a connected thermostat may receive savings through the RTF
workbook.This includes the following requirements:
■ 7-day programmable or learning-based scheduling
■ Wi-Fi enabled, with remote access
■ Occupancy detection (e.g., motion sensor) (Geolocating does not qualify as motion sensor)
■ Automatic HVAC reduction when home is unoccupied
■ Eligibility: pre-condition is a non-qualifying thermostat
Although this finding does not affect verified impacts,the Evaluators note that the current tracking
database tracks whether smart thermostats were professionally installed or self-installed by collecting
whether a project utilized a contractor to install the equipment.
4.3.4 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators provide the billing analysis results for the Smart Thermostat Rebate Program in this
section. However,the Evaluators recommend that this measure is evaluated through RTF LIES workbook
savings because evaluation through billing analysis includes potential bias that is unable to be reversed
or rectified, such as:
■ Requires assumption that inconsistent occupancy occurs randomly, which cannot be proven
true, which therefore biases the results towards homes that are consistently occupied, and
therefore inflating energy consumption behaviors of consistently occupied homes
■ Many homes have insufficient pre-period billing data, due to new construction or new move in
customers and therefore are not included in the billing analysis.This led to the exclusion of 58%
of the smart thermostat customers in the billing analysis, as seen in the criteria restrictions in
this section.
The table below shows 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. 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 the
Idaho service territory to acquire the maximum number of customers possible.The billing analysis for the
smart thermostat rebate displayed statistically significant savings of 27.96 Therms per rebate. The
following section reports the combined analysis.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 42

Table 4-36:Measures Considered for Billing Analysis,Smart Thermostats
Measure Number of Sufficient M.
Measure Considered for Customers w/ Participation
Billing Analysis Isolated-Measure for Billing
Installations Analysis
95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace ✓ 2,027 ✓
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 the table
below. Also shown in this table 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 4-37:Cohort Restrictions, Smart Thermostats
Data Restriction Treatment control
d& AL Customers Customers
Customers with isolated measure installations 2,027 24,390
Customers with install dates ranging between January 1, 2022 and June 1,685 24,390
30, 2023
Remove customers with multiple accounts for one premise ID 1,685 24,390
Control group Usage Outlier(>25 Therms per day) 1,685 24,380
Incomplete Post-Period Bills (<6 months) 1,599 24,370
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills (<10 months) 1,537 24,369
Remove customers that do not use gas throughout the year 956 24,133
Ending Count(Matched by PSM) 884 1,580
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 the 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, except for two months, March and December.
The following table provides results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment and control
groups after matching for the smart thermostat measure. 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.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 43

Table 4-38:Pre-period Usage T-test for the Smart Thermostats
Average Daily Average Daily
Month Usage Usage T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
(Therms/day), (Therms/day),
Control Treatment
Jan 4.556 4.657 -0.792 0.065 0.428 No
Feb 4.253 4.252 0.732 0.060 0.464 No
Mar 2.975 2.884 3.317 0.035 0.001 Yes
Apr 1.892 1.925 -0.830 0.027 0.407 No
May 1.062 1.099 -1.445 0.024 0.148 No
Jun 0.701 0.674 1.311 0.020 0.190 No
Jul 0.524 0.509 0.746 0.015 0.456 No
Aug 0.527 0.511 0.549 0.017 0.583 No
Sep 0.691 0.683 -0.039 0.020 0.969 No
Oct 1.635 1.615 0.595 0.026 0.552 No
Nov 3.265 3.310 -0.640 0.044 0.522 No
Dec 4.552 4.401 3.634 0.054 0.000 Yes
Table 4-39below 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 4-39: TMY Weather,Smart Thermostats
USAF Station ID Customers DD Weighted TMY HDID
720734 349 5,857.55 6,012.90
725780 46 7,015.22 6,012.90
725785 75 7,773.88 6,012.90
725866 30 6,237.86 6,012.90
725867 5 6,283.57 6,012.90
726810 335 5,469.92 6,012.90
726816 18 6,237.86 6,012.90
726818 26 7,773.88 6,012.90
The table below provides annual savings per customer for the smart thermostat rebate. The PPR model
was selected for ex post savings because it provided the best fit for the data (highest adjusted R-squared).
Evaluation and Measurement Report 44

Table 4-40:Measure Regression Savings,Smart Thermostats
#of Annual
Model Treatment #of Control Savings/ •0 90%Upper Adjusted R-
Customers
Squared
PPR Model 884 1,580 27.96 12.07 43.84 0.811
Savings are statistically significant at the 90%level for the combined measures and the adjusted R-squared
shows the model provided a good fit for the data.
4.3.5 Verified Savings
The Smart Thermostat Rebate Program in total displays a realization rate of 47.44%with 129,216.25
Therms verified natural gas energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 4-33. The
realization rate for the natural gas savings in the program deviates from 100% due to the difference
between the ex-ante savings unit energy assumptions and the deemed savings values.Additionally,
because 18 of the 80 sampled projects were verified to not meet RTF minimum requirements, this
further reduced program-level savings.The ISRs for each of these measures was aligned with the ISR
baked into the RTF UES and therefore did not affect the verified savings realization rates.
The Evaluators recommend that Intermountain Gas align evaluation methods with the utilities present
in Idaho with smart thermostat measures.This allows for programs to be evaluated and compared
across utilities with the same measuring stick with results that are supported through peer reviewed and
approved documentation.Therefore,the Evaluators recommend that Intermountain Gas evaluate their
smart thermostat rebates using the RTF Connected Thermostat UES Workbook.
The Evaluators recommend that Intermountain Gas Company utilize the residential TRM developed
using the RTF savings values to estimate expected measure savings for the program moving forward.
This methodology is in line with the evaluation method other utilities in Idaho use to evaluate their
smart thermostat measures.
4.4 STORAGE TANK WATER HEATERS
The Storage Tank Water Heater Rebate Program provides rebates for customers who install an energy
efficient storage tank water heater in their home displaying UEF equal to or greater than 0.68 UEF, by
new construction or by equipment replacement.Table 4-41 summarizes the measures offered under
this program.
Table 4-41:Storage Tank Water Heater Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
Storage Tank Water Energy efficient storage tank water heater with UEF RTF UES
Heater equal to or greater than 0.68 UEF
The table below summarizes the verified energy savings for the storage tank water heater rebate impact
evaluation.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 45

Table 4-42: Verified Savings for Population of Storage Tank Water Heater Rebates
Population Expected Verified Realization Incentive
Measure Rebates Savings Savings Rate Costs
Storage Tank Water 74 2,812.00 1,032.42 36.71% $8,510.00
Heater
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the sampled projects reviewed in the
storage tank water heater impact evaluation.
Table 4-43: Verified Savings for Sample of Storage Tank Water Heater Rebates
Sample Expected Verified Realization Incentive
Measure Rebates Savings Savings Rate Costs
(Therms) (Therms)
Storage Tank Water 38 1,444.00 528.80 36.62% $4,370.00
Heater
The evaluation team sampled 38 rebated storage tank water heaters, which met 90/10 precision and
confidence estimates.The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact
analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the Storage Tank Water Heater Rebate
Program in the section below.
4.4.1 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the storage tank
water heaters.The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs.
The Evaluators found all sampled storage tank water heater rebates to have complete rebate
applications with the associated water heater model number and efficiency values found in the tracking
database or the invoices associated with the project documents.
All of the sampled projects contained model number data,therefore,the Evaluators were able to
calculate verified savings for all of these projects, as model-specific information (such as capacity and
UEF efficiency) are necessary for water heater savings verification via the RTF Measure Table. The
Evaluators were able to easily verify each sampled rebate's equipment due to inclusion of these
documents.
The Evaluators found all sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the program's efficiency
requirements for the Storage Tank Water Heater Rebate Program except one less than 55-gallon water
heater with a uniform energy factor of 0.63.The savings for this project was zeroed out.
The Evaluators also categorized each water heater's ENERGY STAR certification, condensing
characteristics, and power characteristics to correctly identify measure-level savings for the project.The
Evaluators recommend that Intermountain Gas Company require the rebates through this program to
display ENERGY STAR certifications in order to align with RTF measure specification savings.
The Evaluator found that many of the storage tank water heaters at storage capacities larger than 55
gallons were not ENERGY STAR certified, and therefore did not meet the minimum requirements for RTF
Evaluation and Measurement Report 46

UES attribution.This is because the ENERGY STAR certification requires a UEF of 0.68 for storage tank
water heaters less than 55 gallons, while requiring a UEF of 0.80 for storage tank water heaters greater
than 55 gallons.
4.4.2 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 Storage Tank Water Heater a new construction,or did it replace another heating source?
■ Was the previous heating source functional?
■ Is the newly installed Storage Tank Water Heater still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for Storage Tank Water Heaters.
The responses to these additional questions can be found in Appendix A. Table 4-44 displays the ISR for
the storage tank water heater measure in the Idaho territory.
Table 4-44:Storage Tank Water Heater Verification Survey ISR Results
Number of Program-Level
Measure Number of Survey Precision at In-Service Rate
Rebates Completes 90%
i Confidence
[Storage Tank Water Heater 74 5 90%±35.76% 100.00%
The Evaluators contacted water heater participants in the program to calculate in-service rates for the
measures.Although 90/10 precision was not achieved through the census of web surveys for this
program,the responses received from this measure indicated 100% in-service rates.Therefore, 100% in-
service rates were assumed.The Evaluators applied these ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified
savings for each measure.
4.4.3 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Storage Tank Water Heater Rebate Program.
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for the rebated storage tank water heaters using the RTF
Residential Gas Water Heater Workbook 17.The RTF defines unit-level energy savings for natural gas
storage tank water heaters based on ENERGY STAR certificate, condensing or non-condensing, and
powered or non-powered equipment characteristics, RTF savings require the equipment is ENERGY STAR
V4.0 certified,which requires a minimum UEF of 0.68 for storage tank water heaters less than or equal
to 55 gallons and a UEF of 0.80 for storage tank water heaters greater than 55.
To more accurately assess the realization rate across these equipment types within storage tank water
heaters,the Evaluators separated the population and sampled projects by storage tank capacity and
verified savings in the tables below.
17 https://nwcounci1.box.com/v/ResGasWaterHeaterv1-0
Evaluation and Measurement Report 47

Table 4-45: Verified Savings for Population of Storage Tank Water Heater Rebates, by Tank Size
Population Expected Verified Realization Incentive
Measure Rebates Savings Savings Rate Costs
(Therms) (Therms)
Storage Tank Water 38 1,444.00 956.88 66.27% $4,370.00
Heater<_55 Gallons
Storage Tank Water 36 1,368.00 75.54 5.52%
Heater>55 Gallons $4,140.00
Total 74 2,812.00 1,032.42 36.71% $8,510.00
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the sampled projects reviewed in the
storage tank water heater impact evaluation.
Table 4-46: Verified Savings for Sample of Storage Tank Water Heater Rebates, by Tank Size
Population Expected Verified Realization Incentive
Measure Rebates Savings Savings Rate Costs
(Therms) (Therms)
Storage Tank Water
21 798.00 503.62 63.11% $2,415.00
Heater<_55 Gallons
Storage Tank Water o
17 646.00 25.18 3.90/ $1,955.00
Heater>55 Gallons
Total 38 1,444.00 528.80 36.62% $4,370.00
The realization rate for the storage tank water heaters with less than or equal to 55 gallons display a
realization rate of approximately 66%, while the storage tank water heaters greater than 55 gallons
display a realization rate of approximately 5%due to the ENERGY STAR requirements.
The appropriate unit-level RTF deemed savings value was applied to the random sample of 38 projects
based on the verified project's efficiency level, ENERGY STAR certification requirements, and whether
the water heater was condensing or non-condensing. Each project's inputs were verified with project
documents such as rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
The Evaluators verified that all 38 sampled rebates met or exceeded the program requirements.
However,the realization rate for the program is deflated due to the RTF savings values requiring more
stringent efficiency requirements than the program currently requires.
4.4.4 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators did not conduct a billing analysis for the Storage Tank Water Heater measure due to
insufficient participation.
4.4.5 Verified Savings
The Storage Tank Water Heater Rebate Program in total displays a realization rate of 36.71%with
1,032.42 Therms verified natural gas energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table
4-42.The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the program deviates from 100%due to the RTF
requiring ENERGY STAR certification for prescribing appropriate savings.The ISR for this measure was
100%and therefore did not affect the verified savings realization rate.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 48

The Evaluators recommend that Intermountain Gas Company utilize the residential TRM developed
using the RTF savings values to estimate expected measure savings for the program moving forward.
This methodology is in line with the evaluation method other utilities in Idaho use to evaluate their
storage tank water heater measures.
The Evaluators also recommend that Intermountain Gas Company update storage tank water heater
program requirements to require the equipment is ENERGY STAR-certified. With this requirement,
efficient equipment will qualify for RTF savings even though the ENERGY STAR requirements themselves
are updated.The ENERGY STAR V5.0 certification18 will soon require a minimum UEF of 0.81 for storage
tank water heaters less than or equal to 55 gallons and a UEF of 0.81 for storage tank water heaters
greater than 55 and will also add an additional higher efficiency tier.
4.5 TAN KLESS WATER HEATERS
The tankless water heater Tier I and Tier II rebate provides rebates for customers who install an energy
efficient tankless water heater in their home, by new construction or by equipment replacement.
Customers receive incentives after installation and after submitting a completed rebate form. The table
below summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 4-47: Tankless Water Heater Measures
Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
Tankless Water Heater Tier I Energy efficient tankless water heater with UEF RTF UES
equal to or greater than 0.91
Tankless Water Heater Tier II Energy efficient tankless water heater with UEF RTF UES
equal to or greater than 0.87
The table below summarizes the verified energy savings for the tankless water heater rebate impact
evaluation.
Table 4-48: Verified Savings for Population of Tankless Water Heater Rebates
Population Expected Verified Realization Incentive
Measure Rebates Savings Savings Rate Costs
(Therms) (Therms)
Tankless Water Heater Tier 1 1,535 99,775.00 90,633.94 90.84% $498,875.00
Tankless Water Heater Tier II 29 1,682.00 1,379.95 82.04% $8,700.00
Total 1,564 101,457.00 92,013.90 90.69% $507,575.00
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the sampled projects reviewed in the
tankless water heater impact evaluation.
Table 4-49: Verified Savings for Sample of Tankless Water Heater Rebates
Sample Expected Verified Realization Incentive
Measure Rebates Savings Savings Rate Costs
(Therms) (Therms)
Tankless Water Heater Tier 1 71 4,615.00 1 4,192.19 90.84% $23,075.00
18 https://www.energystar.gov/products/spec/residential water heaters_specification_version_5_0_pd
Evaluation and Measurement Report 49

Tankless Water Heater Tier II 29 1,682.00 1,379.95 82.04% $8,700.00
Total 100 6,297.00 5,572.14 88.49% $31,775.00
The evaluation team sampled 100 rebated tankless water heaters, which met 90/10 precision and
confidence estimates for each tier level.The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-
specific impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the Tankless Water
Heater Rebate Program in the section below.
4.5.1 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the tankless
water heaters.The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs.
The Evaluators found all sampled tankless water heater rebates to have completed rebate applications
with the associated water heater model number and efficiency values filled in either the tracking
database or the invoices associated with the project documents.The Evaluators note that the tracking
data is consistent with the values found in the mail-in rebate applications, and invoices submitted with
the rebate application. Additionally,the manufacturer and model information were sufficient for the
Evaluators to identify appropriate AHRI certifications through the AHRI directory. The Evaluators found
that the tracked UEF values provided by Intermountain Gas Company closely aligned with verified UEF
documented from AHRI certificates.
All of the sampled projects contained model number data,therefore,the Evaluators were able to
calculate verified savings for all of these projects, as model-specific information (such as usage bin and
UEF efficiency) are necessary for water heater savings verification via the RTF Measure Table.The RTF
currently requires tankless water heaters to have UEF efficiency larger than or equal to 0.87 UEF, which
aligns with the current program specifications.The Evaluators were able to easily verify each sampled
rebate's equipment due to inclusion of these documents.The RTF Tankless Water Heater savings LIES do
not require ENERGY STAR certification.
The Evaluators found all sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the program's efficiency
requirements for the Tankless Water Heater Rebate Program.
4.5.2 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 tankless water heater a new construction, or did it replace another water heating
source?
■ Was the previous water heating source functional?
■ Is the newly installed tankless water heater still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for tankless water heaters.The
responses to these additional questions can be found in Appendix A.Table 4-50 displays the ISR for the
tankless water heater measure in the Idaho territory.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 50

Table 4-50: Tankless Water Heater Verification Survey ISR Results
Number of Program-Level
Measure Number of Survey Precision at In-Service Rate
Rebates Completes 90%
Confidence
Tankless Water Heater Tier 1 1,535 66 90%±9.91% 100.00%
Tankless Water Heater Tier II 29 5 90%±34.05% 100.00%
The Evaluators contacted Tankless Water Heater participants in the program to calculate in-service rates
for the measures.Although 90/10 precision was not achieved through the census of web surveys for the
Tankless Water Heater Tier II measure,the responses received from this measure indicated 100% in-
service rates for both measures. 100% in-service rates were assumed.The Evaluators applied these ISRs
to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each measure.
4.5.3 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Tankless Water Heater Rebate Program.The
Evaluators calculated verified savings for the rebated tankless water heaters using the RTF Residential
Gas Water Heater Workbook19.The RTF defines unit-level energy savings for natural gas tankless water
heaters based on UES value, condensing or non-condensing, and powered or non-powered equipment
characteristics. RTF savings do not require the equipment is ENERGY STAR certified.
The appropriate unit-level RTF deemed savings value was applied to the random sample of 71 Tier I and
29 Tier II projects based on the verified project's efficiency level, ENERGY STAR certification
requirements, and whether the water heater was condensing or non-condensing. Each project's inputs
were verified with project documents such as rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and
efficiency of the equipment.The Evaluators verified that all sampled rebates met or exceeded the
program requirements.
4.5.4 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators attempted to conduct a billing analysis for this measure, but were unable to establish
statistically significant savings for the measure.
4.5.5 Verified Savings
The Tankless Water Heater Rebate Program in total displays a realization rate of 90.69%with 92,014.90
Therms verified natural gas energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 4-48.The
realization rate for the natural gas savings in the program deviates from 100%due to slight differences
between the expected savings value for the measure overall and the RTF UES dependent on equipment
specification.The ISRs for each of these measures was 100%and therefore did not affect the verified
savings realization rates.
The Evaluators recommend that Intermountain Gas remove Tier II incentives. Participation for this
measure is reduced;therefore, continuing incentives for the Tier I, or, higher efficiency equipment, will
encourage customers to follow the natural market shift that is already occurring.
19 https://nwcounci1.box.com/v/ResGasWaterHeaterv1-0
Evaluation and Measurement Report 51

The Evaluators also recommend Intermountain Gas consider offering tiered incentives for ENERGY STAR-
qualified and non-ENERGY STAR-qualified tankless water heaters to account for differing savings
estimates between the two measure specifications in the RTF workbook.
The Evaluators also recommend that Intermountain Gas Company utilize the residential TRM developed
using the RTF savings values to estimate expected measure savings for the program moving forward.
This methodology is in line with the evaluation method other utilities in Idaho use to evaluate their
water heater programs and tankless water heater measures.
4.6 BOILERS & COMBINATION BOILERS
The Boiler and Combination Boiler Rebate Program provides rebates for customers who install an energy
efficient boiler or combination boiler with greater than or equal to 95%AFUE efficiency, by new
construction or by equipment replacement. Customers receive incentives after installation and after
submitting a completed rebate form.The table below summarizes the measures offered under this
program.
Table 4-51:Boiler and Combination Boiler Measures
Impact Analysis
Description .. . .•
95%AFUE Boiler Energy efficient boiler with AFUE equal to or Illinois TRM V12.0,
greater than 95% Section 5.3.6
95%AFUE Combination Energy efficient combination boiler with Illinois TRM V12.0,
Boiler AFUE equal to or greater than 95% Section 5.3.17
The table below summarizes the verified energy savings for the boiler and combination boiler rebate
impact evaluation.
Table 4-52: Verified Savings for Population of Boiler and Combination Boiler Rebates
Population Expected Veri.fied Realization Incentive
Measure Rebates Savings Savings Rate Costs
(Therms) (Therms)
95%AFUE Boiler 23 3,657.00 2,380.23 65.09% $18,400.00
95%AFUE Combination Boiler 17 2,635.00 2,860.16 108.55% $13,600.00
Total 40 6,292.00 5,240.39 83.29% $32,000.00
The evaluation team sampled the census of rebated boilers and combination boilers,which met 90/10
precision and confidence estimates for each tier level.The Evaluators summarize the program-specific
and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the Boiler
and Combination Boiler Rebate Program in the section below.
4.6.1 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the boilers and
combination boilers.The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs.
The Evaluators found all rebates to have completed rebate applications with the associated equipment
model number and efficiency values filled in either the tracking database or the invoices associated with
Evaluation and Measurement Report 52

the project documents.The Evaluators note that the tracking data is consistent with the values found in
the mail-in rebate applications, and invoices submitted with the rebate application.Additionally,the
manufacturer and model information were sufficient for the Evaluators to identify appropriate AHRI
certifications through the AHRI directory.The Evaluators found that the tracked AFUE and input capacity
values provided by Intermountain Gas Company closely aligned with verified AFUE and input capacity
values documented from AHRI certificates.
All of the sampled projects contained model number data,therefore,the Evaluators were able to
calculate verified savings for all of these projects, as model-specific information (such as input capacity
and AFUE value) are necessary for boiler savings verification via the Illinois TRM V12.0.The Evaluators
were able to easily verify each sampled rebate's equipment due to inclusion of these documents. The
Evaluators found all sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the program's efficiency requirements
for the Boiler and Combination Boiler Rebate Program.
The Evaluators evaluated program savings through the Illinois TRM with RTF inputs because the RTF
does not provide UES savings for boilers. However,the Evaluators estimated region-specific savings by
incorporating RTF water temperature and baseline assumptions, as well as actual participant effective
full load hours (EFLH).
4.6.2 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 boiler or combination boiler a new construction, or did it replace another heating
source?
■ Was the previous heating source functional?
■ Is the newly installed boiler still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for boiler and combination boiler
rebates.The responses to these additional questions can be found in Appendix A.Table 4-53 displays
the ISR for the boiler and combination boiler measures in the Idaho territory.
Table 4-53:Boiler and Combination Boiler Rebate Verification Survey ISR Results
T Number of Program-Level
Measure Number of Survey Precision at In-Service Rate
Rebates Completes
Confidence
95%AFUE Boiler_ 23 3 90%±45.28% 100.00%
95%AFUE Combination Boiler 17 5 90%±38.16% 100.00%
The Evaluators contacted boiler and combination boiler participants in the program to calculate in-
service rates for the measures. Although 90/10 precision was not achieved through the census of web
surveys for these measures, the responses received indicated 100% in-service rates. 100% in-service
rates were assumed.The Evaluators applied these ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified savings for
each measure.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 53

4.6.3 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Boiler and Combination Boiler Rebate
Program.The Evaluators calculated verified savings for the boilers using the Illinois Technical Reference
Manual V12.020, Section 5.3.6 and the combination boilers using the Illinois Regional Technical Forum
V12.0 Section 5.3.17.The Evaluators summarize the equations utilized below.
Equation 4-1:Boiler Engineering Algorithm
AThermBoiier = (EFLH * CAPinput * AFUEEff — 1)/100,000
AFUE ,,,,
Equation 4-2: Combination Boiler Engineering Algorithm
ATherms = AThermBoiier + AThermWH
AThermBoiier = (EFLH * CAPinput * AFUEEff AFUE — 1)/100,000
Base
1 1 * (GPD per household * 365.25 * ywater * T Tin)
—
�ThermwH = ( out — In
UEFBase UEFE f f
* 1.0)/100,0000
The Evaluators assumed the following inputs:
■ EFLH: 591.82, determined from program participant billing data
■ CAPinput:Verified AHRI documentation for each project
■ AFUEEff: Verified AHRI documentation for each project
■ AFUEBase: 84%AFUE, referenced from IL TRM V12.0
■ UEFEff:Verified AHRI documentation for each project
■ UEFBaSe: 0.563 UEF, referenced IL TRM V12.0
■ GPD:41.30, referenced RTF water heating workbook
■ Ywater: 8.33, referenced IL TRM V12.0
• Tout — TIn:67.5, referenced RTF water heating workbook
The savings claimed for these rebates were estimated using the Illinois TRM V7.0.The Evaluators
calculated project-level engineering algorithms using verified inputs. Each project's inputs were verified
with project documents such as rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the
equipment.
The Evaluators verified that all rebates met or exceeded the program requirements. However,the
realization rate for the 95%AFUE Boiler rebates are deflated due to the verified savings values requiring
more stringent efficiency baseline assumptions than the expected savings were calculated with.
20https://icc.illinois.gov/api/web-management/documents/downloads/public/il-trm-12/I L-
TRM_Effective_010124_v 12.0_Vo1_3_Res_09222023_F I NAL_clean.pdf
Evaluation and Measurement Report 54

4.6.4 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators attempted to conduct a billing analysis for these measures but were unable to establish
statistically significant savings.
4.6.5 Verified Savings
The Boiler and Combination Boiler Rebate Program in total displays a realization rate of 83.29%with
5,240.39 Therms verified natural gas energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table
4-52. Intermountain Gas Company calculated the expected savings values for these measures through
the Illinois TRM V7.0 while the Evaluators verified savings through the Illinois TRM V12.0 with RTF
inputs. The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the program deviates from 100% due to slight
differences between the baseline efficiency values and EFLH values applied to calculate expected savings
for each measure.The ISRs for each of these measures were 100%and therefore did not affect the
verified savings realization rates.
The Evaluators recommend that Intermountain Gas Company utilize the residential TRM developed
using the RTF savings values to estimate expected measure savings for the program moving forward.
This methodology is in line with the evaluation method other utilities in Idaho use to evaluate their
space heating measures.
4.7 TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL
The Evaluators will deliver to Intermountain Gas Company a residential portfolio technical reference
manual in association with the impact evaluation results presented in this report. This document will be
delivered separately from this report.
The purpose of the Intermountain Gas Company Technical Reference Manual is to provide a single
common reference document to estimate energy savings from energy efficiency measures promoted by
IGC's programs. One of the primary objectives of the TRM is uniform application of savings methods and
their assumptions.The TRM will aim to provide consistent savings estimates across programs and within
IGC's utility service territory.This document is a compilation of deemed savings values, prescriptive
methods and billing analyses approved by the advisory group for use in estimating savings for energy
efficiency measures.
The data and methodologies in the document are to be used by program planners, administrators,
implementers, and evaluators for forecasting, reporting, and evaluating energy savings from energy
efficiency measures installed in Idaho. By establishing clear qualification criteria for the development of
projected and claimed savings estimates,the TRM will provide transparency of savings for all interested
stakeholders.
For the document to be an effective tool it requires periodic revision and updates and is referred to as a
'living document.'
4.7.1 List of Measures
ADM expects that IGC staff will require the following measures for inclusion in the first iteration of the
Intermountain Gas Company Technical Reference Manual:
■ Whole Home Rebate Tier I
Evaluation and Measurement Report 55

■ Whole Home Rebate Tier II
■ 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace
■ Smart Thermostats
■ Storage Tank Water Heater
■ Tankless Water Heater Tier I
■ Tankless Water Heater Tier 11
■ 95%AFUE Boiler
■ 95%AFUE Combination Boiler
4.7.2 Provide Updated Manual and Supporting Calculations
Once all document revisions and updates have been finalized, the Evaluators will submit the new
version of the IGC Technical Reference Manual in both Word and PDF formats, with accompanying
supporting materials, such as live Excel-based savings development calculators, calculators intended for
TRM users, information and savings sources, change log, updated master measure spreadsheet and
other information.
The manual will also include a reviewed and updated Executive Summary, Introduction and Definitions
section of the document,to reflect edits to the current version. Included will be an inventory of key
updates, including the specific measure(s) and what was changed.
While the content will be well-vetted at this point and provide no surprises,the utility will have the
opportunity to review, comment and provide feedback to the Evaluators prior to finalization of the
document and updated TRM package.
Each chapter will be accompanied by an inventory of changes and all supporting documentation such as
live savings calculation workbooks, links to referenced data and/or studies and any related calculator
intended as a supplement.
5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following section outlines key findings as well as recommendations from program changes to better
assist IGC's customers moving forward.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 56

5.1 REBATE-LEVEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1.1 Whole Home Rebates
Table 5-1: Whole Home Rebates Findings and Recommendations
Finding Recommendation
The Whole Home Rebate Program in total
displays a verified savings of 349,438.39 Therms
with a realization rate of 85.99%in the Idaho
service territory.The realization rate for the
natural gas savings in the Whole Home Rebate N/A
Program deviates from 100%due to deviations in
expected savings per unit estimated through
previous impact evaluation projections and actual
project efficiency details.
Overall, the tracking database was well-organized
and complete.The large majority of values in the
tracking database matched the Ekotrope report
outputs. However,for the one Whole Home Tier I
project in which the furnace AFUE did not meet
the program requirements,there was a mismatch The Evaluators recommend IGC staff thoroughly
in the tracking database AFUE value and the review the model efficiencies in the applications
validated model number efficiency. No other before dispersing incentives to the customers,
deviations were identified during document and more clearly communicate the tiered
verification or database review. requirements.
One of the Tier I rebates incented in this
evaluation period did not meet the minimum
AFUE requirements through the program.This
project should therefore have been categorized
as a Tier II rebate incentive.
The Evaluators therefore recommend that
Intermountain Gas align evaluation methods with
The Evaluators concluded that all other Idaho the utilities present in Idaho with residential new
utilities (Idaho Power, Avista, and Rocky construction programs, which allows for
Mountain Power) use modeling against code programs to be evaluated and compared across
baseline to evaluate their programs and that utilities with the same measuring stick with
evaluating the Whole Home Rebates Program results that are supported through peer reviewed
through billing analysis is not recommended and approved documentation.The Evaluator's
because it would lead to potential bias that is verified savings summarized align with the RTF
unable to be reversed or rectified. New Home Protocol and we recommend that
Intermountain Gas evaluate their Whole Home
Program using the RTF New Home Protocol.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 57

5.1.2 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace Rebates Findings and Recommendations
Table 5-2:95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace Rebates Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation
The 95%AFUE Natural Gas Furnace Program in
total displays a realization rate of 51.06%with
348,513.44 Therms verified natural gas energy
savings in the Idaho service territory.The
realization rate for the natural gas savings in the
program deviates from 100%due to the N/A
difference between the minimum federal
baseline in which the ex-ante savings were
estimated against, and the RTF market practice
baseline.The ISRs for each of these measures
was 100%and therefore did not affect the
verified savings realization rates.
The Evaluators found all rebates to have project
documentation with the associated HVAC model
number and efficiency values in either the
program application or project invoices.The N/A
Evaluators verified that all 71 sampled rebates
met or exceeded the 95%AFUE efficiency
requirement through verified AHRI certificates.
The Evaluators recommend that Intermountain
Gas align evaluation methods with the utilities
present in Idaho with gas furnace measures.This
allows for programs to be evaluated and
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for the compared across utilities with the same
rebated furnaces using the RTF Residential Gas measuring stick with results that are supported
Furnaces Workbook through peer reviewed and approved
documentation.Therefore,the Evaluators
recommend that Intermountain Gas evaluate
their natural gas furnace rebates using the RTF
Gas Furnace LIES Workbook.
21 https://nwcounci1.box.com/v/ResESGasFurnacesv1-1
Evaluation and Measurement Report 58

5.1.3 Smart Thermostat Rebates Findings and Recommendations
Table 5-3:Smart Thermostat Rebates Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation
The Smart Thermostat Rebate Program in total
displays a realization rate of 47.44%with
129,216.25 Therms verified natural gas energy
savings in the Idaho service territory.The
realization rate for the natural gas savings in the
program deviates from 100%due to the N/A
difference between the ex-ante savings unit
energy assumptions and the RTF deemed savings
values.The ISRs for each of these measures was
closely matched to ISRs baked into the RTF UES
and therefore did not affect the verified savings
realization rates.
The Evaluators found that in many cases, project Although the current rebate application already
documentation does not verify baseline smart asks the customer to define the previous
thermostat type or qualification.The Regional
thermostat type,the Evaluators recommend IGC
Technical Forum requires that the smart clarify the question currently posed to improve
thermostats replace non-programmable clarity. If replaced thermostat also meets RTF
equipment.
qualifications,the project does not qualify for
claimed savings.
The Evaluators found that all rebate applications
and tracking data contain smart thermostat The Evaluators recommend that IGC require the
manufacturer and model number.The Evaluators rebated product to be RTF-qualified before
searched smart thermostat models through the applying incentive, verify qualification before
ENERGY STAR database and general searches to providing incentive for rebates and document
verify if thermostat met all conditions required model number, and document qualification in
from the RTF measure specifications.The database. With this method, only products that
Evaluators verified that 18 of the 80 sampled meet the RTF specifications of a connected
thermostat may receive savings through the RTF
smart thermostats did not qualify due to lack of
workbook.
occupancy sensor or geolocation capabilities.
The Evaluators recommend that Intermountain
Gas align evaluation methods with the utilities
present in Idaho with smart thermostat rebates.
This allows for programs to be evaluated and
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for the compared across utilities with the same
rebated smart thermostats using the RTF measuring stick with results that are supported
Connected Thermostats Workbook22. through peer reviewed and approved
documentation.Therefore,the Evaluators
recommend that Intermountain Gas evaluate
their natural gas furnace rebates using the RTF
Connected Thermostat UES Workbook.
zz https://nwcounci1.box.com/v/ResConTstats-v2-1
Evaluation and Measurement Report 59

5.1.4 Storage Tank Water Heater Rebates Findings and Recommendations
Table 5-4:Storage Tank Water Heater Rebates Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation
The Storage Tank Water Heater Rebate Program
in total displays a realization rate of 36.71%with
1,032.42 Therms verified natural gas energy
savings in the Idaho service territory.The
realization rate for the natural gas savings in the N/A
program deviates from 100%due to the RTF
requiring ENERGY STAR certification for
prescribing appropriate savings.The ISRs for each
of these measures was 100%and therefore did
not affect the verified savings realization rates.
The Evaluators found all sampled rebate
equipment met or exceeded the program's
efficiency requirements for the Storage Tank N/A
Water Heater Rebate Program except one less
than 55-gallon water heater with a uniform
energy factor of 0.63.
The Evaluator found that many of the storage
tank water heaters at storage capacities larger
than 55 gallons were not ENERGY STAR certified,
and therefore did not meet the minimum
requirements for RTF UES attribution.This is N/A
because the ENERGY STAR certification requires a
UEF of 0.68 for storage tank water heaters less
than 55 gallons,while requiring a UEF of 0.80 for
storage tank water heaters greater than 55
gallons.
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for the
rebated storage tank water heaters using the RTF
Residential Gas Water Heater Workbook23.The
RTF defines unit-level energy savings for natural The Evaluators recommend that Intermountain
gas storage tank water heaters based on ENERGY Gas Company update storage tank water heater
STAR certificate, condensing or non-condensing, program requirements to require the equipment
and powered or non-powered equipment is ENERGY STAR-certified. With this requirement,
characteristics, RTF savings require the efficient equipment will qualify for RTF savings
equipment is ENERGY STAR V4.0 certified, which even though the ENERGY STAR requirements
requires a minimum UEF of 0.68 for storage tank themselves are updated.
water heaters less than or equal to 55 gallons and
a UEF of 0.80 for storage tank water heaters
greater than 55.
21 https://nwcounci1.box.com/v/ResGasWaterHeaterv1-0
Evaluation and Measurement Report 60

5.1.5 Tankless Water Heater Rebates Findings and Recommendations
Table 5-5: Tankless Water Heater Rebates Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation
The Tankless Water Heater Rebate Program in
total displays a realization rate of 90.69%with
92,014.90 Therms verified natural gas energy
savings in the Idaho service territory.The
realization rate for the natural gas savings in the
program deviates from 100%due to slight N/A
differences between the expected savings value
for the measure overall and the RTF UES
dependent on equipment specification.The ISRs
for each of these measures was 100%and
therefore did not affect the verified savings
realization rates.
The Evaluators found all sampled rebate
equipment met or exceeded the program's
efficiency requirements for the Tankless Water
Heater Rebate Program.The Evaluators note that
the tracking data is consistent with the values
found in the mail-in rebate applications, and
invoices submitted with the rebate application.
The manufacturer and model information were N/A
sufficient for the Evaluators to identify
appropriate efficiency values from the AHRI
certifications collected through the AHRI
directory.The Evaluators found that the tracked
UEF values provided by Intermountain Gas
Company closely aligned with verified UEF
documented from AHRI certificates.
The Evaluators recommend that Intermountain
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for the Gas remove Tier II incentives. Participation for
rebated tankless water heaters using the RTF this measure is reduced; therefore, continuing
Residential Gas Water Heater Workbook24.The incentives for the Tier I, or, higher efficiency
RTF defines unit-level energy savings for natural equipment, will encourage customers to follow
gas tankless water heaters based on UES value, the natural market shift that is already occurring.
condensing or non-condensing, and powered or The Evaluators also recommend Intermountain
non-powered equipment characteristics. RTF Gas consider offering tiered incentives for
savings do not require the equipment is ENERGY ENERGY STAR-qualified and non-ENERGY STAR-
STAR certified. qualified tankless water heaters to account for
differing savings estimates
24 https://nwcounci1.box.com/v/ResGasWaterHeaterv1-0
Evaluation and Measurement Report 61

5.1.6 Boiler and Combination Boiler Rebates Findings and Recommendations
Table 5-6:Boiler and Combination Boiler Rebates Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation
The Boiler and Combination Boiler Rebate
Program in total displays a realization rate of
83.29%with 5,240.39 Therms verified natural gas
energy savings in the Idaho service territory.The N/A
ISRs for each of these measures was 100%and
therefore did not affect the verified savings
realization rates.
Intermountain Gas Company calculated the
expected savings values for these measures
through the Illinois TRM V7.0 while the
Evaluators verified savings through the Illinois The Evaluators recommend that the boiler and
TRM V12.0 with RTF inputs.The realization rate
for the natural gas savings in the program combination boiler measures are evaluated using
deviates from 100%due to slight differences Illinois TRM V12.0 with RTF inputs.
between the baseline efficiency values and EFLH
values applied to calculate expected savings for
each measure.
The Evaluators found that the tracked AFUE and
input capacity values provided by Intermountain
Gas Company closely aligned with verified AFUE
and input capacity values documented from AHRI N/A
certificates.The Evaluators verified that all
rebates met or exceeded the program
requirements.
Evaluation and Measurement Report 62

6 APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Table 6-1:Overview of Data Collection Activity
Descriptor This Instrument
Instrument Type Web survey
Estimated Time to Complete 10 minutes
Population Description Residential Rebate program participants
Target confidence/precision 90/10
Contact List Source and Date Program data
Type of Sampling Stratified random
Contact Sought Customer
Fielding Firm ADM
Incentive $15 per completed survey
Table 6-2:Survey Variables
Variables
YEAR Program participation year
WHOLE HOME Whole Home Rebate participant
TIER1 Whole Home Tier 1
TIER2 Whole Home Tier 2
STACKED Stacked Rebate
MEASUREI Storage tank water heater
MEASURE2 95%Gas furnace
MEASURE3 Smart thermostat
MEASURE4 Tankless water heater
MEASURES Whole home
Recruitment Scripts
Email Recruitment Script
Subject: Invitation to Provide Feedback on Intermountain Gas' Residential Rebate Programs
Dear [NAME],
Intermountain Gas Company (IGC) is conducting a survey with their customers to better understand
awareness of energy efficiency programs, specifically their residential programs.
Intermountain Gas has hired ADM Associates as a third-party evaluator to contact their customers, like
you,for feedback on their programs.Your responses will be kept completely confidential and the feedback
that you provide will be used to help improve the program in the future. As a thank you for completing
the survey we will provide a $15 electronic gift card. Please take a few minutes to complete the online
survey.
[LINK TO SURVEY]
We will treat all data collected in this study confidentially. If you have any questions about how we treat
collected data, please see ADM's privacy policy at https://www.odmenergy.com/privacy. If you have
questions about this research, please feel free to contact me by return email or at [SURVEYOR PHONE##]
or [IGC CONTACT INFORMATION].
Sincerely, [EMAILER'S NAME]
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 63

Customer Survey
Welcome! Thank you for taking this survey to tell us about your experience with Intermountain Gas's
[PROGRAM]. Your feedback is very important to us and will help us improve programs for customers like
you.This survey should take 10-15 minutes to complete.Your responses are confidential and will be used
for research purposes only. Once you have entered a response for each question, use the arrow at the
bottom right of the screen to move to the next question.
Screening
1. Program records indicate that you received a rebate through Intermountain Gas's residential
program in [YEAR] at [ADDRESS]. Is this correct?
1. Yes
2. No, I received a rebate BUT my address is incorrect. Please provide the correct address:
[OPEN-ENDED]
3. No, I did not receive a rebate [TERMINATE]
Program Participation
In this section we will ask you about your participation in the program.
2. Please confirm the measures that you installed. If you are unsure if the measure was installed,
please select the "no" option.
1. Storage tank water heater[Y/N]
2. 95%gas furnace [Y/N]
3. Smart thermostat [Y/N]
4. Tankless water heater [Y/N]
5. Boiler[Y/N]
6. Combination boiler [Y/N]
3. Please confirm the measures that you installed.
1. Storage tank water heater
2. 95%gas furnace
3. Smart thermostat
4. Tankless water heater
5. Boiler
6. Combination boiler
4. How did you first learn about the Residential Rebate program? Select all that apply. [MULTI-
SELECT]
1. Intermountain Gas mailer
2. Bill insert
3. Intermountain Gas website
4. Email from Intermountain Gas
5. Newspaper or magazine advertisement
6. Internet search
7. Community event
8. Social media (i.e. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, etc.)
9. Contractor
10. Word of mouth (friend,family, colleague, neighbor, etc.)
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 64

5. Why did you decide to participate in the program? Please select all that apply[MULTI-SELECT]
1. Save money on energy bills
2. Improve the comfort of my home
3. Conserve energy and/or protect the environment
4. Become as energy efficient as my friends or neighbors
5. Recommendation from a friend, family member, colleague, neighbor, etc.
6. Recommendation from a contractor
7. Recommendation from Intermountain Gas
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
Measure Verification
[DISPLAY SECTION IF Q2=1]
Storage Water Heater
6. Why did you select the model/type for your storage water heater? Select all that apply [MULTI-
SELECT]
1. It was a good price
2. There was a rebate for it
3. It costs less to operate it
4. It's good for the environment
5. It was all that was available/only choice
6. The contractor recommended it
7. It had features I wanted
8. It was the brand I wanted
9. It had an ENERGY STAR label
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
7. Did you have difficulty getting the efficient storage water heater that qualified for a rebate?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q6=1]
8. What was the primary difficulty you had?
1. It was unavailable, needed to be ordered
2. It took a long time to get it delivered
3. It was hard to find a contractor
96. Something else (Please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
9. How long did you have to wait to get the storage water heater?
1. Less than a week
2. 1-2 weeks
3. 3-4 weeks
4. More than a month
10. Was this new installation part of a larger project?
1. Yes, it was part of a larger replacement of my heating system
2. Yes, it was part of a newly constructed home
3. Yes, it was part of a home remodeling project
4. No, it was a standalone replacement
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 65

96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
11. Did you replace an older tankless water heater?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF 10=1]
12. Did the replaced storage water heater still work when you replaced it?
1. Yes
2. No
98. 1 don't know
13. How old was your storage water heater when you replaced it?
1. Number of years: [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q11=1]
14. If the Intermountain Gas incentive program was not available, when would you have likely
replaced your storage water heater?
1. At the same time
2. Later, but within a year
3. One to two years out
4. More than two years out or never
98. 1 don't know
15. What type of fuel did your old storage water heater use?
1. Electricity
2. Gas
96. Other(please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
16. On a scale from one to five, where one means "very dissatisfied" and five means "very satisfied",
how satisfied are you with the performance of your storage water heater?
1. 1-very dissatisfied
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 1-very dissatisfied
17. Is the new storage water heater that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
1. Yes
2. No, it is installed BUT not working
3. No, it is not installed BUT it is working
4. No, it is not installed AND not working
5. 1 don't know
[DISPLAY SECTION IF Q2=2]
Gas Furnace
18. Why did you select the model/type for your gas furnace?Select all that apply [MULTI-SELECT]
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 66

1. It was a good price
2. There was a rebate for it
3. It costs less to operate it
4. It's good for the environment
5. It was all that was available/only choice
6. The contractor recommended it
7. It had features I wanted
8. It was the brand I wanted
9. It had an ENERGY STAR label
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
19. Did you have difficulty getting the efficient gas furnace that qualified for a rebate?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q19=1]
20. What was the primary difficulty you had?
1. It was unavailable, needed to be ordered
2. It took a long time to get it delivered
3. It was hard to find a contractor
96. Something else (Please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
21. How long did you have to wait to get the gas furnace?
1. Less than a week
2. 1-2 weeks
3. 3-4 weeks
4. More than a month
22. Was this new installation part of a larger project?
1. Yes, it was part of a larger replacement of my heating system
2. Yes, it was part of a newly constructed home
3. Yes, it was part of a home remodeling project
4. No, it was a standalone replace
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
23. Did you replace an older gas furnace?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q23=1]
24. Did the replaced gas furnace still work when you replaced it?
1. Yes
2. No
98. 1 don't know
25. How old was your gas furnace when you replaced it?
1. Number of years: [OPEN-ENDED]
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 67

[DISPLAY IF Q24=1]
26. If the Intermountain Gas incentive program was not available, when would you have likely
replaced your gas furnace?
1. At the same time
2. Later, but within a year
3. One to two years out
4. More than two years out or never
98. 1 don't know
27. What type of fuel did your old furnace use?
1. Electricity
2. Gas
96. Other(please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
28. On a scale from one to five, where one means "very dissatisfied" and five means "very satisfied",
how satisfied are you with the performance of your furnace?
1. 1-very dissatisfied
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5-very satisfied
29. Is the new furnace that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
1. Yes
2. No, it is installed BUT not working
3. No, it is not installed BUT it is working
4. No, it is not installed AND not working
98. 1 don't know
Smart Thermostat
[DISPLAY SECTION IF Q2=3]
30. Why did you select the model/type for your smart thermostat? Select all that apply [MULTI-
SELECT]
1. It was a good price
2. There was a rebate for it
3. It costs less to operate it
4. It's good for the environment
5. It was all that was available/only choice
6. The contractor recommended it
7. The retailer recommended it
8. It had features I wanted
9. It was the right size or color
10. It was the brand I wanted
96. Other-please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
31. Was this thermostat a new installation or did you replace existing equipment?
1. New installation-no previous thermostat
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 68

2. Replaced a different smart thermostat(WIFI-connected)
3. Replaced a programmable thermostat
4. Replaced a previous standard thermostat
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
32. Was this new installation part of a larger project?
1. Yes, it was part of a larger replacement of my heating system
2. Yes, it was part of a newly constructed home
3. Yes, it was part of a home remodeling project
4. No, it was a standalone replace
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
33. Was the C-wire (common wire) connected during the installation of your thermostat?
1. Yes, I connected the C-wire
2. No, I did not connect
3. Not applicable-my thermostat does not require a C-wire
98. 1 don't know
34. Does the smart thermostat control a central cooling system, a central heating system, or both?
1. Central cooling system
2. Central heating system
3. Both cooling and heating systems
98. 1 don't know
[DISPLAY Q35&Q36 IF Q34=2,3]
35. What type of central heating system do you have?
1. Central furnace
2. Heat pump
98. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
36. What is the main fuel used by the central heating system?
1. Electricity
2. Natural gas
3. Propane
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
37. Is the new smart thermostat that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
1. Yes
2. No, it is installed BUT not working
3. No, it is not installed BUT it is working
4. No, it is not installed AND not working
98. 1 don't know
[DISPLAY SECTION IF Q2=4]
Tankless Water Heater
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 69

38. Why did you select the model/type for your tankless water heater? Select all that apply [MULTI-
SELECT]
1. It was a good price
2. There was a rebate for it
3. It costs less to operate it
4. It's good for the environment
5. It was all that was available/only choice
6. The contractor recommended it
7. It had features I wanted
8. It was the brand I wanted
9. It had an ENERGY STAR label
97. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
39. Did you have difficulty getting the efficient tankless water heater that qualified for a rebate?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q39=1]
40. What was the primary difficulty you had?
1. It was unavailable, needed to be ordered
2. It took a long time to get it delivered
3. It was hard to find a contractor
97. Something else (Please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
41. How long did you have to wait to get the tankless water heater?
1. Less than a week
2. 1-2 weeks
3. 3-4 weeks
4. More than a month
42. Was this new installation part of a larger project?
1. Yes, it was part of a larger replacement of my heating system
2. Yes, it was part of a newly constructed home
3. Yes, it was part of a home remodeling project
4. No, it was a standalone replace
97. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
43. Did you replace an older tankless water heater?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q43=1]
44. Did the replaced tankless water heater still work when you replaced it?
1. Yes
2. No
99. 1 don't know
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 70

45. How old was your tankless water heater when you replaced it?
1. Number of years: [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q43=1]
46. If the Intermountain Gas incentive program was not available, when would you have likely
replaced your tankless water heater?
1. At the same time
2. Later, but within a year
3. One to two years out
4. More than two years out or never
99. 1 don't know
47. What type of fuel did your old tankless water heater use?
1. Electricity
2. Gas
97. Other(please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
48. On a scale from one to five, where one means "very dissatisfied" and five means "very satisfied",
how satisfied are you with the performance of your tankless water heater?
1. 1-very dissatisfied
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5-very satisfied
49. Is the new tankless water heater that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
1. Yes
2. No, it is installed BUT not working
3. No, it is not installed BUT it is working
4. No, it is not installed AND not working
98. 1 don't know
Boiler
[DISPLAY SECTION IF Q2=5]
In this section we will ask you about the boiler you installed.
50. Why did you select the model/type for your boiler?Select all that apply [MULTI-SELECT]
1. It was a good price
2. There was a rebate for it
3. It costs less to operate it
4. It's good for the environment
5. It was all that was available/only choice
6. The contractor recommended it
7. It had features I wanted
8. It was the brand I wanted
9. It had an ENERGY STAR label
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 71

51. Did you have difficulty getting an efficient boiler that qualified for a rebate?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q51=1]
52. What was the primary difficulty you had?
1. It was unavailable, needed to be ordered
2. It took a long time to get it delivered
3. It was hard to find a contractor
96. Something else (Please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q52=31
53. How long did it take to find an available contractor? [OPEN-ENDED]
54. How long did you have to wait to get the boiler?
1. Less than a week
2. 1-2 weeks
3. 3-4 weeks
4. More than a month
55. Was this installation part of a larger replacement of a larger project?
1. Yes, it was part of a larger replacement of my heating system
2. Yes, it was part of a newly constructed home
3. Yes, it was part of a home remodeling project
4. No, it was a standalone replacement
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. I don't know
56. Did you replace an older boiler?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q56=1]
57. Did the replaced boiler still work when you replaced it?
1. Yes
2. No
98. 1 don't know
58. How old was your boiler when you replaced it?
1. Number of years: [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q57=1]
59. If the Intermountain Gas incentive program was not available, when would you have likely
replaced your boiler?
1. At the same time
2. Later, but within a year
3. One to two years out
4. More than two years out or never
98. 1 don't know
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 72

60. What type of fuel did your old boiler use?
1. Electricity
2. Gas
96. Other(please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
61. On a scale from one to five, where one means "very dissatisfied" and five means "very satisfied",
how satisfied are you with the performance of your boiler?
1. 1-very dissatisfied
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5-very satisfied
62. Is the new boiler that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
1. Yes
2. No, it is installed BUT not working
3. No, it is not installed BUT it is working
4. No, it is not installed AND not working
98. 1 don't know
Combination Boiler
[DISPLAY SECTION IF Q2=6]
In this section we will ask you about the combination boiler you installed.
63. Why did you select the model/type for your combination boiler? Select all that apply [MULTI-
SELECT]
1. It was a good price
2. There was a rebate for it
3. It costs less to operate it
4. It's good for the environment
5. It was all that was available/only choice
6. The contractor recommended it
7. It had features I wanted
8. It was the brand I wanted
9. It had an ENERGY STAR label
97. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
64. Did you have difficulty getting an efficient combination boiler that qualified for a rebate?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q51=1]
65. What was the primary difficulty you had?
1. It was unavailable, needed to be ordered
2. It took a long time to get it delivered
3. It was hard to find a contractor
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 73

97. Something else (Please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q52=3]
66. How long did it take to find an available contractor? [OPEN-ENDED]
67. How long did you have to wait to get the combination boiler?
1. Less than a week
2. 1-2 weeks
3. 3-4 weeks
4. More than a month
68. Was this installation part of a larger replacement of a larger project?
1. Yes, it was part of a larger replacement of my heating system
2. Yes, it was part of a newly constructed home
3. Yes, it was part of a home remodeling project
4. No, it was a standalone replacement
97. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
69. Did you replace an older combination boiler?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q56=1]
70. Did the replaced combination boiler still work when you replaced it?
1. Yes
2. No
99. 1 don't know
71. How old was your combination boiler when you replaced it?
1. Number of years: [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q57=1]
72. If the Intermountain Gas incentive program was not available, when would you have likely
replaced your combination boiler?
1. At the same time
2. Later, but within a year
3. One to two years out
4. More than two years out or never
99. 1 don't know
73. What type of fuel did your old combination boiler use?
1. Electricity
2. Gas
97. Other(please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
74. On a scale from one to five, where one means "very dissatisfied" and five means "very satisfied",
how satisfied are you with the performance of your combination boiler?
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 74

1. 1-very dissatisfied
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5-very satisfied
75. Is the new combination boiler that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
1. Yes
2. No, it is installed BUT not working
3. No, it is not installed BUT it is working
4. No, it is not installed AND not working
99. 1 don't know
Contractor
In this section, we will ask about your experience working with a contractor.
76. Who installed the [MEASURE1,2,3,4OR5]
1. 1 installed it
2. A friend or family member installed it
3. 1 hired a contractor to install it
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
[DISPLAY IF Q76=1]
77. How did you learn to install the [MEASURE1,2,3,4OR5]? [SKIP TO SATISFACTION SECTION]
1. Prior occupational knowledge
2. Went to a workshop
3. Self-taught(YouTube, Instagram, home courses, etc.)
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q76=3]
78. Where did you find the contractor who installed the [MEASURE1,2,3,4OR5]?
1. 1 have previously worked with this contractor before
2. The retailer recommended the contractor
3. 1 found the contractor online
4. Word of mouth referral (friend,family, neighbor, colleague, etc.)
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
79. Using a scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree",
how much do you agree with the following statements regarding your experience with the
contractor? [SCALE: 1=STRONGLY DISAGREE S=STRONGLY AGREE, 98=1 DON'T KNOW,
99=PREFER NOT TO ANSWER]
1. The contractor was courteous and professional
2. The work was scheduled in a reasonable amount of time
3. The work was completed in a reasonable amount of time
4. The contractor was knowledgeable about the [MEASURE]
5. The contractor answered all my questions thoroughly
[DISPLAY IF Q79<3]
80. Why do you disagree? [OPEN-ENDED]
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 75

81. What features of your new [MEASURE] did your contractor emphasize to you? Please select all
that apply [MULTI-SELECT] [RANDOMIZE]
1. Energy efficiency
2. Low price
3. Rebate eligibility
4. Good warranty/reliability
5. Quiet operation
6. Emphasis on the brand and its reputation
7. Size of the equipment
8. Equipment capabilities (remote controls, occupancy sensors, etc.)
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
82. What features of your new [MEASURE] matters the most to you? [MULTI-SELECT] [RANDOMIZE]
1. Energy efficiency
2. Low price
3. Rebate eligibility
4. Good warranty/reliability
5. Quiet operation
6. Never running out of hot water
7. Emphasis on the brand and its reputation
8. Size of the equipment
9. Equipment capabilities (remote controls, occupancy sensors, etc)
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
Satisfaction
83. Using a scale of 1 through 5,where 1 means"very dissatisfied" and 5 means"very satisfied", how
satisfied are you with the Residential Rebate program? [SCALE: 1=VERY DISSATISFIED, 5=VERY
SATISFIED,98=1 DON'T KNOW,99=PREFER NOT TO ANSWER]
[DISPLAY IF Q83<3]
84. Why were you dissatisfied with the Residential Rebate program? [OPEN-ENDED]
85. Were there certain aspects of the program you found challenging or inconvenient? [OPEN-
ENDED]
86. Since participating in the program, have you noticed any significant changes in your energy bill?
1. Yes, my energy bills have decreased overall
2. Yes, my energy bills have increased overall
3. No, my energy bills have stayed about the same
98. 1 don't know
99. Prefer not to answer
87. Do you have any recommendations for how Intermountain Gas can better educate customers
about energy efficiency and ways to reduce energy usage? [OPEN-ENDED]
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 76

88. What is the best way for Intermountain Gas to communicate information regarding energy
efficiency programs and tips to become more energy efficient? Select all that apply [MULTI-
SELECT]
1. Email
2. Bill inserts
3. Mailed information
4. Social media
5. Intermountain Gas website/customer portal
6. Webinars
7. Table or booth at community events
8. Fliers or pamphlets posted throughout the community
9. All of the above
96. Other-please specify[OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know/I can't remember
99. Prefer not to answer
89. How satisfied are you with Intermountain Gas as your gas service-provider?
1. Very dissatisfied
2. Somewhat dissatisfied
3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4. Somewhat satisfied
5. Very satisfied
98. 1 don't know/ I can't remember
99. Prefer not to answer
Demographics & Residence Characteristics
Finally, we have some questions about you and your residence. These questions are optional and like all
of your responses,we will keep your answers confidential.
90. Do you rent or own your home?
1. Own
2. Rent
99. Prefer not to answer
91. Which of the following best describes your home?
1. Single-family home
2. Manufactured or mobile home
3. Duplex or townhome
4. Apartment or condominium
99. Prefer not to answer
92. Approximately when was your home built?
1. Before 1960
2. 1960 to 1969
3. 1970 to 1979
4. 1980 to 1989
5. 1990 to 1999
6. 2000 to 2009
7. 2010 or later
98. 1 don't know/I can't remember
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 77

99. Prefer not to answer
93. About how many square feet is your home? If you're unsure, an estimate is fine.
1. Less than 1,000 square feet
2. 1,000-1,999 square feet
3. 2,000-2,999 square feet
4. 3,000-3,999 square feet
5. 4,000 square feet or more
98. I don't know/ I can't remember
99. Prefer not to answer
94. What is the main fuel used for space heating your home?
1. Natural gas
2. Electricity
3. Propane
4. Don't heat the home
96. Other-please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know/ I can't remember
99. Prefer not to answer
95. What is the main fuel used for your water heater?
1. Natural gas
2. Electricity
3. Propane
4. Other-please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
5. 1 don't know/I can't remember
6. Prefer not to answer
96. What type of air conditioning do you currently have in your home?
1. Central A/C
2. Heat Pump
3. Mini-Split
4. Wall or window mounted A/C unit
5. Don't have A/C
96. Other-please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know/I can't remember
99. Prefer not to answer
Closing
Thank you for taking the time today to complete this survey. As stated in the email, we are providing a
$15 electronic gift card as a thank you for your responses. The email address we have on file for you is
[EMAIL], please confirm this information.
1. Yes, please send my electronic gift card to the above email address.
2. No, please send my electronic gift card to the following email address: [OPEN-ENDED]
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument 78

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
2023 ANNUAL REPORT
SUPPLEMENT 2: IGC TRM V.1.0 Manual
CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT PROVIDED
UNDER SEPARATE COVER

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
2023 ANNUAL REPORT
SUPPLEMENT 3: PROCESS EVALUATION REPORT

Process Evaluation of
Intermountain Gas Company
Residential Rebate Program
( PY2024 )
SUBMITTED TO: INTERMOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS
COMPANY
SUBMITTED ON: SEPTEMBER 5, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC.
ADM Associates, Inc Intermountain Gas
3239 Ramos Circle 555 Cole Road
Sacramento, CA 95827 Boise, ID 83709

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report details the process evaluation of Intermountain Gas Company's (IGC) Residential Rebate
Program in the 2023 evaluation period.The evaluation was completed by ADM Associates, Inc.
(herein referred to as the "Evaluator").
1.1 RESEARCHABLE ISSUES
The data collection and analysis activities discussed in this report address the researchable 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 and commercial 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 the 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 of program processes and services,
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.
While developing the final evaluation research plan, the following additional researchable issues
applicable to all the Intermountain Gas Company programs were identified.Table 1-1 provides a brief
response to each of these questions based on the process evaluation; more information regarding each
question can be found in the details of the report.
Table 1-1: Research Questions
AbbreviatedResearch Questions
Is staffing/organization sufficient and appropriate Yes
relative to the design and budget?
Are marketing plans implemented per design and Intermountain Gas should consider additional
effective? marketing techniques and strategies to promote
the program and reach non-participating
customers.
Are quality assurance procedures appropriate and Yes
effective?
Are management and implementation tools Yes
appropriate and effective?
What problems, if any, has the market Equipment costs remain barriers for customers.
experienced in purchasing or attaining efficient Additionally, some non-participants request more
equipment? information about the programs and benefits of

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
What barriers, market or otherwise, limit energy efficient equipment. Some participants
participation in the program? expressed difficulties communicating with IGC
staff. Evaluators also believe Intermountain Gas
Company and its contractors would benefit from
additional contractor engagement efforts.
Additional researchable issues for specific programs are included as part of the discussion of the
individual program results.
1.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS
Primary data for the evaluation were collected through web surveys and in-depth interviews, as
described below.
■ Web surveys: For programs with data that included valid email addresses and customer names,
the Evaluator fielded a web-based survey to collect information on multiple topics related to the
process evaluation research issues discussed above.A total of 224 participant web surveys, 30
contractor web surveys, and 200 non-participant web surveys were completed.
■ In-depth interviews:The Evaluator completed in-depth interviews of IGC program staff.The in-
depth interviews were less structured than the web surveys,which allowed the interviewer to
ask follow-up questions and collect additional detail on important evaluation topics. One in-
depth interview was completed with IGC program staff
1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following section outlines Evaluators' recommendations for program improvement. More detailed
explanations of the recommendations and their associated conclusions can be found in Chapter 5:
Conclusions and Recommendations.
Recommendation 1—Program Awareness& IGC Communication:Across all three respondent groups
(participants, nonparticipants, and contractors), email, mailers, and website information were the most
popular and most preferred methods of program communication. In response to somewhat low
program awareness among non-participants and participants, they share a general belief that
information regarding the program is scarce. Program staff should consider boosting the program's
marketing and outreach campaigns. Based on respondents' communication preferences, program staff
should also focus on more targeted email and mailer/bill insert marketing campaigns, as well as website
banners and announcements.
Recommendation 2—Participation Motivation: Both responding participants and contractors indicated
saving money on energy bills and improving the comfort of homes were key motivators for engaging in
the program and using energy efficient equipment. IGC should focus on these motivators when
promoting the program to customers,focusing on the energy-saving potential of equipment upgrades.
More detailed recommendations include providing customers with an estimate of savings potential in
the immediate and longer-term future so customers can better understand the benefits of energy
efficient equipment.These additional details can be provided to customers in the form of case studies
Process Evaluation Report 3

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
and infographics on bill inserts and/or emails. Additionally,further promotion of the website's energy
efficiency calculator tool' might increase customers' understanding of savings opportunities.
Recommendation 3—Experience with Contractor&Contractor Marketing: Data suggests that
customers tend to trust their contractors and rely on their expert knowledge when deciding what type
of equipment to install.Although some contractors are promoting the IGC rebates in their marketing
and project bids,the Evaluators identified that there exist opportunities for growth and continual
improvement. IGC should consider increasing its direct-to-contractor outreach, promoting the program
to local contractors and contractors, and educating them about the programs' offerings. Moreover, IGC
should consider providing more training opportunities to contractors and contractors about energy
efficient equipment more generally and the IGC Residential Rebate program more specifically.
Recommendation 4—Program Satisfaction and Barriers to Engagement:Although both groups of
program participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the program, opportunities for
improvement exist. Most notably, both groups cited confusing applications as a barrier to program
participation. IGC should consider updating the rebate application, so that it is shorter and clearer, and
can be submitted through an online portal.Additionally, in response to contractors' belief that the high
upfront cost of equipment is preventing energy efficient equipment adoption, IGC should consider
alternative payment plans and bill structures that encourage efficient equipment purchases while
minimizing the large upfront investment. Examples of such strategies include on-bill repayment options
and interest-free loans for energy efficient equipment purchases.
2 INTRODUCTION
ADM Associates evaluated Intermountain Gas Company's (IGC) Residential Rebate program.This work
was completed in conjunction with the impact evaluation for IGC's portfolio, summarized in separate
impact evaluation reports.
This report focuses on the process evaluation of IGC's PY2023 portfolio in the state of Idaho for the
natural gas programs offered by IGC.This report identifies opportunities and offers recommendations to
improve the effectiveness of the programs offered to IGC's customers through its energy efficiency
portfolio.
2.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION APPROACH
The Evaluator tailored their evaluation questions and activities by program for IGC's portfolio of
programs. However, many of the data collection activities were similar.The main activities the Evaluator
conducted were:
■ Staff interviews and document review
■ Participant web surveys
■ Contractor web surveys
■ Non-participant web surveys
'https://www.intgas.com/energy-efficiency-savings-calculator/
Process Evaluation Report 4

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Copies of the survey instruments are provided in Appendix A of this process evaluation report
2.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
This report includes the process evaluation findings across all programs in the portfolio-wide
assessment2.The report is organized as follows
■ Chapter 3 presents an overview of the process evaluation approach and data collection activities.
■ Chapter 4 presents the process evaluation of the residential programs.
■ Chapter 5 provides an overview of conclusions and recommendations.
■ Chapter 6 is an appendix that contains the survey instruments and interview guides.
z The impact evaluation findings,conclusions,and recommendations for this evaluation period are reported in a separate impact
evaluation report.
Process Evaluation Report 5

3 PROCESS EVALUATION METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION
This chapter summarizes the process evaluation approach and data collection activities.
3.1 DATABASE REVIEW
To prepare for and understand program design and delivery,the Evaluator reviewed program materials
and documentation provided by Intermountain Gas Company.This included detailed program
descriptions, rebate application, and Intermountain Gas Company's website. Additionally, the Evaluator
reviewed program tracking data to understand how the program tracks and documents program
participation and key variables.
3.2 SURVEY SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
The Evaluator completed surveys of program participants and residential non-participant customers.
The Evaluator used the following equations to estimate sample size requirements for each data
collection effort.
Sample Sizes required to meet the 90/10 confidence and precision estimates were calculated as follows:
Equation 3-1:Sample Size for Infinite Sample Size
n = (ZxCVIz
d JJ
Equation 3-2:Sample Size Correction for Finite Population
n
no = ( l
1 + Nl
Where,
■ n = Sample size
■ Z=Z-value for a two-tailed distribution at the assigned confidence level.
■ CV= Coefficient of variation
■ d = Precision level
■ N = Population
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 participation3, 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 Assumption based on California Evaluation Framework:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_PubIic_Website/Content/Utilities_and_Industries/Energy/Energy_Programs/De
mand_Side_Management/EE_and_Energy_Savings_Assist/CAEvaluationFramework.pdf

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
3.2.1 Sampling Plan
The Evaluator deployed surveys for Residential Rebate program participants, participating contractors,
and non-participants. 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 Evaluator summarized the final sample sizes shown in Table 3-1 for the each of the data collection
activities.
Table 3-1:Survey Sample and Precision by Program
ResponsesSurvey Contacts
Contacts
Participants 898 224 24.9%
Non-Participants 2,134 200 9.4%
Contractors 202 30 14.9%
3.3 WEB SURVEYS
The Evaluator administered a web-based survey to program participants, participating contractors, and
a sample of IGC customers who did not participate in the residential programs since 2021.
Participants, contractors, and non-participants were sent email invitations asking them to complete the
survey. Non-respondents to the initial survey were sent up to two reminder emails. Customers were
offered a $15 Visa gift card to complete the survey.
3.4 IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
This section summarizes the Evaluators' approach to completing the in-depth interviews with IGC
program staff.
3.4.1 IGC Program Staff Interviews
The Evaluator completed interviews with four utility staff in 2024. Collectively,the interviews covered
each program in Intermountain Gas Company'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.
Process Evaluation Report 7

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
4 RESIDENTIAL REBATE PROGRAM PROCESS EVALUATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY
Intermountain Gas provides residential customers with a variety of rebates and incentives that
encourage the purchase of energy efficient equipment. IGC's residential programs offer rebates for
appliances such as furnaces, water heaters, smart thermostats for both retrofits and new construction.
The process evaluation of the Residential Program included the following data collection activities:
■ IGC Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluator interviewed four utility staff in 2024. Staff were
involved in the administration of the Residential Rebate Program. These interviews collected
information from program staff about program design, administration, marketing, and
stakeholders.
■ Program Participant Surveys. The Evaluator conducted surveys with a series of program
participants.These surveys covered a range of topics, including program awareness,
participation, and satisfaction.
■ Program Non-Participant Surveys. The Evaluator conducted surveys with a series of non-
participants.These surveys covered a range of topics, including program awareness, energy use
behaviors and sentiments, and reasons for non-engagement.
4.2 IGC STAFF INTERVIEW
Evaluators interviewed four Intermountain Gas staff members about the Residential Rebate Program in
June 2024. Interviewed IGC staff included the Program Manager,the Senior Energy Efficiency Analyst,
the Outreach Analyst, and the Regulatory Analyst. Intermountain Gas (IGC) staff explained that they self-
implement the Residential Rebate program, and that the program does not have specific savings targets,
but rather their focus is growing the program year over year with increased customer engagement and
participation, as well as contractor engagement.
In general, rebates for furnaces and smart thermostats tend to be the most popular measures in the
program. IGC staff speculate that these measures are most popular since participating contractors use
the rebates to upsell furnace equipment and smart thermostats are seen as an easy and relatively
lower-cost measures that can help reduce energy usage. IGC staff explained that storage water heaters
present more obstacles for contractors and customers since most of the models that meet the
mandatory efficiency requirements are not always the most conducive to retrofits. In an attempt to
mitigate these barriers,the program separated water heaters into two efficiency tiers and included a
tankless water heater option, as well as increased rebate amounts. Additionally, IGC developed
customer and plumber specific communications about the water heating related rebate requirements.
In 2023 the whole home rebate experienced an increase in efficiency requirements and decrease in
rebate amounts; despite builders' disappointment with these changes, changes were driven by the need
to maintain program cost effectiveness.
Because program success is mostly driven by engaged customers and rebates, IGC staff work hard to
increase program awareness across their service territory. IGC staff noted that they regularly employ
new marketing techniques with different measure-focused campaigns each quarter that keep the
marketing materials fresh and different. Additionally, the program offers an annual sweepstakes to
Process Evaluation Report 8

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
residential customers to raise awareness about available rebates as well as engage builders and
contractors via local trade associations and business groups.
The Residential Rebate program does not have a formal contractor network; customers may use any
licensed contractor.The program does not conduct on-site verifications but rather relies on the
contractors' inspection and permitting process, requiring permit numbers to be included on the
application paperwork. IGC staff noted that some customers submit the rebate application themselves
while some contractors submit it on their behalf. In the case of builders for new home rebates, it is a mix
of builder submitted applications and energy rater submitted applications.Although rebates always go
to the customers (retrofits) or builders (new homes), contractors are motivated to participate in the
program to increase their workload and sell more equipment.
IGC staff noted that the largest barriers facing the program include making sure the messaging reaches
the right customers and maintaining cost-effectiveness. IGC staff explained that Idaho's population
continues to grow which means a growing customer base and continued need for program promotion.
Moreover, IGC program staff acknowledge the relatively inexpensive cost of gas in their service territory
and thus they need to rely on some of the non-energy benefits of energy efficient equipment, like home
comfort, equipment longevity and maintenance, health and safety, etc.)to justify the higher costs.
Despite these challenges, IGC program staff feel positive and optimistic about the Residential Rebate
program.They noted that customer engagement continues to grow and that their customers engage
with their various marketing campaigns and community activities. Moreover,they have seen continuous
engagement from builders and contractors, suggesting that the main drivers of this program are
satisfied.
4.3 PARTICIPANT SURVEY
Evaluators conducted a survey of IGC's Residential Rebate program participants to evaluate participants'
engagement and experiences with the program. Evaluators reached out to 898 randomly selected
participants via email on three separate occasions, inviting them to complete the survey.A total of 224
participants responded to the survey; one respondent indicated they did not remember receiving a
rebate through IGC's Residential Rebate program. Thus, 223 responses are included in the final analysis.
4.3.1 Program Awareness
Participants became aware of the program through multiples channels, with contractors serving as the
most common source of information (48.9%, n=109) (Figure 4-1). Other notable sources of awareness
included IGC's website (23.3%, n=52) and IGC's mailer/bill insert (22.0%, n=49).
Process Evaluation Report 9

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Figure 4-1:Program Awareness(n=223)
Contractor 48.9%
IGC website 23.3%
IGC mailer/bill insert 22.0%
Internet search 9.4%
IGC email 7.2%
Word of mouth 5.4%
Retailer 5.4%
IGC representative 1 0.4%
Social media 1 0.4%
Community event 1 0.4%
Newspaper/magazine ad 1 0.4%
Don't know M 3.1%
0.0% 10.0000 20.0% 30.011-, 40.0% 50.0% 60.091,
Respondents were motivated to participate in the rebate program for a variety of reasons, including to
save money on energy bills (70.0%, n=156), improve the comfort of their home (55.6%, n=124), and
conserve energy and/or protect the environment (53.8%, n=120) (Figure 4-2).
Figure 4-2:Motivation for Participation (n=223)
Save money on energy bills 70.0%
Improve the comfort of my home 55.6%
Conserve energy and/or protect the environment 53.8%
Recommendation from a contractor 30.0%
Become as energy efficient as my friends or neighbors 7.2%
Recommendation from IGC representative M 6.3%
Recommendation from friednd/family = 4.9%
Broken equipment M 4.0%
Feature M 3.6%
Save money on installation ■ 2.7%
Don't know 1 0.4%
4.3.2 Program Participation
Respondents received rebates for a variety of different energy efficient equipment including smart
thermostats, furnaces, and storage water heaters (Table 4-1).
Process Evaluation Report 10

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Table 4-1: Type of Measures Received(n=223)
Equipment Still
Measure Recipients Installed/Working*
Smart thermostat 134 60.1% 133 99.3%
95%gas furnace 119 53.4% 119 100.0%
Storage water heaters 22 30.9% 21 95.5%
Boiler 4 9.9% 4 100.0%
Tankless water heater 69 1.8% 69 100.0%
Combination boiler 3 1.3% 3 100.0%
*All respondents who did not choose "yes" indicated they did not know
the status of the equipment in question
4.3.2.1 Smart Thermostat
Respondents identified a variety of different factors they considered when choosing their smart
thermostat, including desired feature and contractor recommendation (Table 4-2).
Table 4-2: Considerations for Smart Thermostat Purchase(n=134)
Desired feature 47.8% 64
Contactor recommendation 42.5% 57
Rebate availability 29.9% 40
Good price 27.6% 37
Desired brand 21.6% 29
ENERGY STAR label 15.7% 21
Good for the environment 14.9% 20
Lower operating costs 11.2% 15
Included with HVAC 4.5% 6
Compatible with HVAC 2.2% 3
Same model as previous thermostat 1.5% 2
Don't know 2.2% 3
The majority of respondents indicated that their rebated smart thermostat replaced either
programmable thermostat or standard thermostat (82.8%, n=111); only 14 respondents replaced an
existing smart thermostat—remaining respondents noted there had not been a thermostat previously
(n=9). Almost all respondents indicated that the new smart thermostat controlled their heating and
cooling systems (94.8%, n=127) and most respondents noted that they have a gas furnace (97.8%,
n=131).
4.3.2.2 95%AFUENatural Gas furnace
Respondents identified a variety of different factors they considered when choosing their 95% AFUE
natural gas furnace, most commonly contractor recommendation (Table 4-3).
Table 4-3:Considerations for Furnace Purchase(n=119)
Consideration %
Contractor recommendation 68.9% 82
Process Evaluation Report 11

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Lower operation costs 42.0% 50
Desired features 41.2% 49
ENERGY STAR label 34.5% 41
Rebate availability 30.3% 36
Good price 29.4% 35
Good for the environment 20.2% 24
Desired brand 17.6% 21
Replace broken equipment 1.7% 2
Most respondents received their equipment within two weeks (86.4%, n=19). All but two respondents
replaced an existing storage water heater(n=20); among these 20 respondents, 85.0%of the storage
water heaters (n=17) still worked when they were replaced.Almost two-thirds of these respondents
(n=11) indicated they would have still replaced their storage water heater at the same time, even if the
rebate was not available.
Four respondents had difficulty finding an efficient gas furnace that qualified for a rebate and was easily
available (3.36%); reasons for difficulties included furnace took a long time to be delivered (n=2),
confusing paperwork (n=1), and purchasing a furnace that did not qualify for the rebate.
The majority of respondents replaced an existing furnace (89.1%, n=104) and the majority of these
respondents explained that their previous furnace had been working at the time of replacement (81.1%,
n=86). Less than half of furnace recipients noted they would have replaced their furnace at the same
time even if the rebate were not available (40.2%, n=33), suggesting that the rebate availability
contributed to some respondents' purchase decision.
Six respondents indicated they switched from an electric furnace to a gas furnace. Five respondents
expressed some level of dissatisfaction with their new furnace (4.2%) (Figure 4-3).
Figure 4-3:Satisfaction with the Furnace(n=119)
1.7",
4.2° 20.2% 74.0%
3ti 100/° 20%% 30% 40% 50'/° 60%% 70%% 80%% 900/0 100°!
■1(Very Dissatisfied) 2 ■3 ■4 ■5(Very Satisfied)
4.3.2.3 Storage water heaters
Respondents identified a variety of different factors they considered when choosing their storage water
heater, most notably contractor recommendation (Table 4-4).
Process Evaluation Report 12

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Table 4-4:Considerations for Storage Water Heater Purchase
Contractor recommendation 81.8% 18
Good price 31.8% 7
Rebate availability 18.2% 4
Good for the environment 13.6% 3
Desired features 13.6% 3
ENERGY STAR label 13.6% 3
Lower operating costs 9.1% 2
Desired brand 4.5% 1
Only one respondent indicated they had difficulty with their storage water heater, explaining the
storage water heater they chose did not qualify for the rebate. Most storage water heater rebate
recipients received their equipment within two weeks (86.4%, n=19).
All but two respondents replaced an existing storage water heater (n=20); among these 20 respondents,
85.0%of the storage water heaters (n=17) still worked when they were replaced. Almost two-thirds of
these respondents (n=11) indicated they would have still replaced their storage water heater at the
same time, even if the rebate was not available.Two respondents indicated they switched from an
electric water heater to gas water. Only one storage water heater rebate recipient (4.6%) expressed
dissatisfaction with their new storage water heater(Figure 4-4).
Figure 4-4:Satisfaction with Storage Water Heaters(n=222)
4.6% 13.6% &. 0
20% 30% 40% 50%% 60% 70%% 80% 9n°' lnn
1(Very Dissatisfied) 2 ■3 ■4 ■5(Very Satisfied)
4.3.2.4 Tankless waterheater
Respondents identified a variety of different factors they considered when choosing their tankless water
heater, including their contractors' recommendation and desired features (Table 4-5).
Process Evaluation Report 13

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Table 4-5:Considerations for Tankless Water Heater Purchase(n=69)
Contractor recommendation 58.0% 40
Desired features 43.5% 30
Lower operating costs 39.1% 27
ENERGY STAR label 33.3% 23
Rebate availability 30.4% 21
Good for the environment 27.5% 19
Desired brand 20.3% 14
Good price 18.8% 13
Only option available 2.9% 2
Compatible with HVAC system 2.9% 2
1 don't know 1.4% 1
Most tankless water heater buyers received their equipment within two weeks (84.1%, n=58). One
quarter of respondents who bought tankless water heaters replaced an existing tankless water heater
(24.6%, n=17), more than half of which were working at the time of replacement (58.8%, n=10).Two-
thirds of respondents who received a rebate for a storage water heater indicated that they would have
replaced their water heater at the same time, even if the rebate was not available (64.7%, n=11);the
remaining respondents noted they would have waited 1-2 years (n=3) or they were not sure when they
would have replaced their water heater(n=3). One of these respondents switched from an electric
water heater to a gas fueled tankless water heater.
Most respondents were satisfied with their tankless water heater(Figure 4-5). One respondent had
difficulty with their tankless water heater(1.45%), citing long delivery delays.
Figure 4-5:Satisfaction with Tankless Water Heater(n=69)
1.5"=
20.3% ALAWL
�'.
0% 100/° 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 900/0 10091.
■1(Very Dissatisfied) 2 ■3 ■4 ■5(Very Satisfied)
4.3.2.5 Boiler
Among the four respondents who received a rebate for a boiler, all noted that a contractor
recommended a specific model; one respondent also indicated the model they chose had a good price.
None of the respondents cited any difficulties receiving their boilers and all respondents received their
boilers within one month. Half of the respondents replaced an old boiler; one of these old boilers was
working at the time of replacement and the other one was not working.
Process Evaluation Report 14

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Satisfaction with the new boilers varied, as indicated in the figure below (Figure 4-6).
Figure 4-6:Satisfaction with Boiler(n=4)
IL
U 1 2 3
■1(Very Dissatisfied) 2 ■3 ■4 ■5(Very Satisfied)
4.3.2.6 Combination boiler
Among the three respondents who received a rebate for a combination boiler, considerations for the
specific model chosen included contractor recommendation (n=2),good price (n=1), low operating costs
(n=1), and desired features (n=1)
None of the combination boiler respondents cited any difficulties receiving their combination boilers.
Two respondents received their combination boiler within two weeks and one respondent waited more
than one month. One respondent replaced an old combination boiler;this combination boiler was still
working at the time of replacement and used natural gas.
Two of the combination boiler recipients were very satisfied with their new combination boiler;the
other recipient was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
4.3.3 Experience with Contractor
The installer of the rebated equipment varied based on equipment type (Table 4-6). Respondents
typically hired a contractor to install their gas furnaces, storage water heaters, tankless water heaters,
boilers, and combination boilers. Overall,three-quarters of respondents (75.8%, n=169) used a
contractor for at least one of the measures they received rebates for.
Table 4-6:Equipment Installer(n varies)
or family I hired a
Measure I installed it member installed contractor to
it install it
Smart thermostat(n=133) 32.3% 43 6.8% 9 60.9% 81
Gas furnace (n=119) 0.8% 1 1.7% 2 97.5% 116
Storage water heater(n=22) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 22
Tankless water heater(n=69) 11.6% 8 2.9% 2 85.5% 59
Boiler(n=4) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 4
Combination boiler(n=3) 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 66.7% 2
Respondents who used a contractor for their equipment installation found their contractor through a
variety of avenues; most commonly they had used the contractor in the past (Figure 4-7). Respondents
explained that contractors emphasized a variety of different aspects of energy efficient equipment, most
Process Evaluation Report 15

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
commonly the energy efficient nature of the equipment,the equipment's' warranty and reliability, and
rebate eligibility(Figure 4-8).
Figure 4-7: Contractor Awareness Source(n=169)
Worked with them in the past 68.0<<
Word of mouth 46.7%
Online research 33.7%
Retailer recommended _ 9.5%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%
Figure 4-8:Equipment Features Emphasized by Contractor(n=169)
Energy efficiency 82.8%
Good warranty/reliability 64.5%
Rebate eligibility 56.2%
Emphasis on the brand and its reputation 37.3%
Quiet operation 32.5%
Size of the equipment 25.4%
Equipment capabilities 24.9%
Low price 11.8%
Don't know M 4.1%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%
In general, respondents were satisfied with their contractor and the work they performed (Figure 4-9).
Seven respondents expressed some level of dissatisfaction with their contractor citing unprofessional
behavior(n=4), poor work quality (n=2), and being unknowledgeable about the equipment (n=1).
Process Evaluation Report 16

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Figure 4-9:Satisfaction with Contractor(n=169)
The contractor answered all my questions thoroughly I . 30.2%
The contractor was knowledgeable about the equipment 27.8% .. •'
The work was completed in a reasonable amount of time I W26.8%
The work was scheduled in a reasonable amount of time I •'
The contractor was courteous and professional
0% 10%% 20%% 30%% 40%% 50%% 60%% 70%% 80%% 90%% 100%
(1)Strongly disagree (2)Disagree ■(3)Neither agree nor disagree m(4)Agree ■(5)Strongly Agree
4.3.4 Satisfaction
Respondents valued a variety of different aspects of their new equipment, most notable the
equipment's' energy efficiency and reliability(Figure 4-10).
Figure 4-10:Favorite Features of New Equipment(n=223)
Energy efficiency 87.9%
Good warranty/reliability 69.1%
Rebate eligibility 41.7%
Quiet operation 40.4%
Equipment capabilities 30.9%
Never running out of hot water 28.7%
Low price 26.0%
Emphasis on the brand and its reputation - 25.1%
Size of the equipment 16.6%
0.00/1 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.05/6
The majority of respondents were satisfied with Residential Rebate program (94.6%, n=209) (Figure
4-11). Four respondents expressed some level of dissatisfaction with the program (1.9%); reasons for
dissatisfaction include issues receiving the rebate (n=3) and cumbersome paperwork(n=1). Despite the
high levels of satisfaction with the program, respondents highlighted four key areas of frustration with
the program, namely the complicated paperwork required (n=33), time it too to receive the rebate
(n=14), confusing equipment eligibility rules (n=7), and poor communication with IGC staff(n=5).
Process Evaluation Report 17

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Figure 4-11:Satisfaction with the Program (n=221)
1.4% 3.6"'
43.4%
O.S%
0% 10"00 20'X0 30D/o 40% 50% 60%% 70%% 80%% 900/0 100%
w Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied ■Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied -Satisfied ■Extremely satisfied
Respondents provided recommendations for program improvement, emphasizing the need for more
marketing including additional bill inserts, website banners, and email communications, as well as
focusing more on potential cost savings, increased contractor training and simplified paperwork(Table
4-7).
Table 4-7:Suggestions for Program Improvement(n=50)
Suggestions n
Increased marketing 35
Contractor training 6
Simplified paperwork 5
Emphasis on cost savings 4
Half of respondents explained that their energy bills have decreased since participating in the program
(52.7%, n=117); only four respondents indicated noticing an increase in their bill (1.8%) (Figure 4-12).
Figure 4-12: Change in Bill Since Equipment Installation (n=223)
1.8%
0% 10•00 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 900/0 100%
■Don't know ■Yes,my energy bills have increased overall
■No,my energy bills have stayed about the same ■Yes,my energy bills have decreased overall
Respondents indicated that they prefer receiving information from IGC through emails, bill inserts, and
IGC website/portal (Figure 4-13).
Process Evaluation Report 18

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Figure 4-13:Respondents'Preferred Communication Style(n=223)
Email 71.7%
Bill inserts 43.5%
IGC website/customer portal 40.8%
Mailed information 23.8%
Social media 22.9%
Community events � 10.3%
Community fliers 5.8%
Webinars M 2.7%
Billboard 1 0.9%
Text message 1 1.3%
Radio 1 0.9%
Don't know 1 0.4%
Prefer not to answer 1 0.9%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.00/
The majority of respondents expressed satisfaction with IGC as their service provider(92.3%, n=205)
(Figure 4-14).
Figure 4-14:Satisfaction with IGC(n=222)
2.3%
0% 100/0 20'/0 30% 40% 50'/0 60'/0 70% 80'/0 90'/0 100%
■Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied ■Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
■Somewhat satisfied ■Very satisfied
4.3.5 Demographics
Table 4-8 describes the demographics of survey respondents.
Table 4-8:Demographics(n=222, unless otherwise indicated)
Answer % Count
Homeownership
Own 97.3% 216
Rent 1.4% 3
Own and rent to someone else 0.5% 1
Prefer not to answer 0.9% 2
Home Type
Process Evaluation Report 19

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Single-family house detached 95.5% 211
Single-family house attached to one or more other houses (e.g., duplex,
condominium,townhouse, etc.) 4.1% 9
Mobile or manufactured home 0.6% 1
Building Age
Before 1950 8.3% 18
1950 to 1959 6.5% 14
1960 to 1969 5.1% 11
1970 to 1979 9.7% 21
1980 to 1989 5.1% 11
1990 to 1999 13.8% 30
2000 to 2009 32.3% 70
2010 to 2019 8.8% 19
Heating Fuel Type
Natural gas 95.5% 212
Electricity 2.3% 5
Propane 0.0% 0
Don't heat the home 0.5% 1
Others, please specify 1.4% 3
1 don't know/I can't remember 0.5% 1
Household Size(n=222)
1 person 13.5% 30
2 people 49.6% 110
3 people 13.1% 29
4 people 12.2% 27
5 people 7.2% 16
6 people 2.3% 5
7 people 1.8% 4
8 or more people 0.5% 1
Prefer not to answer 0.0% 0
Age(n=222)
18 to 24 0.0% 0
25 to 34 8.6% 19
35 to 44 14.9% 33
45 to 54 17.6% 39
55 to 64 18.5% 41
65 to 75 23.4% 52
75 or older 14.9% 33
Prefer not to answer 2.3% 5
Household income
Less than $10,000 0.0% 0
$10,000 to$19,999 0.0% 0
$20,000 to$29,999 1.4% 3
$30,000 to$39,999 2.3% 5
$40,000 to$49,999 2.71% 6
$50,000 to$74,999 15.4% 34
Process Evaluation Report 20

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
$75,000 to$99,999 16.8% 37
$100,000 to$ 149,999 14.0% 31
$150,000 to$199,999 9.5% 21
$200,000 or more 8.6% 19
Education
Did not graduate high school 0.0% 0
High school graduate 8.6% 19
Associates degree,vocation/technical school,or some college 20.3% 45
Four-year college degree 36.0% 80
Graduate or professional degree 30.2% 67
Prefer not to answer 5.0% 11
4.4 CONTRACTOR SURVEY
IGC provided evaluators with contact information for 306 contractors who participated in residential
appliance rebate program. Evaluators randomly selected a sample of 202 contractors to complete a
survey.These contractors were contacted up to four times via email and phone and invited to complete
a survey regarding their experience participating in the appliance rebate program. Contractors were
offered a $15 MasterCard e-gift card as a thank you for their time. Thirty contractors responded to
survey efforts for a response rate of 14.9%.
4.4.1 Contractor Background
The majority of respondents identified as a contractor(n=29); one contractor identified as an energy
auditor. Most of the respondents provide gas water heater, smart thermostat, and gas HVAC related
equipment services (Table 4-9). All but one responding contractor works with single-family home
customers; half of the respondents also work with commercial customers and/or multi-family apartment
buildings (Figure 4-15).
Table 4-9:Services Provided(n=30)
Service Provided
Water heaters(gas) 66.7% 20
Smart thermostats 70.0% 21
HVAC equipment(gas) 86.7% 26
Building shell/weatherization 6.7% 2
Washer/dryer appliances 3.3% 1
Cooking appliances 6.7% 2
Refrigerator/freezer 3.3% 1
Fireplaces 3.3% 1
HERS ratings 3.3% 1
Process Evaluation Report 21

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Figure 4-15: Customer Type(n=30)
Single family homes 96.7%
Commercial buildings 50.0%
Low-income homes - 16.7%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.00/0 100.0%
4.4.2 Program Awareness
Respondents learned about the rebate program through a variety of avenues including an IGC
employee, a customer, and the IGC website (Figure 4-16).Three-quarters of responding contractors
participated in the program to help their customers save money on energy bills; other top motivators
include improving the comfort of customers' homes and helping customers become energy efficient
(Figure 4-17). Sixty percent of responding contractors have been involved in the program for at least five
years; one respondent indicated that 2023 was their first year in the program.
Figure 4-16:Awareness Source(n=30)
Intermountain Gas employee 30.0%
Customer 23.3%
Intermountain Gas website 23.3%
Intermountain Gas mailer 16.7%
Trade association or other industry event 13.3%
Other contractor/word of mouth 13.3%
Don't remember 10.0%
Intermountain Gas email 10.0%
Home Energy Rater 3.3%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
Process Evaluation Report 22

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Figure 4-17:Motivation to Participate(n=30)
Help customers save money on energy bills 76.7%
Improve the comfort of customers homes 53.3%
Help customers become as energy efficient as my
friends or neighbors 46.7%
Conserve energy and/or protect the environment 30.0%
Recommendation from Intermountain Gas 26.7%
Customer request 13.3%
Recommendation from another builder/contractor 10.0%
0.0% 20.001. 40.01/, 60.00/. 80.0% 100.0°:
4.4.3 Program Marketing
Just over half of the responding contractors actively market the residential appliance rebate program to
customers (53.3%, n=16). All of these respondents market the program via word of mouth; two
respondents also advertise the program on their company website.These respondents indicated they
promote a variety of measures through the program, most commonly gas furnaces (n=4). Four
respondents also noted they promote specific brands based on their personal preferences and two
respondents indicated they recommend customers bundle smart thermostats with their new furnace
purchases.
One-quarter of responding contractors include Intermountain Gas incentives in almost all their project
bids (26.7%, n=8); one-quarter of responding contractors almost never include Intermountain Gas
incentives in their project bids (Figure 4-18). Respondents provided reasons why they do not always
include Intermountain Gas incentives in their project bids; most commonly projects do not qualify based
efficiency level of the equipment chosen or they are installing equipment not covered under the
program (Table 4-10).
Figure 4-18:Frequency of Including IGC Incentives in Bid(n=30)
26.7% AAMMEMM 23.3%
0% 10'D/0 20% 30•5/0 40% 50% 60•/0 70% 803/o 90•/0 100%
■Almost Never(0%to 9%) Rarely(10%to 39%) ■Sometimes(40%to 59%)
■Mostly(60•9/o to 89%) ■Almost always(90%to 100%)
Process Evaluation Report 23

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Table 4-10:Reasons for Not Including Incentives in Bids
Project does not qualify 13
Cumbersome application/paperwork process 3
Incentives too low 3
Customers not interested 2
Forget 3
According to responding contractors, when deciding whether to buy energy efficient equipment
customers most resonate with financial reasons like future bill savings and equipment costs (Table 4-11).
Table 4-11: Customers'Reasons for Engaging
Cost • 11
Bill savings 9
Return on in 3
Environment 1
Comfort 1
Most of the responding contractors believed the current incentive amounts were appropriate (80.0%,
n=24). Five respondents suggested IGC include additional measures in their appliance rebate program.
One respondent also suggested IGC offer incentives for customers to maintain their existing efficiency
level when they have to replace old equipment if their old equipment is already highly efficient.
Table 4-12:Additional Measure Suggestions
More smart thermostat brands 2
Duct sealing 1
Air sealing 1
Dual fuel equipment 1
4.4.4 Program Application and Participation
Ninety percent of the responding contractors have helped customers with the rebate applications
(n=27).Twelve respondents provided suggestions for application improvements; eight respondents
requested a return to the online portal and web-based application,three respondents suggested a
simpler and more user-friendly application, and one respondent asked for shorter rebate turn-around
times.
Almost all of the responding contractors indicated they promoted energy efficient equipment before
they learned about IGC's appliance rebate program (83.3%, n=25). Most of the responding contractors
indicated that involvement in the program has not impacted the types of equipment or services they
provide (n=24). Four of the remaining respondents indicated the program helps them promote energy
efficiency equipment, with two respondents indicating they have installed more efficient furnaces and
smart thermostats as a result of the program.
Process Evaluation Report 24

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Among the respondents who speculated as to why customers do not buy energy efficient equipment
(n=23), all of the contractors cited equipment costs as the biggest barrier.
4.4.5 Program Satisfaction
None of the responding contractors expressed dissatisfaction with the program overall, with two-thirds
of them indicating they were either satisfied or very satisfied (66.7%, n=20); the remaining respondents
felt neutral towards the program (33.3%, n=10) (Figure 4-19). Despite these high rates of satisfaction,
responding contractors still cited the cumbersome applications and lack of an online portal as pain
points.Additionally, responding contractors requested more training opportunities (n=1), local IGC
contacts (n=1), and more advertising (n=1).
Figure 4-19:Program Satisfaction (n=30)
33.3%
0% 100/0 20% 30'/0 40'/0 50'/0 60% 70% 80'/0 900/0 1003s;
■(1)Extremely dissatisfied (2)Disatisfied
■(3)Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied ■(4)Satisfied
■(5)Extremely satisfied
Responding contractors considered email to be the most effective way for IGC to update them on
program changes and offerings (80.0%, n=24).
4.5 NON-PARTICIPANT SURVEY
Evaluators conducted a survey of customers who did not participate in IGC's residential programs to
gather feedback on customer knowledge of IGC's offerings, as well as their energy saving behaviors. IGC
provided the Evaluators with a list of 2,500 randomly selected residential customers who did not
participate in a Residential Rebate program. Of these contacts, 2,134 customers had valid email
addresses. Customers were contacted via email three times and invited to complete the survey. 200
customers completed the survey.
4.5.1 Program Awareness
Just under one-third of respondents replaced or installed natural gas fueled equipment in the past three
years without receiving a rebate from IGC (31.5%, n=63). Water heating equipment (47.6%, n=30) and
furnaces (44.4%, n=28)were the most popular installations (Figure 4-20).Three of these respondents
indicated they received an incentive from IGC for their purchase and were disqualified from completing
the rest of the survey.
Process Evaluation Report 25

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Figure 4-20:Installed Equipment(n=63)
Water heater 47.6%
Furnace 44.4%
Smart thermostat 33.3%
Stove 4.8%
Generator 3.2%
Boiler 3.2%
Insulation 1.6%
Dryer 1.6%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0°i
About half of respondents indicated they did not participate in the program because they did not know
enough about what the programs offered (52.3%, n=103) and/or they have not needed to buy new
equipment (50.3%, n=99) (Figure 4-21).
Figure 4-21:Reasons for not engaging(n=197)
Did not know enough about the programs and incentives 52.3%
Have not needed to buy new equipment 50.3%
Incentives are not high enough to offset the higher
equipment costs 13.7%
Financially able to make the upgrades without the
incentives 6.6%
Energy savings from the equipment replacements or
upgrades was not worth the trouble 5.6%
Too much time or trouble to receive the incentives 4.6%
Don't have the authority to participate in any of the IGC
programs 4.1%
Desired equipment not covered 0 2.0%
Not interested in what IGC is offering 1 1.5%
0.0% 10.00/0 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Less than half of the respondents did not know IGC offered rebates for energy efficient equipment
installations (46.2%, n=91).Among the 106 respondents who were aware of IGC's programs, about 40%
of them had learned about the programs through a utility bill message (41.5%, n=44); other popular
sources included IGC emails and mailers (Figure 4-22). More respondents were familiar with equipment
replacement rebates (61.3%, n=65)than new construction rebates (14.2%, n=15); 55.7% (n=59) knew
about heating and cooling equipment rebates and 44.3% knew about smart thermostat rebates (n=47).
Process Evaluation Report 26

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Figure 4-22:Program Awareness Source(n=106)
Bill insert 41.S%
IGC email 31.1%
IGC mailer 31.1%
IGC we bsite 21.7%
Contractor � 4.7%
Word of mouth � 3.8%
Social media � 2.8%
Information at a retailer M 1.9%
Newspaper/magazine ad M 1.9%
IGC staff ■ 0.9%
Another website ■ 0.9%
Don't know � 6.6%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0•0/c
Just under half of respondents were interested in making energy efficient updates and participating in
IGC's energy efficiency programs (45.2%, n=89).These respondents were most interested in smart
thermostats (40.4%, n=36),furnaces (36.0%, n=32), and tankless water heaters (30.3%, n=27)
Figure 4-23).
Figure 4-23:Interest in IGC's Programs(n=89)
Smart thermostat 40.4%
Furnace 36.0%
Tankless water heater 30.3%
Storage water heater 20.2%
Combination boiler 3.4%
Boiler 3.4%
Don't know 28.1%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.01
4.5.2 Energy Related Behaviors
The vast majority of respondents indicated that they owned their home and had full authority over
decisions regarding energy equipment upgrades (92.4%, n=182). Most respondents indicated that their
heating and cooling equipment were their homes' biggest energy consumers (91.4%, n=180); the
remaining respondents either were not sure (n=6) or choose their clothes washer/dryer(n=6), water
heater(n=3), pool (n=2), or cooking equipment.
Process Evaluation Report 27

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Almost 90% of respondents use gas to fuel their home (87.8%, n=173) and 94.2% (n=163) of these
respondents heat their home with gas furnaces (n=163). Almost half of natural gas fueled respondents'
heating systems were less than 10 years old (46.8%, n=81). Almost three-quarters of respondents
(74.6%, n=147) used natural gas for their water heaters. Most respondents use either a programmable
thermostat (n=106) or smart (n=56)thermostat (total: 82.4%, n=162).
4.5.3 Satisfaction with IGC
Satisfaction with IGC as their service provider was high (Figure 4-24), with 82.2% of respondents
indicating they were either satisfied or very satisfied (n=161).
Figure 4-24:Satisfaction with IGC(n=196)
41.3% 1 �KlIIII
0% 100/0 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 900/0 100%
■Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied ■Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied ■Satisfied ■Very satisfied
4.5.4 Demographics
Table 4-13 demonstrates respondents' demographic characteristics (Table 4-13).
Table 4-13:Demographics(n varies)
Home ownership Status(n=197)
Own 91.9% 181
Rent 5.6% 11
Own and rent to someone else 0.5% 1
Don't know 2.0% 4
Prefer not to answer 91.9% 181
Building age(n=182)
Before 1950 8.8% 16
1950 to 1959 6.6% 12
1960 to 1969 3.9% 7
1970 to 1979 8.2% 15
1980 to 1989 5.0% 9
1990 to 1999 15.9% 29
2000 to 2009 27.5% 50
2010 to 2019 19.8% 36
2020 to Present 1.7% 3
Don't know 2.2% 4
Building type(n=197)
Single-family house detached 87.3% 172
Process Evaluation Report 28

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Single-family house attached to one or more other houses (e.g., duplex,
condominium,townhouse, etc.) 8.6% 17
Mobile or manufactured home 1.5% 3
Apartment with 2 to 4 units 0.5% 1
Apartment with 5+ units 1.0% 2
ADU 0.5% 1
Prefer not to say 0.5% 1
Household Size(n=197)
1 person 19.3% 38
2 people 39.1% 77
3 people 13.2% 26
4 people 12.2% 24
5 people 6.6% 13
6 people 4.1% 8
7 people 1.0% 2
8 or more people 0.0% 0
Prefer not to answer 4.6% 9
Age(n=197)
IF-
18 to 24 0.0% 0
25 to 34 6.1% 12
35 to 44 13.2% 26
45 to 54 16.8% 33
55 to 64 19.3% 38
65 to 75 23.9% 47
75 or older 15.2% 30
Prefer not to answer 5.6% 11
Household Income(n=197)
Less than $10,000 1.0% 2
$10,000 to$19,999 1.5% 3
$20,000 to$29,999 2.5% 5
$30,000 to$39,999 4.6% 9
$40,000 to$49,999 4.6% 9
$50,000 to$74,999 14.7% 29
$75,000 to$99,999 14.7% 29
$100,000 to$149,999 13.2% 26
$150,000 to$199,999 6.6% 13
$200,000 or more 3.69. 7
Prefer not to answer 33.0% 65
Education level(n=197)
Did not graduate high school 0.5% 1
High school graduate 6.6% 13
Associates degree,vocation/technical school, or some college 27.4% 54
Four-year college degree 31.5% 62
Process Evaluation Report 29

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Graduate or professional degree 25.9% 51
Prefer not to answer 8.1% 16
Process Evaluation Report 30

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following section outlines key conclusions and findings as well as recommendations from program
changes to better assist IGC's customers moving forward.
5.1 PROGRAM AWARENESS & IGC COMMUNICATION
5.1.1 Findings
5.1.1.1 Participants
Participant respondents typically learned about the Residential Rebate program through their contractor
(48.9%, n=109), IGC's website (23.3%, n=52), and an IGC mailer/bill insert(22.0%, n=49). Respondents
noted that they thought the program could be better advertised and recommended IGC increase its
email, bill insert, and website-based marketing.They also suggested IGC provide training opportunities
to contractors, so contractors have more information about the various rebates' availability to the types
of equipment eligible for a rebate. In general, respondents indicated that emails, bill inserts, and
information on IGC's website/portal are the best avenues for customer communication.
5.1.1.2 Contractors
Contractor respondents learned about the rebate program through a variety of avenues including IGC
employees, customers, and the IGC website. More than half of the interviewed contractors (60.0%) have
participated in the program for at least five years. In general, responding contractors considered email
to be the most effective way for IGC to update them on program changes and offerings.
5.1.1.3 Non-Participants
About half of responding non-participants noted that they did not participate in the program because
they did not know enough about what the programs offered (52.3%, n=103). Moreover, almost half of
responding non-participants did not know IGC offered rebates for energy efficient equipment (46.2%,
n=91).Among the respondents who were aware of IGC's programs, bill inserts, emails, and mailers were
the most popular awareness sources.
5.1.2 Recommendations
Across all three respondent groups, email, mailers, and website information were the most popular and
most preferred methods of program communication. In response to somewhat low program awareness
among non-participant respondents and participant respondents' general belief that information
regarding the program is scarce, program staff should consider boosting the program's marketing and
outreach campaigns. Based on respondents' communication preferences, program staff should focus on
more targeted email and mailer/bill insert marketing campaigns, as well as website banners and
announcements.
Process Evaluation Report 31

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
5.2 PARTICIPATION MOTIVATION
5.2.1 Findings
5.2.1.1 Participants
Participant respondents cited a desire to save money on energy bills, improve the comfort of their
home, and conserve energy and/or protect the environment as their primary motivations for
participating in the program and purchasing energy efficient equipment.
5.2.1.2 Contractors
Contractor respondents were most interested in participating in the program and promoting the rebates
to customers in an attempt to help their customers save money on energy bills, improve the comfort of
customers' homes, and help customers become energy efficient.
5.2.2 Recommendations
Both responding participants and contractors indicated saving money on energy bills and improving the
comfort of homes were key motivators for engaging in the program and using energy efficient
equipment. IGC should focus on these motivators when promoting the program to customers,
focusing on the energy-saving potential of equipment upgrades. More detailed recommendations
include providing customers with an estimate of savings potential in the immediate and longer-term
future so customers can better understand the benefits of energy efficient equipment.These additional
details can be provided to customers in the form of case studies and infographics on bill inserts and/or
emails.Additionally further promotion of the website's energy efficiency calculator tool'might increase
customers' understanding of savings opportunities.
5.3 EXPERIENCE WITH CONTRACTOR & CONTRACTOR MARKETING
5.3.1 Findings
5.3.1.1 Participants
Participant respondents often relied on contractor recommendations when choosing the type of
equipment to purchase. Most participant respondents who received a rebate for gas furnaces, storage
water heaters,tankless water heaters, boilers, and combination boilers used a contractor to install their
equipment. Respondents tended to be satisfied with their contractor and noted that their contractor
emphasized the energy efficient nature of the equipment, as well as its warranty, reliability, and rebate
eligibility when promoting the equipment to them. Some respondents indicated their contractor was
unprofessional, had poor work quality, and was not very knowledgeable about energy efficient
equipment.
5.3.1.2 Contractors
Just over half of the responding contractors actively market the residential appliance rebate program to
customers. One-quarter of responding contractors include Intermountain Gas incentives in almost all
their project bids, while one-quarter of responding contractors almost never include Intermountain Gas
a https://www.intgas.com/energy-efficiency-savings-calculator/
Process Evaluation Report 32

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
incentives in their project bids. Reasons for not including IGC rebates in project bids include the
equipment in question does not qualify.
5.3.2 Recommendations
Data suggests that customers tend to trust their contractors and rely on their expert knowledge when
deciding what type of equipment to install.Although some contractors are promoting the IGC rebates in
their marketing and project bids, room for growth exists. IGC should consider increasing its direct-to-
contractor outreach, promoting the program to local contractors and contractors, and educating them
about the programs' offerings. Moreover, IGC should consider providing more training opportunities to
contractors and contractors about energy efficient equipment more generally and the IGC Residential
Rebate program more specifically.
5.4 PROGRAM SATISFACTION AND BARRIERS TO ENGAGEMENT
5.4.1 Findings
5.4.1.1 Participants
The majority of participant respondents were satisfied with the Residential Rebate program.
Respondents were often pleased with their new equipment's energy efficiency and reliability. Despite
high levels of satisfaction, participant respondents highlighted four key areas of frustration with the
program, namely the complicated paperwork required,time it took to receive the rebate, confusing
equipment eligibility rules, and poor communication with IGC staff.
5.4.1.2 Contractors
None of the responding contractors expressed dissatisfaction with the program overall, with two-thirds
of them indicating they were either satisfied or very satisfied. Despite these high rates of satisfaction,
responding contractors still cited the cumbersome application and lack of an online portal as pain
points.Additionally, although most of the responding contractors believed the current incentive
amounts are appropriate, some contractors speculated that the high upfront cost of the equipment
prevents customers from purchasing energy efficient equipment.
5.4.2 Recommendations
Although both groups of program participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the program,
opportunities for improvement exist. Most notably, both groups cited confusing applications as a barrier
to program participation. IGC should consider updating the rebate application, so that is shorter and
clearer, and can be submitted through an online portal.Additionally, in response to contractors' belief
that the high upfront cost of equipment is preventing energy efficient equipment adoption, IGC should
consider alternative payment plans and bill structures that encourage efficient equipment purchases
while minimizing the large upfront investment. Examples of such strategies include on-bill repayment
options and interest-free loans for energy efficient equipment purchases.
Process Evaluation Report 33

6 APPENDIX
In this appendix,the Evaluators provide the survey and interview guide instruments deployed during
this process evaluation.
6.1 APPENDIX A: SURVEYS
6.1.1 Intermountain Gas Residential Post-Participation Survey
Table 14 Overview of Data Collection Activity
Instrument Type Web survey
Estimated Time to Complete 10 minutes
Population Description Residential Rebate program participants
Target confidence/precision 90/10
Contact List Source and Date Program data
Type of Sampling Stratified random
Contact Sought Customer
Fielding Firm ADM
Incentive $15 per completed survey
Table 15 Variables
VARIABLES DESCRIPTION
YEAR Program participation year
WHOLE HOME Whole Home Rebate participant
TIER1 Whole Home Tier 1
TIER2 Whole Home Tier 2
STACKED Stacked Rebate
MEASURE1 Storage tank water heater
MEASURE2 95%gas furnace
MEASURE3 Smart thermostat
MEASURE4 Tankless water heater
MEASURE5 Whole home
6.1.1.1 Recruitment Scripts
6.1.1.1.1 Email Recruitment Script
Subject: Invitation to Provide Feedback on Intermountain Gas' Residential Rebate Programs
Dear [NAME],
Intermountain Gas Company (IGC) is conducting a survey with their customers to better understand
awareness of energy efficiency programs, specifically their residential programs.
Intermountain Gas has hired ADM Associates as a third-party evaluator to contact their customers, like
you, for feedback on their programs. Your responses will be kept completely confidential and the
feedback that you provide will be used to help improve the program in the future. As a thank you for
completing the survey we will provide a $15 electronic gift card. Please take a few minutes to complete
the online survey.

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
[LINK TO SURVEY]
We will treat all data collected in this study confidentially. If you have any questions about how we treat
collected data, please see ADM's privacy policy at https://www.admenergy.com/privacy. If you have
questions about this research, please feel free to contact me by return email or at [SURVEYOR PHONE
##] or [IGC CONTACT INFORMATION].
Sincerely, [EMAILER'S NAME]
6.1.1.2 Customer Survey
Welcome! Thank you for taking this survey to tell us about your experience with Intermountain Gas's
[PROGRAM]. Your feedback is very important to us and will help us improve programs for customers
like you. This survey should take 10-15 minutes to complete. Your responses are confidential and will be
used for research purposes only. Once you have entered a response for each question, use the arrow at
the bottom right of the screen to move to the next question.
6.1.1.2.1 Screening
1. Program records indicate that you received a rebate through Intermountain Gas's residential
program in [YEAR] at [ADDRESS]. Is this correct?
1. Yes
2. No, I received a rebate BUT my address is incorrect. Please provide the correct address:
[OPEN-ENDED]
3. No, I did not receive a rebate [TERMINATE]
6.1.1.2.2 Program Participation
In this section we will ask you about your participation in the program.
2. Please confirm the measures that you installed. If you are unsure if the measure was installed,
please select the "no" option.
1. Storage tank water heater [Y/N]
2. 95%gas furnace [Y/N]
3. Smart thermostat [Y/N]
4. Tankless water heater [Y/N]
5. Boiler[Y/N]
6. Combination boiler[Y/N]
3. Please confirm the measures that you installed.
1. Storage tank water heater
2. 95%gas furnace
3. Smart thermostat
4. Tankless water heater
5. Boiler
6. Combination boiler
4. How did you first learn about the Residential Rebate program?Select all that apply. [MULTI-
SELECT]
1. Intermountain Gas mailer
2. Bill insert
3. Intermountain Gas website
Process Evaluation Report 35

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
4. Email from Intermountain Gas
5. Newspaper or magazine advertisement
6. Internet search
7. Community event
8. Social media (i.e., Facebook, Instagram,Twitter/X, etc.)
9. Contractor
10. Word of mouth (friend,family, colleague, neighbor, etc.)
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
5. Why did you decide to participate in the program? Please select all that apply [MULTI-SELECT]
1. Save money on energy bills
2. Improve the comfort of my home
3. Conserve energy and/or protect the environment
4. Become as energy efficient as my friends or neighbors
5. Recommendation from a friend, family member, colleague, neighbor, etc.
6. Recommendation from a contractor
7. Recommendation from Intermountain Gas
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
6.1.1.2.3 Measure Verification
[DISPLAY SECTION IF Q2=1]
6.1.1.2.3.1 Storage Water Heater
6. Why did you select the model/type for your storage water heater?Select all that apply [MULTI-
SELECT]
1. It was a good price
2. There was a rebate for it
3. It costs less to operate it
4. It's good for the environment
5. It was all that was available/only choice
6. The contractor recommended it
7. It had features I wanted
8. It was the brand I wanted
9. It had an ENERGY STAR label
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
7. Did you have difficulty getting the efficient storage water heater that qualified for a rebate?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q6=1]
8. What was the primary difficulty you had?
1. It was unavailable, needed to be ordered
2. It took a long time to get it delivered
3. It was hard to find a contractor
Process Evaluation Report 36

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
96. Something else (Please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
9. How long did you have to wait to get the storage water heater?
1. Less than a week
2. 1-2 weeks
3. 3-4 weeks
4. More than a month
10. Was this new installation part of a larger project?
1. Yes, it was part of a larger replacement of my heating system
2. Yes, it was part of a newly constructed home
3. Yes, it was part of a home remodeling project
4. No, it was a standalone replacement
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
11. Did you replace an older tankless water heater?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF 10=1]
12. Did the replaced storage water heater still work when you replaced it?
1. Yes
2. No
98. 1 don't know
13. How old was your storage water heater when you replaced it?
1. Number of years: [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q11=1]
14. If the Intermountain Gas incentive program was not available, when would you have likely
replaced your storage water heater?
1. At the same time
2. Later, but within a year
3. One to two years out
4. More than two years out or never
98. 1 don't know
15. What type of fuel did your old storage water heater use?
1. Electricity
2. Gas
96. Other (please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
16. On a scale from one to five,where one means "very dissatisfied" and five means "very
satisfied," how satisfied are you with the performance of your storage water heater?
1. 1-very dissatisfied
2. 2
Process Evaluation Report 37

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5-very satisfied
17. Is the new storage water heater that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
1. Yes
2. No, it is installed BUT not working
3. No, it is not installed BUT it is working
4. No, it is not installed AND not working
5. I don't know
[DISPLAY SECTION IF Q2=2]
6.1.1.2.3.2 Gas Furnace
18. Why did you select the model/type for your gas furnace?Select all that apply [MULTI-SELECT]
1. It was a good price
2. There was a rebate for it
3. It costs less to operate it
4. It's good for the environment
5. It was all that was available/only choice
6. The contractor recommended it
7. It had features I wanted
8. It was the brand I wanted
9. It had an ENERGY STAR label
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
19. Did you have difficulty getting the efficient gas furnace that qualified for a rebate?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q19=1]
20. What was the primary difficulty you had?
1. It was unavailable, needed to be ordered
2. It took a long time to get it delivered
3. It was hard to find a contractor
96. Something else (Please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
21. How long did you have to wait to get the gas furnace?
1. Less than a week
2. 1-2 weeks
3. 3-4 weeks
4. More than a month
22. Was this new installation part of a larger project?
1. Yes, it was part of a larger replacement of my heating system
2. Yes, it was part of a newly constructed home
3. Yes, it was part of a home remodeling project
Process Evaluation Report 38

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
4. No, it was a standalone replace
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
23. Did you replace an older gas furnace?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q23=1]
24. Did the replaced gas furnace still work when you replaced it?
1. Yes
2. No
98. 1 don't know
25. How old was your gas furnace when you replaced it?
1. Number of years: [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q24=1]
26. If the Intermountain Gas incentive program was not available, when would you have likely
replaced your gas furnace?
1. At the same time
2. Later, but within a year
3. One to two years out
4. More than two years out or never
98. 1 don't know
27. What type of fuel did your old furnace use?
1. Electricity
2. Gas
96. Other(please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
28. On a scale from one to five,where one means "very dissatisfied" and five means "very
satisfied," how satisfied are you with the performance of your furnace?
1. 1-very dissatisfied
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5-very satisfied
29. Is the new furnace that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
1. Yes
2. No, it is installed BUT not working
3. No, it is not installed BUT it is working
4. No, it is not installed AND not working
98. 1 don't know
Process Evaluation Report 39

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
6.1.1.2.3.3 Smart Thermostat
[DISPLAY SECTION IF Q2=3]
30. Why did you select the model/type for your smart thermostat?Select all that apply[MULTI-
SELECT]
1. It was a good price
2. There was a rebate for it
3. It costs less to operate it
4. It's good for the environment
5. It was all that was available/only choice
6. The contractor recommended it
7. The retailer recommended it
8. It had features I wanted
9. It was the right size or color
10. It was the brand I wanted
96. Other-please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
31. Was this thermostat a new installation or did you replace existing equipment?
1. New installation-no previous thermostat
2. Replaced a different smart thermostat(WIFI-connected)
3. Replaced a programmable thermostat
4. Replaced a previous standard thermostat
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
32. Was this new installation part of a larger project?
1. Yes, it was part of a larger replacement of my heating system
2. Yes, it was part of a newly constructed home
3. Yes, it was part of a home remodeling project
4. No, it was a standalone replace
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
33. Was the C-wire (common wire) connected during the installation of your thermostat?
1. Yes, I connected the C-wire
2. No, I did not connect
3. Not applicable-my thermostat does not require a C-wire
98. 1 don't know
34. Does the smart thermostat control a central cooling system, a central heating system, or both?
1. Central cooling system
2. Central heating system
3. Both cooling and heating systems
98. 1 don't know
[DISPLAY Q35&Q36 IF Q34=2, 3]
35. What type of central heating system do you have?
Process Evaluation Report 40

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
1. Central furnace
2. Heat pump
98. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
36. What is the main fuel used by the central heating system?
1. Electricity
2. Natural gas
3. Propane
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
37. Is the new smart thermostat that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
1. Yes
2. No, it is installed BUT not working
3. No, it is not installed BUT it is working
4. No, it is not installed AND not working
98. 1 don't know
[DISPLAY SECTION IF Q2=4]
6.1.1.2.3.4 Tankless Water Heater
38. Why did you select the model/type for your tankless water heater? Select all that apply[MULTI-
SELECT]
1. It was a good price
2. There was a rebate for it
3. It costs less to operate it
4. It's good for the environment
5. It was all that was available/only choice
6. The contractor recommended it
7. It had features I wanted
8. It was the brand I wanted
9. It had an ENERGY STAR label
97. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
39. Did you have difficulty getting the efficient tankless water heater that qualified for a rebate?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q39=11
40. What was the primary difficulty you had?
1. It was unavailable, needed to be ordered
2. It took a long time to get it delivered
3. It was hard to find a contractor
97. Something else (Please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
41. How long did you have to wait to get the tankless water heater?
Process Evaluation Report 41

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
1. Less than a week
2. 1-2 weeks
3. 3-4 weeks
4. More than a month
42. Was this new installation part of a larger project?
1. Yes, it was part of a larger replacement of my heating system
2. Yes, it was part of a newly constructed home
3. Yes, it was part of a home remodeling project
4. No, it was a standalone replace
97. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
43. Did you replace an older tankless water heater?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q43=1]
44. Did the replaced tankless water heater still work when you replaced it?
1. Yes
2. No
99. 1 don't know
45. How old was your tankless water heater when you replaced it?
1. Number of years: [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q43=1]
46. If the Intermountain Gas incentive program was not available, when would you have likely
replaced your tankless water heater?
1. At the same time
2. Later, but within a year
3. One to two years out
4. More than two years out or never
99. 1 don't know
47. What type of fuel did your old tankless water heater use?
1. Electricity
2. Gas
97. Other (please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
48. On a scale from one to five,where one means "very dissatisfied" and five means "very
satisfied," how satisfied are you with the performance of your tankless water heater?
1. 1-very dissatisfied
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
Process Evaluation Report 42

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
5. 5-very satisfied
49. Is the new tankless water heater that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
1. Yes
2. No, it is installed BUT not working
3. No, it is not installed BUT it is working
4. No, it is not installed AND not working
98. 1 don't know
6.1.1.2.3.5 Boiler
[DISPLAY SECTION IF Q2=5]
In this section we will ask you about the boiler you installed.
50. Why did you select the model/type for your boiler?Select all that apply [MULTI-SELECT]
1. It was a good price
2. There was a rebate for it
3. It costs less to operate it
4. It's good for the environment
5. It was all that was available/only choice
6. The contractor recommended it
7. It had features I wanted
8. It was the brand I wanted
9. It had an ENERGY STAR label
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
51. Did you have difficulty getting an efficient boiler that qualified for a rebate?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q51=1]
52. What was the primary difficulty you had?
1. It was unavailable, needed to be ordered
2. It took a long time to get it delivered
3. It was hard to find a contractor
96. Something else (Please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q52=31
53. How long did it take to find an available contractor? [OPEN-ENDED]
54. How long did you have to wait to get the boiler?
1. Less than a week
2. 1-2 weeks
3. 3-4 weeks
4. More than a month
55. Was this installation part of a larger replacement of a larger project?
1. Yes, it was part of a larger replacement of my heating system
Process Evaluation Report 43

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
2. Yes, it was part of a newly constructed home
3. Yes, it was part of a home remodeling project
4. No, it was a standalone replacement
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
56. Did you replace an older boiler?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q56=1]
57. Did the replaced boiler still work when you replaced it?
1. Yes
2. No
98. 1 don't know
58. How old was your boiler when you replaced it?
1. Number of years: [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q57=1]
59. If the Intermountain Gas incentive program was not available, when would you have likely
replaced your boiler?
1. At the same time
2. Later, but within a year
3. One to two years out
4. More than two years out or never
98. 1 don't know
60. What type of fuel did your old boiler use?
1. Electricity
2. Gas
96. Other(please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
61. On a scale from one to five, where one means "very dissatisfied" and five means "very
satisfied," how satisfied are you with the performance of your boiler?
1. 1-very dissatisfied
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5-very satisfied
62. Is the new boiler that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
1. Yes
2. No, it is installed BUT not working
3. No, it is not installed BUT it is working
4. No, it is not installed AND not working
98. 1 don't know
Process Evaluation Report 44

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
6.1.1.2.3.6 Combination Boiler
[DISPLAY SECTION IF Q2=6]
In this section we will ask you about the combination boiler you installed.
63. Why did you select the model/type for your combination boiler?Select all that apply [MULTI-
SELECT]
1. It was a good price
2. There was a rebate for it
3. It costs less to operate it
4. It's good for the environment
5. It was all that was available/only choice
6. The contractor recommended it
7. It had features I wanted
8. It was the brand I wanted
9. It had an ENERGY STAR label
97. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
64. Did you have difficulty getting an efficient combination boiler that qualified for a rebate?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q51=1]
65. What was the primary difficulty you had?
1. It was unavailable, needed to be ordered
2. It took a long time to get it delivered
3. It was hard to find a contractor
97. Something else (Please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q52=3]
66. How long did it take to find an available contractor? [OPEN-ENDED]
67. How long did you have to wait to get the combination boiler?
1. Less than a week
2. 1-2 weeks
3. 3-4 weeks
4. More than a month
68. Was this installation part of a larger replacement of a larger project?
1. Yes, it was part of a larger replacement of my heating system
2. Yes, it was part of a newly constructed home
3. Yes, it was part of a home remodeling project
4. No, it was a standalone replacement
97. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
Process Evaluation Report 45

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
69. Did you replace an older combination boiler?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF Q56=1]
70. Did the replaced combination boiler still work when you replaced it?
1. Yes
2. No
99. 1 don't know
71. How old was your combination boiler when you replaced it?
1. Number of years: [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q57=1]
72. If the Intermountain Gas incentive program was not available, when would you have likely
replaced your combination boiler?
1. At the same time
2. Later, but within a year
3. One to two years out
4. More than two years out or never
99. 1 don't know
73. What type of fuel did your old combination boiler use?
1. Electricity
2. Gas
97. Other(please describe) [OPEN-ENDED]
99. I don't know
74. On a scale from one to five,where one means "very dissatisfied" and five means "very
satisfied," how satisfied are you with the performance of your combination boiler?
1. 1-very dissatisfied
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5-very satisfied
75. Is the new combination boiler that you received a rebate for currently installed and working?
1. Yes
2. No, it is installed BUT not working
3. No, it is not installed BUT it is working
4. No, it is not installed AND not working
99. 1 don't know
6.1.1.2.4 Contractor
In this section, we will ask about your experience working with a contractor.
76. Who installed the [MEASURE1,2,3,4OR5]
Process Evaluation Report 46

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
1. 1 installed it
2. A friend or family member installed it
3. 1 hired a contractor to install it
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
[DISPLAY IF Q76=1]
77. How did you learn to install the [MEASURE1,2,3,4OR5]? [SKIP TO SATISFACTION SECTION]
1. Prior occupational knowledge
2. Went to a workshop
3. Self-taught(YouTube, Instagram, home courses, etc.)
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
[DISPLAY IF Q76=3]
78. Where did you find the contractor who installed the [MEASURE1,2,3,4OR5]?
1. 1 have previously worked with this contractor before
2. The retailer recommended the contractor
3. 1 found the contractor online
4. Word of mouth referral (friend,family, neighbor, colleague, etc.)
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
79. Using a scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree",
how much do you agree with the following statements regarding your experience with the
contractor? [SCALE: 1=STRONGLY DISAGREE S=STRONGLY AGREE,98=1 DON'T KNOW,
99=PREFER NOT TO ANSWER]
1. The contractor was courteous and professional
2. The work was scheduled in a reasonable amount of time
3. The work was completed in a reasonable amount of time
4. The contractor was knowledgeable about the [MEASURE]
5. The contractor answered all my questions thoroughly
[DISPLAY IF Q79<3]
80. Why do you disagree? [OPEN-ENDED]
81. What features of your new [MEASURE] did your contractor emphasize to you? Please select all
that apply [MULTI-SELECT] [RANDOMIZE]
1. Energy efficiency
2. Low price
3. Rebate eligibility
4. Good warranty/reliability
5. Quiet operation
6. Emphasis on the brand and its reputation
7. Size of the equipment
8. Equipment capabilities (remote controls, occupancy sensors, etc.)
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
Process Evaluation Report 47

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
82. What features of your new [MEASURE] matters the most to you? [MULTI-SELECT]
[RANDOMIZE]
1. Energy efficiency
2. Low price
3. Rebate eligibility
4. Good warranty/reliability
5. Quiet operation
6. Never running out of hot water
7. Emphasis on the brand and its reputation
8. Size of the equipment
9. Equipment capabilities (remote controls, occupancy sensors, etc.)
96. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know
6.1.1.2.5 Satisfaction
83. Using a scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means "very dissatisfied" and 5 means "very satisfied",
how satisfied are you with the Residential Rebate program? [SCALE: 1=VERY DISSATISFIED,
S=VERY SATISFIED,98=1 DON'T KNOW,99=PREFER NOT TO ANSWER]
[DISPLAY IF Q83<31
84. Why were you dissatisfied with the Residential Rebate program? [OPEN-ENDED]
85. Were there certain aspects of the program you found challenging or inconvenient? [OPEN-
ENDED]
86. Since participating in the program, have you noticed any significant changes in your energy bill?
1. Yes, my energy bills have decreased overall
2. Yes, my energy bills have increased overall
3. No, my energy bills have stayed about the same
98. 1 don't know
99. Prefer not to answer
87. Do you have any recommendations for how Intermountain Gas can better educate customers
about energy efficiency and ways to reduce energy usage? [OPEN-ENDED]
88. What is the best way for Intermountain Gas to communicate information regarding energy
efficiency programs and tips to become more energy efficient?Select all that apply [MULTI-
SELECT]
1. Email
2. Bill inserts
3. Mailed information
4. Social media
5. Intermountain Gas website/customer portal
6. Webinars
7. Table or booth at community events
8. Fliers or pamphlets posted throughout the community
9. All of the above
Process Evaluation Report 48

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
96. Other-please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know/I can't remember
99. Prefer not to answer
89. How satisfied are you with Intermountain Gas as your gas service-provider?
1. Very dissatisfied
2. Somewhat dissatisfied
3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4. Somewhat satisfied
5. Very satisfied
98. 1 don't know/ I can't remember
99. Prefer not to answer
6.1.1.2.6 Demographics & Residence Characteristics
Finally, we have some questions about you and your residence.These questions are optional and like all
of your responses,we will keep your answers confidential.
90. Do you rent or own your home?
1. Own
2. Rent
99. Prefer not to answer
91. Which of the following best describes your home?
1. Single-family home
2. Manufactured or mobile home
3. Duplex or townhome
4. Apartment or condominium
99. Prefer not to answer
92. Approximately when was your home built?
1. Before 1960
2. 1960 to 1969
3. 1970 to 1979
4. 1980 to 1989
5. 1990 to 1999
6. 2000 to 2009
7. 2010 or later
98. 1 don't know/I can't remember
99. Prefer not to answer
93. About how many square feet is your home? If you're unsure, an estimate is fine.
1. Less than 1,000 square feet
2. 1,000-1,999 square feet
3. 2,000-2,999 square feet
4. 3,000-3,999 square feet
5. 4,000 square feet or more
98. 1 don't know/ I can't remember.
99. Prefer not to answer
Process Evaluation Report 49

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
94. What is the main fuel used for space heating your home?
1. Natural gas
2. Electricity
3. Propane
4. Don't heat the home
96. Other—please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know/ I can't remember
99. Prefer not to answer
95. What is the main fuel used for your water heater?
1. Natural gas
2. Electricity
3. Propane
4. Other—please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
5. 1 don't know/I can't remember
6. Prefer not to answer
96. What type of air conditioning do you currently have in your home?
1. Central A/C
2. Heat Pump
3. Mini-Split
4. Wall or window mounted A/C unit
5. Don't have A/C
96. Other—please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know/I can't remember
99. Prefer not to answer
6.1.1.2.7 Closing
Thank you for taking the time today to complete this survey. As stated in the email, we are providing a
$15 electronic gift card as a thank you for your responses.The email address we have on file for you is
[EMAIL], please confirm this information.
1. Yes, please send my electronic gift card to the above email address.
2. No, please send my electronic gift card to the following email address: [OPEN-ENDED]
Process Evaluation Report 50

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
6.1.2 Intermountain Gas Contractor Survey
Table 16 Overview of Data Collection Activity
DESCRIPTOR
Instrument Type Web survey
Estimated Time to Complete 10 minutes
Population Description Residential Rebate contractors
Target confidence/precision 90/10
Contact List Source and Date Program data
Type of Sampling Stratified random
Contact Sought Customer
Fielding Firm ADM
Incentive $15 per completed survey
6.1.2.1 Recruitment Scripts
6.1.2.1.1 Email Recruitment Script
Subject: Invitation to Provide Feedback on Intermountain Gas' Residential Rebate Programs
Dear [NAME],
Intermountain Gas Company (IGC) is conducting a survey with their customers to better understand
awareness of energy efficiency programs, specifically their residential programs.
Intermountain Gas has hired ADM Associates as a third-party evaluator to contact their customers, like
you,for feedback on their programs.Your responses will be kept completely confidential and the
feedback that you provide will be used to help improve the program in the future.As a thank you for
completing the survey we will provide a $15 electronic gift card. Please take a few minutes to complete
the online survey.
[LINK TO SURVEY]
We will treat all data collected in this study confidentially. If you have any questions about how we treat
collected data, please see ADM's privacy policy at https://www.admenergy.com/privacy. If you have
questions about this research, please feel free to contact me by return email or at [SURVEYOR PHONE
##] or [IGC CONTACT INFORMATION].
Sincerely, [EMAILER'S NAME]
6.1.2.2 Contractor Survey
Welcome! Thank you for taking this survey to tell us about your experience with Intermountain Gas's
[PROGRAM]. Your feedback is very important to us and will help us improve programs for customers
like you. This survey should take 10-15 minutes to complete. Your responses are confidential and will be
used for research purposes only. Once you have entered a response for each question, use the arrow at
the bottom right of the screen to move to the next question.
6.1.2.2.1 Screening
1. Program records indicate that you participated in Intermountain Gas's residential program in
[YEAR]. Is this correct?
1. Yes
2. No [TERMINATE]
Process Evaluation Report 51

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
6.1.2.2.2 Background
In this section we will ask you about your business.
1. How would you describe your business?Are you a(n)... (select all that apply)
1. Distributor
2. Contractor/Installer
3. Designer/Engineer
4. Energy Service Company
5. Builder
6. Other, please specify:
98. 1 don't know
99. Refuse to answer
2. What services does your company provide to residential customers? (select all that apply)
1. Water heaters (gas)
2. HVAC equipment (gas)
3. Smart thermostats
4. Building shell/weatherization (insulation, windows, doors, air sealing, etc.)
5. Washer/Dryer Appliances
6. Cooking appliances
7. Refrigerator/Freezer
8. Other(please specify)
98. 1 don't know
99. Refuse
3. How would you describe your typical customer? (select all that apply)
1. Single family homes
2. Multifamily homes
3. Low-income homes
4. Commercial buildings
5. Other(please specify)
6.1.2.2.3 Program Participation
In this section we will ask you about your participation in the program.
4. How did you learn about Residential Rebates?Select all that apply. [MULTI-SELECT]
1. Intermountain Gas mailer
2. Intermountain Gas website
3. Intermountain Gas email
4. Intermountain Gas employee
5. Home Energy Rater
6. Other contractors
7. Customer
8. Newspaper or magazine advertisement
9. Internet search
10. Trade association or other industry event
11. Social media (i.e., Facebook, Instagram,Twitter/X, etc.)
Process Evaluation Report 52

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
98. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
5. Why did you decide to participate in the program? Please select all that apply [MULTI-SELECT]
1. Help customers save money on energy bills
2. Improve the comfort of customers' homes
3. Conserve energy and/or protect the environment
4. Help customers become as energy efficient as my friends or neighbors
5. Recommendation from another builder/contractor
6. Recommendation from Intermountain Gas
98. Other-please explain [OPEN-ENDED]
99. 1 don't know
6. How long have you been working with Intermountain Gas?
1. This is my first year
2. 2-5 years
3. More than 5 years
7. Do you actively market the Intermountain Gas rebate to your customers?
1. Yes
2. No
[Ask If Q7=1]
8. Through what means did you actively market the program? (Please select all that apply.)
1. Company website
2. Sent marketing materials via email
3. Sent materials via postal mail
4. Other (please specify)
9. Are there equipment types you promote more than others?
1. Yes (open ended)
2. No
10. In the last year, how often have you incorporated Intermountain Gas incentives into project bids
and sales pitches?Would you say you....
1. Almost always incorporate Intermountain Gas 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
[IF Q10=2,3,4,5]
11. Why do you not always include incentives in your project bids?
Process Evaluation Report 53

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
12. What factors do customers most resonate with when deciding whether or not to buy energy
efficient equipment? (open ended)
13. Prior to your learning about the Intermountain Gas incentive program, were you promoting
energy efficient equipment?
1. Yes
2. No
14. Are there additional measures that the program does not currently cover that you think it
should?
1. Yes
2. No
[IF Q14=1]
15. What additional measures would you like to see the program cover? (open ended)
16. Do you think the incentive levels for the programs are appropriate?
1. Yes
2. No
[IF Q16=1]
17. Could you provide specific examples of equipment-types for which you think the incentives
should be adjusted? (open ended)
6.1.2.2.4 Program Application
The next section is about the rebate application process.
18. Has your firm completed or assisted in the completion of any Residential Rebate program
project applications?
1. Yes
2. No (skip to next block)
19. What role do you take in the application process?
1. We take care of the entire application from application start to submission, including,
audits, energy savings calculations and communication with program staff if necessary.
2. We provide the equipment and installation services, but they submit the application
themselves.
3. We are not involved with the application much at all.
4. Other
20. Are there any ways the application tools or participation process could be improved? (open
ended)
Process Evaluation Report 54

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
6.1.2.2.5 Satisfaction
The next few questions are about your satisfaction with the rebate program.
21. Has your involvement in the rebate program affected the types of equipment or services you
provide?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY if Q21=1]
22. In what ways has your involvement in the program affected the types of equipment or services
that your provide? (open ended)
23. Thinking more generally about the reasons why customers are unable or unwilling to implement
energy-efficient equipment,what do you think are some of the most important barriers to
energy efficiency in residential homes? (open ended)
24. Using a scale of 1 through 5, where 1 means "very dissatisfied" and 5 means "very satisfied",
how satisfied are you with the Residential Rebate program? [SCALE: 1=VERY DISSATISFIED,
5=VERY SATISFIED,98=1 DON'T KNOW,99=PREFER NOT TO ANSWER]
[DISPLAY IF Q21<3]
25. Why were you dissatisfied? [OPEN-ENDED]
26. Were there certain aspects of the program you found challenging or inconvenient? [OPEN-
ENDED]
27. Do you have any recommendations for how Intermountain Gas can better educate customers
and provide additional training for contractors about energy efficiency? [OPEN-ENDED]
28. What is the best way for Intermountain Gas to communicate information regarding energy
efficiency programs and relay program related requirements to contractors?Select all that apply
[MULTI-SELECT]
1. Email
2. Bill inserts
3. Mailed information
4. Social media
5. Intermountain Gas website/customer portal
6. Webinars
7. Table or booth at community events
8. Fliers or pamphlets posted throughout the community
97. Other—please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
98. 1 don't know/I can't remember
6.1.2.2.6 Closing
Thank you for taking the time today to complete this survey. As stated in the email,we are providing a
$15 electronic gift card as a thank you for your responses. The email address we have on file for you is
[EMAIL], please confirm this information.
Process Evaluation Report 55

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
1. Yes, please send my electronic gift card to EMAIL
2. No, please send my electronic gift card to the following email address: [OPEN-ENDED]
Process Evaluation Report 56

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
6.1.3 Intermountain Gas Non-Participant Survey
Table 17:Overview of Data Collection Activity
DESCRIPTOR
Instrument Type Web survey
Estimated Time to Complete 10 minutes
Population Description Nonparticipants of Intermountain Gas' Residential Energy Efficiency
Programs
Sampling Strata Definitions By urban/rural status as determined by zip code
Population Size —500,000
Contact List Size
Completion Goal(s) 200
Contact List Source and Date Customer data with participant records removed
Type of Sampling Stratified random
Contact Sought Key person responsible for project and participation with program
Fielding Firm ADM
Incentive $10 per completed survey
Table 18:Research Objectives and Associated Questions
IkIRESEARCH QUESTION FROM •••
Is customer service of high quality,timely, and effective?
Are marketing plans implemented per design and effective?
Are program materials effective and complete?
Are rebates/incentives appropriate for meeting program goals?
What are the market barriers that impede program reach?
What problems, if any, has the market experienced in purchasing or attaining efficient
equipment?
Table 19:Database Inputs
VARIABLE VARIABLE
CONTACT—NAME Respondent Name
EMAIL Respondent Email
ADDRESS Respondent Address
6.1.3.1 Recruitment Scripts
Email Recruitment(Initial & Reminder 1&2)
SUBJECT LINE:
• (Initial Email): Intermountain Gas needs your feedback
• (Reminder#1): REMINDER to provide your feedback to Intermountain Gas
• (Reminder#2):ACTION NEEDED—Please provide your feedback to Intermountain Gas
BODY:
Dear${e://Field/CONTACT_NAME},
Process Evaluation Report 57

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Intermountain Gas Company hired ADM Associates, an independent research and evaluation firm, to
gather feedback about their service and programs from residential customers like you. We need to hear
from 200 people by [DATE]
Can you be one of the people who help us reach that goal by answering a few quick questions about your
experience with Intermountain Gas?The survey should take about 10 minutes. After you complete the
questionnaire, we will send you a $10 gift card as our way of saying thanks.
This survey is part of an evaluation of the programs offered to Intermountain Gas residential customers.
Your responses will be kept anonymous and completely confidential.
Click the link below to access the survey:
[Survey link]
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
[Survey link]
We value your time and feedback. If you have questions or require assistance using the link, please reach
out to us at [e-mail]. If you have questions about how the data will be used,
please contact [IGC CONTACT]
Kind Regards,
ADM Associates/Contractor to Intermountain Gas
Note:ADM conducts research to support research and evaluation in the energy sector.Survey data is not shared
with third parties for marketing purposes. Our full privacy statement is available here:admenergy.com/privacy. If
you would prefer to opt out of future emailing,follow the link provided:$fl://OptOutLink?d=Click here to
unsubscribe)
Email Recruitment(Final Reminder)
SUBJECT LINE: LAST CHANCE to provide your feedback to Intermountain Gas
BODY:
Dear${e://Field/CONTACT_NAME},
Recently,we invited you to answer some questions and provide your feedback about your experience with
Intermountain Gas.
Intermountain Gas hired ADM Associates, an independent research and evaluation firm,to attain feedback from
residential customers about their experience with Intermountain Gas.We need to hear from 100 people by
[DATE].After you complete the questionnaire,we will send you a$10 gift card as our way of saying thanks.
This survey is part of an evaluation of the programs offered to Intermountain Gas's residential customers.Your
responses will be kept anonymous and completely confidential.
Click the link below to access the survey:
[Survey link]
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
Process Evaluation Report 58

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
[Survey link]
We value your time and feedback. If you have questions or require assistance using the link, please reach
out to us at [e-mail]. If you have questions about how the data will be used,
please contact [IGC CONTACT]
Kind Regards,
ADM Associates/Contractor to Intermountain Gas
Note:ADM conducts research to support research and evaluation in the energy sector.Survey data is not shared
with third parties for marketing purposes. Our full privacy statement is available here:admenergy.com/privacy. If
you would prefer to opt out of future emailing,follow the link provided:$(I://OptOutLink?d=Click here to
unsubscribe)
6.1.3.2 Survey Instrument
6.1.3.2.1 Introduction
Thanks for agreeing to provide your feedback about your experience using Intermountain Gas's service
and programs.To start, we have a few questions about your awareness of some of Intermountain Gas's
programs and services.
6.1.3.2.2 Screening
1. According to our records, Intermountain Gas's provides natural gas to your residence at
[ADDRESS]. Is that correct?
1. Yes
2. Yes, but address is incorrect [OPEN-ENDED: CORRECT ADDRESS]
3. No [TERMINATE]
2. To the best of your knowledge have you replaced or upgraded equipment that requires natural
gas, in the last three years?This could have been heating/cooling equipment, water heating
equipment, or a smart thermostat?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF 2=1]
3. What types of natural gas equipment or upgrades did you replace in the last three years?Select
all that apply [MULTI-SELECT]
1. Furnace
2. Water heater
3. Boiler
4. Smart thermostat
5. Other(please specify)
[DISPLAY IF 2=1]
4. Did you receive an incentive from Intermountain Gas for any of that equipment?
1. Yes [SKIP TO END,TERMINATE]
2. No
Process Evaluation Report 59

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
5. Why haven't you participated in any of Intermountain Gas's programs?Select all that apply
[MULTI-SELECT]
1. Did not know enough about the programs and incentives
2. Energy savings from the equipment replacements or upgrades was not worth the
trouble
3. Too much time or trouble to receive the incentives
4. Prefer not to deal with Intermountain Gas
5. Not interested in what Intermountain Gas is offering
6. Incentives are not high enough to offset the cost of high efficiency equipment,
compared to standard efficiency equipment
7. 1 am financially able to make the upgrades without the incentives
8. Don't have the authority to participate in any of the Intermountain Gas programs
9. Other-please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
98. Don't know
6.1.3.2.3 Program Awareness
6. Before today, have you heard that Intermountain Gas offers rebates for energy efficiency
equipment purchases?
1. Yes
2. No
[ASK IF 6=1,Yes]
7. How did you learn about Intermountain Gas's energy efficiency program offerings? [RANDOMIZE 1-
12]
1. Mailed information from Intermountain Gas
2. Email from Intermountain Gas
3. Newspaper or magazine article or advertisement
4. Contractor
5. Word of mouth from a personal contact(e.g.,family member,friend, neighbor,
colleague, etc.)
6. Radio advertisement
7. Utility bill message
8. Utility website
9. Another website
10. Social media (i.e., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,Tik Tok, etc.)
11. Intermountain Gas program staff
12. Information at a retailer
13. Other, please specify:
[DISPLAY IF 6=1]
8. What programs or services were you already aware of?Select all that apply [MULTI-SELET]
1. Incentives to replace inefficient equipment in your home
2. Incentives to incorporate energy efficiency into new construction designs
3. Incentives for heating and cooling equipment
4. Incentives for smart thermostats
Process Evaluation Report 60

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
5. Other—please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
9. Are you interested in making any energy efficiency upgrades and participating in any of
Intermountain Gas's energy efficiency programs?
1. Yes
2. No
[DISPLAY IF 9=1]
10. What energy efficiency upgrades are you interested in?Select all that apply [MULTI-SELECT]
1. Furnace
2. Tankless water heater
3. Storage water heater
4. Boiler
5. Combination boiler
6. Smart thermostat
7. Other(please specify)
6.1.3.2.4 Participation Barriers
11. 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 Intermountain Gas's energy efficiency programs?
1. 1—Not at all interested
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5—Very interested
12. 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?
1. No authority—as a renter I am not permitted to make improvements and energy
efficiency upgrades
2. Some authority—as a renter I am permitted to make some improvements or upgrades
3. Full authority—I am the owner
4. Full authority—as part of my rental agreement I am required to maintain/repair the
home
6.1.3.2.5 End Uses
13. What do you feel is the largest energy consumer in your home?
1. Computer equipment
2. Refrigeration
3. Heating/cooling equipment
4. Cooking equipment
5. Lighting
6. Other—please specify [OPEN-ENDED]
Process Evaluation Report 61

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
14. What is the main fuel used to heat your home? If multiple sources, please choose the primary
source.
1. Electricity
2. Natural Gas
3. Propane
4. Wood/Pellet stove
5. Other, please specify:
6. 1 don't heat my home
[DISPLAY IF 14=2]
15. What type of heating system do you currently have in your home?
1. Gas furnace
2. Boiler
3. Combination boiler
4. Fireplace
5. 1 don't know
[DISPLAY IF 14=2]
16. Approximately how old is the heating system?
1. Less than 10 years old
2. 10 to 20 years old
3. More than 20 years old
4. 1 don't know
17. What type of fuel does your water heater use?
1. Electricity
2. Natural Gas
3. Propane
4. Other, please specify:
5. 1 don't have hot water
18. What type of thermostat do you use?
1. Manual
2. Programmable
3. Smart thermostat
19. How satisfied are you with Intermountain Gas as your service provider?
1. Very dissatisfied
2. Dissatisfied
3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4. Satisfied
5. Very satisfied
Process Evaluation Report 62

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
6.1.3.2.6 Demographics
This last set of questions will help Intermountain Gas 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."
20. Do you own or rent the home at${e://Field/ADDRESS)?
1. Own
2. Rent
3. Own and rent to someone else
4. Prefer not to answer
[DISPLAY IF 20= 1 OR 3]
21. When was your home built?
1. Before 1950
2. 1950 to 1959
3. 1960 to 1969
4. 1970 to 1979
5. 1980 to 1989
6. 1990 to 1999
7. 2000 to 2009
8. 2010 to 2019
9. 2020 to Present
10. 1 don't know
11. Prefer not to answer
22. How many square feet is your home? (Your best estimate is fine.)
1. Square Feet:
2. 1 don't know
3. Prefer not to answer
23. Which best describes your home?
1. Single-family house detached
2. Single-family house attached to one or more other houses (e.g., duplex, condominium,
townhouse, etc.)
3. Mobile or manufactured home
4. Apartment with 2 to 4 units
5. Apartment with 5+ units
6. Other, please specify:
7. Prefer not to answer
24. Including yourself, how many people live in your house year-round?
1. 1 person
2. 2 people
3. 3 people
4. 4 people
5. 5 people
Process Evaluation Report 63

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
6. 6 people
7. 7 people
8. 8 or more people
9. Prefer not to answer
25. What is your age?
1. 18 to 24
2. 25 to 34
3. 35 to 44
4. 45 to 54
5. 55 to 64
6. 65 to 75
7. 75 or older
8. Prefer not to answer
[DISPLAY IF Q25<6]
26. Is any member of your household age 65 or older?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Prefer not to answer
27. 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 2023?
1. Less than $10,000
2. 10,000 to $19,999
3. $20,000 to$29,999
4. $30,000 to$39,999
5. $40,000 to$49,999
6. $50,000 to $74,999
7. $75,000 to $99,999
8. $100,000 to $149,999
9. $150,000 to $199,999
10. $200,000 or more
11. Prefer not to answer
28. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
1. Did not graduate high school
2. High school graduate
3. Associates degree, vocation/technical school, or some college
4. Four-year college degree
5. Graduate or professional degree
6. Prefer not to answer
Process Evaluation Report 64

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
6.1.3.2.7 Customer Information and Thank You Page
This is the end of the survey.As a thank you for your time answering our questions, Intermountain Gas
we would like to provide you a $15 Mastercard gift card.The email address we have for you is
${e://Field/RecipientEmail}. Please let us know if you would like us to send your electronic gift card to
this address or a different address.
1. Please send my electronic gift card to the above email address
2. Please send my electronic gift card to the following email address:
Process Evaluation Report 65

Intermountain Gas Company Residential Program Process Evaluation Report PY2023
Process Evaluation Report 66

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
2023 ANNUAL REPORT
SUPPLEMENT 4: EESC Meeting Notes

Energy
INTERMOUNTAIN®
GAS COMPANY 60 Efficiency
A Subsidiary of MDU Resources Group,Inc.
Energy Efficiency Stakeholder Committee Meeting transcript
May 25, 2023
Contents
• Welcome/Getting Started.................................................................................................................P.1
• Intro/roll call........................................................................................................................................P.3
• Safety Moment.................................................................................................................................P.18
• IGC EE 2022 Results Preview..........................................................................................................P.20
oResidential............................................................................................................................P.20
■ Rebates....................................................................................................................P.20
■ Outreach and Education........................................................................................P.41
oCommercial..........................................................................................................................P.48
■ Rebates....................................................................................................................P.48
■ Outreach and Education........................................................................................P.50
• Guidehouse- Presentation of Results............................................................................................P.57
0:0:0.0-->0:0:7.120
Wold, Kathy
OK, so for those of you who don't know me, my name's Kathy would and I'm the manager of the Energy
Efficiency Department at Intermountain Gas.
0:0:7.130-->0:0:19.60
Wold, Kathy
And we are coming together today to do a little preview of our annual report, which will be filed later
this spring or the summer.
0:0:20.500-->0:0:22.370
Wold, Kathy
So these are all preliminary results.
0:0:22.380-->0:0:26.610
Wold, Kathy
You'll get all the nitty gritty details in our annual report when it's filed.
0:0:26.620-->0:0:36.330
Wold, Kathy
So but we wanted to touch base on that and we also have guest speakers,the team from Guidehouse
will be reporting our CPA study results today as well.
0:0:36.560-->0:0:39.230
Wold, Kathy Page 1 of 192

So we've got a fair amount of time on the schedule today.
0:0:39.240-->0:0:44.40
Wold, Kathy
We want to make sure we allowed time for both our presentations and questions.
0:0:44.50-->0:0:52.200
Wold, Kathy
So I don't know if we'll need the whole time, but we did set aside quite a chunk of time today, so
hopefully we'll be able to get through everything and answer all the questions that may come up.
Page 2 of 192

0:0:53.560-->0:0:56.450
Wold, Kathy
So we'll start this afternoon with a safety moment.
0:0:56.460-->0:1:11.380
Wold, Kathy
We'll do some introductions, slash roll call and then we'll do a high level preview of our program results
from the residential commercial program and then we'll turn it over to Team Guidehouse to report on
our CPA study.
0:1:15.960-->0:1:18.710
Wold, Kathy
OK,so uh for a roll call?
0:1:18.720-->0:1:25.500
Wold, Kathy
Slash introductions here,we'll do just a quick time to learn a little bit about each other.
0:1:25.510-->0:1:28.490
Wold, Kathy
And so I chose these two photos here.
0:1:28.500-->0:1:34.90
Wold, Kathy
And so if you had to choose,would you rather have eternal summer or eternal winter?
0:1:34.590-->0:1:43.550
Wold, Kathy
And I'm going to start introductions with a couple of folks that this committee has not yet met because
they just have recently joined our team and the first person is Min Park.
0:1:48.500-->0:1:49.510
Park, Min
Yes.
0:1:49.570-->0:1:50.830
Park, Min
Uh,give me a SEC.
0:1:50.840-->0:1:52.650
Park, Min
I have to figure out this camera.
0:2:4.170-->0:2:4.910
Park, Min
Oh hello.
Page 3 of 192

0:2:5.130-->0:2:6.150
Wold, Kathy
There you are.Yay.
0:2:6.680-->0:2:7.10
Park, Min
I'm.
0:2:7.20-->0:2:7.990
Park, Min
I'm in park.
0:2:8.60-->0:2:16.670
Park, Min
I'm a regulatory analyst here at Intermountain Gas and for this question it really depends where I am.
0:2:16.740-->0:2:19.710
Park, Min
But if we're doing Idaho, I'll go with summer.
0:2:20.840-->0:2:21.500
Wold,Kathy
All right.
0:2:21.560-->0:2:27.330
Wold, Kathy
Thanks Min Min splits his time between working for regulatory and half of his time with energy
efficiency.
0:2:27.940-->0:2:33.970
Wold, Kathy
He does special projects for us like the EMV and CPA and modeling and those sorts of things.
0:2:33.980-->0:2:39.640
Wold, Kathy
So I'm looking forward to working with Min and hearing more from him at Next up.
0:2:39.650-->0:2:40.860
Wold, Kathy
We have Preston scantling.
0:2:42.960-->0:2:45.260
Wold, Kathy
Preston just joined us all right.
0:2:46.180-->0:2:46.830
Scantling, Preston
Hi there.
Page 4 of 192

0:2:46.870-->0:2:47.130
Scantling, Preston
I'm.
0:2:47.190-->0:2:50.990
Scantling, Preston
I'm Preston,as Kathyjust mentioned, I joined Intermountain just this past Monday.
0:2:51.0-->0:2:58.700
Scantling, Preston
I'm the new outreach analyst,and contrary to what many people might answer, I'm gonna choose
eternal winter so I can go snowboarding more.
0:2:59.390-->0:2:59.840
Wold,Kathy
Nice.
0:3:0.10-->0:3:0.580
Wold, Kathy
I like it.
0:3:1.10-->0:3:1.490
Wold, Kathy
Thanks, Preston.
0:3:1.950-->0:3:2.230
Scantling, Preston
No worries.
0:3:3.290-->0:3:3.910
Wold, Kathy
Alright.
0:3:4.160-->0:3:8.260
Wold, Kathy
Uh Alexa,so just tell us your obviously I'm calling your name.
0:3:8.270-->0:3:11.950
Wold, Kathy
Tell us your name,your organization,and then eternal summer or eternal winner.
0:3:13.40-->0:3:13.340
Alexa Bouvier
Hello.
0:3:13.350-->0:3:14.30
Alexa Bouvier
Good afternoon.
Page 5 of 192

0:3:14.40-->0:3:17.780
Alexa Bouvier
Alexa Bouvier with the Office of Energy and Mineral Resources in Idaho.
0:3:25.570-->0:3:26.30
Wold,Kathy
Alright.
0:3:26.720-->0:3:27.70
Wold,Kathy
OK.
0:3:27.440-->0:3:27.820
Wold,Kathy
Thanks.
0:3:18.360-->0:3:28.770
Alexa Bouvier
I'm a policy analyst that focuses on energy efficiency, and I would have to say I'm an eternal winter
individual, happy to be here.Thanks.
0:3:29.310-->0:3:29.790
Wold,Kathy
Thank you.
0:3:31.290-->0:3:39.310
Wold, Kathy
And we'll do some more introductions too, in the Guidehouse team comes on, but I'll include them here
so they can share their favorite season, aneesha.
0:3:43.310-->0:3:43.970
Aneesha Aggarwal
Hi everyone.
0:3:43.980-->0:3:44.640
Aneesha Aggarwal
Good to meet you.
0:3:44.650-->0:3:52.320
Aneesha Aggarwal
I've aneesha and I'm the deputy project manager on the Guidehouse team and I would have to say
eternal summer.
0:3:53.70-->0:3:53.560
Wold, Kathy
Perfect.
Page 6 of 192

0:3:53.750-->0:3:54.650
Wold, Kathy
Alright,thanks.
0:3:56.750-->0:3:58.360
Wold, Kathy
Next up, Lori Blattner.
0:4:2.500-->0:4:4.170
Blattner, Lori
Buddy and welcome.
0:4:4.180-->0:4:11.590
Blattner, Lori
It's great to see such a good turnout for these energy efficiency stakeholder things,so appreciate you
spending time with us.
0:4:12.80-->0:4:15.800
Blattner, Lori
I'm the director of regulatory affairs and energy efficiency for Intermountain.
0:4:16.800-->0:4:23.780
Blattner, Lori
Uh, I guess I would say eternal summer, but that mightjust be because we're coming into summer.
0:4:25.540-->0:4:26.170
Wold, Kathy
Perfect.
0:4:26.340-->0:4:26.930
Wold, Kathy
Alright.
0:4:26.940-->0:4:28.800
Wold, Kathy
Thank you, Brian Chang.
0:4:31.450-->0:4:31.980
Brian Chang
Hi,everyone.
0:4:31.990-->0:4:32.620
Brian Chang
Good afternoon.
0:4:32.630-->0:4:34.0
Brian Chang
This is Brian Chang.
Page 7 of 192

0:4:34.50-->0:4:36.20
Brian Chang
I'm I'm also joining from the Guidehouse team.
0:4:37.490-->0:4:41.560
Brian Chang
I would have to say eternal summer as well and not just for the weather.
0:4:45.250-->0:4:46.160
Wold, Kathy
Oh yeah.
0:4:41.570-->0:4:46.310
Brian Chang
I I really enjoyed the the long daylight in the evenings,yeah.
0:4:46.910-->0:4:47.280
Wold, Kathy
Good.
0:4:47.470-->0:4:48.60
Wold, Kathy
Good benefit.
0:4:48.70-->0:4:48.440
Wold,Kathy
Yeah.
0:4:48.490-->0:4:48.750
Wold,Kathy
Thanks.
0:4:50.110-->0:4:51.240
Wold, Kathy
Next up,Jason talford.
0:4:53.780-->0:4:55.390
Jason Talford
Are there everyone?Jason talford?
0:4:55.400-->0:4:58.520
Jason Talford
I'm a technical analyst with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
0:5:0.50-->0:5:1.460
Jason Talford
I'm gonna go eternal winter.
Page 8 of 192

0:5:1.510-->0:5:3.370
Jason Talford
I like my blankets and hot chocolate.
0:5:3.890-->0:5:4.980
Wold, Kathy
Oh, perfect.
0:5:5.210-->0:5:5.610
Wold, Kathy
Love it.
0:5:7.110-->0:5:7.900
Wold, Kathy
Thanks Jason.
0:5:8.450-->0:5:9.250
Wold, Kathy
John Starr.
0:5:12.460-->0:5:13.510
Jon Starr
Yes,thank you, Kathy.
0:5:13.520-->0:5:20.870
Jon Starr
John Starr,director with Guidehouse I live at 8500 feet and we're coming out of a heavy,wonderful
snowy winter.
0:5:20.880-->0:5:22.740
Jon Starr
So, but I'm ready to say summer today.
0:5:23.340-->0:5:24.710
Wold, Kathy
All right, I love it.
0:5:26.600-->0:5:28.310
Wold, Kathy
OK,Kevin keyt.
0:5:30.900-->0:532.10
Kevin Keyt
Good afternoon everybody.
0:5:33.0-->0:5:34.250
Kevin Keyt
My name is Kevin keyt.
Page 9 of 192

0:5:34.260-->0:5:39.450
Kevin Keyt
I work for the Idaho Public Utilities Commission,and I'm gonna have to think out the box a little bit here.
0:5:39.460-->0:5:45.690
Kevin Keyt
Kathy, I would say eternal fall because I like the cold mornings and warm afternoons.
0:5:46.400-->0:5:50.770
Wold, Kathy
Ah,alright, perfect Thanksgiving, Laura.
0:5:53.970-->0:5:57.820
Laura Conilogue
Hello I am also with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
0:5:57.830-->0:5:58.410
Laura Conilogue
I'm an auditor.
0:5:59.450-->0:6:3.150
Laura Conilogue
Umm, my name is Laura and I guess I would do.
0:6:4.810-->0:6:5.240
Laura Conilogue
I don't know.
0:6:5.250-->0:6:5.620
Laura Conilogue
It's hard.
0:6:5.630-->0:6:6.720
Laura Conilogue
Uh, winter.
0:6:6.730-->0:6:9.550
Laura Conilogue
I just hate the 100 degree days so.
0:6:10.390-->0:6:12.380
Wold, Kathy
Alright,fair enough.
0:6:12.610-->0:6:14.570
Wold,Kathy
Yeah,great.
Page 10 of 192

0:6:14.800-->0:6:16.110
Wold, Kathy
How at Lindsey Wilson?
0:6:19.300-->0:6:20.240
Lindsey Wilson
Hi,yes, I'm Lindsey.
0:6:20.250-->0:6:22.360
Lindsey Wilson
I work with Arxcis.
0:6:22.370-->0:6:26.330
Lindsey Wilson
When your rating companies,so Seth wealthy is also on this call.
0:6:26.870-->0:6:27.270
Lindsey Wilson
Umm.
0:6:27.670-->0:6:32.830
Lindsey Wilson
And I guess I would choose eternal summer because I have a I have a huge vegetable garden so.
0:6:32.990-->0:6:34.20
Wold,Kathy
Oh, nice.
0:6:34.30-->0:6:34.640
Wold,Kathy
I like it.
0:6:34.850-->0:6:35.250
Wold,Kathy
Great.
0:6:35.750-->0:6:36.230
Lindsey Wilson
Yeah.
0:6:36.280-->0:6:36.610
Lindsey Wilson
Thank you.
0:6:36.960-->0:6:39.770
Wold, Kathy
Thank you, Mark Eisenhower.
Page 11 of 192

0:6:42.320-->0:6:43.30
Mark Eisenhower
Hey, Kathy.
0:6:43.40-->0:6:45.810
Mark Eisenhower
Good to see you, Mark Eisenhower with the Guidehouse team.
0:6:45.950-->0:6:48.870
Mark Eisenhower
I'm gonna vote for summer, but don't tell my grandkids.
0:6:48.880-->0:6:52.320
Mark Eisenhower
They were most unhappy about not getting snow this one or so.
0:6:52.740-->0:6:55.340
Mark Eisenhower
As long as we keep it with this group, I'm voting summer.
0:6:55.640-->0:6:56.760
Wold, Kathy
That works for me.
0:6:57.130-->0:6:57.750
Mark Eisenhower
Thanks, Kathy.
0:6:57.190-->0:6:57.780
Wold, Kathy
Great.
0:6:57.790-->0:7:1.890
Wold, Kathy
Thanks forjoining Mike Parvinen.
0:7:4.960-->0:7:5.230
Wold, Kathy
There.
0:7:5.330-->0:7:8.870
Parvinen, Michael
Hey Mike Parvinen with Intermountain regulatory team.
0:7:9.820-->0:7:17.610
Parvinen, Michael
I guess I would go with after growing up in Western Montana,where it seemed like we were in at least
nine months of winter, I'm going with summer.
Page 12 of 192

0:7:18.190-->0:7:18.770
Wold, Kathy
Alright.
0:7:21.220-->0:7:21.970
Wold, Kathy
Hey raniel.
0:7:24.640-->0:7:25.290
Raniel Chan
Hi everyone.
0:7:25.300-->0:7:26.530
Raniel Chan
My name is Raniel Chan.
0:7:26.580-->0:7:28.590
Raniel Chan
I'm a senior consultant at Guidehouse.
0:7:28.880-->0:7:30.750
Raniel Chan
I would say eternal summer.
0:7:31.610-->0:7:34.250
Wold, Kathy
All right, Rick Keller.
0:7:38.60-->0:7:39.530
Rick Keller
Hi, my name is Rick Keller.
0:7:39.580-->0:7:44.370
Rick Keller
I'm an engineer on staff with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and I'm with Kevin.
0:7:44.380-->0:7:45.900
Rick Keller
I need to think outside the box.
0:7:45.910-->0:7:46.560
Rick Keller
I'll take it.
0:7:46.740-->0:7:47.890
Rick Keller
Yeah,eternal spring.
Page 13 of 192

0:7:48.600-->0:7:49.900
Wold, Kathy
Oh perfect.Alright.
0:7:52.70-->0:7:52.680
Wold, Kathy
Brian Robertson.
0:8:0.180-->0:8:0.600
Wold, Kathy
There you are.
0:7:59.230-->0:8:2.350
Robertson, Brian
Hi everyone,this Brian Robertson .
0:8:2.810-->0:8:6.640
Robertson, Brian
Ohh I'm representing Intermountain.
0:8:6.650-->0:8:16.80
Robertson, Brian
I work on the integrated resource plan and as a avid baseball fan and golfer, I have to go with the
Eternal summer.
0:8:17.380-->0:8:20.330
Wold, Kathy
Alright,thanks Selena.
0:8:25.520-->0:8:26.350
Wold, Kathy
Hope I think you're on mute.
0:8:29.810-->0:8:30.250
Wold, Kathy
There we go.
0:8:31.10-->0:8:44.490
Selena (Guest)
I Selina O'Neill with the Ada County Operations Department and I'm energy manager for the county and
if I had to choose, I would choose summer only because I really don't like the cold.
0:8:46.340-->0:8:48.550
Wold, Kathy
OK, great.
0:8:44.500-->0:8:48.780
Selena (Guest)
But definitely autumn is my favorite,OK?
Page 14 of 192

0:8:48.560-->0:8:49.20
Wold,Kathy
Thank you.
0:8:50.610-->0:8:51.460
Wold,Kathy
And Seth?
0:8:53.500-->0:8:59.190
Seth Welty
Hi, I'm Seth at work with Lindsey Wilson for ARMS,one of the rating companies I would choose Eternal
Summer.
0:8:59.200-->0:9:1.270
Seth Welty
Definitely like Lake life and the boating.
0:9:2.0-->0:9:3.720
Wold, Kathy
Ah,nice,great.
0:9:5.910-->0:9:6.770
Wold, Kathy
Alright,let's see.
0:9:6.780-->0:9:7.800
Wold, Kathy
Do we have Marissa?
0:9:7.870-->0:9:8.470
Wold, Kathy
Are you on?
0:9:9.810-->0:9:12.430
Wold, Kathy
See Marissa and Don both, but I don't know if they're on.
0:9:13.720-->0:9:14.380
Wold, Kathy
Don't miss anybody.
0:9:16.880-->0:9:17.120
Thompson, Kody
Yeah.
0:9:16.890-->0:9:18.380
Wold, Kathy
Kody,where are you?
Page 15 of 192

0:9:18.390-->0:9:18.670
Wold, Kathy
Yeah.
0:9:18.680-->0:9:20.180
Wold, Kathy
And Robin, how did I miss two people?
0:9:20.190-->0:9:20.580
Wold, Kathy
Three people.
0:9:20.660-->0:9:21.310
Thompson,Kody
I don't know.
0:9:21.680-->0:9:23.0
Wold, Kathy
Where's the precipitant?
0:9:23.10-->0:9:23.900
Wold, Kathy
OK,there you go.
0:9:23.910-->0:9:24.650
Wold, Kathy
Kodyjumped in there.
0:9:21.320-->0:9:31.790
Thompson, Kody
I was surprised by that one, but it's at first I was gonna say at first I was questioning if it was because my
answer was eternal summer,and the regulatory folks were mad at me because, you know,we like to sell
gas.
0:9:31.190-->0:9:31.820
Wold,Kathy
They help it.
0:9:32.300-->0:9:37.340
Thompson, Kody
But yeah, Kody Thompson,energy efficiency analyst within her mountain.
0:9:37.350-->0:9:38.640
Thompson, Kody
And like said, eternal summer.
0:9:39.470-->0:9:39.950
Wold, Kathy
Great.
Page 16 of 192

0:9:40.80-->0:9:43.60
Wold, Kathy
All right, Robin,sorry, I missed these folks.
0:9:50.330-->0:9:50.570
Wold, Kathy
No.
0:9:43.830-->0:9:52.50
Robin Maslowski
No worries, Robin Maslowski,director with Guidehouse and after tearing my ACL skiing earlier this year,
I'm now eternal summer.
0:9:51.590-->0:9:56.450
Wold, Kathy
Oh yeah,definitely goodness Taylor.
0:9:56.520-->0:9:56.660
Wold,Kathy
Sure.
0:9:58.380-->0:10:5.530
Taylor Thomas
Good afternoon,Taylor,Thomas and the program manager with Idaho Public Utilities Commission and I
would have to say eternal winters.
0:10:5.540-->0:10:6.230
Taylor Thomas
I enjoy skiing.
0:10:6.930-->0:10:7.680
Wold,Kathy
All right.
0:10:8.60-->0:10:10.560
Wold, Kathy
Thank you all.Great.
0:10:10.570-->0:10:13.280
Wold, Kathy
Well,thanks for doing those quick introductions and sharing a little bit.
0:10:13.830-->0:10:23.110
Wold, Kathy
I was telling my team I could not find a really great summer picture and this one just reminds me of
allergies, so I I picked winter as well as all the winter folks out there so.
Page 17 of 192

0:10:26.620-->0:10:27.370
Wold, Kathy
Me here.
0:10:27.900-->0:10:31.580
Wold, Kathy
Alright,we're going to go back to min and Min has a safety moment for us today.
0:10:34.340-->0:10:34.540
Park, Min
Yes.
0:10:36.140-->0:10:45.750
Park, Min
And touching on that spirit of summer, I thought it would be good to talk about sun and heat protection
as today's safety moment.
0:10:46.830-->0:10:50.40
Park, Min
Umm, I don't know about you guys, but I love the sun.
0:10:50.870-->0:11:2.910
Park, Min
It can be pretty damaging for both the eyes and the skin,so always remember to wear a hat,sunglasses
or you can be like me and wear sweats and long sleeves in the summer for some reason.
0:11:3.820-->0:11:8.30
Park, Min
Ohm and with all that protection, it does get pretty hot.
0:11:8.40-->0:11:9.650
Park, Min
So always remember to hydrate.
0:11:10.850-->0:11:20.330
Park, Min
And for those of you that would rather wear tank tops and shorts, remember to apply sunscreen and
reapply sunscreen.
0:11:20.340-->0:11:26.50
Park, Min
Ideally over SPF 15, if possible,try to limit sun exposure.
0:11:26.800-->0:11:35.770
Park, Min
Most of us will be working during the listed strong hours of sunlight from 3:50,so that should be good.
Page 18 of 192

0:11:36.320-->0:11:38.430
Park, Min
And lastly,my favorite is shade.
0:11:38.500-->0:11:45.820
Park, Min
I personally do not go out at all and I like to take this time to use the sun as an excuse to not go out.
0:11:53.500-->0:11:54.180
Thompson, Kody
Kathy,you're on mute.
0:11:56.340-->0:11:57.90
Wold,Kathy
Thank you.
0:11:57.360-->0:11:57.870
Wold,Kathy
Alright.
0:11:57.880-->0:11:58.410
Wold, Kathy
Thanks min.
0:11:59.80-->0:12:3.210
Wold, Kathy
We will jump into doing some program results here.
0:12:3.580-->0:12:9.50
Wold, Kathy
And so I'm gonna go off camera,and I'm gonna turn it over to Kody, I think, right?
0:12:10.250-->0:12:11.420
Thompson, Kody
Yeah, I do believe it is.
0:12:12.400-->0:12:13.10
Wold, Kathy
There we go.
0:12:11.430-->0:12:13.390
Thompson, Kody
I.Yeah.
0:12:13.160-->0:12:14.860
Wold, Kathy
Alright,we'll get started.Thanks.
Page 19 of 192

0:12:14.570-->0:12:15.220
Thompson,Kody
Perfect.
0:12:15.530-->0:12:15.880
Thompson,Kody
Yeah.
0:12:15.930-->0:12:28.80
Thompson, Kody
So the first thing that we have here, and all of these are going to be included in the annual report as
well, but this is the rider balance for the residential rebate program at the end of 2022.
0:12:28.310-->0:12:50.370
Thompson, Kody
I just a couple quick highlights with that, we did end up over collected by about 450,000 and you can see
we did have that 4.8 million residential rider refund that took place as we adjusted the tariff on that to
help divest of some of that that we had over collected over the last couple of years.
0:12:57.690-->0:12:59.380
Taylor Thomas
It just quick question on that.
0:12:56.170-->0:12:59.690
Thompson, Kody
And so when we yeah.
0:12:59.570-->0:13:11.810
Taylor Thomas
What's what does the projected year look like and in the future it could we get at like projections to see
how expenses are lining up with over under balance.
0:13:11.820-->0:13:12.270
Taylor Thomas
Question.
0:13:12.700-->0:13:15.940
Taylor Thomas
Are we projected to maintain the current balance or go over?
0:13:18.920-->0:13:20.480
Thompson, Kody
It's a good question.
0:13:26.480-->0:13:26.720
Taylor Thomas
OK.
Page 20 of 192

0:13:20.490-->0:13:27.730
Thompson, Kody
I'd have to review where we were at compared to the quarterly report that was filed to see where we're
different from there.
0:13:27.740-->0:13:31.210
Thompson, Kody
But uh yeah,we can definitely take a look and get back to you on that.
0:13:31.840-->0:13:32.200
Taylor Thomas
Thank you.
0:13:39.500-->0:13:40.150
Thompson,Kody
Right.
0:13:40.340-->0:13:52.630
Thompson, Kody
So when we launched the commercial program back in April 21,we did allocate expenditures based on
the CPA therm savings potential outlined in that being the 80% residential 20%commercial split.
0:13:53.80-->0:14:6.900
Thompson, Kody
In 2022,we did do analysis on the charge and where that was land and we updated that allocation to be
95% residential and 5%commercial for those things that couldn't be assigned directly.
0:14:14.190-->0:14:14.330
Thompson, Kody
Yes.
0:14:13.200-->0:14:21.100
Kevin Keyt
Kody,this Kevin could you walk us through the math a little bit on the 95.5, how you calculated that?
0:14:24.340-->0:14:25.480
Thompson, Kody
Yeah, Kathy,you're gonna.
0:14:26.310-->0:14:28.170
Thompson, Kody
You're gonna have to help me remember on that.
0:14:28.180-->0:14:28.680
Thompson,Kody
It's been a while.
Page 21 of 192

0:14:27.210-->0:14:29.580
Wold, Kathy
Yeah, sure.
0:14:29.590-->0:14:30.220
Wold, Kathy
I'm just going to.
0:14:30.230-->0:14:31.340
Wold, Kathy
I'll jump in here.
0:14:31.470-->0:14:35.540
Wold, Kathy
Um,So what we did is we went back and looked at activity.
0:14:36.290-->0:14:45.920
Wold, Kathy
The energy services reps actually track all of their new service starts and activity through internal
program called construction tracking.
0:14:46.150-->0:14:53.980
Wold, Kathy
So we went back and looked at the split between residential and commercial and that came out to be
the 95.5 split.
0:14:54.350-->0:15:0.380
Wold, Kathy
The therm savings estimated therm savings for 2022 were also split in the 95.5.
0:15:0.910-->0:15:15.500
Wold, Kathy
When we looked at the division between where the therm savings were coming from and then internally
we did kind of a like a time study and informal time study to figure out where the energy efficiency folks
were spending their time.
0:15:18.350-->0:15:18.770
Kevin Keyt
Thank you.
0:15:15.670-->0:15:19.260
Wold, Kathy
So yeah,other.
0:15:19.720-->0:15:20.520
Taylor Thomas
It so.
Page 22 of 192

0:15:19.270-->0:15:20.870
Wold, Kathy
OK,Taylor.Yeah.
0:15:20.600-->0:15:23.10
Taylor Thomas
So what are you doing with the therm savings?
0:15:23.20-->0:15:26.160
Taylor Thomas
Is that for like allocation of cost or is that something different?
0:15:28.180-->0:15:32.60
Wold, Kathy
So,oh,you mean, how are we accounting for therm savings or how we applying that?
0:15:31.30-->0:15:38.140
Taylor Thomas
Well, he said updated allocation to 95%residential and 5%commercial based on activity.
0:15:38.450-->0:15:48.920
Taylor Thomas
Is that just a savings in general equals that I know recently from previous Commission orders we've been
talking about direct allocation of expenses for commercial.
0:15:53.160-->0:15:53.610
Wold,Kathy
Yeah.
0:15:48.930-->0:15:54.190
Taylor Thomas
So I wasn't sure if this therm savings is referencing that or well it keeps banned.
0:15:53.620-->0:15:55.450
Wold, Kathy
So that's gotcha.
0:15:55.500-->0:16:7.300
Wold, Kathy
So for where we can allocate direct, allocate the expenses like if we go to an event and we know we're
only talking to the commercial audience there,we will direct expense that to the commercial program.
0:16:7.750-->0:16:18.960
Wold, Kathy
There are some cases where we may do a promotion or an event where we've got both audiences there
and so it's a little bit harder to split that out between is it commercial, residential.
0:16:18.970-->0:16:29.250
Wold, Kathy
Page 23 of 192

And so from that pool that the expenses that are hard to allocate,we just apply the 95.5 split to that
pool of expenses that are not direct expensed.
0:16:29.920-->0:16:30.260
Taylor Thomas
OK.
0:16:30.520-->0:16:30.960
Wold, Kathy
Does that help?
0:16:30.490-->0:16:36.60
Taylor Thomas
So is it mostly just kind of marketing that type of stuff that's receiving that therm savings allocation?
0:16:36.580-->0:16:37.620
Wold,Kathy
Right, right.
0:16:37.130-->0:16:51.80
Taylor Thomas
And then I guess the question would be, is, is it gonna be 95.5 every year or like because therm savings
change in a given year,you could have uptick in your commercial program and obviously that wouldn't
be a very reliable method if all sudden you jump to 20%.
0:16:51.800-->0:16:52.150
Wold, Kathy
Right.
0:16:51.90-->0:16:54.990
Taylor Thomas
So how do you build something that's more reliable for the future?
0:16:55.0-->0:16:56.520
Taylor Thomas
That's not based off therm savings.
0:16:58.700-->0:16:59.630
Wold, Kathy
That's a great question.
0:16:59.640-->0:17:5.60
Wold, Kathy
So we we're trying to track some of our time in terms of thinking about how much time we spend
between the two programs.
0:17:6.740-->0:17:9.520
Wold, Kathy
But I think that's something that we'll probably have to work on.
Page 24 of 192

0:17:10.30-->0:17:14.410
Wold, Kathy
Umm,you know,especially if we see an uptick in the commercial activity.
0:17:15.90-->0:17:18.840
Wold, Kathy
Uh,today it's been,you know,slower uptake in the program.
0:17:18.850-->0:17:29.640
Wold, Kathy
So I think that that's something that we'll have to continue to monitor and work on, but look for kind of a
long term split if that really is truly the split between the two programs.
0:17:30.700-->0:17:30.900
Taylor Thomas
OK.
0:17:31.820-->0:17:32.100
Taylor Thomas
Thank you.
0:17:32.310-->0:17:32.650
Wold, Kathy
Thanks.
0:17:33.680-->0:17:34.620
Wold, Kathy
You see another hand up.
0:17:37.130-->0:17:37.480
Jason Talford
Yeah.
0:17:36.660-->0:17:39.30
Wold,Kathy
Yes. Yeah.
0:17:37.490-->0:17:39.270
Jason Talford
This is Jason here.
0:17:39.550-->0:17:40.140
Jason Talford
I caught that.
0:17:46.360-->0:17:46.690
Wold,Kathy
Umm.
Page 25 of 192

0:17:40.150-->0:17:49.990
Jason Talford
You you looked at your service reps and you tracked their construction or their time through
construction tracking and you had a therm savings study in both of those showed 95.5.
0:17:51.250-->0:17:55.860
Jason Talford
But I thought I heard you say that you had a a time study on your EE employees.
0:17:55.870-->0:17:59.180
Jason Talford
Did that also come up 95/5?OK.
0:17:56.320-->0:17:59.540
Wold, Kathy
Yeah,yes.Yeah.
0:17:59.920-->0:18:11.10
Wold, Kathy
With the exception of probably my time where I'm spending a little bit more time over all the whole
program, but for the most part,yes, I would say that was a split for our folks in EE.
0:18:13.990-->0:18:14.270
Wold, Kathy
Great.
0:18:14.770-->0:18:15.0
Jason Talford
Great.
0:18:15.10-->0:18:15.310
Jason Talford
Thank you.
0:18:14.910-->0:18:15.500
Wold,Kathy
Thank you.
0:18:16.10-->0:18:16.560
Wold,Kathy
Alright.
0:18:16.890-->0:18:17.600
Wold, Kathy
Any other questions?
0:18:20.500-->0:18:22.240
Wold, Kathy
All right,we'll turn it back to Kody.
Page 26 of 192

0:18:24.950-->0:18:25.650
Thompson,Kody
Thanks, Kathy.
0:18:25.930-->0:18:26.430
Thompson,Kody
Uh, yes.
0:18:26.440-->0:18:53.630
Thompson, Kody
So we did end with a program level UCT of 1.3 for those per the residential measures,the measures level
UCT is at 1.0 or greater for all measures except for the storage water heaters that one came in at .9 for
the ACT,we issued a total of 7945 rebates on the residential program,which is a 43% increase over the
number of rebates issued in 2021.
0:18:54.260-->0:19:11.60
Thompson, Kody
The rebates for all measures except new construction,and there's one other residential one that we'll
show here later that exceeclec12021 counts the one residential one outside of new construction was the
same as 2021 counts.
0:19:11.290-->0:19:15.630
Thompson, Kody
And then we did have a slight dip in new construction,which we'll get into a little bit further on here.
0:19:22.540-->0:19:29.350
Thompson, Kody
And here's just that breakdown of the ratios on a measure level as where all of those lay.
0:19:29.400-->0:19:33.770
Thompson, Kody
Like I said,everything ended up at a 1.0 or better,except for those storage water heaters.
0:19:42.330-->0:19:48.50
Thompson, Kody
So this is just a chart showing that comparison of rebates issued year over year.
0:19:48.880-->0:20:0.930
Thompson, Kody
So you can see we are continuing to see additional rebates issued 2021 year over year as we continue to
grow and build the program and the next few charts are going to show it well after this one.
0:20:1.170-->0:20:4.250
Thompson, Kody
Uh,this one is our estimated therm savings.
0:20:4.260-->0:20:14.330
Thompson, Kody
Page 27 of 192

You will see there is a downtick there of about 100 and uh, 180,000 therms and we'll get in to that as we
move on.
0:20:14.340-->0:20:17.120
Thompson, Kody
But we did see that didn't creep decrease despite increased participation.
0:20:21.990-->0:20:29.700
Thompson, Kody
So the next few slides are just going to show where we've been seeing that growth for some of them like
this one with the storage water heaters where it was applicable.
0:20:29.710-->0:20:33.500
Thompson, Kody
We did include for the 2021 count,the Comparable measure that was retired and so that total count of 16 for
2021 is for storage water heaters that were under the old rebate program that ended April 1st, 2021, as well
as the new offering that began.
0:20:50.280-->0:20:57.830
Thompson, Kody
So we had sixteen of those in 2021 and we had 32 storage water heaters in 2022.
0:20:58.0-->0:21:2.780
Thompson, Kody
Under the new program offering,so doubling that participation compared to the previous year.
0:21:8.900-->0:21:11.180
Thompson, Kody
And then we have our tankless water heater Tier 2.
0:21:11.190-->0:21:16.250
Thompson, Kody
This one is a comparison of only nine months because we didn't have a comparable offering for 2021.
0:21:16.730-->0:21:27.290
Thompson, Kody
So as you can see,we had four issued out there from April to December 21 and then we had almost
three times participation with the full year offering at 15.
0:21:30.910-->0:21:32.820
Thompson, Kody
Tankless water here heater tier one.
0:21:32.830-->0:21:47.450
Thompson, Kody
Page 28 of 192

We did about double a little bit over double what's 2021 was and that again does include the old
tankless water heater offering that was retired as well as the new tier one offering because the efficiency
rating was comparable for that one.
0:21:51.990-->0:21:52.260
Thompson, Kody
Uh.
0:21:52.270-->0:21:53.0
Thompson, Kody
The combi boiler?
0:21:53.10-->0:21:55.140
Thompson, Kody
That's the one that that I mentioned.
0:21:55.360-->0:22:13.360
Thompson, Kody
I met 2021's history so we had a total of 6 when looking at the old program where we were I where we
were kind of talking about it a little bit different was$1000 rebate offering and we had six in 2022.
0:22:13.370-->0:22:16.40
Thompson, Kody
Under the updated offering,so we didn't see a dip in participation there.
0:22:16.50-->0:22:17.730
Thompson, Kody
That one stayed pretty much the same.
0:22:21.790-->0:22:27.330
Thompson, Kody
And then we had our new boiler offering,which we did see some growth there with two additional
boilers being issued in 2022.
0:22:31.220-->0:22:33.20
Thompson, Kody
Uh,then we have our smart thermostats.
0:22:33.30-->0:22:37.800
Thompson, Kody
This one uh seemed to take off like wildfire in August in Idaho.
0:22:38.370-->0:22:48.870
Thompson, Kody
Uh, we had 600 roughly in the nine month history and 2021 and then we had just over 2700 of those
issued in 2022.
0:22:52.670-->0:23:0.380
Thompson, Kody
Page 29 of 192

And then our furnaces, we did continue to see growth there, about 400 furnaces additional than the
previous year.
0:23:4.450-->0:23:11.70
Thompson, Kody
And then this is where we get into a little bit of that, uh participation.
0:23:11.980-->0:23:28.790
Thompson, Kody
Even though it increased,the savings will decrease because the new construction here we are comparing
in 2021 the old Energy Star program that was retired as well as the whole home Tier 2 rebates that were
received in 2021.
0:23:28.960-->0:23:49.100
Thompson, Kody
Just looking at that holistically as a whole with just over 1900 rebates issued and in 2022 we had a little
bit of a decline in participation with that going down to 1400, there's a little sliver there on the end for
our whole home Tier 1 participation that we've seen uh included in 2022 as well.
0:23:53.830-->0:23:55.990
Thompson, Kody
So yes,Jason.
0:23:57.40-->0:24:7.430
Jason Talford
And just a fast question before we move along,would you remind me if between tier one and Tier 2,
which ones the more efficient option-the higher class new construction?
0:24:8.170-->0:24:10.560
Thompson, Kody
Yeah,tier one is the higher option.
0:24:24.870-->0:24:25.130
Jason Talford
Great.
0:24:25.140-->0:24:25.420
Jason Talford
Thank you.
0:24:10.570-->0:24:26.90
Thompson, Kody
It's got the higher efficiency furnace rating requirement and the additional the lower ACH requirement
and the additional requirement of threshold for the ceiling installation,yeah.
0:24:28.510-->0:24:43.210
Taylor Thomas
Have you guys talked to the builders about their willingness to do to your tier
Page 30 of 192

one if you tried to find out more information about that is obviously the participation really low on that
side?
0:24:43.220-->0:24:48.230
Taylor Thomas
Obviously it's more stringent, but just kind of curious about what's occurring there.
0:24:51.210-->0:24:51.730
Thompson,Kody
Albert.
0:24:51.740-->0:24:52.210
Thompson,Kody
Kathy on that.
0:24:51.350-->0:24:58.380
Wold, Kathy
So yeah,so a lot of the feedback that we get comes from our raters rather than directly from our
builders.
0:24:59.130-->0:25:15.660
Wold, Kathy
Umm, one thing that we heard about last year is the tier one has the higher requires the 97% efficient
furnace and there were some supply chain issues where we thought that it was builders didn't want to
install the ceiling insulation because I've heard some pushback on that.
0:25:16.830-->0:25:26.430
Wold, Kathy
That they don't really love doing the R49 ceiling insulation, but it was in fact that they could not get the
97%efficient furnaces to meet tier one.
0:25:27.890-->0:25:34.460
Wold, Kathy
So hopefully as those supply chain issues are resolving,we'll see more participation in that tier one level.
0:25:34.770-->0:25:37.260
Wold, Kathy
And I think we've already had one come through this year.
0:25:37.270-->0:25:39.660
Wold, Kathy
So we're hoping that that will continue to grow.
0:25:40.790-->0:25:42.780
Thompson, Kody
Yeah,yeah, I'd have to do an analysis on it.
0:25:42.790-->0:25:56.610
Thompson, Kody
Page 31 of 192

I know we've seen a number that would qualify for tier one, but for the fact that they put in 95 or a 96%
furnace and so like the only thing that was preventing them from meeting that additional step was that
97.
0:25:57.730-->0:26:1.60
Taylor Thomas
So,so the supply chains,you know, I've definitely heard that a couple of times.
0:26:1.560-->0:26:12.950
Taylor Thomas
Does that data match up to your furnace program as well,where you're not getting 97%furnaces
installed with the efficiency rating?
0:26:12.960-->0:26:13.660
Taylor Thomas
I know it's.
0:26:13.830-->0:26:18.400
Taylor Thomas
I think has changed the requirements on the little bit, but you should still see maybe some 97%.
0:26:18.410-->0:26:21.800
Taylor Thomas
So I'm just kind of curious if that kind of matches up with the furnace program as well.
0:26:22.450-->0:26:23.660
Wold, Kathy
That's a great question.
0:26:24.50-->0:26:29.640
Wold, Kathy
Um, I don't know off the top of my head, but that's certainly something that we could we could look
into.
0:26:30.50-->0:26:32.360
Wold, Kathy
Unless Kody,you know I shouldn't preempt.Sorry.
0:26:31.740-->0:26:32.810
Thompson,Kody
Uh it?
0:26:33.220-->0:26:34.810
Thompson, Kody
No initial gut check.
0:26:34.820-->0:26:39.550
Thompson, Kody
I can tell you we've seen a few of the furnace.
Page 32 of 192

0:26:40.580-->0:26:55.810
Thompson, Kody
What it works out ratio wise and that I couldn't say it is it is a smaller portion of what we see on the
furnace side as well mostly or seeing like 95 or 96 ones is the majority of what I can think of seeing.
0:26:56.580-->0:27:3.270
Thompson, Kody
But I know we have seen 97's in their occasionally, but I'd have to have to dig in there a little bit deeper
and see what that ratio looks like on those.
0:27:3.970-->0:27:4.640
Taylor Thomas
Yeah.
0:27:4.650-->0:27:18.490
Taylor Thomas
I just think it would be something interesting to see because you know it from a builder perspective, I'm
no builder, but I would think,you know,take the easy money while you can and they have to go over the
top to meet the tier one.
0:27:18.500-->0:27:23.770
Taylor Thomas
So is it just kind of a scapegoat saying the furnaces or is it truly the issue?
0:27:26.370-->0:27:26.550
Wold, Kathy
Yeah.
0:27:23.780-->0:27:28.740
Taylor Thomas
Just trying to get an idea of if you're trying to drive to your one participation, how do you improve that?
0:27:29.220-->0:27:32.880
Taylor Thomas
Is it true this fly chain or is there other issues and that type of thing?
0:27:33.770-->0:27:39.80
Wold, Kathy
Yeah, Fair point we're trying to do a little more Digging.
0:27:39.90-->0:27:39.760
Wold, Kathy
Sorry,go ahead Jason.
0:27:37.20-->0:27:47.330
Jason Talford
To follow up on that,sorry, I had a follow-up question based off of that,what's the what's the differential
of the Tier 2 high efficiency?
Page 33 of 192

0:27:47.340-->0:27:49.320
Jason Talford
Where does that start and where does the Tier 1 go?
0:27:50.240-->0:27:51.200
Jason Talford
Uh with 97.
0:27:50.280-->0:28:0.450
Wold, Kathy
So yeah,so the tier one,the the most efficient has the highest energy performance requirements is a
$900 rebate and Tier 2 is a $700.00 rebate.
0:28:1.460-->0:28:1.700
Jason Talford
You.
0:28:1.800-->0:28:14.290
Jason Talford
Yeah,specifically for the,the higher the furnaces efficiency,the tier one,the more efficient option has
the 97%efficient furnace, right?
0:28:14.970-->0:28:17.230
Wold,Kathy
It does .
0:28:14.300-->0:28:18.80
Jason Talford
What does the Tier 2 require?
Wold, Kathy
95
0:28:18.90-->0:28:18.500
Jason Talford
OK.
0:28:17.240-->0:28:18.800
Wold, Kathy
Sorry, I misunderstood the question.
0:28:18.610-->0:28:19.400
Jason Talford
No,that's perfect.
0:28:19.410-->0:28:19.710
Jason Talford
Thank you.
0:28:18.850-->0:28:19.850
Wold,Kathy
Yeah,yeah.
Page 34 of 192

0:28:23.850-->0:28:25.870
Wold, Kathy
Other questions on this.
0:28:28.660-->0:28:30.200
Wold, Kathy
Hey,we're going to the next one here.
0:28:33.420-->0:28:33.820
Thompson, Kody
Yeah.
0:28:33.870-->0:28:34.340
Thompson,Kody
Yeah.
0:28:34.430-->0:28:40.940
Thompson, Kody
So like I alluded to earlier,we did have that decrease in annual therm savings, it's down 21%compared
to 2021.
0:28:41.590-->0:28:43.860
Thompson, Kody
Part of that is because we have those reduced estimated.
0:28:44.10-->0:28:50.730
Thompson, Kody
Therm savings in one of the most redeemed rebates with the whole home as well as the lower
participation in that year over year.
0:28:52.640-->0:29:1.260
Thompson, Kody
Some of the things that we're seeing that may have led to that lower participation is we've got those
increased energy performance targets and a lower rebate amount.
0:29:1.600-->0:29:14.410
Thompson, Kody
There's a little bit of learning curve with that ACH because it is more aggressive than the current building
code and then kind of as we eluded to, as we discussed rather here with the supply chain issues on that
97%first.
0:29:14.420-->0:29:15.60
Thompson, Kody
That we've heard
of.
0:29:18.320-->0:29:18.710
Thompson, Kody
Yes,Jason.
Page 35 of 192

0:29:20.710-->0:29:22.370
Jason Talford
Would you just define ACH for me?
0:29:24.280-->0:29:24.910
Jason Talford
OK,great.
0:29:24.920-->0:29:25.200
Jason Talford
Thank you.
0:29:22.820-->0:29:25.780
Thompson, Kody
Air changes per hour,so yeah.
0:29:33.110-->0:29:33.450
Wold,Kathy
Hey.
0:29:35.620-->0:29:40.770
Thompson, Kody
And then the last thing I get to talk to you about is something that that is really exciting.
0:29:40.780-->0:29:52.270
Thompson, Kody
It's been a really long project that we're happy to continue and we've just closed phase one of we
developed our internal energy efficiency rebate app.
0:29:52.440-->0:29:56.760
Thompson, Kody
We're calling it ERA Enterprise rebate app and what it has.
0:29:56.880-->0:29:57.350
Thompson,Kody
Done.
0:29:57.360-->0:30:1.910
Thompson, Kody
Is it has introduced a lot of quality of life improvements and streamlined things.
0:30:1.920-->0:30:22.650
Thompson, Kody
Prior to this,we were using five or six different programs to do all of the qualifications on a rebate and
those are things like making sure that they're customer with Intermountain Gas,that they're on the
correct rate to qualify for the rebate that we haven't issued a rebate on the piece of equipment
previously.
Page 36 of 192

0:30:24.70-->0:30:30.950
Thompson, Kody
And issuing checks and all of all of the things that are entailed with that.
0:30:31.110-->0:30:41.290
Thompson, Kody
So all of that has been rolled into this process and has streamlined that for us,creating quality of life
improvements and time saving efforts on things like that.
0:30:41.400-->0:30:45.310
Thompson, Kody
And so it's something that we've, like I said,we just wrapped phase one of it.
0:30:45.320-->0:30:46.530
Thompson, Kody
So it's all internal.
0:30:46.540-->0:31:7.720
Thompson, Kody
Currently we are working and prepping to do a phase two version that would replace our current version
of the online application and customers would then be able to log into their online account, complete
the application in there, and they'll also be able to check the status of their rebate application through
their self service portal online.
0:31:20.650-->0:31:20.830
Thompson,Kody
Yeah.
0:31:17.410-->0:31:21.840
Kevin Keyt
Kody,before you move on to commercial
0:31:22.350-->0:31:22.760
Kevin Keyt
Yeah.
0:31:22.770-->0:31:24.180
Kevin Keyt
Couple questions on measures.
0:31:24.190-->0:31:32.20
Kevin Keyt
This is Kevin on water heaters,what is the plan to get to 1.0 or better, UCT?
Page 37 of 192

0:31:34.620-->0:31:35.210
Thompson,Kody
Great question.
0:31:37.260-->0:31:38.970
Thompson, Kody
Kathy all asked for you on that.
0:31:40.230-->0:31:40.950
Thompson, Kody
You're on mute,Kathy.
0:31:43.860-->0:31:45.490
Wold, Kathy
Just gonna leave myself off mute.
0:31:45.680-->0:31:48.50
Wold, Kathy
I can't seem to control the mute and unmute.
0:31:48.800-->0:31:50.30
Wold, Kathy
That's a great question.
0:31:50.160-->0:32:19.540
Wold, Kathy
The water heating thing is something that we have been monitoring and trying to move the needle on,
that one umm, I don't, we don't really know why it's sort of underutilized rebate, but we have started
doing some more promotion and we just this last couple of days we sent out an email to all of our
customers that are opted into energy efficiency topics and it was specifically focused on water heaters
and we've actually had a great response to that.
0:32:19.550-->0:32:27.0
Wold, Kathy
So we've had a lot of folks calling in and asking about does mine qualify questions about how long it's
been available.
0:32:27.10-->0:32:30.450
Wold, Kathy
So, umm,the email outreach has been really successful.
0:32:30.460-->0:32:37.670
Wold, Kathy
So we're trying to make sure that we get those out in front of customers in the methods that they
receive information.
0:32:37.680-->0:32:44.260
Wold, Kathy
And we haven't done this through like a direct focusing on a particular rebate through email before.
Page 38 of 192

0:32:44.270-->0:32:46.830
Wold, Kathy
So we've got a great response and it happened to be on water heaters.
0:32:47.340-->0:32:53.500
Wold, Kathy
We'll hope that that will help push the needle on participation and that cost effectiveness of the tanked
water heater.
0:33:5.570-->0:33:5.710
Wold, Kathy
Yes.
0:32:54.740-->0:33:12.190
Kevin Keyt
So that would imply that with increased participation you're expecting incremental therm savings to get
you to cost effectiveness or are you possibly talking about restructuring the incentive,the rebate?
0:33:13.70-->0:33:20.80
Wold, Kathy
Well,that's a great segue into the CPA cause we've got some updated information coming from the
CPA.
0:33:32.30-->0:33:32.480
Kevin Keyt
OK.
0:33:20.90-->0:33:33.250
Wold, Kathy
So we're gonna take those study results and evaluate that and determine what kind of program changes
need to be made and what kind of maybe changes to the incentives or to the rebate offering, yeah.
0:33:33.10-->0:33:46.40
Kevin Keyt
Then the other question that I have,which is the question that we always ask around thermostats, do we
have any kind of idea on actual therm, savings and number of thermostats that have been installed?
0:33:46.50-->0:33:47.340
Kevin Keyt
Because it's a self install.
0:33:49.350-->0:33:49.860
Wold,Kathy
Umm.
0:33:49.910-->0:33:56.20
Wold, Kathy
To this point, I'd say no,we have not done EMV on the smart thermostat since it is a brand new offering.
Page 39 of 192

0:34:0.410-->0:34:0.770
Kevin Keyt
Thank you.
0:34:2.470-->0:34:3.310
Taylor Thomas
When do you plan to?
0:34:5.380-->0:34:7.410
Wold, Kathy
That's something that we could probably look at.
0:34:7.420-->0:34:15.520
Wold, Kathy
We're going to be doing EMV on furnace and whole home later this year,so that's something that we
could definitely look at, including in that impact study.
0:34:20.680-->0:34:21.40
Wold,Kathy
Right.
0:34:16.660-->0:34:21.770
Taylor Thomas
I mean, I'll just say it's obviously something based on sufficient participation would be necessary.
0:34:21.780-->0:34:25.790
Taylor Thomas
I'm just curious,do you guys have a no.
0:34:26.60-->0:34:30.400
Taylor Thomas
With other utilities,we sometimes see people present kind of an EMV schedule.
0:34:30.410-->0:34:33.330
Taylor Thomas
You guys have an EMV schedule for all your programs, right?
0:34:33.740-->0:34:34.110
Wold, Kathy
We do.
0:34:34.730-->0:34:34.950
Taylor Thomas
OK.
0:34:36.740-->0:34:41.790
Taylor Thomas
Just in the future, I think it would be beneficial to potentially see that just so we could adress.
Page 40 of 192

0:34:41.800-->0:34:46.80
Taylor Thomas
If you see that,just like Kevin's question here,addressing it sooner, if we think it's necessary.
0:34:46.780-->0:34:49.220
Wold,Kathy
OK,great.
0:34:49.390-->0:34:49.890
Wold,Kathy
Thank you.
0:34:53.280-->0:34:55.360
Wold, Kathy
Any other questions on rebates?
0:34:59.130-->0:34:59.750
Wold,Kathy
OK.
0:35:1.30-->0:35:2.610
Wold, Kathy
I'll jump into promotions here.
0:35:4.430-->0:35:13.740
Wold, Kathy
So for 2022,we did a lot of our traditional outreach methods sending out new customer letters that
include information about the energy efficiency program.
0:35:14.250-->0:35:16.300
Wold, Kathy
We have an annual bill insert.
0:35:16.710-->0:35:27.630
Wold, Kathy
We maintain our presence on social media, so we do a monthly post that include an EE topic or a
promotion of the program at least once a month.
0:35:27.640-->0:35:32.380
Wold, Kathy
And then we'll do additional posts for highlighting certain things that are going on in energy efficiency.
0:35:32.950-->0:35:36.690
Wold, Kathy
And we always have our community and industry events that we participate in.
0:35:37.320-->0:35:53.390
Wold, Kathy
And 2022,we carried on with our monthly meetings with the energy services reps as an opportunity to
Page 41 of 192

touch base on things that are going on out in the field and information there getting back from
developers and builders and customers and also updating them on any energy efficiency topics.
0:35:54.120-->0:36:2.210
Wold, Kathy
We also did some district meetings this past year to make sure that we got out to folks that you know,
they may not have a energy efficiency.
0:36:3.260-->0:36:7.570
Wold, Kathy
Responsibility and their duties, but they still interact with customers in one way or another.
0:36:7.580-->0:36:9.270
Wold, Kathy
So we wanted to make sure that they were.
0:36:9.710-->0:36:14.220
Wold, Kathy
I'm aware of the program and presenting those opportunities to customers as they're able to.
0:36:14.370-->0:36:17.280
Wold, Kathy
And then we also did an employee awareness campaign.
0:36:17.800-->0:36:22.600
Wold, Kathy
We feel like our employees are one of our most underutilized word of mouth folks.
0:36:22.610-->0:36:25.730
Wold, Kathy
So you know,folks could ask where do you work?
0:36:25.740-->0:36:28.650
Wold, Kathy
And you say Intermountain Gas and leads to more questions.
0:36:28.660-->0:36:36.140
Wold, Kathy
And so we want to make sure that those folks are helping us promote the energy efficiency program and
opportunity for people to earn rebates.
0:36:39.780-->0:36:45.970
Wold, Kathy
So here are just a couple of samples of our energy efficiency social media posts.
0:36:46.180-->0:36:54.830
Wold, Kathy
These focused on energy saving tips for your home, promotion of rebates in the program,and then
special energy efficiency.
Page 42 of 192

0:36:54.840-->0:36:56.820
Wold, Kathy
Days like Earth Day and Energy Star day.
0:37:0.920-->0:37:5.370
Wold, Kathy
Outreach events that we participated in this last year include golf tournaments.
0:37:5.380-->0:37:23.690
Wold, Kathy
We found that that has been a really effective way to reach out, particularly to builders that come
through the building association golf tournaments as participants work their way through the
tournament,they have a chance to visit our table and kind of play an energy efficiency golf game and
learn about our program.
0:37:24.300-->0:37:28.830
Wold, Kathy
We also participated in the parade of homes throughout the region,our service territory.
0:37:29.620-->0:37:42.700
Wold, Kathy
This was the first year that we were able to partner with some builders and get some signage out in the
home and then do a little bit of educating on the HERS score, advertising, high efficient equipment that
was installed in the home.
0:37:42.710-->0:37:53.470
Wold, Kathy
And this was just a really great opportunity to do some customer education about home energy
efficiency while they're actually standing right there in an energy efficient home that's earned our
rebate.
0:37:53.480-->0:37:56.80
Wold, Kathy
So that was a great partnership for us.
0:37:57.70-->0:38:12.830
Wold, Kathy
We've been wanting to work with Realtors for quite some time and in 2022 we had the first opportunity
to be a part of the Regional Realtors Association and sponsored their conference and had an opportunity
to make a plug for the energy efficiency program.
0:38:13.350-->0:38:27.500
Wold, Kathy
And then we've also done trade shows like kind of our traditional outreach methods,trade shows like
Buy Idaho, we participated in conferences,we have information booth at the Idaho Building Contractor
Association.
Page 43 of 192

0:38:27.510-->0:38:36.0
Wold, Kathy
And so any place that we can get out there and interact with folks and make sure that they have a
chance to learn about us and ask US questions and learn how they can get a rebate.
0:38:40.260-->0:38:45.370
Wold, Kathy
One of the big efforts that we make each year is the customer engagement and EE awareness campaign.
0:38:45.600-->0:38:47.990
Wold, Kathy
This is built around our annual bill.
0:38:48.0-->0:39:3.700
Wold, Kathy
Insert this year in 2022,the theme was 'hungry for savings', and we did the annual bill insert the paper
insert that you find with your bill, which also included a digital version that went to online payers.
0:39:4.230-->0:39:7.710
Wold, Kathy
And we paired that with a customer email that went out to folks.
0:39:7.960-->0:39:31.900
Wold, Kathy
We had a web banner on our site and then also promoted it on social media and for this engagement
activity we ask customers to go to our website and take a 3 question quiz and right or wrong answers if
they participated they would be entered into a drawing for a $100 gift card grocery gift card and we had
great participation.
0:39:31.910-->0:39:40.750
Wold, Kathy
In 2022,we had over 12,000 contest entries,so over 12,000 folks were willing to take the quiz and get
entered to the drawing.
0:39:41.280-->0:39:43.430
Wold, Kathy
Over 23,000 page views.
0:39:44.500-->0:39:52.150
Wold, Kathy
We had an open rate of in the email of 60%,which was an increase over last year,which was a 42%
increase.
0:39:52.160-->0:39:57.550
Wold, Kathy
So hopefully the email was compelling enough and folks are getting used to seeing communications from
US.
Page 44 of 192

0:39:57.560-->0:40:6.480
Wold, Kathy
So they actually open our email and read it, and then we had a 10%click through rate on folks that
actually went to the website and entered into the contest.
0:40:8.330-->0:40:10.460
Kevin Keyt
Thank you for tracking those kind of metrics.
0:40:11.100-->0:40:12.10
Wold, Kathy
Yes,absolutely.
0:40:15.70-->0:40:18.420
Wold, Kathy
So then we asked ourselves,OK,did that really translate to action?
0:40:18.430-->0:40:25.920
Wold, Kathy
And so we tried to measure some of the things that we can have a little bit of control over this graph
here.
0:40:25.980-->0:40:32.310
Wold, Kathy
This chart shows how people responded on their rebate application to the question how did you hear
about us?
0:40:32.790-->0:40:39.190
Wold, Kathy
And far and away,the HVAC contractor is always the number one response.
0:40:39.200-->0:40:45.950
Wold, Kathy
So we took that one out of here so that we could focus on some of the things like the bill insert a
community event.
0:40:46.140-->0:40:53.950
Wold, Kathy
IGC employees social media and see how some of those responses were impacted after our October 22
bill insert.
0:40:53.960-->0:40:58.360
Wold, Kathy
And so we got some good increases in folks that heard about the program from the bill insert.
0:40:58.800-->0:41:5.720
Wold, Kathy
Also in the direct mail, which is actually email because we don't use direct mail, but we have sent the
email out.
Page 45 of 192

0:41:5.860-->0:41:18.900
Wold, Kathy
Also increased in hearing about it from an IGC employee and of course on the website and social
media,so I felt like the communication was reaching our customers and they were remembering that
they heard about us through the bill insert or the email.
0:41:22.470-->0:41:24.170
Wold, Kathy
And we also took a look at rebates.
0:41:24.180-->0:41:33.40
Wold, Kathy
So after the bill insert activity customer engagement activity in October 22,we wanted to look and see
did that impact the actual submission of rebates?
0:41:33.110-->0:41:36.860
Wold, Kathy
And we did see a good increase in rebates from October, November, December.
0:41:37.210-->0:41:46.150
Wold, Kathy
It carried over a little bit into January and February and so hopefully folks are reading their mail from us
and taking an energy saving action.
0:41:51.560-->0:41:52.20
Wold,Kathy
OK.
0:41:52.30-->0:41:59.140
Wold, Kathy
Any more questions about residential program outreach,we're gonna jump into commercial,yeah.
0:41:58.130-->0:42:3.820
Kevin Keyt
Kathy, Kevin,just a thought and maybe a question in outreach.
0:42:4.850-->0:42:12.800
Kevin Keyt
So we basically outreach around therm savings,which translates to dollar savings for a customer.
0:42:12.810-->0:42:16.640
Kevin Keyt
I wonder if there is an opportunity for.
0:42:19.640-->0:42:36.30
Kevin Keyt
I'm not gonna articulate this very well, so bear with me, but for the potential of reducing your carbon
footprint through energy savings, if that message may resonate with folks to and incent them to
participate, does that make sense to you?
Page 46 of 192

0:42:36.810-->0:42:37.10
Wold,Kathy
Yeah.
0:42:39.370-->0:42:39.660
Wold,Kathy
Yeah.
0:42:47.530-->0:42:48.80
Kevin Keyt
Yeah.
0:42:48.150-->0:42:48.420
Kevin Keyt
Yeah.
0:42:39.670-->0:42:48.620
Wold, Kathy
So if we could pair our message with not only energy savings or money savings, but also how they may
be impacting carbon footprint savings, is that OK?
0:42:50.200-->0:42:50.420
Wold, Kathy
Yeah.
0:42:48.430-->0:42:51.110
Kevin Keyt
So if you're saving a therm then yeah.
0:42:52.260-->0:42:55.290
Wold, Kathy
Yeah,that that is something we definitely look into.
0:42:56.530-->0:43:0.100
Kevin Keyt
Not necessarily looking for an answer,just maybe something to think about.
0:42:58.850-->0:43:1.240
Wold, Kathy
Yeah,definitely.
0:43:1.250-->0:43:2.360
Wold, Kathy
I think it's food for thought.
0:43:2.370-->0:43:2.880
Wold,Kathy
Absolutely.
Page 47 of 192

0:43:4.60-->0:43:4.580
Wold, Kathy
Thank you.
0:43:11.210-->0:43:11.860
Wold, Kathy
OK.
0:43:12.50-->0:43:13.210
Wold, Kathy
We're gonna jump into commercial.
0:43:13.220-->0:43:14.170
Wold, Kathy
There's no one else.
0:43:21.290-->0:43:23.40
Wold, Kathy
Do you wanna jump in?
0:43:23.330-->0:43:23.710
Wold, Kathy
There we go.
0:43:24.430-->0:43:26.230
Thompson,Kody
Uh,yeah, yeah.
0:43:26.310-->0:43:36.190
Thompson, Kody
Once again,this will be in the annual report in greater detail as well, but yeah, it's just not, not really a
whole lot to say here other than that's the commercial right balance.
0:43:36.200-->0:43:40.60
Thompson, Kody
I made it about 460,000 over,collected at your end.
0:43:44.380-->0:43:46.980
Thompson, Kody
And then we yesterday.
0:43:48.440-->0:43:51.310
Jason Talford
And it would,you just hop back to that slide real quick.
0:43:52.720-->0:44:0.840
Jason Talford
I just needed to absorb that a little bit and then I think I was gonna borrow Taylor's question from a little
earlier.
Page 48 of 192

0:44:1.370-->0:44:1.670
Jason Talford
What?
0:44:1.680-->0:44:3.580
Jason Talford
What is just the trend?
0:44:4.440-->0:44:4.790
Wold, Kathy
Umm.
0:44:3.770-->0:44:5.440
Jason Talford
Yeah,that I know.
0:44:5.450-->0:44:13.290
Jason Talford
This one's a little bit easier now that you don't have the that you know big lump sum taken off,you know,
is it trending up trending down?
0:44:17.280-->0:44:20.660
Thompson, Kody
I would say based on our participation, it's trending up.
0:44:21.590-->0:44:31.210
Thompson, Kody
Uh,just in the sense that, uh,you know,we we're continued collect it, but we aren't seeing participation
in the volume that we're seeing on the residential side.
0:44:31.620-->0:44:34.820
Thompson, Kody
So that's just, uh,you know?
0:44:34.830-->0:44:37.670
Thompson, Kody
So just as a product of that, it's trending upwards.
0:44:47.900-->0:45:12.750
Thompson, Kody
And yeah,we ended with a program UCT of two for the commercial program as you can see those here
that we have listed with a ratio of zero, we didn't get any participation in in 2022, uh,the two that we
did see participation with high efficiency condensing boilers with ratio 3.8 and then the commercial
fryers with the ratio of 2.6.
0:45:13.260-->0:45:23.510
Thompson, Kody
And if I recall correctly,the most of the boilers that were rebated out were like public schools that we
saw those for.
Page 49 of 192

0:45:23.520-->0:45:25.380
Thompson, Kody
So that was kind of an interesting thing of note.
0:45:25.390-->0:45:25.660
Thompson,Kody
To see that.
0:45:34.40-->0:45:34.890
Wold, Kathy
OK.
0:45:35.180-->0:45:40.170
Wold, Kathy
Yeah, I would say that the commercial program still is really in an awareness building mode.
0:45:40.680-->0:45:47.630
Wold, Kathy
Umm,we have tried to think about how can we customize some of our outreach and and
communication to folks.
0:45:47.960-->0:45:55.150
Wold, Kathy
You know the customer commercial customer varies so much from a restaurant to a medical facility to a
school.
0:45:55.160-->0:46:0.790
Wold, Kathy
And so I think trying to customize how we reach folks is going to be really important.
0:46:1.160-->0:46:2.950
Wold, Kathy
This was an effort to do that.
0:46:3.20-->0:46:16.440
Wold, Kathy
We actually purchased a restaurant list mailing list for all the restaurants in our service territory and
ended up sending out a little postcard to make sure that they knew about the commercial kitchen
equipment rebates.
0:46:17.100-->0:46:25.150
Wold, Kathy
Umm,so we're working on how do we not only identify those different sectors and customize some of
the communications to them,
0:46:25.740-->0:46:46.600
Wold, Kathy
but we've also been working on a kind of a long term project to help us do that, which is assigning the
SIC code the standardized industry code to those customers,so that that will help us be able to maybe
Page 50 of 192

tailor those communications and make more relevant energy efficiency messages for the various kinds of
commercial customers.
0:46:49.910-->0:46:54.820
Wold, Kathy
But we're starting to do some different kind of commercial outreach and awareness in 2022.
0:46:55.400-->0:47:11.500
Wold, Kathy
We had some good participation with the Association of Architects and Idaho,also the ASHRAE Technical
Conference and the ASHRAE Golf Conference allowed us to connect with a lot of engineers who are
involved in the design process of commercial customers.
0:47:11.510-->0:47:21.980
Wold, Kathy
So making sure that they're aware of our program and getting some good feedback from them about
what kind of things resonate with these commercial customers,we have just a very modest offering.
0:47:27.460-->0:47:27.800
Jennifer Lightfoot
This.
0:47:21.990-->0:47:40.90
Wold, Kathy
So I think that there's some opportunity there to explore some different offerings, umm, and hopefully
that the CPA is going to help us look at that and for part of our program design and then running ads
with folks that are involved in the construction and design sort of process for commercial customers.
0:47:40.420-->0:47:42.930
Wold, Kathy
Just trying to really raise awareness with folks.
0:47:43.680-->0:47:54.280
Wold, Kathy
I think one of the challenges and maybe I've covered it on the next slide here, a part of trying to
promote the program and make sure that our commercial customers knew about the program.
0:47:54.610-->0:48:15.100
Wold, Kathy
We did a pilot program of 350 commercial energy savings kits and we promoted those to commercial
customers from April 2021 through December 2022 and we would send those kits out and then send a
follow up survey with them to talk about, ask about installation rates, where they happy with the kit.
0:48:15.110-->0:48:23.690
Wold, Kathy
Did it have what they wanted in there and overall the response to the surveys that the responses back
have been positive, but they've been very low.
Page 51 of 192

0:48:23.700-->0:48:28.930
Wold, Kathy
So something that we learned is that we need the facilities manager or the building operator.
0:48:29.280-->0:48:33.450
Wold, Kathy
We're maybe not connecting with the right person at that company.
0:48:34.80-->0:48:36.90
Wold, Kathy
Maybe somebody who's more of the.
0:48:37.880-->0:48:56.20
Wold, Kathy
Receiving information about billing is maybe not the person who knows the stuff about the building, and
so I think that'll be part of our next effort is how do we get our information in front of the right folks and
make sure that our energy efficiency messages is getting to the right place and resonating with the right
people.
0:49:1.500-->0:49:16.330
Wold, Kathy
So we tried to combine some of our commercial outreach last year with some of our market
transformation efforts around gas heat pumps and we had the opportunity to participate in a free
webinar offering a free webinar about gas heat pumps.
0:49:16.850-->0:49:26.950
Wold, Kathy
And so we took an opportunity to share this with all of our commercial customers, make sure that they
knew that this was a free opportunity to earn some professional development hours.
0:49:27.540-->0:49:39.450
Wold, Kathy
Same thing with engineers and design folks is getting this information out in front of them, presenting an
opportunity to learn about gas heat pumps, but also to start building those communication connections
with folks.
0:49:40.300-->0:49:58.900
Wold, Kathy
So we sent over 315 invites about this free webinar which went to all of our HVAC contacts and we
reached out to AIA and ASHRAE the two kind of commercial industry folks that we've been working
with membership groups and they provided membership distribution lists and allowed us to promote
that.
0:49:59.380-->0:50:3.600
Wold, Kathy
Webinar to those folks and for the webinar results.
Page 52 of 192

0:50:3.610-->0:50:8.300
Wold, Kathy
This was kind of broadcast on a national effort by the Energy Solutions Center.
0:50:8.710-->0:50:14.620
Wold, Kathy
We had 41 attendees that identified as being part of the Intermountain Gas invite.
0:50:14.630-->0:50:19.200
Wold, Kathy
And that was the second most of all the Energy Solutions Center members?
0:50:19.630-->0:50:25.40
Wold, Kathy
So we had good interest in learning more about gas heat pumps and getting some professional
development credits.
0:50:25.490-->0:50:37.870
Wold, Kathy
And then the webinar also followed up with participants to ask about their takeaways from the
workshop,which I felt like really brought back some good information about industry awareness and
knowledge about gas heat pumps.
0:50:37.930-->0:50:45.110
Wold, Kathy
So folks were learning that they're not as new as they thought they were,that they're a lot more gas
heat pump products than they were aware of.
0:50:45.490-->0:50:57.120
Wold, Kathy
I thought it was really interesting that they said I need to start planning early for HVAC replacement
rather than waiting for something to fail and 58%said gas heat pumps may be worth looking at when it's
time to replace HVAC equipment.
0:50:57.130-->0:51:5.180
Wold, Kathy
So some good market feelers about how people think about gas heat pumps or if they even are thinking
about gas heat pumps.
0:51:5.190-->0:51:17.360
Wold, Kathy
So this was kind of a nice opportunity to loop in our commercial kind of partners, but also tie that in with
some of the work that we're doing to raise awareness and bring gas heat pumps to market.
0:51:21.700-->0:51:22.30
Wold, Kathy
OK.
Page 53 of 192

0:51:22.40-->0:51:23.870
Wold, Kathy
Any questions about commercial before I move on?
0:51:23.880-->0:51:24.850
Wold, Kathy
I guess real quick here.
0:51:31.840-->0:51:32.570
Wold, Kathy
Yeah,Jason.
0:51:33.320-->0:51:34.290
Jason Talford
Yeah,just a quick one.
0:51:34.300-->0:51:50.600
Jason Talford
I wanted to follow with a you identified the need of making sure that your, uh,your energy saving kits
are connecting with the right and person on the inside of that commercial facility.
0:51:52.910-->0:51:54.610
Jason Talford
And you said you're moving that direction.
0:51:54.620-->0:52:1.10
Jason Talford
Do you have a a plan for identifying that or is seeking that out, or is that something we're about to learn
out, learn about?
0:52:2.80-->0:52:4.130
Wold, Kathy
Well,so I've just started some early talks.
0:52:4.140-->0:52:22.990
Wold, Kathy
I've been reaching out to a couple of folks,one being the integrated design lab that I know that they had
A study or campaign to do that exact thing, identify facility operators and building operators with folks.
0:52:23.0-->0:52:36.670
Wold, Kathy
And that seems to be like a universal kind of frustration for folks,whether you're a designer or engineer,
you know, at doing energy audits or running an energy efficiency program, it's like, how do we get our
message to the right people?
Page 54 of 192

0:52:36.680-->0:52:41.300
Wold, Kathy
And so I've been exploring some ideas to think about.
0:52:41.380-->0:52:44.450
Wold, Kathy
Do we send a survey out to our commercial customers?
0:52:44.900-->0:52:50.930
Wold, Kathy
What should that survey be asking other than just taking that time to get the right contact?
0:52:50.940-->0:52:56.410
Wold, Kathy
But maybe can we leverage asking about what kind of equipment they have,that sort of thing?
0:52:56.420-->0:53:3.340
Wold, Kathy
So we are trying to explore some ways about how do we identify the right folks and then what are the
right questions that we want to be asking them.
0:53:5.60-->0:53:5.830
Jason Talford
OK,great.
0:53:6.220-->0:53:8.100
Jason Talford
Pass along my regards to Damon.
0:53:8.650-->0:53:9.580
Wold,Kathy
Yeah. Yes.
0:53:9.670-->0:53:10.120
Wold,Kathy
Yeah.
0:53:10.130-->0:53:10.840
Wold, Kathy
Damon woods.
0:53:11.390-->0:53:12.520
Wold, Kathy
He was very helpful.
0:53:12.560-->0:53:12.820
Wold,Kathy
I'm.
Page 55 of 192

0:53:12.830-->0:53:17.740
Wold, Kathy
I'm really hopeful that we can partner on something and get something going for commercial folks.
0:53:18.110-->0:53:18.440
Wold,Kathy
Yeah.
0:53:18.450-->0:53:18.850
Wold,Kathy
Thank you.
0:53:18.400-->0:53:19.410
Jason Talford
Alright,thank you.
0:53:23.730-->0:53:24.540
Wold,Kathy
OK.
0:53:24.550-->0:53:34.740
Wold, Kathy
So next we'll put this all together for our annual report and file annual report, and I usually send that out
to the committee once that's done, so watch for that.
0:53:35.370-->0:53:46.520
Wold, Kathy
Next steps we'll be doing an analysis of our CPA results for program planning and then as I mentioned,
we have EMV coming up later this year for our whole home and furnace measure.
0:53:46.990-->0:53:50.710
Wold, Kathy
So those are kind of some of the big things on the docket coming up later this year.
0:53:54.60-->0:53:56.730
Wold, Kathy
Any questions for IGC?
0:54:2.40-->0:54:3.230
Wold, Kathy
That's alright.
0:54:3.240-->0:54:8.830
Wold, Kathy
Well,thank you all for your questions and if things come up, certainly don't wait for a meeting to reach
out to us.
Page 56 of 192

0:54:9.0-->0:54:12.90
Wold, Kathy
We appreciate your feedback and questions as you have them.
0:54:13.940-->0:54:24.540
Wold, Kathy
So Next up I am going to stop sharing and I'm going to turn this over to Team Guidehouse and I'll look
forward to having them present the final results for the CPA.
0:54:24.620-->0:54:24.690
Wold, Kathy
Hey.
0:54:26.670-->0:54:27.250
Robin Maslowski
Thanks, Kathy.
0:54:29.640-->0:54:36.10
Robin Maslowski
Alright,Aneesha is pulling up some slides here,so just want to say hello again everyone.
0:54:36.20-->0:54:38.600
Robin Maslowski
And Many thanks for your time this afternoon.
0:54:39.840-->0:54:47.880
Robin Maslowski
Particularly in advance of a holiday weekend and the official start to the summer,which we heard earlier,
many of you really enjoy.
0:54:48.440-->0:54:51.700
Robin Maslowski
So we're going to have plenty of time today on this presentation.
0:54:51.890-->0:54:55.420
Robin Maslowski
We welcome questions throughout as we're going through.
0:54:55.680-->0:55:38.990
Robin Maslowski
We'll be talking about Guidehouses conservation potential assessment for IGC aneesha if you can skip
to the next slide, we'll start off with some introductions of folks, different roles on the study and the
objectives for the study and then we'll get into a little bit of detail around the potential assessment
methodology and then discuss Guidehouse's particular approach for specific assumptions and data
Page 57 of 192

sets to inform the study.We'll then share the results of the study and talk through key takeaways and
next steps and any additional questions folks have next slide.
0:55:40.850-->0:55:41.320
Robin Maslowski
Alright.
0:55:41.330-->0:55:48.440
Robin Maslowski
So we'll start with some introductions around the roles that each person played on the engagement.
0:55:49.90-->0:55:55.830
Robin Maslowski
I'm Robin Myslenski is noted director with Guidehouse and was project director for this work,John.
0:55:57.760-->0:56:1.290
Jon Starr
Yes, I'm the account relationship director of for MDU.
0:56:1.300-->0:56:3.870
Jon Starr
Overall,so pretty high level oversight role.
0:56:5.380-->0:56:6.30
Robin Maslowski
Right.
0:56:6.180-->0:56:9.530
Robin Maslowski
And Neil Podkowsky is project managerforthis work.
0:56:9.540-->0:56:17.480
Robin Maslowski
He's actually out on parental leave with the new little one earlier this month,so we'll have aneesha go
next.
0:56:21.150-->0:56:27.490
Aneesha Aggarwal
Hi everyone, my name's Anisha and as I mentioned before, I'm the deputy project manager for the CPA.
0:56:32.960-->0:56:33.690
Brian Chang HI
Again,everyone.
0:56:33.700-->0:56:39.730
Brian Chang
Brian Chang, I'm managing consultant and for this project I was the measure lead.
Page 58 of 192

0:56:43.60-->0:56:43.570
Raniel Chan
Hi everyone.
0:56:43.580-->0:56:47.100
Raniel Chan
My name is Braniel again and I am a senior consultant at GUIDEHOUSE.
0:56:47.220-->0:56:48.940
Raniel Chan
For this project, I was the lead modeler.
0:56:51.290-->0:56:54.870
Robin Maslowski
Hey, Nisha, next slide.
0:56:57.850-->0:57:11.580
Robin Maslowski
So overall objectives for this study were to understand the achievable natural gas energy efficiency
potential within IGC's service area using reasonable and transparent methodology and assumptions.
0:57:13.30-->0:57:20.280
Robin Maslowski
So all results that you will see today will be net impacts,which include consideration of net gross factors.
0:57:22.540-->0:57:40.620
Robin Maslowski
From here IGC willuse these results to inform their goals, portfolio planning and budget setting, as well
as the integrated resource planning process and ultimately the study may help IGC identify new gas
efficiency savings opportunities to include in their portfolio.
0:57:42.800-->0:57:50.130
Robin Maslowski
So now I'll hand it to aneesha to talk through the overall CPA methodology.
0:57:51.440-->0:57:52.170
Aneesha Aggarwal
Thanks, Robin.
0:57:52.180-->0:58:6.140
Aneesha Aggarwal
Page 59 of 192

I'll spend the next few minutes walking you through an overview of the methodology we're using in this
conservation potential assessment, or CPA,which follows an industry standard framework for potential
studies.
0:58:9.510-->0:58:16.580
Aneesha Aggarwal
So just to kick us off here, as CPA can be characterized as a complete analysis of three different types of
potential.
0:58:17.30-->0:58:20.400
Aneesha Aggarwal
The first assessment conducted is technical potential.
0:58:20.810-->0:58:26.930
Aneesha Aggarwal
This is the total energy savings available relative to the current population forecast.
0:58:26.940-->0:58:34.940
Aneesha Aggarwal
So variables such as measure energy savings, measure life and technology densities and saturation are
considered.
0:58:35.390-->0:58:39.710
Aneesha Aggarwal
Then we have economic potential,which is a subset of tech potential.
0:58:40.290-->0:59:16.70
Aneesha Aggarwal
This type of potential will takes into consideration cost effectiveness screening in the case of IGC, CPA
and utility cost test was considered, but other Cpa's may use total resource cost screening or participant
cost screening which only differ by the variables which are considered costs and benefits and economic
potential subsequently introduces avoided costs and measure costs as variables into the analysis to
conduct that cost screening and lastly achievable potential is a subset of economic potential.
0:59:16.500-->0:59:21.710
Aneesha Aggarwal
It determines the energy efficiency expected to be adopted by programs.
0:59:21.720-->0:59:30.790
Aneesha Aggarwal
This type of potential considers things like historical program achievements, program budget and
realistic customer adoption characteristics.
0:59:31.60-->0:59:43.110
Aneesha Aggarwal
So overall,these three types of potentials can help stakeholders establish goals and scenarios for
forecasting savings from EE portfolios as well as inform overall program planning.
Page 60 of 192

0:59:44.670-->0:59:54.610
Aneesha Aggarwal
And just to give you guys a better context and understanding of these three potentials,the next few
slides are just gonna go into a further breakdown in more details.
0:59:55.110-->1:0:3.180
Aneesha Aggarwal
So again, starting off with tech potential,this can be considered the Max or upper bound of potential
available.
1:0:3.410-->1:0:14.270
Aneesha Aggarwal
In a perfect world where all eligible customers are going to adopt all the highest level of efficiency
available within Technology Group, based on the measures we're considering in the study.
1:0:15.180-->1:0:15.610
Aneesha Aggarwal
Umm.
1:0:15.660-->1:0:19.350
Aneesha Aggarwal
Tech potential again does not include any cost benefit analysis.
1:0:19.640-->1:0:30.790
Aneesha Aggarwal
You can really think of tech potential as a scenario in which we could magically turn every technically
suitable piece of equipment to high efficiency overnight.
1:0:30.960-->1:0:48.760
Aneesha Aggarwal
So tech potential is estimated using building stock and appliance saturation data to size the total
population for each individual measure, and then an estimation of the number of annual installation
decisions is based on the replacement type of the measure.
1:0:48.770-->1:0:55.200
Aneesha Aggarwal
So looking at measures burnout rate, number of retrofittable measures and new building stock.
1:0:56.440-->1:1:3.30
Aneesha Aggarwal
So just to reiterate,this type of potential assumes all annual installations are the highest efficiency
possible.
1:1:3.220-->1:1:15.190
Aneesha Aggarwal
So when we're calculating savings,we're multiplying the number of installations by the unit energy
savings and this is reported at the sector and at use level for measures on an annual basis.
Page 61 of 192

1:1:19.140-->1:1:26.190
Aneesha Aggarwal
Moving on to economic potential,this is a tech potential, but with an additional filter added.
1:1:26.520-->1:1:41.230
Aneesha Aggarwal
It's calculated as the total potential with the limitation of only cost effective measures being included,so
economic potential is estimated by applying a cost of effectiveness test for each measure.
1:1:41.640-->1:1:50.300
Aneesha Aggarwal
Threshold is defined and applied across scenarios removing all non cost effective measures from the
analysis.
1:1:50.510-->1:2:5.80
Aneesha Aggarwal
So in this study, a threshold of 1.0 under the utility cost test definition was used for the most part,
meaning that the benefits are at least equal to the cost, but can include measures for which benefits
exceed the costs.
1:2:6.560-->1:2:15.950
Aneesha Aggarwal
And you can think of economic potential as the ceiling for achievable potential if all cost effective
measures were to be implemented.
1:2:17.680-->1:2:21.530
Aneesha Aggarwal
So just moving lastly into achievable potential.
1:2:21.740-->1:2:39.90
Aneesha Aggarwal
This is where the final filters are applied to create an estimation of energy efficiency savings that could
be expected given a specific level of program incentives,assumptions about existing policies and market
influences and barriers.
1:2:39.580-->1:2:58.710
Aneesha Aggarwal
This type of potential is estimated by calculating the market share of measures based on customer
awareness and customer willingness to adopt and willingness is quantified by comparing payback time
associated with efficient measures against competing measures.
1:2:59.640-->1:3:11.230
Aneesha Aggarwal
Additionally, historical program accomplishments are considered to calibrate our forecasts,so the model
includes years for which there is historical data in the forecast.
Page 62 of 192

1:3:11.300-->1:3:15.10
Aneesha Aggarwal
So our study period is 2023 to 2024.
1:3:15.180-->1:3:29.920
Aneesha Aggarwal
However, our model backcast savings for 2019 to through 2022 as well,so we can compare against the
real savings we saw in those years and adoption parameters can then be tweaked or further refined.
1:3:30.350-->1:3:36.80
Aneesha Aggarwal
So we see the best match between the forecasted historical data and the actual savings.
1:3:36.90-->1:3:39.610
Aneesha Aggarwal
So it's going to produce greater confidence in our forecast overall.
1:3:41.60-->1:3:50.440
Aneesha Aggarwal
That's just a brief overview of the three different types of potentials and CPA, and now I'm gonna pass it
off to Brian to cover guidehouse's approach to CPA's.
1:3:52.970-->1:3:53.310
Brian Chang
Great.
1:3:53.320-->1:3:54.100
Brian Chang
Thanks anisha.
1:3:55.30-->1:3:59.840
Brian Chang
So yeah,with that kind of overview, I kind of think of it as almost like the theory of the potential study.
1:4:0.590-->1:4:2.70
Brian Chang
My goal here is to.
1:4:2.70--> 1:4:28.430
Brian Chang
To uh, provide an overview of how we as Guidehouse approached the CPA specifically for Intermountain
Gas to give a sense of the methodology that we used sort of how we define the scope,the data we
collected from what sources and ultimately what it is that goes into our modeling results and the
potential estimates that we'll see in a moment and so on the first side.
1:4:29.470-->1:4:38.340
Brian Chang
This provides a high level overview of sort of the different activities and subtasks that we took to
complete the CPA.
Page 63 of 192

1:4:39.50--> 1:4:45.280
Brian Chang
So starting in the left there activity one was to initiate the study and review available data.
1:4:45.550-->1:5:9.610
Brian Chang
So this was really a collaborative effort that we undertook with the IGC team to understand, you know,
the history behind the existing programs,what types of measures are already offered,what previous CPA
looked like,you know, make sure we understand the objectives of the CPA and the context behind IGC's
energy efficiency efforts.
1:5:10.330-->1:5:21.820
Brian Chang
And then, more practically, under activity one,we sent a formal data request to IGC that I think you
know went to various teams around the company and what we requested and.
1:5:22.940-->1:5:35.0
Brian Chang
What ultimately IGC provided us was data on things like customer accounts,a sales forecast, avoided
costs, uh, historic program achievements,you know EMV that's been completed.
1:5:35.10--> 1:5:47.140
Brian Chang
So those are all key data inputs for any potential study and we always start with a specific data request
to see what data is specifically available from Intermountain Gas.
1:5:47.150-->1:5:55.730
Brian Chang
And we use that to the extent that we can to make sure our data and what's going into our study is, is as
relevant and consistent as possible.
1:5:57.440-->1:6:3.170
Brian Chang
So with the data that we received from that data request and activity,one that really fed directly into.
1:6:4.580--> 1:6:6.390
Brian Chang
Activity two and activity three.
1:6:7.120-->1:6:15.750
Brian Chang
I'll go into these in more detail in the next couple of slides, but at a very high level, activity two is market
characterization.
1:6:16.0-->1:6:25.740
Brian Chang
So that's an effort to define the characteristics,the market characteristics,the technology characteristics
within sort of the IGC service territory.
Page 64 of 192

1:6:26.630-->1:6:33.480
Brian Chang
And so these are things that are fundamental to kind of how we scope the study and how we scale
results.
1:6:34.430-->1:6:45.390
Brian Chang
So those are the things like uh customer defining different customer segments or defining climate
regions and sales and stock and things like that.
1:6:45.660-->1:6:52.300
Brian Chang
And then activity 3 measure characterization,that's where we really gather specific information data to
screen and characterize individual measures or on a measure by measure basis and what we're really doing
there is trying to define,you know,technical parameters, assumptions about the measures that we want to
analyze and include.
1:7:8.320-->1:7:14.180
Brian Chang
And so in a study like this, CPA which is a bottom up study where the potential is built.
1:7:14.420-->1:7:21.310
Brian Chang
You know, bottom up from individual measures that are analyzed, measure,characterization is is a really
important step.
1:7:21.760-->1:7:25.950
Brian Chang
So like I said, a few more details will come in the next few slides.
1:7:27.560-->1:7:39.900
Brian Chang
But then after completion of market characterization and measure characterization,we then had the
data inputs that we needed to actually calculate and develop potential forecast.
1:7:39.910-->1:7:41.190
Brian Chang
So that's activity 4.
1:7:41.720-->1:7:54.590
Brian Chang
So we ran our model to calculate the technical, economic,and achievable potentials that aneesha
described and we worked to calibrate our results, especially the achievable potentials.
Page 65 of 192

1:7:55.660-->1:7:58.380
Brian Chang
Calibrate those to Intermountain GasesYou know, historic and existing program that accomplishments and
then work to summarize those impacts and present the results to the IGC team and then in activity five we
really worked together with IGC team to make those iterations on the results.
1:8:14.890-->1:8:15.730
Brian Chang
You know make adjustments.
1:8:16.770-->1:8:21.100
Brian Chang
And also to define and develop a few different scenarios.
1:8:22.230-->1:8:44.50
Brian Chang
As for potential, which I think Raniel will go over later on in the presentation and then finally activity 6 is
reporting, so documenting all of our work in our reports and memos,we're here today of course to help
facilitate stakeholder engagement and make sure all of you are in the loop on the study.
1:8:44.590-->1:8:51.520
Brian Chang
And we're currently working towards actually delivering a working version of our model to the IGC team.
1:8:52.170-->1:8:58.160
Brian Chang
Umm that they can use you know themselves for in the future for program planning and
implementation.
1:9:2.340--> 1:9:2.730
Brian Chang
All right.
1:9:2.740-->1:9:6.450
Brian Chang
And then a quick word here,just like I've mentioned a few times the model.
1:9:6.460-->1:9:9.910
Brian Chang
So what actually is our model,our modeling platform?
1:9:10.680-->1:9:18.780
Brian Chang
So for this CPA we use a guidehouse model called DSM SIM,so it's.
Page 66 of 192

1:9:18.950-->1:9:47.730
Brian Chang
Uh, it based in a software called Analytica and it's a bottom up model that I mentioned kind of based on
individual measures that's capable of estimating, making all those potential estimates, providing results
at a measure level granularity which we know is important for program planning, assessing cost
effectiveness of individual measures and reporting, portfolio cost effectiveness and outputting annual
and cumulative net savings.
1:9:48.670-->1:9:57.90
Brian Chang
This is a model DSM SIM that we've used,you know as guidehouse to estimate potential for many
utilities around the country.
1:9:57.100-->1:10:7.100
Brian Chang
Many different clients and the model and sort of the approach behind it has really been vetted by
stakeholders and regulators in many different jurisdictions around the country.
1:10:7.990-->1:10:8.480
Brian Chang
Umm.
1:10:8.810-->1:10:18.650
Brian Chang
And then as I mentioned at the bottom on the left,as I mentioned the last night at the bottom, it notes
that we're working on developing a web based model that will allow.
1:10:19.290-->1:10:27.510
Brian Chang
The IGC team to make modifications to some of the critical inputs and we'll be planning to deliver that at
the conclusion of the study.
1:10:32.550-->1:10:41.620
Brian Chang
Alright, so with the remainder of my time here, I'd like to provide some more detail on from that first
slide activity to an activity 3.
1:10:41.730-->1:10:47.460
Brian Chang
So baseline and market characterization activity two and measure characterization activity 3.
1:10:47.670-->1:10:50.380
Brian Chang
So I'll talk about each of these kind of in turn.
1:10:50.950-->1:10:54.470
Brian Chang
So we'll start with, um, perfect.
Page 67 of 192

1:10:54.580-->1:10:55.510
Brian Chang
Still,animation.
1:10:55.520-->1:10:55.850
Brian Chang
Great.
1:10:55.890-->1:10:58.530
Brian Chang
We'll start with activity 2,the baseline and market characterization.
1:10:58.540-->1:11:7.680
Brian Chang
So that is really the process of defining and segmenting the IGC's customer base and service territory.
1:11:8.560-->1:11:21.30
Brian Chang
And it's forms the basis for how we characterize measures and also for how we scale up potential sort of
from that individual measure basis up to the aggregate utility level.
1:11:21.940-->1:11:23.840
Brian Chang
So I'll talk about two kind of pieces to this.
1:11:25.270-->1:11:34.50
Brian Chang
First,the study indices,which is kind of the key parameters that we include in our study and then also
how we developed what we call the global inputs.
1:11:35.640-->1:11:37.200
Brian Chang
So Aneesha you can go to the next slide.
1:11:38.690-->1:11:45.940
Brian Chang
So first on the left column, here is a list of what we call the key study indices.
1:11:45.950-->1:11:52.900
Brian Chang
So this is really kind of what goes into like our scope and how we segment up for the study.
1:11:53.330-->1:11:56.430
Brian Chang
So you can see here in terms of sectors we considered.
1:11:57.630-->1:12:2.660
Brian Chang
Residential and commercial,we also included some climate disaggregation.
Page 68 of 192

1:12:2.670-->1:12:14.480
Brian Chang
So we split the service territory into what we called Zone 5 and zone 6, and those are uh, zones based on
the International Energy Conservation Code IECC designations.
1:12:16.250-->1:12:22.970
Brian Chang
We had the segments shown here in terms of think of them as like building types.
1:12:23.390-->1:12:30.430
Brian Chang
So we had nine within the commercial sector that you can see there and then for residential,we
considered single family multifamily.
1:12:31.600-->1:13:2.620
Brian Chang
I'll call out in particular under commercial,there is the segment called Light converted and this was
something that I think was really an improvement that we tried to make in, in this CPA relative to the last
one based on what we heard from the IGC team and that light converted category is really meant to
represent commercial businesses that are located on actually residential premises or originally
residential premises.
1:13:2.630-->1:13:6.140
Brian Chang
You know,single family homes that have now been converted to businesses.
1:13:7.280-->1:13:24.170
Brian Chang
So we wanted to kind of break that type of facility out separately from the commercial sector because
the types of measures that are applicable for those customers really more aligned with you know typical
residential measures than typical commercial measures.
1:13:25.240-->1:13:31.500
Brian Chang
So I wanted to call that one out in terms of our, um sort of time period that we're looking at.
1:13:31.970-->1:13:33.410
Brian Chang
Ohh yeah, I see a question there.
1:13:34.610-->1:13:35.80
Taylor Thomas
Yeah.
1:13:35.90-->1:13:52.930
Taylor Thomas
So you said those light converted are more residential,so would those more fit under the residential
Page 69 of 192

category like I guess I'm trying to get an idea of the categorization or does it not matter, it's just on usage
you explain a little bit more, but I guess the details behind that and how it's used in the model.
1:13:54.160-->1:13:54.550
Brian Chang
Yeah.
1:13:54.560-->1:14:18.830
Brian Chang
So from our modeling perspective,and I'd like to give Kathy a chance to weigh in maybe on the more like
program implementation aspect as well from a modeling perspective, the reason it's under commercial
is because from like a sales perspective,their commercial accounts and so the sales associated with
them would fall into the commercial category.
1:14:19.180-->1:14:36.0
Brian Chang
But then how we treat it differently in the model is the measures that we characterize sort of as being
applicable to that segment more aligned with the residential sector then they do with the other
commercial building types.
1:14:36.580-->1:14:43.680
Brian Chang
So we're not gonna characterize,you know, like big boilers or,you know, process equipment for for the
light slash converted building type.
1:14:45.10-->1:14:49.900
Taylor Thomas
Is that true for other commercial uh areas in here as well?
1:14:49.910-->1:14:58.20
Taylor Thomas
Where residential, I guess programs would be able to work for these commercial buildings.
1:14:58.130-->1:15:3.870
Taylor Thomas
I know the light converted maybe detail now I'm not sure, but is that kind of true with others as well?
1:15:5.10-->1:15:5.670
Brian Chang
Do you mean?
1:15:6.750-->1:15:8.60
Brian Chang
Sorry,I'm not sure I understand.Yeah.
1:15:17.250-->1:15:18.330
Brian Chang
uh. uh.
Page 70 of 192

1:15:7.50-->1:15:20.440
Taylor Thomas
Where a residential program by A residential measure would be able to work for a uh commercial
customer, as in the light converted, kind of like what you're describing here.
1:15:22.680-->1:15:23.30
Brian Chang
There.
1:15:20.450-->1:15:23.490
Taylor Thomas
Is that true for others or just that category specifically?
1:15:23.260-->1:15:25.410
Brian Chang
Yeah,there is overlap.
1:15:25.480-->1:15:42.260
Brian Chang
You know, like for example, let's say insulation, we will characterize residential installation measure
separately from a commercial installation measure and the the for commercial, it's more you know the
characterization is different.
1:15:42.270-->1:15:49.590
Brian Chang
The inputs assumptions are different depending on the different building types within the commercial
segment.
1:15:49.700-->1:16:4.300
Brian Chang
So what I'm saying is the way we would have characterized that, say for the light slash converted
segment would more resemble say residential single family assumptions than it would you know any of
the other commercial segments?
1:16:4.980-->1:16:5.370
Taylor Thomas
OK.
1:16:5.380-->1:16:5.740
Taylor Thomas
Thank you.
1:16:10.690-->1:16:11.0
Brian Chang
Great.
1:16:13.200-->1:16:13.450
Brian Chang
Umm.
Page 71 of 192

1:16:13.460-->1:16:28.770
Brian Chang
In terms of uh,the sort of time period that we're looking at,we looked from 2019 to 2044,so we wanted
to go back to the 2019 in order to have historic years.
1:16:28.780-->1:16:31.970
Brian Chang
So 2019 through 22 or historic years.
1:16:31.980-->1:16:37.280
Brian Chang
And then we looked at a 20 year forecast, 2023 to 44.
1:16:39.530-->1:16:46.570
Brian Chang
And another sort of key index here was characterizing the building stock type.
1:16:46.580-->1:17:0.710
Brian Chang
So we did make a distinction between existing buildings versus new construction, incremental kind of
year over year and that it's also related to an index which isn't listed here, but it's also related to what
we call measure replacement type.
1:17:0.800-->1:17:3.440
Brian Chang
So it gets into how we characterize measures.
1:17:3.450-->1:17:19.60
Brian Chang
So we'll for certain measures, we'll either characterize them, characterize them as a replace on
burnout, have normal replacement, normal replacement type measure or separately, uh,we might have
different inputs if it's more of a new construction type scenario.
1:17:20.980-->1:17:24.750
Brian Chang
So you know that building stock differentiation plays into that.
1:17:27.240-->1:17:40.260
Brian Chang
So with those kind of defined and you know we worked with the IGC team to develop what we've you know
where appropriate indices, um, we then moved on to developing what we call global inputs.
1:17:40.430-->1:17:42.90
Brian Chang
So this is really the data.
1:17:44.20-->1:17:55.950
Brian Chang
Page 72 of 192

Uh,that goes into characterizing the market and the way these are related is you know the global inputs
we tried to characterize along each of the study indices.
1:17:55.960-->1:18:5.770
Brian Chang
So for looking at something like building stock or or gas sales,we try to break each of those out by
sector, by climate zone by customer segment.
1:18:7.390-->1:18:8.850
Brian Chang
So you can see a list there of.
1:18:9.390-->1:18:12.950
Brian Chang
The key global inputs and it's a combination.
1:18:12.960-->1:18:35.150
Brian Chang
You know, we're trying to build a combination of both historic and forecasted data to build the time
series and this is really the,you know,the bulk of the data request that we sent to IGC was to help fulfill
some of these time series data items and we had pretty good success.
1:18:35.160-->1:19:0.360
Brian Chang
I think we were able to get a good chunk of what we what we needed for the model directly from IGC,
but I will note that there were some gaps,you know, assumptions that we filled in using secondary
sources and the key ones that we used listed here were first from NREL,the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory,they are restock and Comstock studies.
1:19:0.370-->1:19:4.800
Brian Chang
So that has a lot of great information about,you know,typical building characteristics.
1:19:5.510-->1:19:25.490
Brian Chang
And then we also used from NEAA,the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance there residential and
commercial building stock assessments and that was useful especially since it's a bit more geographically
focused and they also specifically call out in their sample what the results were specifically for Idaho.
1:19:26.200-->1:19:27.620
Brian Chang
That was a useful source as well.
1:19:31.240-->1:19:31.660
Brian Chang
Yes,Taylor.
Page 73 of 192

1:19:33.640-->1:19:36.830
Taylor Thomas
Can you talk more about maybe this is a question for Intermountain Gas.
1:19:36.880-->1:19:39.270
Taylor Thomas
What do you use for retail rates?
1:19:39.280-->1:19:40.990
Taylor Thomas
Is that current?
1:19:41.0--> 1:19:43.60
Taylor Thomas
Is that more of a forecast?
1:19:43.990-->1:19:47.720
Taylor Thomas
Do you use purchased gas cost adjustments in there?
1:19:47.730-->1:19:48.560
Taylor Thomas
I'm just kind of curious.
1:19:48.570-->1:19:49.20
Taylor Thomas
Like what?
1:19:49.30-->1:19:50.500
Taylor Thomas
All goes into the retail rates.
1:19:50.510-->1:20:0.210
Taylor Thomas
I mean, last year we experienced really high rates and it's you know on the incline from multiple reasons,
we don't necessarily think that the forecast for the future.
1:20:0.220-->1:20:2.450
Taylor Thomas
So im just a little curious what that what's included in there?
1:20:3.230-->1:20:7.680
Brian Chang
Yeah, I can speak to that and Kathy or others at IGC,feel free to to jump in.
1:20:7.690-->1:20:11.570
Brian Chang
So you're correct,actually I don't.
Page 74 of 192

1:20:11.620-->1:20:15.120
Brian Chang
I think IGC only provided us with the historic retail rates.
1:20:15.130-->1:20:15.520
Brian Chang
They didn't.
1:20:15.530-->1:20:20.540
Brian Chang
They didn't have,like a direct retail rate forecast that's been developed.
1:20:20.660-->1:20:30.770
Brian Chang
So what we did was but, but, but they did have a avoided cost forecast,you know,forecast for avoided
cost of gas per therm.
1:20:31.20-->1:20:35.390
Brian Chang
So what we did was kind of try to link the two together.
1:20:35.840-->1:20:50.960
Brian Chang
So, assuming that the largest component of the retail rate is gonna be the avoided cost, we took the
historic retail rates and tried to,you know,derive the relationship between the historic retail rates and
historic avoided costs.
1:20:51.190-->1:20:57.430
Brian Chang
And then use the forecasted avoided cost to try and you know kind of follow the trend to forecast retail
rates.
1:20:58.950-->1:20:59.440
Taylor Thomas
Yeah.
1:20:59.490-->1:20:59.850
Taylor Thomas
Thank you.
1:21:6.580-->1:21:6.890
Brian Chang
Great.
1:21:6.930-->1:21:7.770
Brian Chang
Let's move on.
Page 75 of 192

1:21:7.780-->1:21:7.960
Brian Chang
Yep.
1:21:9.230-->1:21:12.570
Brian Chang
So that was the baseline in market characterization and then now I'll move on to.
1:21:13.870-->1:21:15.140
Brian Chang
Measure characterization.
1:21:15.150-->1:21:26.930
Brian Chang
So this is the process of again from a bottom up measure by measure,specifically basis defining technical
parameters for the measures of interest.
1:21:27.750-->1:21:31.340
Brian Chang
So at a high level,we a couple different steps to this.
1:21:32.320-->1:21:39.180
Brian Chang
First,there was the measure list development a working with IGC to determine what measures we
wanted to include.
1:21:39.280-->1:21:49.370
Brian Chang
Then there was the actual process of,you know, going through data sources, defining measure
parameters, and then I have a slide specifically that we'll talk about the different sources that we used.
1:21:53.490-->1:21:54.140
Brian Chang
Great.
1:21:54.470-->1:22:2.620
Brian Chang
So just first a very high level overview on the left of kind of what I just talked about,the different steps
that we took.
1:22:2.630-->1:22:14.620
Brian Chang
So we started by working with IGC to develop a vetted measure list and once we did that,we looked to
identify data sources that we could use for each of the our measures of interest.
1:22:16.280-->1:22:28.450
Brian Chang
Once we had those identified,we could actually go through and,you know,collect the data and put that
in a format that we could import into our model, which we then used to characterize the measures.
Page 76 of 192

1:22:28.460-->1:22:34.800
Brian Chang
So in terms of the actual you know,what's the specific types of data that we're trying to collect?
1:22:34.890-->1:22:36.720
Brian Chang
Those are listed on the right.
1:22:36.730-->1:22:39.660
Brian Chang
Those are the measure parameters,technical parameters.
1:22:40.30-->1:22:44.340
Brian Chang
So for each measure that we want to characterize,we're trying to define things like.
1:22:45.550-->1:22:48.840
Brian Chang
Description Could refer to like what are the efficiency levels?
1:22:48.850-->1:22:51.160
Brian Chang
How is it defined on a technical basis?
1:22:51.250-->1:22:53.450
Brian Chang
What's it's efficiency for the baseline?
1:22:53.460-->1:22:55.980
Brian Chang
What's the efficiency for the efficient measure?
1:22:56.270-->1:22:57.540
Brian Chang
What's its applicability?
1:22:57.670-->1:23:10.600
Brian Chang
UM, how does it,you know, kind of what we talked about earlier on the,for example, the different
customer segments which customer segments is the measure applicable to what sectors, umm and the
replacement types that I mentioned?
1:23:11.470-->1:23:13.340
Brian Chang
Is it a burnout measure?
1:23:13.430-->1:23:14.860
Brian Chang
Normal replacement measure?
Page 77 of 192

1:23:14.940-->1:23:16.300
Brian Chang
Or is it new construction?
1:23:16.310-->1:23:37.320
Brian Chang
Or is it an early retrofit measure and then quantitatively things we're trying to characterize include, you
know, energy consumption or savings for the measure costs, equipment costs, installation costs,
measure densities and saturation.
1:23:37.330-->1:23:39.10
Brian Chang
So how prevalent is the measure
You know in the building stock or in the service territory and measure lifetime and net to
Gross ratio,so I believe we're going to these slides will be distributed.
1:23:51.270-->1:23:57.210
Brian Chang
So you'll see in the appendix there's just some more details,you know,definitions for each of these
parameters.
1:23:57.710-->1:24:9.140
Brian Chang
But in the interest of time, I'd like to keep moving and spend a few moments talking about how we
developed the measure list and what it looks like.
1:24:11.390-->1:24:23.760
Brian Chang
So you know, if you think of this kind of like first a big brainstorming activity,you know,trying to generate
a list of potential measures and then working with IGC to kind of vet and prioritize what measures to
include.
1:24:23.770-->1:24:43.210
Brian Chang
So the different kind of ways that we generated potential measures,we looked of course at the existing
measures that are offered and IGC programs,we talked with IGC staff about measures that are of
interest to them, measures that have come up in a day to day or, you know, conversations with, with
partners and contractors.
1:24:43.270-->1:24:54.240
Brian Chang
Page 78 of 192

There's we looked also at a list of measures that were characterized in the previous CPA and what were
the high impact importance measures coming out of that study.
1:24:54.910-->1:24:59.830
Brian Chang
And then from guide house,from our experience with other potential studies we looked at.
1:25:0.590-->1:25:13.710
Brian Chang
Common measures that are included in other utility programs or other similar potential studies and then
in order to sort of get on, prioritize, and trim down that list, um and focus it.
1:25:14.580-->1:25:22.210
Brian Chang
We use the bullets considerations listed in the bullets on the right, so we got a lot of input from IGC
about, you know
What are they really focused on in the future?
1:25:24.520-->1:25:25.940
Brian Chang
Where do they see the programs going?
1:25:26.630-->1:25:51.430
Brian Chang
Um,growing and in the future we're also driven by availability of measured data source of measured data
sources and that in a lot of times is tied as well to kind of the a maturity or you know, uh prevalence of the
measure, let's say in other utility programs are jurisdictions around the country.
1:25:51.990-->1:25:54.290
Brian Chang
Um,we couldn't characterize everything.
1:25:54.300-->1:26:2.530
Brian Chang
You know,we couldn't have an infinite list,so we did have to consider study time and budget limitations
to prioritize the measures that we characterized.
1:26:4.240-->1:26:22.300
Brian Chang
And then of course our again, our experience from other similar studies that we've done,the two tables
there at the bottom are summarizing the sort of distribution of measures on a count, uh, count basis
within residential and commercial sectors by end use.
1:26:23.150-->1:26:48.240
Brian Chang
So you can see on the residential side definitely was skewed towards HVAC, but also hot water and
Page 79 of 192

building envelope were included as well and kind of similar story on the commercial side skew
towards HVAC, but we also included you know kitchen and process and uses that are unique to the
commercial sector.
1:26:51.980-->1:26:53.480
Brian Chang
And then I'll just note
The appendix does have the full measure list,so you can see all the measures that we ended up
including.
When the slides are distributed and then I think this is my last slide, so I wanted to go a little bit in depth
on the data sources that we use to characterize measures.
1:27:12.30-->1:27:33.930
Brian Chang
So especially for those kind of quantitative parameters that I mentioned,you know, energy savings,
energy costs, I'm sorry, energy savings, equipment costs, labor costs,things like that and so on a
measure by measure basis,you know we utilized technical reference manuals,TMR's from other state
jurisdictions.
1:27:34.540-->1:27:36.560
Brian Chang
So we collected,you know,number of different.
TRM'sfrom others states to look at and sort of on a measure by measure basis.
1:27:42.910-->1:27:44.440
Brian Chang
We used uh.
1:27:45.10-->1:27:50.940
Brian Chang
Some of the criteria listed here to prioritize,you know which term to use for a given measure.
1:27:51.290-->1:28:2.250
Brian Chang
So we're really trying to provide,you know,um for different differences that may exist between
TRM'sand find the one that's most relevant to use for, for Intermountain Gas.
1:28:2.260-->1:28:22.810
Brian Chang
So some of the considerations I'll highlight here just to give you an idea,the first was climate similarity,
Page 80 of 192

you know, so you know, especially if it's a climate sensitive measure, we want to make sure we're
looking at other states that jurisdictions or terms that are in similar climate, climate characteristics.
1:28:23.150-->1:28:32.940
Brian Chang
So the icons here I meant to sort of give an indication of what was prioritized and maybe what was
deprioritized and in terms of other TRM's based on this criteria.
1:28:33.200-->1:28:41.880
Brian Chang
So based on climate similarity,you know more similar in terms of climate,where Michigan and Iowa,
Illinois, and New York,TRMs and then less similar
California.
1:28:45.70-->1:29:4.970
Brian Chang
The second consideration key consideration was codes and standards regimes,so particular in particular
for appliance type measures or I should say in particular some states have,you know state level
appliance codes or standards that go beyond
Federal
Doe minimum standards.
1:29:10.780-->1:29:25.560
Brian Chang
So we want to be careful if we're trying to characterize and measure that falls under, say,the code of
another state that we're careful about the baseline there and making sure we're using you know,the
correct baseline for IGC.
1:29:26.390-->1:29:32.860
Brian Chang
So again,you know,this kind of was a thumb on the scale for using the Michigan, Iowa and Illinois TRM's
1:29:33.170-->1:29:46.560
Brian Chang
And then California, Massachusetts and New York in particular,are big states with mature TRM's, but a
lot of the measures are subject to sort of state level, higher baseline uh coding standards.
1:29:48.170-->1:29:54.390
Brian Chang
And then last one I'll mention was the formats of the data like in the TRM.
Page 81 of 192

1:29:54.480-->1:30:1.400
Brian Chang
So we did prioritize TRM's that had deemed or precalculated values.
1:30:2.210-->1:30:8.570
Brian Chang
Umm versus TRM that only had you know the engineering algorithms and equations.
1:30:9.360-->1:30:23.830
Brian Chang
So in particular,this was for the Michigan,California, Massachusetts TRM's that have these precalculated
and deem values and the advantage of doing that we wanted to provide some explanation of that.
1:30:24.0--> 1:30:30.790
Brian Chang
The advantage of doing that is one TRM calculations that use these valued-
1:30:31.100-->1:30:35.60
Brian Chang
TRM calculations that use these deemed values
will have,you know,validated values for some of the technical parameters,variables and assumptions.
1:30:42.450-->1:30:59.760
Brian Chang
So you know it,the TRM is uh typically will all publish, you know, an equation, let's say,to estimate
savings,you know,considering efficiency levels,you know, hours of use or you know,types of physical
engineering type parameters.
1:31:0.90-->1:31:14.480
Brian Chang
And one of the advantages of using TRM with deemed values is those have been precalculated,you
know,often by Commission staff and have been vetted with stakeholder advisory groups and technical
subcommittees that manage these TRM's
1:31:14.590-->1:31:17.90
Brian Chang
So ultimately,we think it introduces
Less reliance, less reliance on our assumptions for parameters and ultimately increase traceability
because we can point to parameters that have been vetted and documented from these other
jurisdictions.
Page 82 of 192

1:31:34.700-->1:31:35.30
Brian Chang
Yes.
1:31:35.60-->1:31:35.750
Brian Chang
I see him raised.
1:31:36.590-->1:31:37.640
Kevin Keyt
Yeah,this is Kevin.
1:31:37.810-->1:31:45.0
Kevin Keyt
So will you provide in your study those the vetting, how that was done?
1:31:47.700-->1:31:48.10
Brian Chang
uh.
1:31:48.160-->1:31:54.690
Brian Chang
If you mean so,our study will provide and will provide to IGC staff the specifics for every study.
1:31:55.200-->1:31:55.750
Brian Chang
You know what
Source we use to characterize it and what all the values were that we used.
1:32:1.0-->1:32:14.330
Brian Chang
We didn't necessarily include all of the,say,the supporting material in every TRM that's associated with
it because ultimately you know those are public documents and they should be able to be,you know
referenced easily.
1:32:15.540-->1:32:16.410
Brian Chang
Did that answer your question?
1:32:15.310-->1:32:25.710
Kevin Keyt
Yeah,that's kind of what I was getting at, is that if there are studies that you've used that you believe
have been vetted is how we can actually get at that data?
Page 83 of 192

1:32:26.630-->1:32:26.950
Kevin Keyt
Yeah.
1:32:27.0--> 1:32:28.930
Kevin Keyt
Is the spirit of that question.
1:32:29.0--> 1:32:30.150
Kevin Keyt
Then the other would be.
1:32:32.620-->1:32:35.180
Kevin Keyt
Did you consider using the RTF?
1:32:36.910-->1:32:37.830
Brian Chang
Regional technical form.
1:32:38.200-->1:32:38.400
Kevin Keyt
Yeah.
1:32:39.730-->1:32:43.990
Brian Chang
No, but I do know that's not specifically like on its own.
1:32:44.400-->1:32:53.710
Brian Chang
I do know that,you know, I guess to the extent that RTF informs the assumptions made in some of these
other terms, it would, but we didn't look at it directly.
1:32:57.220-->1:32:57.530
Kevin Keyt
OK.
1:32:57.540-->1:32:57.920
Kevin Keyt
Thank you.
1:32:58.480-->1:32:58.910
Brian Chang
Yep.
1:32:58.950-->1:32:59.890
Brian Chang
Thanks for your question.
Page 84 of 192

1:33:0.450-->1:33:16.160
Brian Chang
And then to close out here, I'll just note that you probably have noticed the table here at the bottom,
which just shows a summary of on an account basis of how often we use some of the different
sources, and specifically what the terms were.
1:33:16.170-->1:33:29.600
Brian Chang
So you can see um, definitely use the Michigan TRM,the MEMD quite a bit, but also the Iowa and
California TRMS played in.
1:33:34.730-->1:33:38.470
Brian Chang
Thanks and I'll hand it over now to Raniel to talk about results.
1:33:39.820-->1:33:40.410
Raniel Chan
Thanks Brian.
1:33:40.900-->1:33:48.300
Raniel Chan
In this section, I'll be covering the detailed,achievable potential results from the conservation potential
assessment can move to next slide.
1:33:50.290-->1:33:54.260
Raniel Chan
In the first scenario,we considered for the achievable potential.
1:33:54.390-->1:33:56.720
Raniel Chan
It was the business as usual scenario.
1:33:57.290-->1:34:17.680
Raniel Chan
In this scenario, we calibrated it closely to align with IGC 's historical program activity, which was
calibrated to available program accomplishments at the sector and use level be incentives for this
scenario where at 50%.Some key assumptions were that the incentives were defined as a percentage of
measure, incremental cost.
1:34:17.690-->1:34:33.720
Raniel Chan
Cost 1 notable exception was for the residential furnaces for all scenarios that had their incentives set to
40%to ensure that the largest potential measure was cost effective throughout the study period or the
business as usual scenario.
1:34:33.950-->1:34:41.380
Raniel Chan
Page 85 of 192

It reflects the assumption that future program budgets would correlate with IGC's historic program
spending.
1:34:42.10-->1:34:52.600
Raniel Chan
An important note is that not all measures that were characterized had historical data,which means a
wider range of measures were calibrated to savings from a smaller set of measures.
1:34:52.670-->1:34:55.190
Raniel Chan
Yes, next slide.
1:34:58.60-->1:35:4.910
Raniel Chan
This chart shows the natural gas cumulative net achievable potential bisector by 2044.
1:35:5.320-->1:35:13.180
Raniel Chan
The potential reaches 35 million therms per year,which most of the potential is coming from the
residential sector.
1:35:14.210-->1:35:19.630
Raniel Chan
The main driver forthe residential sector potential comes from the residential furnace measure.
1:35:21.340-->1:35:31.620
Raniel Chan
This is due to the historical program accomplishments coming primarily from the residential sector and
the commercial sector program having slower uptake in recent years.
1:35:32.770-->1:35:33.90
Raniel Chan
Next slide.
1:35:36.90-->1:35:39.480
Raniel Chan
This next this next chart is similar to the previous one.
1:35:39.790-->1:35:44.250
Raniel Chan
It shows the potential now as a percent of sales bisector.
1:35:44.840-->1:35:56.430
Raniel Chan
By 2044,the residential sector reaches just over 7%of residential sales and the commercial sector
reaches almost 1%of commercial sales.
Page 86 of 192

1:35:58.630-->1:35:59.30
Raniel Chan
Next slide.
1:36:2.280-->1:36:9.620
Raniel Chan
This chart here shows a breakdown of the commercial sectors potential by commercial customer
segment.
1:36:10.860-->1:36:17.210
Raniel Chan
As can be seen on this chart,the highest potential segment is the manufacturing and industrial segment.
1:36:17.700-->1:36:22.910
Raniel Chan
The next largest segments are retail,education and office.
1:36:25.440-->1:36:25.800
Raniel Chan
Next slide.
1:36:27.360-->1:36:41.280
Raniel Chan
This next chart shows the end use breakdown for the residential sector,the highest potential and uses
here are HVAC followed by envelope and hot water next slide.
1:36:44.150-->1:36:54.490
Raniel Chan
And then this next slide here shows the top potential measures or the business as usual scenario in 2024
for the residential sector.
1:36:54.500-->1:37:1.580
Raniel Chan
On the left,the top end uses are HVAC and envelope,which is seen in the top measures as well.
1:37:2.230-->1:37:13.990
Raniel Chan
These top measures highlighted are the furnace 98 and 95 measure, as well as the air sealing and
basement insulation measures or the commercial sector on the right.
1:37:14.150-->1:37:30.850
Raniel Chan
The top end uses were HVAC and behavioral and these are also seen in the top measures with building
operator certification as well as large boiler energy recovery ventilator and red boiler,furnace and
energy management system.
1:37:32.290-->1:37:34.90
Raniel Chan
Each of these belonging to the top end uses.
Page 87 of 192

1:37:35.900-->1:37:36.700
Raniel Chan
Yep,Jason.
1:37:38.710-->1:37:39.80
Jason Talford
Hi there.
1:37:39.90-->1:37:43.390
Jason Talford
Could you unpack building operator certifications for me?
1:37:43.610-->1:37:57.870
Jason Talford
And is that specific to uh, like operating certain systems or certain specific uh, certain certifications for
different kind of end uses?
1:37:59.960-->1:38:0.840
Brian Chang
I can jump in here.
1:38:0.850-->1:38:1.90
Brian Chang
Yeah.
1:38:1.100-->1:38:6.490
Brian Chang
So that's it's it falls under the behavioral end use actually.
1:38:6.500-->1:38:20.880
Brian Chang
So what it represents are actually training provided to like commercial building energy managers about
strategies to use energy efficiently.
1:38:21.310-->1:38:29.150
Brian Chang
Um, so these are types of programs that have been behavioral programs that have been implemented in
some other jurisdictions.
1:38:29.340-->1:38:31.50
Brian Chang
So the idea here is,you know what?
1:38:31.60-->1:38:38.680
Brian Chang
If a similar type of program type of training program was rolled out to commercial energy managers in
Idaho.
Page 88 of 192

1:38:43.100-->1:38:43.410
Jason Talford
Great.
1:38:43.420-->1:38:43.720
Jason Talford
Thank you.
1:38:46.900-->1:38:47.90
Raniel Chan
Yep.
1:38:47.100-->1:38:48.710
Raniel Chan
Just wanna take a pause here as well.
1:38:48.720-->1:38:54.520
Raniel Chan
If there's any other questions,or if anyone wants to look back on the previous slides that we just went
through.
1:38:59.730-->1:39:1.150
Raniel Chan
Not umm.
1:39:1.150-->1:39:2.560
Raniel Chan
I can move to the next slide.
1:39:5.550-->1:39:9.580
Raniel Chan
Next we'll go through the different scenarios that we considered for the CPA.
1:39:10.110-->1:39:12.420
Raniel Chan
In total,we considered three other scenarios.
1:39:13.20-->1:39:22.540
Raniel Chan
The first being the icons drain historical budget scenario,followed by the medium adoption scenario and
the high adoption high incentive scenario.
1:39:23.70-->1:39:30.240
Raniel Chan
So I'll walk through what each of these scenarios considered for the unconstrained historical budget
scenario.
1:39:30.450-->1:39:41.780
Raniel Chan
Page 89 of 192

It assumed that the customer adoption would be ramped up over 10 years through 2029,which is driven
by increased IGC program activity.
1:39:42.630-->1:39:50.390
Raniel Chan
The key assumption that we use for this is this scenario is that the program spending would not be
constrained to the historical levels.
1:39:51.380-->1:39:51.570
Raniel Chan
uh.
1:39:51.720-->1:40:8.380
Raniel Chan
In contrast to the business business as usual scenario, as while the incentives were capped at 50%for
the next scenario,for the medium adoption scenario, it started from the same point as the
unconstrained historical budget scenario.
1:40:8.730-->1:40:20.580
Raniel Chan
And then from that,we increased the adoption parameters for customer awareness and willingness to
adopt energy efficiency technologies to a medium level as well.
1:40:21.50-->1:40:23.0
Raniel Chan
The incentives were kept at 50%.
1:40:25.320-->1:40:35.140
Raniel Chan
For the high option and high incentive scenario,the adoption parameters were then further increased to
the highest levels based on guide houses, experience and rules of thumb.
1:40:36.390-->1:40:40.490
Raniel Chan
The incentives were also increased from 50%to 65%.
1:40:43.180-->1:40:43.540
Raniel Chan
Next slide.
1:40:48.220-->1:40:49.30
Raniel Chan
Yes,we have a question.
1:40:48.310-->1:40:49.370
Taylor Thomas
Just a quick question.
Page 90 of 192

1:40:49.380-->1:40:50.260
Taylor Thomas
You go back to the slide.
1:40:50.350-->1:40:51.70
Taylor Thomas
Previous slide please.
1:40:52.630-->1:40:56.700
Taylor Thomas
Uh is 50%incentive for incremental cost.
1:40:56.710-->1:40:58.810
Taylor Thomas
Is that pretty standard across the industry?
1:40:58.820-->1:40:59.280
Taylor Thomas
Like how?
1:40:59.290-->1:41:0.410
Taylor Thomas
How do you determine that level?
1:41:2.240-->1:41:12.790
Raniel Chan
Yeah, 50%we chose is because 50%is fairly standard within the industry as an incentive level and 50%of
incremental cost is typically used.
1:41:13.680-->1:41:24.970
Raniel Chan
I'm also the previous CPA used 50%incremental cost and in discussion with IGC,that was the approach
that we decided to go with for this modeling approach.
1:41:26.280-->1:41:26.700
Taylor Thomas
OK.
1:41:27.90-->1:41:27.380
Taylor Thomas
Thank you.
1:41:30.940-->1:41:36.460
Raniel Chan
On this next slide, here it shows the cumulative net achievable potential by scenario.
1:41:37.610-->1:41:40.140
Raniel Chan
So I'll walk through each of these scenarios here.
Page 91 of 192

1:41:40.650-->1:41:57.90
Raniel Chan
The dark blue line, which we saw earlier, is the business as usual scenario and then above it is the
dashed green line which is the unconstrained historical budget which has a slightly higher potential and
by 2044 it reaches 80 million therms.
1:41:58.600-->1:42:3.70
Raniel Chan
The medium adoption scenario is above that one and it's in light blue.
1:42:3.460-->1:42:11.190
Raniel Chan
It has higher potential due to the increase in the adoption parameters and it reaches 95 million therms
by 2044.
1:42:12.550-->1:42:23.350
Raniel Chan
Lastly,the high adoption high incentive scenario is it the red line which has the highest potential of all
the scenarios and it reaches 110 million therms by 2044.
1:42:25.590-->1:42:26.350
Raniel Chan
Move to next slide.
1:42:30.300-->1:42:43.40
Raniel Chan
And then on this next chart here, it shows the potential by the scenarios and this time it's showing it as
the incremental or annual savings rather than the cumulative savings which was shown on the previous
slide.
1:42:44.350-->1:42:56.720
Raniel Chan
Again, I'll walk through each of the scenarios here as well in the yellow line, we have the business as
usual scenario and it remains at a fairly steady level throughout the study period with some variation
year to year.
1:42:58.140-->1:43:9.550
Raniel Chan
The unconstrained historical budget scenario is in dark blue,and it increases steadily over the study
period, and it doesn't peak the medium adoption scenario is in light blue.
1:43:9.560-->1:43:13.130
Raniel Chan
Above that one and it also increases over the study period.
1:43:13.640-->1:43:30.410
Raniel Chan
Page 92 of 192

But in this case it peaks at with annual savings in 2035 and then 4th we have the high option hind
sensitive scenario which has the highest annual savings overall and it peaks in 2027 after which it drops.
1:43:32.570-->1:43:52.630
Raniel Chan
And then as well, we also have a a light green line showing the previous CPA based scenario results
which can be seen on the left hand side and overall it's in line with our Cpas results between the his
between the business as usual and the unconstrained historic budget scenarios.
1:43:53.690-->1:44:12.730
Raniel Chan
And then lastly,we have the Orange Line on the bottom left, which shows the historic compliments
overall the this is lower than the values we're getting in our CPA, but it does show that it is relatively in
line with the business as usual scenario as expected.
1:44:16.480-->1:44:16.670
Raniel Chan
Yep.
1:44:18.120-->1:44:19.830
Taylor Thomas
Uh, I just look at the previous slide.
1:44:20.80-->1:44:30.720
Taylor Thomas
Do you know what his driving that large increase from 2028 to 2030 for the medium adoption and
unconstrained historic budget?
1:44:32.740-->1:44:33.90
Raniel Chan
Yeah.
1:44:33.100-->1:44:38.40
Raniel Chan
For those two scenarios, it's going to be driven mainly by.
1:44:39.880-->1:44:46.160
Raniel Chan
HVAC,which is one of the largest and uses as well.
1:44:47.720-->1:44:54.480
Raniel Chan
Yeah, in in the CPA,we also have a further breakdown of the end uses that are driving each of these.
1:44:54.780-->1:45:1.870
Raniel Chan
We can also walk through some of those results if you're interested in knowing what is what specific
measures might be driving them as well.
Page 93 of 192

1:45:3.750-->1:45:4.860
Taylor Thomas
I get his way to that portion.
1:45:4.870-->1:45:5.190
Taylor Thomas
Thank you.
1:45:5.970-->1:45:6.190
Raniel Chan
OK.
1:45:8.270-->1:45:11.10
Raniel Chan
That we can always come back to that later,we can move to next slide.
1:45:13.850-->1:45:14.190
Raniel Chan
OK.
1:45:14.230-->1:45:19.0
Raniel Chan
So on this next slide here,this shows the cumulative potential for each of the four scenarios.
1:45:19.10-->1:45:26.950
Raniel Chan
As we saw in two slides previously,the difference in this slide is that it also includes the technical and
economic potential lines.
1:45:28.380-->1:45:42.740
Raniel Chan
The green line on the top is the technical potential and then a subset of that is the economic potential in
the dark blue, and then each of the four achievable potential scenarios are shown below that as a subset
of economic potential.
1:45:44.600-->1:45:51.230
Raniel Chan
The scenarios also provide a range of the potential achievable potential values, depending on the
forecasting assumptions.
1:45:51.240-->1:45:53.570
Raniel Chan
As mentioned previously, umm.
1:45:54.900-->1:46:1.410
Raniel Chan
And yeah,this is just a view of the different potentials calculated in the in a study.
Page 94 of 192

1:46:2.370-->1:46:2.720
Raniel Chan
Next slide.
1:46:6.10-->1:46:45.830
Raniel Chan
Lastly, on the spinal slide, we have the key drivers for each of the four scenarios for the business as usual
and the unconstrained historical budget scenario we the year to year variation that we saw in the
incremental achievable potential was driven primarily by the changes and avoided cost forecasts over
time, particularly for the high impact HVAC measures which we're on the cusp of cost effectiveness in
our model which changes which means changes in avoided costs would impact the achievable potential
results for the medium adoption scenario.
1:46:46.180-->1:47:12.360
Raniel Chan
The commercial energy management system measure was quickly adopted and saturated in 2035, near
the end of the study period, driving the peak and overall at givable potential for this scenario and in the
high adoption Hind Center scenario,the commercial steam trap and commercial EMS measures were
rapidly adopted and saturated around 2027, causing the peak and incremental achievable potential.
1:47:14.860-->1:47:15.470
Raniel Chan
Umm yeah.
1:47:15.520-->1:47:22.920
Raniel Chan
At this point, if there are any questions, I'm happy to take them or not,we can pass the time on to Robin.
1:47:27.240-->1:47:27.660
Robin Maslowski
Yeah.
1:47:27.670-->1:47:46.150
Robin Maslowski
And I think it tailor to to your question there about kind of those um,the increases around 20272028 as
Raniel said that is ah, you know driven in large part by those HVAC measures uh becoming cost effective
and and having some increased uptake then.
1:47:50.10-->1:47:50.410
Taylor Thomas
Thank you.
1:47:53.910-->1:48:0.530
Robin Maslowski
OK, let's then cruise on to the uh takeaways.
Page 95 of 192

1:48:0.540-->1:48:2.610
Robin Maslowski
So kind of summarizing.
1:48:3.750-->1:48:46.760
Robin Maslowski
What we what we heard here for folks in terms of the top end uses and measures with the greatest
potential for commercial sector looking at the HVAC and behavioral end uses in residential, we're we
have the HVAC and building envelope and uses and then for commercial those highest impact measures
are the building operator certifications as we discussed,that's a behavioral measure and then large
boilers which is an HVAC measure on the residential side,a lot of those savings are driven by the furnace
AFUE 98 which is HVAC measure.
1:48:46.770-->1:48:54.920
Robin Maslowski
Then there's also the furnace efficiency 95 and the building envelope air sealing measure.
1:48:55.890-->1:49:47.800
Robin Maslowski
The scenarios that raniel just talked folks through show that in the business as usual case, if IGC
maintains kind of current spending levels um,then you kind of remain consistent with sort of historic
savings in the unconstrained historic budget scenario we're seeing not IGC,the potential IGC potential
savings IGC can achieve within the market through expanded UH expanded E portfolio spending and the
medium adoption and high incentive kind of high adoption scenario shows what could be achieved
through the facilitation of both higher budget spending and also changes within customer adoption.
1:49:48.240-->1:50:1.340
Robin Maslowski
Um,customer adoption dynamics in terms of awareness and acceptance of EE measures, remaining
steps from here is the model delivery and training to IGC.
1:50:1.720-->1:50:9.70
Robin Maslowski
And then if there are additional scenario iterations or analysis by IGC for future planning within that
model.
1:50:11.940-->1:50:15.810
Robin Maslowski
That is all the content that we had planned for today.
1:50:15.820-->1:50:18.500
Robin Maslowski
So we have time for questions, Kevin.
1:50:21.20-->1:50:22.260
Kevin Keyt
Yeah,a couple of things.
Page 96 of 192

1:50:23.710-->1:50:35.330
Kevin Keyt
One is how you considered prior Commission orders in this modeling and what and the work that you
did as well as as staff comments.
1:50:35.340-->1:50:56.820
Kevin Keyt
So you may not have to answer that now, but just that it was considered and that you analyzed that and
we would see that in the report along those same lines is the work that Intermountain Gas and it
stakeholder group have done on avoided cost.
1:50:56.830-->1:51:12.50
Kevin Keyt
I would be interested in knowing what your observations were and how you incorporated that in the
modeling also, so I don't know if you wanna speak to those or defer them to the report or or you wanna
go with the questions, but.
1:51:17.70-->1:51:17.670
Wold, Kathy
Yeah.
1:51:17.910-->1:51:18.60
Wold, Kathy
Yeah.
1:51:15.130-->1:51:18.150
Robin Maslowski
Yes, Kathy has a yeah.
1:51:18.70-->1:51:18.520
Wold,Kathy
It's just.
1:51:18.530-->1:51:21.300
Wold, Kathy
I was gonna say I think that's something that we can follow up on.
1:51:21.830-->1:51:28.490
Wold, Kathy
Was there something specific that you were looking to have addressed, Kevin,or just those two things in
general?
1:51:35.150-->1:51:35.390
Wold, Kathy
OK.
1:51:29.250-->1:51:37.950
Kevin Keyt
Page 97 of 192

Well,those two things are, I mean,there are specifics within staff comments and the orders for the
program since its inception.
1:51:38.490-->1:51:43.230
Kevin Keyt
And so I'm curious how that, how that was incorporated.
1:51:46.280-->1:51:48.920
Wold, Kathy
OK,OK.Yes.
1:51:43.240-->1:51:51.650
Kevin Keyt
So I would wanna see that addressed in the report as a regulator and and and of course the the avoided
cost.
1:51:54.250-->1:51:54.610
Wold, Kathy
Right.
1:51:51.660-->1:51:56.660
Kevin Keyt
You know the journey that we have all been on and and and how that works and what you've done.
1:51:57.300-->1:51:57.560
Wold, Kathy
OK.
1:51:57.400-->1:51:59.880
Kevin Keyt
So those are the those are the tough questions.
1:51:59.890-->1:52:1.110
Kevin Keyt
Then the other one is.
1:52:1.170-->1:52:20.310
Kevin Keyt
I'm a little intrigued by the light converted and as you were describing that I thought, OK,so the scenario
I played in my brain would be like a Barber shop or a dentist's office,that it was a residential home
converted to one of those kinds of establishments.
1:52:20.320-->1:52:25.230
Kevin Keyt
Establishments and now they're under a light commercial or commercial tariff.
1:52:25.820-->1:52:37.330
Kevin Keyt
Page 98 of 192

So where my head went when you described those was that it would make sense in my mind to have
similar incentives over on the commercial side of the House.
1:52:37.750-->1:52:51.200
Kevin Keyt
So if you had on a residential,say a 97 AFUE furnace, well, if you have these light converted, maybe you
want that same measure over on the commercial side.
1:52:51.310-->1:52:55.620
Kevin Keyt
Does that make sense,or am I misreading that particular segment?
1:52:57.910-->1:52:58.800
Brian Chang
That that's right.
1:52:58.110-->1:53:0.60
Wold, Kathy
No, Kevin, I ohh sorry.
1:53:0.70-->1:53:0.270
Wold, Kathy
Go ahead.
1:53:0.670-->1:53:1.300
Brian Chang
I just want to ask.
1:53:1.310-->1:53:1.780
Brian Chang
Sorry Kathy.
1:53:1.790-->1:53:6.360
Brian Chang
I just want to say that I think that's right and that that is how we characterize the measures.
1:53:7.130-->1:53:13.270
Brian Chang
So for that was like Slash converted, um type uh yeah buildings.
1:53:14.280-->1:53:27.570
Brian Chang
That was exactly the scenario we were thinking of, which is why for that segment, we characterized
measures that were more similar to,you know,your typical single family residential, let's say,then other
larger commercial measures.
1:53:27.580-->1:53:30.130
Brian Chang
And then I'll let Kathy speak to actual implementation.
Page 99 of 192

1:53:32.90-->1:53:36.60
Wold, Kathy
No,that's precisely it, Brian and Kevin,you've hit the nail on the head.
1:53:36.150-->1:53:43.890
Wold, Kathy
That's some of the feedback we got from customers and from our errs is that we have some customers
that are on the commercial rate, but they're smaller.
1:53:43.900-->1:53:56.590
Wold, Kathy
They're not putting in a giant boiler and so we didn't really have anything in the offering for them and we
really wanted to explore what that would look like and how we might implement,you know, some more
incentives that would fit them better.
1:53:57.450-->1:53:58.880
Kevin Keyt
OK, I was tracking it.
1:53:59.170-->1:53:59.390
Wold,Kathy
Yep.
1:53:58.890-->1:54:0.380
Kevin Keyt
Then I I wasn't so sure.
1:54:0.550-->1:54:0.890
Kevin Keyt
Thank you.
1:54:0.740-->1:54:1.750
Wold, Kathy
Firstly,thank you.
1:54:6.300-->1:54:6.640
Robin Maslowski
Heller.
1:54:8.160-->1:54:8.770
Taylor Thomas
Yeah.
1:54:8.780-->1:54:17.380
Taylor Thomas
So this is a kind of question in regards to your model is what can exactly be changed in your model by
Intermountain Gas?
Page 100 of 192

1:54:21.290-->1:54:33.660
Robin Maslowski
Yeah,we have kind of a list of um, of levers that Intermountain will be able to change, but things include
assumptions around avoided costs in retail rates.
1:54:34.500-->1:54:34.990
Robin Maslowski
Umm.
1:54:35.830-->1:54:55.230
Robin Maslowski
And I would have to consult the list for other key inputs, but the idea is to help kind of run scenarios
around key inputs, changing that might influence portfolio design,the portfolio design in a meaningful
way.
1:54:55.950-->1:54:56.360
Taylor Thomas
OK.
1:54:57.170-->1:54:57.850
Taylor Thomas
Thank you.
1:54:57.900-->1:55:5.380
Taylor Thomas
And you know, I I see and there's I guess more towards and I got mentally Intermountain gas I see
benefit in that.
1:55:5.850-->1:55:8.220
Taylor Thomas
But I also see concerns as well.
1:55:8.230-->1:55:14.380
Taylor Thomas
As you know, it's an independent third party evaluation and how much do you potentially change?
1:55:14.390-->1:55:20.410
Taylor Thomas
Because before it becomes no longer independent,so it's just a just a voicing.
1:55:20.420-->1:55:24.490
Taylor Thomas
A concern is an how much can you change before it's truly altered?
1:55:24.500-->1:55:24.980
Taylor Thomas
With what?
Page 101 of 192

1:55:24.990-->1:55:29.550
Taylor Thomas
The GUIDEHOUSE has presented here on truly independent evaluation.
1:55:29.560-->1:55:30.720
Taylor Thomas
So thank you.
1:55:30.730-->1:55:31.240
Taylor Thomas
I appreciate that.
1:55:40.0--> 1:55:40.370
Jason Talford
Lightning.
1:55:40.200-->1:55:40.610
Robin Maslowski
Jason.
1:55:41.600-->1:55:45.560
Jason Talford
Yeah, I had a a quick question on to follow up on that model.
1:55:47.120-->1:56:2.440
Jason Talford
So the model has many inputs that can be changed and updated as new information comes in, but it's
my assumption that somewhere in the model is something that is hard coded.
1:56:2.450-->1:56:6.300
Jason Talford
It's not an input,something that may eventually need to be updated.
1:56:6.730-->1:56:17.380
Jason Talford
Is there a sense of, uh,the longevity of whatever is in the background that takes that input and does
work with it?
1:56:21.70-->1:56:29.880
Robin Maslowski
Umm I I got so note this is a model we've been using for over a decade at this point.
1:56:30.30-->1:56:30.570
Jason Talford
That's right.
1:56:30.470-->1:56:45.960
Robin Maslowski
Page 102 of 192

And you know,there's obviously evolutions in the energy industry that were constantly iterating to try
and ensure we can appropriately assess with the functionality through part of this.
1:56:45.970-->1:56:53.290
Robin Maslowski
I think we is with most kind of software as service type of options these days.
1:57:1.810-->1:57:3.560
Jason Talford
After that you can say.
1:56:53.300-->1:57:4.490
Robin Maslowski
There will,we're we're looking to continually offer those kind of enhancements to the model as well
where they are me impactful.
1:57:4.680-->1:57:5.30
Jason Talford
OK.
1:57:5.100-->1:57:5.350
Jason Talford
Yeah.
1:57:5.360-->1:57:11.260
Jason Talford
And and so not my intention to to push anything on you guys saying that the model itself is bad.
1:57:11.280-->1:57:23.290
Jason Talford
I realize model is just a tool,you know, but but there's inputs in the tool and there's, I guess the the the
staleness of the data and the inputs and how that interacts with the tool.
1:57:23.300-->1:57:25.850
Jason Talford
And that's kind of the direction that I was focusing.
1:57:27.310-->1:57:28.280
Robin Maslowski
Yeah,got it.
1:57:28.650-->1:57:47.440
Robin Maslowski
Uh, I think the intent is to,you know, provide those key those key inputs is dynamic and adjustable such
that they like the important ones that have the impact influence on the results, are able to be changed.
1:57:49.440-->1:57:50.820
Jon Starr
Yeah, I'll just weigh in real quick.
Page 103 of 192

1:57:50.830-->1:57:52.440
Jon Starr
This is John from Guidehouse.
1:57:53.640-->1:58:26.40
Jon Starr
You're the last two questions kind of point to sort of a juxtaposition, right,the the what we're doing with
the industry is enabling more constant real time updating of modeling capabilities so that our clients can
capture the goals they want to pursue with data behind that the the prior question was yeah, but it's a,
you know a stamped third party study as of today, right,which is fixed by the assumptions we've made in
that stamped third party study.
1:58:26.150-->1:58:40.320
Jon Starr
And obviously,we're here to help all of the stakeholders and our client IGC kind of navigate that as best
they can,you know,going forward with flexibility with or without our guidance and our stamp.
1:58:40.330-->1:58:49.550
Jon Starr
And then providing our stamp as often as you folks need it from from an objective standpoint, I hope
that's helpful.
1:58:51.90-->1:58:51.740
Taylor Thomas
Thanks John.
1:58:51.750-->1:59:4.300
Taylor Thomas
I I appreciate it and by all means, I think it's a it's a great tool in it to be able to adjust that is important
and aspects it's just a comment of you know the things that what can be adjusted.
1:59:4.310-->1:59:11.420
Taylor Thomas
So I think that's a very valuable from a modeling perspective that can be used in IRP's,which is
essentially what this all goes into.
1:59:11.430-->1:59:12.220
Taylor Thomas
So thanks.
1:59:22.120-->1:59:24.280
Robin Maslowski
Any additional questions from folks?
1:59:32.230-->1:59:33.90
Robin Maslowski
OK.
Page 104 of 192

1:59:33.330-->1:59:37.480
Robin Maslowski
I'm think we maybe can give back a little time.
1:59:38.210-->1:59:39.800
Wold,Kathy
Yes,agreed.
1:59:39.810-->1:59:40.120
Wold,Kathy
Yeah.
1:59:40.130-->1:59:40.860
Wold,Kathy
Thank you.
1:59:41.30-->1:59:42.280
Wold, Kathy
Thanks Skyhouse team.
1:59:42.290-->1:59:45.990
Wold, Kathy
I appreciate the presentation and ensuring of the detailed information today.
1:59:47.780-->1:59:55.790
Wold, Kathy
I do not have anything further on the agenda unless there are any other questions I I agree we can give
folks back some time.
1:59:56.540-->2:0:3.860
Wold, Kathy
We certainly appreciate your participation on the committee and providing feedback to the energy
efficiency team.
2:0:6.160-->2:0:6.420
Robin Maslowski
OK.
2:0:6.850-->2:0:12.260
Taylor Thomas
Kathy, I I have a uh,just some feedback that I think would be beneficial for future meetings.
2:0:12.630-->2:0:12.790
Wold,Kathy
Yeah.
2:0:12.670-->2:0:19.520
Taylor Thomas
I I thinkjust some more breakdown on cost per programs.
Page 105 of 192

2:0:19.990-->2:0:31.60
Taylor Thomas
You know how much each program is spending,what that is part of the budget,you know,just to get an
idea of where programs are doing and compare that to historical trends and future trends.
2:0:32.80-->2:0:36.590
Taylor Thomas
Umm,just to have a perspective of what we should expect or what is changing.
2:0:36.600-->2:0:40.150
Taylor Thomas
I know you kind of gave us a rebate perspective,which is definitely helpful.
2:0:40.240-->2:0:43.590
Taylor Thomas
It's good to see the difference in cost and what programs are building really successful.
2:0:44.630-->2:0:45.60
Taylor Thomas
Umm.
2:0:45.140-->2:0:45.910
Taylor Thomas
And so on. So.
2:0:47.170-->2:0:48.260
Wold,Kathy
OK, great.
2:0:48.770-->2:0:49.170
Wold,Kathy
Thank you.
2:0:57.890-->2:0:58.640
Wold,Kathy
OK.
2:0:58.730-->2:0:59.300
Wold, Kathy
Anything else?
2:1:3.110-->2:1:6.890
Wold, Kathy
Going once,going twice alright.
2:1:6.420-->2:1:11.530
Kevin Keyt
Well,thank you to the IGC team and to your supplier.
Page 106 of 192

2:1:11.890-->2:1:12.130
Wold, Kathy
Yeah.
2:1:11.610-->2:1:13.170
Kevin Keyt
I appreciate that overview.
2:1:14.210-->2:1:14.640
Wold, Kathy
Yes.
2:1:14.650-->2:1:15.700
Wold, Kathy
Thanks again,great House.
2:1:18.470-->2:1:18.940
Robin Maslowski
Yeah.
2:1:19.10-->2:1:20.310
Robin Maslowski
Thanks all for the time today.
2:1:22.290-->2:1:22.900
Wold,Kathy
All right.
2:1:23.290-->2:1:23.690
Wold,Kathy
Well,great.
2:1:23.700-->2:1:25.180
Wold, Kathy
Thanks everyone again forjoining.
2:1:25.190-->2:1:38.820
Wold, Kathy
We appreciate your time and expertise that you bring to the committee and until next time, probably
watch for our release of our annual report that will be forthcoming and then I'll send out another save
the date for our next meeting here.
2:1:38.910-->2:1:40.910
Wold, Kathy
So watch for more communications for me.
2:1:44.110-->2:1:44.830
Robin Maslowski
Thank you all.
Page 107 of 192

2:1:45.360-->2:1:45.920
Wold, Kathy
Thanks everybody.
2:1:46.630-->2:1:47.110
Laura Conilogue
Thank you.
2:1:47.110-->2:1:47.750
Aneesha Aggarwal
Think so?
2:1:48.200-->2:1:48.520
Raniel Chan
Thank you.
2:1:48.30-->2:1:49.220
Robin Maslowski
Take care. Bye.
2:1:49.640-->2:1:50.160
Jason Talford
Thanks everyone.
Page 108 of 192

Energy
INTERMOUNTAINO60
GAS COMPANY Efficiency
A Subsidiary of MDU Resources Group,Inc.
Energy Efficiency Stakeholder Committee Meeting Transcript
November 2, 2023
Contents:
Introductions/safety moment................................................................................................................ P.109
MeetingMakeover...................................................................................................................................P.122
RiderBalance............................................................................................................................................ P.123
RebatePerformance.................................................................................................................................P.129
PromotionsUpdate...................................................................................................................................P.139
ProgramAdministration...........................................................................................................................P.167
Special Studies: CPA and EM&V..............................................................................................................P.179
Special Topics: Whole Home Program Vs. Non-Program Homes.......................................................P.182
Special Guest Speaker: Ty Jennings- Idaho Building Code..................................................................P.187
Next Meeting/Meeting Adjourned.........................................................................................................P.191
0:0:0.0-->0:0:2.70
Wold, Kathy
Alright, right.
0:0:2.480-->0:0:2.910
Wold, Kathy
OK.
0:0:2.960-->0:0:5.440
Wold, Kathy
So just a quick preview of our agenda here.
0:0:6.980-->0:0:8.810
Wold, Kathy
I will do some quick introductions.
0:0:9.70-->0:0:10.370
Wold, Kathy
Have a safety moment.
0:0:10.460-->0:0:22.50
Wold, Kathy
We'll talk a little bit about meeting makeover and then we'll do some updates on the writer balance
rebate, performance promotions program admin,and then we'll get into what I call the special part of
the meeting.
0:0:22.60-->0:0:33.990
Wold, Kathy Page 109 of 192

I've named everything special here, so special studies, special topics, and we have a special guest
speaker today and then it just another reminder of the 2024 calendar meeting calendar going forward.
0:0:38.170-->0:0:48.560
Wold, Kathy
OK,so quick introductions, I think it's important to take a little minute to get to know each other, but
also make sure everybody knows who's in the meeting and get us together as a committee.
Page 110 of 192

0:1:6.290-->0:1:6.610
Jennifer
OK.
0:0:48.750-->0:1:8.480
Wold, Kathy
So action heroes always say danger is my middle name, so I'd like for you to say what would be your
middle name as if it was an attribute that describes you, and then so just share your full name and your
organization and I'll start with folks internally to give everybody a chance to maybe think about that for a
moment.
0:1:8.490-->0:1:10.970
Wold, Kathy
So umm and I'll go first.
0:1:10.980-->0:1:14.590
Wold, Kathy
I I can't think of like a a single word, but I'll just say I'm Kathy.
0:1:14.960-->0:1:15.970
Wold, Kathy
How hard could it be?
0:1:15.980-->0:1:18.430
Wold, Kathy
Wold I usually find out how hard it could be?
0:1:18.480-->0:1:24.860
Wold, Kathy
And of course,for those of you that I haven't met or don't know yet, I'm the manager of the energy
efficiency program here at Intermountain Gas.
0:1:24.910-->0:1:26.750
Wold, Kathy
So we'll jump over to Kody.
0:1:28.670-->0:1:32.120
Thompson, Kody
Uh,yeah, KodyThompson,senior energy efficiency analyst for Intermountain.
0:1:32.350-->0:1:40.890
Thompson, Kody
And I guess if I were to say this, it would probably be, oh,great, now that I'm trying to put it out there
and blanket.
0:1:42.870-->0:1:43.350
Thompson,Kody
Probably.
Page 111 of 192

0:1:47.40-->0:1:51.150
Thompson, Kody
Cody Timely Thompson cause I always like to be very punctual.
0:1:51.160-->0:1:53.330
Thompson, Kody
Will probably be the more accurate when I like to be punctual.
0:1:53.640-->0:1:54.280
Thompson,Kody
Very much so.
0:1:55.490-->0:1:57.380
Wold, Kathy
Alright, how about men?
0:2:0.330-->0:2:0.930
Park, Min
Uh, yes.
0:2:0.940-->0:2:12.360
Park, Min
So Min Park, I'm a regulatory analyst at Intermountain and probably say, like men freezing part because
I'm always freezing.
0:2:14.680-->0:2:16.150
Wold, Kathy
Alright, Preston.
0:2:17.180-->0:2:17.910
Scantling, Preston
Yeah,sounds good.
0:2:17.920-->0:2:19.80
Scantling, Preston
My name is Preston Scantling.
0:2:19.90-->0:2:21.930
Scantling, Preston
I'm the new energy efficiency analyst here at Intermountain.
0:2:21.940-->0:2:29.370
Scantling, Preston
I started back in May and if if I had to pick a middle name for me, I think seeing that the snow is starting
to fall in the mountains, I'd say it would be Preston.
0:2:29.380-->0:2:30.290
Scantling,Preston
Send it scantling.
Page 112 of 192

0:2:30.780-->0:2:32.900
Scantling, Preston
So yeah,that'd be my middle name.
0:2:32.0-->0:2:35.590
Wold, Kathy
Alright,alright,alright,Alexa.
0:2:39.140-->0:2:39.830
Alexa Bouvier
Good afternoon.
0:2:39.840-->0:2:43.280
Alexa Bouvier
Alexa Bouvier Idaho Office of Energy and Mineral Resources.
0:2:43.290-->0:2:50.750
Alexa Bouvier
I'm a policy analyst that focuses on energy efficiency and my middle name, I would say helpful.
0:2:50.760-->0:2:53.960
Alexa Bouvier
I always like to help others every day,so thank you.
0:2:53.340-->0:2:57.280
Wold, Kathy
Alright, like it have Brian Bennett.
0:3:0.340-->0:3:2.170
Brian Bennett
Hi, my name's Brian Bennett.
0:3:2.220-->0:3:4.810
Brian Bennett
I am with company called the Energy Auditor.
0:3:4.820-->0:3:6.110
Brian Bennett
We're in southeast Idaho.
0:3:7.700-->0:3:8.290
Brian Bennett
We do what?
0:3:8.300-->0:3:13.380
Brian Bennett
The name says Ohh middle name.
Page 113 of 192

0:3:13.930-->0:3:14.750
Brian Bennett
Sure,there's a way.
0:3:16.460-->0:3:17.10
Wold,Kathy
I like it.
0:3:17.210-->0:3:17.690
Wold,Kathy
Alright.
0:3:17.860-->0:3:19.800
Wold, Kathy
Thanks,Fran.Jason.
0:3:23.840-->0:3:34.990
Jason Talford
Either Jason Talford with that hope Public Utilities Commission, I suppose my middle name would be
boring because it's my life goal to be as boring as possible means I'm in good health.
0:3:35.0-->0:3:36.500
Jason Talford
I got enough money and there's no cruises.
0:3:37.110-->0:3:37.760
Wold,Kathy
That's right.
0:3:37.850-->0:3:38.870
Wold, Kathy
I like it great.
0:3:40.440-->0:3:40.770
Wold,Kathy
Jennifer.
0:3:47.710-->0:3:48.150
Wold, Kathy
There you are.
0:3:48.740-->0:3:57.630
Jennifer
Hi I would say my name,Jennifer Lightfoot and I work at 8 accounting operations sustainability specialist.
0:3:59.230-->0:4:2.770
Jennifer
And an attribute that describes me would be energetic.
Page 114 of 192

0:4:3.830-->0:4:6.270
Wold, Kathy
All right. Hi.
0:4:9.830-->0:4:11.580
Jennings,Ty
I, uh, I Jennings.
0:4:11.590-->0:4:14.650
Jennings,Ty
I guess I would be tied the code guy Jennings uh.
0:4:14.850-->0:4:20.840
Jennings,Ty
My role here within is Cascade natural gas as well as the MDU family of companies.
0:4:20.910-->0:4:25.460
Jennings,Ty
And I am the building codes and energy standards professional.
0:4:26.530-->0:4:28.230
Wold, Kathy
Thank you, Kevin.
0:4:29.690-->0:4:30.810
Kevin Keyt
Good afternoon everybody.
0:4:30.820-->0:4:32.290
Kevin Keyt
My name's Kevin keyt.
0:4:32.420-->0:4:36.950
Kevin Keyt
I work for the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and I think my middle name would be.
0:4:36.960-->0:4:37.520
Kevin Keyt
It depends.
0:4:39.980-->0:4:43.40
Wold, Kathy
Yes, alright,great, Kimberly.
0:4:45.230-->0:4:50.850
Kimberly Loskot
I am Kimberly last Scott with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and my middle name would be
enthusiastic.
Page 115 of 192

0:4:51.660-->0:4:53.850
Wold, Kathy
Alright, Laura.
0:4:57.430-->0:5:0.680
Laura Conilogue
Hi, I'm Laura with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
0:5:0.830-->0:5:6.890
Laura Conilogue
I'm an auditor and I think my middle name would be a curious.
0:5:7.840-->0:5:10.260
Wold, Kathy
All right,good, Michael.
0:5:13.500-->0:5:14.210
Wold, Kathy
We can't hear you.
0:5:14.220-->0:5:15.920
Wold, Kathy
Do you have mute on just?
0:5:22.810-->0:5:24.860
Wold, Kathy
Darn round some audio problems today.
0:5:29.240-->0:5:33.170
Wold, Kathy
OK,we'll give you a chance to try and come back or you could drop it in the chat too.
0:5:33.840-->0:5:37.20
Wold, Kathy
Glad to have you joined us,alright,Selena.
0:5:45.250-->0:5:54.140
Selena
Hi,Selena O'Neal,Ada County operations on the energy specialist for the county, having a really hard
time coming up with the middle name for myself.
0:5:54.150-->0:5:55.590
Selena
So I guess I'm just gonna say.
0:5:57.860-->0:6:1.260
Selena
It's very boring, but I'm very detailed,detailed,oriented.
Page 116 of 192

0:6:0.900-->0:6:1.280
Wold, Kathy
Alright.
0:6:2.70-->0:6:5.280
Wold, Kathy
Nice,great,Seth.
0:6:8.390-->0:6:9.460
Seth Welty
Hi, I'm Seth.
0:6:13.90-->0:6:13.540
Wold, Kathy
Ohh.
0:6:9.470-->0:6:14.200
Seth Welty
Ohh, my middle name would be cold since I'm here in Minnesota and we just got snow this week.
0:6:15.30-->0:6:17.860
Seth Welty
I worked for a rating company and we do a lot of different things.
0:6:17.870-->0:6:22.680
Seth Welty
I handle our utility program builder integration and I'm also like QD.
0:6:23.840-->0:6:24.270
Wold, Kathy
Great.
0:6:26.110-->0:6:26.730
Michael Shepard
Can you hear me now?
0:6:24.540-->0:6:26.980
Wold, Kathy
Thank you,Taylor.
0:6:27.370-->0:6:29.300
Wold, Kathy
Yes, Michael,we'll jump back, Michael.
0:6:29.310-->0:6:30.720
Wold, Kathy
Yes,welcome.
Page 117 of 192

0:6:34.690-->0:6:35.20
Wold,Kathy
Ah.
0:6:30.840-->0:6:36.650
Michael Shepard
Sorry,we updated our computer but obviously didn't update Microsoft Teams very well.
0:6:37.80-->0:6:45.120
Michael Shepard
I, Michael Shepherd with Neighborworks Boise and I run three different programs here,so I'd be Michael
Multi Tasker Shepherd.
0:6:45.870-->0:6:46.840
Wold, Kathy
I like it.
0:6:46.930-->0:6:47.520
Wold, Kathy
Great.
0:6:47.530-->0:6:49.320
Wold, Kathy
Glad we got that audio figure out.
0:6:49.410-->0:6:49.810
Wold, Kathy
Thank you.
0:6:50.70-->0:6:50.590
Michael Shepard
Thank you.
0:6:51.460-->0:6:52.350
Wold,Kathy
Great Taylor.
0:6:55.750-->0:6:58.390
Taylor Thomas
And afternoon,Taylor Thomas with the Idaho Commission.
0:6:59.720-->0:7:2.10
Taylor Thomas
I would say Taylor adventure.
0:7:2.840-->0:7:4.730
Wold, Kathy
All right,great.
Page 118 of 192

0:7:5.280-->0:7:5.750
Wold, Kathy
And will.
0:7:7.970-->0:7:14.440
Wil Gehl
I am will give with the city of Boise and and I was also thinking the same thing as Laura and I can't come
up with another one.
0:7:14.450-->0:7:17.940
Wil Gehl
So I'm gonna stick with curious as well, but nice to see you all.Thanks.
0:7:16.150-->0:7:19.310
Wold, Kathy
Alright,great,great.
0:7:19.540-->0:7:20.400
Wold, Kathy
Well,good.
0:7:20.690-->0:7:21.220
Wold, Kathy
Let's see.
0:7:21.230-->0:7:25.40
Wold, Kathy
Did I get everybody off the in the meeting list?
0:7:25.50-->0:7:27.950
Wold, Kathy
Is there anything I missed or anybody that didn't have a chance to jump in?
0:7:30.820-->0:7:34.170
Wold, Kathy
Think we got everybody excellent.
0:7:34.180-->0:7:34.950
Wold, Kathy
Well,welcome.
0:7:34.960-->0:7:38.0
Wold, Kathy
Thanks everybody forjoining and sharing a little bit there.
0:7:40.450-->0:7:41.20
Wold, Kathy
All right.
Page 119 of 192

0:7:41.30-->0:7:43.890
Wold, Kathy
We're gonna jump over to our safety moment and I'll turn it over to Preston.
0:7:45.310-->0:7:45.500
Scantling, Preston
Yeah.
0:7:45.510-->0:7:46.230
Scantling, Preston
Thanks, Kathy.
0:7:46.290-->0:7:55.710
Scantling, Preston
So I wanted to take a little to take a little time today to talk about cybersecurity as our as our safety
moment, obviously a very big issue that we're dealing with today and all sectors.
0:7:56.50-->0:7:57.720
Scantling, Preston
So I just wanted to start out with a little bit of news.
0:7:57.730-->0:8:13.160
Scantling, Preston
You might have heard recently that MGM Resorts Scott scammed pretty bad they actually fell,fell victim
to a social engineering scam where an online hacking group impersonated an employee that they found
on Linkedln and used their first and last name to call their service desk.
0:8:13.220-->0:8:18.960
Scantling, Preston
And then gain access to their account passwords and it was all downhill and very technical from there,
but some but yeah.
0:8:18.970-->0:8:19.380
Scantling,Preston
So.
0:8:19.650-->0:8:19.880
Scantling,Preston
So.
0:8:19.890-->0:8:30.330
Scantling, Preston
So that's a good it's a good reminder to just stay, stay aware of social engineering and to make sure that
you're contacting people directly and not,you know, relying on other means of communication solely.
0:8:31.250-->0:8:35.140
Scantling, Preston
I'm also on also on the note of keeping that information private.
Page 120 of 192

0:8:35.150-->0:8:42.620
Scantling, Preston
There are there's lots of good password management softwares you can use that there to make sure that
your passwords when they get long complicated can stay secure.
0:8:43.110-->0:8:54.380
Scantling, Preston
Things like 1 password Keeper or nordpass are really great programs amongst others,so host programs
and you can use there if you're working in a place that has a lot of physical security concerns.
0:8:54.390-->0:9:1.830
Scantling, Preston
One of the big things to keep in mind is that there are physical ways of hacking into those sorts of sort of
systems like scan cards or key cards.
0:9:1.840-->0:9:9.210
Scantling, Preston
They used to badge into a building, so oftentimes it's good to keep those in some sort of RFID blocking
accessories such as a wallet or a purse.
0:9:9.220-->0:9:13.970
Scantling, Preston
They make all sorts of accessories now that have that sort of blocking,you know, material in there.
0:9:13.980-->0:9:26.760
Scantling, Preston
So another good thing to be aware of there, if you were,you know, legacy in a physical security,you
know tight spot and the last thing is just keep all the software on your on your devices such as phones,
laptops,tablets and desktop computers updated all the time.
0:9:26.770-->0:9:33.910
Scantling, Preston
That'll make sure to to keep the antivirus software up to date,and that is today's moment on cyber
security.
0:9:34.660-->0:9:35.10
Wold,Kathy
OK.
0:9:35.560-->0:9:36.150
Wold, Kathy
Thanks, Preston.
0:9:36.570-->0:9:36.760
Scantling, Preston
Umm.
Page 121 of 192

0:9:38.970-->0:9:39.740
Wold, Kathy
Right.
0:9:40.110-->0:9:40.820
Wold, Kathy
OK.
0:9:40.910-->0:9:49.290
Wold, Kathy
So we'll jump in here, and I'm gonna turn off my camera here while I can access my notes and follow
along on the PowerPoint.
0:9:49.670-->0:9:54.870
Wold, Kathy
One of the things that we wanted to talk about and propose to the committee is kind of what I'm calling
a meeting makeover.
0:9:54.930-->0:10:19.60
Wold, Kathy
More uh,we wanted to make sure that we are staying in good communication with the Committee and I
felt like doing a little bit of meeting makeovers that making our meetings more regular and more regular
in the sense from frequency, but also from a standpoint of what kind of information can you plan on
hearing from us when we have these kind of meetings.
0:10:19.70-->0:10:39.460
Wold, Kathy
So going forward,we're proposing kind of a standard agenda where we can talk about the rider
balance,give you an update on rebate performance updates on promotions and program admin and
then also dive a little bit into other things like some special studies that we're doing or any special topics
that we have.
0:10:39.590-->0:10:51.700
Wold, Kathy
And then as we have time,we'd love to be able to invite some guest speakers,special guest speakers to
share with us some of the topics that are going on around energy efficiency or particularly for our
program.
0:10:51.710-->0:10:57.210
Wold, Kathy
So going forward,for these meetings,you can expect to hear updates on those regular topics.
0:10:59.610-->0:11:2.440
Wold, Kathy
And then we'd also like to start meeting quarterly.
Page 122 of 192

0:11:2.450-->0:11:7.540
Wold, Kathy
So we have a proposed schedule for meeting dates for 2024.
0:11:7.870-->0:11:10.40
Wold, Kathy
I put those on the PowerPoint there.
0:11:10.270-->0:11:20.180
Wold, Kathy
I would anticipate meetings kind of like we're doing right now and afternoon meeting for a couple of
hours depending on how much content and discussion you know,things that we have.
0:11:20.190-->0:11:27.620
Wold, Kathy
But I will start sending out some save the date reminders for upcoming meetings for the next year.
0:11:28.150-->0:11:41.890
Wold, Kathy
Unless anybody has any uh feedback on that or suggestions of,you know, major things that are going on
that maybe make it not great time to meet,we'll take that into consideration too and may have to move
some of those dates around.
0:11:41.900-->0:11:52.150
Wold, Kathy
But this is kind of what we'd like to get on the calendar and make sure that we set that time aside,just as
calendars are prone to getting filled up very quickly.
0:11:57.220-->0:11:57.930
Wold, Kathy
OK.
0:11:57.970-->0:12:5.550
Wold, Kathy
So we'll go ahead and jump in and I'm going to turn this over to Cody and he'll start with a writer balance
update this afternoon.
0:12:7.0-->0:12:7.310
Thompson,Kody
Yeah.
0:12:7.320-->0:12:7.760
Thompson,Kody
Thanks, Kathy.
0:12:13.140-->0:12:18.690
Thompson, Kody
So first slide here is the residential rider balance and how it's trended over the year.
Page 123 of 192

0:12:19.100-->0:12:25.550
Thompson, Kody
As you can see at the end of third quarter,we are a little bit over where we were at the balance at the
start of the year.
0:12:25.780-->0:12:45.300
Thompson, Kody
It's about an 11%increase compared to where we were at the beginning of the year, but we have turned
it down since the uptick in quarter one, which is to be expected because we were coming out of the
heating season at the end of that quarter and so started to uh eat into that with the lower revenues and
the continued uptake of rebates.
0:12:45.960-->0:12:56.690
Thompson, Kody
Uh, it's there is the possibility of the rider balance ending higher than what the year was for 2023.
0:12:56.740-->0:13:13.970
Thompson, Kody
If rebates perform the same way that they didn't Q 42022, so there is a possibility that we will see some
increase there unless we see an uptick in applications coming in colder weather in that usually does lead
to us getting some additional applications than what we see when it's milder temperatures.
0:13:13.980-->0:13:16.240
Thompson, Kody
So hopefully we do see some of that coming in.
0:13:17.260-->0:13:17.560
Thompson, Kody
uh.
0:13:17.740-->0:13:27.430
Thompson, Kody
As of the end of quarter three, uh,we are sitting at about 7%less in terms of rebate dollars paid out than
where we were at at the end of third quarter 22.
0:13:27.440-->0:13:32.250
Thompson, Kody
So we're pretty close to where we were for last year,just lagging a little bit behind.
0:13:39.10-->0:13:40.190
Thompson, Kody
Taylor,I see you guys.
0:13:40.200-->0:13:40.700
Thompson, Kody
We end up there.
Page 124 of 192

0:13:41.590-->0:13:47.810
Taylor Thomas
Yeah,just curious what the company's process is for when you might trigger an update to the rider recovery
funds.
0:13:50.920-->0:13:51.780
Taylor Thomas
What's that set at?
0:13:51.790-->0:13:56.440
Taylor Thomas
Is there a certain limit you guys look for or you just talk through that process a little bit?
0:13:59.760-->0:14:1.490
Thompson, Kody
Yeah,that's a good question.
0:14:1.500-->0:14:10.710
Thompson, Kody
Uh, I know we did just perform that adjustment last year and we did do that significant refund of the
4.85 million in 2022 to residential customers because they had gone up.
0:14:11.290-->0:14:21.660
Thompson, Kody
Uh, Kathy, I don't know if we have said anything formally as far as a balance for trigger there for where
we would do an adjustment.
0:14:22.460-->0:14:25.150
Thompson, Kody
So if there's something there, I'd have to defer to you on that.
0:14:26.480-->0:14:32.380
Wold, Kathy
Yeah, I don't I we don't have a formal process or procedure in place of like what would trigger that.
0:14:32.840-->0:14:48.570
Wold, Kathy
We try and make sure that we keep these updates, make sure folks know where the balance is, how it's
trending, and if we do anticipate it growing too far out of balance one way or another under collector
over collected that would we would work on adjusting that.
0:14:48.640-->0:15:5.190
Wold, Kathy
We've tried to not make a lot of changes in that EE C so that we're not kind of whipping back and forth
between over and under collected, so we've still been kind of figuring out that sweet spot of where we
collect to keep up with where the program is going.
Page 125 of 192

0:15:8.260-->0:15:8.590
Taylor Thomas
OK.
0:15:8.600-->0:15:8.970
Taylor Thomas
Thank you.
0:15:9.220-->0:15:9.500
Wold, Kathy
I hope.
0:15:8.980-->0:15:16.890
Taylor Thomas
That's kind of why I asked that question of just where does that trigger point for the company to keep it
from zigzagging up and down?
0:15:17.390-->0:15:17.610
Wold, Kathy
Yeah.
0:15:17.20-->0:15:17.680
Taylor Thomas
So thank you.
0:15:30.290-->0:15:30.620
Thompson,Kody
All right.
0:15:30.630-->0:15:34.600
Thompson, Kody
And then we have the commercial rider balance as you can see,the story here is a little bit different.
0:15:34.610-->0:15:37.680
Thompson, Kody
It has continued to increase quarter over quarter.
0:15:38.90-->0:15:42.520
Thompson, Kody
We are sitting at about 35%greater than the beginning balance.
0:15:43.150-->0:15:43.630
Thompson,Kody
Uh.
0:15:44.30-->0:15:47.410
Thompson, Kody
Part of this is, uh.
Page 126 of 192

0:15:47.840-->0:16:1.550
Thompson, Kody
We've seen a 38% decrease in rebates that have been applied for by commercial customers, including
not receiving any applications for boiler incentives compared to the seven that we had issued as of the
end of third quarter in 2022.
0:16:1.700-->0:16:13.420
Thompson, Kody
So if we have similar performance to what was seen in 2022 for fourth quarter, we could see we will
most likely see this as a an increase, uh, over the balance and started the year.
0:16:14.10-->0:16:17.680
Thompson, Kody
There are some commercial specific projects that are being worked on for fourth quarter.
0:16:17.870-->0:16:22.990
Thompson, Kody
It's too early to tell what sort of impacts of efforts will have, and those are going to be discussed in slides
later on.
0:16:33.160-->0:16:33.360
Scantling,Preston
Hello.
0:16:32.960-->0:16:33.460
Thompson, Kody
J and.
0:16:33.100-->0:16:33.730
Wold, Kathy
At Jason.
0:16:36.80-->0:16:36.340
Jason Talford
Great.
0:16:36.350-->0:16:37.470
Jason Talford
Thank you.
0:16:37.940-->0:16:41.260
Jason Talford
Just just for the sake of context here,could you also comment on the?
0:16:43.410-->0:16:53.430
Jason Talford
On the commercial programs,expenses to date relative to the rider you know is 700,000 a whole lot is
that not very much relative to the spend.
Page 127 of 192

0:16:56.380-->0:16:59.150
Thompson, Kody
Uh,that is a great question.
0:17:1.150-->0:17:5.800
Thompson, Kody
I would have to pull up those details and get back to you on that.
0:17:7.760-->0:17:12.390
Thompson, Kody
As far as the spending goes, it's not going to be very significant.
0:17:12.400-->0:17:14.10
Thompson, Kody
We haven't seen a lot of rebates.
0:17:14.20-->0:17:18.240
Thompson, Kody
Most of spending is going to be on the promotion and outreach, I believe.
0:17:20.620-->0:17:20.930
Jason Talford
OK.
0:17:20.750-->0:17:21.650
Wold, Kathy
Yeah, I would agree.
0:17:21.0-->0:17:22.590
Jason Talford
Yeah,that I'd appreciate that.
0:17:22.700-->0:17:25.430
Jason Talford
Yeah,it doesn't have to be answered here, but I think that would be interesting.
0:17:25.440-->0:17:25.810
Jason Talford
Thank you.
0:17:26.730-->0:17:26.870
Thompson,Kody
Yeah.
0:17:34.700-->0:17:35.280
Wold, Kathy
OK.
Page 128 of 192

0:17:38.550-->0:17:38.840
Wold, Kathy
OK.
0:17:39.670-->0:17:50.190
Thompson, Kody
Alright, so we're going to go through a few slides here,just kind of going over kind of how the rebates
have been performing over the same period from last year to this year.
0:17:50.200-->0:17:55.790
Thompson, Kody
So all these numbers are going to be the 1st 3/4 of 2022 compared to 2023.
0:17:57.120-->0:18:8.560
Thompson, Kody
So like I mentioned earlier,you know we are seeing a similar volume of total rebates issued when
looking at the 1st 3/4, we're at about 210 less rebates having been issued as of the end of third quarter
this year.
0:18:10.70-->0:18:13.210
Thompson, Kody
So still pretty similar in volume.
0:18:13.540-->0:18:20.430
Thompson, Kody
We've got a pretty decent backlog of applications that are still out there and being processed and
actively worked on through the rotation.
0:18:20.800-->0:18:33.70
Thompson, Kody
And so it's just a matter of continuing to see those come in making sure we've got those outreach efforts
and that we're putting the time into to get those rebates out the door and vetted properly.
0:18:37.120-->0:18:37.590
Thompson,Kody
Yes,Taylor.
0:18:39.670-->0:18:45.270
Taylor Thomas
So you put the approved,which makes me think of how many are denied.
0:18:45.280-->0:18:50.760
Taylor Thomas
And I'm just curious as to what those numbers look like and the reasons behind that.
0:18:49.730-->0:18:52.90
Thompson, Kody
Yeah,yeah, I could.
Page 129 of 192

0:18:52.100-->0:18:55.560
Thompson, Kody
I could definitely get back at you with some of that.
0:18:55.570-->0:19:4.750
Thompson, Kody
As far as what's denied, I can tell you the greatest portion of where we're going to see those denials are
going to be on things where it's equipment that's not qualifying.
0:19:4.760-->0:19:9.150
Thompson, Kody
So it's going to be like a storage water heater that's below the minimum efficiency requirement.
0:19:9.460-->0:19:12.870
Thompson, Kody
Programmable smart thermostat things of that nature.
0:19:13.260-->0:19:18.260
Thompson, Kody
But I can definitely get back to you with more detail on what that denial looks like.
0:19:19.410-->0:19:20.520
Taylor Thomas
Yeah, I think it would be helpful.
0:19:20.530-->0:19:33.60
Taylor Thomas
It just obviously those denials is an area for improvement as in is it, do we need to improve our outreach
to customers or messaging on how these programs are understanding.
0:19:33.70-->0:19:34.680
Taylor Thomas
So that's kind of more information.
0:19:34.690-->0:19:38.180
Taylor Thomas
I'd be really interested in how to improve these programs with that type of information.
0:19:38.980-->0:19:39.390
Thompson,Kody
OK.
0:19:39.680-->0:19:40.350
Thompson, Kody
Yeah,we can.
0:19:40.440-->0:19:42.860
Thompson, Kody
We can definitely,you know,do some follow up on that.
Page 130 of 192

0:19:45.880-->0:19:46.320
Thompson,Kody
Uh, Laura?
0:19:46.610-->0:19:46.870
Wold, Kathy
Lori.
0:19:48.380-->0:19:52.970
Laura Conilogue
How did you say that these were residential or commercial rebates?
0:19:53.970-->0:19:56.0
Thompson, Kody
This this is the sum total of everything.
0:19:56.420-->0:19:58.770
Laura Conilogue
Ohh all the rebates,OK.
0:19:59.280-->0:19:59.910
Thompson, Kody
Yeah.
0:20:3.620-->0:20:3.870
Laura Conilogue
Hmm.
0:19:59.960-->0:20:10.70
Thompson, Kody
So the next slide will have it broken down by rebate for 2023 and that'll have the breakout for what
we've seen in commercial.
0:20:10.380-->0:20:18.0
Thompson, Kody
What I can tell you is that only eleven of these account for commercial at this as of end of Q3.
0:20:18.470-->0:20:18.760
Laura Conilogue
OK.
0:20:23.780-->0:20:24.570
Thompson,Kody
Yeah.
0:20:24.620-->0:20:24.900
Thompson,Kody
Yeah.
Page 131 of 192

0:20:18.770-->0:20:24.910
Laura Conilogue
Because you said there was a 38%decrease in rebates for commercial, right,OK.
0:20:24.910-->0:20:25.380
Thompson,Kody
And that's.
0:20:25.390-->0:20:25.750
Thompson,Kody
Yeah.
0:20:31.400-->0:20:31.680
Laura Conilogue
Umm.
0:20:25.760-->0:20:40.300
Thompson, Kody
And part of that's just cause the volume of commercial is significantly smaller compared to residential,
uh because yeah,we had like I want to say it was 18 fryers or somewhere around that last year and
then like 7 boilers.
0:20:42.80-->0:20:42.330
Laura Conilogue
Mm-hmm.
0:20:40.310-->0:20:43.750
Thompson, Kody
So we had like 20 rebates last year versus 11 so far.
0:20:44.300-->0:20:45.140
Laura Conilogue
OK. OK.
0:20:45.20-->0:20:46.180
Thompson, Kody
So yeah.
0:20:46.750-->0:20:47.110
Laura Conilogue
Thank you.
0:20:47.600-->0:20:47.760
Thompson, Kody
Yeah.
0:20:49.170-->0:20:52.360
Thompson, Kody
Umm but yeah,so this is that graph has mentioned.
Page 132 of 192

0:20:52.370-->0:20:54.260
Thompson, Kody
Like said,we've got the fryers on there.
0:20:54.300-->0:21:0.660
Thompson, Kody
After this they will be separated residential commercial to just to make it a little bit more simplistic for
some things.
0:21:1.230-->0:21:9.30
Thompson, Kody
But the landscape of this shouldn't really be a surprise to folks that have been part of the Stakeholder
committee for a while.
0:21:9.40-->0:21:17.940
Thompson, Kody
We continue to see furnaces,smart thermostats and whole home Tier 2 as the top, redeemed rebates
that customers are going for.
0:21:18.230-->0:21:20.330
Thompson, Kody
We are seeing growth with tankless water heaters tier 1
0:21:21.670-->0:21:26.430
Thompson, Kody
This doesn't appear to be based on,uh,two factors from what we're seeing.
0:21:26.440-->0:21:30.560
Thompson, Kody
The first one is that we've got a whole home.
0:21:30.570-->0:21:44.670
Thompson, Kody
Builders are now able to stack that on when they were unable to do so under the previous whole home
program that was retired and we also did targeted water heating outreach.
0:21:44.680-->0:21:45.490
Thompson, Kody
That was performed this year.
0:21:45.500-->0:22:0.510
Thompson, Kody
That Preston will go into further details later on this presentation and we do believe based on
submissions we saw come in after that and responses on how they heard about the program that was
representative of why we're seeing an increase in the tankless water heater tier one as well.
Page 133 of 192

0:22:11.860-->0:22:25.60
Thompson, Kody
So these next ones are just going to be comparing the rebates themselves with again the 1st 3/4 of 2022
versus 2023,just to give us what their performance was for similar periods.
0:22:25.700-->0:22:35.620
Thompson, Kody
None of the rebates depicted in this slide have met 2022 program year performance as the end of third
quarter, but there are a few in the next slide that have met or exceeded the previous year's
performance.
0:22:35.630-->0:22:36.840
Thompson, Kody
So I'll talk about those when we get to that.
0:22:38.630-->0:22:44.200
Thompson, Kody
We have seen a slight decrease in the number of whole home Tier 2 uh.
0:22:44.220-->0:22:54.520
Thompson, Kody
As you can see,and we do believe that part of the reason for the slowdown we're seeing there is
reflective of the slowdown for the building industry that they're currently experiencing.
0:22:55.0-->0:23:8.650
Thompson, Kody
We did also see 109 additional addresses during the same period than 2022 that had a furnace rebate
issued for them instead of a whole home Tier 2 because they didn't meet one of the criteria.
0:23:8.660-->0:23:12.500
Thompson, Kody
Whether it was the air changes or the duct leakage requirements.
0:23:13.30-->0:23:29.150
Thompson, Kody
That said, we haven't seen indications that the builders associated with those are strictly going to
appliances rebate appliance rebates instead and just getting the furnace and water heater and that it's
just that they had additional homes that did not meet that criteria this year than the previous one.
0:23:37.390-->0:23:41.350
Thompson, Kody
And so then we have the other residential rebates here.
0:23:42.350-->0:23:45.300
Thompson, Kody
I'll come back to whole home tier one in a minute.
0:23:45.710-->0:24:1.720
Thompson, Kody
Page 134 of 192

As of the end of third quarter,the boiler rebate has exceeded where we were at at the end of year with
2022.After third quarter 2022, we didn't see any additional boiler rebates for the residential program.
0:24:1.730-->0:24:5.100
Thompson, Kody
So we have seen two additional as of the end of Q3.
0:24:5.110-->0:24:8.670
Thompson, Kody
So anything here is just going to be continued growth for year end.
0:24:8.680-->0:24:22.820
Thompson, Kody
if we have one additional Combi boiler come in and be approved by year end, it will match 2022
performance.
0:24:22.830-->0:24:26.20
Thompson, Kody
We're really close there for meeting the number of rebates paid out.
0:24:26.970-->0:24:27.840
Thompson,Kody
Uh for that?
0:24:28.230-->0:24:43.200
Thompson, Kody
With what last year was if performance continues, similar to last year for storage water heaters and
tankless water heater Tier 2,we will see similar volume of rebates issued for those this year as was done
in 2022.
0:24:43.820-->0:24:47.40
Thompson, Kody
Uh,and then we have whole home tier one.
0:24:47.350-->0:24:50.820
Thompson, Kody
We did meet 2022's performance there as of third quarter.
0:24:51.190-->0:24:59.280
Thompson, Kody
We have one issued in 2022 and we've had one issued this year based on applications that we're seeing
come in.
0:24:59.890-->0:25:13.160
Thompson, Kody
Page 135 of 192

We are thinking that it is still the feedback we received previously that the obtaining a 97%furnace is still
a very current issue for builders of the whole home Tier 2 rebates that qualified.
0:25:13.250-->0:25:24.510
Thompson, Kody
We had 162 applications that met all other criteria to be rebated out as a tier one except for they didn't
have a 97% unit installed.
0:25:24.520-->0:25:29.120
Thompson, Kody
And so that's what prevented it from being paid out as a higher rebate because they did not meet that
criteria.
0:25:40.750-->0:25:40.990
Thompson,Kody
Uh.
0:25:41.0-->0:25:41.120
Thompson, Kody
Yeah.
0:25:41.130-->0:25:51.380
Thompson, Kody
And then we got Commercial rebates here that's been compared with, like I said,we haven't seen any
high efficiency condensing boilers for the commercial program since.
0:25:52.460-->0:25:54.980
Thompson, Kody
Uh,the start of this year.
0:25:55.50-->0:25:59.830
Thompson, Kody
The seven that are showing here in the chart did end up being the total sum of boiler rebates that were issued
in 2022.
0:26:2.60-->0:26:9.440
Thompson, Kody
Uh,we are close to performance,where fryers were last year in 2022.
0:26:10.90-->0:26:17.700
Thompson, Kody
We will need to receive an issue seven additional qualifying rebates to match the number of fryers that
were issued in 2022.
0:26:17.710-->0:26:25.960
Thompson, Kody
Page 136 of 192

So we yeah, so we need seven more to hit that 18 uh that we're issued out last year and more than that
would be great because then we would see growth.
0:26:34.310-->0:26:34.550
Thompson, Kody
La u ra.
0:26:36.120-->0:26:51.450
Laura Conilogue
Do you say why you think there's no high efficiency boilers this this year yet like you know what the
reason is, do you think are having an idea of why they haven't been any rebates for that?
0:26:55.40-->0:26:56.280
Thompson, Kody
I I don't.
0:26:56.500-->0:26:56.690
Laura Conilogue
And.
0:26:56.960-->0:26:57.860
Thompson, Kody
Kathy, do you have any?
0:26:57.920-->0:27:4.350
Wold, Kathy
Yeah, I don't know if it's specific to the high efficiency condensing boiler or for the commercial program
as a whole.
0:27:5.200-->0:27:9.50
Wold, Kathy
I think we're still trying to get our message to the right folks.
0:27:9.600-->0:27:15.630
Wold, Kathy
It seems like a lot of the contacts that I think we have for the commercial customers are probably folks
that pay the bill, right?
0:27:16.20-->0:27:16.270
Laura Conilogue
Umm.
0:27:15.900-->0:27:30.990
Wold, Kathy
So the energy efficiency message maybe isn't resonating with them and getting our message to more of
the building operators or the facility managers is really what's going to be kind of key to helping that that
program.
Page 137 of 192

0:27:31.320-->0:27:31.910
Laura Conilogue
Umm.
0:27:31.520-->0:27:33.960
Wold, Kathy
And I saw another hand up there.
0:27:31.950-->0:27:34.460
Laura Conilogue
OK,makes sense.
0:27:35.910-->0:27:36.670
Scantling, Preston
Yeah,for Kevin.
0:27:36.200-->0:27:36.810
Wold, Kathy
Was Kevin?
0:27:37.140-->0:27:37.830
Wold, Kathy
Ohh yeah,jump in.
0:27:39.40-->0:27:40.490
Kevin Keyt
Yep,to kind of echo what?
0:27:40.500-->0:27:42.30
Kevin Keyt
Laura questioned it.
0:27:42.40-->0:27:50.450
Kevin Keyt
I think it would be helpful to have a summary for these on what changes were made in the offerings year
over year.
0:27:58.880-->0:27:59.150
Wold,Kathy
Umm.
0:27:50.560-->0:28:12.30
Kevin Keyt
And so if you can attribute to increasing or decreasing numbers based on structural changes,that would
be a data point and the other would be anything that you've learned from feedback that are positives
which would cause an increase or barriers so that we can get a sense for what's going on.
Page 138 of 192

0:28:13.480-->0:28:15.70
Wold, Kathy
Yes,absolutely.
0:28:15.80-->0:28:18.640
Wold, Kathy
And I so we get into a little bit more of the commercial.
0:28:20.430-->0:28:25.880
Wold, Kathy
Outreach and education all talk a little bit about some of the things that we have going on and that we
have planned also.
0:28:27.810-->0:28:28.80
Thompson,Kody
Yeah.
0:28:28.90-->0:28:43.810
Thompson, Kody
And as far As for, like, uh, incentive changes in that like the offerings and amounts and everything are the
same in 2023 as they were in 2022,there's not been any change to the rebate amount offered for those
for the efficiency criteria.
0:28:45.610-->0:28:45.990
Kevin Keyt
Thank you.
0:28:52.580-->0:28:52.910
Wold,Kathy
OK.
0:28:52.920-->0:29:0.200
Wold, Kathy
Any other questions on rebates were a writer balance for Cody before we jump into promotions and
outreach and education.
0:29:4.510-->0:29:7.330
Wold, Kathy
All right, I will turn it over to Preston.
0:29:8.540-->0:29:8.980
Scantling, Preston
Alrighty.
0:29:8.990-->0:29:9.380
Scantling, Preston
Thanks, Kathy.
Page 139 of 192

0:29:10.440-->0:29:11.930
Scantling, Preston
Go ahead and skip over to the first one.
0:29:11.940-->0:29:15.950
Scantling, Preston
So we're going to divide this whole section of promotions here into residential and commercial.
0:29:15.960-->0:29:17.360
Scantling, Preston
And I start off with residential here.
0:29:18.220-->0:29:25.530
Scantling, Preston
So once again this year,we put an ad into the parade of homes magazines for all of the different
localities that we have within our service territory.
0:29:25.540-->0:29:29.50
Scantling, Preston
That includes Boise, Nampa, ID Falls,Twin Falls and Pocatello.
0:29:29.620-->0:29:40.690
Scantling, Preston
The parade of homes has continued to be a valuable event for getting our message in front of the home,
buying community, as well as interacting with different builders and each locality and making sure that
we help them advertise the energy efficient aspects of their home.
0:29:41.380-->0:29:57.920
Scantling, Preston
We decided to put a full page ad into each one of these parades,which each magazine had a digital print
version of it for the cities that we're able to provide, the numbers of copies that they have, those are
those are available here on the side.
0:29:57.930-->0:30:4.840
Scantling, Preston
You can see Idaho Falls at 10 Twin Falls at 8000 and then Boise Spring and fall at 110 and 106,000 copies.
0:30:4.900-->0:30:4.980
Scantling, Preston
Yes.
0:30:6.460-->0:30:7.370
Scantling, Preston
Umm yeah.
Page 140 of 192

0:30:7.380-->0:30:7.810
Scantling, Preston
So.
0:30:7.940-->0:30:15.210
Scantling, Preston
So I thank you so to combat some of our customers forgetting to apply for rebates.
0:30:15.220-->0:30:17.550
Scantling, Preston
We also ohh here I'm going to go ahead and let them in.
0:30:27.390-->0:30:27.610
Momentum Team
Here.
0:30:19.410-->0:30:33.480
Scantling, Preston
So what one of the pieces of feedback that we got pretty commonly from people who apply for the
rebates or people that were talking to at events is that after a project is finished, oftentimes customers
will forget to apply for the rebate just because there's been a lot going on.
0:30:33.490-->0:30:43.410
Scantling, Preston
Obviously they've had their hands full with this project of installing a furnace or water heater or smart
thermostat, and then at the end of the day it just kind of falls by the wayside,just gets forgotten.
0:30:43.570-->0:30:49.900
Scantling, Preston
So to combat that we have started to do quarterly emails to our customers to give them these regular
reminders to apply for their rebates.
0:30:50.600-->0:31:7.560
Scantling, Preston
So we've been doing one each quarter and as you can see here we, have the Q1 and Q2 emails here
these emails have been have proven to be a reliable and cost effective way of communicating with our
target audience and gives us good stats to measure the success and the reception of these as well.
0:31:7.970-->0:31:14.490
Scantling, Preston
You can see on each one here we got the number of sent emails,the open rate for them, and the click
through rate reached one.
0:31:15.430-->0:31:28.20
Scantling, Preston
Our Q1 email centered around general winner energy efficiency tips that that included changing the
Page 141 of 192

furnace filters, doing full loads of laundry, making sure you're using your equipment at the highest
possible efficient you know, rate and getting rebates from Intermountain Gas.
0:31:29.0-->0:31:40.130
Scantling, Preston
Sorry about that and this email function we ended up saying just over 200,000 of these emails we had a
57%open rate and we had a little lower of a click through rate on this one at 1%.
0:31:40.360-->0:31:47.50
Scantling, Preston
But going forward through our Q2 and Q3 email, which we'll talk about on the next slide,we had a pretty
steady 3%click through rate on those.
0:31:48.360-->0:31:52.550
Scantling, Preston
As pretty mentioned earlier,our Q2 email sent centered around water heater rebates.
0:31:52.560-->0:32:0.630
Scantling, Preston
We at this point it was slightly underperforming area,so we wanted to get some extra messaging out
there to specifically increase this sector of our rebates.
0:32:1.200-->0:32:8.650
Scantling, Preston
So we so we ended up putting in some information in here about the pros and cons of storage and high
efficiency tankless water heaters.
0:32:9.740-->0:32:9.970
Scantling, Preston
Umm.
0:32:9.980-->0:32:16.950
Scantling, Preston
At this point,we after we sent this out, we started to see a little bit of an increase in the amount of water
heater rebates that were applied for.
0:32:17.30-->0:32:29.340
Scantling, Preston
But we also started to see some more invalid applications, which is why we ended up moving to the next
piece of outreach that we did,which we can go ahead and skip forward to the next slide here, which was
our water heater rebate postcard.
0:32:29.410-->0:32:35.570
Scantling, Preston
And again, if anyone has questions about those last two emails,feel free to chime in, but I'll keep rolling
through here.
0:32:36.830-->0:32:44.620
Scantling, Preston
Page 142 of 192

So our water heater rebate postcard was sent to all the plumbing contractors and our service territory
that ended up being a total of 651 of them.
0:32:45.150-->0:33:0.620
Scantling, Preston
We sent this in the first week of September and since contractors oftentimes are a large source of their
referrals for rebates,we decided that this would be a really good avenue of not only raising awareness of
these water heater rebates, but also making sure that we reiterate the qualifications of them.
0:33:0.950-->0:33:6.520
Scantling, Preston
Since these contractors are working with customers on a very you know,one on one basis,they'll be able
to transfer that information very well.
0:33:7.960-->0:33:11.990
Scantling, Preston
So after we sent all these out,we ended up getting 20 of them back,ten of them.
0:33:12.0-->0:33:33.410
Scantling, Preston
We were able to update addresses from the Department of Professional Licensing website as well as the
addresses on the cards there, so this allows us to now keep a live list of all the active plumbing
contractors in our service territory and if we want to do this again in the future, you know we can we
have this list ready to start sending out targeted outreach that allows us to reach very specific sectors of
our customer base.
0:33:35.420-->0:33:35.670
Scantling, Preston
Yeah.
0:33:35.680-->0:33:41.980
Scantling, Preston
And All in all,we believe this has contributed to that increase in tankless Tier 1 water heaters that we
that we discussed earlier.
0:33:44.620-->0:33:47.250
Scantling, Preston
And and I see a question here from Laura.
0:33:48.760-->0:33:49.560
Laura Conilogue
Yeah.
0:33:49.760-->0:33:53.370
Laura Conilogue
Do you know how much it cost for to do the?
0:33:53.470-->0:34:2.600
Laura Conilogue
Page 143 of 192

I mean, did it cost anything to do the emails and then or how much this the postcards cost in general to
like send out these notifications or?
0:34:4.990-->0:34:8.380
Scantling, Preston
Umm, I don't have the exact number of those on me.
0:34:8.440-->0:34:10.300
Scantling, Preston
I might have to leave on Kathy a little bit for those.
0:34:11.860-->0:34:12.270
Wold,Kathy
Yeah.
0:34:12.280-->0:34:23.970
Wold, Kathy
So I'll have to circle back on the amount, but we do pay a portion on our email sends and then also on
the I think on the postcard send our postage send.
0:34:23.980-->0:34:28.120
Wold, Kathy
So, but we can get those expenses back to the group.
0:34:29.370-->0:34:29.770
Laura Conilogue
Nice.
0:34:29.780-->0:34:30.250
Laura Conilogue
Thank you.
0:34:30.290-->0:34:34.920
Laura Conilogue
Yeah, I mean, I don't think it would be, it doesn't seem like it would probably be a whole lot.
0:34:34.930-->0:34:41.970
Laura Conilogue
So it seems like it might,you know,just making sure it was still cost effective,which I assume it will, but
just curious.
0:34:42.780-->0:34:42.980
Wold, Kathy
Yeah.
0:34:42.590-->0:34:43.70
Scantling, Preston
Absolutely.
Page 144 of 192

0:34:43.80-->0:34:43.690
Scantling, Preston
Yeah,yeah,yeah.
0:34:43.700-->0:34:45.150
Scantling, Preston
I think that be a good thing to include in there.
0:34:45.160-->0:34:46.700
Scantling, Preston
We'll make sure we'll make sure to get that for you.
0:34:47.230-->0:34:47.530
Laura Conilogue
Thank you.
0:34:47.950-->0:34:49.300
Scantling, Preston
And I saw a question from Kevin.
0:34:50.740-->0:34:54.20
Kevin Keyt
Preston,thank you for including the click through rate.
0:34:54.30-->0:34:56.250
Kevin Keyt
That's something we wanted to see.
0:34:56.430-->0:34:56.780
Scantling,Preston
No worries.
0:34:56.360-->0:35:0.380
Kevin Keyt
So what would a click through rate make you go?
0:35:0.390-->0:35:1.760
Kevin Keyt
Yay,we nailed it.
0:35:2.960-->0:35:3.390
Kevin Keyt
What is?
0:35:2.790-->0:35:3.430
Scantling, Preston
Well,you know,it's.
Page 145 of 192

0:35:4.330-->0:35:5.640
Scantling, Preston
Oh, I was going to say so.
0:35:5.750-->0:35:20.900
Scantling, Preston
It's been it's been kind of interesting to dig into that and I've been,you know that that was a question I
asked myself, and since we haven't been sending these types of quarterly emails in the past,we haven't
really had a solid baseline of what our what our click through rate would be or what we should be
expecting for that.
0:35:21.170-->0:35:32.400
Scantling, Preston
And similarly when we when we look at other emails that Intermountain sends out the there are,you
know,emails out there that have more significant click through rates like you know you're bill that you
get every month for example.
0:35:32.410-->0:35:39.630
Scantling, Preston
But of course that is an email that is kind of required to be answered and has a very specific,you know,
business related past related to it.
0:35:39.640-->0:35:43.770
Scantling, Preston
So we don't really have an equivalent email type that we would be comparing this to.
0:35:43.780-->0:35:50.60
Scantling, Preston
So that's part of what we're getting with is this information right now is our baseline and what we can
expect to go forward.
0:35:51.220-->0:35:51.600
Kevin Keyt
Thank you.
0:35:52.70-->0:35:52.390
Scantling, Preston
No worries.
0:35:53.360-->0:35:57.10
Scantling, Preston
And I saw another question here was that Taylor, I believe,yeah.
0:35:58.20-->0:35:58.290
Taylor Thomas
Yeah.
Page 146 of 192

0:35:58.300-->0:35:59.450
Taylor Thomas
Can you go to the next slide please?
0:36:2.520-->0:36:2.660
Scantling, Preston
Yeah.
0:36:3.670-->0:36:9.720
Taylor Thomas
So you said part of the reason for sending the postcard was to basically help.
0:36:10.340-->0:36:14.620
Taylor Thomas
Umm installers understand the requirements for the program.
0:36:15.480-->0:36:15.740
Scantling, Preston
Correct.
0:36:15.700-->0:36:24.0
Taylor Thomas
So my question to you is,of the applications that are getting denied to,what is the reason mainly for?
0:36:26.420-->0:36:44.200
Scantling, Preston
I believe in Cody might be able to tag in on this, but I believe most of the invalid applications that we're
seeing prior to this were storage water heaters that were below the minimum efficiency level,which is
why we decided to include this graph of the minimum efficiency ratings for tankless tier one and two, as
well as the storage.
0:36:45.150-->0:36:49.290
Scantling, Preston
I believe that was the majority of them was just being under the efficiency requirement.
0:36:54.250-->0:36:55.680
Wold, Kathy
Yeah,that's correct.
0:36:55.870-->0:36:56.70
Thompson, Kody
Yeah.
0:36:55.910-->0:36:58.520
Wold, Kathy
UM,when we sent out the
Page 147 of 192

0:37:0.240-->0:37:3.470
Wold, Kathy
So this is the first year that we've done quarterly emails to our customers.
0:37:3.480-->0:37:12.270
Wold, Kathy
So we want to make sure that we're doing some regular communication to them and these are all
customers that have opted in to receiving an energy efficiency message from us.
0:37:12.280-->0:37:15.870
Wold, Kathy
So we've started doing quarterly emails to them.
0:37:16.80-->0:37:26.170
Wold, Kathy
We focus the Q2 email on water heating and we got a surprising number of folks calling in or emailing
saying I didn't know you had water heating.
0:37:27.870-->0:37:33.80
Wold, Kathy
Even though we've always advertised it in the annual bill Insert it has always been part of the program.
0:37:34.910-->0:37:37.900
Wold, Kathy
We've always included that in our promotions for some reason.
0:37:37.910-->0:37:42.470
Wold, Kathy
That was one thing that maybe customers just weren't aware of or seeing.
0:37:42.480-->0:37:50.640
Wold, Kathy
And so that led to an increase in applications of water heating appliances, but many of them were
missing that minimum efficiency.
0:37:50.650-->0:38:1.700
Wold, Kathy
They still were not meeting the requirement,and so that's what kind of led us to this next step of like,
OK,we know that they look to their contractors as an expert on appliances.
0:38:1.710-->0:38:8.200
Wold, Kathy
So let's make sure that they're aware of the minimum efficiency and also the fact that we have water
heating rebates.
Page 148 of 192

0:38:8.270-->0:38:11.700
Wold, Kathy
So that was kind of how it played out over this.
0:38:11.950-->0:38:12.460
Wold, Kathy
Yeah.
0:38:12.500-->0:38:14.940
Wold, Kathy
No, I guess second,third,quarter.
0:38:16.240-->0:38:16.610
Taylor Thomas
OK.
0:38:16.620-->0:38:17.20
Taylor Thomas
Thank you.
0:38:18.30-->0:38:18.170
Wold,Kathy
Yeah.
0:38:18.740-->0:38:19.120
Scantling, Preston
Thanks Taylor
0:38:21.110-->0:38:23.90
Scantling, Preston
On writing, I believe going forward here is Kathy.
0:38:24.250-->0:38:29.620
Wold, Kathy
All right,so I mentioned we do do an annual bill insert and this year is no exception.
0:38:30.130-->0:38:34.940
Wold, Kathy
We did move our bill insert time from October to August of this year.
0:38:35.210-->0:38:47.620
Wold, Kathy
We wanted to kind of try and get ahead of the winter heating season and we wanted to focus on reminding
folks about things that they could do kind of DIY project type things that they could do in their home.
0:38:47.890-->0:38:56.150
Wold, Kathy
Page 149 of 192

Aside from doing an equipment replacement or upgrade,other ways that they can save money and
energy, so we really focused on some easy savings.
0:38:56.950-->0:39:12.160
Wold, Kathy
Uh, and tried to talk about things like doing air sealing or foam gaskets for around light switches and
plugs and making sure you have clean filters and so as part of that annual bill insert,we also try and do a
customer engagement activity.
0:39:12.450-->0:39:18.80
Wold, Kathy
And this year's activity was the promotion and giveaway of 100
What we called easy saving kits, but they're the energy saving kits that you're probably very familiar
with.
0:39:23.910-->0:39:29.180
Wold, Kathy
UM,so we promoted the easy saving kits sweepstakes by our bill.
0:39:29.190-->0:39:32.0
Wold, Kathy
Insert those were both paper and digital.
0:39:32.410-->0:39:33.860
Wold, Kathy
We did customer emails.
0:39:34.130-->0:39:41.820
Wold, Kathy
We promoted it on Facebook as well,and so you could see on the stats there,we sent out over 200,000
customer emails.
0:39:41.870-->0:39:48.250
Wold, Kathy
Every customer got Bill insert and we had at 46%open rate and a 3%click through rate.
0:39:50.540-->0:39:51.750
Wold, Kathy
Umm we also.
0:39:51.810-->0:40:2.90
Wold, Kathy
So when folks either went to the link or they used the QR code, it took them to a page that showed all of
the measures that they could install.
Page 150 of 192

0:40:2.100-->0:40:9.100
Wold, Kathy
So things like the foam gaskets and the weather stripping and it also gave instructions on how to install
those things.
0:40:9.160-->0:40:19.110
Wold, Kathy
So even if you weren't necessarily interested in applying for the contest to win a kit, it also provided
some information on how you might install these things.
0:40:19.500-->0:40:30.840
Wold, Kathy
Very easy measures that you could get from your local hardware store,so editing point if you wanted to
do something like a quick DIY energy saving thing at home easy way you could do that.
0:40:31.120-->0:40:34.110
Wold, Kathy
So that was on the entry page to the contest.
0:40:37.40-->0:40:42.710
Wold, Kathy
So we had about a little 5500 entries over 7000 page views.
0:40:42.720-->0:40:43.940
Wold, Kathy
We had 100 winners.
0:40:44.680-->0:40:58.620
Wold, Kathy
We posted this on Facebook to make sure that people were aware of the easy savings kit giveaway, and
then we also followed up on Facebook with a another post to kind of congratulate our winners and close
the loop on the whole contest.
0:40:59.580-->0:41:13.500
Wold, Kathy
We worked with AM conservation on these kits and so the kits were put together and mailed directly
from AM conservation to their customers that won those kits and those went out just in the last couple
of weeks.
0:41:13.930-->0:41:19.820
Wold, Kathy
So we are currently in the process of developing a survey to follow up with those winners.
0:41:20.110-->0:41:25.700
Wold, Kathy
We wanted to kind of get their feedback on the quality of the kits,the diversity of products.
Page 151 of 192

0:41:25.710-->0:41:28.620
Wold, Kathy
Do they fit the things that they wanted to do in their home?
0:41:28.910-->0:41:30.700
Wold, Kathy
And of course,the install rates.
0:41:30.790-->0:41:32.280
Wold, Kathy
How easy was it to install?
0:41:32.290-->0:41:35.180
Wold, Kathy
Did they actually install the measure?
0:41:35.590-->0:41:39.260
Wold, Kathy
Did they feel a difference in sealing some of those air leaks?
0:41:39.270-->0:41:40.20
Wold, Kathy
That sort of thing.
0:41:40.30-->0:41:47.690
Wold, Kathy
So umm,we'll look forward to reporting back on some of that feedback on customers experience with
these easy saving kits.
0:41:51.790-->0:41:58.160
Wold, Kathy
So for comparison,it's always interesting to try and think of what's going to resonate with customers.
0:41:58.170-->0:42:0.780
Wold, Kathy
How do we do education and promotion together?
0:42:1.50-->0:42:4.280
Wold, Kathy
Raise awareness about energy efficiency and energy savings.
0:42:4.990-->0:42:15.500
Wold, Kathy
If you remember, last year our customer engagement activity was called hungry for savings and we
actually gave away five $100 grocery cards.
0:42:16.230-->0:42:22.190
Wold, Kathy
We had over 12,000 entries,27,000 page views, 60%open rate, 10%click through.
Page 152 of 192

0:42:22.680-->0:42:27.370
Wold, Kathy
I mean,you can see compared to the easy savings kits,we had not quite as much participation this year.
0:42:27.380-->0:42:32.920
Wold, Kathy
So UM trying to think about maybe why this didn't resonate with folks.
0:42:33.390-->0:42:36.520
Wold, Kathy
Uh,they're not interested in doing a DIY project?
0:42:36.530-->0:42:45.640
Wold, Kathy
I would have to maybe shamelessly admit I might be that person, not the DIY new homes people are perhaps
thinking they don't need a kit.
0:42:45.650-->0:42:47.800
Wold, Kathy
They've got a new home,they've got good air sealing.
0:42:47.810-->0:42:49.650
Wold, Kathy
They're not interested in it.
0:42:50.130-->0:42:52.980
Wold, Kathy
August was also kind of what we call a noisy month.
0:42:52.990-->0:43:0.40
Wold, Kathy
We had some other utility communications that were going out at that same time to like all customer
communications.
0:43:0.50-->0:43:12.710
Wold, Kathy
So we had to be careful about when we were sending out our communications so as not to, umm, be
cluttering up people's email or having,you know, potential and miss messages,that sort of thing.
0:43:12.720-->0:43:16.610
Wold, Kathy
So we had to be very strategic in how we did our kind of email communication.
0:43:16.620-->0:43:19.510
Wold, Kathy
So it was a little bit more noisy month than typical.
0:43:20.280-->0:43:33.70
Wold, Kathy
Page 153 of 192

So those are some things that we thought maybe contributed to a little bit lower performance also
maybe the kids didn't resonate with folks in the way that a grocery card would, particularly in these
inflationary times, so.
0:43:38.990-->0:43:39.530
Wold, Kathy
OK.
0:43:39.540-->0:43:40.250
Wold, Kathy
Ohh Jason yeah.
0:43:42.420-->0:43:42.710
Jason Talford
Yeah.
0:43:42.720-->0:43:45.410
Jason Talford
Thanks for the information on the lessons learned.
0:43:45.420-->0:43:48.330
Jason Talford
I think to to pair it, Kevin here.
0:43:48.340-->0:43:51.950
Jason Talford
I think that's the right kind of thing of,you know, here's what we learned from this.
0:43:51.960-->0:43:52.960
Jason Talford
Here's what we think is going on.
0:43:54.130-->0:44:4.980
Jason Talford
I was curious though of you know this is you described this as a an annual customer engagement activity
on what the plans may be.
0:44:4.990-->0:44:8.970
Jason Talford
If there are any moving forward and how those lessons are gonna be incorporated.
0:44:12.60-->0:44:18.810
Wold, Kathy
Yeah,that's we always try and think about doing an after action review and what worked and what didn't
work.
0:44:18.960-->0:44:29.470
Wold, Kathy
Page 154 of 192

Certainly as we've been administering the program,we're seeing that email is one of the most effective,
you know, cost effective but also effective in reach to get to our customers.
0:44:29.880-->0:44:38.960
Wold, Kathy
In terms of the customer engagement strategy, uh,we try and think each year about what might
resonate with folks.
0:44:38.970-->0:44:40.540
Wold, Kathy
You know the grocery card giveaway.
0:44:40.550-->0:44:43.970
Wold, Kathy
We were thinking about gas prices were up,grocery prices were up.
0:44:43.980-->0:44:55.140
Wold, Kathy
It felt like all kinds of prices were up and so we tried to do something that would resonate with folks and
get their attention and thinking about energy efficiency for that particular engagement strategy.
0:44:55.150-->0:44:59.990
Wold, Kathy
We asked folks to do a quick three question quiz about home energy efficiency.
0:45:0.0-->0:45:3.700
Wold, Kathy
So which is a little bit of education combined with a chance to win?
0:45:4.570-->0:45:11.480
Wold, Kathy
UM,this year we were trying to kind of build on that notion of,you know, all the the increases we've
seen in prices.
0:45:11.490-->0:45:21.960
Wold, Kathy
So what are easy things that you can do that maybe don't require an equipment upgrade if they're not
able to do that at this time, or it's not time for an equipment replacement?
0:45:22.150-->0:45:29.280
Wold, Kathy
So we try and keep kind of what's going on in the world or in Idaho in mind as we develop those
activities.
0:45:29.290-->0:45:38.930
Wold, Kathy
But our goal is always to try and combine a little bit of education with a little bit of umm,you know,
reward for learning a little bit more.
Page 155 of 192

0:45:38.940-->0:45:46.570
Wold, Kathy
So I think that's something we like to bring to this committee and share some ideas as we look to the
future of doing these.
0:45:46.580-->0:45:49.370
Wold, Kathy
Each year was a long answer.
0:45:49.380-->0:45:50.930
Wold, Kathy
Did that sort of help?
0:45:51.900-->0:45:53.320
Jason Talford
Yeah, I think that did appreciate it.
0:45:53.770-->0:45:55.900
Wold, Kathy
OK,great.
0:45:59.130-->0:46:2.350
Wold, Kathy
Anyone else on the emails or customer engagement?
0:46:5.720-->0:46:7.300
Wold, Kathy
Hey, I'll throw it back to Preston.
0:46:8.360-->0:46:8.770
Scantling,Preston
Thanks, Kathy.
0:46:9.990-->0:46:21.740
Scantling, Preston
Alrighty, so Speaking of more customer engagement and continuing along the lines of digital
engagement as well,we partnered this year with the Idaho Business Review to bring an ad campaign
digitally to our customers.
0:46:22.390-->0:46:42.850
Scantling, Preston
Idaho business review, being a local and reputable statewide distribution organization, really helped us
send messaging to people in our service territory and we we did this with the idea once again kind of
similarly to the to the emails of giving our customers regular reminders of the rebates that are available
and making sure that it they apply for those rebates in a timely manner.
0:46:43.380-->0:46:49.20
Scantling, Preston
So through this agreement that we had with them,we agreed for 25,000 impressions over four months.
Page 156 of 192

0:46:49.30-->0:46:56.710
Scantling, Preston
Our campaign with them started on August 1st and if you Scroll down to the next ring, Kathy,we'll go
ahead and start looking at some results.
0:46:57.300-->0:47:12.240
Scantling, Preston
But the way this campaign worked is sort of a drip, drip, drip, marketing style,which is after someone
visited our website, we worked with our IT department to put in what's called a pixel on our website,
and that took a snapshot of that users IP address.
0:47:12.250-->0:47:15.400
Scantling, Preston
And then that followed them through the following websites that they went and visited.
0:47:19.130-->0:47:35.80
Scantling, Preston
So Idaho business review partners with the Google ad network and once that user moves from our
website to another reputable website such as KTVB, Idaho Statesman or any other reputable website
that's within their network,that AD will get displayed on their screen.
0:47:35.370-->0:47:35.940
Scantling, Preston
So.
0:47:35.990-->0:47:39.210
Scantling, Preston
So obviously this is kind of coming in the mind of someone has come to our page.
0:47:39.220-->0:47:46.830
Scantling, Preston
They've been looking at the rebate information and then once they go off and look at other things
online,they'll be seeing these ads again and again and again.
0:47:47.440-->0:47:58.850
Scantling, Preston
And so the whole drip, drip, drip marketing comes from the idea that after they go and visit each of
those websites,each time they see that ad on other website,that will be one more impression for them
or for this grand total here.
0:47:59.670-->0:48:3.340
Scantling, Preston
So as I mentioned,we had an agreement for 25,000 impressions.
Page 157 of 192

0:48:3.350-->0:48:14.640
Scantling, Preston
We ended up just over that with 26,971 and this gave us a .14 click through rate,which is pretty good
considering that the average click through rate for these types of campaigns around a .11.
0:48:14.690-->0:48:17.440
Scantling, Preston
So I'm pretty happy with the performance of those there.
0:48:17.570-->0:48:21.980
Scantling, Preston
Oh,and again this the data that I have for these campaigns is through October 15th.
0:48:22.550-->0:48:27.790
Scantling, Preston
So as you can see,did those 25,000 impressions and pretty good time frame there.
0:48:29.550-->0:48:30.110
Scantling,Preston
Alright.
0:48:30.410-->0:48:33.370
Scantling, Preston
And we can go ahead and move on to the next one, unless there's any more questions with that.
0:48:36.720-->0:48:37.170
Scantling, Preston
Alrighty.
0:48:38.860-->0:48:43.780
Scantling, Preston
We did have a few new outreach events and kind of moving away from the digital outreach side of things.
0:48:43.790-->0:48:50.830
Scantling, Preston
We also brought our messaging in person along with the regular BCA and city some of the city chamber
events that we've done.
0:48:50.840-->0:48:53.350
Scantling, Preston
We also partnered with the Eagle Chamber of Commerce.
0:48:53.360-->0:48:57.70
Scantling, Preston
We sponsored the lunch for one of their events,which that is a new partnership for us.
Page 158 of 192

0:48:57.80-->0:49:1.510
Scantling, Preston
So brand new, brand new and you know space of people in there that we were able to bring our
messaging to.
0:49:1.990-->0:49:7.460
Scantling, Preston
We also re partnered to bring a HVAC contractor training with Rocky Mountain power down in Idaho
Falls.
0:49:8.90-->0:49:9.600
Scantling, Preston
I went down there and a couple of us.
0:49:9.610-->0:49:17.200
Scantling, Preston
Did a presentation to local contractors about available rebates and other incentives that are programs
provide also hosted a lunch for them?
0:49:17.210-->0:49:20.240
Scantling, Preston
It was a nice day on there to go get some person to person interaction.
0:49:20.250-->0:49:21.10
Scantling, Preston
Answer some questions.
0:49:21.870-->0:49:29.520
Scantling, Preston
And we also partnered with the South Central Community Action Plan for their 100th home celebration
for their Self Help Self Help housing program.
0:49:29.850-->0:49:42.320
Scantling, Preston
And if you're not familiar with this program, it functions in a similar way to Habitat for Humanity,where
a income qualified family will partner with a builder and get some professional help to help build their
own house so that family will be.
0:49:42.420-->0:49:44.580
Scantling, Preston
And they're putting 35 to 40 hours a week.
0:49:44.590-->0:49:46.880
Scantling, Preston
On top of their full time job to build their own house.
0:49:46.890-->0:49:48.0
Scantling, Preston
It's really, really great program.
Page 159 of 192

0:49:48.10-->0:49:49.200
Scantling, Preston
I had it was.
0:49:49.210-->0:49:55.740
Scantling, Preston
It was great to come and see the community rally around this affordable housing program, and their
milestone that they're celebrating here.
0:49:56.160-->0:50:4.700
Scantling, Preston
And it was really good because Ken Robinette,who's kind of running the show down there, he is a big
proponent of energy efficiency and affordable housing programs.
0:50:4.710-->0:50:19.530
Scantling, Preston
Of course, as South Central is, he also is a very big proponent of using energy efficient natural gas
appliances in there because he believes he realizes the benefits to these families that they need a low
cost them a low cost place to live.
0:50:19.970-->0:50:25.670
Scantling, Preston
So that's part of why we decided to partner with him and the fact that he is able to help us spread that
message as well.
0:50:31.600-->0:50:31.990
Scantling, Preston
Alright.
0:50:32.0-->0:50:36.80
Scantling, Preston
Again, unless there's any more questions on those events,we'll move on to the commercial side of
things.
0:50:37.550-->0:51:6.180
Scantling, Preston
So the commercial program, we also decided to follow suit with those quarterly emails and started
sending quarterly emails to our commercial customers, again making sure they get those rebates in
making sure that they're getting these regular reminders of what's available to them. the Q1 email
started out with kind of a football themed email given the time of year when we moved on to Q2 where
we gave a bill insert for everyone and Q3,we use imagery that we used for a further at campaign,which
I'll talk about later to kind of spur some memory with that.
0:51:6.520-->0:51:10.140
Scantling, Preston
So as you can see down here,we have all the same statistics from our residential program.
Page 160 of 192

0:51:10.770-->0:51:17.100
Scantling, Preston
We hovered right there around,you know,the 8 to 9000 emails sent every quarter.
0:51:17.470-->0:51:21.0
Scantling, Preston
We had a steady 48%open rate between those and the study.
0:51:21.10-->0:51:25.40
Scantling, Preston
Click through rate around 2.6 to 3%for Q1 and Q3 representatively.
0:51:27.90-->0:51:40.220
Scantling, Preston
And like I said,with this Q3 email,we also use the imagery that we used from the commercial side of
our Idaho business review ad campaign to create some continuity or sorry, some continuation with the
imagery.
0:51:40.490-->0:51:50.870
Scantling, Preston
So that way if they went out and saw that that image in the Idaho Business Review ad campaign and
then saw the email,they might be able to,you know,track the two back to each other, create some
continuation there or vice versa.
0:51:52.0-->0:51:59.950
Scantling, Preston
So in a similar fashion to them,we instead of going through the ad network, we placed these
commercial ads on the Idaho Business Review website themselves.
0:52:0.180-->0:52:6.990
Scantling, Preston
So that way anyone that was going in and reading stories on the Idaho Business Review website, but it's
going in there and seeing those.
0:52:7.60-->0:52:10.490
Scantling, Preston
So we had 10,000 impressions through the Idaho Business Review website.
0:52:10.880-->0:52:19.640
Scantling, Preston
We also had 1/4 page ad in the in the print version of the Idaho business review,as well as putting an ad
in the development newsletter,which I'll talk about here just a second as well.
0:52:20.320-->0:52:21.410
Scantling, Preston
You can see here the.
0:52:21.910-->0:52:55.920
Scantling, Preston
Page 161 of 192

Yeah,you can see the imagery there around building the future efficiently and yes, so here are our
results for that campaign we had as I mentioned before, we had 10,000 impressions through that
website ad and the business review actually generate very generously over delivered by that by a
whopping 12,064 impressions gotjust over 22,000 impressions there, a little over 3 and 1/2 thousand
on the newsletter ad and got 21 clicks from the websites and nine clicks from the newsletter bringing
that to a total of 30 clicks and 25,844 impressions.
0:52:57.490-->0:53:5.170
Scantling, Preston
So for the for the website ads,we did have a slightly lower CTR than average because that average CTR
once again is a .11.
0:53:5.290-->0:53:27.570
Scantling, Preston
We use function at a .1 we could we do potentially see this as a result of that over delivery of
impressions, whereas we had a lot of impressions and not as many clicks,we do theorize that through
this the same audience with seeing that ad multiple times,so not the worst thing,they're just a lot of you
know the same pool of people seeing that add more and more, which again isn't the worst thing.
0:53:27.580-->0:53:41.520
Scantling, Preston
So moving on from there that that development newsletter that we had that went to A to a more limited
pool of very involved, very dedicated, building and development and real estate and members of our
community.
0:53:41.950-->0:53:55.960
Scantling, Preston
So even though it's not huge,we got a lot of good impressions there and our and our ad there actually
function really well considering that the average newsletter CTR for them is around a .15 and we had a
.24 CTR there.
0:53:55.970-->0:54:4.390
Scantling, Preston
So really good reception for that small pool of very dedicated building development professionals and
we are happy with how that ad ran as well.
0:54:5.30-->0:54:10.300
Scantling, Preston
And then lastly for that quarter page ad in the Idaho Business Review that went to an estimated 6000
print readers.
0:54:17.810-->0:54:18.210
Wold,Kathy
OK.
Page 162 of 192

0:54:19.390-->0:54:23.400
Wold, Kathy
UM talking a little bit more about our commercial outreach opportunities.
0:54:24.10-->0:54:30.350
Wold, Kathy
We continue to participate with AIA,the Institute of Architects and also ASHRAE.
0:54:31.420-->0:54:46.910
Wold, Kathy
These two groups are more engineering and architect type audience, so really trying to target folks and
make sure that they know about our program in the design phase of building commercial products and
raising awareness about that.
0:54:47.0-->0:54:51.630
Wold, Kathy
We did a lot of the same events that we do for the residential type audience.
0:54:51.640-->0:55:10.590
Wold, Kathy
So some shared outreach through things like chamber events, but we also participated in some of the
industry specific conferences like the General ASHRAE Conference,the annual AIA conference,The
Design Awards, making sure that we have an info table set up there and that we have a chance to visit
with folks.
0:55:11.220-->0:55:28.270
Wold, Kathy
We also participated in sponsoring their golf tournament, so in those cases we sponsor a hole and we
have the opportunity to talk to every participant as they come through the golf tournament and that
turned out to be a great opportunity to have some one on one conversations.
0:55:28.920-->0:55:39.80
Wold, Kathy
I know we were able to talk with one equipment provider and I brought up gas heat pumps and it was
the first time that someone actually knew about gas heat pumps and had some expertise there.
0:55:39.170-->0:55:41.300
Wold, Kathy
So we had some good conversations there.
0:55:41.790-->0:55:46.280
Wold, Kathy
We were able to talk with a couple of folks and go over our rebate offering.
0:55:46.590-->0:55:51.300
Wold, Kathy
One thing I had heard at that point was that they felt like some of the incentives were too low.
Page 163 of 192

0:55:51.470-->0:55:53.820
Wold, Kathy
And so that's something that will be reexamining.
0:55:53.830-->0:56:1.280
Wold, Kathy
I mean, it's just one data point, but certainly something for us to look into as this program has been
underperforming.
0:56:2.330-->0:56:7.780
Wold, Kathy
Umm, I mentioned that one of our challenges has been getting our messaging to the right folks.
0:56:7.790-->0:56:14.840
Wold, Kathy
So making sure that we're talking with folks like building operators and facilities managers.
0:56:15.50-->0:56:25.20
Wold, Kathy
So we are just launching a project with the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab and they are
helping us develop a commercial customer survey.
0:56:25.730-->0:56:29.180
Wold, Kathy
The survey is planned to be about 60 questions.
0:56:29.190-->0:56:44.270
Wold, Kathy
We're gonna streamline that a little bit in terms of asking about,you know,what equipment folks have,
how they use gas as a space or water heating is a process asking you if they're planning any kind of
renovation equipment replacement upgrades.
0:56:44.480-->0:56:47.470
Wold, Kathy
Are they interested in learning more about energy efficiency?
0:56:47.480-->0:56:53.150
Wold, Kathy
So we are in the process first draft of the survey is just completed.
0:56:53.520-->0:56:55.310
Wold, Kathy
So we're working through that.
0:56:55.720-->0:57:1.970
Wold, Kathy
IDL will also be helping us figure out how to get to the right contacts.
Page 164 of 192

0:57:2.210-->0:57:13.200
Wold, Kathy
So, uh, leveraging some of the folks in their network and other UM commercial customers that they've
worked with to make sure that we are reaching the right people.
0:57:13.450-->0:57:15.260
Wold, Kathy
So I saw a hand.
0:57:16.10-->0:57:16.680
Scantling,Preston
First Yep.
0:57:15.270-->0:57:17.710
Wold, Kathy
I think it was Selena jump in,yeah.
0:57:18.300-->0:57:18.710
Selena
Nothing.
0:57:19.650-->0:57:30.730
Selena
Yeah, I had a question about the last time you were talking about two of the incentives with that best
paybacks and I believe one of them was building operator certification.
0:57:32.170-->0:57:50.260
Selena
Is that something that you're going to offer any sort of a uh help with the registration for customers who
want to enroll people in that program then that would give you a Direct Line to talk about your incentive
programs as well?
0:57:51.920-->0:58:0.150
Wold, Kathy
That is a great idea and it kind of leads right into my next thing here is that we just completed the
conservation potential assessment study.
0:58:0.520-->0:58:18.190
Wold, Kathy
So we're going to use the study outputs to help inform program design, but you are the second person
to bring up that building operator issue to me at least that there is definitely a need for building
operator education.
0:58:18.200-->0:58:27.460
Wold, Kathy
And so that's a great idea and I appreciate the suggestion is something that will definitely look into,
yeah, certainly as we're learning more about this commercial space.
Page 165 of 192

0:58:30.390-->0:58:31.280
Wold, Kathy
Do you,Selena?
0:58:31.290-->0:58:37.520
Wold, Kathy
Do you have any idea what those like training for building operators costs?
0:58:37.710-->0:58:39.220
Wold, Kathy
Do you know happen to know that off the top?
0:58:38.270-->0:58:40.920
Selena
Yes, it's.
0:58:41.10-->0:58:45.210
Selena
It's typically around 12 to$1500.
0:58:48.950-->0:58:49.230
Wold,Kathy
OK.
0:58:45.220-->0:58:51.170
Selena
It's about a A6 week course,although they can spread it out.
0:58:51.220-->0:58:57.790
Selena
I mean,when I say that it's not,you're not in the training that entire time, but it takes.
0:58:57.800-->0:59:1.110
Selena
I think they do like one topic a week or every two weeks.
0:59:2.470-->0:59:14.820
Selena
There is a an organization in Washington state that provides the training and you could go to their
website and see the outlines for the boc classes.
0:59:14.830-->0:59:17.520
Selena
But Ada County has used it.
0:59:17.530-->0:59:29.170
Selena
I find it very umm helpful for bringing our building operators in to understanding just the energy issues
that we deal with.
Page 166 of 192

0:59:29.820-->0:59:37.460
Selena
Umm,you know, it's one thing to keep equipment running, but it's another thing to really understand
your energy use intensity.
0:59:37.560-->0:59:37.780
Wold,Kathy
Yeah.
0:59:38.120-->0:59:47.730
Selena
So it just gives them a little different insight into what the value is that they bring to keeping the
buildings operating.
0:59:49.800-->0:59:50.760
Wold, Kathy
Great feedback.
0:59:51.120-->0:59:52.50
Wold, Kathy
Thank you for sharing that.
0:59:55.560-->0:59:58.780
Wold, Kathy
Any other questions on commercial.
1:0:5.350-->1:0:5.720
Wold,Kathy
Right.
1:0:6.510-->1:0:6.850
Wold,Kathy
OK.
1:0:6.860-->1:0:11.0
Wold, Kathy
We'll jump over to a program admin update and I'll send it over to Kody.
1:0:12.420-->1:0:29.730
Thompson, Kody
Uh,yeah,so we had our enterprise rebate app,which we call era,go live here in March that replaced
what we were using for entering and tracking rebate data, which was a Excel spreadsheet before.
1:0:29.790-->1:0:50.200
Thompson, Kody
So essentially brought ourselves out of the Stone Age by bringing this app live, by building it internally
with our IT group,we were able to, uh put uh procedural enhancements in place that ultimately
eliminated multiple labor intensive manual processes that were in place.
Page 167 of 192

1:0:50.210-->1:1:1.810
Thompson, Kody
And most of those were ones that also led to human errors and needed correction in the data or to have
checks issued and such.
1:1:1.910--> 1:1:8.970
Thompson, Kody
And so it's been very helpful in in that in reducing those human errors.
1:1:9.260--> 1:1:19.110
Thompson, Kody
It's also removed the need for manual entry of applications that have been submitted through ekotrope
or batch applications submitted by builders.
1:1:19.120-->1:1:23.850
Thompson, Kody
Those are the Excel spreadsheets they have where they can do multiple addresses submitted at a single
time.
1:1:24.260-->1:1:27.790
Thompson, Kody
They're imported into the data points that are in.
1:1:27.800-->1:1:33.410
Thompson, Kody
Those are imported into the app through an automated process,so that saves on hours of data entry for
those types of submissions.
1:1:34.390-->1:1:49.50
Thompson, Kody
The issuing process for rebate checks was also automated, so once those have been reviewed and
approved to have the check issued out,we mimicked a business process that was already in place for
issuing customer refunds for that check process.
1:1:50.460-->1:1:59.240
Thompson, Kody
This also is the primary area where we did see errors occurring in paying out a rebate because that
process was 100% manual on our end.
1:1:59.290-->1:2:21.190
Thompson, Kody
In the old system, and so where we saw those errors was in mistypings of customer names,addresses,
account coding for those rebates because again, we were having entered in manually and human error
always creeps in whenever you have something that's manual that way.
1:2:21.610-->1:2:31.560
Thompson, Kody
Page 168 of 192

And so we were able to reduce those errors by automating a lot of those processes,coding in the
appropriate subledgers into the rebate.
1:2:31.610-->1:2:45.220
Thompson, Kody
So that means that rebates couldn't be assigned an incorrect Ledger value when it was generated, and
we didn't have to make corrections with accounting to have that in the correct bucket when we were
reconciling at month end.
1:2:45.230-->1:2:53.530
Thompson, Kody
For what rebates had been issued out since we've migrated to the rebate app and been using it, we've
had zero instances of an incorrect account coding.
1:2:55.560-->1:2:56.190
Thompson, Kody
And like so.
1:2:56.200-->1:3:12.980
Thompson, Kody
There's just been a lot of enhancements to the process for us with that in terms of uh verifying qualifying
equipment, reducing those manual processes and additional enhancement that we did have as well is
the details of the rebate are now listed on the stub that comes with the check.
1:3:13.130-->1:3:20.840
Thompson, Kody
So it will list the installation address and the rebates that were issued for that address are itemized on it.
1:3:21.110-->1:3:32.720
Thompson, Kody
That's been particularly helpful for us with builders because including this previously unavailable detail
on the check removed the need for them to reach out to us and wait for us to get back to them to
confirm which addresses were paid on a check.
1:3:32.840-->1:3:38.150
Thompson, Kody
We prior to that being available,we did regularly receive communications from builders where they
wanted to know.
1:3:38.580-->1:3:41.870
Thompson, Kody
Hey I've got check number 1234 for this much.
1:3:41.880-->1:3:42.970
Thompson, Kody
What homes is it?
Page 169 of 192

1:3:42.980-->1:3:46.830
Thompson, Kody
For and then they had to wait a little bit for us to get back to them.
1:3:46.840-->1:3:49.810
Thompson, Kody
So they could do whatever reconciliation they need to do for that.
1:3:50.20--> 1:3:54.620
Thompson, Kody
Now they no longer have to reach out to us for that, because that's all provided them up front on that
check for them.
1:3:55.390-->1:3:59.280
Thompson, Kody
Uh,we do plan to have an additional enhancement to the rebate app in the future.
1:3:59.550-->1:4:5.750
Thompson, Kody
That enhancement will replace what we're currently using for are online rebate applications.
1:4:5.760--> 1:4:7.490
Thompson, Kody
It's a third party application.
1:4:7.540-->1:4:14.850
Thompson, Kody
It's being used by other departments in the company,so there's no cost to us for using the current online
version that we have.
1:4:14.920-->1:4:22.310
Thompson, Kody
However, by doing this enhancement, it's going to improve some of the processes for us.
1:4:22.320-->1:4:40.820
Thompson, Kody
It's going to streamline,streamline the online application process for the customer and it's another point
where we don't have to have manual data entry of what's been filled out on an application,those that
come in through that online process are still reviewed manually to make sure the information came in
correct.
1:4:40.830-->1:4:48.980
Thompson, Kody
It's qualifying and that we have the data we need, but it does just save us on that time of entering it in
manually.
1:4:48.990-->1:5:1.670
Thompson, Kody
So when that process is in place,customers will be able to log into their Intermountain Gas online
Page 170 of 192

account through their online services and apply for the rebate through the self services offered there,
rather than the current online form.
1:5:4.720--> 1:5:15.790
Thompson, Kody
And yeah, once that enhancements in place and customers start using it,the only applications we
receive that will require manual application manual entry will be those paper applications that
customers send in.
1:5:15.800-->1:5:21.770
Thompson, Kody
So the ones that come in through mail or that they've printed an email to us or faxed will be the ones
that would require manual entry.
1:5:21.780-->1:5:28.540
Thompson, Kody
Everything else will be brought in through some automated process and then just have to be reviewed
by someone within the system to make sure it came through correctly.
1:5:38.470-->1:5:38.780
Thompson, Kody
Jason.
1:5:40.950-->1:5:41.330
Jason Talford
Hi there.
1:5:41.340-->1:5:41.720
Jason Talford
Thanks,Cody.
1:5:43.40--> 1:5:47.140
Jason Talford
Yeah, maybe maybe a quick terminology clear up to keep me from going too cross eyed.
1:5:49.30--> 1:5:56.180
Jason Talford
So the rebate app is like phone application for applications for the rebate.
1:5:56.350-->1:5:57.770
Jason Talford
Is that the right?
1:5:59.330-->1:6:1.130
Jason Talford
Uh, right.
Page 171 of 192

1:6:1.140-->1:6:2.470
Jason Talford
Terminology the app.
1:6:3.740-->1:6:4.480
Thompson,Kody
So.
1:6:4.660--> 1:6:5.150
Thompson,Kody
Yeah. OK.
1:6:5.160--> 1:6:5.490
Thompson,Kody
Yeah.
1:6:5.500--> 1:6:5.990
Thompson, Kody
Yeah, I can.
1:6:6.60-->1:6:6.460
Thompson, Kody
I can.
1:6:6.520--> 1:6:7.50
Thompson, Kody
Yeah, I can.
1:6:7.60-->1:6:7.820
Thompson, Kody
The confusion there?
1:6:4.620--> 1:6:8.740
Jason Talford
Yeah,the the same word flying around in a few different ways.
1:6:9.320--> 1:6:9.740
Thompson, Kody
Yeah.
1:6:9.750--> 1:6:10.630
Thompson, Kody
No,no,you're fine.
1:6:10.640-->1:6:10.810
Thompson, Kody
Yeah.
Page 172 of 192

1:6:10.820-->1:6:14.370
Thompson, Kody
So rebate app,yeah,we call it era internally.
1:6:14.380-->1:6:15.560
Thompson,Kody
So this it's our.
1:6:16.310-->1:6:23.960
Thompson, Kody
Uh, it's an application that's been developed internally for entering in the rebates that are submitted.
1:6:24.10--> 1:6:33.470
Thompson, Kody
So we it's where we collect the data and enter in all the information that's on the form to make sure it
meets the criteria it's stores.
1:6:34.290-->1:6:40.720
Thompson, Kody
Uh qualifying equipment customers information and uh replaces that Excel database.
1:6:40.910-->1:6:41.670
Thompson,Kody
And so there's.
1:6:41.680-->1:6:41.840
Thompson,Kody
Yeah.
1:6:41.850-->1:6:52.610
Thompson, Kody
So there's the rebate app, which is where we are are reviewing and processing the applications which
are like the forms that the customer fills out and sends in.
1:6:55.660-->1:6:55.950
Wold, Kathy
Yeah.
1:6:55.620-->1:6:57.80
Thompson, Kody
Did that help or did I muddy at at all?
1:6:55.960-->1:7:2.530
Wold, Kathy
So it's a, it's a software application used for processing rebate applications.
1:7:4.670--> 1:7:4.830
Wold, Kathy
Yeah.
Page 173 of 192

1:7:6.420-->1:7:6.710
Jason Talford
OK.
1:7:6.720--> 1:7:7.10
Jason Talford
Yeah.
1:7:6.950--> 1:7:7.90
Scantling, Preston
And.
1:7:8.400--> 1:7:8.750
Wold, Kathy
Perfect.
1:7:7.20-->1:7:10.660
Jason Talford
So got it,area is the software for processing.
1:7:12.170-->1:7:15.100
Jason Talford
Application and that's why I asked.
1:7:15.110-->1:7:19.760
Jason Talford
Is like I had gotten to this into my head that this was an app that a customer needed to download on
their phone.
1:7:19.960-->1:7:20.340
Wold, Kathy
Gotcha.
1:7:20.950-->1:7:21.190
Thompson, Kody
Yeah.
1:7:19.850-->1:7:22.710
Jason Talford
So yeah, I think that clarification helps.
1:7:23.410-->1:7:23.680
Wold, Kathy
OK.
1:7:23.430-->1:7:24.40
Thompson, Kody
OK.
Page 174 of 192

1:7:24.150-->1:7:25.80
Thompson, Kody
Thanks for asking questions.
1:7:25.90--> 1:7:26.50
Thompson, Kody
Sorry about the confusion there.
1:7:26.620-->1:7:26.970
Jason Talford
No worries.
1:7:29.820-->1:7:30.530
Wold, Kathy
I saw a hand.
1:7:30.540-->1:7:31.470
Wold, Kathy
Brian,is that?
1:7:30.740-->1:7:31.660
Thompson, Kody
Brian, I think it was.
1:7:31.520-->1:7:32.140
Wold,Kathy
Yeah, OK.
1:7:39.700-->1:7:40.770
Wold, Kathy
Are you on mute?
1:7:41.80-->1:7:41.820
Wold, Kathy
Or are we not here?
1:7:41.190-->1:7:43.220
Thompson, Kody
Brian, if you're speaking,we can't hear you here on mute.
1:7:44.580-->1:7:45.730
Brian Bennett
Or am I here now?
1:7:46.240-->1:7:46.480
Scantling, Preston
Yep.
Page 175 of 192

1:7:46.290-->1:7:46.690
Thompson,Kody
There we go.
1:7:47.620-->1:7:48.320
Brian Bennett
OK.
1:7:48.360-->1:7:50.20
Brian Bennett
So just a quick comment.
1:7:51.470-->1:8:8.720
Brian Bennett
I participate in a lot of the different rebates that are being sent and the new features where they're the
inclusion of the address that the rebates are being applied to,what the rebates are has been just a
brilliant thing.
1:8:9.690-->1:8:19.0
Brian Bennett
I was probably one of those people pestering you frequently about builders wanting to know well,what
did we actually get a rebate for?
1:8:20.90--> 1:8:33.0
Brian Bennett
This is made a whole lot of difference in their confidence for the program still and I just wanted to
comment on that to let you know that it's a wonderful thing.
1:8:35.880-->1:8:37.420
Wold, Kathy
That is great feedback, Brian.
1:8:37.430-->1:8:37.900
Wold,Kathy
Thank you.
1:8:38.450-->1:8:39.330
Thompson, Kody
Yeah, I'm glad to hear that.
1:8:42.450-->1:8:47.700
Wold, Kathy
As we work through things internally,we always try and think of giving people the easy button.
1:8:47.930-->1:8:52.400
Wold, Kathy
We want to make it easy for them to do because that's I think that's how we get people to take an action,
right?
Page 176 of 192

1:8:52.410-->1:8:57.30
Wold, Kathy
So what we're trying to keep that top of mind,so that feedback is super helpful.
1:9:1.470-->1:9:2.200
Wold, Kathy
Anyone else?
1:9:3.500-->1:9:4.350
Wold, Kathy
Now we'll move on.
1:9:6.880-->1:9:7.520
Thompson, Kody
Looks like Jason.
1:9:6.800-->1:9:7.980
Scantling, Preston
We got one more here from Jason.
1:9:8.0-->1:9:8.600
Wold, Kathy
Oh yeah.
1:9:8.880-->1:9:9.310
Jason Talford
Yeah.
1:9:9.400--> 1:9:9.830
Jason Talford
Thank you.
1:9:9.840--> 1:9:10.470
Jason Talford
Sorry,just another.
1:9:12.10--> 1:9:16.760
Jason Talford
Yeah, I guess Road mapping to help my understanding of this here.
1:9:16.850-->1:9:19.410
Jason Talford
So would you briefly recover the?
1:9:21.430-->1:9:29.700
Jason Talford
I guess the entry points of information for potential Rebates,obviously they could print and mail or fax a
hard copy to you.
Page 177 of 192

1:9:37.280-->1:9:38.200
Thompson,Kody
Yeah, sure.
1:9:32.130-->1:9:38.560
Jason Talford
And then and then I was hoping to get what are the other places that you might receive an application?
1:9:39.550-->1:9:39.960
Thompson, Kody
Yeah, sure.
1:9:39.970-->1:9:41.80
Thompson, Kody
So there's that method.
1:9:41.500-->1:9:41.740
Jason Talford
Umm.
1:9:41.710-->1:9:46.160
Thompson, Kody
There is the online form that's available on our website right now.
1:9:46.170-->1:9:48.300
Thompson, Kody
It's currently done by a third party.
1:9:48.310-->1:9:52.400
Thompson, Kody
It's used company wide for other things,so it's no additional cost to us to use it.
1:9:53.210-->1:10:2.380
Thompson, Kody
So there's an online form that they can fill out and it gets submitted and we have to log into their portal
and access and download the information to enter it in manually.
1:10:2.710-->1:10:23.690
Thompson, Kody
And then we have uh ekotrope,which is the home,one of the home energy rating softwares that's out
there and we have information that's brought in through and it's an automated process,there's letters
associated with it.
1:10:23.690-->1:10:25.410
Thompson, Kody
You're gonna ask me what they mean,and I don't know what they mean.
Page 178 of 192

1:10:25.420-->1:10:39.810
Thompson, Kody
So I'm not going to get into that, but so the rater,when they're there with the builder and they've got it
done,they can submit that directly in the software to us and it gets brought in to the app is the other
method.
1:10:39.860-->1:10:46.530
Thompson, Kody
So it it can be sent to us directly through that paper application, it can come through online or it can
come through submission through Ekotrope
1:10:48.120-->1:10:48.570
Jason Talford
Excellent.
1:10:48.580-->1:10:49.300
Jason Talford
Thanks for the summary.
1:10:49.310-->1:10:50.600
Jason Talford
I think that's very clear.
1:10:50.610-->1:10:51.180
Jason Talford
Appreciate it.
1:10:51.510-->1:10:51.690
Thompson, Kody
Yeah.
1:10:59.130-->1:10:59.470
Wold, Kathy
OK.
1:11:1.410-->1:11:2.660
Thompson, Kody
Brian, I see your hands still up to you.
1:11:2.670-->1:11:4.200
Thompson, Kody
Have an additional comment question.
1:11:11.830-->1:11:12.830
Thompson, Kody
OK.Thanks.
Page 179 of 192

1:11:12.70-->1:11:13.300
Wold, Kathy
Ohh had went away.
1:11:14.110-->1:11:16.250
Wold, Kathy
OK, alright.
1:11:15.780-->1:11:17.720
Thompson, Kody
Just wanted to make sure we didn't miss it.
1:11:17.950-->1:11:18.940
Wold, Kathy
You wanna miss anyone?
1:11:17.730-->1:11:19.420
Thompson, Kody
If there was something else,so Yep.
1:11:18.950-->1:11:19.540
Wold,Kathy
Yeah.
1:11:19.610-->1:11:20.50
Wold, Kathy
Thank you.
1:11:20.650-->1:11:22.490
Brian Bennett
Just getting used to the software.
1:11:22.980-->1:11:24.480
Wold, Kathy
Yeah,me too.
1:11:26.840-->1:11:28.530
Wold, Kathy
Alright, let's see here.
1:11:28.540-->1:11:29.480
Wold, Kathy
Special studies.
1:11:29.490-->1:11:30.370
Wold, Kathy
We'll jump in.
Page 180 of 192

1:11:30.620-->1:11:32.50
Wold, Kathy
Just have a couple of updates.
1:11:32.620-->1:11:41.870
Wold, Kathy
As I mentioned earlier in the presentation here,we just completed our conservation potential
assessment that CPA was completed by GUIDEHOUSE.
1:11:42.580-->1:11:50.10
Wold, Kathy
The CPA is used to inform the inputs for the integrated resource plan,which I think is going to be filed by
the end of the year here.
1:11:50.20-->1:11:56.870
Wold, Kathy
So in conjunction with the study,we are also going to receive a model that will go with the CPA.
1:11:57.330-->1:12:4.300
Wold, Kathy
This will allow us to run some different scenarios, customize our scenarios, really help us in our program
planning.
1:12:4.310-->1:12:14.820
Wold, Kathy
So we are expecting delivery of that model any day now and then a couple of us will be receiving training
on that and be able to run some scenarios for program planning purposes.
1:12:15.420-->1:12:23.870
Wold, Kathy
And then next steps we will look at the information from the CPA to inform program planning and decide
on any.
1:12:25.910-->1:12:33.280
Wold, Kathy
Program modifications,things that we can add into the offering that need to be modified or deleted.
Retired.
1:12:33.290-->1:12:37.240
Wold, Kathy
So we'll be looking at that for both residential and commercial.
1:12:37.330-->1:12:43.770
Wold, Kathy
And so any proposed changes will be coming to this committee as we get to those next steps.
1:12:50.930-->1:12:55.20
Wold, Kathy
And 2024 will also be doing evaluation, measurement and verification.
Page 181 of 192

1:12:55.350-->1:13:7.0
Wold, Kathy
Umm,this is one of my go to graphics that I seem to use a lot that we plan programs implement
programs and then evaluate programs to make sure that we keep continuous improvement loop.
1:13:7.150-->1:13:13.570
Wold, Kathy
So 2024 we'll be doing impact evaluation for whole home furnace and smart thermostat measures.
1:13:13.580-->1:13:14.860
Wold, Kathy
So more to come on that.
1:13:21.600-->1:13:23.350
Wold, Kathy
Special topics,alright.
1:13:23.460-->1:13:27.970
Wold, Kathy
Uh,we did some analysis internally here on energy efficient homes.
comparing program homes to non program homes and so I'm going to turn it over to min for the results.
1:13:37.840-->1:13:38.460
Park, Min
Yes.
1:13:38.540-->1:13:40.440
Park, Min
So before we get into any.
1:13:41.460-->1:13:46.70
Park, Min
Uh result or anything,just briefly touch on why we did this study.
1:13:46.380-->1:13:53.670
Park, Min
So basically,this study is just a comparison for program homes versus non program homes.
1:13:54.830-->1:13:57.640
Park, Min
I'm just a couple things to keep in mind.
1:13:57.810-->1:14:0.380
Park, Min
This is not an analysis of therm savings.
Page 182 of 192

1:14:0.890-->1:14:11.640
Park, Min
That's something that's going to be addressed in the 2024 EMV and all these homes in the study were
they're all HERS, scored homes.
1:14:12.70-->1:14:17.990
Park,Min
So just from being HERS rated,they are on a energy efficient path.
1:14:18.990-->1:14:19.410
Park,Min
Uh.
1:14:19.410-->1:14:38.700
Park,Min
And just to get that Apple to Apple comparison,we filtered out some home so we removed home such
as non-gas homes and this analysis didn't did not include non-program non energy rated homes that
will be included in the 2024 EMV.
1:14:46.240-->1:14:50.160
Park,Min
So,the source for our data as I touched on briefly was RESNET.
1:14:51.380-->1:15:7.740
Park, Min
RESNET is a recognized national standard making body for US for building energy efficiency, rating and
certification systems in the US, they create and maintain national training and quality assurance
standards for home energy raters.
1:15:8.780-->1:15:16.750
Park,Min
Uh, all the data they sent us,we didn't alter in anyway,so they sent us the raw data and we just analyzed
it.
1:15:22.290-->1:15:29.160
Park,Min
So I'm going to touch on a couple measurements that we use in our rebate process just to give some
background.
1:15:29.690-->1:15:36.380
Park, Min
The first of those is what's called ACH 50,or what's known as air changes per hour at 50 Pascals.
1:15:40.630-->1:15:55.480
Park, Min
It's the number of times the air volume in a building changes per hour at 50 pascals of pressure, with
pascals being a unit of pressure in the international system of units commonly used to quantify internal
pressure usage.
1:15:55.490-->1:16:1.340
Park, Min
ACH 50 is it's just simply a way to measure the air leakage in a building.
Page 183 of 192

1:16:2.430-->1:16:13.600
Park, Min
The way to interpret this number is just the higher the number is, it just signifies that the building is
more leaky, so you're going to want to lower number with this.
1:16:18.830-->1:16:22.220
Park, Min
The second measurement is what's called duct LTO.
1:16:22.610-->1:16:24.900
Park,Min
Duct LTO stands for duct leakage to outside.
1:16:26.40-->1:16:42.620
Park, Min
It's the amount of amount of air that leaks from the duct system to the outside of the building testing
procedure for duct LTO requires simultaneous use of both a duct blaster and blower door system,duck
leakage is.
Important,studies have shown that duct leakage can account for as much as a quarter of total House
Energy loss.
1:16:50.210-->1:16:57.310
Park,Min
And once again,when you're interpreting this number,you're going to want a lower number as that means
there is less air leakage from the duct system.
1:17:1.900-->1:17:10.700
Park, Min
And lastly, heating efficiency-heating efficiency is measured in annual fuel utilization efficiency units,
otherwise known as AFUE.
Page 184 of 192

1:17:11.310-->1:17:20.730
Park, Min
It is the thermal efficiency measure of space heating,furnaces, and boilers, and it aims to represent the
actual season long average efficiency of a piece of equipment.
1:17:21.720-->1:17:29.320
Park, Min
Uh,this unit is going to be measured in a percent,so it's going to be higher percentage, represents a more
efficient value.
1:17:33.910-->1:17:39.30
Park, Min
And outlined on the screen is our rebate requirements.
1:17:39.40-->1:17:48.570
Park, Min
These can be found on our website, but just there's two different tiers of both tiers require the homes
to be HERS rated.
1:17:51.0--> 1:17:57.200
Park, Min
As you can see,with tier one the ACH requirement is a little more stringent at three compared to four.
1:17:58.260-->1:18:19.440
Park, Min
There is a ceiling insulation requirement for tier one that isn't present on Tier 2, and duct LTO leakage to
outside is that is the same for both at four,with furnace efficiency coming up coming in in a little higher
at 97 for the tier one as opposed to 95 for Tier 2.
1:18:24.380-->1:18:26.550
Park,Min
And now going into the results of the study.
1:18:27.140-->1:18:41.620
Park,Min
So as I touched earlier,the minimum requirement for a rebate was four for the ACH,50 the average ACH,
50 for a rebated home was 3.2, and the average ACH 50 for non-rebated homes came in at 4.3.
1:18:47.170-->1:19:0.780
Park, Min
And for the minimum furnace efficiency for a rebate that was set up 95%AFUE for rebated homes that
came in higher at 95.9 and for non-rebated homes it came in at 81.3.
1:19:5.740-->1:19:19.120
Park, Min
Page 185 of 192

And lastly,for rebate,you needed a duct leakage of less than four to qualify and both homes came in
under that with rebated homes coming in at 2.5 and non-rebated homes coming in at 2.7.
1:19:23.590-->1:19:31.80
Park, Min
And in conclusion,the data provided to IGC on rebate applications matched the data recorded by
R ESN ET.
1:19:31.430-->1:19:36.650
Park, Min
All rebated homes met the rebate criteria,and no homes were erroneously rebated.
1:19:37.630-->1:19:47.880
Park, Min
Program homes outperform non program homes on all metrics, and this is to keep in mind that non
program homes are still HERS rated homes.
1:19:55.740-->1:19:56.230
Wold,Kathy
Great.
1:19:56.380-->1:19:57.70
Wold, Kathy
Thanks, man.
1:19:57.360-->1:19:59.110
Wold, Kathy
Any questions for us on the?
1:20:0.800-->1:20:3.250
Wold, Kathy
Program home versus non program home comparison.
1:20:9.590-->1:20:11.0
Wold, Kathy
All right,great.
1:20:12.150-->1:20:14.280
Wold, Kathy
All right,well we save the best for last.
1:20:14.290-->1:20:17.540
Wold, Kathy
Ty, I'm going to turn this over to Ty Jennings.
1:20:17.550-->1:20:21.590
Wold, Kathy
UM,our code specialist for an update on Idaho Building code.
Page 186 of 192

1:20:23.50-->1:20:23.390
Jennings,Ty
Yeah.
1:20:23.400-->1:20:24.310
Jennings,Ty
Thanks Kathy.
1:20:24.400-->1:20:30.290
Jennings,Ty
So as Kathy introduced my name,Ty Jennings, I am a master code professional.
1:20:30.620-->1:20:42.890
Jennings,Ty
And what that really means is I used to actually be in the code administration world,so I used to be with
the jurisdiction and actually got to apply the codes during plan review and permit issuing.
1:20:42.960-->1:20:53.90
Jennings,Ty
So what I'm able to do is I've now joined on here and I get to support the Montana Dakota utility group
as their building an energy code specialist.
1:20:53.240-->1:21:3.830
Jennings,Ty
So working closely with various groups across our company as well as external partners and really
identifying what the code requires and pathways through it.
1:21:3.900-->1:21:7.780
Jennings,Ty
So look forward to speaking with you here today.
1:21:7.790-->1:21:15.200
Jennings,Ty
I've got a little bit of an update on just what's coming up in the Idaho's adoption here in 2023.
1:21:15.210-->1:21:23.880
Jennings,Ty
As we move into 2024,so if you take me over to the first slide,so 2023 rulemaking is in progress.
1:21:24.370-->1:21:25.900
Jennings,Ty
This is a follow up.
1:21:25.910-->1:21:41.270
Jennings,Ty
I guess in some ways to the actions that were done in the last year in the 2022 rulemaking, what we
have right now is under Charter 24.39.30 we have the rules of building safety.
Page 187 of 192

1:21:41.280-->1:21:47.60
Jennings,Ty
This is where the formal adoption process for building and energy codes in the state.
1:21:47.360-->1:21:50.670
Jennings,Ty
There is a proposed rule chapter that has been published.
1:21:50.880-->1:22:0.240
Jennings,Ty
I do have a link to that I'm not sure that it'll be accessible through the teams chat here, but hopefully if
the slides are changed are shared that link is active.
1:22:0.900-->1:22:9.560
Jennings,Ty
Umm from what I've been told,working with industry partners, it really appears that action is likely with
the 2024 legislature.
1:22:10.910-->1:22:16.800
Jennings,Ty
As many of you may be aware,in 2023 there was more substantial rules that were brought forward.
1:22:17.510-->1:22:25.140
Jennings,Ty
These would have significantly walked back Idaho's energy code and the legislative body just did not take
that up.
1:22:25.150-->1:22:34.440
Jennings,Ty
They did not proceed with those proposed rules,so those rules ultimately did not go through any type of
adoption.
1:22:35.310-->1:22:46.950
Jennings,Ty
The rules that are being proposed here, I'm going to provide just kind of a brief summary of what those
rules are and what the significant changes are for both commercial and residential.
1:22:47.310-->1:22:58.220
Jennings,Ty
These are much smaller in scope and as such the implication is that these will likely be taken up by the
legislature and adopted.
1:22:59.430-->1:23:17.930
Jennings,Ty
So for commercial,there's going to be a new exception that really carves out spaces that are heated or
Page 188 of 192

cooled exclusively for temperature control of industrial electronic or manufacturing equipment from the
requirements for both HVAC as well as building thermal envelope.
1:23:17.970-->1:23:24.280
Jennings,Ty
So it really just kind of carves it out the energy code really won't even apply to those types of spaces.
1:23:24.970-->1:23:39.330
Jennings,Ty
There's also going to be a new exception for accessory utility and storage buildings on this does include
sports practice buildings that will allow the exemption of code requirements for the building thermal
envelope.
1:23:39.370-->1:23:51.30
Jennings,Ty
So that means that you won't necessarily have to insulate the walls,the ceiling,the floors,so long as it is
intermittent heating or cooling systems being used.
1:23:51.380-->1:23:54.790
Jennings,Ty
So it's not a complete carve out from all requirements in the energy code.
1:23:54.800-->1:24:27.880
Jennings, Ty
You're still going to have requirements for that HVAC system and how it performs and its size, but you're
not going to necessarily have the requirements for how those buildings are constructed on the
residential side, we're seeing some very similar amendments, umm,the,the one of the major ones here
is redefining conditioned space to identify that garages or similar spaces sheds,things like that are not
required to be insulated where the serving 'a' track is for intermittent use or frost protection.
1:24:28.970-->1:24:52.600
Jennings, Ty
Ultimately,this will allow a lot of homeowners some flexibility and installing small type mechanical
systems and garages sheds like that where theyjust need minimal heat either for frost protection or say
a ductless mini split installed in their garage so that they can have some additional use out of those
spaces is kind of we hit those peak seasons.
1:24:53.380-->1:25:8.130
Jennings,Ty
Umm,there is also going to be another new change here in the residential code that will allow the
permit applicant to choose if air tightness is going to be verified by a blower door test or by visual
inspection.
1:25:9.20-->1:25:25.100
Jennings,Ty
The implication of this change is really that the blower door test is going to kind of go away in some ways,
the applicant will still have the choice of doing the blower door test, but can make the choice to do just
say visual inspection process.
Page 189 of 192

1:25:25.330-->1:25:46.750
Jennings,Ty
Visual inspection process does have a checklist of items to go through, but considering the limited
availability of companies to do the blower door tests as well as that additional cost being incurred, it's
probably a little bit apparent that that blower door test is not going to be chosen by the permit
applicant.
1:25:47.440-->1:25:50.700
Jennings,Ty
Umm does depend you know if a homeowner's building?
1:25:50.710-->1:26:7.30
Jennings,Ty
They may know what airtightness is and have that concern and ask for that to be done, but ultimately I
think we would all expect that to be a decreasing or a minimization of the requirement of the code.
1:26:7.500-->1:26:12.670
Jennings,Ty
There are some other changes that are ongoing within the state as well.
1:26:12.680-->1:26:17.30
Jennings,Ty
There's a minor update to some of the insulation and fenestration requirements by component.
1:26:17.870-->1:26:26.950
Jennings,Ty
UM and as well as there's some new requirements that are being added to provide a prescriptive
thermal envelope requirements for log homes.
1:26:26.960-->1:26:38.200
Jennings,Ty
So that's perhaps some of the more substantial changes, but again, I would say this is not a significant
rulemaking as is there is not an adoption of a new code series.
1:26:38.670-->1:26:46.720
Jennings,Ty
This is sticking with the same code series that the state has been on continued through the 2018 edition.
1:26:46.730-->1:26:50.740
Jennings,Ty
So with that, I know we're up against our time limit here.
1:26:50.750-->1:26:57.790
Jennings,Ty
So I wanna just quickly ask if there's any questions I'm happy to answer them or feel free to reach out to
me.
1:27:1.470-->1:27:1.860
Wold, Kathy
Excellent.
Page 190 of 192

1:27:3.600-->1:27:4.270
Wold, Kathy
Great.
1:27:4.340-->1:27:4.970
Wold, Kathy
Thanks Ty.
1:27:7.550-->1:27:8.0
Wold,Kathy
Good.
1:27:8.90-->1:27:11.600
Wold, Kathy
We would just finish right on the dot here, but I will.Yeah.
1:27:11.610-->1:27:16.800
Wold, Kathy
Open it up for any questions that we have, umm, percolating here for Ty or otherwise.
1:27:27.150-->1:27:27.460
Wold,Kathy
Right.
1:27:27.940-->1:27:37.330
Wold, Kathy
Hearing none,we'll move on to the next and I'll just put a little meeting reminder out there for our next
meeting, tentatively scheduled for February 15th.
1:27:37.340-->1:27:43.790
Wold, Kathy
Watch for calendar requests from US and I have a list here of things for us to follow up with on the
committee.
1:27:43.800-->1:27:49.230
Wold, Kathy
So we'll be following up on those topics and questions that we needed to answer today.
1:27:49.560-->1:27:54.680
Wold, Kathy
And other than that, I will just thank you all for your participation and forjoining today.
1:27:59.620-->1:28:0.160
Scantling,Preston
Thanks everyone.
1:28:4.370-->1:28:4.940
Selena
Thank you, Kathy.
Page 191 of 192

1:28:4.620-->1:28:5.100
Laura Conilogue
Thank you.
1:28:5.620-->1:28:6.210
Wold, Kathy
Thanks everybody.
1:28:7.500-->1:28:8.0
Jason Talford
Thank you all.
Page 192 of 192