202503142024 DSM Annual Report Supplemental 2.pdf

�-w
IQAW POWER.
nk
DEMAND =SIDE
MANAGEMENT
ANNUALREPORT
Supplement 2: Evaluation

Supplement 2: Evaluation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Evaluation and Research Summary ................................................................................................ 1
EvaluationPlan................................................................................................................................ 3
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Notes ........................................................................................ 5
NEEA Market Effects Evaluations.................................................................................................. 53
IntegratedDesign Lab................................................................................................................... 55
Research/Surveys........................................................................................................................ 241
Evaluations.................................................................................................................................. 269
OtherReports ............................................................................................................................. 323
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page i

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Supplement 2: Evaluation
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH SUMMARY
Idaho Power considers program evaluation an essential component of its demand-side
management (DSM) operational activities. The company contracts with third-party contractors
to conduct impact, process, and other evaluations on a scheduled and as-required basis.
Third-party contracts are generally awarded using a competitive bid process managed by
Idaho Power's Corporate Services. In some cases, research and analysis is conducted internally
and managed by Idaho Power's Research and Analysis team within the Customer Relations and
Energy Efficiency (CR&EE) department.
Idaho Power uses industry-standard protocols for its internal and external evaluation efforts,
including the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency—Model Energy Efficiency Program
Impact Evaluation Guide, the California Evaluation Framework, the International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocol(I PMVP), the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources,
and the Regional Technical Forum's (RTF) evaluation protocols.
The company also supports regional and national studies to promote the ongoing validation of
energy savings and demand reduction, and the efficient management of its programs.
Idaho Power considers primary and secondary research, potential assessments, impact and
process evaluations, and customer surveys as important resources in providing accurate and
transparent program savings estimates. Recommendations and findings from evaluations and
research are used to continuously refine and improve Idaho Power's DSM programs.
In 2024, Idaho Power contracted with ADM Associates to conduct program evaluations for the
Rebate Advantage program (impact and process), CIEE Custom Projects option (impact and
process), and Educational Distributions program (impact).
Additionally, Tinker LLC conducted a program summary analysis of Student Energy Efficiency
Kits, and Harris Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc., conducted a summary analysis for the Home
Energy Report Program. The company also conducted internal analyses for the A/C Cool Credit,
Flex Peak, and Irrigation Peak Rewards programs.
In 2024, Idaho Power administered surveys regarding energy efficiency programs to measure
customer satisfaction. Some surveys were administered by a third-party contractor;
other surveys were administered by Idaho Power either through traditional paper and
electronic surveys or through the company's online Empowered Community. An evaluation
schedule and final reports from all evaluations, research, and surveys listed above are included
in this Demand-Side Management 2023 Annual Report, Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 1

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Supplement 2: Evaluation
EVALUATION PLAN
Energy Efficiency 2012-2025 Program Evaluation Plans
Program Evaluation Schedule 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Educational Distributions............................................................. I I/P
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program......................................... I/P I/P
Home Energy Audit...................................................................... I/P
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program........................................
Rebate Advantage....................................................................... I/P I
Residential New Construction Program....................................... O 1 I/P
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho)....... 0 0
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon).... O O
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers......................... 0 0
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs
Custom Projects........................................................................... I/P I/P
New Construction........................................................................ I/P I/P I
Retrofits....................................................................................... I/P I/P I
Small Business Lighting Program.................................................
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Programs
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards....................................................... I I/P
Demand-Response Programs
A/C Cool Credit............................................................................ I/P 0 0 0 1 0 1
Flex Peak Program....................................................................... 0 0 0 0 1/0 O O
Irrigation Peak Rewards............................................................... I/P 0 1 0 0 1/0 0 O
Evaluation Type: I=Impact,P=Process,O=Other
Program not yet in existence:
WAQC program evaluations were combined(Idaho and Oregon)before and including 2024;program evaluations separated beginning 2025.
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 3

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Program Evaluation Schedule 2018 2017 2017 2016 20151 2014 2013 2012
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Educational Distributions........................................................
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program.................................... I/P I/P P I
HomeEnergy Audit................................................................. I I
Multifamily Energy Savings Program...................................... rNMEN
Rebate Advantage.................................................................. I/P
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative.................. O
Residential New Construction Program..................................
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho).. O P 1
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon) O P I
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers.................... O P I
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs
Custom Projects...................................................................... P P I/P
New Construction................................................................... P P I I
Retrofits.................................................................................. I P I
Small Business Lighting Program............................................
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Programs
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards.................................................. I/P P/O P/I
Demand-Response Programs
A/C Cool Credit....................................................................... O O 1 1 O P O
Flex Peak Program.................................................................. O O 1/0 1/0 P/O O
Irrigation Peak Rewards.......................................................... O 1/0 1/0 O
Evaluation Type: I=Impact,P=Process,0=Other
Program not yet in existence: ������
1 Energy efficiency programs evaluated in 2015 have since been combined with another program or eliminated
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Supplement 2: Evaluation
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP NOTES
The following pages include notes from EEAG meetings held on February 8, May 23, August 14,
and November 14, 2024, in Idaho; and a meeting held on November 21, 2024, in Oregon.
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 5

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

4N U-1QAFIo R®
Energy Efficiency Advisory
Group (EEAG) February
Virtual Meeting
Michelle Toney
Idaho Power Research
Assistant
February 8, 2024
© Idaho Power

Idaho Power Company
Present
Alexa Bouvier—Office of Energy and Mineral Ken Robinette—South Central Community
Resources Action Partnership
Benedikt Springer—Public Utilityies Commission Quentin Nesbitt— Idaho Power
of Oregon Sidney Irwin— Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Connie Aschenbrenner— Idaho Power Association
Diego Rivas— Northwest Energy Coalition Jason Talford — Idaho Public Utilities
Don Strickler—J.R. Simplot Commission
Wil Gehl— City of Boise Public Works
Not Present
Brad Heusinkveld — Idaho Conservation League
Jim Hall—WaFd Bank
Taylor Thomas - Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Guest & Presenters*
Adam Thomas—ADM Landon Barber— Idaho Power
Alexis Freeman*— Idaho Power Laura Conilogue— Idaho Public Utilities
Annie Meyer— Idaho Power Commission
Becky Arte Howell — Idaho Power Melissa Kosla*—ADM
Billie McWinn*— Idaho Power Michelle Toney— Idaho Power
Bo Hanchey*— Idaho Power Michelle Scala— Public Utilitiesy Commission of
Chellie Jensen*— Idaho Power Oregon
Cheryl Paoli — Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen— Idaho Power
Chris Pollow— Idaho Power Nathan Black— Idaho Power
Curtis Willis— Idaho Power Ray Short— Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz— Idaho Power Shelley Martin— Idaho Power
Heather Polonsky-ADM Sheree Wilhite— Idaho Power
Kathy Yi — Idaho Power Todd Greenwell— Idaho Power
Krista West— Idaho Power Zack Thompson— Idaho Power
Page i

Idaho Power Company
Note Takers
Michelle Toney with Kathy Yi
Meeting Facilitator
Quentin Nesbitt
9:40 A.M. Welcome & Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin opened the meeting. There were no questions or comments about the November 2023
notes.
Bo Hanchey- Customer Operations VP for Idaho Power introduced himself and thanked
everyone for their participation in EEAG. He then announced Quentin and Billie's new roles and
highlighted the company's Demand-Side Management (DSM) Organizational Structure.
Connie mentioned the positive order received in the 2023 DSM prudence case from Idaho PUC.
9:50 A.M. 2023 YTD Financials & Savings—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the preliminary overall 2023 Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand Response
(DR) financials, savings, and expenses. He also showed overall results as compared to prior
years. He then reviewed overall expenses by category and sector then went over the 2024
evaluation plans.
Discussion
One member asked about the capacity of the DR programs for 2018 & 2019 and why capacity
was higher than in 2022 & 2023. Quentin explained the changes in the program parameters
after the 2021 season, where the program hours are later in the day, have affected customer
participation.
The member then commented about the 2016 & 2017 actual load was higher than the capacity
in 2023. Quentin explained that it is the timing of when the programs are used. Quentin also
added that the irrigation program is split into four groups, and not all will be used in any given
event. He added that the Integrated Resource Plan process and modeling takes this into
account.
One member asked if there is a chart that shows Oregon versus Idaho. Quentin answered the
costs are broken out in the table shown but the savings are not.
The member then asked what "Other" evaluations for the Weatherization programs are.
Quentin explained that "Other" evaluations are an internal billing analysis of the savings for
those programs which does quantify savings.
Page 1

Idaho Power Company
The member then asked why in six years, there has been no process evaluations for the
weatherization programs from a third party. Quentin and Billie responded, explaining that the
Community Action Partnership (CAP) agencies manage the program, not Idaho Power and they
adhere to federal rules.
The member then asked about the impact evaluations. Quentin explained that the billing
analysis is considered the impact evaluation. ' Landon added that in 2020 an evaluator helped
us come up with a methodology for doing our own internal billing analysis and we've been
following that since 2020.
10:00 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented 2023 residential program results and highlights, showing savings and
participation for each of the programs, and specific updates for the market transformation
pilot, Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) re-weatherization, AC Cool
Credit, and Shade Tree.
Discussion
Home Energy Report (HER)
One member asked how the HER program works. Billie explained how the program works and
how the savings are determined.
Another member asked how long the savings life for the Home Energy Reports program is.
Kathy answered that it is a one-year measure life.
Another member asked about the HER contract that is ending, and if there is more information
about the new contract. Billie answered that the company has a contract with a new
implementer.
Residential New Construction (RNC)
One member asked if the issues Billie described with getting raters for the program were due to
a lack of raters or the lack of a rating process. Billie said that the issues are due to the lack of
raters in this area.
BRIO
One member asked about the market impact numbers for ductless heat pumps and what needs
to be put into place to capture those. Billie said the numbers that were presented last time with
the number of heat pumps sold by the vendors is what we have, and it would take a long-term
effort to get total results, which was not part of this pilot.

Idaho Power Company
The member then confirmed that the information for heat pumps and vendors shows the heat
pumps are being sold and the company successfully engaged but to collect information on
actual market impacts the pilot would have to run longer. Billie answered yes, if we wanted to
know the full market impact the company would have to evaluate what the market would have
done in the absence of this effort, which was more than was being tested as a part of this pilot.
One member asked about the relationship with the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)
going forward, commenting that BRIO was in addition to the NEEA effort.The member also
asked what the impacts are of NEEA moving on from ductless heat pumps. Billie responded that
the Brio effort was intended to supplement NEEA's past activities. She added that the
company's involvement with NEEA is independent of these results. Quentin added that the
company wanted to test market transformation in a more localized approach with Brio and that
is why heat pumps were selected. He added that Billie has presented that in a localized area,
you can engage in the market and that's as far as this pilot went. We do not have all the
numbers or know what the true impact to the market is, but the pilot did show that by
engaging with a mid-level wholesaler approach,you can make an impact on the market.
One member was curious about how much the localized approach could grow and how the
same efforts could be applied to a larger scale in a small geographic area. Quentin responded
that it is a topic the company is considering.
WAQC Re-Weatherization
One member commented on WAQC funding and bipartisan infrastructure law funding that
came through the Department of Energy. The member said it is a large amount of money, and
the undertaking is difficult for the agencies because they are trying to spend those funds and
balance the other funding from other utilities to get homes weatherized. The bill is funding all
heating sources. The member added how stringent requirements are through the Department
of Energy, including their requirements of who is allowed to work on the homes.
Another member asked if similar programs for Oregon had the same issues. Cheryl answered
that there are less contractors in the Oregon area and that yes, that is a hurdle the CAP
agencies deal with. Billie added that the Company is planning to propose changes in Oregon to
address this, and other hurdles.
A/C Cool Credit (ACCC)
In response to Billie sharing the roll-out of a new ACCC awareness campaign and enrollment
sweepstakes contest, one member asked whether the messaging impact regarding home
temperatures is part of it. Billie confirmed that it is part of that campaign.
The member then asked about who the sweepstakes and awareness are marketed towards.
Billie replied that it would be to all potential participants since the cost of the sweepstakes
would be the same whether marketing to all potential participants or just those with a switch
already installed, which was the target for the prior campaign.
Page 3

Idaho Power Company
The member complimented the marketing strategy then commented that the survey shows
people aren't knowledgeable and agrees it is worth it to target the larger market.
Another member stated the importance of increasing DR, then asked if the Bring Your Own
Thermostat (BYOT) marketing campaign is included. Billie answered that the company is
working to determine if a BYOT program offering can be a long-term cost-effective option.
One member commented on the survey, stating the incentive is noted as too low and asked
about raising the incentive. Billie responded that incentive and program parameters are being
evaluated.
Shade Tree
One member asked about how the counties are selected. Billie answered that the company has
rotated through much of the service area but in hub locations.
Another member said the city is looking at expanding their tree campaigns and would like to
have conversations with the company for opportunities to share costs. Billie stated the program
specialist will reach out to discuss.
Another member asked why this is changing. Billie replied that the evaluators observed the tree
mortality rates and whether the trees survived.The evaluators found reduced savings potential,
which is why the value proposition is changing.
10:45 A.M. — Break
11:01 A.M. Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation Programs—Chellie
Jensen
Chellie presented the Commercial, Industrial, and Irrigation Program performance for 2023. She
discussed potential offerings for small business lighting, shared about existing cohorts, and the
proposed 2024 customer trainings then went over the demand response program preparations.
Discussion
Custom
One member thanked the company for its involvement and is looking forward to future
projects.
Small Business Lighting
Page 4

Idaho Power Company
One member asked about the cost share model and the estimated costs the company is willing
to spend. Chellie answered that our plan is a 70/30 cost split with customer to make the
program cost effective. The member stated that this is a strong approach being taken with the
customer.
Another member asked if there would be some additional workload shifted on the company by
cutting out the third party and will the 70/30 help. The member also asked about what impacts
have been considered while transitioning away from the third party. Chellie replied that it gives
the company more control by working directly with contractors. Program Specialist, Shelley
Martin, added that the impact on the company will be taking on those tasks.
One member asked about the crossover of the Retrofits program and the new small business
program considering the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) backstop, which dictates
efficiency standards for the manufacturing and sales of lightbulbs, and the removal of screw-in
LEDs in Retrofits. Shelley stated that the small business lighting program will be consistent with
the Retrofits program and will not offer incentives for screw-in LEDs.
Chellie added that there will be opportunities to educate customers about energy efficiency
associated with early replacement and with encouragement to switch them out themselves.
School Cohort
One member asked about the differences between maintaining and sustaining? Chellie
answered that the active phase is typically the first two years of engagement with strong
consultant support, and includes energy team development, energy policy development,
energy model creation, training and report-out workshops, energy champion and team calls,
and general energy efficiency awareness. The maintaining phase includes medium consultant
support and is typically years three through five or six. This phase includes consultant
maintenance of facility energy models, monthly energy champion calls, report-out workshops,
and ongoing general development to transition to self-sustaining operations.The sustaining
phase is typically beyond year five or six, where the participants manage activities on their own
including maintenance of energy models and ongoing focus on energy-saving activities.
Participants in this phase are invited to participate in workshops and report outs but cohort
related energy savings are no longer claimed or reported, and consultant support is minimal.
Idaho Design Lab (IDL)
One member spoke about the Government Lead by Example Program and thanked Idaho
Power for their outreach.
Irrigation
One member asked who the packets of enrollments are mailed to, for the Peak Rewards
program. Chellie answered that we send packets to all irrigation customers.
Page 5

Idaho Power Company
11:47 P.M. Marketing—Alexis Freeman
Alexis presented the marketing overview for all sectors. She discussed the residential survey
responses, winter contest,January Connections, and spring energy efficiency tips. Alexis then
went over Energy@Work, irrigation news, and highlighted what will be included in the March
Connections.
Discussion
No questions or comments.
12:00 P.M. — Lunch
1:00 P.M. Evaluations—ADM Associates, Melissa Kosla
Quentin introduced ADM; Melissa Kosla, Heather Polonsky, and Adam Thomas.
Melissa presented the program information, results, and recommendations for the Home
Energy Audit (HEA) and Small Business Direct Install (SBDI) program evaluations.
Quentin reminded everyone that SBDI ended in 2023, but the evaluation was done to review
savings and added that as Chellie mentioned we were looking for ways to continue the lighting
program to small businesses with appropriate changes.
Discussion
Small Business Direct Install (SBDI)
One member asked about the use of self-reported hours and inquired about the barriers to
implementing some sort of verification. Melissa answered you can get a good measure of
annual hours by facility type, if participants are randomly selected. Adam added that there are
a couple facility types that capture the bulk of savings. Chellie recognized the members' good
point and said this is something to consider. Melissa added that looking at the hourly billing
data could give us a good determination of the hours.
Home Energy Audit Program (HEA)
One member asked if door sweeps have been considered as weatherstripping and can it be an
envelope package. Kathy answered yes, the analysis was done a couple years ago, and auditors
didn't want to install those items so, it's a good time to revisit. Billie agreed that the company
will look into that.
Page 6

Idaho Power Company
2:00 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Today's meeting was great with good information. I look forward to the next meeting and
hopefully it is in person as I always enjoy networking with Idaho Power staff and EEAG
members.
This was good as well as enjoyable.
Just a few things. First, thanks for taking the time to hold these meetings. These are always
super informative, and it is great to hear the things that are being tracked and see the programs
being actively managed. I'm looking forward to the implementation of the new small business
lighting program and the efficiencies that can be found there. I'd like to revisit the ACCC and ask
if the value of reliability has been considered as there are a lot of opt outs and failure rates.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate.
Thank you all for the effort and presenting. I'm not familiar with all the Idaho Power offerings
yet, and I can't always tell if a program is in Idaho or Oregon.
I appreciate the information shared today. Some city planning and development staff are
interested in Multifamily. I'll follow up after this and see if we can find a time to chat about
that.
Connie thanked everybody for their participation and contributions.
Quentin thanked everyone and reminded members of the next meeting date and as of now, it
will be in person.
2:15 P.M. Meeting Adjourned

Idaho Power Company
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Meeting May 23, 2024
Present / Virtual*
Benedikt Springer*— Public Utilities Commission Emily Her*— Office of Energy and Mineral
of Oregon Resources
Brad Heusinkveld — Idaho Conservation League Ken Robinette—South Central Community
Connie Aschenbrenner— Idaho Power Action Partnership
Christian Douglass* - Northwest Power& Quentin Nesbitt— Idaho Power
Conservation Council Jason Talford — Idaho Public Utilities
Diego Rivas*—Northwest Energy Coalition Commission
Steve Hubble— City of Boise Public Works
Not Present
Don Strickler—J.R. Simplot
Jim Hall—WaFd Bank
Taylor Thomas - Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Sidney Irwin— Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Guest & Presenters**
Andee Morton — Idaho Power Julie Rosandick**— Idaho Power
Annie Meyer— Idaho Power Kathy Yi**— Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell — Idaho Power Kimberly Bakalars—Tetra Tech
Billie McWinn**— Idaho Power Landon Barber**— Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen**— Idaho Power Laura Conilogue— Idaho Public Utilities
Cheryl Paoli — Idaho Power Commission
Chris Pollow— Idaho Power Mark Bergum**—Tetra Tech
Dahl Bietz— Idaho Power Melissa Thom — Idaho Power
Damon Woods**— IDL Michelle Toney— Idaho Power
Farnaz Nazari— IDL Mindi Shodeen — Idaho Power
Jared Hansen— Idaho Power Nathan Black— Idaho Power
Jeff Rigby— Idaho Power Ray Short— Idaho Power
Jonathon Guynes— Idaho Power Shelley Martin— Idaho Power
John Chatbum — Chat Burn Strategies Sheree Willhite— Idaho Power
Jordyn Neerdaels— Idaho Power Todd Greenwell— Idaho Power
Jordan Prassinos— Idaho Power Will Seaman— Idaho Power
Zack Thompson— Idaho Power
Pagel

Idaho Power
Note Takers
Michelle Toney with Kathy Yi
Meeting Facilitator
Quentin Nesbitt
9:30 A.M. Welcome & Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin welcomed new member Christian Douglass with the Northwest Power Conservation
Council and Steve Hubble representing the City of Boise.
Quentin asked if members had any comments regarding or edits to the notes from the last
EEAG meeting. A member commented they find the notes helpful.
Connie mentioned an outcome of the pending settlement in the Oregon general rate case will
result in holding separate EEAG meetings for a broader group of Oregon stakeholders. She
noted that there will be two meetings a year and suggested letting us know if anyone is
interested in being involved.
There was a question on the Oregon EEAG meeting about if there will be a virtual option and
the dates of the meetings. Quentin answered that EEAG meetings are public and will have a
virtual option. Connie added that the meetings are expected to begin as early as this fall.
9:40 A.M. 2024 YTD Financials & Savings—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the preliminary first quarter 2024 Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand
Response (DR) financials, savings, and expenses. He then reviewed overall expenses by category
and sector then went over the 2025 evaluation plans.
Discussion
One member asked why the AC Cool Credit and Irrigation Peak Reward program expenses were
in the negative. Quentin answered that the company purchased a large number of DR devices
for all three programs, and they were all charged originally to the AC Cool Credit and Peak
Reward programs and the negative is result of moving the expenses to an overhead account.
The plan is that each program will get charged as the devices get used.
Another member asked whether changing the accounting for the Weatherization Assistance for
Qualified Customers (WAQC) program to the Energy Efficiency Rider (Rider) affects the
reporting. Quentin answered that all the information for both WAQC and Solutions is in the
DSM report. The only change was the accounting for expenses.
One member asked if the Rider funding will continue to increase per year and if the Idaho
labor-related expenses being removed from the Rider affects the balance. Quentin said that it is
a balancing account and gets adjusted with a filing to the respective PUC and with the labor
Page 1

Idaho Power
change there was an adjustment made to the percentage. Connie added that the funding level
is monitored and adjusted as needed. The member then asked about the YTD 2024 funding and
projected balance for the end of the year. Quentin and Connie clarified the Idaho balance has
recently been growing, but a forecast of year-end funding has not been done at this time.
9:50 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented the 2024 residential program first quarter savings, participation, highlights for
each of the programs, and specific updates for the Home Energy Reports, AC Cool Credit, and
Shade Tree programs.
Kathy presented the Shade Tree cost-effectiveness review.
Julie presented the new Corp Comm marketing campaign.
Discussion
WAQC
There was a discussion among the members about how the funding for CAP agencies works.
One member answered that the funding is spread out across the projects and comes from
different funding sources. The admin costs are separate from the production costs, and there is
material inventory control and shipping that can affect timing of projects.
Cheryl added that the production costs are for materials, equipment, and include health and
safety measures, but do not include admin costs.
A member added that there is an impact study looking at the cost ratio for health and safety
measures. They will be looking at these measures versus total project costs and that jobs are
impacted by the indoor air quality. The member added that agencies across the nation are
starting to offer higher wages and better benefits. However, the Department of Energy(DOE)
has strict certification standards and that is a nationwide issue. Agencies are now working with
DOE on a the legislative side at the national level, trying to get the average cost covered for the
labor.
Shade Tree
A member commented that just recently they were performing weatherization on a home and
the customer had just received two trees from the program.
HER New Template
One member commented that the changes are aesthetically better but was concerned that the
new version was missing a pie chart showing the percent of energy being used and the
Page 2

Idaho Power
associated cost. Billie agreed that it was a compelling visual and explained that there were
limitations to all the vendor templates, and that was one of the features that could not be
made available with the new vendor template.The member would like the company to share
feedback with the new vendor and Billie committed to that follow-up.
Another member asked if the company could influence the report and if the tips and links are
generic or can they be tailored to the customer. Billie responded that the first two energy
savings tips on the front of the new template are tailored to the customer based on available
home profile data, and the tips are more customized depending on whether the customer
completes their home profile updates in My Account. The company develops the information
on the second page of the report and can include program information or other generic tips
and information.
A member inquired about how many customers might be added to the treatment group to start
a new wave of participation. Billie said the vendor recommends 25,000 customers as a
minimum to have proper integrity of the treatment and control groups.
One member asked how many customers are not part of the treatment or control groups. Billie
answered that she did not have that number but would follow up with the member.
Another member asked if Oregon was included in those groups. Billie replied that the industry
standard calls for at least 25,000 customers in the control and treatment group, however the
company only has about 14,000 residential customers in Oregon. Therefore, Oregon has been
excluded from previous treatment groups. She added that the company is working with a third-
party program consultant and the new vendor to identify ways to capture and report the
savings specific to Oregon using similarly situated service areas in Idaho for comparisons.
Billie followed up with an email to the member stating that from the time the last treatment
group was selected there were 207,322 Idaho customers and 13,712 Oregon customers that
were not in either group. Below are the reasons customers would be excluded from both the
control and treatment groups.
A;;W_ � Maw
Oregon accounts Insufficient #customers for analyzing and
reporting Oregon-specific savings
Customers not on AMI AMI is required for reporting and evaluation

Idaho Power
Customers without sufficient history At least 12 months active history is required
for reporting and comparison purposes
Customer that have "do not contact" flags on Customers have specifically requested not
account to be contacted by Idaho Power
Households that have "Non-English" flags on HERS are only available in English
account
Net Metering and Master Metered Accounts Insufficient comparable data
Homes built prior to 1860, or more than 6 Insufficient comparable data
bathrooms, or more than 8 bedrooms, homes
with less than 350 s.f. and homes with more
than 7,000 s.f.
Barns, shops, garages, wells, pumps, etc. Insufficient comparable data
Manufactured homes Insufficient comparable data
Duplicate accounts N/A
Marketing
One member commented that all the campaigns are well done.
10:38 A.M. — Break
10:46 A.M. Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation Programs—Chellie
Jensen
Chellie presented the Commercial, Industrial and Irrigation Program performance, preseason
activities, and program overviews with preliminary first quarter savings.
Discussion
Irrigation Peak Rewards
One member inquired about the participation per region. Chellie replied that there is generally
more participation in the eastern region.
Another member said it was good to see the upward trend, then asked if there is potential in
any other areas. Chellie answered that the company markets to all irrigation customers each
Page 4

Idaho Power
year, but the changes to the program hours to later event times, to match Idaho Power system
needs, caused a drop in participation. Therefore, timing can be an issue for some customers in
that turning systems back on after 9:00 p.m. may not be conducive to their operations. She
added that participation also varies with the crop, and farmers commonly change the crop
annually. Quentin added that even the small climate difference in eastern Idaho can make the
program more viable for those participants. Another factor includes how automated the
customer's system is as Idaho power also saw a decline in participation with larger operations
that depend more on labor to manage the systems during events.
One member asked about the automation technology. Quentin answered that it is difficult to
collect data, but auto restart has always been something that has been considered. He stated
the technology is not the barrier, it is the type of irrigation system that is usually the barrier.
New Construction
One member asked about the timing of claimed savings if the project started in 2023 but ends
in 2024. Chellie answered that the projects are paid, and savings recorded after the project is
completed and all information is submitted.
Another member asked about the project counts being down and wondered about future
projects. Chellie answered that the numbers represent what has been paid year-to-date. She
added there are about three hundred projects in the pipeline, but those are not included in the
information shown.
Retrofits
One member asked about the proposed incentive to the trade allies and its effects to the
program cost effectiveness. Chellie answered that we have looked at it and as long it is a small
percentage with a cap, the program would still be cost effective.
Another member asked about the difference in percentages for the contractor incentive (5% vs
10%). Chellie replied the 5% could be a starting point to see if that moves the market. There
was a comment about how it seems like a good idea to start at 5%.
Custom Projects
- Engaged Customer Highlight Boise School District
One member asked about who at Idaho Power is working with the schools. Chellie answered
Chris Pollow is the program engineer that works on the program.
Page 5

Idaho Power
11:18 A.M. Evaluations—Tetra Tech-- Mark Bergum
Mark presented on the impact evaluation results for the Irrigation Efficiency and Residential
New Construction programs. He discussed the overview of the programs and the evaluation
methodology. Mark reviewed the previous evaluation and the results and findings.
Discussion
One member asked about irrigation end guns. Mark explained end guns are on center pivot
irrigation systems to irrigate some of the land in the corners of the fields.
Another member asked about the irrigation evaluation having billing analysis of savings versus
modeling. Mark answered the post consumption was not relied on in the evaluation due to
conditions changing year to year. He pointed out that even though weather can be somewhat
normalized, with crop changes and weather changes combined, it is hard to evaluate using a
billing analysis.
One member asked for a clarification of what is being tracked on the Residential New
Construction program program:, savings, or actual consumption. Mark replied that the
realization rate is a verification that the model results matched the claimed savings. This
evaluation wasn't evaluating the actual energy consumption for the unit that was built.
Another member asked about what the 90/10 meant that Mark mentioned. Quentin answered
that the company requests a statistical 90/10 confidence level which guides the size of the
sample needed to evaluate to be confident in the total program results.
12:00 P.M. — Lunch
1:00 P.M. 2024 Energy Efficiency Potential Study—Landon Barber
Landon presented an overview of the Energy Efficiency (EE) Potential Study, including how it is
used in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) process, and a progress update on the current study
that is underway.
Discussion
One member asked if solar and wind resources were considered in the Potential Study. Landon
replied that solar and wind are resources analyzed as part of the broader IRP. He explained that
all cost-effective energy efficiency is reduced from the load forecast because the cost
effectiveness has already been screened. Quentin added that other resources are evaluated
through modeling and energy efficiency is used from the potential study, and it deducts from
the load forecast.The member then asked if there will be an invite to the August IRP EE
subcommittee meeting. Quentin said yes.
Page 6

Idaho Power
Another member asked about the number of measures that fell into the economic and
achievable category. Landon reminded everyone that this is a general overview, and those
specific numbers aren't available yet.
Another member asked about the measures that were mentioned. Landon answered that the
two measures were examples of relevant emerging technology that is going to be analyzed.
The member then asked if the Aurora model was used to develop the potential study. Landon
responded that Loadmap is the software our third-party consultant uses for the potential study,
and Aurora is used for modeling resources in the IRP. He added that the Loadmap software uses
multiple scenarios to calculate different assumptions for each sector.The member asked about
the cost effectiveness timetable for measures. Landon advised the calculations are done yearly
and the model accounts for if the measures are deemed to be cost effective or not.
1:20 P.M. Integrated Design Lab (IDL)—Damon Woods
Damon introduced himself and his colleague, Farnaz Nazari. He then explained what the IDL
does and how they support Idaho Power's energy efficient efforts in education and training.
Damon also discussed the role of the Energy Resource Library (ERL) and EE building design.
Discussion
One member asked about door blasters & blowers. Damon answered that the IDL does not
have those in the ERL and typically they are used for residential.
Another member asked about the annual reach of tool loans. Damon said it's in the dozens and
varies per year.
One member asked if the tools are available for anyone. Damon answered that any Idaho
Power customer can check out the tools if they are willing to sign the release.
There was a question about the approximate cost of design assistance projects, like the window
design using 3-D software. Damon said the consulting for that project was between $3,000 and
$4,000. The member also asked where Idaho Power accounts for the cost of the IDL work.
Quentin answered that IDL cost is paid from the Rider. Sheree Willhite added that it is split
between the C&I New Construction, Retrofits and Custom Projects offerings and is not tied to
specific energy savings.
Another member asked if all the measures from a design are adopted. Damon responded that
not all measures are adopted. The member then asked if assistance was available for hotels.
Damon answered yes and handed out brochures for several different commercial building types
that show examples of energy efficiency savings and non-energy benefits.

Idaho Power
One member asked if the IDL worked with any DOE national labs when creating a modeling
project. Damon answered that they use a lot of DOE information and Pacific Northwest
National Lab has a lot of standard energy models that they work with. He added that they
occasionally work with Idaho National Lab and their Center for Advanced Energy Studies and
have a large project going on that is funded by the Department of Commerce, and they have
done work with Oakridge National Lab.
A member asked about bonding agents that IDL is using in its wood printing project. Damon
said that is proprietary right now.
Another member mentioned that Boise City is fortunate to be working with the IDL.
One member asked about the expansion of the IDL and its future. Damon addressed the
importance of Farnaz Nazari and his (small) team's contributions. He added that expansion is
dependent on grants and ideally long-term grants which would really drive a larger number of
students they can support. Their goal is to do a few large projects as well.
Another member asked if Idaho Power's energy advisors provide design assistance, like the IDL
work. Chellie answered no, the company's energy advisors assist with the EE program
applications and facilitate the incentive or assessment process. Damon said the IDL gets
customers that were referred by energy advisors.
One member asked if the IDL will consider the residential sector and if they work on industrial
projects. Damon answered that they do work with industrial as directed by the custom team,
but commercial is their focus. The residential sector is funded through NEEA. The member then
asked if the IDL has tours. Damon said yes and encourages high school students to shadow
architects.
2:30 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
I always enjoy these in person meetings. The IDL is over the top!
Appreciate the meeting being in person as there is always more to gain. On shade tree going
away, I appreciate the company being proactive. It's nice to see ACCC campaign and the Flex
Peak, and irrigation numbers. I hope to see the same with residential.
EEAG is so valuable, particularly in context. We plan to support the DSM Prudence case and are
curious about the schedule.
I spent some time with this group in 2017-2019 and it is fun to be back. I rarely get to spend this
much time on energy efficiency, and I really enjoy it.
The notes, presentations, and information are super helpful and easy to understand.
Page 8

Idaho Power
Thank you for the invitation to join. I found the topics helpful and I'm looking forward to
engaging with EEAG.
Thank you for having us. I appreciate everything about today.
Quentin advised the next meetings are August 14 (virtual) and November 14 (in person).
2:45 P.M. Meeting Adjourned
Page 9

Idaho Power Company
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Virtual Meeting
August 14, 2024
Present
Alexa Bouvier—Office of Energy and Mineral Ken Robinette—South Central Community
Resources Action Partnership
Brad Heusinkveld — Idaho Conservation League Quentin Nesbitt— Idaho Power
Connie Aschenbrenner— Idaho Power Steve Hubble—City of Boise Public Works
Don Strickler—J.R. Simplot Company Sidney Erwin — Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Taylor Thomas— Idaho Public Utilities Association
Commission
Not Present
Benedikt Springer—Oregon Public Utilities Commission
Christian Douglass—Northwest Power& Conservation Council
Jim Hall —WaFd Bank
Guest & Presenters*
Andee Morton — Idaho Power Landon Barber— Idaho Power
Annie Meyer— Idaho Power Laura Conilogue— Idaho Public Utilities
Becky Arte Howell — Idaho Power Commission
Billie McWinn*— Idaho Power Mary Alice Taylor— Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen*— Idaho Power Matt O'Conner— Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli — Idaho Power Melissa Thom— Idaho Power
Chris Pollow— Idaho Power Michelle Toney— Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz— Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen — Idaho Power
Jason Talford— Idaho Public Utilities Nathan Black— Idaho Power
Commission Nicholas Ackerman — Idaho Power
Jeff Rigby— Idaho Power Ray Short— Idaho Power
John Chatburn—Chat Burn Strategies Shelley Martin — Idaho Power
Jordyn Neerdaels— Idaho Power Sheree Willhite— Idaho Power
Julie Rosandick— Idaho Power Todd Greenwell — Idaho Power
Kathy Yi*— Idaho Power Will Seaman — Idaho Power
Note Takers
Michelle Toney with Kathy Yi
Meeting Facilitator
Quentin Nesbitt

Idaho Power Company
9:30 A.M. Welcome & Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin announced Diego Rivas is no longer with the NW Energy Coalition, and therefore will
no longer be participating in the EEAG meetings. He acknowledged Diego's long tenure as a
representative on EEAG and acknowledged his contributions. Quentin then provided an update
on the Company's plans to implement an Oregon-focused EEAG (OEEAG), which will have its
first meeting in November. There were no questions regarding the May Notes.
Nicholas Ackerman was introduced as a new Energy Efficiency Analyst working in the Customer
Relations and Energy Efficiency department and Mary Alice Taylor was introduced as a new
Regulatory Analyst in the Regulatory Affairs department.
9:40 A.M. 2024 YTD Financials & Savings—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the preliminary year-to-date (YTD) 2024 Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand
Response (DR) financials, savings, and expenses. He then reviewed overall expenses by category
and sector and previewed the 2025 evaluation plan.
Discussion
There were no questions or comments.
9:50 A.M. Cost Effectiveness—Kathy Yi
Kathy reminded the group that the company will provide a forward-looking cost-effectiveness
(C/E) review of programs at November's EEAG meeting using future year cost and savings
assumptions. The presentation today will cover the anticipated 2024 C/E of programs as of
today's meeting, using current expenses and savings to highlight any major changes in the C/E
outlook from what was presented the prior November. Kathy presented the YTD cost
effectiveness for commercial, industrial, irrigation, and residential heating and cooling and new
construction programs.
Discussion
Residential Multifamily Energy Savings
One member asked when the program would be cost-effective considering the long lead-time
for projects. Kathy answered that, though incentives are available for retrofits and new
construction, the assumption is that most projects will be new construction, which have a
longer lead time. She indicated it could be cost-effective as soon as next program year. Billie
added that because some new construction projects can take two-to-three-years, it may take
longer.
Another member asked if the payments and the savings calculations for the customer align in
the same year or whether the payments would come later because of the project lead-times.
Page 1

Idaho Power Company
Kathy answered that the savings align with the incentive payments and are reported in the
same year.
WAQC and Weatherization
One member asked about the Oregon Weatherization Program being cost-effective, noting that
the two Idaho weatherization programs are not. Kathy responded that the WAQC program was
offered in both Idaho and Oregon and is income-based, while the Oregon weatherization
program is a statutory offering, and it is not income-based. There is low participation, but if a
project moves forward, each measure must be cost-effective before being approved.
Billie added that the Oregon Weatherization Program consists of a free audit and incentives for
only cost-effective measures, although it has been years since an incentive has been paid
through Oregon Weatherization. The member then asked, if a customer wanted attic insulation,
would that be the only measure included. Billie said only if that measure was cost-effective.
Another member stated that even though weatherization programs are borderline or not cost-
effective, these programs are extraordinarily important, and the member fully supports them.
The member added other organizations besides Idaho Power should also play a role and that
they would like to see a combination of marketing incentives along with marketing of tax
credits because there is low awareness of those. The member would like more contractor
education for energy efficient heat pumps. Billie agreed saying education needs to be done and
is part of what Idaho Power does. She added that the government tax credit links are available
on Idaho Power's website.
Todd Greenwell shared that there are 11 web landing pages in the Heating and Cooling
Efficiency Program website that have links to the available 25C and 25D federal tax credits
contained in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Links are included on other collateral such as bill
inserts. The Idaho Power 'Connections' mailer was also sent to 650,000 customers with this
information in a full-page article. There are also rebates as part of the Inflation Reduction Act
under sections 50122 and 50121 called the Home Electrification and Appliance Rebate program
and the Home Efficiency Rebate program that are being developed by the states to be offered
later.
Billie added that Todd proactively manages the program and provides education to the over
100 participating contractors. Through both written communication and individual one-on-
ones, Todd provides education on the benefits of heat pumps and available incentives and tax
rebates. Unfortunately, there are contractors out there that are not participating.
Another member commented that the State of Idaho is also looking at developing two
electrification programs to bring to the state. The member then asked about which regions
have the most participation. Todd said it is mainly Ada and Canyon Counties because of the
customer growth.
Page 2

Idaho Power Company
Another member asked for website links to the incentive documentation and tax credit
information.
Todd sent a follow-up email to two EEAG members inquiring about the January 2024
'Connections' publication that included information about the federal tax credits from the IRA
and contained hyperlinks to the web incentives where 25C and 25D tax credits are available for
homeowners. Billie also posted a link to the January 2024 'Connections' publication in the chat
to all EEAG participants. Todd added that he will promote the 50121 and 50122 (Home
Efficiency Rebates and Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates) rebates when the states of
Idaho and Oregon launch those in the future.
10:15 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented the residential programs savings and participation. She focused on Residential
New Construction, AC cool credit, and the Idaho WAQC program.
Discussion
Easy Savings
One member asked why participation in Easy Savings is down 100%. Billie answered that it is a
timing issue related to the way those coupons are redeemed. The company funds the agencies
to distribute the coupons; agencies distribute the coupons to customers; customers call the
contractors to redeem their coupons and schedule a tune-up visit; the contractor sends the
redeemed coupons to the agency; the agency then pays the contractors. Cheryl added that it is
all about timing, but as of the last two months, there have been 75 coupons redeemed which is
about a third of the total annual funding amount and they are getting caught up.
Residential New Construction
One member asked whether the builder must pay for each site visit from the certified home
raters and how many visits are required. Billie answered that the cost of rater services is
typically a lump sum (she believed to be something between $800 to $1,000), much of which
would be offset by the incentive, and that the rater is involved from the design phase all
through construction, including multiple site visits.
The member then asked if the fee was assessed per home or per job site. Billie answered that it
can vary and is established between the rater and the developer.
The member inquired as to whether this program only makes sense if there are multiple
dwellings rather than a stand-alone home. Billie said there are builders who build all-electric,
efficient, stand-alone homes to market and sell. They are potentially going through the process
anyway and the program encourages them to build above code to receive the incentive which
can help offset the cost of the rater.
Page 3

Idaho Power Company
Another member noted that the state of Idaho recognizes the lack of workforce as a barrier to
implementing the energy efficiency rebates under the IRA that Todd Greenwell mentioned. The
member asked about the interest that the company has received from builders and whether
they are interested in building over the standard. Billie replied that the website has direct links
to the raters and the builders connect directly with them. But there is only one rater in the
Treasure Valley.
One member asked if any other peer utilities have analogous programs with the same sort of
bottlenecks, or whether they have found ways around them. Billie answered that most utilities
in the Northwest are experiencing the same workforce shortage issues.
Another member supports the 3rd option presented; spending money to develop a larger rater
network, pointing out money needs to be spent so energy can be saved. The member
suggested that Idaho Power considers offering the rating service and cutting out the middle
person or offering a bifurcated incentive where they could receive a higher amount if they use
their own rater.
One member added that residential new construction is up, and interest rates will start coming
down. Therefore, they support maintaining the program and letting it grow. The member also
supports the 3rd option of spending money to develop a larger rater network.
Another member asked about peer utilities experiencing similar issues and if given the differing
environments in different states, related to high efficiency homes and the demand for RESNET
raters, RESNET raters might naturally gravitate to larger areas. Billie said there are so few
qualified raters in the Northwest, they are naturally gravitating towards those areas that have
larger projects, where there is more money. This is why the company is engaging in a more
creative way to attract them to our area.
One member asked about the dollar amount for the builder's incentives. Billie answered that it
is between $1,200 and $2,000 depending on how far above code they are.
Another member asked about whether the 2nd option, splitting the incentive between the
builder and the rater, would encourage the rater to engage more often. Billie answered that
raters are working with builders, and the builders are paying the raters. Adding an incentive
might motivate them to work more aggressively towards the program but it will not create
more raters.
One member asked about how the company arrived at $50,000 for the rater incentives and the
estimation on the math projection for participation. Billie answered that it is a time and
material number. It was decided that $50,000 could be absorbed in the program based on
historically reached participation levels, but if participation continues to be below those
historical levels, the program might still not be cost-effective.
The member said that makes sense and would recommend reviewing assumptions quarterly.
The member inquired about when the $50,000 investment would pay back or when the
Page 4

Idaho Power Company
program would become cost-effective. Billie replied that it is unknown whether it would take
one or more years to build the network and not even a given that the raters would respond or
how builders would engage. The company is asking for EEAG feedback because there is a risk
that even after spending the $50,000 the program might not be cost-effective.
Another member asked whether the $50,000 could be used to provide higher incentives for the
builder and an incentive for the rater. Billie answered that it would not build the rater network
and that the program could not sustain that level of incentives and maintain cost effectiveness.
Billie also pointed out that many projects are two-to-three-year projects.
One member supports the 211 option to split incentives between the builder and the rater but
has a concern about the rater incentive structure being tied to the home performance because
it could result in the homes being rated higher, so they receive a higher incentive. The member
also stated that the 3rd option of spending more money to develop the rater network may not
necessarily equate to actual savings and could make it even less cost-effective in the future.
Billie said the company could invest the $50,000 in developing the rater network and provide a
small incentive to the rater and subsequently decrease the builder incentive.
The member agreed and commented that it is a reasonable approach and that providing an
incentive to the rater might drive raters to participate.
Another member asked whether different verification methods could be used to document the
savings that were less costly than using a rater. Billie answered that Energy Star Homes has
used this method since we started our new construction program in 2003, and it is the only
method she is aware of that provides the same consistency for quality assurance. She added
the raters do catch things, which provide a lot of value. She stated there is a database that is
used to model what a home would be with and without these changes to determine savings,
but it is dependent on the process that the raters go through.
One member commented that it is good that EEAG recognizes we will always have challenges
on building codes in Idaho and where they take us for heating and cooling efficiency. And that
having optional programs like this that that go further with energy efficiency means a lower
cost resource in the big picture.
Another member said they heard from other utilities that builders get frustrated with the
process of getting a Home Energy Rating System certification for a small incentive, which is
something to consider. This program is focused on getting above code and so it would take an
entirely different framework, but certainly something to think about in terms of just Residential
New Construction incentives. The member commented that maybe a different framework
should be considered.
One member said they support the program and commented on the importance of maintaining
the program and working with builders to build networks. The member likes the idea of doing a
combination of investments in the 2nd and 3rd options to provide a rater incentive and to invest
in the rater network, and trusts the company's sense on that, giving some flexibility to make
that choice.
Billie summarized what the group shared:
Page 5

Idaho Power Company
• There is some aversion to the 41" option of putting the program on life support with
little administration.
• The 111 option of reducing the builder incentives does not make as much sense.
• Support for the 2nd option of splitting the incentives between builders and raters with a
caution of reducing the incentives to builders.
• There is support for the 3rd option of investing in the rater network, but to proceed with
caution because the money that would be spent in the near term would not be cost-
effective.
AC Cool Credit
One member asked if the company has considered increasing incentives for older or less
efficient systems. Billie answered that it comes down to the amount of usage. Older units might
be less efficient, so they use more energy, but newer homes might have larger systems and use
more energy. Both of those must be taken into consideration. Older units are more likely to be
less of a candidate for the program because of the unit's condition. For example, if the installer
feels like it could cause issues with cycling, they will not install a switch.
Idaho WAQC
One member commented about this being a needed program and likes the idea of the
increased average cost per unit because equipment and workforce cost have increased
(efficiency upgrades are expensive). The member added that the conversations with
Weatherization managers about the program changes were good and the managers did engage
and speak up. The member asked if the changes would also transfer over to the solutions
program. Billie responded that the changes were specific to WAQC.
Connie added that Solutions has been funded by the Rider so some of these same items may
not be relevant.
Billie then noted the managers were aligned with the proposal and with this feedback the
company planned to move forward with the filing.
11:10 A.M. — Break
11:15 A.M. Commercial, Industrial, Irrigation & Demand Response
Programs—Chellie Jensen
Chellie presented updates for the DR programs, including season enrollments and overall YTD
performance. Chellie presented the Commercial, Industrial, and Irrigation EE program savings
and participation. She focused on updated incentive structure and marketing tactics for the
upcoming Small Business Lighting offering and requested feedback on the approach related to
incentives and a marketing tactic for rural locations. She highlighted two customers'
Page 6

Idaho Power Company
engagement by participating in the Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency program
offering. Chellie discussed upcoming trainings, the Energy@Work newsletter, the irrigation
newsletter, discussed the ASHRAE sponsorship and then highlighted the summer Engineering
intern. Lastly, she requested feedback for continuing the Green Motors Initiative program.
Discussion
Small Business Lighting
One member asked how an area is defined as rural, and how does that relate to someone on
the edge who thinks they are rural. Chellie shared that the marketing incentive's purpose is to
encourage contractors to collaborate with customers that might be out of their normal service
area or that might take additional drive time to service customers in rural areas. She showed a
map with the cities identified as either rural or urban and answered that the company is
working with local and regional managers to refine the list of which cities would be defined as
rural. Chellie added that the final list would be shared with participating contractors and then a
customer's designation would be based on their address.
Another member complimented the great approach to reach small rural businesses. Their office
is also looking at addressing rural areas.
Chellie said she appreciates the feedback, and the company will move forward to offer this
program in September in Idaho and will explore offering it in Oregon.
Green Motors Initiative
One member commented about how the city participates with the motors program and trusts
the company's judgment on how to move forward. Chellie said with this feedback, the
Company will move forward with continuing the Green Motors program by administering the
program in house.
12:00 P.M. — Lunch
1:00 P.M. Demand Response Program Modification—Billie McWinn
Billie presented the potential 2025 DR changes and YTD season totals for the residential AC
Cool Credit, commercial Flex Peak, and irrigation Peak Rewards programs. She advised on next
steps related to filing date and effective dates.
Discussion
Page 7

Idaho Power Company
AC Cool Credit
One member asked for confirmation that the bring-your-own-thermostat (BYOT) option was
more expensive than the existing switch option. Billie confirmed that it was true and explained
that the company has already invested in the existing switches and as the program has been
built up over the years, those costs have already been recovered. Though we are still adding
new switches, we have a base of existing switches, making overall costs lower.
Another member asked how the company is determining the need to expand the capacity of
the existing programs and the resources needed. The member then asked how the company
determines if BYOT is a better option than a battery resource. Quentin answered that the
company is going to evaluate demand response similarly to past IRP's where we looked at
different amounts of megawatts and characteristics at different prices and see what the Aurora
model picks. The value proposition is also another way to look at the value of different DR
programs outside of the IRP process. He noted that it needs to be cost-effective as compared to
other resources if we do it.
The member then asked about the goals regarding the changes to the programs and if it is to
acquire additional megawatts. Quentin responded that the company would like to maintain the
program because there are 320 megawatts showing in the IRP, and the last IRP preferred
portfolio slated an additional 20 megawatts. The additional amount was identified as expansion
of current programs at a similar cost. Quentin noted that additional DR will be reevaluated in
the next IRP.
The member then asked if there should be an enhanced marketing push, which could include
increased enrollment incentives for new customers. Quentin answered that the company has
been marketing to all customer segments and noted there may be a need for higher incentives.
Billie added that the Flex Peak and Irrigation programs have been more readily maintained, but
AC Cool Credit continues to decline despite marketing efforts.
The member asked if the smart thermostat incentive is for only those that have electric heat.
Billie confirmed only customers that have electric heat qualify for the Heating and Cooling
program incentive.
The member then asked if the program could include cooling, stating that Intermountain Gas
has an incentive for thermostats so there may be an opportunity to work with them. Quentin
commented on how the vendors for BYOT, market to customers that have smart thermostats
only for the manufactures they have relationships with.
Flex Peak
One member asked whether the C/E of paying to automate systems would be on a case-by-case
basis and whether automation would allow for other potential value streams considering it is
fast-acting. Billie answered that the amount would be cost-effective on a per participant basis
Page 8

Idaho Power Company
and that the manual operations are also dependable and occur on time because the notification
is sent to the customer in time for the reduction to occur at the event start time.
Chellie added that customers have expressed concerns with automating their systems because
they may have to adjust their control system to allow for the DR switch to work with their
systems. But by automating some customers may potentially expand their typical event
protocol, increase their event response reliability, and increase their nomination.
Quentin noted that it might bring more value if the realization rate goes up, but there is a lack
of data to know for sure. We are evaluating the program based on the potential for the
customer to earn the maximum.
The member then asked about the baseline calculation being 20% over in the past three days
and what supports that. Billie responded that it allows some flexibility for planning on extreme
weather by anticipating customers usage will be higher due to hotter days and 20% is
reasonable to capture that.
Landon added that 20% is common in the utility industry.
The member suggested that there may be a way to build a trend line to associate a one degree
increase in temperature to a certain increase in demand but recognized that might not be
feasible considering the analysis may be intensive, especially on a case-by-case basis.
Irrigation Peak Rewards
A member commented that they support the 9pm option, saying it is a big workload for
irrigators to manage when they must do the work manually.
1:30 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Always informative and I appreciate all the work you have done. I like meeting in person
because the networking is good when we can meet in person, but it was still a great meeting.
Thank you.
Thanks for the presentations today. Sounds like we are going to get some filings heading our
way.
Thanks to the team. I know it is a lot of work to put together and I appreciate what you all do.
We will stay tuned for the next steps.
I look forward to these meetings as they are informative. It is encouraging to see that you are
addressing the workforce shortage among the auditors, and I would be interested to see what
Page 9

Idaho Power Company
route you go towards with the HERS rating. Encouraging to see small business incentives being
addressed as well. Thank you.
Echoing gratitude. This is a high functioning group, and these regular meetings are helpful.
Curious to see what comes across with all these proposed changes I think they would represent
many meaningful changes to these programs for participation and cost effectiveness. Curious
what the numbers will look like in about a year or so, and the filings. You are taking some good
steps and I'm looking forward to seeing where they go.
I do appreciate these meetings I look forward to continuing to participate.
Quentin advised the group that they are invited to attend the Integrated Resource Plan
Advisory Subcommittee meeting on August 29th, at 9:00 AM. He explained that it will be
focused on how energy efficiency and demand response will be analyzed and looked at in the
IRP. He mentioned that the EE potential study that Landon presented in May is almost
complete and will be utilized in the IRP.
Connie commented that the discussion today was fruitful, and everyone's engagement is
appreciated.
Quentin thanked the group for their time and efforts to help with our programs and adding
their input is needed and valued. We want to try to integrate your input into our programs to
make them better.
1:45 P.M. Meeting Adjourned

Idaho Power Company EEAG November 2024 Meeting
Idaho Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Meeting
November 14, 2024
Present
Connie Aschenbrenner— Idaho Power Matt Fuxon —Charlies Produce
Jason Talford — Idaho Public Utilities Quentin Nesbitt— Idaho Power
Commission Steve Hubble—City of Boise Public Works
Ken Robinette—South Central Community Don Strickler—J.R. Simplot Company
Action Partnership
Not Present
Taylor Thomas— Idaho Public Utilities Christian Douglas— NW Power &
Commission Conservation Council
Emily Her—Office of Energy and Mineral Sidney Erwin — Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Resources Association
Guest & Presenters*
Andee Morton — Idaho Power Landon Barber* — Idaho Power
Annie Meyer— Idaho Power Laura Conilogue — Idaho Public Utilities
Becky Arte Howell — Idaho Power Commission
Billie McWinn* — Idaho Power Mary Alice Taylor— Idaho Power
Ben Hemson — Idaho Power Matt O'Conner— Idaho Power
Callie Freeman — Idaho Power Melissa Thom — Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen* — Idaho Power Michelle Toney— Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli— Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen — Idaho Power
Chris Pollow— Idaho Power Nathan Black— Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz— Idaho Power Nicholas Ackerman — Idaho Power
Jeff Rigby— Idaho Power Ray Short— Idaho Power
Jordyn Neerdaels— Idaho Power Shelley Martin — Idaho Power
Julie Rosandick— Idaho Power Sheree Willhite— Idaho Power
Katie O'Neil —City of Boise Todd Greenwell — Idaho Power
Note Takers: Michelle Toney with Callie Freeman
Meeting Facilitator: Quentin Nesbitt

Idaho Power Company EEAG November 2024 Meeting
9:30 A.M. Welcome & Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin introduced a new EEAG member representing the commercial sector, Matt Fuxon with
Charlies Produce in Boise, and announced Alexa Bouvier with the Office of Energy and Mineral
Resources and Brad Heusinkveld with the Idaho Conservation League have taken other roles
and will no longer serve on EEAG. He added that the company is working with the Northwest
Energy Coalition to identify a new member.
Connie mentioned the company received a positive order from the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission (IPUC) finding the 2023 Demand-Side Management (DSM) expenditures as
prudently incurred. She also mentioned that the company had filed a request with the IPUC for
approval to continue to fund Idaho Power's participation in the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA).
Discussion
One member asked about the timing of the prudence order. Quentin answered that the
company files annually in March of every year and that the filing includes the prior year's
expenditures and activities. He added we typically receive an order back from the IPUC
sometime between October and December.
9:40 A.M. 2024 YTD Financials & Savings—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the year-to-date (YTD) 2024 Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand Response
(DR) financials, savings, and expenses. He then reviewed overall expenses by category and
sector and previewed the 2025 evaluation plan.
Discussion
One member asked about the difference between Rider versus Non-Rider funds. Quentin
answered that the Rider is a line item on customer's bills that funds energy efficiency activities,
and we use it as a balancing account with regards to program related expenses, including
administration and incentives. It is not a set budget, but if there is overspending, we ask the
Commission to increase the amount of the rider. If the account balance is larger than what will
be spent, the company will ask the Commission for approval to decrease the Rider. Non-Rider
funds are for labor and limited other expenditures.
Another member asked about the energy efficiency services line item on the bill and if a
percentage is based on usage. Connie responded that the line item is based on the total dollar
amount. The larger kWh user would have a larger dollar amount.
One member asked about the DR programs being evaluated every year compared to the others
that are evaluated around every three years. Quentin answered that the DR programs results
need to be reviewed each year to determine the program savings. Typically, the savings for the
EE programs are determined from each project or incentive that is paid and savings are totaled
up for the year. Then those savings are evaluated by a third party about every three years. He

Idaho Power Company EEAG November 2024 Meeting
added the DR programs are analyzed internally every year than a third party evaluates them
approximately every three years.
A member pointed out that there is a missing checkbox on the slide for the 2025 DR impact
evaluation. Quentin clarified the company does plan to do an evaluation in 2025.
9:54 A.M. Cost Effectiveness—Landon Barber
Landon presented a refresher on cost-effectiveness. He reminded everyone what cost-
effectiveness is and gave examples. He then highlighted the 2024 preview and the 2023 IRP
impacts. Landon discussed the program assumptions, the IRP avoided cost changes, and the
anticipated changes impacting 2024.
Discussion
One member asked about lifestyle factors, such as how many people are living in a home, and
whether those are considered when determining savings from a measure, like when converting
from an electric water heater to a heat pump water heater. Landon answered that those types
of things are included in the average savings provided for a given measure by the Regional
Technical Forum (RTF). He added that there are complexities in how the savings are calculated
and the savings are sourced from the RTF. He added that it is difficult to account for behavioral
differences in savings.
Another member asked about the company's participation goals. Landon answered that the
company's targets are based on meeting savings that are identified through our Potential Study
and used as part of our Integrated Resource planning process.
10:25 A.M. — Break
10:35 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented on program year-over-year performance, the A/C Cool Credit (ACCC) 2024
results, progress on the new Bring-Your-Own-Thermostat option, the Home Energy Report 2025
expansion and residential marketing efforts and updates.
Discussion
Home Energy Reports
One member asked about the weather component Billie referred to when sharing the year-
over-year savings differences for the Home Energy Reports. Billie answered that there is higher
savings potential during more extreme weather conditions, which can lead to an increase in
average home savings during those times, such as during really hot summer months and really
cold winter months.

Idaho Power Company EEAG November 2024 Meeting
Smart Thermostats
One member asked about the drop in smart thermostat participation. Billie said the drop in
participation occurred notably when the incentive level was reduced from $75 to $50, but it is
leveling out now, so current levels may be our new normal going forward.
One member asked about the timing requirements to apply for the incentive. Todd answered
that there is no deadline to apply because the criteria is just that energy efficiency was part of
the decision to purchase the Smart Thermostat.
ACCC
One member asked about the 65% cycling being dispatched on the day it was 97 degrees. Billie
answered that that day was forecasted to be hotter but there was unexpected cloud cover
midway through the event that decreased the overall temperatures.
Another member asked if customers receive advanced notification of the events. Billie
answered that residential participants receive no notifications regarding events.
One member then asked about opting out. Billie responded that customers can opt out before
or during events, however most people do not even know there is an event because there is
not much temperature change, so they rarely opt-out as the event is happening.
Another member asked about having more opt-outs when there's a 65% cycling day. Billie
added that while she didn't have the number of opt-outs from that day off-hand, we typically
experience higher opt-out rates when cycling is higher. It is unknown, on that particular day,
whether there were more opt-outs considering the cloud cover that reduced overall
temperatures midway through the event.
The member then asked if there would have been higher reductions if those customers did not
opt-out. Billie replied yes. Quentin added that when a customer opts out, most of the time they
are not just opting out for the day but opting out of the program permanently.
The member then asked about the marketing for ACCC and whether the company targets
specific groups. Billie answered that the company has the capability for targeted marketing and
that for the Bring-your-own-thermostat (BYOT) option, the vendors will target those who have
the Smart Thermostat.
One member asked about the penalty for opting out. Billie answered that we do not plan on
having an opt-out penalty.
Another member gave support to the diversification of the programs and stated how innovative
the technology is. The member appreciates the opportunity for demand response in the winter.
One member asked if the two incentives (the rebate for the Smart Thermostat and an incentive
for ACCC program participation) create 'double dipping.' The member is looking forward to
future winter DR opportunities. The member then commented on the erosion of the switch
option and whether the market potential would bring in a higher volume of participation. The
member added that there is an opportunity for retro-active marketing for rebates that have
already been sent. Billie agreed that is a good idea and stated the company has the list of
4

Idaho Power Company EEAG November 2024 Meeting
customers that received smart thermostat incentives. Quentin responded to the 'double
dipping' comment, stating that the Heating & Cooling Efficiency smart thermostat incentive is
based on the value of the energy savings, while the ACCC incentive is based on the value of the
demand reduction, so there is no double counting of the value.
Another member asked if the reduction for switch participants and the reduction for smart
thermostat participants could be combined for a total reduction of 2.4 kW. Billie answered that
a customer either participates using the switch option with the potential of 1.4 kW or through
the smart thermostat option with the potential of 1 kW.
The member asked if there is data on the temperature reduction within the home and if it is
different for every customer. Billie answered that it varies by home and that the company does
not collect that data.
The member then asked about the vendor costs. Billie answered that all costs, including vendor
costs, are included in the cost-effectiveness calculation. The member then commented that
there could be an opportunity to get new participants. Billie said the plan is to file the contracts
and tariffs with a target to launch the program in time for the 2025 season.
One member asked about the drop in the benefit value ($/kW) for demand response in 2024.
Quentin answered that it is an avoided cost number like what Landon presented for energy
efficiency, but from a capacity perspective.
Home Energy Report (HER)
One member asked about the HER opt-outs. Billie answered that Idaho Power's program has a
very low opt-out rate compared to other utility programs.
Marketing
One member asked whether the company would be receptive to a third party offering to offset
the costs of Home Energy Audits for homeowners. Billie answered that the company is always
open to exploring opportunities but added that it can be complicated as we always strive to
make our offerings consistent to all customers across the service area.
Another member asked about the software used for Home Energy Audits. Becky answered that
SnuggPro is the software that is used.
Another member commented on the great work the company does in South Central Idaho. The
member specifically mentioned recent community involvement activities the company
participated in.
11:29 A.M. Commercial, Industrial, Irrigation & Demand Response
Programs—Chellie Jensen
Chellie presented on the overall and individual program results of the Commercial, Industrial
and Irrigation programs through quarter 3 of 2024, the 2024 preliminary program results for

Idaho Power Company EEAG November 2024 Meeting
the Irrigation Peak Rewards and Flex Peak program, program proposed changes for Irrigation
Menu, Irrigation Custom, and Industrial Custom projects.
Discussion
Flex Peak
One member asked about which types of customers are successful in the program. Chellie
answered that various types of customers can be successful in the program and offered a
couple examples of customers that are good candidates such as cold storage facilities,
customers that have control systems for their HVAC, or customers with equipment that can be
turned off during the event time. She added that the BYOT program that is being explored
might be a good option for small businesses.
Irrigation Efficiency
One member asked about the proposed custom incentive of$.30 kWh savings and $540 per kW
savings. Chellie answered that the incentive pays for the larger of the two between the kWh
savings and the KW reduction and caps at 10% of the cost for new irrigation projects and 75%
of the cost for retrofit projects.
Retrofits
One member asked about the outreach strategy. Chellie answered that the company has
general marketing for all the programs and customer trainings. For lighting the company holds
trainings for customers and contractors and relies on the trade ally network. For non-lighting,
the company has customer trainings, technical trainings and Energy Advisors connect with our
customers. Additionally, we have broad information going out to all business customers such as
the Energy@Work newsletter.
Retrofits Midstream
One member asked about the potential outreach to residential. Quentin answered that there is
no midstream incentive for the residential sector. Billie added that there are midstream efforts,
but no incentives.
Another member asked about hiring new people for this or training current employees that are
already involved in the program. Chellie answered that the company would train current
employees.
One member asked about incentivizing vendors and contractors. Chellie answered that the
company has implemented marketing incentives for lighting projects and there are trainings
contractors have been invited to so they can learn more about the programs and support our
customers. Additionally, the customers can elect for the incentives to go directly to a vendor or
contractor.
Custom
One member asked about there being 40% more projects but 30% less savings and if that
means that customers are spending less money and therefore the program is seeing smaller
6

Idaho Power Company EEAG November 2024 Meeting
projects. Chellie answered that the data on the graph is for projects that have been paid, and
the variability of size and quantity of custom projects are expected from year to year.
Customers have expressed concern about spending dollars in today's economy and there are
still lingering supply chain problems post COVID.
12:00 P.M. — Lunch
1:00 P.M. NEEA—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented an overview of NEEA and explained what they do. He provided background
information, explained the NEEA model, and NEEA's goals of market transformation. Quentin
showed the energy savings NEEA had delivered and overall cost from 1997-2023, and the next
funding cycle high level initiatives.
Discussion
One member asked about the slide showing New York having a NEEA type organization doing
"beyond energy efficiency." Quentin answered that the organization is focused on
electrification and decarbonization, not energy efficiency.
NEEAs Delivery
One member asked about the differences between measures versus codes and standards.
Quentin answered that the code and standard work NEEA does is to influence the adoption of a
state or federal code or standard. A measure an energy efficiency product or service where the
goal is to increase the market adoption.
Current Status
One member asked about other utilities within Idaho and if they are participating in NEEA at
the same dollar value as Idaho Power. Quentin answered that Avista participates, and Rocky
Mountain Power opted out in the mid-2000s. He added that the dollar amount that participants
pay into NEEA is based each member utilities retail sales as a percentage of total retail sales of
all members, highlighting that BPA is the largest funder and Idaho Power is the fourth largest.
1:30 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
These are much more engaging in person.
I appreciate being part of this. It is definitely a learning curve. I'll do some offline work to get up
to speed on the industry in general.
Great information today. There is a lot of work that goes into these meetings and I appreciate
that.

Idaho Power Company EEAG November 2024 Meeting
Thanks for having us. We enjoyed it as always. We have a lot of new staff in our facilities on the
operational side of things. These program presentations are always a good reminder for us to
get some follow up and just make sure we are capitalizing on incentives and demand response
to the extent that we can. The lunch and logistics have always been super smooth, thank you.
Connie commented that she appreciates the comments and questions, and it helps us to tailor
the meeting and presentations. Connie said she also appreciates the engagement EEAG
members have in the community.
Quentin commented that he appreciates everyone's input and that it is helpful in developing
and implementing the programs, and it is appreciated and helps the programs be more
successful.
I enjoy these meetings and appreciate all the work that Idaho Power puts into these
presentations, developing and then implementing the programs. I do prefer in person as well,
but I also appreciate the opportunity to participate remotely as I had a couple of conflicts
today. Being remote helped me participate where maybe I wouldn't have been able to. Thank
you for that.
I really appreciate these meetings as they are helpful. Especially when we're reading through all
the cases. It is good to know what is going on and what you're thinking the programs are
needing. I appreciate you giving us all the information and keeping us updated.
1:45 P.M. Meeting Adjourned

Idaho Power OEEAG November 2024 Meeting Notes
Oregon Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Meeting
November 21, 2024
Present (in Person) Present (Virtual)
Connie Aschenbrenner— Idaho Power Amanda Welch —Oregon Department of
Brent Stanger—Grant 4D Farms Energy
Quentin Nesbitt— Idaho Power Benedikt Springer—Oregon Public Utilities
Judge Dan Joyce— Malheur County Commission
Commissioner Dan Elliot—Oregon Housing & Community
Lindsay Grosvenor—Oregon Food Bank Services
Southeast Oregon Services Joe Hayes— Community Connection of NE
Oregon, Inc
Not Present
Mark Clagett—Ashgrove Cement
Stephan Crow—Salon Salon and Spa
Guest & Presenters*
Andee Morton — Idaho Power Mary Alice Taylor— Idaho Power
Annie Meyer— Idaho Power Matt O'Conner— Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell — Idaho Power Melissa Thom* — Idaho Power
Ben Hemson — Idaho Power Michelle Toney— Idaho Power
Billie McWinn* — Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen — Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen* — Idaho Power Nathan Black— Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli — Idaho Power Nick Sayen —Oregon Public Utilities
Chris Pollow— Idaho Power Commission
Dahl Bietz— Idaho Power Nicholas Ackerman — Idaho Power
Jeff Rigby— Idaho Power Ray Short— Idaho Power
Jordyn Neerdaels— Idaho Power Shelley Martin — Idaho Power
Julie Rosandick— Idaho Power Sheree Willhite— Idaho Power
Landon Barber— Idaho Power Todd Greenwell — Idaho Power
Note Taker Michelle Toney
Meeting Facilitator Quentin Nesbitt

Idaho Power OEEAG November 2024 Meeting Notes
10:03 A.M. Welcome & Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin started the meeting with introductions from the Oregon Energy Efficiency Advisory
Group (OEEAG) members. This was a hybrid meeting both in person and virtual via TEAMS.
10:26 A.M. Benefits of Energy Efficiency and Demand Response—
Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided an overview of Idaho Power's service area and discussed why the company
works on energy efficiency (EE) with our customers and the purpose of demand response (DR).
He then discussed the benefits of both.
Discussion
There were no questions or comments.
10:34 A.M. Oregon Governance—Connie Aschenbrenner
Connie provided an overview of the state regulatory compacts, which included a brief overview
of the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) and what the OPUC regulates. She discussed
what the company's tariff is, how the company requests changes with the OPUC, and the
structure under which the OPUC makes decisions. Connie then presented how Demand Side
Management (DSM) programs are funded and discussed certain OPUC guidelines related to
cost-effectiveness.
Discussion
One member inquired about the date Les Perkins started working for the OPUC.
Connie answered that Les Perkins joined the OPUC in January 2024.
10:47 A.M. Program Lifecycle—Billie McWinn
Billie described the lifecycle stages of energy efficiency and demand response programs, and
provided education on program cost-effectiveness (CE), including the three main CE tests, and
then provided details on the primary CE test in Oregon, the Total Resource Cost (TRC). Billie
2

Idaho Power OEEAG November 2024 Meeting Notes
described the company's transparency in reporting, which included an overview of the DSM
Annual Report.
Discussion
Reporting
One member asked about when the report is filed. Billie answered that the reports are filed
annually: April in Oregon and March in Idaho.
11:10 A.M. — Break
11:17 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented on the residential programs in Oregon and discussed the programs that are
coming soon. She described the differences between the types of DSM programs, which include
incentives, giveaways, services, behavioral, and demand response programs. She discussed
customer participation in each jurisdiction, savings, offerings, and qualifications for each
residential program. Billie explained what the measures are and went over the incentive
structure under each program.
Discussion
Home Energy Report (HER)
One member asked about Oregon not been included in the HERS. Billie answered that the HER
program started as a pilot in Idaho. She explained that in 2020, the company explored adding
Oregon customers but because the vendor required at least 25K customers to create a valid
sized treatment and control group, and there were only 14K Idaho Power residential customers
in Oregon, it was determined by the vendor that Oregon customers could not be added to the
program. The company now has a new vendor with the capability to include Oregon customers
by creating one new treatment group that includes both Idaho and Oregon customers.
Another member asked if the program is still a pilot program. Billie said the pilot ended in 2020
and was expanded into a regular program at that time.

Idaho Power OEEAG November 2024 Meeting Notes
A/C Cool Credit (ACCC) & Heating and Cooling (H&C)
One member asked about the lower participation showing for the Heating & Cooling Efficiency
Program. Billie answered that the decline in participation can be mainly attributed to a couple
measures. She explained how customer participation in the smart thermostats measure
declined when the incentive was reduced from $75 to $50 last year to keep the measure cost-
effective. Even though smart thermostats are not huge savers compared to the other measures,
because of the volume of participation in that measure compared to the other measures, it did
have an impact on the overall decline in savings. She added that participation in the electric
forced-air furnace to air source heat pump incentive is also down because air source heat
pumps are a high-dollar item and are often financed, so the company speculates that a
combination of high loan interest rates and high inflation costs could be contributing to the
decline.
Another member asked if there were any issues with customers participating in both the energy
efficiency smart thermostat program to receive the incentive and the bill credit for the demand
response bring-your-own-thermostat (BYOT) program. Billie answered that having both
incentives is a great opportunity to market smart thermostats because you are still receiving
the energy efficiency benefits that are incented through H&C as well as the demand reduction
that is incented thru ACCC. The company sees it as an opportunity to potentially boost
participation for the smart thermostat energy efficiency incentive by marketing them both
together.
Another member commented on how the drop in smart thermostat participation could be
because the early adopters already participated and therefore participation could be leveling
out and stabilizing as the market transforms. Billie replied that the company has considered
that as a contributing factor to the decline.
11:45 P.M. — Lunch
12:30 A.M. Commercial, Industrial, Irrigation & Demand Response
Programs—Chellie Jensen
Chellie presented an overview of the Commercial, Industrial, and Irrigation Energy Efficiency
and Demand Response Programs. She discussed each program in detail including each of the
program measures, incentives, savings, offerings, qualifications, and proposed changes.
4

Idaho Power OEEAG November 2024 Meeting Notes
Discussion
Retrofits - Lighting
One member inquired about the lighting measure incentive and asked how the incentive is
calculated. Chellie answered that, if customer replaces a 100-Watt HID lamp with a 20-Watt
LED lamp the incentive for the new lamp is based on the watt reduction multiplied by the
incentive level listed. The incentive measures in the table that are based on kWh saved
calculate the wattage reduction converted to kilowatts, and then multiplied by the operating
hours to calculate the total kWh saved. The result of this calculation is then multiplied by the
incentive level listed to calculate the total incentive for each item. The Lighting tool
automatically calculates the incentives, and the lighting contractors are trained on how to use
the tool.
Retrofits- non-lighting
HVAC
One member had a positive comment on the savings for the motors on fans for potato and
onion storage sheds. The member stated that adding variable speed drives is phenomenal and
the product quality in storage is increased.
Building Shell
One member asked about the incentive for building shell measures and how it is calculated.
Chellie answered that the incentive is paid on a per unit basis.
Custom Case Study
One member asked about the incremental cost and savings and what does it mean. Chellie
answered that the company looks at the cost and energy that a standard measure uses as
compared to the lower energy and higher cost of the energy efficiency option. She added that
the difference in energy is the incremental energy savings and the difference in cost is the
incremental cost.
Flex Peak
One member asked about the counties in the Oregon service area where the MW savings are
found for Flex Peak. Quentin answered that the company serves customers in Malheur, Baker,
and Harney counties.
5

Idaho Power OEEAG November 2024 Meeting Notes
Irrigation
Menu
One member asked about the proposed changes in Menu, and if those changes are effective in
Idaho and Oregon, and when is the effective date compared to when the product is purchased
and installed. Chellie answered that if approved by the OPUC as filed, the new incentive rates
will apply January 1, 2025. Customers who purchase and install the equipment after that 2025
effective date have one year, from the invoice date, to submit the application and invoices as
proof of payment.
Irrigation Custom
One member asked about how the incentives and the savings are determined for a new
irrigation system. Chellie answered that the savings are calculated based on incremental
savings as compared to the industry standard baseline. She added that eligible cost is based on
10% of the total project cost.
Green Motors
One member commented that in their operation they rewind motors above 30 HP.
Peak Rewards
One member asked if the variable incentive payment is paid out after the 4t" event under the
current program. Chellie answered that the company currently pays the variable incentive after
the 4t" event.
1:42 P.M. Marketing—Melissa Thom
Melissa introduced the Corporate Communications team and where they are located. She
presented on the marketing mission, the approach to market energy efficiency, tactics, and
support for each sector. Melissa then showed two residential energy efficiency commercials,
irrigation printed and emailed ads, and residential and irrigation newsletters highlighting the
company's Agricultural Representatives.

Idaho Power OEEAG November 2024 Meeting Notes
Discussion
One member added a positive comment about the commercials and asked about how much
money was spent on them. Billie said she would have Melissa connect with the member to
share more details.
Melissa shared to the group about one commercial receiving a 2nd place award in an ESource
contest that received over 100 entries for Energy Efficiency and Demand Response
commercials.
One member commented about a character in a previous energy efficiency ad and that the
name was tied directly to the company and liked the connection to energy. The member added
that the ads Idaho Power produces really work.
2:45 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Quentin advised that there will be two of these meetings per year. He welcomed comments
and feedback, specifically on whether the company should continue to do an in-person
meeting, a hybrid option, or meet solely virtual.
Thank you for the meeting, it was great, and I appreciate the time. I prefer virtual as I don't live
in Oregon, but I might have some staff that could attend. I want our presence to be here, and I
know it's easier and more helpful to interact when you are in person. I had some great
takeaways, and we will be reaching out for more information. We are trying to have good
communication with the company's agricultural representatives and work more with irrigation
consumers, but it has been difficult to reach our rural customers. In the eastern part of the
state, we are interested in talking about generating leads based on your experiences. I
appreciated the overview on the Oregon Governance. I'm still new to Oregon, and I am looking
forward to working with you.
I do appreciate the training and the education on the programs that are offered. It is nice to see
how the programs have been received and how they are working. I always prefer to meet in
person, but there are a lot of members not here. Maybe the virtual meetings are better. It is
obvious that some people have scheduling and travel conflicts.
I thank the company for presenting the information specific to Oregon. It makes it easier to
follow. We will participate virtually.

Idaho Power OEEAG November 2024 Meeting Notes
It was informative, and it created a baseline of understanding about where the programs are at
and what elements you have achieved as a utility. The marketing was great to end on. I
appreciate the time and the effort and money that was put together by the team went into this
meeting. I look forward to the next meeting and we will roll up our sleeves and help in any way
possible on what you want to focus on. I appreciate the opportunity and I look forward to
seeing you at the next meeting.
I would echo what the other members had said. I had no idea the depth of the efforts being
made to educate the community on energy efficiency. Very impressive efforts and I was glad to
be a part of it. Thank you. While I would prefer to meet in person, staffing resource constraints
make it challenging to attend and for now I can only commit to virtual meetings.
I appreciate the information that was shared today. I learned a lot and I am looking forward to
new opportunities to provide additional input. I prefer in person meetings, but I am open to
either option. I understand other members have travel constraints.
Quentin said future meetings will be like this one, and we will continue to report on how
programs are doing and highlighting areas where we are making decisions and where we need
feedback.
Connie added that it was nice to get to meet those who I haven't met yet and to see some
familiar faces. We look forward to future discussions and value your input. Thank you for
agreeing to participate.
3:05 P.M. Meeting Adjourned

Supplement 2: Evaluation
NEEA MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS
Study
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Manager
2023 Review of Key Assumptions for Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Commercial Cadmus NEEA
BetterBricks Commercial Building Decision Maker Study Commercial ETHNO Insights NEEA
Codes Market Progress Evaluation Report#5 Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Codes Market Progress Evaluation Report#5 Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Cold Climate Demonstration Installation&Water Heater Installer Focus Residential ILLUME Advising NEEA
Group Research
Consumer Product Manufacturer&Retailer Sustainability Goal Residential Apex Analytics NEEA
Literature Review
Energy-Efficient Technology in Cold Weather—Bridger View On-Site Residential 1G Research&Evaluation NEEA
Research
Fan Systems Market Characterization Commercial DNV Energy Insights NEEA
Heat Pump Water Heaters in Multifamily New Construction:Design Residential Larson Energy Research, NEEA
Charrette Findings Ecotope,Cyclops
High-Performance Residential Windows Market Share Study Residential Ducker Carlisle NEEA
Home Energy Raters Market Research Residential TRC Companies NEEA
Idaho Residential Code Compliance Evaluation Residential Industrial Economics NEEA
Incorporated
Idaho Residential Code Compliance Evaluation Residential Resource Refocus NEEA
Idaho,Montana,and Oregon Residential Energy Code Savings Analysis Residential and Ecotope NEEA
Commercial
Independent Assessment of NEEA Approaches to Estimating Influence Residential and NMR Group NEEA
Over State Energy Codes Commercial
Independent Assessment of NEEA Approaches to Estimating Influence Residential and NMR Group NEEA
Over State Energy Codes Commercial
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls:Market Sizing for Exterior Parking Lot Commercial Cadeo Group NEEA
Applications
NEEA 2025 Operations Plan Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Non-Weatherized and Mobile Home Gas Furnaces Standard Evaluation Residential Michaels Energy NEEA
Non-Weatherized and Mobile Home Gas Furnaces Standard Evaluation Residential Michaels Energy NEEA
Q1 2024 Codes,Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q1 2024 Codes,Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q1 2024 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q1 2024 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q1 2024 Market Progress Report Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q1 2024 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q1 2024 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q1 2024 Quarterly Report Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 53

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Study
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Manager
Q2 2024 Codes,Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q2 2024 Codes,Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q2 2024 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q2 2024 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q2 2024 Market Progress Report Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q2 2024 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q2 2024 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q2 2024 Quarterly Report Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q3 2024 Codes,Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q3 2024 Codes,Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q3 2024 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q3 2024 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q3 2024 Market Progress Report Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q3 2024 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q3 2024 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q4 2023 Codes,Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q4 2023 Codes,Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q4 2023 Market Progress Report Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q4 2023 Quarterly Report Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q4 2024 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q4 2024 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q4 2024 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q4 2024 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Refrigerator Policy and Test Procedures:Rationale and Benefits for a Residential Energy Efficient Strategies NEEA
Move Towards IEC
Water Heater Flexible Load Conformance White Paper Residential Portland State University NEEA
Water Heater Flexible Load Conformance White Paper Residential Portland State University NEEA
Titles appearing in blue are links to the online versions of the reports.A PDF of this supplement can be found at
idahopower.com/ways-to-save/energy-efficiency-program-reports/.
Page 54 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Supplement 2: Evaluation
INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB
Analysis Study Study/Evaluation
Report Title Sector Performed By Manager Type
2024 Task 1: Foundational Services— Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and
Summary of Projects Education
2024 Task 2: Lunch and Learn—Summary of Commercial IDL Idaho Power Training and
Effort and Outcomes Education
2024 Task 3: BSUG—Summary of Effort Commercial IDL Idaho Power Training and
and Outcomes Education
2024 Task 5: Energy Resource Library— Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and
Summary of Effort and Outcomes Education
2024 Task 7: Fan Savings from UV Lamps Commercial IDL Idaho Power Research
2024 Task 7: Passive Window Design Commercial IDL Idaho Power Research
2024 Task 8:Compressed Air Leak,CFM to DB Commercial IDL Idaho Power Research
Correlation,Experimental Lab Test
2024 Task 8: Digital Design Tools—Summary Commercial IDL Idaho Power Research
of Effort and Outcomes
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 55

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 56 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

INTEGRATED I DESIGN LAB
2024 TASK 1 : FOUNDATIONAL SERVICES
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IIJAHU ruwtrc Exi t:RNAL Y tHR-END
REPORT
December 31, 2024
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Author:
Damon Woods
Report Number: 2022_001-01
IQAW
POMR,.,
An IDACORP Company

This page left intentionally blank.
ii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E. Front St., Suite 360, Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl
ML Director:
Damon Woods
Author:
Damon Woods
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
IPC KIT # 8112
Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2024). 2024
TASK 1: Foundational Services— Summary of Projects
(2024_001-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
iii

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

This page left intentionally blank.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1
3. Appendix — Project Reports .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ACRONYMS . •
AIA American Institute of Architects
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
DOAS Dedicated Outdoor Air System
EMS Energy Management System
EUI Energy Use Intensity [kBtu/ft2/yr]
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
IR Infrared
LED Light Emitting Diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
RTU Rooftop Unit
UI University of Idaho
UVGI Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
VAV Variable Air Volume
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow
vi

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 1
2024 Task 1: Foundational Services-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2022_001-01)
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) provided technical design
assistance in 2024 for energy efficiency building projects through the Foundational
Services task. This program, supported by Idaho Power (IPC), offered three phases of
assistance from which customers could choose. A marketing flyer shown in Figure 1
outlines the three phases. Phase I includes projects with budgets less than $2,000,
Phase II is limited to projects from $2,000 to $4,000, and Phase III is any project with a
budget greater than $4,000.
t
$2000- S4000
Prolert intake and rMdl.&_ -owtw'Mrw and anetysls Ind ank*v and simulah
P< walk IhMeh and rep— Ikrailed wark lhrogo and rft IXWai ed r.01 asase.-rxe
COeNml—V a 15 gdlrl Y , BdSK IRiWrNlOndafgn5 a/x11F(lo'C , - (1Pfalkd IerellNrlr4lf}]YgrkS aM 1
1Bp01Nn191da11d15
+'hare I • i ,_
Must sralmrt a'—pk._m of-0 Cost shore rentract math Ia en detalled
to Idaho P_k lervlew 40w 1 Noe of work
week for apptwal 25%cw—ed Oy—,
-75%cw melee try IPc
i
Figure 1: Foundational Services Flyer Outlining Phases
Information on the Foundational Services program was provided at each Lunch
and Learn and BSUG presentation. Advertising for the program was also offered over
the course of the year to local government officials, developers, and the architects and
engineers who interacted with IDL.
2. PROJECT SUMMARY7'
The IDL worked on over 20 Foundational Service projects in 2024. Projects
ranged from commercial to municipal and the IDL worked with both architecture and
engineering firms within Idaho Power Service territory. Most project intake came

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 2
2024 Task 1: Foundational Services-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2022_001-01)
through a phone call or email to the IDL. A tab is also available on the IDL website for
people to submit requests for technical support through the foundational services
program.
Projects consisted of email responses, personal trainings, technical reports, and
memos. The IDL also conducted two outreach presentations through the Foundational
Services Program, one to the Architecture Institute of America annual Idaho conference
on the economics of energy efficiency and one presentation to the Energy Efficiency
Advisory Group on IDL programs. In total, there were 16 Phase I projects, four Phase II
projects, and zero Phase III projects. The full list of projects is shown in Table 1 below.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 3
2024 Task 1: Foundational Services-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2022_001-01)
Table 1: Summary of 2024 Foundational Services Projects
Projects Client Contacts Phase Retro/New Ft2 Location Type
Energy Code Questions Architect/Consultant Consultant 1 New N/A Boise Commercial
Openstudio Intern Training Idaho EngineeringMech. Engineer 1 New N/A Boise Commercial
Firm
Air Pear Fans IPC IPC Engineer 2 New 17,000 Boise Arena
EEAG Presentation IPC IPC Engineer 1 N/A N/A Idaho Outreach
Idaho School Energy Efficiency Idaho Engineering
Mech. Engineer 1 New N/A Idaho Education
Resources Firm
Idaho School Energy Efficiency Govt.Agency Official 1 Retro N/A Idaho Education
Resources
Idaho School Energy Efficiency Energy Consultant Consultant 1 Retro N/A Idaho Education
Resources
Economics of Efficiency Lecture AIA Architect 1 New N/A Idaho Outreach
Poolhouse efficiency Association Assoc. 1 Retro 3,000 Boise Community
Representative
Building Baseload Government Agency Program 1 Retro 16,000 Ketchum Civic
Manager
Electrochromic glass Architect IPC Relations 2 New 300,000 Meridian Retail
QAQC Savings IPC IPC Engineer 1 New 230,000 Boise Healthcare
Daylighting Design in Idaho and PNW Architects Architect 1 New N/A Pocatello Commercial
IAQ energy use visualization Researcher Researcher 1 Retro N/A Idaho Education

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 4
2024 Task 1: Foundational Services-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2022_001-01)
Load sizing methods Idaho Architecture Architect 1 New 1,000 Boise Commercial
Firm
Uneven cooling and heating at Idaho School Michelle 1 Retro 25,800 Nampa Education
School Gonzalez
Whole Building Efficiency Program Program
NEEA Manager
1 Retro N/A Idaho Commercial
Query ger
Building Standard Template for RFPs Government Agency Program 2 New N/A Boise Defense
Manager
Energy Audit Training Consulting Company Consultant 2 Retro 71,770 Caldwell Education
Other:thermal bridging support- H4H,
Cove Tool support+ module,, ASHRAE
1 Air Filter Design, Incentive assistance,
ERLTour

INTEGRATED
DESIGN LAB
Universityof Idaho
2024 TASK 2: LUNCH AND LEARN
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 17, 2024
Prepared for.
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Report Number: 2024_002-01
POMR®
An IDACORP Company

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by.,
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E Front Street, Suite #360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl
lDL Director.,
Damon Woods
Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Prepared for.-
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number.•
IPC KIT #8112
Please cite this report as follows-Agnes, D., (2024). 2024 TASK
2: Lunch and Learn - Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2024_002-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
iii

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

This page left intentionally blank.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 2024 Summary and Cumulative Analysis................................................................................9
2. Session Summaries.................................................................................................................14
2.1 Session 1: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (03/19/2024).....................................14
2.2 Session 2: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
(03/20/2024)..........................................................................................................................14
2.3 Session 3: The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling (04/03/2024)............15
2.4 Session 4: The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling (04/11/2024)............15
2.5 Session 5: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (04/23/2024).....................................16
2.6 Session 6: High Performance Classrooms (04/30/2024).............................................16
2.7 Session 7: High Performance Classrooms (05/08/2024).............................................17
2.8 Session 8: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (05/09/2024)........................................18
2.9 Session 9: The Future of Lighting Controls (08/20/2024)............................................18
2.10 Session 10: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (08/22/2024)................................19
2.11 Session 11: Thermal Energy Storage Systems (08/27/2024)....................................19
2.12 Session 12: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Networking and Mapping to an
Environment (09/05/2024)....................................................................................................20
2.13 Session 13: High Performance Classrooms (09/11/2024) ........................................21
2.14 Session 14: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (09/25/2024)................................21
2.15 Session 15: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
(09/26/2024)..........................................................................................................................22
2.16 Session 16: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
(10/09/2024)..........................................................................................................................22
2.17 Session 17: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
(10/10/2024)..........................................................................................................................23
2.18 Session 18: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy efficiency
(11/06/2024)..........................................................................................................................24
2.19 Session 19: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
(12/09/2024)..........................................................................................................................24
2.20 Session 20: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
(12/12/2024)..........................................................................................................................25
3. Future Work..............................................................................................................................26
4. Appendices...............................................................................................................................27
vi

4.1.1 Session 1: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (03/19/2024)..............................27
4.1.2 Session 2: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
(03/20/2024) ......................................................................................................................28
4.1.3 Session 3: The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling(04/03/2024).....29
4.1.4 Session 4: The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling(04/11/2024).....31
4.1.5 Session 5: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (04/23/2024)..............................32
4.1.6 Session 6: High Performance Classrooms (04/30/2024)......................................33
4.1.7 Session 7: High Performance Classrooms (05/08/2024)......................................34
4.1.8 Session 8: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (05/09/2024).................................35
4.1.9 Session 9: The Future of Lighting Controls (08/20/2024).....................................36
4.1.10 Session 10: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (08/22/2024).........................37
4.1.11 Session 11: Thermal Energy Storage Systems (08/27/2024).............................38
4.1.12 Session 12: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Networking and Mapping to an
Environment (09/05/2024)................................................................................................39
4.1.13 Session 13: High Performance Classrooms (09/11/2024).................................41
4.1.14 Session 14: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (09/25/2024).........................42
4.1.15 Session 15: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
(09/26/2024) ......................................................................................................................43
4.1.16 Session 16: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
(10/09/2024) ......................................................................................................................44
4.1.17 Session 17: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
(10/10/2024) ......................................................................................................................45
4.1.18 Session 18: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
(11/06/2024) ......................................................................................................................46
4.1.19 Session 19: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
(12/09/2024) ......................................................................................................................48
4.1.20 Session 20: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
(12/12/2024) ......................................................................................................................49
vii

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

1. 2024 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Table 1: 2024 Lunch and Learn Summary
Date Title Presenter Group/Location Attendees
1 3/19 Air Infiltration and Passive Systems Damon AF1 5
2 3/20 Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency Dylan EF1 15
3 4/3 The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling Dylan OPEN 6
4 4/11 The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling Dylan AF2 10
5 4/23 Air Infiltration and Passive Systems Damon AF3 12
6 4/30 High Performance Classrooms Damon AF3 8
7 5/8 High Performance Classrooms Damon OPEN 5
8 5/9 Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Dylan AF4 5
9 8/20 The Future of Lighting Controls Dylan AF5 15
10 8/22 Air Infiltration and Passive Systems Damon AF6 6
11 8/27 Thermal Energy Storage Systems Damon EF2 11
12 9/5 Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Networking and Mapping to an Dylan OPEN 3
Environment
13 9/11 High Performance Classrooms Damon AF6 7
14 9/25 Air Infiltration and Passive Systems Damon AF7 4
15 9/26 Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency Dylan AF1 4
16 10/9 Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency Farnaz AF5 16
17 10/10 Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency Farnaz EF3 22
18 11/6 Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency Farnaz AF7 4
19 12/9 Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency Dylan AF8 18
20 12/12 Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency Farnaz EF1 12
Total Attendees 188
9

Table 1 on the previous page summarizes all Lunch and Learn presentations given in 2024. The statistics in this
section are cumulative for the 20 presentations. At each presentation participants were asked to sign in and fill out an
evaluation form. Presentations were judged on a scale of 1 to 5, (see table 2). All lunch and learn presentations given in 2024
were in-person presentations with the option of having online attendance when possible.
Table 2: Evaluation Form Scale
Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5
In general,today's presentation was: Not Useful Somewhat Useful Very Useful
The content of the presentation was: Too Basic About Right Too Advanced
Please rate the following parts of the presentation:
Organization,Clarity, Opportunity for Questions, Instructor's Knowledge Needs Improvement Good Excellent
of Subject Matter,and Delivery of Presentation
Table 3: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 108 Electrician: 0
Engineer: 15 Contractor: 0
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other: 32
Elec. Engineer: 0 None Specified: 44
Total (In-Person): 174
Total (Online): 14
10

Profession of Attendee Breakdown
-999Aq
None Specified
22%
Arch
54%
..............................
.............................
............................
.............................
........................................................
...........................
...........................
...........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
.........................
.........................
Engineer
Mechanical 7%
Engineer
1%
Figure 1:Attendee Profession
11

Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4
Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency 16 22 4 12
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Networking and Mapping to an Environment 3
Thermal Energy Storage Systems 11
The Future of Lighting Controls 15
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
High Performance Classrooms
The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency 4
Air Infiltration and Passive Systems 12 6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Figure 2:Attendee Count by Title and Number per Session
12

*1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful **1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced ***1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
■*In general,today's presentation was: ■***Rate organization: ■***Rate clarity: ■***Rate opportunity for questions: ■***Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: ■***Rate delivery of presentation: ■**The content of the presentation was:
5.00 —
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Air Infiltration Daylighting The Architects The Architects Air Infiltration High High Luminaire Level The Future of Air Infiltration Thermal Energy Luminaire Level High Air Infiltration Daylighting Envelope and Envelope and Envelope and Daylighting Envelope and
and Passive Multipliers Business Case Business Case and Passive Performance Performance Lighting Lighting and Passive Storage Lighting Performance and Passive Multipliers Window Design Window Design Window Design Multipliers Window Design
Systems Increasing for Energy for Energy Systems Classrooms Classrooms Controls Controls Systems Systems Controls Classrooms Systems Increasing for Enhanced for Enhanced for Enhanced Increasing for Enhanced
Daylight Modeling Modeling Networking and Daylight Energy Energy Energy Daylight Energy
Harvesting Mapping to an Harvesting Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Harvesting Efficiency
Efficiency Environment Efficiency Efficiency
Figure 3:Average Evaluations by Session Title
4
5.00 4.50 .51
4.59 4.73 4.86 4.59
4.00 ,
3.39
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
*In general,today's ***Rate organization: ***Rate clarity: ***Rate opportunity for ***Rate instructor's ***Rate delivery of **The content of the
presentation was: questions: knowledge of the subject presentation: presentation was:
matter:
Figure 4:Overall Averages of Evaluations for all Sessions
13

2. SESSION SUMMARIES
After each lunch and learn session, an evaluation form was handed out to participants. The
feedback will be used to improve future sessions. The feedback received from participants is generally
constructive criticism used to keep sessions updated but also to propose future potential topics and
questions to the Integrated Design Lab.
2.1 SESSION 1: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (03/19/2024)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 03/19/24
Location: AF1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 5
*Other included: Climate specialist, Urban designer.
2.2 SESSION 2: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS INCREASING DAYLIGHT HARVESTING EFFICIENCY (03/20/2024)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
Description:This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the efficiency of
daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building,such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and material specification.
Furthermore,we will explore the rate of return,the ranges of efficiency, and appropriate uses between daylighting strategies
and multipliers.
Presentation Info:
14

Date: 03/20/24
Location: EF1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 11 Electrician:
Engineer: 3 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-person): 8
Total (Online): 7
*Other included: Property manager.
2.3 SESSION 3: THE ARCHITECTS BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (04/03/2024)
Title:The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are
performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the
output.A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy
systems within a building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective, providing
a business case for more active involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/03/24
Location: OPEN - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 6
*Other included: Consultant, Project manager.
2.4 SESSION 4: THE ARCHITECTS BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (04/11/2024)
Title:The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are
performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the
output.A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy
15

systems within a building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective, providing
a business case for more active involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/11/24
Location: AF2 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 8 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 2
Total (In-Person): 10
2.5 SESSION 5: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (04/23/2024)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/23/24
Location: AF3 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 10 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 2
Total (In-Person): 12
2.6 SESSION 6: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (04/30/2024)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
16

Description:Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten years and at
least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand.This session will cover a variety of
issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom environment.A quick look at the state of the last 50
years of school design will give an introduction to the problems faced by designers.This session will highlight several case
studies of high performance schools in the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical
systems. Each passive strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/30/24
Location: AF3- Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 8
Total (In-Person): 8
2.7 SESSION 7: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (05/08/2024)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description:Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten years and at
least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand.This session will cover a variety of
issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom environment.A quick look at the state of the last 50
years of school design will give an introduction to the problems faced by designers.This session will highlight several case
studies of high performance schools in the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical
systems. Each passive strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/08/24
Location: OPEN-Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 3
Total (In-Person): 5
17

2.8 SESSION 8: LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS (OS/09/2024)
Title: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
Description: LLLCs have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled remotely or on a case-
by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or illumination levels without replacing the
fixtures. In conventional lighting systems, lighting zones are defined as a collective unit and thus are centrally controlled. LLLCs
however, incorporate sensors into each fixture,such as occupancy, daylight,temperature or receive/broadcast signals. Each
fixture has the potential to become a semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to small changes in the area under
each fixture. Furthermore, individual fixtures can communicate with other fixtures, using wireless or infrared signals,to share
data for an even greater potential to increase energy savings and user satisfaction.Some LLLCs can be connected by gateway
to transfer information collected.This data is analyzed, usually through the manufacturer's software,to provide a user
interface different from a typical text editor. From there users are able to identify trends in occupancy and lighting energy
consumption that can then be used to refine the building schedules for occupancy and lighting and, if applicable,for the
buildings' HVAC schedule programming.
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/09/24
Location: AF4 - Meridian, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 5
2.9 SESSION 9: THE FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (08/20/2024)
Title:The Future of Lighting Controls
Description:Although LEDs have shown,they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower lighting power
density is not the only area of value when considering lighting.We can further increase savings from these highly efficient
lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to create an evolving feedback loop that seeks
peak system operation.While LLLC's(Luminaire Level Lighting Control) use this feature,they still use the same infrastructure
as the lighting and control system that have come before it,which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and
integration to other building systems.We believe the internet of things(IoT)will change the lighting and controls industry,
providing an excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform.Why?Where there are people,there are lights;
where there are people,there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls provide a means to
deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.
18

Presentation Info:
Date: 08/20/23
Location: AF5 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 11 Electrician:
Engineer: 4 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 15
2.10 SESSION 10: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (08/22/2024)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 08/22/24
Location: AF6 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 7
*Other included: Project manager(x2)
2.11 SESSION 11: THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (08/27/2024)
Title:Thermal Energy Storage Systems
19

Description:Thermal Energy Storage Systems(TES)are gaining popularity as a way to mitigate peak energy use.This lecture
will explore the use of things like ice-storage and ponds to minimize chiller and boiler use.This technology can be paired with
ground-source heat pumps, radiant systems, and natural ventilation. Idaho typically has large temperature swings between the
high and low temperatures(sometimes up to 30 F),which makes our state especially suited to shifting when heating and
cooling equipment should operate. By understanding more about TES, engineers and architects alike can design unique
configurations that can increase efficiency and enhance resiliency in their buildings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 08/27/24
Location: EF2 - Nampa, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 10
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 11
*Other included: Business development, Estimator, Design manager(x2), Electrical division,
Program manager(x2), Senior designer, Project coordinator, Designer.
2.12 SESSION 12: LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS NETWORKING AND MAPPING TO AN ENVIRONMENT
(09/05/2024)
Title: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Networking and Mapping to an Environment
Description: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be
controlled remotely or on a case-by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or illumination
levels without replacing the fixtures. In conventional lighting systems, lighting zones are defined as a collective unit and thus
are centrally controlled. Each fixture has the potential to become a semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to
small changes in the area under each fixture.While new technologies are often exciting and useful there can be some growing
pains or a learning curve to become `comfortable' using the new technology.The following scenarios are the two most common
encounters I have had in the field working on lighting system. I have Luminaire Level Lighting Controls installed in my building,
but I don't know how to connect to the software. • The lighting system was commissioned for a standard lighting controls and
programming and therefore as a result we can't fully utilize the lighting system.This can also cause issues with the user
interface which often frustrates building occupants when they interact with the lighting controls.This lecture will go in-depth to
lighting control strategies, maximizing settings for energy efficiency,working with Information Technology personnel, and lastly
mapping lights to your environment.
Presentation Info:
Date: 09/05/24
Location: OPEN - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
20

Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 3
2.13 SESSION 13: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (09/11/2024)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description:Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten years and at
least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand.This session will cover a variety of
issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom environment.A quick look at the state of the last 50
years of school design will give an introduction to the problems faced by designers.This session will highlight several case
studies of high performance schools in the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical
systems. Each passive strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
Presentation Info:
Date: 09/11/24
Location: AF6 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 7 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 7
2.14 SESSION 14: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (09/25/2024)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
21

Presentation Info:
Date: 09/25/24
Location: AF7 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 4
*Other included: Interior designer.
2.15 SESSION 15: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS INCREASING DAYLIGHT HARVESTING EFFICIENCY (09/26/2024)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
Description:This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the efficiency of
daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building,such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and material specification.
Furthermore,we will explore the rate of return,the ranges of efficiency, and appropriate uses between daylighting strategies
and multipliers.
Presentation Info:
Date: 09/26/24
Location: AF1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 4 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 4
2.16 SESSION 16: ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY (10/09/2024)
Title: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Description: Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves
into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will
gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of
22

orientation,shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the
window glazing properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance(VT), and emittance.
Special emphasis is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this
session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/09/24
Location: AF5 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Farnaz Nazari
Attendance:
Architect: 14 Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 16
2.17 SESSION 17: ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY (10/10/2024)
Title: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Description: Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves
into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will
gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of
orientation,shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the
window glazing properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance(VT), and emittance.
Special emphasis is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this
session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/10/24
Location: EF3 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Farnaz Nazari
Attendance:
Architect: 15 Electrician:
Engineer: 3 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 4
Total (In-Person): 22
23

2.18 SESSION 18: ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY (11/06/2024)
Title: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Description: Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves
into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will
gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of
orientation,shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the
window glazing properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance(VT), and emittance.
Special emphasis is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this
session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/06/24
Location: AF7 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Farnaz Nazari
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 4
*Other included: Interior designer.
2.19 SESSION 19: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS INCREASING DAYLIGHT HARVESTING EFFICIENCY (12/09/2024)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
Description:This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the efficiency of
daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building,such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and material specification.
Furthermore,we will explore the rate of return,the ranges of efficiency, and appropriate uses between daylighting strategies
and multipliers.
Presentation Info:
Date: 12/09/24
Location: AF8 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
24

Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 18
Total (In-Person): 18
2.20 SESSION 20: ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY (12/12/2024)
Title: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Description: Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves
into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will
gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of
orientation,shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the
window glazing properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance(VT), and emittance.
Special emphasis is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this
session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
Presentation Info:
Date: 12/12/24
Location: EF1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Farnaz Nazari
Attendance:
Architect: 4 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 6
Total (In-Person): 5
Total (Online): 7
*Others included: Project manager(x2)
25

3. FUTURE WORK
Feedback was gathered from the 103 Lunch and Learn evaluations received throughout 2024.The comments from
these were valuable in defining possible future Lunch and Learn topics.The IDL will propose new topics for lectures based on
this feedback for 2024.
26

4. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SESSION SUMMARIES
At the conclusion of each lunch and learn session, an evaluation form was requested from each participant.The
feedback will be used to improve future sessions. Below are summaries of session information, attendance counts, and the
feedback received from the evaluation forms. It should be noted that comments recorded from evaluations have not been
edited in most cases, many appear exactly how the participant entered them online or how they were interpreted for
translation from hand-written forms.
4.1.1 SESSION 1: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (0 311 912 0 2 4)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 03/19/24
Location: AF1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 5
*Other included: Climate specialist, Urban designer
27

Scale
Evaluations:
In general,today's presentation was: 4.4 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.3 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Show techniques and examples (imagery)of air barrier/sealing components.
• More explanation on units/how measured.
• Pictured of the tools/equipment/vents described.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Tailored to our most common bldg.type/client.
• Research findings purification methods comparison to energy consumption. I'd like to see more detail on those
findings.
• Code updates, predictions, descriptions of ventilation sources and pros/cons of a building that breathes.
• Action items, air infiltration strategies.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA, NCARB
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Renewable energy options.
• Building rules of thumb for occupancy types,strategy specific.
4.1.2 SESSION 2: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS INCREASING DAYLIGHT HARVESTING EFFICIENCY (0 312 012 0 2 4)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
Description:This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the efficiency of
daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building,such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and material specification.
Furthermore,we will explore the rate of return,the ranges of efficiency, and appropriate uses between daylighting strategies
and multipliers.
Presentation Info:
Date: 03/20/24
Location: EF1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
28

Attendance:
Architect: 11 Electrician:
Engineer: 3 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 8
Total (Online): 7
*Other included: Project manager.
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.7 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.4 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• None,very knowledgeable and useful information,thank you!
• 1 have no suggestions.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Everything but you lost me with certain equations.
• Everything was valuable!The daylighting part was a great refresher from college + addition from
what I learned in the past.
• Not all sunlight is the same.
• Thorough explanation of the different daylighting factors.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• NCARB
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Best practices for interior design/lighting.
• High efficiency HVAC options.
4.1.3 SESSION 3: THE ARCHITECTS BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (0 410 312 0 2 4)
Title:The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are
performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the
output.A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy
29

systems within a building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective, providing
a business case for more active involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/03/24
Location: OPEN - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 6
*Other included: Consultant, Project manager.
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.3 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.8 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Too quiet to hear(I am hard of hearing).
What attendees found most valuable:
• The number of software and support available.
• A little over my head for what we do.
• Process of energy modeling as it relates to design process, available resources.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• ASHRAE,AIA(x2), USGBC
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Daylight and lighting.
• Detailed information on thermal mass property analysis.
30

4.1.4 SESSION 4: THE ARCHITECTS BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (0 411 112 0 2 4)
Title:The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are
performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the
output.A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy
systems within a building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective, providing
a business case for more active involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/11/24
Location: AF2 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 8 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 2
Total (In-Person): 10
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 5.0 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 4.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• More space for questions/conversations.
• There is a lot of content to go through, a lot of lists, maybe more examples instead of explanation text.
What attendees found most valuable:
• The breadth of information as formation of energy modeling.
• Dylan's knowledge!Able to answer any questions in depth. Clear visuals.
• Everything else!
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• No comments were made for this section.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
31

• How to begin conversation with clients.
4.1.5 SESSION 5: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (0 412 312 0 2 4)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/23/24
Location: AF3 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 10 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 12
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.7 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.6 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• More data towards commercial side.Very thoughtful research for the residential side.
• None very well presented.
• He was great.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Hard data from research and relationships to code requirements. Data on indoor air quality.
32

• The online tools and books.
• Discussion on energy usage.
• Resources mentioned, challenge of socially accepted idea.
• Where power gets used.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• NCARB,AIA
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Comcheck evaluations.
• Detailing for air infiltration and energy efficiency.
4.1.6 SESSION 6: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (0 413 012 0 2 4)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description:Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten years and at
least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand.This session will cover a variety of
issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom environment.A quick look at the state of the last 50
years of school design will give an introduction to the problems faced by designers.This session will highlight several case
studies of high performance schools in the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical
systems. Each passive strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/30/24
Location: AF3-Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 8
Total (In-Person): 8
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.7 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.6 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
33

Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made for this section.
What attendees found most valuable:
• How to get good systems in schools.
• Examples from local studies, relatable to Idaho, CO2 levels in classrooms, covid and ventilation,
propublica, house bill 521.
• Results of learning affected by poorly managed HVAC systems.
• Lots of local and Idaho examples.
• Data +websites.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• ULI Idaho, Boise Metro Chamber, NCARB.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Daylight in classrooms, offices, and industrial.
• Bring the tools.
• Always applicable and informative topics from IDL.
4.1.7 SESSION 7: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (0510812024)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description:Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten years and at
least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand.This session will cover a variety of
issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom environment.A quick look at the state of the last 50
years of school design will give an introduction to the problems faced by designers.This session will highlight several case
studies of high performance schools in the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical
systems. Each passive strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/08/24
Location: OPEN-Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 3
Total (In-Person): 5
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 5.0 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
34

Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made for this section.
What attendees found most valuable:
• CO2 discussion, envelope.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• ASHRAE (x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made for this section.
4.1.8 SESSION 8: LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS (0510912024)
Title: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
Description: LLLCs have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled remotely or on a case-
by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or illumination levels without replacing the
fixtures. In conventional lighting systems, lighting zones are defined as a collective unit and thus are centrally controlled. LLLCs
however, incorporate sensors into each fixture,such as occupancy, daylight,temperature or receive/broadcast signals. Each
fixture has the potential to become a semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to small changes in the area under
each fixture. Furthermore, individual fixtures can communicate with other fixtures, using wireless or infrared signals,to share
data for an even greater potential to increase energy savings and user satisfaction.Some LLLCs can be connected by gateway
to transfer information collected.This data is analyzed, usually through the manufacturer's software,to provide a user
interface different from a typical text editor. From there users are able to identify trends in occupancy and lighting energy
consumption that can then be used to refine the building schedules for occupancy and lighting and, if applicable,for the
buildings' HVAC schedule programming.
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/09/24
Location: AF4 - Meridian, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
35

Total (In-Person): 5
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.5 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.5 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Real life examples are extremely helpful.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA,A4LE, NCARB (x2).
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.
4.1.9 SESSION 9: THE FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (0812012024)
Title:The Future of Lighting Controls
Description:Although LEDs have shown,they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower lighting power
density is not the only area of value when considering lighting.We can further increase savings from these highly efficient
lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to create an evolving feedback loop that seeks
peak system operation.While LLLC's(Luminaire Level Lighting Control) use this feature,they still use the same infrastructure
as the lighting and control system that have come before it,which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and
integration to other building systems.We believe the internet of things(IoT)will change the lighting and controls industry,
providing an excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform.Why?Where there are people,there are lights;
where there are people,there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls provide a means to
deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 08/20/24
Location: AF5 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 11 Electrician:
Engineer: 4 Contractor:
36

Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 15
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.7 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Suggest additional research on the term demand response.
• Additional in depth project examples with plans or network views.
What attendees found most valuable:
• PoE discussion.
• Progress and future option or trends for integrated systems.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• NCARB.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Programming lighting controls+systems, modeling of actual fixtures to calibrate layouts, and building smart grids
4.1.10 SESSION 10: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (0812212024)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 08/22/24
Location: AF6 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
37

Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 7
*Other included: Project manager(x2).
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.7 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.8 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Great informative presentation.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Information on resources available to us.
• The hard data.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA, NCARB.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.
4.1.11 SESSION 11: THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (0812712024)
Title:Thermal Energy Storage Systems
Description:Thermal Energy Storage Systems(TES)are gaining popularity as a way to mitigate peak energy use.This lecture
will explore the use of things like ice-storage and ponds to minimize chiller and boiler use.This technology can be paired with
ground-source heat pumps, radiant systems, and natural ventilation. Idaho typically has large temperature swings between the
high and low temperatures(sometimes up to 30 F),which makes our state especially suited to shifting when heating and
cooling equipment should operate. By understanding more about TES, engineers and architects alike can design unique
configurations that can increase efficiency and enhance resiliency in their buildings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 08/27/24
Location: EF2 - Nampa, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
38

Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 10
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 11
*Other included: Business development, Estimator, Design manager(x2), Electrical division,
Program manager(x2),Senior designer, Project coordinator, Designer.
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.5 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.6 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Leave us with documentation or brochure.
• Nothing, greatjob!
• Great knowledge on subject.
• Great presentation,thank you!
What attendees found most valuable:
• All the programs available.
• Design options, advice to stay simple and not over-engineer.
• Revit plug-in availability.
• The graphs and charts were very helpful.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA(x2), LEED, NCARB, PPM, CIDQ
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Idaho renewable energy options and incentives/rebates.
4.1.12 SESSION 12: LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS NETWORKING AND MAPPING TO AN ENVIRONMENT
(0910512024)
Title: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Networking and Mapping to an Environment
39

Description: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be
controlled remotely or on a case-by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or illumination
levels without replacing the fixtures. In conventional lighting systems, lighting zones are defined as a collective unit and thus
are centrally controlled. Each fixture has the potential to become a semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to
small changes in the area under each fixture.While new technologies are often exciting and useful there can be some growing
pains or a learning curve to become `comfortable' using the new technology.The following scenarios are the two most common
encounters I have had in the field working on lighting system. I have Luminaire Level Lighting Controls installed in my building,
but I don't know how to connect to the software. • The lighting system was commissioned for a standard lighting controls and
programming and therefore as a result we can't fully utilize the lighting system.This can also cause issues with the user
interface which often frustrates building occupants when they interact with the lighting controls.This lecture will go in-depth to
lighting control strategies, maximizing settings for energy efficiency,working with Information Technology personnel,and lastly
mapping lights to your environment.
Presentation Info:
Date: 09/05/24
Location: OPEN - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 5
Evaluations:No evaluations were filled out. Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 0.0 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 0.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• No comments were made.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
40

• No comments were made.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.
4.1.13 SESSION 13: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (0 911 112 0 2 4)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description:Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten years and at
least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand.This session will cover a variety of
issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom environment.A quick look at the state of the last 50
years of school design will give an introduction to the problems faced by designers.This session will highlight several case
studies of high performance schools in the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation,and integration of mechanical
systems. Each passive strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
Presentation Info:
Date: 09/11/24
Location: AF6 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 7 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 7
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 5.0 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 4.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Include a more details explanation on the table in all of the charts.
• N/A
What attendees found most valuable:
41

• The data and specific numerical values associates with the research.
• Information on resources available to us and willing to share them.
• Code changes.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA, NCARB(x2), LEED, CIARB
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Geothermal
4.1.14 SESSION 14: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (0912512024)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 09/25/24
Location: AF7 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 4
*Other included: Interior designer
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 5.0 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
42

Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Overall learning about airtightness.
• Resources and libraries that are available.
• Really great at tuning to level of the attendees not to technical but just right.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA(x2), NCARB, USGBC, IIDA
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.
4.1.15 SESSION 15: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS INCREASING DAYLIGHT HARVESTING EFFICIENCY (0912612024)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
Description:This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the efficiency of
daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building,such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and material specification.
Furthermore,we will explore the rate of return,the ranges of efficiency, and appropriate uses between daylighting strategies
and multipliers.
Presentation info:
Date: 09/26/24
Location: AF1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 4 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 4
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.3 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.5 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
43

Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• 1 think the acronym slides were too technical.
• Great implementation strategy graphics.
What attendees found most valuable:
• The spatial lighting diagrams plus daylight pattern guide.
• Design ideas for increasing daylight in spaces.
• Resources available, software recommendations.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA(x2), NCARB.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Renewables.
4.1.16 SESSION 16: ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY (1010912024)
Title: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Description: Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves
into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will
gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of
orientation,shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the
window glazing properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance(VT), and emittance.
Special emphasis is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this
session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
Presentation info:
Date: 10/09/24
Location: AF5 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Farnaz Nazari
Attendance:
Architect: 14 Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 16
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 3.8 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 3.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
44

Rate opportunity for questions: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Some text was too small.Topics slightly too basic for audience. More real world examples would
help drive home point.
• Thank you!
• More project specific examples/actual example of projects.Show which building footprint is more
efficient under detailed parametrics for examples.
• Maybe the software will answer, but it would be nice to get more into what numbers are
representing glass values to shoot for.
• Additional time on variety of footprints.
• Visuals that correspond to test results of the right map and results of the building
mapping/orientation would be helpful.
What attendees found most valuable:
• The illustrations and charts were very helpful to understand the topics, presenter was very
knowledgeable on all topics.
• Descriptions of the make-up of glass.
• The information about the difference in energy usage between different variables.
• Software to use.
• Value of building shape.
• Clarity on the basis of windows for buildings.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA(x3), NCARB(x3),ASHRAE
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Envelope study.
• Daylight design.
4.1.17 SESSION 17: ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY (1011012024)
Title: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Description: Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves
into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will
gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of
orientation,shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the
window glazing properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance(VT), and emittance.
Special emphasis is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this
session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/10/24
45

Location: EF3 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Farnaz Nazari
Attendance:
Architect: 15 Electrician:
Engineer: 3 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 4
Total (In-Person): 22
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.3 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 3.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 2.6 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Voice projection.
• Could speak louder or use a microphone.
What attendees found most valuable:
• No comments were made.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• No comments were made.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.
4.1.18 SESSION 18: ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY (1 110 612 0 2 4)
Title: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Description: Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves
into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will
gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of
orientation,shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the
window glazing properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance(VT), and emittance.
Special emphasis is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
46

understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this
session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/06/24
Location: AF7 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Farnaz Nazari
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 4
*Other included: Interior designer.
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.0 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.3 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Maybe align diagrams w/specifics(window positions, outside 2, in diagram 1).
What attendees found most valuable:
• Building shape is important.
• Glass and L.E. energy simulation, building orientation energy simulations.
• Lots of info on windows what was great!
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA(x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made.
47

4.1.19 SESSION 19: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS INCREASING DAYLIGHT HARVESTING EFFICIENCY (1 210 912 0 2 4)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
Description:This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the efficiency of
daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building,such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and material specification.
Furthermore,we will explore the rate of return,the ranges of efficiency, and appropriate uses between daylighting strategies
and multipliers.
Presentation Info:
Date: 12/09/24
Location: AF8 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 18
Total (In-Person): 18
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.1 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.5 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Rather than go over so many topics isolate and focus on few topics in depth.
• More lower level (less scientific explanation) of material.
• Presentation was great.Visuals were helpful. Presenter is well knowledge on topic.
• More interaction.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Resources to find info.
• Visuals + charts were great.The examples also helped further explain.
• Examples+work-through equations, etc.
• Quick tips+visualization easy to remember slides guides/ideas.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
48

• IIDA(x2), USGBC, NCARB,AIA(x4)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Radiant design.
• Passive heating and cooling.
4.1.20 SESSION 20: ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY (1 211 212 0 2 4)
Title: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Description: Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves
into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will
gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of
orientation,shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the
window glazing properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance(VT), and emittance.
Special emphasis is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this
session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
Presentation Info:
Date: 12/12/23
Location: EF1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Farnaz Nazari
Attendance:
Architect: 4 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 6
Total (In-Person): 5
Total (Online): 7
*Other included: Project manager(x2)
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.0 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 3.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 3.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 3.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
49

Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Give a brief description of programs mentions(openstudio, rhino, etc.)
• Nope.
• Had connection issues which slowed down but could focus more on how these principles impact
design in + out.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Getting a better understanding of glazing parameters and their impacts to a building.
• How building geometry affects energy efficiency.
• The low-e location was very helpful +the parametric design part of the building configuration was
very interesting and something that wasn't brought up in school.
• Low e and specifying windows based on climate/project goals.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA, NCARB
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• How to use software to perform energy analysis.
• Daylighting best practice.
50

APPENDIX B: LUNCH AND LEARN 2024 TOPICS OFFERED
Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency(Topic 2402)
Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads, this lecture
delves into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact
effectively. Participants will gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing
energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of orientation, shading, thermal properties, and building
shape considerations. Additionally, the lecture offers insights into the window glazing properties such as
U-factor, Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC), Visible Transmittance (VT), and emittance. Special emphasis
is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and
constructors, this session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's
pivotal role in energy efficiency.
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Networking and Mapping to an Environment(Topic 2407)
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to
be controlled remotely or on a case-by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming
criteria or illumination levels without replacing the fixtures. In conventional lighting systems, lighting zones
are defined as a collective unit and thus are centrally controlled. Each fixture has the potential to become
a semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to small changes in the area under each fixture.
While new technologies are often exciting and useful there can be some growing pains or a learning curve
to become `comfortable' using the new technology. The following scenarios are the two most common
encounters I have had in the field working on lighting system. I have Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
installed in my building, but I don't know how to connect to the software. The lighting system was
commissioned for a standard lighting controls and programming and therefore as a result we can't fully
utilize the lighting system. This can also cause issues with the user interface which often frustrates
building occupants when they interact with the lighting controls. This lecture will go in-depth to lighting
control strategies, maximizing settings for energy efficiency, working with Information Technology
personnel, and lastly mapping lights to your environment.
High Performance Classrooms (Topic 2001)
Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten years
and at least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand. This
session will cover a variety of issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom
environment. A quick look at the state over the last 50 years of school design will introduce the problems
faced by designers. This session will highlight several case studies of high-performance schools in the
Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical systems. Each
passive strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
Ultraviolet Germicidal Air Irradiation (Topic 2203)
51

With the arrival of COVID, there has been a surge of interest in Ultra Violet Germicidal Irradiation. During
our research, the IDL found that UV systems can actually save on operational costs by reducing fan
energy. Attendees will learn about the different UV technologies available, the strength needed to kill
pathogens in air streams, and how to minimize the energy used to run these systems. This lecture will
draw from leading researchers such as William Bahnfleth, who chaired ASHRAE's Epidemic Task Force. By
installing UVGI systems in front of cooling coils, these can help prevent microbial growth and ensure
better airflow throughout the building. With building occupants increasingly mindful of airborne
contaminates, it's important for architects and engineers to be aware of these systems and how they can
be integrated into a building.
Thermal Energy Storage Systems (Topic 2202)
Thermal Energy Storage Systems (TES) are gaining popularity as a way to mitigate peak energy use. This
lecture will explore the use of things like ice-storage and ponds to minimize chiller and boiler use. This
technology can be paired with ground-source heat pumps, radiant systems, and natural ventilation. Idaho
typically has large temperature swings between the high and low temperatures (sometimes up to 30 F),
which makes our state especially suited to shifting when heating and cooling equipment should operate.
By understanding more about TES, engineers and architects alike can design unique configurations that
can increase efficiency and enhance resiliency in their buildings.
LED Technology's Impact on Savings and Efficiency(Topic 2201)
We will examine the effect LED technology has had on energy savings, control strategies, and future
implications with continued efficient lighting technology. As lighting technology becomes more efficient it
will adjust codes, incentives from utilities, and energy efficiency standards. More importantly, it will
change the cost benefit analysis regarding lighting, control strategies, and occupant comfort. The LED
revolution for lighting is not done and, in this lecture, we will discuss the current state of LEDs as well as
the direction we are going and what we might find when we arrive.
OPENSTUDIO - PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS TOOL(TOPIC 2002)
This session will cover the parametric analysis tool (PAT) within OpenStudio. PAT removes the need to
hand edit each model to try out different architectural design, energy efficiency measures, or mechanical
systems. Participants will learn the fundamental concepts of measure writing for OpenStudio, simulation
parameters, running a simulation with PAT, and how firms can utilize this feature to inform early design
decisions in regards to building performance.
DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS - INCREASING DAYLIGHT HARVESTING EFFICIENCY(TOPIC 2003)
This session will cover the role that daylighting multipliers play when trying to increase the efficiency of
daylight harvesting in a building through design applications, such as, light shelves, manufactured
glazing, and material specification. Participants will learn about the rate of return and energy efficiency
cost effectiveness for daylighting strategies, building form, location, and multipliers. The class will explain
how the layers of daylighting/electric lighting strategies and control systems and how they add or subtract
to the overall efficiency of the design.
52

FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS(Topic 1901)
Although LEDs have shown, they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower lighting
power density is not the only area of value when considering lighting. We can further increase savings
from these highly efficient lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input
to create an evolving feedback loop that seeks peak system operation. While LLLC's (Luminaire Level
Lighting Control) use this feature, they still use the same infrastructure as the lighting and control system
that have come before it, which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and integration to
other building systems. We believe the internet of things (IoT) will change the lighting and controls
industry, providing an excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform. Why? Where there
are people, there are lights; where there are people, there will also be the need for connectivity. New and
connected lighting controls provide a means to deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy
savings.
THE ARCHITECTS' BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING (TOPIC 1902)
Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models and
simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative
process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will
explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective, providing a business case for
more active involvement in advocation for energy performance modeling.
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (LLLCs) (Topic 1904)
LLLCs have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled remotely or
on a case-by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or illumination
levels without replacing the fixtures. In conventional lighting systems, lighting zones are defined as a
collective unit and thus are centrally controlled. LLLCs however, incorporate sensors into each fixture,
such as occupancy, daylight, temperature or receive/broadcast signals. Each fixture has the potential to
become a semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to small changes in the area under each
fixture. Furthermore, individual fixtures can communicate with other fixtures, using wireless or infrared
signals, to share data for an even greater potential to increase energy savings and user satisfaction.
Some LLLCs can be connected by gateway to transfer information collected. This data is analyzed, usually
through manufacturer's software, to provide a user interface different from a typical text editor. From
there users are able to identify trends in occupancy and lighting energy consumption that can then be
used to refine the building schedules for occupancy and lighting and, if applicable, for the buildings' HVAC
schedule programming.
LEER V4.1 DAYLIGHTING CREDITS(TOPIC 2101)
LEED Daylighting credits are one of the most difficult to achieve and requires an early investment for
validation. However, investigating daylight opportunities for a project will assist in other aspects of energy
efficiency, such as, estimating heating and cooling loads or integrating a building's control systems. As
53

such, any time spent in the early design phase investigating if a project should invest in daylighting is
applicable to facets of energy efficient design that is often required for LEED projects. In this lecture we
will discuss the changes from LEED V4 to V4.1 Daylighting Credits, which options work best for project
types, incorporating early energy/simulation modeling into the design process, and how to run a cost-
benefit analysis to determine if you should invest in daylighting.
ASHRAE STANDARD 209 - ENERGY SIMULATION-AIDED DESIGN (Topic 2102)
Learn about ASHRAE's recommendations for energy simulation aided design. This lecture will cover
methods of integrating modeling into the design process to meet aggressive energy savings targets. Learn
how to implement load-reducing modeling cycles early in the design process. Quantify the energy impact
of design decisions in real time. And, use post-occupancy modeling to enhance building performance.
Whether trying to achieve LEED, tax credits, or efficiency incentives, energy modeling can help improve
the bottom line for both designers and clients.
AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS(Topic 2301)
The best equipment can still run terribly if it's not controlled well - like a sports car in the hands of a
clueless driver. Don't let that happen to your design. Get the latest guidelines on sequences of operation
for common HVAC sequences. Take advantage of Idaho Power's incentives on HVAC energy management
controls. Get a refresher proper start-up and shut down sequences for air handling units including VAVs,
rooftop units, and heat pumps. Ensure that controls are in compliance with indoor air quality standards
for ASHRAE 62.1 compliance and COVID mitigation. Participants will learn functional tests they can
perform that can confirm that proper sequences are in place.
54

INTEGRATED
DESIGN LAB
41 Universityof Idaho
2024 TASK 3: BSUG
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY INTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 18, 2024
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
M'F�IDAJ 0
�v Powm,
An IDACORP Company

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E Front Street, Suite #360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu
IDL Director:
Damon Woods
Author:
Farnaz Nazari
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
IPC KIT #8112
Please cite this report as follows: Nazari, F. (2024). 2024 TASK3:
BSUG—Summary of Effort and Outcomes. University of Idaho
Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.

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

This page left intentionally blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS A
Tableof Contents.............................................................................................................................1
1. Acronyms and Abbreviations.......................................................................................................2
2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................3
3. 2024 Summary and Cumulative Analysis.....................................................................................3
2024 Attendance.........................................................................................................................4
2024 Evaluations ......................................................................................................................... 5
4. Session Summaries.......................................................................................................................6
Session 1: Improving the Building Energy Modeling Experience with Open-Source Tools
(05/01/24) ................................................................................................................................... 6
Session 2: Increasing Life Cycle Energy Efficiency of Buildings Existing Tools and Solutions to
Reduce Embodied Energy (06/12/24)......................................................................................... 6
Session 3: Energy Efficient Electric Hydronic Heating Systems (08/21/24)................................ 7
Session 4: Demystifying VRF and How to Estimate Performance with OpenStudio (09/04/24) 8
Session 5: Rhino Grasshopper Training and Introduction to Rhino inside Revit (10/02/24)...... 9
Session 6: Fully Leveraging Your Energy Model -A Field Guide (12/11/24)............................... 9
S. Website Maintenance and Statistics .........................................................................................10
6. Other Activities and Suggestions for Future Improvements .....................................................11
7. Appendices.................................................................................................................................12
Appendix A: BSUG 2024 Evaluations......................................................................................... 12

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 2
1. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AEE Energy Efficiency & Sustainability Experts
Al Artificial Intelligence
AIA American Institute of Architects
App Application
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BEMP Building Energy Modeling Professional
BESF Building Energy Simulation Forum (Energy Trust of Oregon)
BIM Building Information Modeling
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
BSUG Building Simulation Users' Group
Comm Commercial
Elec. Electrical
GBCI Green Business Certification Inc.
HePESC Heat Pump Energy Savings Calculator
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBPSA International Building Performance Simulation Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
ME Mechanical Engineer(ing)
Mech. Mechanical
MEP Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing
NCARB National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
TMY Typical Meteorological Year
UDC Urban Design Center
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow

$ § V A ( \ � � q � � N
\ co / Qj
4) o
o g M
CA
/ � k CA
_ \ 2 / « k 2 ® % q k E
/ / 4 k
� .§ \ o
2 ) E K
2 \ C L % G q / $
en
> M
2 7 / '\ N
\ § 7 0) ~ �
\ $ _ � e e e 2
CL
3 0 >r1iu � � /
/ / / LA E / \ k u
_ v § E 2 '_ � ® u V)
/ ° 0 CO a § « C «
/ § E § § e «
3 _0 e =
's t e (A
cu
/ w c to
aj
/ '> E 2 7 l w 2 %
\ S § ± / w / > ƒ 2 /
° 2 E § u u Ln 2 -
E o \ a. LU >ro / a
Ln
/ k >
\ > $ a B u
4.1 & o E 0
24-1
6 ° J ƒ / E _
[
ƒ $ x 2 2 � o f
x = 9
o \ ) 0 .c � ƒ
2 7 .E m ± \ \ $ 4-1 B \
\ M 7 k / ƒ / \ / J 7 0
0 ® 2 > " u 3 § u 2 ƒ
\ k u 0 ■ / § A / A 2 f : 2 A
§ u � ° k \ ° � \ 2 / \
) u % m CL m 3 2 = I o \ % w
/ / / / m/%) u \ -I-- k} CL
/ \� ° \ ƒ 6 E
co [ •- k ) to
g
2 E± « « k \ e m
� / / 4- bLO% / / \
° / / / / §
m � E LU �
0Ln
2 / c
CD 0 0 0 % q

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 4
2024 Attendance
Number of Attendees ■In-Person ■Online
Fully Leveraging Your Energy Model-A Field Guide 20
Rhino Grasshopper Training and Introduction to Rhino inside
Revit 7 17
Demystifying VRF and How to Estimate Performance with 11
Open Stud io
Energy Efficient Electric Hydronic Heating Systems 11 10
Increasing Life Cycle Energy Efficiency of Buildings Existing 7 28
Tools and Solutions to Reduce Embodied Energy
Improving the Building Energy Modeling Experience with
Open Source Tools 13 32
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 1:Attendee Count by Session and Type
Table 2:Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 20 Electrician: 0
Engineer: 55 Contractor: 0
Mech. Engineer: 23 Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: 0 None Specified: 62
Total (In-Person): 58
Total (Online): 117
Total (Combined): 175
Arch
13%
None Total (In-
Specified Person)
38%
33%
Engineer
34% Tota I
(Online)
67%
Other Mechanical
1% Engineer
14%
Figure 2:Attendee Profession Breakdown Figure 3:Attendee Type Breakdown

@ \
$ U
\ \ 0
�} 5 t §
� � U
� \\ \ (
E / _
2 - 2
k to
0
� a ` � / ,
200� a \ $ _
¥ g E
\ / / \ ) a )
\ g J =
f (3)
2 / ] -
0 � \ \ -E! --C LEu
u ± \ k
§ \ 7 \ \ 0
` = t �
/ w a) } ` � 2 0 /_
# £ ƒ >cc
" ,
� ` «
_ to a) k
> �
f m § k � ° ° / LA/ \ / \ - , \
§ ® _0 ± / \ /
2 c
& $ g
} / 7 � � \ j { � ƒ k
g { 2 y m m
\ � CU
) <
txo
\ \ \ ■
\ a s / F § _ k
: \ m © % -
> 3 ƒ LL a
6 [ .
j \ \ / / \
® { _: 3 ) %
\ f o : \ Ono
§
77 � m J5 \ \ §
w \ \ \ ) } \
- o0V) -
( - fE } j
2 / ra / LU
b
\ g { / \
} U &\ � J
» / \ \
ra
ru
0 / / � \ /
g G \ q % - ®
/ / / ¥ #
2 ° E - _ � ®
k { EC k } (
§ °
E
m _ m � _ = m � m � wo

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 6
4. SESSION SUMMARIES
Session 1: Improving the Building Energy Modeling Experience with Open-Source Tools
(05/01/24)
Title: Improving the Building Energy Modeling Experience with Open Source Tools
Date:05/01/24
Description: Current building energy modeling tools offer unprecedented opportunities for
developing custom workflows and integrations with general-purpose programming languages.However,
these tools can be intimidating to modelers without extensive programming experience.This talk will
explore one modeler's experience integrating programming into building energy modeling practice, and
demystifying the open-source tools and resources to get started expanding your modeling capabilities.
Presenter: Eric Ringold
Attendance:
Architect: 11 Electrician:
Engineer: 13 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 12
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 9
Total (In-Person): 13
Total (Online): 32
*lf'Other'was noted: Energy Modeler, PhD student, Professor.
Session 2: Increasing Life Cycle Energy Efficiency of Buildings Existing Tools and Solutions to
Reduce Embodied Energy (06/12/24)
Title: Increasing Life Cycle Energy Efficiency of Buildings Existing Tools and Solutions to Reduce
Embodied Energy
Date:06/12/24

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 7
Description: To increase life cycle energy-efficiency of buildings,both operational and embodied energy
need to be addressed.Embodied energy presents a huge opportunity forenergy and carbon reduction in
buildings, making it a crucial focus area for impactful interve ntions in increasing building lifecycle energy
efficiency.Duringthis talk,Vaclav Hasik,Program Director at Building Transparency,will share more about
the solutions that provide the data and insights necessaryto enable the level of action needed to reduce
embodied energy and carbon of buildings and reverse climate change. Providing an overview of the
Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator and tallyCAT, Hasik will arm attendees with the insights
needed to leverage these tools, identify carbon reduction opportunities, and drive decarbonization.
Presenter: Vaclav Hasik
Attendance:
Architect: 7 Contractor:
Mech.
Engineer: 8 *Other: 12
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 8
Total (In-
Person): 7
Total (Online): 28
*If'Other'was Energy analyst, PhD student, Principal,VP, Building performance, owner,
noted: Director of facilities, Professor.
Session 3: Energy Efficient Electric Hydronic Heating Systems (08/21/24)
Title: Energy Efficient Electric Hydronic Heating Systems
Date:08/21/24
Description:This presentation delvesinto how hydronicsystems using heat recovery chillers,heat pumps
and chiller/heaters can be designed,piped,optimized and controlled in order to efficiently provide heat.
The following topics will also be covered:
The impact of hot water and outdoor air temperatures

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 8
Methods to simplify system design and operation
The importance of ensuring building operators and facility managers can operate the system as intended
Learn how to enhance energy efficiency,reduce environmental emissions and make the electric hydronic
heating system as simple as possible.
Presenter: Mick Schwedler
Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor: 3
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 5
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 10
Total (In-Person): 11
Total (Online): 10
*lf'Other'was noted: Commissioning professional, HVAC specialist, Energy analyst/modeler.
Session 4: Demystifying VRF and How to Estimate Performance with OpenStudio (09/04/24)
Title: Demystifying VRF and How to Estimate Performance with OpenStudio
Date:09/04/24
Description: Multi-zone heat pump systems, commonly known as Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF), is a
modern HVACsystem frequently used in commercial and multi-family building construction.While these
systems are often praised as a high efficiency solution the mystery of how and why is often hard to
determine. Learn the fundamentals of howVRF systemswork,how different architectural and engineering
design configurations can impact efficiency, and how to go about creating a basic energy model in
OpenStudio to estimate performance.
Presenter: Neil Bulger

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 9
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 18 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 11
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 6
Total (In-Person): 11
Total (Online): 24
*If'Other'was noted: Sales, Estimator, Energy analyst, Project manager.
Session 5: Rhino Grasshopper Training and Introduction to Rhino inside Revit (10/02/24)
Title: Rhino Grasshopper Training and Introduction to Rhino inside Revit
Date: 10/02/24
Description:An introductory course on Grasshopper,the algorithmic modeling plugin for Rhino 3D. Over
one hour,attendees will be exposed to fundamental concepts of parametric design,essential Grasshopper
components, and basic geometric operations. The session includes a brief introduction to
Rhino.Inside.Revit, explaining its function in integrating Rhino and Grasshopper capabilities with Revit.
Presenters:Japhy Walton
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: 3 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 18
Total (In-Person): 7
Total (Online): 17
*lf'Other'was noted: Student
Session 6: Fully Leveraging Your Energy Model - A Field Guide (12/11/24)
Title: Fully Leveraging Your Energy Model-A Field Guide

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 10
Date: 12/11/24
Description: An energy model is neither a Revit button nor a "one-and-done"design activity. Rather,
Energy models allow designers to go beyond aesthetics and see options through the lens of Energy
performance.The speaker identifies four phaseswhere models improve energy Performance and provide
compelling evidence that energy models quantify performance of Ideas that designers are interested in
exploring. The speaker presents a scalable energy Model workflow, and even shares insights where
models payfor themselves,including changes tothe179D energy efficiencytax deduction enabled bythe
Inflation Reduction Act. Leveraging valuable energy models throughout design helps architects achieve
both aesthetic Design goals and ambitious energy performance targets.
Presenter: Amanda Bogner
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 13 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 21
Total (In-Person): 20
Total (Online): 16
*lf'Other'was noted:
5. WEBSITE MAINTENANCE AND STATISTICS
The Google site BSUG 2.0 was retired in 2020 and its content integrated into the new
idlboise.com website. Details about upcoming presentations are posted monthly on the Events
and News pages, which also include links for webinar and in-person registration. Subscribers to
our mailing list receive monthly emails linking directly to these pages and registration sites. If a
session includes a webinar recording,the video is edited, uploaded to our YouTube channel, and
linked through the BSUG 2.0 video archive. Additionally, IDL has developed a blog section within

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 11
the BSUG content, featuring posts on past topics, emerging technologies, and simulation
software workflows. Updates and highlights are also shared regularly on our Linkedln page to
keep our audience engaged.
6. OTHER ACTIVITIES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
A roundtable meeting was held on December 11th, 2024, to gather feedback on this
year's topics and to brainstorm ideas for 2025 lecture themes. Participants were encouraged to
share their thoughts on emerging trends, advancements in simulation tools, and key topics they
would like to see explored in the upcoming year. Below is a summary of the suggested topics and
potential speakers for 2025:
• HAP—Energy Modeling for Non-Coders: An introductory session focusing on how
HAP (Hourly Analysis Program) can be used effectively by professionals without a
programming background.
• Trane TRACE° 3D Plus Software
• ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G —A discussion of the latest updates to ASHRAE 90.1
Appendix G, with a focus on practical applications and energy modeling
strategies.
• URBANopt — Urban Energy Modeling Tool: A session on how the URBANopt
platform can be used for large-scale urban energy modeling and analysis,
highlighting its potential for optimizing city energy use.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 12
• OpenStudio — Introductory Workshop (101) and Latest Updates: A beginner-
friendly workshop for OpenStudio, covering basic concepts and the latest software
updates and features.
• Emissions Analysis and Insights
• Al in Energy Modeling — Emerging Trends and Applications
• Cold Climate Air Source Heat Pump Performance —A session highlighting the
performance of air source heat pumps in cold climates, based on field testing
data and best practices for energy modeling in these conditions.
• Meta Data Center Modeling —Techniques and Case Studies: A session covering
the unique challenges of modeling energy use in data centers, with examples of
successful case studies and innovative approaches.
• Geothermal Development and Ground Heat Transfer Modeling—A discussion on
geothermal energy development, including techniques for modeling ground heat
transfer and the latest advancements in geothermal systems.
7. APPENDICES
Appendix A: BSUG 2024 Evaluations
Summaries of evaluations for each of the six sessions are provided below. Please note
that comments typically collected during evaluations are unavailable due to restrictions imposed
by the Zoom platform.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 13
Session 1 (05/01/24): Improving the Building Energy Modeling Experience with OpenSource
Tools
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/01/2024
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: Eric Ringold — NREL
Attendance:
Architect: 11 Electrician:
Engineer: 13 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 12
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 9
Total (In-Person): 13
Total (Online): 32
*lf'Other'was noted: Energy modeler, PhD student, Professor.
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.0 1 Not Useful -5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.1 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too
Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• 1 would have been interested in a demo
• Start with a few examples of workflows that have been improved to draw the audience in,
before exploring the nitty gritty behind it.
• demo?
• Understand audience's level of understanding prior to preparing content. Content was quite
in the weeds and tough to relate to our goals&processes.
• Make the content a little more applicable to those who have never used this kind of software
before.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Good to see alternate approaches to BEM and improved workflow
• Examples
• Greatjob sharing different techniques you have used.Reallyshowed the breadth of what you
can do with coding and OS SDK.
• 1 really like the demonstrations of improved workflows.The dome and real-time visualizations
were great.
• great overview

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 14
• gave detailed overview of what's possible with open studio
• Showing real world examples of uses of the building modeling software and showing how he
has specifically used it in the past.
• Understanding how BEM models are created and techniques for making them more efficient
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• ASHRAE(x5), GBCI, IBPSA (x2), CIBSE,AEE, NCARB, USGBC(x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• IA and BEM
• More pragmatic basics/tutorial on using open space studio - hands on with participants.
• Ways to decade information given by building software. Staying organized while using BMS.
(Data+data output).
• OpenStudio SDK Bootcamp.
• Energy modeling for non-coders. how to implement in professional setting/CD unknown,
integration with Autodesk software sune.
Session 2 (06/12/24): Increasing Life Cycle Energy Efficiency of Buildings Existing Tools and
Solutions to Reduce Embodied Energy
Presentation Info:
Date: 06/12/2024
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: Vaclav Hasik— Building Transparency
Attendance:
Architect: 7 Electrician:
Engineer: 8 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 12
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 8
Total (In-Person): 7
Total (Online): 28
*If'Other'was noted: Energy analyst, PhD student, Principal, VP, Building performance,
owner, Director of facilities, Professor.
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.2 1 Not Useful -5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 3.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too
The content of the presentation was: 3.2 Advanced

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 15
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• More time for questions
• None. He explained everything great.
• Not for instructor, but the passcode did not work initially, so I joined very late, after I tried it
multiple times.
• None. Excellent speaker.
• Fantastic!
What attendees found most valuable:
• The advanced capabilities of EC3
• It was good introduction to EC3+Tally CAT, which I was familiar with.
• The part about the lifecycle at the beginning was fantastic.
• The demo at the end of how to use the tools.
• how to use an LCA tool
• basic information on using tools
• Knowing what tools are available for Embodied carbon calculations.
• TallyCAT!
• Explaining the process of the available tools
• assistance with filling out the reporting
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• AIA(x7), NCARB (x2),AEE(x4), CEM, USGBC(x2), ASHRAE(x7),ASME, ISIE
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• Leak detection
• LCA of energy use in buildings
• more of this!
• Radiant heat systems
• EnergyPlus/OpenStudio: Create PRM model measure workflow, URBANopt or other district
level modeling analysis, Multi objective optimization and/or evolutionary solvers for early
design decisions
• Al in energy modeling
• Tools for EPDs for MEP equipment
• Tally, Revit, energy modeling together
• Energy Modeling
Session 3 (08/21/24): Energy Efficient Electric Hydronic Heating Systems
Presentation Info:
Date: 08/21/2024
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: Mick Schwedler
Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor: 3
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 5

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 16
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 10
Total (In-Person): 11
Total (Online): 10
*lf'Other'was noted: Commissioning professional, HVAC specialist, Energy analyst/modeler.
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.8 1 Not Useful -5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 3.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too
The content of the presentation was: 3.1 Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Have slides available to viewers.
• No improvement!
What attendees found most valuable:
• Great level of detail on tricky system design
• Explanation of unloading challenges and of defrost consideration.
• Piping Diagrams
• Lots of great design consideration for me to take back to my engineers
• excellent graphics
• So much to know and to think of.
• Examples
• Explaining a heat pump chiller.
• The examples were helpful in understanding the opportunities and pitfalls.
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• ASHRAE(x6), USGBC(x2), BOMA, IBPSA(x2), AEE
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• Air to Air heat pumps, other electric heating and cooling systems.
Session 4 (09104124): Demystifying VRF and How to Estimate Performance with OpenStudio
Presentation Info:
Date: 09/04/2024
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: Neil Bulger—A2 Efficiency
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 18 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 11

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 17
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 6
Total (In-Person): 11
Total (Online): 24
*lf'Other'was noted: Sales, Estimator, Energy analyst, Project manager.
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.3 1 Not Useful -5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.3 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too
Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• More specific explanations of data presented
• Check for typos and other small mistakes in slides
• Lots to absorb in a short period. Probably better as a little longer class. It would be good to
have some hands on VRF modeling.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Understanding why VRFs are chosen and are so useful in a system
• Energy and Experience
• Insights into proper application of VRF
• Real world data
• it was all good.
• Energy modeling case study of a few VRF configurations with ventilation
• The discussion of VRF simultaneous heating and cooling not being as efficient as normally
considered due to increased compressor operation.
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• ASHRAE(x8), IBPSA,AEE
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• An introductory course for OpenStudio for those who have never used the program.
• chill water 8-pipe
• VRF integration in existing buildings
• Cold climate heat pumps
• Outdoor air control in OpenStudio, particularly controlling cases where the supply air volume
can be lower than the ventilation cfm and cause 100%CIA systems that don't meet ventilation
requirementsat low loading conditions.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 18
Session 5 (10/02/24): Rhino Grasshopper Training and Introduction to Rhino inside Revit
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/02/2024
Location: Boise, ID
Presenters: Japhy Walton
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: 3 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 18
Total (In-Person): 7
Total (Online): 17
*lf'Other'was noted: Student.
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 2.5 1 Not Useful -5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 2.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 2.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 3.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 1.5 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too
Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Reduce/streamline topics covered or split into multiple presentations too much to cover in
one hour.
• Too much detail on some things, need more big picture information, use cases
What attendees found most valuable:
• Learned a few tricks like A button copy
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• ASHRAE(x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• No comments were made.
Session 6 (12/11/24): Fully Leveraging Your Energy Model -A Field Guide
Presentation Info:

Integrated Design Lab Boise 19
Date: 12/11/2024
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: Amanda Bogner
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 13 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 21
Total (In-Person): 20
Total (Online): 16
*lf'Other'was noted:
Evaluations: No evaluations were collected. Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 0 0 1 Not Useful -5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 0 0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments: No evaluations were collected.
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• No comments were made.
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• No comments were made.
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• No comments were made.

INTEGRATED
DESIGN LAB
Universityof Idaho
2024 TASK 5: ENERGY RESOURCE LIBRARY
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 18, 2024
Prepared for.-
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Report Number: 2024_005-05
MPMER.
An IDACORP Company

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by.,
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E Front St. Suite 360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl
lDL Director:
Damon Woods
Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Prepared for-
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
IPC KIT #8112
Please cite this report as follows.,Agnes, D. (2024). 2024 TASK
5: Energy Resource Library - Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2024_005-05). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
iii

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

This page left intentionally blank.
v

Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................8
2. Marketing...................................................................................................................................9
3. New Tools & Tool Calibration Plan..........................................................................................12
4. 2024 Summary of Loans ........................................................................................................14
5. Appendices...............................................................................................................................20
vi

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

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 8
2024 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
1. Introduction
The Energy Resource Library (ERL) is a resource supported by Idaho Power Company
(IPC) and managed by the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL). The ERL at the
UI-IDL is modeled after the Lending Library at the Pacific Energy Center, which is supported
by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E).
The primary goal of the ERL is to help customers with energy efficiency (EE) needs,
through the use of sensors and loggers deployed in buildings of various types. Loans are
provided to individuals or businesses at no charge to the customer. Over 900 individual
pieces of equipment are available for loan through the ERL. The equipment is focused on
measuring parameters to quantify key factors related to building and equipment energy use,
and factors which can affect worker productivity.
The loan process starts when a customer creates a user account. Then the user has
access to submit a resource questionnaire and fill out a form describing their intent and
project information. Customers can also add tools to their "cart" and complete a checkout
process if they don't require the IDL assistance. When completing a resource questionnaire
or the checkout process, the customer includes basic background information, project and
data measurement requirements, and goals. When a request is submitted, UI-IDL staff
members are alerted to a request via email. The customer and staff members communicate
to verify and finalize equipment needs. An approval email is sent, and tools are picked up at
the UI-IDL or shipped at the customer's expense.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 9
2024 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
2. Marketing
Marketing for the ERL was done at various UldDL and IPC activities throughout 2024,
as well as on the idlboise.com website. The brochure for the ERL, Figure 1 and 2, reflects
the changes to the ERL overall structure for checking out tools and new
categories/organization. In addition, a catalog was created that contains the full directory of
tools available for check out as well as information about other Idaho Power sponsored
programs.
The ERL was promoted in presentations given by the UI-IDL staff, including the Lunch
and Learn series and lectures to professional organizations such as the American Institute
of Architects (AIA), ASHRAE, and the City of Boise.
The ERL flyer and program slides direct potential users to the ERL website for more
information about the library. The main UI-IDL website hosts the ERL portal where customers
can submit a resource questionnaire for assistance or a request for specific tools, all online.
In 2024, the ERL home page had 8,871 visitors. Changes and progress on the ERL
homepage can be found in Appendix C. (http:Z/www.idlboise.com/about-erl)

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 10
2024 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
I I
Energy Resource Library Contact Us
The Energy Resource Library is a free resource for Idaho Visit IdIbollse.com and select"Energy
Power customers.The library provides users with an easy Resourre Library"to learn more,
way to assess and e�pbre a building or systems energy
Performance. Integrated Design Lab INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB
306 S.6th stmet Boise.ID B3702
These free toob and guides are available to help 20B-429-0220
indi.iduals or b about their learn more ab their energy
use patterns and identifyopportunioes for energy-saving idlOuidaho.edu
impm•.eernents. Hours:
Typical uses ftx the Energy Resource lYxary
t�nda,throuchThurAday8a.m.to4p.m. Energy Resource Library
and Friday 10a.m.to 3 p.m.
Preliminary investigation:audit or study to identify The library provides users with
energy effriency measures 1EEMs) tree Woos and guides to help
Pre-implementation:b%eine measurements of EEMs individuals and businesses
Post-implementation:verifration measurements identtl)vpportunitles for
of ED& energy-saving improvements.
Literature review 4,
Resource Loans By Industry 4411"
w
_ 00
v
41
441
28%commercial Real Estate G�e
9%Food Processing ®V"MAWL v Sponsored by:
18% Industrial �ioaootr�n
Sao Education
�(1^•. Resldzntlal
4%,0 OttlCe
wastewater
18% Other
I I
FIGURE 1: ERL BROCHURE FRONT

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 11
2024 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
I I
Resource Categories How to use the Energy Loan Request Status
F 0W Meters Resource Library You will receive the following Brad updates
Howmneters rrneasure the velocity of a fluid wnln with the status of your naource loan.
ufttasound to calculate flow rate of liquids or suspended to crst,if you a not already have comaw-you will need P?endklg
solid traueh ng through a pipe by attaching to the ar create amount.account at idboequest Aster you have
outside Flow data allows you to see the{Dads and n ab out t ban on and typorme
with the Ydv khan request has been received and a
demands on the associated system,and helps identify mworsinformation about the location and type of projectsyou bang reviewed it the IDu Please note the
operational and control roues_ are s you g din.You do not need b know what specific Fr reescinq a one busyness day far
tads you will need.Snply describe the infanration you n,-.-es-ink.
Data Loggers want to collect and the IDL will maize use ym hoe the
appropriate resources for your prulect. Additional Review(rf applicable)
Collecting data o%w an extended period of tirne 6 tf there is a problem or clarification is needed,
essential for backing performance of a building,spans If you require a tutorial or need to know how to use a
al
or system to identify trends or anomalies.Data loggers specific tad,contact the IDL to set up an appointment- the rrn trill to accurately
you for fulfil
ya r
are portable ad hoe built in sensors that can measure nromratirn b accurately fulfil your request.
and record temperatures,light levels,electrical current Approved
and more.
Orxe your ban request is agaoved,an
Current Transformers(CT) approval emad will be sent,and the resource
C T's are ar.` used to measure ahamati curenL mfi'be pied up from the Integrated Design
tYRn y rig Lab.To request a specific prci,-up time,email
They can be easily and safely installed by slipping over the IDL or mention n in the rate section of the
electrical power wiring without interrupting service ban request form Please note.if resources are
1 J wn used in mqutction with a vahage meter,power to be sh
,VM and energy(MW can be calculated for a variety of al pp ch�customer is responsible for
applications. RPn9 charges.
Your resource ban lbe
Guides an Idaho lower mesh bag unles et s the tool has
A variety of guides we available to praride a its own haangistorage case.
better understandfg of building systems and their
performance,as well as the standards and codes that You will also reeei e le printed copy of your
govern those energy performance criteria G.e.,ASHRAF loan request form Please sae the it's
and stadad�. required when you return the resources-
handbooks
Od1Ltr Coffw
kftd
Other resource ca include light err.energy, when you are done with your resources.
please return or ship them to the Integrated
sound,temperance and more.A complete fisting of Design Lab at 306 S.tech Street Hoist-,ID
tools,eu literature and�structiom is amiable at 83702.Please include your printed ban
request form so*%at the IDL can pincer your
return in a tirndy manner.
1
I I
Figure 2: ERL Brochure Back

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 12
2024 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
3. New Tools & Tool Calibration Plan
In 2024, thirty-seven new tools were added to the ERL to replace old data logging
models, current transformers, and air quality sensors to fill gaps in tool kits and add
accessories for kits.
Equipment in the tool loan program typically has a guaranteed calibration period
between 1 and 3 years from the manufacturer. While many items may remain within
recommended tolerances for years after the guaranteed calibration period ends, verifying
the item is properly calibrated after initial and subsequent periods is recommended.
Calibration services are available on most tools, sometimes from the manufacturer, and
from certified calibration services nationwide.
Third party (3P), certified tool calibration is ideal, but an extensive 3P calibration
program would be expensive. Based on research and pricing from quotes, formal calibration
would be cost prohibitive for much of the library tools. In several cases, cost of calibration
can exceed 30% or more of the item's original cost. A certified calibration is typically only
valid for 1-2 years, an alternative measurement and verification plan for most sensors and
loggers is recommended. The management of the ERL has been adapted to integrate the
measurement and verification method of calibration. However, a few exceptions to this must
be made on a case by case basis to allow for factory calibration of items that cannot be
compared or tested in any other way. An example of one item in this category would be the
Shortridge Digital Manometer or the Air-Data Multimeter which would have to be
recalibrated by the manufacturer.
The IDL performs the following to ensure items are within specified calibration
tolerances:

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 13
2024 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
1. Equipment is cross-checked against new equipment of the same type for
accuracy in a test situation where data is logged. The IDL cross-checks older
items against multiple newer items at the end of each calibration period (i.e.
every two years) to ensure readings are within specified tolerances.
2. Those items found to be out of tolerance will be assessed for factory re-
calibration or replacement.
Calibration tracking has been added to the inventory spreadsheet, which allows the
IDL to determine which items are due for calibration testing. Updates to calibration and
references to testing data are maintained in the inventory spreadsheet and has been
expanded to include tool use, quotes, and budget estimates.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 14
2024 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
4. 2024 Summary of Loans
In 2024, loan requests totaled 21 with 16 loans completed, 3 loans are on-going,
and 2 were canceled. The fourth quarter had the highest volume of loans at 9 total. Loans
were made to 9 different locations and 17 unique users and 9 new ERL users. A wide range
of tools were borrowed, as listed in Figure 8. Most tools were borrowed for principal
investigations or audits, although loans were also made for determining performance of
EEMs that were implemented. Tools were borrowed to verify these EEMs as well.
The cutoff date for the report is December 15th, 2024. All loans made between
December 15th to December 31st, 2024, will be reported at the kickoff meeting for 2024.
Table 1 and the following figures outline the usage analysis for ERL in 2024.
TABLE 1: PROJECT AND LOAN SUMMARY
#of
Request Date Location Project Type of Loan Tools
Loaned
1 1/22/2024 Boise ID A02 Pre-Implementation 1
2 1/24/2024 Boise ID B01 Pre-Implementation 1
3 2/12/2024 Ketchum ID CO3 Pre-Implementation 1
4 2/27/2024 Boise ID D04 Pre-Implementation 3
5 4/2/2024 Mountain ID E05 Post-Implementation 1
Home
6 5/16/2024 Twin Falls ID F06 Pre-Implementation 3
7 7/2/2024 Boise ID G07 Post-Implementation 1
8 7/2/2024 Boise ID H08 Pre-Implementation 3
9 7/30/2024 Boise ID 109 Pre-Implementation 9
10 8/27/2024 Boise ID J10 Pre-Implementation 1
11 9/4/2024 Meridian ID K11 Pre-Implementation 1
12 9/17/2024 Boise ID L12 Pre-Implementation 1
13 10/10/2024 Boise ID M13 Pre-Implementation 1
14 10/13/2024 Garden City ID N14 Pre-Implementation 1
15 10/21/2024 Eagle ID 015 Pre-Implementation 1
16 10/22/2024 Twin Falls ID P16 Pre-Implementation 1
17 10/31/2024 Nampa ID A02 Post-Implementation 1
18 12/2/2024 Boise ID Q17 Post-Implementation 1
19 12/5/2024 Boise ID R18 Pre-Implementation 3

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 15
2024 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
20 12/9/2024 Nampa ID S19 Pre-Implementation 4
21 12/10/2024 Nyssa OR K11 Pre-Implementation 2

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 16
2024 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
Loans by Type Number of Loans per Quarter
18 10 9
16 9
14 7 8
12 7 6
10 6
8 5 4
6 4
4
2 3 2
2 2
0 1
1. Preliminary Investigation/Audit/ 3. Post-implementation/Verification
Study to Identify Energy Efficiency Measures of Particular EEMs 0
Measures(EEMs) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
■Q1 ■Q2 ■Q3 ■Q4 ■Q1 ■Q2 ■Q3 ■Q4
FIGURE 3: LOANS BY TYPE FIGURE 4: NUMBER OF LOANS PER QUARTER
Number of Loans per Month
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2 2 2
2
1 1 1
■ C ■
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
■Jan ■Feb ■Mar ■Apr ■May ■Jun ■Jul ■Aug ■Sep Oct ■Nov ■Dec
FIGURE 5: NUMBER OF LOANS PER MONTH

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 17
2024 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
Loans by Location Tool Summary
Sig 1
o-
0 R18 1
Q17 1
Nampa P16 1
015 ! 1
Ketchum , N14 1
M13 1
Mountain Home L12 1
K11 L 2
Meridian J10 = 1
0 109 ` 1
Twin Falls
H08 1
G07 1
Garden City F06 1,
E05 1
1
Eagle D04
CO3 � 1
B01 1
Boise
A02 2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
2024 2024
FIGURE 6: NUMBER OF LOANS BY LOCATION FIGURE 7: NUMBER OF LOANS BY USER

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 18
2024 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
TOTAL TOOLS LOANED: 41 Q1=6 Q2=4 Q3=16 Q4=15
Tool Summary
VOC and Temperature Monitor w/Data Logging, -
Bapi
Ultrasound Leak Detector -
Sling Psychrometer -
Plug Load Data Logger -
Occupancy and Light Data Logger-Narrow -
MX1105 -
Laser Distance Meter
HOBO U12-012 Data Logger
GE Sensing Flow Meter
Fluke Infrared Thermometer
Fluke Energy Logger
Fluke Current Clamp
FLIR E50bx
FLIR C5 Portable Thermal Imaging Camera
FLIR C2 Portable Thermal Imaging Camera
FLEXIM Ultrasonic Flow Meter
Extech Thermo-Anemometer
Digital Stroboscope
Dent ElitePro XC Power Meter
CO2 Logger
CEM Sound Level Meter
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2024
FIGURE 8:SUMMARY OF TOOLS LOANED

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 19
2024 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
Loans per Quarter
10
9 9 9
8
7 7 7
6 6 —
5 5 5
4 4 -C 4
3 3
2 At 2
1 —
0 0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
+2019 t2020 —*--2021 —0-2022 —I--2023 —0--2024
FIGURE 9: LOANS PER QUARTER SINCE 2019

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 20
2024 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2024_005-05)
5. Appendices
APPENDIX A: Equipment List
The equipment in the library is tracked via excel, website, and in ERL Catalog. The
website inventory is organized through several webpages, but a complete listing can be
found here: http://www.idlboise.com/erl
In addition, the ERL Catalog can be found on the idlboise.com website and is
available for download here: http://www.idlboise.com/content/erl-catalog-2020
APPENDIX B: Website Progress
In November 2024 1 was able to locate and contact the company that
owns the software used by other lending libraries such as the PG&E and
Bullet Center (IDL-Seattle). The software is MyTurn.com, and my contact is
Gene Homicki. The IDL will test out a trial version of the software which is
free but is limited in its feature, notably, scaling. The subscription, Education
Pilot, is a basic plan for education pilots or small departments that can pay
online. It supports 250 users and 500 items in inventory at a monthly rate of
$50.00 or a yearly rate of $540.00. Using this software will require the ERL
to have a separate domain which means the ERL will be a separate site from
the idlboise.com. Therefore, idlboise.com will have to redirect users to the
new site. The IDL will test out this software during December 2024.

INTEGRATED I DESIGN LAB
2024 TASK 07: FAN SAVINGS FROM UV
LAMPS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT
December 31, 2024
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
Damon Woods
Farnaz Nazari
Report Number: 2023_001-07
IQAW
POMR,.,
An IDACORP Company

This page left intentionally blank.
ii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E. Front St., Suite 360, Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl
IDL Director:
Damon Woods
Authors:
Damon Woods
Farnaz Nazari
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
IPC KIT # 5277
Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. and Nazari,
F. (2024). 2024 TASK 7: Fan Savings from UV Lamps
(2024_001-07). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
iii

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

This page left intentionally blank.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7
2. Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 7
3. Appendix — Project Reports ................................................................................................... 8
ACRONYMS AND ' •
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
DOAS Dedicated Outdoor Air System
EMS Energy Management System
EUI Energy Use Intensity [kBtu/ft2/yr]
HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air Filter
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NBPI Needle Point Bi-Polar Ionization
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Lab
RTU Rooftop Unit
UI University of Idaho
UVGI Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
VAV Variable Air Volume
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow
vi

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 7
2024 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-07)
• • � •
Ultraviolet Lamps have been shown to reduce fan energy by keeping the
evaporative coil clear of mold and mildew. William Bahnfleth et al. have conducted
studies showing up to a 20% reduction in pressure drop across the coil. The goal of this
task is to investigate the effectiveness of adding UV lamps to new or existing HVAC
units in IPC territory and monitor the energy consumption over the course of a year
using tools from the Energy Resource Library. The goal is to find sites where two
identical HVAC units (such as RTUs with similar zones) will serve as case studies. The
IDL team will record the fan energy over time while taking velocity and airflow
measurements. By measuring performance, the IDL will learn the extent of savings in
climate 5B for UV installation.
2. WORK SUMMARY _q_
2.1 Literature 'evie•••and Site Selectio~
The IDL work began in 2023 with a literature review of existing UV technology and
studies. The team also examined the impact of the new ASHRAE Standard 241 on
indoor air quality. A summary of key findings is available in the 2023 year-end report.
.1.1 Next Steps for 2025— Monitoring and analysis at a site
The research team secured a test site in 2024 and will be logging data in 2025. The site
is an elementary school in southwest Idaho. The school has approximately 24 rooftop
units with very similar loads (adjacent classrooms). Two have been selected for the
case study while the others will also be logged but remain unchanged. A supplier has
secured the equipment and installation crew. Materials and labor are paid for through
the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance funding for the IDL. A small portion of the

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 8
2024 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-07)
budget remains unspent so the task can continue in 2025 to finish recording the data
and make the comparisons. If it is possible to install these at a second site, then the IDL
team will also pay for that installation and monitoring through funding from the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
3. . .PENDIX—WORKS CITED AND ADDITIONAL
Appendix A: Bibliography:
"ASHRAE 185.1-2020: Method of Testing UV-C Lights for Use in Air-Handling Units or Air Ducts
to Inactivate Airborne Microorganisms (ANSI Approved)." 2020. ASHRAE.
"ASHRAE 185.2-2020: Method of Testing UV-C Lights for Use in Air-Handling Units or Air Ducts
to Inactivate Airborne Microorganisms (ANSI Approved)." 2020. ASHRAE.
"ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications Chapter 62. Ultraviolet Air And Surface Treatment."
2023. ASHRAE.
"ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Systems and Equipment Chapter 17: Ultraviolet Lamp Systems."
2020. ASHRAE.
ASHRAE. "ASHRAE Epidemic Task Force." Core Recommendations for Reducing Airborne
Infectious Aerosol Exposure, 2021, Accessed 2021.
ASHRAE. "Filtration and Air Cleaning Summary." ASHRAE, 25 May 2021, [e-mail].
Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
ASHRAE Handbook-HVAC Systems and Equipment. 2016, pp. 29.2-29.12.
Bahnfleth, William P. 2017. "Cooling Coil Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation."
Bean, Meghan, et al. 2020, Air Cleaner Specification and Baseline Assessment Review.
Firrantello, Joseph, and William Bahnfleth. "Simulation and Monetization of Collateral Airborne
Infection Risk Improvements from Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation for Coil
Maintenance." Science and Technology for the Built Environment, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017, pp.
135-148., https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2017.1409267.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 9
2024 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-07)
Formusa, Brian, and Tim Ross. "Covid-10 Recommendations for Facilities." Hailey, ID, June
2020.
"Fundamentals of UVGI." ASHRAE, 12 May 2021, Online Webinar
HVAC Engineering. "Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Lamps Can Help Clean Coils and Improve
Indoor Air Quality ." UVGI Design Basics forAir and Surface Disinfection , Department of
Architectural Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 2000, Accessed 2021.
"IUVA UV Disinfection for COVID-19." 2020. 2020. 2020. Available online: https: //iuva.org/iuva-
covid-19-faq.
Kowalski, Wladyslaw J. Immune Building Systems Technology. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
2003.
Lee, Bruno. "Effects of Installation Location on Performance and Economics of in-Duct
Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Systems for Air Disinfection ." RAPID, 2013.
Luo, Hao, and Lexuan Zhong. "Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) for in-Duct Airborne
Bioaerosol Disinfection: Review and Analysis of Design Factors." Building and
Environment, vol. 197, 2021, p. 107852., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107852.
Luongo,Julia C., et al. "Ultraviolet Germicidal Coil Cleaning: Impact on Heat Transfer
Effectiveness and Static Pressure Drop." Building and Environment, vol. 112, 2017, pp.
159-165., https://doi.org/10.1016/J*.buildenv.2016.11.022.
Nicas, Mark, and Shelly L. Miller. 1999. "A Multi-Zone Model Evaluation of the Efficacy of
Upper-Room Air Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation." Applied Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene 14 (5): 317-28. https:Hdoi.org/10.1080/104732299302909.
Pirouz, Behrouz, Stefania Anna Palermo, Seyed Navid Naghib, Domenico Mazzeo, Michele
Turco, and Patrizia Piro. 2021. "The Role of HVAC Design and Windows on the Indoor
Airflow Pattern and ACH." Sustainability 13 (14): 7931.
https:Hdoi.org/10.3390/sul3l47931.
Ryan, R M, G E Wilding, R J Wynn, R C Welliver, B A Holm, and C L Leach. 2011. "Effect of
Enhanced Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation in the Heating Ventilation and Air
Conditioning System on Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in a Neonatal Intensive Care
Unit."Journal of Perinatology 31 (9): 607-14. https:Hdoi.org/10.1038/J*p.2011.16.
Tawfik, Aly, et al. Fresno, CA, 2020, COVID-19 Public Transit Bus Air Circulation Study .

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 10
2024 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-07)
Truffo, Davide, Jose Miguel Pena Suarez, Juan Bandera Cantalejo, Maria Del Carmen Gonzalez
Muriano, Francisco Garcias Vacas, and Francisco Fernandez Hernandez. 2022.
"Comparative Study of Purifications Technologies and Their Application to HVAC
Systems." Edited by C. Zilio and F. Busato. E3S Web of Conferences 343: 03005.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234303005.
"Ultraviolet Air and Surface Treatment ." 2019 Ashrae Handbook: Heating, Ventilating, and Air-
Conditioning Applications, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 2011, pp. 62.1-62.17, Accessed 2021.
Appendix B: Simulation Results
Annual Energy Use
14.00
12.00
Cr 10.00
LL 8.00
6.00 4.11
= .00 2 1.18 .
Y .00 0.00 0.14 0.29 0.67
0.00 0.00
-2.00 -0.05
J
Figure 1: Energy use increase for each of the technologies averaged for the eight building types studied

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 11
2024 Task 07: Fan Savings from LIV Lamps-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-07)
inam
INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB H .
uVCIN—DUCT
J DISINFECTION
e e - /i,000cfm
typicalive with
single
GUIDELINES
I rrad—ce:I,UUL)
10,000 p W kmlwtn�etrea•,caulea-lmn I u«we mnr°i�e aze�
EAposur.:>0.2592 L_ _
(air speed 600 fps
Upwo m nr
downstream of coolop A,fl...
coif
Irradmncg;50-IN�
pWlc,., I •
E.posur.:241
Downstream of cooks a uv.:,a
cork(most common) I orcnn°• / t\�>>>
1I � I Ye•Iicel VYianP arWarl. � 4
carama p;I,,ar oo°i
M It.ckea Fa-
In Dun WGI DWertlon
�'sltaa � uo
l.mo I .o
rd
ea ne+ • r i .w.i....�
°a"w.avu w.ndA vw°•vw�h dw ion ......,.. .w...n...�..a . .,.n,u, .owvsr .crev.elma.e .u.M.,.,eu.n.•a
r ,&A9If1IRfMFUd+>a'fakkrti AaltAmm�vna.o.brAUnpAienrnMvkeMtworr.3Pthcrsrda;-7
t 4rr/Wf Tiln.aRnfMOYnry.on�.vyAW21F$Iir;6y ffMs�pYrxsq/¢mxrn4r/:g9
1 Dual lt&n,1A,YnelRq lea MY dt.W*Vo tAC,
A vvIAMOKrR wmwx Vaoy.Mm"ftVnlr AV.W.W
e fM.l'wAtlYdVIANAp11M BI°,tM'$I1Nrla,�lMeAnefi..Po t14YI.YNWfgrk'AMfMIlfShTpPNMI bslWrWhlN!RAtlfaMIJSMM(g WWlU.elrAfRq'+W�[RRaM,('.WR,aBJ^FIINeMr'!'.i4:A•�t.'..WNNM
4 UaiwMW�A1lIran'hltmK'3PtlkMrMMMXv4i0.IVs%PLCrph urrdswrYAmkvwc AfM�Af.,W�..tlARPui S169K[Ic:WS¢I
/ RAYiAiI WbMWIMAnRrWdMx)J�,.m Nrnw�.AvY'/YAWJ1Yfrgwna ea,IAI

INTEGRATED I DESIGN LAB
2024 TASK 07: PASSIVE WINDOW DESIGN
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT
December 31, 2024
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Report Number: 2023_001-07
IDAW
POMR,.,
An IDACORP Company

This page left intentionally blank.
ii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E. Front St., Suite 360, Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uiaano.eauiiai
IDL Director:
Damon Woods
Author:
Farnaz Nazari
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
IPC KIT # 5277
Please cite this report as follows: Nazari, F. (2024). 2024
TASK 7: Passive Window Design (2024_001-07). University
of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.
iii

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

This page left intentionally blank.
v

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7
2. Work Summary......................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Window Geometry ............................................................................................................. 8
2.1 .1 Window-to-wall Ratio (WWR) ................................................................................... 8
2.1 .2 Window Orientation .................................................................................................... 9
2.1 .3 Implementation Strategies....................................................................................... 11
2.2 Window Configurations................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Low-Emissivity (Low-E) Glass ................................................................................ 12
2.2.2 Thin Triple Pane Windows ...................................................................................... 13
2.2.3 Dynamic Glazing: Electrochromic Glass............................................................... 14
2.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 14
3. Appendix — Works Cited and Additional Figures .............................................................. 16
AppendixA: Prototype Model ............................................................................................... 16
Appendix B: Additional Figures ............................................................................................ 17
AppendixC: Works Cited ...................................................................................................... 18
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
IGU Insulated Glass Units
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Low-E Low-Emissivity
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
SHGC Solar Heat-Gain Coefficient
UI University of Idaho
VAV Variable Air Volume
WWR Window-to-Wall Ratio

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 7
• Window-to-Wall Ratio (WWR): Adjustments in WWR have an impact of 10.1% on the
building's total annual energy use of the prototype building.
• Building Orientation: Changes in orientation account for approximately 1.7% of the
building's total annual energy use of the prototype building.
• Low-Emissivity(Low-E)Coatings: Implementing Low-E coatings on the prototype building
with a 90% WWR resulted in a 5.8% reduction in the building's total annual energy use.
• Thin Triple Pane Windows: Developed by LBNL, these windows demonstrated energy
savings of 12% during the heating season and 28% during the cooling season over the
testing period, with annualized HVAC savings estimated at 18.6%.
• Electrochromic Windows: These windows have been shown to achieve operating cost
savings of 10-20%, reduce peak demand by 15-24%, and decrease HVAC system size by
up to 25%.
1. INTRODUCTION
This report examines the performance of passive window design strategies in
enhancing energy efficiency and indoor comfort in buildings. Unlike opaque building
elements, windows and glazed fagades present unique challenges, as their performance
is influenced not only by heat transfer through conduction but also by solar radiation,
daylighting, and glare. Consequently, a more nuanced approach is needed for windows
and transparent surfaces, extending beyond their insulation properties and U-value.
Effectively managing solar and heat radiation is crucial to reduce heat transmission and
optimize building performance. To achieve this, both the geometry of windows—such as
their area or window-to-wall ratio (WWR) and orientation—and the glazing type and
configuration must be carefully selected to balance daylighting, glare, and energy
consumption. The use of high-performance glazing plays a key role in ensuring adequate
daylighting while minimizing glare and reducing energy use.
This study tested the impact of window geometry (including window-to-wall ratio
and orientation) and various window configurations (including low-emissivity coatings and

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 8
double-glazing) to assess their effectiveness in mitigating thermal loads and managing
glare. For this evaluation, the IDL team utilized a simulation model provided by the DOE
for medium-sized office spaces, constructing a controlled indoor environment to apply
different window solutions and simulate a full year's performance. The annual energy
consumption was then compared to identify which window design achieved the best
balance of energy savings and indoor comfort. Additionally, thin triple-pane and
electrochromic glazing were assessed based on findings from the literature.
.A1 • �1 �i _ :�.
2.1 Window Geometry
2.1.1 Window-to-wall Ratio (WWR)
The first step is to carefully consider the glazing area, as it significantly impacts
energy usage, as seen in the results where a 10% change in WWR leads to notable
differences in energy consumption (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). However, it is understood
that adjusting the glazing area may not always be practical. Therefore, the next important
factor is the orientation of these windows, which plays a key role in optimizing energy
Heating and Cooling Energy Usage and Envelope WWR
90% �
80%
70% �
04 60%
50% '
40%
30%
i
20% '
i
10%
560,000 570,000 580,000 590,000 600,000 610.000 620,000 630,000 640,000 650,000
kWh Energy Usage
i
' 1
Figure 1:WWR-Dependent Energy Use: Simulation Results. 59.6 MWh

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 9
efficiency. Following this, the type and configuration of the glazing comes into focus,
offering further opportunities to fine-tune energy performance.
100%
80% (Max—Min)
0% Percentage Variation = Min x 100=10.1%
40%
20
10.1
0%
■Test Case's Minimum Annual Energy Use
■Test Case's Variation
Figure 2:The WWR Impact on the DOE Medium Office Prototype.
2.1.2 Window Orientation
Figure 3 provides a conceptual representation of the sun's path across a building's
fagades, offering a general understanding of how building orientation affects solar
exposure. A well-designed building orientation is crucial for achieving optimal thermal and
daylighting performance. In most climates, an east-west orientation for the longest fagade
is recommended.
0 0 0 0 0 0
South East North West
Figure 3: Solar Path Across Building Facades.
The graph in Figure 4 presents the results of simulations where the building is
rotated in 10-degree increments, demonstrating the effect of orientation on energy
consumption. The orientation impact on the DOE Medium Office prototype accounts for

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 10
1.7% of the building's total annual energy use. This percentage reflects the variation in
energy consumption resulting from different building orientations, which affect factors like
solar heat gain, daylight availability, and shading efficiency. Although the 1.7% impact
may seem small in isolation, its significance lies in its cumulative effect and the broader
implications for building design and sustainability. This percentage represents a tangible
opportunity for energy savings, which can add up over time, resulting in substantial
Heating and Cooling Energy Usage and Building Orientation
18o
170
160
150
140
130
120
c 110 ,
100
90 '
C
is 80 i
p 70 '
i
60
50 '
40 '
i
30
20
i
10
0 a '
680,000 682,000 684,000 686,000: 688,000 690,000 692,000 694,000 696,000 698,0dO 700,000
kWh Energy Usage
Figure 4: Orientation-Dependent Energy Use: Simulation Results. 11.6 MWh
reductions in energy consumption and costs, and contribute to achieving sustainability
targets, certification standards, or environmental goals.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 11
2.1.3 Implementation Strategies
When geometric intervention for window orientation is limited or extreme, self-
shading shapes or setbacks can be employed to leverage the same principles. By
incorporating design features such as stepped or terraced forms, setbacks on the east
and west fagades can reduce exposure to the harsh low-angle morning and afternoon
sun, which are more difficult to control and often lead to overheating. At the same time,
these shapes can open up the south-facing fagade to maximize solar gain during winter
months when the sun's angle is lower. This self-shading strategy helps manage solar
exposure while optimizing passive heating potential from the south, enhancing energy
100%
80%
60% Percentage Variation = (Max—Min)x 100= 1.7%
40% Min
20%
0% 1.7%
Test Case's Minimum Annual Energy Use
■Test Case's Variation
Figure 5: The Orientation Impact on the DOE Medium Office Prototype
efficiency without altering the building's primary orientation.
2.2 Window Configurations
Not always is it feasible to modify window geometry, whether due to architectural
constraints or other practical limitations. In such cases, the opportunity to enhance energy
efficiency relies heavily on the properties of the glazing and the configuration of the
windows. By selecting the right glazing types and optimizing window configurations, we
can still achieve significant improvements in thermal performance, daylighting, and

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 12
energy savings, even without altering the window's geometry. various glazing types and
configurations can be employed, each offering unique benefits in terms of thermal
regulation, daylighting, and glare control:
• Low-Emissivity (Low-E) Glass
• Triple or Double-Glazing with Gas Fill
• Dynamic Glazing (Electrochromic, Photochromic, and Thermochromic Glass)
• Tinted or Reflective Glass
• Insulated Glass Units (ICUs)
2.2.1 Low-LmIsswIty (Low-L) yla&
The position of the Low-E coating within the glazing unit can significantly impact
its performance, depending on the specific goals of the building design. Typically, Low-E
coatings are placed on one of the interior surfaces of the glass, and the placement can
be categorized as follows:
Surface 2 (Interior Surface): The Low-E coating is applied to the second surface
of the glass (the inner side of the outermost layer in double-glazed windows). This position
is most effective for minimizing heat loss in colder climates, as it reflects the indoor heat
back into the space, improving insulation.
Surface 3 (Outer Surface): In some cases, the Low-E coating may be placed on
the third surface, which is the interior surface of the inner glass layer in a double-glazed
unit. This positioning helps to block solar heat gain while allowing visible light to pass
through, making it ideal for warmer climates where heat reduction is more important.
We tested the impact of the position of Low-E coatings on the energy performance
of windows. Specifically, we evaluated three different positions for the Low-E coating:
Surface 3 (Inner Surface), Surface 2 (Interior Surface), and Low-E Coating on Both Sides,

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 13
alongside a controlled case with no Low-E coating (see Figure 6). The aim of this test
was to assess how the placement of the Low-E coating influences thermal performance,
solar heat gain, and overall energy efficiency in cold climates.
r
1 2 1 _ 2 1 2 1 2
Heating and Cooling Energy Usage
750,000
740,000
730,000
720,000
x 710,000
700,000
690,000
680,000
no Low-E surface 3 surface 2 both sides
Glazing Samples
Figure 6: Low-E Coating Position and the Annual Energy Usage
100%
80%
60% Percentage Variation = (Max—Min)
x 100=5.8%
40% Min
20%
0% 15.8%
■Test Case's Minimum Annual Energy Use
■Test Case's Variation
Figure 7:The Low-E Coating Impact on the DOE Medium Office Prototype.
2.2.2 Thin Triple Pane Windows
In a study conducted by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) [1], the
performance of thin triple-pane windows was evaluated in a controlled setting in Richland,

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 14
Washington located in climate zone 5B. The research demonstrated that replacing
standard double-pane windows with thin triple-pane windows resulted in significant
energy savings. During the heating season, daily HVAC savings ranged from 0.2 kWh to
18.7 kWh, representing 3% to 18% savings, with an average of 12% over the testing
period. In the cooling season, daily HVAC savings varied from 2.5 kWh to 8.0 kWh,
equating to 23% to 41% savings, with an average of 28% over the testing period.
Annualized HVAC savings, based on energy simulations, were estimated at 18.6%.
2.2.3 Dynamic Glazing: Electrochromic Glass
The Windows and Daylighting Group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(LBNL) has conducted studies [2-3] on electrochromic glass, demonstrating that these
windows can reduce daily lighting energy consumption by up to 60%. Additionally, they
predict that commercial buildings utilizing electrochromic window systems could achieve
up to 28% in energy cost savings compared to those with static, spectrally selective, low-
emissivity (Low-E) windows. Further research by LBNL indicates that electrochromic
glass can lead to 10-20% operating cost savings, a 15-24% reduction in peak demand,
and up to a 25% decrease in HVAC system size.
These findings suggest significant potential benefits in energy efficiency and cost savings.
However, it's important to note that while these results are promising, dynamic glasses
are still under study to assess their cost-effectiveness and practical application in various
building types across different climate zones.
2.3 Conclusion
This study evaluated the impact of window geometry—including WWR and
building orientation—and various window configurations, such as Low-E coatings and

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 15
double-glazing, on energy efficiency in medium-sized office spaces. Utilizing a simulation
model provided by DOE for medium-sized office spaces, the findings indicated that
optimizing window geometry and selecting appropriate window configurations can
significantly enhance energy efficiency and occupant comfort. Adjusting the WWR and
building orientation, along with implementing optimized glazing, can effectively mitigate
thermal loads.
Specifically, adjustments in WWR have an impact of 10.1% on the building's total
annual energy use. Changes in building orientation account for approximately 1.7% of the
building's total annual energy use. Implementing Low-E coatings on the prototype building
with a 90% WWR resulted in a 5.8% reduction in the building's total annual energy use.
Thin Triple Pane Windows developed by LBNL demonstrated energy savings of 12%
during the heating season and 28% during the cooling season over the testing period,
with annualized HVAC savings estimated at 18.6%. Electrochromic Windows have been
shown to achieve operating cost savings of 10-20%, reduce peak demand by 15-24%,
and decrease HVAC system size by up to 25%.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 16
WORKSDD •
Appendix A: Prototype Model
This study utilizes DOE Medium Office Prototype Building Model [4], illustrated in
Figure 8. The model represents a generic 3-story office structure with a rectangular floor
plan, featuring four facades oriented towards the north, south, east, and west. Each floor
is divided into five air-conditioned zones, with a false ceiling zone on each floor, assumed
to be thermally connected to the office spaces. The total conditioned area of the building
is 1,660 m2 (17,876 ft2). The key characteristics of the model are summarized in Table 1.
A
6h (�
A•
2.74 m 1 �'
01
SOth
Figure 8: DOE Medium Office Prototype Building Model.
Table 1: Characteristics of model building used in simulations.
Description Values
Materials External walls: Typical Insulated Steel Framed Wall, 25 mm
Stucco, 1.59 cm gypsum board, Typical Insulation R-16 (m2
K/W), 1.59 cm gypsum board; R-18.18 (m2 K/W).
Interior wall: 13 mm gypsum board, 10 cm air layer, 13 mm
gypsum board.
Roof: Roof membrane, roof insulation (R-30), metal decking; R-
31.25 (m2 K/W).
Floors: Typical insulation R-15, 10 cm normal-weight concrete
slab, typical carpet pad; R-17.54 (m2 K/W).

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 17
Windows Double-glazing clear 6mm-13 mm Air gap-13mm
Glass conductance (U) = 0.48 W/(m2 K)
Glass SHGC=0.40
WWR = 0.33
Systems and VAV with gas central heating and electric reheat
plants
Power density Lighting power density = 8.8 W/m2 in occupied space
and loads Receptacle power density = 8.1 W/m2
Lighting power density= 1.02
Occupancy density = 5 person/m2
Infiltration rate of building envelope surface area = 1.2 cfm/m2
Appendix B: Additional Figures
i
i
I
Thin
Figure 9: The thin-glass triple-pane insulated glass unit allows for
performance of R-5(U-factor 0.20)or better.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 18
Appendix C: Works Cited
[1] W. Hunt, S. Rosenberg, and K. Cort, "Evaluation of Thin Triple-Pane Windows in the PNNL
Lab Homes," PNNL--31165, 1811300, Apr. 2021. doi: 10.2172/1811300.
[2] E. S. Lee and A. Tavil, "Energy and visual comfort performance of electrochromic windows
with overhangs," Build. Environ., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 2439-2449, Jun. 2007, doi:
10.1016/j.b u i l d e nv.2006.04.016.
[3] L. L. Fernandes, E. S. Lee, and G. Ward, "Lighting energy savings potential of split-pane
electrochromic windows controlled for daylighting with visual comfort," Energy Build., vol.
61, pp. 8-20, Jun. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.10.057.
[4] "Prototype Building Models." [Online]. Available: https://www.energycodes.gov/prototype-
building-models#Commercial

INTEGRATED I DESIGN LAB
2024 TASK 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK
CFM TO DB CORRELATION
EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT
December 31, 2024
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
Damon Woods
Annika Camarillo
Report Number: 2023_001-07
1010
POWR
An IDACORP Company

This page left intentionally blank.
ii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E. Front St., Suite 360, Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl
IDL Director:
Damon Woods
Authors:
Damon Woods
Annika Camarillo
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
IPC KIT # 5277
Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. and Annika,
C. (2024). 2024 TASK 7: Gas Leak Detection (2024_001-
07). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.
iii

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

This page left intentionally blank.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7
2. Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 7
3. Appendix — Project Reports ................................................................................................. 13
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
LeakQ Report Summary from ii900
Flex.US Flex.US Ultrasound Leak Detector
Fluke ii900 Fluke ii900 Acoustic Imaging Camera
UI University of Idaho
• Fluke ii900 provides visual heatmaps of leaks along with data on leak size,
distance, and estimated cost savings, making it practical for industrial
applications.
• Leaks can easily be identified with Fluke ii900 depending on camera distance
from the leak (several feet or more)
• Flex.US has no visual apparatus and does not provide quantitative data,
therefore it does not collect a detailed leak analysis.
• Flex.US is ineffective in detecting leaks beyond 0.4m from the leak, making it
less reliable for larger systems.
vi

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 7
2024 Task 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK CFM TO DB CORRELATION EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST -Idaho Power
Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-08)
1. INTRODUCTION
This experiment compared the performance of the Fluke ii900 Ultrasonic Leak Detector
and the Flex.US Ultrasound Camera in identifying simulated leaks in a pipeline. Sealing leaks in
compressed air systems provides energy savings, reduces operational costs, minimizes
compressor cycling, and prevents equipment failure. The goal of this project was to determine
which ultrasonic camera would be most effective and efficient in detecting leaks in real-world
applications and industrial settings.
This experiment tested various types of leaks, including pinhole leaks, loose fittings, and
longitudinal cuts in tubing. The IDL team built a small test pipeline and then created various
leaks along the pipeline, with different sizes and fittings, to assess a wide range of detection
capabilities. The readings collected from cameras were compared to the readings of the flow
meter to determine which camera could more accurately quantify the size of the leak.
2. WORK SUMMARY
2.1
The experiment began with assembling a small-scale pipeline designed to mimic
an industrial pipeline system. The pipeline was connected to a Metabo compressor,
which maintained pressures ranging between 90-125 PSI throughout experiments. To
monitor the system, a pressure gauge was installed at the inlet to ensure consistent
pressure, a pressure valve was added to isolate airflow, and a flowmeter was positioned
midway to track airflow rates. These three components were all calibrated, connections
were tightened with pipe wrenches and then sealed using Teflon tape or sealant to

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 8
2024 Task 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK CFM TO DB CORRELATION EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST -Idaho Power
Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-08)
prevent unintended air leaks (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Initial tests of the pipeline
were completed to ensure the system was leak-free. Both the Fluke ii900 and the
Flex.US were used to detect that there were no leaks in the controlled environment.
Only one controlled leak was present during the experiment.
Testing began with small-scale simulated leaks at the end of the pipeline after
the flow meter (see Figure 1), first by loosening the pipe's end cap and/or coupler by
one rotation. Later, tests included loosening various fittings, making longitudinal cuts in
tubing, and creating pinhole leaks using a water jet cutter to replicate realistic small-
scale leaks.
Cameras were tested at various distances to determine any correlation between
distance and accuracy. According to the Fluke ii900 manual specifications, leaks could
be detected up to 70m away. The Fluke ii900 was only tested within 0.1-1.4 meters from
the leak. The 70 meter distance was not tested as testing transitioned from a shop
environment to a small office room to better isolate external noises that could influence
the camera's readings (see Table 1 and Table 2).
The Flex.US was tested at distances ranging from 0.04 - 0.41 meters (see Table
3). The Flex.US has 7 different volume settings from 20-80 dB with each setting being
an interval of 10dB. When each setting could no longer pick up a leak, it would be
adjusted to the next highest setting. After the seventh setting, no leaks could be
accurately determined at a distance greater than 0.41 meters (1 ft 4 inches).
To improve the experimental setup for both cameras, a 24" pipe was installed
before the flow meter, as well as a hose with a capped end, to allow for a larger

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 9
2024 Task 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK CFM TO DB CORRELATION EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST -Idaho Power
Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-08)
reservoir of compressed air. Figure 4 shows the extended pipeline. Despite this
modification, the results indicated no significant changes compared to the shorter
pipeline when tested.
During all tests, data from both cameras were compared to the flowmeter
readings, which consistently ranged from 0 to 2 cubic feet per minute (CFM), depending
on the size and location of the leak. The flowmeter provided a reliable baseline
measurement for airflow, which was essential in assessing the accuracy of the cameras
in detecting leaks. The flow meter data was correlated with readings from the Fluke
ii900 and the Flex.US cameras, serving as a reference point in evaluating the cameras'
abilities to quantify airflow changes accurately.
2.1.1 Setbacks and Challenges
Throughout the experiment, several challenges were encountered. One
significant issue was moisture buildup within the pipeline that altered the acoustic
properties of the leak. This affected the cameras' ability to accurately detect and caused
a variance in the Fluke ii900's leak size readings. Table 1, Table 2, and Figure 5, and
Figure 6 are identical tests with the same setup conducted on different days. These tests
yielded significantly different leak size readings from the Fluke ii900, while the flowmeter
readings remained consistent. Although the Fluke ii900 consistently identified leaks, its
size estimate varied greatly despite unchanged conditions (see Figure 7 and Figure 8).
This inconsistency highlights a potential challenge for field applications where not
having a flow meter could make it difficult to obtain accurate measurements.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 10
2024 Task 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK CFM TO DB CORRELATION EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST -Idaho Power
Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-08)
Another significant challenge was the limitations of the Flex.US, in particular the
camera's lack of quantitative data. It did not provide decibel readings and measurable
indications of a leak (only auditory detection through headphones). The limited data
made it difficult to compare its performance directly with the Fluke ii900 or the flowmeter
to assess its accuracy in detecting leaks. Without any quantitative metrics, creating
meaningful data tables or thorough analysis was challenging in evaluating its
effectiveness in leak detection.
Creating realistic pinhole leaks was another challenge. The original steel pipe
fittings were difficult to cut, as the small drill bits required for the desired hole diameter
broke under pressure. The solution was to switch to brass fittings, due to their softer
material, making it easier to drill precise holes. A 1.00mm hole was drilled into the brass
fitting in section 8 of the pipeline (see Figure 1). However, when tested under pressure,
the hole was too large, preventing the system from reaching past 45 PSI, which was
significantly below the indented pressure range for testing. As a result, a water jet cuter
was used to create more precise holes, with diameters 0.004mm - 0.01 mm.
Additionally, the Fluke ii900 frequency band settings were difficult to optimize.
The Fluke ii900 showed an image of the leak and gave a heatmap of the leak location.
This was fine-tuned by adjusting the frequency band on the far-right side (2kHz-52kHz).
When adjusting this band, the aim was to cancel out external sounds that could affect
the reading of the leak. The calculations on leak size, however, heavily depended on
what setting was selected. Knowing the ideal range proved difficult, as every leak had a
different sound. The optimization of this was challenging to understand and led to great

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 11
2024 Task 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK CFM TO DB CORRELATION EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST -Idaho Power
Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-08)
variance in data. For consistency, all testing followed the Fluke ii900 specifications
standard which recommended a setting of 35 kHz with a range of±5 kHz.
2.1.2 Knowledge Gained
This experiment provided insight into the importance of acoustics in leak
detection, specifically, how sound waves propagate through pipeline systems, and how
environmental factors, such as moisture and temperature, can drastically alter acoustics
and therefore detection. Navigating the sensitivity of the pipeline and maintaining
consistent and meaningful leak detection data was essential for the success of the
experiment. It became clear that precise calibration and testing methods were
necessary to get reliable results in both a controlled and field environment.
2.1.3 Device Performance in Field Application
The results of this experiment suggest that the Fluke ii900 camera is better
suited for field applications than the Flex.US detector. The Fluke ii900's ability to
provide visual heat maps, data analysis, and quantify key values, such as leak size
(1/min), distance (m), decibel range, and estimated cost savings, make it ideal for
industrial systems. The camera's ability to filter background noise from (2-52 kHz) is
another advantage, though it does require knowledge and practice to maintain
accuracy. Its extended range (up to 70 meters) is a better fit for large scale systems,
though correct positioning and settings are critical to minimize errors in leak size
readings.
In contrast, the Flex.US detector is limited by its reliance on sound detected
through headphones, which makes it less effective for detecting leaks at a distance

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 12
2024 Task 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK CFM TO DB CORRELATION EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST -Idaho Power
Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-08)
(greater than two feet) or pinpointing their exact location. It also lacks the ability to
provide quantitative data such as leak size, scale, and decibel levels. Furthermore, this
detector doesn't provide estimated cost savings, making it less suitable for large-scale
industrial applications. The flex detector's portability, flexibility, and ease of navigation in
tight or confined spaces make it a better fit for small scale or emergency applications,
where immediate identification of leaks is more important than detailed data.
2.1.4 Conclusion
This experiment tested the role of advanced detection tools in identifying pipeline
leaks for industrial systems. By testing a range of simulated leaks, pinhole leaks, loose
fittings, and longitudinal cuts, under pressures of 90-125 PSI, the project provided
insight into the strengths and limitations of both the Fluke ii900 and the Flex.US
ultrasonic detector.
The Fluke ii900 camera's ability to conduct more in-depth analysis, through
visual heatmaps, quantified leak size, decibel measurements, and cost-saving
estimates make it more suitable for large-scale industrial applications. However, using it
to accurately estimate savings would take a skilled operator with extensive training who
knows how to adjust for distance, camera angle, moisture content, and frequency
range. Its ability to filter background noise and detect leaks at greater distances adds to
its practicality over the Flex.US. The Flex.US detector, is instead better suited for
general leak detection in smaller less complex systems. Its simplicity, portability, and
ease make it convenient for quick inspections, but its reliance on auditory and lack of
quantitative data limit its applicability in a large-scale environment.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 13
2024 Task 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK CFM TO DB CORRELATION EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST -Idaho Power
Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-08)
APPENDIX3. —WORKS CITED AND ADDITIONAL
Appendix A:
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
.W0. •M MI.l1 CBC!•ell dR.
F F
1 ,,,may= IKbl? �-W In••e.ew
s .naa xssa/w sb•ro.noo. t
.+asua swb.sb•o•.cn ve..
6 fYL >?h-Mw�
E E
�io�•�t*iieia•aw
e wuLNt 4�.Lf.l?.Wp Cdpl
e ueoxil! K.iT.?.W.p Cm
D .s.sir �K. �sps.ser D
ie
�c
B B
— — Updated Stainless
Steel System
A - Fna aen A
5 4 3 2 1 _
Figure 1: Compressed air System with materials list
Figure 2: Initial Pipeline set up
Figure 3: Flex.US detector(left)and Fluke ii900 camera(right)

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 14
2024 Task 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK CFM TO DB CORRELATION EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST -Idaho Power
Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-08)
/Y
,tat
Figure 4: Pipeline after adding 24" Pipe
Table 1: Data collected from loose end cap simulated leak, comparing results from Fluke ii900 vs the
flowmeter as the distance from the camera changes.
Camera Flowrate Flowmeter Flowrate Leak %Difference Between Flow Meter and ii900
Distance(m) (L/min) (L/min) Estimate
0.1 6.79604328 1.2 82%
0.2 6.79604328 4.7 31%
0.3 6.51287481 2.1 68%
0.4 6.79604328 2.1 69%
0.5 6.79604328 2.3 66%
0.6 6.51287481 2.6 60%
0.7 6.51287481 2.4 63%
0.8 6.79604328 2.5 63%
0.9 6.51287481 2.4 63%
1 6.51287481 2.3 65%
1.1 6.51287481 2.5 62%
1.2 6.79604328 2.8 59%
1.3 7.07921175 2.7 62%
1.4 6.51287481 2.8 57%
1.5 6.51287481 2.2 66%

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 15
2024 Task 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK CFM TO DB CORRELATION EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST -Idaho Power
Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-08)
Flow Rate of Flowmeter & Camera vs Distance
8
7
E
-,6
5
a�
c 4
v, 3
0 2
1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Flow Rate (Umin)
Flowmeter -.4o.-Fluke ii900
Figure 5: Graph of data Table 1
Table 2: Second trial of the same experiment as shown in Table 1,was conducted on a different test day with
no other changes to the setup.This suggests that external environmental influence may be what is causing a
variatinn in tha Fluky iicinn rearlinns_
Distance Flowrate Flowmeter Flowrate Leak %Difference Between Flow Meter and ii900
(m) (L/min) (L/min) Estimate
0.1 6.79604328 2.6 62%
0.2 6.79604328 2.3 66%
0.3 6.51287481 5.6 14%
0.4 6.51287481 2.3 65%
0.5 6.79604328 2.1 69%
0.6 6.51287481 5.1 22%
0.7 6.51287481 5.1 22%
0.8 6.79604328 5.1 25%
0.9 6.22970634 5.1 18%
1 6.51287481 5 23%
1.1 7.07921175 5.1 28%
1.2 7.64554869 5.4 29%
1.3 7.07921175 4.9 31%
1.4 7.36238022 5.5 25%
1.6 6.51287481 4.7 28%

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 16
2024 Task 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK CFM TO DB CORRELATION EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST -Idaho Power
Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-08)
Flow Rate of Flowmeter & Camera vs Distance
9
8
_ 7
E 6
v 5 c
4
13
2
1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Flow Rate (Umin)
Foowmeter _..*_Fluke ii900
Figure 6: Graph of data Table 2
% Difference Between Flow Meter and i1900
Estimate l
ro 90�10 I
70%
3 60910
0 50%
aci o 40%
3 30%
20%
c
10%
� ooia
r 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
o Camera distance from leak(m)
Figure 7: Percentage error of flowmeter expected leak size compared to Fluke 11900 leak size, data from Table
1 and illustrated in Figure 5.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 17
2024 Task 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK CFM TO DB CORRELATION EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST -Idaho Power
Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-08)
0% Difference Between Flow Meter and il900
Estimate
80%
y 70%
E 60%
3p 50%
c 40%
a>
3 30%
c
2 0%
0 02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
'v
o Camera distance from leak(m)
Figure 8: Percentage error of flowmeter expected leak size compared to Fluke ii900 leak size,data from Table
2 and illustrated in Figure 6.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 18
2024 Task 08: COMPRESSED AIR LEAK CFM TO DB CORRELATION EXPERIMENTAL LAB TEST -Idaho Power
Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2023_001-08)
Table 3: Data collection from the Flex.US to identify maximum distance at which the microphone will still
riptect leaks.
Distance(m) Setting sound level
0.04 1 Positive Detection
0.08 1 Positive Detection
0.05 1 Positive Detection
0.10 2 Positive Detection
0.09 2 Positive Detection
0.11 2 Positive Detection
0.13 3 Positive Detection
0.12 3 Positive Detection
0.12 3 Positive Detection
0.17 4 Positive Detection
0.17 4 Positive Detection
0.18 4 Positive Detection
0.23 5 Positive Detection
0.17 5 Positive Detection
0.20 5 Positive Detection
0.24 6 Positive Detection
0.41 6 Positive Detection
0.30 6 Positive Detection
0.41 7 Positive Detection
0.22 7 Positive Detection
0.33 7 Positive Detection
The camera has seven different settings, with setting 1 covering 20-30 dB and each subsequent setting
increasing by 10 dB up to setting 7. Each setting was tested until a leak was no longer audible and
required to switch to a higher setting. As setting levels increased background noise became harder to
distinguish from the leak. Using headphones for leak detection requires additional training to recognize
the specific acoustic properties of the leak vs the background sounds.

INTEGRATED
DESIGN LAB
Universityof Idaho
2024 TASK 8: DIGITAL DESIGN TOOLS
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY INTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 19, 2024
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Author:
Dylan Agnes
Report Number: 2024_003-01
PAW
OOR®
An IDACORP Company

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E Front Street, Suite #360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu
IDL Director:
Damon Woods
Author:
Dylan Agnes
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
IPC KIT#8112
Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2024). 2024 TASK S:
Digital Design Tools—Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2024-003-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise,
ID.

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

This page left intentionally blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tableof Contents............................................................................................................................ 1
1. Acronyms and Abbreviations...................................................................................................... 3
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
3. Design Tools................................................................................................................................ 4
2024 Summary of Work .............................................................................................................. 6
2024 New Design Tools............................................................................................................... 7
2018— CBECS Data Visualization................................................................................................. 7
2018— CBECS Micro Master........................................................................................................ 7
2012 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics............................................................................... 8
2012 CBECS Micro Master v2...................................................................................................... 8
WeatherNormalization............................................................................................................... 9
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator............................................................................................... 9
LM-83 Three-Phase Daylight Simulation Script......................................................................... 10
Infiltration Equations & Conversions........................................................................................ 11
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool Sets ........................................................................ 12
Climate Design Resources— 15t & 2nd Generation Tool Sets..................................................... 12
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST)................................................................................. 13
Construction Insulation Value Calculator.................................................................................. 14
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits..................................................................................... 14
DaylightPattern Guide.............................................................................................................. 15
Cost and Efficiency of IAQ Devices............................................................................................ 16
IPC Meter Analysis Template .................................................................................................... 16
Building Performance Database - LBNL .................................................................................... 17
Energy Charting & Metrics (ECAM)........................................................................................... 17
4. Design Tools Maintenance........................................................................................................ 19
IPCMeter Analysis Template .................................................................................................... 19
2018 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics............................................................................. 19
2018 CBECS Micro Master......................................................................................................... 19

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 2
2012 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics............................................................................. 19
2012 CBECS Micro Master v2.................................................................................................... 19
WeatherNormalization............................................................................................................. 19
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator............................................................................................. 19
LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script......................................................................... 19
Infiltration Equations & Conversions........................................................................................ 20
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool................................................................................ 20
Climate Design Resources - 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets ................................................... 20
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST)................................................................................. 20
Construction Insulation Value Calculator.................................................................................. 20
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits..................................................................................... 20
DaylightPattern Guide.............................................................................................................. 20
5. Design Tools Statistics............................................................................................................... 21
6. Future Work & Design Tools..................................................................................................... 22
Developing Guides/How-to for Design Tools............................................................................ 22
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator............................................................................................. 22
WeatherNormalization............................................................................................................. 22
CBECS 2018 Data Visualization.................................................................................................. 23
CBECS 2018 Microdata.............................................................................................................. 23

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 3
1. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
App Application
ARUP London based multi-discipline firm
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BCVTP Building Controls Virtual Test-Bed
BEMP Building Energy Modeling Professional
BESF Building Energy Simulation Forum (Energy Trust of Oregon)
BIM Building Information Modeling
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
BSME Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
BSUG Building Simulation Users' Group
CBECS Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
Comm Commercial
Elec. Electrical
HePESC Heat Pump Energy Savings Calculator
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBPSA International Building Performance Simulation Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
LLLC Luminaire Level Lighting Control
M. Arch Masters of Architecture
ME Mechanical Engineer(ing)
Mech. Mechanical
MEP Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing
MS Arch Masters of Science Architecture
NCARB National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
RDA Revit Daylighting Analysis
TMY Typical Meteorological Year
UDC Urban Design Center
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 4
2. INTRODUCTION
Over the years, the Integrated Design Lab has developed several digital design tools to
assist local firms. These include ventilation calculators, daylighting methodologies, thermal
envelope calculators, and climate visualization assistants. These tools have been collected and
hosted on the IDL website in 2021, but some require updating. IDL is working to update these
tools to the latest design temperatures (which have increased over time) and link to other tools
available to designers so that the IDL website can serve as a one-stop resource for local
engineers and architects for early design considerations.
3. DESIGN TOOLS
In 2024, nineteen design tools were available for use and download. The Design Tools
are summarized below and are current as of December 19t", 2024.
Table 1: Design Tools
# Status Priority Name
1 Review Low CBECS Data Visualization Infographics 2012
2 Review Low CBECS Micro Master v2 2012
3 Review/Feedback Low Weather Normalization
4 Review/Feedback Low EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
5 N/A None LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script
6 N/A None Infiltration Equations& Conversions
7 N/A None The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool
8 N/A None Climate Design Resources- 1st& 2nd Generation Tool
Sets
9 N/A None Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator(TEST)
10 N/A None Construction Insulation Value Calculator
11 N/A None Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits
12 N/A None Daylight Pattern Guide
13 N/A None MIT—Sustainable Design Lab (New)
14 N/A None IPC Meter Analysis Template
15 N/A None Cost and Efficiency of IAQ Devices
16 High High CBECS Data Visualization Infographics 2018
17 N/A None CBECS Micro Master 2018

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 5
18 N/A None Building Performance Database
19 N/A None Energy Charting& Metrics(ECAM)

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 6
2024 Summary of Work
Design tools were assigned a priority during the initial proposal of the task. A design
tool's priority determines the probability of receiving an update for the current year. In the
future, a design tool's priority level will be assessed in the kick-off meeting for the project task.
For 2024, high priority was assigned to one design tool: CBECS Data Visualization Infographics.
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) 2018 data was expected to be
released in 2020, however, the COVID-19 pandemic has continually delayed the release of data
from the study. An update in August 2022 indicated that the complete study, including micro
data, would be released to the public in the fourth quarter of 2022. All available public data for
the CBECS 2018 study was downloaded in December 2022 and January 2023. The IDL converted
the Excel sheet format and added column headers to identify areas of study more readily. Then
we combined three separate Excel sheets with the following information, general building
information and energy end uses, heating and cooling equipment, and lighting, equipment, and
conservation features into one master Excel spreadsheet. This master Excel sheet was treated
as the master file that all data was extracted from to develop graphics based on specific
building type and size. The four building types were given preference in 2023, Office, Retail,
Education, and Lodging. These were given preference based on the 2012 CBECS visualization
project. The IDL thought it was crucial to connect the 2018 study to the 2012 study. However, it
was discovered that the 2012 study/project was intended to have a total of eight categories but
only four categories were completed due to budget. Therefore, in 2024 we developed an
additional four categories with the 2018 project/study which are the following: Food Service,
Public Assembly, Warehouse, and Service. Also, the Education building type was further

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 7
analyzed by it's sub categories, Elementary, High School, Middle School, Multi-Grade, Pre-
School, and Other with graphics developed for each.
2024 New Design Tools
2018—CBECS Data Visualization
Priority: High
Link: http:Hidlboise.com/content/cbecs-data-visualization-infographics
Description: Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company,the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how four different building types consume
energy on both a regional and national level.The data used to create them has been gathered from The
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey(CBECS), which is a national-level sample survey of
commercial buildings and their energy suppliers conducted quadrennially by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA).The survey collects key benchmark information on U.S. commercial buildings,their
characteristics, and how they consume energy. It is used by private and public stakeholders to track
industry progress and gain a high-level understanding of how similar buildings compare and inform
policy decisions. Architects and engineers can also use this information for goal setting and prioritizing
energy efficiency measures within the integrated design process for high performance projects.These
infographics make detailed consumption data per building type easily accessible to design teams
without having to filter the CBECS database themselves. Information from CBECS is reported on the
EIA's website in the form of summary tables, which provide tabular breakdowns of high-level energy
consumption statistics based upon general building characteristics.The information is also available as
public use microdata spreadsheets that can be downloaded,filtered, and organized with much more
flexibility than the summary tables.These spreadsheets contain much more detailed information from
the building characteristics survey in its entirety and served as the origin of information for this series of
infographics.
Currently,there are nine double-sided 11x17" infographics.The first is an introduction to the project
and the CBECS database developed in 2023.The first four building types developed in 2023 include
office, retail, education and lodging. Four additional building types were developed in 2024, Food
Service, Public Assembly,Warehouse, and Service.
Last updated: New
2018—CBECS Micro Master
Priority: None
Link: N/A

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 8
Description:This file contains the CBECS microdata,which can be filtered for benchmarking and goal
setting functions. Users can generate their own graphics or perform analysis as needed.
Last updated: 2024
2012 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics
Priority: Low
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/cbecs-data-visualization-infographics
Description: Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company,the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how four different building types consume
energy on both a regional and national level.The data used to create them has been gathered from The
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey(CBECS), which is a national-level sample survey of
commercial buildings and their energy suppliers conducted quadrennially by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA).The survey collects key benchmark information on U.S. commercial buildings,their
characteristics, and how they consume energy. It is used by private and public stakeholders to track
industry progress and gain a high-level understanding of how similar buildings compare and inform
policy decisions. Architects and engineers can also use this information for goal setting and prioritizing
energy efficiency measures within the integrated design process for high performance projects.These
infographics make detailed consumption data per building type easily accessible to design teams
without having to filter the CBECS database themselves. Information from CBECS is reported on the
EIA's website in the form of summary tables, which provide tabular breakdowns of high-level energy
consumption statistics based upon general building characteristics.The information is also available as
public use microdata spreadsheets that can be downloaded, filtered, and organized with much more
flexibility than the summary tables.These spreadsheets contain much more detailed information from
the building characteristics survey in its entirety and served as the origin of information for this series of
infographics.
Currently,there are five double-sided 11x17" infographics.The first is an introduction to the project and
the CBECS database.The next four delve specifically into the office, retail, education and lodging
building type.
Last updated: 2021
2012 CBECS Micro Master Q
Priority: Medium
Link: N/A

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 9
Description:This file contains a good portion of the CBECS microdata, which can be filtered for
benchmarking and goal setting functions.
Last updated: 2021
Weather Normalization
Priority: Low
Link: http://www.idlboise.com/content/weather-normalization
Description:This spread sheet was created to aid the processing and analysis of building energy usage.
To operate this spread sheet,you will need the following bills for each month in the period you wish to
analyze:
• Natural Gas
• Electricity
• Geothermal (if applicable)
In addition, weather data for the location of project is needed. This information can be obtained from
the provided link with the instructions below.
• NOAA National Weather Service
• Select the nearest data center.
• Go to the NOWData Tab and refine the location if needed.
• Under the "Product" select "Monthly Summarized Data".
• Input the desired range of years.
• Set the "variable" drop down to either CDD or HDD.
• Click go and copy data to the Data Entry tab of this file.
The sheet will automatically calculate actual and expected energy usage and create graphs that can be
found in the "Output Figures" tab. More detailed analysis can be found in the "Calculated Values" and
"Regression Visualization" tabs.
Last updated: 2021
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
Priority: Low
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/energyplus-fan-energy-calculator
Description:This spreadsheet was created to aid with determining the fan inputs into EnergyPlus via
equations from ASHRARE 90.1 Appendix G (for baseline systems) and fan specifications (for proposed
systems). Three key inputs are needed in EnergyPlus:
• Supply Fan Total Efficiency

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 10
• Supply Fan Delta Pressure{Pa}
• Supply Fan Motor Efficiency
To calculate these inputs,this spreadsheet will lead you through a series of steps, depending on the
system type required for your building type.The tabs of this spreadsheet are as follows:
• Introduction
• Systems 1 & 2
• Systems 3 &4
• Systems 5 -8
• Proposed System
• Resources
Colored cells signify inputs, outputs, links, and instructive text.
Last updated: 2021
LM-83 Three-Phase Daylight Simulation Script
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/Im-83-12-three-phase-daylight-simulation-script
Description:Annual simulation of dynamic/complex fenestration systems under LM-83 guidelines.This
script will generate its own folder structure beyond the starting directories required, which are outlined
below.
Version 1.2.0 (August 25, 2017)
Author: Alen Mahic, Ery Djunaedy (Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory University of Oregon;
Integrated Design Lab University of Idaho)This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
3.0 Unported License.To view a copy of this license,visit GPL v.3
In plain English: you are free to use this script, distribute it, make changes to it, as long as (1)you
acknowledge Alen Mahic, Ery Djunaedy and the Integrated Design Lab as the original authors, and (2)
you acknowledge that the script is provided as-is with absolutely no warranty, and that the authors and
the University of Idaho are not liable to anything that happens or does not happen in relation to the use
of this script.
Radiance 5.0+ is required.
Last updated: 2022

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 11
Infiltration Equations & Conversions
Priority: Low
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/infiltration-equations-conversions-0
Description:A key factor in building heat gain and loss may be the infiltration rate, or the rate at which
outdoor air is exchanged with conditioned interior air through the envelope.This spreadsheet tool
outlines a set of simplified equations aimed at converting typical, real world infiltration measurements
into metrics that can be input into EnergyPlus. In using methods outlined in the document Infiltration
Modeling Guidelines for Commercial Building Energy Analysis by the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory,we were able to convert common metrics of 175 and ACH50, into ones that could be
conveniently input into an Energy Plus Model (Idesign and ACHnat).
NOTE:At this time,this calculation tool does not take into account infiltration from stack pressure, only
horizontal wind pressure.
Key Definitions
• ACH50-The number of complete air changes that occur within an hour when the building is
pressurized at 50 Pascals. This metric is usually used in residential infiltration measurement.
• ACHnat-The number of natural air changes that occur with an hour when the building is
naturally pressurized.
• 175-The infiltration flow rate of air in cubic feet per minute per square foot of exterior exposed
surface area when the building is pressurized at 75 Pascals.This metric is more commonly used
in commercial infiltration measurement.
• Idesign-The infiltration flow rate of air in cubic feet per minute per square foot of exterior
exposed surface area when the building is naturally pressurized.
Spreadsheets
• Spreadsheets 1 and 2 can be used to convert 175 into Idesign. Spreadsheet "1. 175 to Idesign
Text," explains the method and equations for the conversion. "2. 175 to Idesign Calculations," is
an interactive spreadsheet that takes your project's input and provides an output that can be
used in EnergyPlus.
• Spreadsheets 3 and 4 can be used to convert ACH50 into ACHnat.As in spreadsheets 1-2, "3.
ACH50 to ACHnat Text," explains the method and equations for the conversion. "4. ACH50 to
ACHnat Calculations," is an interactive spreadsheet that takes your project's input and provides
an output that can be used in EnergyPlus.
• Spreadsheets 5 and 6 are for comparing ACH50 into Idesign metrics. As in spreadsheets 1-4, "5.
Compare ACH and I Text," explains the method and equations for the conversion. "6. Compare
ACH to I Calculation," is an interactive spreadsheet that takes your project's input and provides
an output of comparisons between the different metrics.
• Spreadsheet 7 is a provides a reverse calculation. "7. Reverse Calcs" allows you to convert from
an EnergyPlus input into 175.
• Spreadsheet 8 is a reference tab. "8. Appendix" contains useful reference charts for
spreadsheets 1-7.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 12
Last updated: 2021
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool Sets
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/climate-responsive-design-web-tool
Description:The Climate Responsive Design web tool is designed to graphically illustrate the feasibility
and potential energy benefits of several climate responsive design strategies.The tool is intended to
help designers and owners make correct early decisions that will result in buildings that are more energy
efficient.The output of the tool are graphic data plots designed to illustrate not only conventional
climate data, such as temperature and relative humidity, but also more complex interactions of these
raw weather data with building specific user input data and a rule set for various energy efficient design
strategies.
The Climate Responsive Design web tool requires viewing in Firefox internet browser.
Last updated: 2021
Climate Design Resources—1st& 2"d Generation Tool Sets
Priority: None
Link: http://idIboise.com/content/ui-idl-climate-design-resources-1st-2nd-generation-tool-sets
Description:The Idaho Power Company funded the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL)to
produce a series of climate design resources to help assist in the conceptual and early design of passive
strategies.Through their support, the UI-IDL has developed two generations of spreadsheet calculators
that are capable of analyzing building loads and energy consumption impacts of a range of different
design strategies over three reference cities.You can download the tools and both the 1st and 2nd
generation research reports at the bottom of this webpage.The reports provide insight into the
methodology of the research used to develop the tools as well as information on how to use them most
effectively. Currently,there are seven different calculation spreadsheets that span across two different
generations of tool development:
FIRST GENERATION TOOLS
• Heat Gain Calculations
• Cross Ventilation
• Stack Ventilation
• Night Ventilation Thermal Mass

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 13
SECOND GENERATION TOOLS
• Balance Point Calculation
• Passive Solar
• Earth Tube
Each spreadsheet contains multiple tabs and a step-by-step process that directs the user to define the
critical baseline and performance parameters of the building.These factors are linked to pre-defined
equations within the spreadsheet that automatically provide the peak cooling loads, cooling capacities,
and describe other critical design criteria. Charts, line graphs, and other forms of graphic information
also automatically populate the workspace to provide rich visual feedback to the user.The spreadsheets
also contain a reference tab that consolidates a myriad of textbook, code, and other sources needed to
complete the step-by-step instructions. Additionally, a variety of weather data, including hourly
information from TMY weather files, are embedded into the calculations based upon three different
reference cities within the Idaho Power Company service territory. Once each tab is filled out, the
results pages of the spreadsheets contains all of the important outputs needed to evaluate how much
the passive design measure can contribute to the peak loads or energy savings of the building. Changes
to the building parameters are instantaneous, making the Climate Tools Package an ideal instrument
used to explore different design iterations and how they might facilitate passive design strategies.
Goals
The ultimate goal of the Climate Tools Package is to reduce the loads and energy consumption of a
building through passive design measures.This happens mainly by embedding, early in the design
process, the analysis of the performance capabilities of different passive cooling and heating strategies.
Once a performance capacity is calculated and compared against peak loads of a building, a qualitative
decision can be made whether or not to pursue more detailed analysis. If certain passive strategies are
proven to meet some or all of the peak load, this may warrant further development. Potential next steps
could involve more advanced analysis such as building simulation to quantify annual energy savings
based on actual weather data.
Last updated: 2021
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator(TEST)
Priority: None
Link: http://www.idlboise.com/content/thermal-energy-savings-tabulator-test
Description:This tool aims to provide designers, engineers, and manufacturers a quick and easy way to
calculate energy savings from the application of different heat pump HVAC technologies early in the
design process. Specifically,the tool supports analysis of air-source heat pumps (ASHP), water-source

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 14
heat pumps (WSHP), and variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems.The spreadsheet was developed by the
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL)with funding from Idaho Power Company.To learn
more about the development of the tool, please visit the UI-IDL's website here- idlboise.com.
The tool provides the means for detailed input of a custom building, geometry, and program,while
using pre-cooked, whole-building simulations to aid in HVAC energy calculations.The tool always
compares a baseline condition to a proposed condition.The baseline condition can represent a new
construction code baseline, or could be used to define an existing building.
The spreadsheets contain color coded cells that represent different functionalities. All cells, except for
those that require user input, are locked to avoid confusion. However,the cells can be unlocked without
a password for custom manipulation or for further insight into equations used for calculations.
Last updated: 2021
Construction Insulation Value Calculator
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/construction-insulation-value-calculator
Description:This spreadsheet is designed to calculate insulation values of individual material layers and
whole constructions of EnergyPlus objects.
Last updated: 2021
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/sustainable-design-practice-benefits
Description:Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company,the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate sustainable design & practice Benefits of five
different building types for their bottom line impact on efficiency for each building type. Architects and
engineers can also use this information to make early design decisions with compelling numbers for
additional non-energy benefits of energy efficient design. Currently, there are five printable, single-sided
8.5X11" infographics describing specific benefits and strategies for Grocery, Hotel, Multi-family Housing,
Office, and Retail building types.
EXPECTED BENEFITS

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 15
• Broadening the scope of sustainable design effectiveness beyond simple utility cost payback
gives a more accurate picture of the financial benefits available through sustainable design
• Strategies for specific occupancy types highlight the solutions that are most effective and easiest
to achieve for each unique set of needs. Efficiency tips for additional building types can be found
at Idahopower.com/business
• Better information during the design phase means a more accurate prediction of a building's
performance, avoiding costly changes down the road
• Readily available and easily understandable information means increased participation in
efficiency programs by designers, employees, and users of a space
• Energy strategies that go beyond building design and highlight savings opportunities in day to
day operation mean greater energy savings with minimal cost
• Sustainable design and responsible energy consumption can increase a user's comfort and
appreciation, leading to more positive user experiences and an increase in community support
and interaction
• Power companies offer financial incentives to help offset the costs of implementing sustainable
design strategies. Available for new construction, retrofits, custom projects, and flex peak
programs, Idaho Power helps to make it more affordable than ever to incorporate sustainable
and energy-efficient design decisions into your project.Additional information on Idaho Power
incentive programs can be found at Idahopower.com/business
Energy and cost savings attributed to efficiency measures are well documented. However, with
additional opportunities to increase comfort, efficiency, community involvement, and customer
satisfaction, sustainable design and practice could have an impact on your bottom line far beyond
reduced utility bills.
Last updated: 2021
Daylight Pattern Guide
Priority: None
Link: http:Hidlboise.com/content/cbecs-data-visualization-infographics
Description:The Daylighting Pattern Guide is the newest offering in the Advanced Buildings suite of
tools and resources to help design teams create high performance commercial buildings.This no-cost,
interactive design tool uses a combination of real-world built examples and advanced simulation to set
the stage for substantial reductions in lighting power consumption and overall building energy use. It
was developed through a partnership between New Buildings Institute (NBI), University of Idaho and
University of Washington.
High quality daylighting design has the potential to increase user satisfaction and productivity and save
substantial energy. However, successfully designing daylighting into buildings in a manner that supports
high ratings of visual comfort while also saving energy can be a complex and challenging process.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 16
The Daylighting Pattern Guide presents 19 prime examples of well-designed daylit spaces around the
United States. Each project was photographed, physically measured and simulated using the Radiance
simulation tool. Sensitivity analysis of key design variables was conducted on each project to
demonstrate whether the outcome was optimized and to illustrate the impact of multiple 'alternate
design decisions' on the daylighting performance.
Key daylight patterns, or variables including orientation, glazing layout, area, shading strategies,
furniture layout, ceiling height,that contribute to the success or failure of a daylighting design were also
identified.This information allows users to differentiate between good built examples of daylit space,
the information generated by design analysis tools, and the 'rule of thumb' guidelines that designers
commonly apply.
Project types included in analysis are offices, schools, libraries, laboratories, museums, industrial
facilities, and recreational facilities across a diverse set of regional climates.
Last updated: 2021
Cost and Efficiency of IAQ Devices
Priority: None
Link: http:Hidlboise.com/content/covid-impact-modeling
Description: Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company,the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how COVID-19 has brought the issue of
indoor air quality to the forefront of building science.Virus mitigation strategies range in effectiveness,
efficiency, and costs depending on the building type, use types, and local climate. Using Open Studio and
Energy+,the IDL examined the energy and cost impacts of six different mitigation strategies for
commercial buildings in the Treasure Valley.
Last updated: 2024
IPC Meter Analysis Template
Priority: None
Link: http://www.idlboise.com/content/idaho-power-company-meter-analysis-template
Description:This spreadsheet is designed to handle meter data provided in the Idaho Power format. IPC
provides hourly kW data in a table where each row is a day and each column is an hour.This
spreadsheet will format that information so it can be more easily graphed or summed. This should help
to analyze seasonal behavior and the building's hourly profile. In order to use this spread sheet, copy

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 17
and past the information you need over the IPC data sheet. Be careful that your data set is formatted
the same way it appears in the current IPC data sheet in this workbook. Also be sure to delete the
information currently in this workbook's IPC data sheet, so you don't mix the two sets of data. Once you
are sure that information in the spreadsheet you receive from the Idaho Power representative is the
same as what appears in the IPC data sheet.
Last updated: 2023
Building Performance Database - LBNL
Priority: None
Link: https://www.idlboise.com/content/Ibnl-building-performance-database
Description:The Building Performance Database (BPD) is the nation's largest dataset of information
about the energy-related characteristics of commercial and residential buildings.The BPD combines,
cleanses and anonymizes data collected by federal, state and local governments, utilities, energy
efficiency programs, building owners and private companies, and makes it available to the public.The
website allows users to explore the data across real estate sectors and regions, and compare various
physical and operational characteristics to gain a better understanding of market conditions and trends
in energy performance.
The BPD allows users to create and save custom peer group datasets based on specific variables
including building types, locations, sizes, ages, equipment, operational characteristics and more.The
BPD also allows users to compare any two peer groups using statistical or actuarial methods.
The BPD has both a graphical web interface as well as a web API (application programming interface)
that allows applications and services to dynamically query the BPD.
Last updated: 2024
Energy Charting& Metrics (ECAM)
Priority: None
Link: https://www.idlboise.com/content/sbw-energy-charting-metrics-ecam
Description: ECAM provides a standardized and transparent means for measurement and verification
(M&V) of energy savings. Its consistent, repeatable methodology for measuring savings adheres to the
International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol—IPMVP (Efficiency Valuation
Organization, 2012). ECAM uses methods from ASHRAE Guideline 14, Measurement and Verification of
Energy and Demand Savings. The ECAM methods are also compatible with the FEMP M&V Guidelines:
Measurement and Verification for Federal Energy Projects.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 18
Bill Koran conceived and created ECAM, and continues to lead new improvements. Gina Hicks
implemented many of the most recent features and made ECAM more robust and easier to learn.
This tool was created with partial funding by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, New Buildings
Institute,the California Commissioning Collaborative, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,the (Pacific
Northwest) Regional Technical Forum, and the Bonneville Power Administration.
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has contributed significantly to recent ECAM development.
Recent new features funded by BPA include further automation and additional charts to support
Strategic Energy Management, improvements to data resampling to better handle energy data as well
as power data, and more flexible ways to organize the data for modeling. BPA also funded the updating
of the User Guide to include the new features as well as previously undocumented features.
Improvements currently being funded by BPA include automated downloads of historical and TMY3
weather data, an all-fuels model, statistical identification of changes in energy use behavior,
identification and handling of outlier points, and additional M&V model checking and guidance.
Improvements in the estimation of energy savings uncertainty will also be part of the next ECAM
release.
Last updated: 2024

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 19
4. DESIGN TOOLS MAINTENANCE
IPC Meter Analysis Template
Added in November 2023 there is no maintenance currently planned.
2018 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics
Added in December 2023. Expanded in 2024 to include additional building types.
2018 CBECS Micro Master
Added in December 2023. Expanded to include additional building types in 2024.
2012 CBECS, Data Visualization Infographics
Cataloged in 2023, ready for updates. Data will be reorganized and presented in a
manner that allows it to better correlate to the 2018 data.
2012 CBECS Micro Master v2
Cataloged in 2023, ready for updates. Data will be reorganized and presented in a
manner that allows it to better correlate to the 2018 data.
Weather Normalization
Cataloged in 2022, ready for updates.
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
Cataloged in 2022, ready for updates.
LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script
Cataloged in 2022, no updates needed.

Integrated Design Lab Boise 20
Infiltration Equations&Conversions
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Climate Design Resources- 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST)
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Construction Insulation Value Calculator
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Daylight Pattern Guide
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 21
DESIGN TOOLS STATISTICS
We saw a total of 3,083 visits to the home/landing page for the digital design tools
(http://www.idIboise.com/content/design-tools). The table below shows the number of visits
to a design tools page as of December 19th, 2024.
# Name Page Visits
1 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics 2012 256
2 CBECS Micro Master v2 2012 0
3 Weather Normalization 271
4 EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator 516
5 LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script 259
6 Infiltration Equations&Conversions 388
7 The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool 323
8 Climate Design Resources- 1st&2nd Generation Tool Sets 313
9 Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator(TEST) 328
10 Construction Insulation Value Calculator 213
11 Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits 299
12 Daylight Pattern Guide 552
13 MIT—Sustainable Design Lab 215
14 IPC Meter Analysis Template 209
15 Cost and Efficiency of IAQ Devices 674
16 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics 2018 932
17 CBECS Micro Master 2018 273
Total 6.021

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 22
6. FUTURE WORK& DESIGN TOOLS
Developing Guides/How-to for Design Tools
While most design tools include an introduction or instructions to assist users with using
the tool, we don't have any examples or tutorials they can reference. An example or tutorials
would include using the tool, when to use the tool, and when not to use the tool.
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
The EnergyPlus fan energy calculator was created to aid with determining the fan inputs
into EnergyPlus via equations from ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G (for baseline systems) and fan
specifications (for proposed systems). The tool continues to be used by energy modelers and is
referenced several times on Unmet Hours website, however, you can specify the required
inputs (Fa nSystemModel, design PowerSizingMethod, and PowerPerFlow)to calculate fan
power in terms of W/cfm. IDL will be testing these inputs as well as if the tool still works with
the latest version of standard ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G.
Weather Normalization
The weather normalization was created in order to aid with the processing and analysis
of building energy usage. Since the tool's creation the national weather service (NOAA) has
changed how it distributes data which affects the tools performance. The data, heating and
cooling degree days, is no longer formatted correctly where users can copy and paste
seamlessly. The IDL has identified another source for acquiring the appropriate data that would
be seamless for users but needs to be rigorously tested before recommending it to users.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 23
CBECS 2018 Data Visualization
The IDL will wrap up work on the CBECS tool in the first quarter of 2025. The IDL will
catalog a series of building's EUI for the following building types (Food Service, Public Assembly,
Warehouse, and Service).
CBECS 2018 Microdata
The IDL wrapped up work on the microdata when it was published in 2023 because all
building types were included in the microdata excel sheet.

Supplement 2: Evaluation
RESEARCH/SURVEYS
Analysis Study Study/Evaluation
Report Title Sector Performed By Manager Type
2024 Easy Savings Survey Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2024 Idaho Power Weatherization Assistance Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
for Qualified Customers Program Survey
2024 Idaho Power Weatherization Solutions Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
for Eligible Customers Program Survey
2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards Survey Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2024 Retrofits Survey Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2024 Shade Tree Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 241

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 242 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

.During the scheduled visit, which of the following did the contactor provide? Please check all that apply.
They made sure my heating system was working properly. 52 26.67% 94.55%
They left furnace filters with me. 40 20.51% 72.73%
They provided energy saving tips and this customer satisfaction survey. 50 25.64% 90.91%
They reminded me to complete the customer satisfaction survey and sign my
coupon. 53 27.18% 96.36%
.During the visit, what • • you learn? Please check all that apply.
How my Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system works 47 18.88% 85.45%
How to change my furnace filters 51 20.48% 92.73%
How often to change my furnace filters 51 20.48% 92.73%
How to set my thermostat to save energy 49 19.68% 89.09%
The importance of maintaining my heating system 51 20.48%1 92.73%
.Are you committed to changing your furnace filters as the contractor advised?
Yes 1 531 100.00%
No 01 0.00%
.Thinking back on your . . . please rate howcontactor:
Below
Statement Poor average Average Good Excellent Overall
Communicated information about my HVAC 0 0 1 15 39 55
maintenance 0.00% 0.00% 1.82% 27.27% 70.91%
0 0 3 11 41 55
Answered questions about my thermostat 0.00% 0.00% 5.45% 20.00% 74.55%
Answered questions about how my heating 0 0 4 10 41 55
system works I 0.00%I 0.00%1 7.27%1 18.18%1 74.55%
Communicated information about my HVAC maintenance
Poor 0 0.00%
Below average 0 0.00%
Average 1 1.82%
Good 15 27.27%
Excellent 39 70.91%

Answered questions about my thermostat
Poor 0 0.00%
Below average 0 0.00%
Average 3 5.45%
Good 11 20.00%
Excellent 41 74.55%
Answered questions about how my heating system works
Poor 0 0.00%
Below average 0 0.00%
Average 4 7.27%
Good 10 18.18%
Excellent 41 74.55%
um
.Please rate your overall experience with the Easy Savings P .
Very satisfied 47 85.45%
Satisfied 6 10.91%
Unsure 2 3.64%
Dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 01 0.00%

FPlease share any comments you have about your experience with the Easy Savings Program.
All good
An amazing experience very helpful.
Ethan was able to explain things to do to help with the power bill - Super guy!
Ethan was very knowledgeable and helpful.
Gentleman was very knowledgeable and helpful and great at explaining everything
Going to try harder to follow easy savings program.
Great program, help ease my mind.
He provided me with a lot of info about my system. I was very happy with his service and time he took
going thru everything.
He was very informative and kind. Very neat person and someone I can trust.
HVAC Specialties, Jamie was very helpful, polite, and professional.
I'm really appreciative the free tune up services that you give us. Thank you.
Luis accommodated me the day I called and is very appreciated.
Polite and helpful
Thank you for this super helpful program from beginning at step 1 they explained all.
Thank you! This heat & A/C Tune up went fast and efficient! Mr. Holden and team were kind and
knowledgeable.
Thank you, South Central Community Action, Idaho Power, and Plew's Heating & Air Conditioning, for
your help with my home temperatures in all seasons.
Very helpful with the folks you sent to check out the system.
very informative and courteous. Well informed and shown all.
Very informative and knowledgeable! Thank you, Ethan!
Very informative helpful contractor.
very nice gentleman!
Very polite, informative man -Tanner. Thank you for the service.

2024 Weatherization Assistance for Qualified
Customers Program Survey,
0
Agency/C
Agency/Contractor
Metro Community Services 24 23.53%
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership 0 0.00%
El Ada Community Action Partnership 52 50.98%
South Central Community Action Partnership 23 22.55%
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency 2 1.96%
Community Connection of Northeast Oregon 0 0.00%
Community in Action 1 0.98%
Total
How did you learn about the weatherization program?
Agency/Contractor flyer 26 20.807.
Idaho Power employee 9 7.20%
Idaho Power web site 11 8.80%
Friend or relative 58 46.40%
Letter in mail 3 2.40%
Other(please specify) 18 14.40%
To
Other Option
Landlord
online
El Ada
FOOD ASSISTANCE
EI-Ada
Other(Please specify)
Google
EI-Ada
Neighbor
El Ada Food Bank(Homedale)
15 year recheck
Food Bank

El Ada
El-Ada
Other(Please specify)
Grandpa used to work
What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization .•
Reduce utility bills 71 32.727.
Improve comfort of home 53 24.42%
Furnace concerns 55 25.35%
Water heater concerns 14 6.45%
Improve insulation 16 7.37%
Other(please specify) 8 3.69%
Other(please specify)
AC
AC went out
AC/Heater Broken
Electric
never had A/C.Hot during summer
No more worrying about wood
windows
windows&doors
operationIf you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization,how
well was the equipment's
Completely 108 0.00%
Somewhat 20 0.00%
Not at all 1 0.78%
aboutWhich of the following did you learn
How air leaks affect energy usage 93 24.227.
How insulation affects energy usage 70 18.23%
How to program the new thermostat 54 14.06%
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 31 8.079/o

How to use energy wisely 75 19.53%
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 61 15.89%
Total 8
. . &I . . . . . .. . =C F111. . . .
Very likely 97 80.177
Somewhat likely 21 17.36%
Not very likely 2 1.65%
Not likely at all 1 0.83%
21
household?How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your
All of it 84 68.857
Some of it 15 12.30%
None of it 2 1.64%
N/A 21 17.21%
122 d&
household,If you shared the energy use information with other members of your how likely .. you think household members
change habits to save energy?
Very likely 58 47.547
Somewhat likely 36 29.51%
Somewhat unlikely 4 3.28%
Very unlikely 1 0.82%
N/A 23 18.85%
12
What habits are you d other members of your householdapply)
Washing full loads of clothes 83 17.557
Washing full loads of dishes 53 11.21%
Turning off lights when not in use 1o5 22.20%
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 69 14.59%
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 77 16.28%
Turning the thermostat down in the winter 79 16.70%

Other(please specify) 7 1.48%
Other Option(please specify)
All issues were due to bad heater and AC
keep it as 68 heat
Leave at steady
Leave the same
N/A
ryn fans to circulate air
use doors and windows in summer instead of a/c
How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home?
Significantly 108 87.807.
Somewhat 11 8.94%
Very little 1 0.81%
Not at all 3 2.44%
Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
Courteousness
Excellent 115 92.74%
Good 9 7.26%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Professionalism
Excellent 111 90.24%
Good 12 9.76%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total
Explanation of work to be performed on your home
Excellent 104 85.25%
Good 15 12.30%

Fair 3 2.46%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 122
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor
Excellent 108 87.80%
Good 15 12.20%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 123
Power'sWere you aware of Idaho
Yes 85 70.83%
No 35 29.17%
Total 120
Overall
Very satisfied 119 95.977
Somewhat satisfied 4 3.23%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 1 0.81%
IL Total 124
How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization program?
Improved 109 88.62%
Stayed the same 14 11.38%
Decreased 0 0.00%
123
How many people,
0 31 25.007
1 34 27.42%
2 17 13.71%
3 21 16.94%
4 7 5.65%
5 8 6.45%
6 or more 6 4.849/o

Total 124
PowerHow long have you been an Idaho
Less than 1 year 0 0.007
1-10 years 33 26.83%
11-25 years 39 31.71%
26 years or more 51 41.46%
al 123
Please select the category below that best describes your age:
Under 25 3 2.42%
25-34 16 12.90%
35-44 20 16.13%
45-54 10 8.06%
55-64 18 14.52%
65-74 32 25.81%
75 or older 25 20.16%
124
responseSelect the
Less than High School 17 14.177
High School graduate or GED 47 39.17%
Some College or Technical School 39 32.50%
Associate Degree 8 6.67%
College Degree(including any graduate school or graduate degree) 9 7.50%
120
IdahoPlease share any other comments you may have regarding Power's
programs.Thank you.
Amazing program

2024 Weatherization Solutionsfor •
Customers • .
Agency/Contractor Name:
Home Energ Management 151 100.00%
is
rn about the weatherization program?
Agency/Contractor flyer 3 20.00%
employee
.. • Power -. site 1 / 11%
Friend or
Letter in mail 8 53.33%
•ther(please specify)
iOther Option(please specify)
Bill stuffer
What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program? -
Reducebills 10
Improve • • of • 1 11%
Furnace concerns 1 / 11%
Water heater concerns 1 1 11%
Improve insulation
Other(please specify) 0 0.00%1
15
If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization,how
well was the equipment's operation explained to you?
Completely 1 1 11%
Somewhat1 1 11%
Not 1/ 11%
Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization process?(Check all that apply)

How air leaks affect energy usage 15 20.55%
How insulation affects energy usage 15 20.55%
How to program the new thermostat 0 0.00%
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 15 20.55%
How to use energy wisely 13 17.81%
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 15 20.55%
Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use,how likely are you to change your
habits to save energy?
Very likely 9 60.00%
Somewhat likely 6 40.00%
Not very likely 0 0.00%
Not likely at all 0
Tota I 1
How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your household?
All of it 8 53.33%
Some of it 0 0.00%
None of it 0 0.00%
N/A 7 46.67%
Tota I
. MMMM-Til . . . .. . anan,IMMIR . .
Very likely 4 26.67%
Somewhat likely 4 26.67%
Somewhat unlikely 0 0.00%
Very unlikely 0 0.00%
N/A 7 46.67%
householdWhat habits are you and other members of your most likely to change to save energy?(check all that apply)
Washing full loads of clothes 2 15.38%
Washing full loads of dishes 1 7.69%
Turning off lights when not in use 1 7.69%
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 7 53.85%
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 1 7.69%

Turning the thermostat down in the winter 1 7.69%
Other(please specify) 0 0.00%
Tota I
Other •. specify)
72 degrees
already does this
How much .. you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home?
Significantly 10 66.67%
Somewhat 5 33.33%
Very little 0 0.00%
Not at all 0 0.00%
Tota I
Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
Courteousness
Excellent 15 100.00%
Good 0 0.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0
Total
Professionalism
Excellent 14 93.33%
Good 1 6.67%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Explanation of work to be performed on your home
Excellent 14 93.33%
Good 1 6.67%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%

Overall experienceAgency/Contractor
'•• 1 1 11',
Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
11 11',
Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization program?
Stayed the same
How many people,beside yourself,live in your home year-round?
How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
Less than 1 year

11-25 years 2 15.38%
26 years or more 7 53.85%
Tota I
Please select the category below that best describes your age:
Under 25 0 0.00%
25-34 0 0.00%
35-44 0 0.00%
45-54 1 7.14%
55-64 7 50.00%
65-74 2 14.29%
75 or older 4 28.57%
Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have attained:
Less than High School 0 0.00%
High School graduate or GED 3 20.00%
Some College or Technical School 6 40.00%
Associate Degree 4 26.67%
College Degree(including any graduate school or graduate degree) 2 13.33%
Please share any other comments you may have regarding Idaho Power's weatherization
programs.Thank you.
Love this!So happy to have this help!Thank you!

2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards Survey
Are you the owner or an employee of the farm,ranch,or business?
Answer Response Percent
Owner 28 87.50%
Employee 4 12.50%
Total 32
If you have any or all irrigation service locations not enrolled in the Peak Rewards program,what is preventing you from enrolling
these service locations in the program?(Check all that apply)
Answer Response Percent
Window of time events can be called 6 20.69%
Possible number of events 3 10.34%
Crop type 7 24.14%
Irrigation system type 8 27.59%
Other(please specify) 5 17.24%
Total 29
Overall,how satisfied are you with the Peak Rewards Program?
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 10 31.25%
Somewhat satisfied 13 40.63%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 6 18.75%
Somewhat dissatisfied 2 6.25%
Very dissatisfied 1 3.13%
N/A:Not currently participating 0 0.00%
Total 32
How likely are you to enroll additional pump locations in the Peak Rewards program under a new hypothetical option in which events
are not allowed to extend past 9 pm with a reduced fixed incentive that is approximately 50%less than the current standard option?
Answer Response Percent
Very likely 3 9.38%
Somewhat likely 4 12.50%
Neither likely nor unlikely 5 15.63%
Somewhat unlikely 7 21.88%
Not likely at all 13 40.63%
Total 32
Currently the program pays the participants in a two-step process.Step 1:Participants receive the fixed-incentive payment as a billing
credit each month during the season.Step 2:If there are five or more events in the season,participants will receive a variable-
incentive payment check after the end of the season.What is your preferred payment method?
Answer Response Percent
Keep current method of a monthly fixed-incentive bill credit and(if applicable)an end of season variable
incentive payment check 17 53.13%
Receive the total incentive as a single end of the season check in the mail 6 18.75%
No preference 9 28.13%
Total 32

Did you attend any of Idaho Power's irrigation workshops in the last 12 months?
Answer Response Percent
Yes 8 25.00%
No 24 75.00%
Not sure 0 0.00%
Total 32

2024 Retrofits Survey
How did you learn about the Retrofits program?
Answer Response Percent
Idaho Power employee 2 4.35%
Contractor 32 69.57%
Equipment supplier 7 15.22%
Other business owner 1 2.17%
Other(please specify) 4 8.70%
Total 46
Overall,how satisfied are you with the Idaho Power Retrofits incentive program?
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 37 80.43%
Somewhat satisfied 7 15.22%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2 4.35%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 46
How satisfied are you with the contractor that you hired to install the equipment?
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 42 91.30%
Somewhat satisfied 4 8.70%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 46
How satisfied are you with the equipment that was installed?
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 41 89.13%
Somewhat satisfied 4 8.70%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1 2.17%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 46

2024 Shade Tree Survey Results
How did you hear about Idaho Power's Shade Tree Project(Check all that apply)
Answer Response Percentage
Email from Idaho Power 72 59.50%
Friend or relative 23 19.01%
Neighbor 3 2.48%
Utility employee 4 3.31%
Letter 13 10.74%
Other(please specify) 12 9.92%
Total 127
What was the primary reason you participated in the program?(Mark one)
Answer Response Percentage
Tree was free 16 13.22%
Home too warm in the summer 16 13.22%
Reduce energy bill 16 13.22%
Improve landscape/property value 26 21.49%
Wanted a tree 30 24.79%
Help the environment 15 12.40%
Other(please specify) 2 1.65%
Total 121
What kept you from planting a tree prior to the Shade Tree Project?(Mark one)
Answer Response Percentage
Lack of knowledge 22 18.18%
Cost 66 54.55%
Time 10 8.26%
Other(please specify) 23 19.01%
Total 121
Where would you typically purchase a new tree?(Mark one)
Answer Response Percentage
Garden section of a do-it-yourself/home improvement store 40 33.06%
Nursery/garden store 76 62.81%
Other(please specify) 5 4.13%
Total 121
How long did you spend on the online enrollment tool?(Mark one)
Answer Response Percentage
10 minutes or less 74 63.79%
11-20 minutes 32 27.59%
21-30 minutes 10 8.62%
31 minutes or more 0 0.00%
Total 116

Overall,how easy was it for you to use the online enrollment tool?
Answer Response Percentage
Very easy 88 73.95%
Somewhat easy 28 23.53%
Somewhat difficult 2 1.68%
Very difficult 1 0.84%
Total 119
How many trees did you receive from the Shade Tree Project?
Answer Response Percentage
One 10 8.26%
Two 111 91.74%
Total 121
1 Tree
When did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percentage
Same day as the tree pickup 3 30.00%
1-3 days after the tree pickup 5 50.00%
4-7 days after the tree pickup 0 0.00%
More than 1 week after the tree pickup 1 10.00%
Did not plant the tree 1 10.00%
Total 10
1 Tree
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percentage
North 1 11.11%
South 1 11.11%
Northeast 0 0.00%
Southwest 1 11.11%
East 3 33.33%
West 3 33.33%
Southeast 0 0.00%
Northwest 0 0.00%
Total 9
1 Tree
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percentage
20 feet orless 4 44.44%
21-40 feet 4 44.44%
41-60 feet 1 11.11%
More than 60 feet 0 0.00%
Total 9
2 Trees
How many shade trees did you plant?
Answer Response Percentage
One 3 2.70%
Two 107 96.40%
Did not plant the trees 1 0.90%
Total 111

2-1 trees
When did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percentage
Same day as the tree pickup 0 0.00%
1-3 days after the tree pickup 1 33.33%
4-7 days after the tree pickup 1 33.33%
More than 1 week after the tree pickup 1 33.33%
Total 3
2-1 trees
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percentage
North 0 0.00%
South 1 33.33%
Northeast 0 0.00%
Southwest 0 0.00%
East 1 33.33%
West 0 0.00%
Southeast 0 0.00%
Northwest 1 33.33%
Total 3
2-1 trees
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percentage
20 feet or less 1 33.33%
21-40 feet 2 66.67%
41-60 feet 0 0.00%
More than 60 feet 0 0.00%
Total 3
2-2 trees
When did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percentage
Tree 1
Same day as the tree pickup 22 20.56%
1-3 days after the tree pickup 56 52.34%
4-7 days after the tree pickup 21 19.63%
More than 1 week after the tree pickup 8 7.48%
Total 107
Tree 2
Same day as the tree pickup 21 19.63%
1-3 days after the tree pickup 54 50.47%
4-7 days after the tree pickup 23 21.50%
More than 1 week after the tree pickup 9 8.41%
Total 107

2-2 trees
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percentage
Tree 1
North 8 7.48%
South 17 15.89%
Northeast 2 1.87%
Southwest 12 11.21%
East 18 16.82%
West 32 29.91%
Southeast 8 7.48%
Northwest 10 9.35%
Total 107
Tree 2
North 7 6.54%
South 16 14.95%
Northeast 4 3.74%
Southwest 22 20.56%
East 11 10.28%
West 32 29.91%
Southeast 7 6.54%
Northwest 8 7.48%
Total 107
2-2 trees
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Response Percentage
Tree 1
20 feet orless 27 25.23%
21-40 feet 51 47.66%
41-60 feet 21 19.63%
More than 60 feet 8 7.48%
Total 107
Tree 2
20 feet or less 23 21.50%
21-40 feet 52 48.60%
41-60 feet 23 21.50%
More than 60 feet 9 8.41%
Total 107
Why did you not plant your tree?(Check all that apply)
Answer Response Percentage
Changed my mind 0 0.00%
Did not like the tree 1 20.00%
Did not have time 0 0.00%
Other(please specify) 4 80.00%
Total 5

How satisfied are you with the information you received on the planting and care of your shade tree?
Answer Response Percentage
Very satisfied 110 90.91%
Somewhat satisfied 10 8.26%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 1 0.83%
Total 121
What information did you find most valuable?
Answer Response Percentage
Planting depth 64 53.33%
Circling roots 23 19.17%
Staking 14 11.67%
Watering 14 11.67%
Other(please specify) 5 4.17%
Total 120
How much do you agree with the following statements:
I am satisfied with the Shade Tree Project pick up event
Answer Response Percentage
Strongly agree 110 90.91%
Somewhat agree 10 8.26%
Somewhat disagree 1 0.83%
Strongly disagree 0 0.00%
Total 121
1 am satisfied with the tree(s)I received from the Shade Tree Project
Answer Response Percentage
Strongly agree 94 77.69%
Somewhat agree 20 16.53%
Somewhat disagree 5 4.13%
Strongly disagree 2 1.65%
Total 121
It was easy to plant my shade tree(s)
Answer Response Percentage
Strongly agree 101 84.17%
Somewhat agree 15 12.50%
Somewhat disagree 3 2.50%
Strongly disagree 1 0.83%
Total 120
1 would recommend the program to a friend or relative
Answer Response Percentage
Strongly agree 114 94.21%
Somewhat agree 7 5.79%
Somewhat disagree 0 0.00%
Strongly disagree 0 0.00%
Total 121

I am satisfied with my overall experience
Answer Response Percentage
Strongly agree 109 90.08%
Somewhat agree 11 9.09%
Somewhat disagree 1 0.83%
Strongly disagree 0 0.00%
Total 121

Supplement 2: Evaluation
EVALUATIONS
Analysis Study Study/Evaluation
Report Title Sector Performed By Manager Type
Impact and Process Evaluation of the 2023 Idaho Power Commercial ADM Idaho Power Impact and
Commercial and Industrial Custom Program &Industrial Process Evaluation
Impact and Process Evaluation of the 2023 Idaho Power Residential ADM Idaho Power Impact and
Rebate Advantage Program Process Evaluation
Impact Evaluation of the 2023 Idaho Power Educational Residential ADM Idaho Power Impact Evaluation
Distributions Program
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 269

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 270 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Impact and Process Evaluation of the 2023
Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial
Custom Program
Prepared for:
Idaho Power
Delivered on:
January 17, 2025
Prepared by:
ADM Associates, Inc.
3239 Ramos Circle
' Sacramento, CA 95827
916.363.8383

Table of Contents
1. Overview..............................................................................................................................................4
1.1 Recommendations......................................................................................................................................6
2. Impact Evaluation.................................................................................................................................6
2.1 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................7
2.2 Results......................................................................................................................................................12
3. Process Evaluation .............................................................................................................................16
3.1 Company Energy Policies..........................................................................................................................17
3.2 Program Awareness..................................................................................................................................17
3.3 Program Participation...............................................................................................................................18
3.4 Program Satisfaction ................................................................................................................................20
3.5 Firmographics...........................................................................................................................................21
3.6 Conclusions and Recommendations.........................................................................................................21
Tables of Contents ii

List of Tables
Table 1-1: C&I Custom Strata Bounds...........................................................................................................5
Table 1-2. C&I Custom Survey Metrics .........................................................................................................5
Table 2-1. C&I Custom Annual Electric Savings by Stratum..........................................................................7
Table 2-2. Sampled Project Counts by IPMVP Option ................................................................................11
Table 2-3. Sampled Realization Rates by Stratum......................................................................................12
Table 2-4. Savings Results by End Use........................................................................................................12
Table 3-1: Company Policies (n=14)............................................................................................................17
Table 3-2:Technical Assistance Received (n=14)........................................................................................18
Table 3-3: Additional Measures Installed Since Program Engagement (n=3) ............................................20
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Facility-Level SEM Analysis Process Flow ...................................................................................9
Figure 3-1: Factors Considered when Making Equipment Decisions (n=14)..............................................17
Figure 3-2: Satisfaction with Contractor(n=14) .........................................................................................18
Figure 3-3: Experience with the Application (n=14) ...................................................................................19
Figure 3-4: Inspection Experience (n=8).....................................................................................................19
Figure 3-5: Program Satisfaction (n=14).....................................................................................................20
List of Tables/Figures iii

1. Overview
ADM Associates, Inc. (the Evaluators) conducted an impact and process evaluation of the Idaho Power
Company's (IPC or Idaho Power) 2023 Commercial and Industrial Custom (C&I Custom) program.As part
of the C&I Custom program, IPC provides incentives to commercial and industrial customers that
installed qualifying electrical energy-saving improvements in new or existing buildings or processes.
Currently, Idaho Power provides cost-effective projects incentives of 20 cents per kWh saved per year or
70% of the eligible project cost,whichever is less. Prior to December 111h, 2024,the incentive rate was
18 cents per kWh saved annually. While Idaho Power has provided incentives for a variety of measures,
typical projects include installing new efficient equipment or implementing energy-saving modifications
to one or several of the following measures.
■ Process equipment
■ Motor systems
■ Controls
■ Fans
■ Pumps
■ Compressors
■ Air conditioning
■ Find n' Fix'
■ Compressed Air Leaks
■ Grocery and Refrigerated cases
■ Refrigeration
■ Water leaks
■ Strategic Energy Management (SEM) CohortsZ
To calculate energy savings,the Evaluators grouped measures by end use and then, as necessary, split
those end uses into strata based on kWh bounds. From there,the Evaluators conducted 90/10 sampling
across these strata, calculated savings associated with sampled projects with methods dependent on
project complexity and data availability, and then applied the resulting realization rates to full program
tracking data to determine overall energy savings.The end uses and strata employed by the Evaluators
are presented in Table 1-1.
To ensure sufficient sampling granularity, the Evaluators split the Compressed Air, Energy Management,
Refrigeration, and Variable Frequency Drive end uses into strata based on kWh bounds.Table 1-1
outlines the kWh bounds associated with each stratum. This sampling by stratum yielded 8.35%
precision at 90%confidence which exceeds industry standard 90/10 sampling.
1 IPC's Find n' Fix program educates customers about energy management opportunities and is focused on making small
adjustments to the facility's central HVAC control system to maximize energy efficiency and comfort.
z This program helps participants reduce their current energy footprint through low-or no-cost operational adjustments
culminating in the development of a customized SEM system.
C&I Custom Evaluation 4

Table 1-1: C&I Custom Strata Bounds
UpperEnd Use Stratum Project kWh Lower Project kWh
Bound Bound
Compressed Air 1 1,000,000 N/A
Compressed Air I Compressed Air 2 150,000 1,000,000
Compressed Air 3 0 150,000
EM 1 500,000 N/A
Energy EM 2 100,000 500,000
Management
EM 3 0 100,000
HVAC I HVAC N/A N/A
Other Other N/A N/A
Process Process N/A N/A
Refrigeration 1 200,000 N/A
Refrigeration Refrigeration 2 95,000 200,000
Refrigeration 3 0 95,000
VFD 1 1,000,000 N/A
Variable Frequency VFD 2 150,000 1,000,000
Drive —
VFD 3 0 150,000
Idaho Power's C&I Custom 2023 program included 95 projects amounting to ex-ante annual energy
savings of 60,667,088 kWh.The Evaluators' assessment of the program resulted in ex-post savings of
60,835,515 kWh for a program-level realization rate of 100.3%. Program savings were largely driven by
VFD projects, which made up 34.6%of program-level savings and had a realization rate of 99.8%. Annual
electric savings by stratum are presented in Table 2-1. Refrigeration and Compressed Air projects were
the next two largest project types, contributing to 26.2%and 16.9%of program-level savings.These two
end uses had realization rates of 99.3% and 101.6%, respectively,which explains why the overall
program-level realization rate was just slightly above 100%.The realization rates for notable stratum
and sampled projects will be discussed in the following section.
In addition to an impact evaluation, the Evaluators also conducted an analysis based on a survey of C&I
Custom program participants. Prior to the survey the Evaluators interviewed IPC C&I Custom staff to aid
in the development of relevant, program-specific survey questions. As detailed in the following table,
this survey yielded 14 responses (for a 20% response rate)which were used by the Evaluators to develop
conclusions and recommendations for program improvement.
Table 1-2. C&I Custom Survey Metrics
Project Count Unique Points of Contact Surveys Shared Respondents
Rate
95 70 70 14 20%
3 The"Other'end use includes four projects that did not fall into any of the other end use categories.
C&I Custom Evaluation 5

The Evaluators found that most respondents represented companies with policies aimed at reducing
energy usage and increasing efficiency at their facilities. When making energy efficiency purchases,
respondents primarily focused on price, efficiency and maintenance costs of installed equipment, with
simple payback period being the most common financial consideration. Survey respondents were
generally satisfied with the program; however, some respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the
application process and turnaround times.The Evaluators suggest IPC staff continue to emphasize the
payback period of equipment installations and the longer-term return on investment. Furthermore, IPC
staff may want to consider increasing the frequency of their communications with customers to assuage
any concerns regarding lengthy project timelines. Additional details on survey results and key
conclusions are presented in the Process Evaluation section below.
1.1 Recommendations
Key recommendations from the impact evaluation of the 2023 C&I Custom program include:
■ Thoroughly review project materials to ensure they contain all inputs and up-to-date
assumptions necessary to calculate savings for custom programs. While all underlying C&I
Custom calculations were reviewed and verified by the Evaluators, some project summary
documents were ambiguous or missing details such that the Evaluators had to request
additional documentation in a few instances.
Key recommendations from the process evaluation of the 2023 C&I Custom program include:
■ Financial considerations continue to be important to companies when making equipment
decisions.When promoting the custom program to potential customers, IPC staff should
continue to emphasize the payback period of equipment installations, as well as the longer-term
return on investment. IPC staff should also continue to provide materials that display the range
of available C&I Custom options to fit unique client considerations. Emphasizing the breadth of
custom efficiency options that IPC provides paired with the low incremental cost of higher
efficiency equipment should encourage C&I Custom program participation.
■ Although IPC provides customers with project timeline estimates, utility staff should consider
increasing their communication and project updates with customers, so they are up to date on
their applications' status and progress. Given that six out of seven customers outlined that prior
C&I Custom participation was somewhat or very important to their current program
participation, ensuring current customer satisfaction with IPC communication could contribute
to future program growth.
2. Impact Evaluation
The Evaluators calculated ex-ante savings of 60,835,515 kWh for the 95 C&I Custom projects in 2023 for
a realization rate of 100.3%. By strata, realization rates ranged from 98.0%for the EM 1 stratum to
102.7%for the Compressed Air 1 stratum.These near-100% realization rates seem to suggest that IPC's
C&I Custom Evaluation 6

ex-ante savings calculations are well-reasoned and highly accurate. The following table outlines the
program's annual electric savings by stratum.
Table 2-1. C&I Custom Annual Electric Savings by Stratum
ProgramProject Ex-Ante Annual Ex-Post Annual Realization Percentage of
Count Electric Savings Electric Savings Rate
Compressed Air 1 1 3 6,115,242 6,280,168 102.7% 10.1%
Compressed Air 2 5 2,966,419 I 2,966,419 I 100.0% 4.9%
Compressed Air 3 10 1,188,859 1,188,859 100.0% 2.0%
EM 1 3 3,390,034 3,432,860 101.3% 5.6%
EM 2 8 2,545,403 2,550,179 100.2% 4.2%
EM 3 4 117,337 I 117,337 I 100.0% 0.2%
HVAC 8 1,191,945 I 1,176,121 98.7% 2.0%
Other I 4 1,536,786 1,543,898 100.5% 2.5%
Process 9 4,684,364 4,804,689
Refrigeration 1 2 14,719,557 �14,613,216� 99.3% 24.3%
Refrigeration 2 5 670,643 I 670,643 I 100.0% 1.1%
Refrigeration 3 11 530,637 I 530,641 I 100.0% 0.9%
VFD 1 4 15,951,175 15,914,203 99.8% 26.3%
VFD 2 9 4,197,313 4,197,309 100.0% 6.9%
VFD 3 10 861,374 848,974 98.6% 1.4%
Total 95 60,667,088 I 60,835,515 I 100.3% 100%
The following subsections present details on the savings calculation methodology and key results.
2.1 Methodology
As detailed above, savings were calculated based on a stratified 90/10 sample of tracking data. Of the 95
C&I Custom projects, the Evaluators sampled 33 projects and collected billing data, tracking data, and
other project materials (such as savings calculators and rebate documentation)to calculate energy
savings. The Evaluators employed International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol
(IPMVP) options A-D to calculate savings. Details on each of these methodologies are presented below.
2.1.1 Partially/Fully Measured Retrofit Isolation (IPMVP Options A & B)
For custom or otherwise non-deemed measures,the Evaluators carefully reviewed the analyses and
calculations that were used to develop stipulated savings values for the rebated measures. We
evaluated the analysis for each measure according to the degree to which the savings calculations are
supported and defensible and documentation is adequate. To facilitate our review of savings
calculations, we used a checklist to record whether(1) the methodology used for the calculation was
appropriate, (2) assumptions used were reasonable, and (3) savings calculations were completed
correctly.
C&I Custom Evaluation 7

The accuracy of a savings estimate developed through engineering calculations depends on the extent
to which the analysis is based on correct assumptions regarding such factors as usage patterns and
operating hours. We assessed the assumed and actual baseline conditions by reviewing program
baseline assumptions,verifying adequate supporting documentation, and testing the validity of those
assumptions. In our review of the calculation procedures used for different types of measures, we
focused on the main factors that determine energy use.
■ Operating Schedule: In reviewing the energy savings calculations,we determined whether the
assumptions for usage patterns are within the range of reasonable hours for each building type
and end-use application.
■ HVAC Input Factors: Similarly, there are factors whose effects on HVAC energy use are
particularly important and that therefore are given particular attention when we review HVAC
energy savings calculations. Examples of such factors include thermostat set points and
schedules,type of distribution system and control,ventilation rates, operating schedules for
fans, lighting levels and schedules, particularly for office buildings, and equipment sizing.
Based on our evaluation of the calculations,we classified measures into one of three categories:
1. Documentation is sufficient and original savings estimate is reasonable.
2. Documentation is sufficient, but original savings estimate is not reasonable.
3. Both documentation and original savings estimate are inadequate.
If a measure fell into one of the last two categories, we provided references that demonstrate observed
deficiencies pertaining to the reasonableness of the given assumptions, the adequacy of the given
documentation, and the appropriateness of the given methodology.
For custom measures, we developed a plan to sample and verify actual project savings and the
engineering calculations used to calculate savings.
2.1.2 Facility-Level Regression Analysis (IPMVP Option C)
This section summarizes the facility-level regression analysis methods the Evaluators employed for the
evaluation of a subset of programs in the portfolio.The methodology provided here references UMP
Chapter 24 on Strategic Energy Management(SEM) Evaluation Protocol.4
2.1.2.1 Required Data
For the purposes of this summary, a facility may comprise a single building with a single meter or
multiple buildings at the same time with multiple meters.Additionally,the evaluation period is when
energy savings from retrofits will be estimated, and the baseline period is when energy consumption
measurements are taken to establish a baseline for the facility's energy consumption.The objective of
this evaluation activity is to estimate changes in a facility's energy consumption due to the program. In
order to complete this analysis, it is important to have the following datapoints for each facility:
■ Hourly or 15-minute interval meter data of the past 24 or 36 months for each facility
4 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68316.pdf
C&I Custom Evaluation 8

■ Facility square footage
■ Facility occupancy
■ Detailed information on facility type
■ Schedule of operations
■ Facility shutdowns or closures
■ Efficiency measures installed
■ Changes in facility or building operations or production unrelated to program, but affecting
energy consumption
Submetering information provides the Evaluators sufficient understanding of energy consumption at the
facility to construct a valid energy consumption model tailored to the specific facility being evaluated. It
is also important that the expected energy savings are sufficiently large to be detected with a statistical
analysis of the available data.
The Evaluators used consumption data in the baseline period (the 12 months immediately prior to
project participation) and in the performance period (program intervention) in a linear regression model
with specifications tailored to each building to predict monthly energy usage if no measures were
installed. Specific models for each facility were selected based on the highest observed R-squared value
as well as the root mean squared error's coefficient of variation. High frequency data such as hourly or
daily data is encouraged for this type of evaluation because it increases the probability of detecting
energy savings and provides greater insights about the program effects.
The Evaluators summarize the steps completed towards this facility-level analysis in the figure below.
Figure 2-1. Facility-Level SEM Analysis Process Flow
billing1. Review data 2. Import •. . 3.Verify baseline
(missing/erroneous weather&test period
(representative .
observations) changepoint models -df
• - ••- •
6. Incorporate .
routine Sensitivity analysis
.• Perform
(weather
.•• • • -• variable
change in production • calculate selection
•schee)
7. Calculate facility-
level savings
To complete the analysis, the following data was necessary:
C&I Custom Evaluation 9

■ Building data from IPC including gross and leased square footage, as well as space use type;
■ A list of planned installed measures and their expected energy savings, costs, and timelines in
the initial project application;
■ Continuous monthly utility billing data in baseline period through performance period for all
participants;
■ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather data measured at the
nearest weather stations; and
■ Onsite generation, submeter, and building automation system (BAS) data.
Building data collected includes building space type, gross square footage, leased square footage
percentage per building space type, occupancy schedule, details of planned energy efficiency measures,
and details of current HVAC, HVAC controls, lighting, lighting controls, server loads, and other building
equipment. Fortunately, Idaho Power's program documentation contained sufficient building
information for the Evaluators to calculate savings without requesting additional information or
conducting site visits.
2.1.2.2 Regression Approach
The model specifications for the facility-level regression are dependent on the facility to minimize
observed standard errors.Therefore,there are no regression model specifications listed in this section.
However,the Evaluators produced multivariate linear regression model, with weather-dependent
(Heating and Cooling Degree Days) and site-specific variables, such as square footage and building type,
as inputs.
For each project assessed via IPMVP Option C, the Evaluators specified a regression model for the
facility's energy consumption to accurately predict the facility's adjusted baseline. A model designed
with this goal is able to yield an accurate estimate of facility energy savings and help the Evaluator
identify relationships in energy consumption data not evident through engineering analysis.The
Evaluators accomplished this by selecting independent variables that portray important details about
the facility's operation and which provide a level of detail about energy consumed at the facility.The
Evaluators included HDD and CDD independent variables to control for the impact of weather on energy
usage.The Evaluators tested model fit by observing several factors, such as model residuals to
investigate any auto-correlated errors, model R-squared coefficients, and predictive accuracy by
comparing predicted energy consumption against metered energy consumption.
The Evaluators explored the following regression-based methods for estimating facility savings:
■ Forecast models
■ Pre-post models
■ Normal operating conditions models
■ Backcast models
■ Panel models
Each of the models listed above comply with IPMVP Option C, as each uses regression to adjust the
baseline for differences in facility operating conditions between baseline and reporting periods.
C&I Custom Evaluation 10

2.1.3 Simulation Model Analysis (IPMVP Option D)
This approach involved the comparison of participating facilities with a User Defined Reference Facility
(UDRF).The methodology detailed in this section is supported by the IPMVP Option D as a whole
building simulation using calibrations.The Evaluators used simulation models to compare a sample of
participating facilities with a UDRF, an agreed upon set of efficiency standards built to represent a
baseline commercial facility in the region.
The Evaluators used the program REM/Rate to complete whole building simulation modeling efforts.
The UDRF feature in REM/Rate allows energy consumption to be calculated using energy efficiency input
values for both the efficient facility and the baseline facility.The UDRF was designed as an exact replica
of each sampled participating facility in terms of size, structure, and climate zone. However, instead of
using the actual facility efficiency values, we use the energy codes defined in the UDRF.The Evaluators
gathered energy characteristics for the efficient technology via tracking data review.
To calculate the gross savings for a given project,first,the as-built facility was verified using building
characteristics found in supporting documentation. Once the efficient facility was modeled,the energy
model calculates the unadjusted gross savings by subtracting the energy use of the as-built facility from
the energy use of its UDRF baseline facility.This method provides a reliable and supported means of
verifying gross C&I facility savings.
Energy savings were calculated per-facility with the following calculation:
Equation 2-1: Whole Building Model Energy Savings
Energy Savings = Consumption UDRF - ConsumptionEfficient Facility
Where:
ConsumptionUDRF = Simulated energy consumption values from REMRate for a facility under
the UDRF code standards
ConsumptionEfficient Facility =Simulated energy consumption from REM/Rate for a facility
with efficient measures installed as a part of the C&I Custom program
A breakdown of sampled project counts by IPMVP methodology is presented below.
Table 2-2. Sampled Project Counts by IPMVP Option
Option A ` 13
Option B 11
Option C 8
[ Option D _F 1 J
After calculating savings based on IPMVP-approved methodologies, the Evaluators then applied the
stratum-specific realization rates from the 33 sampled projects back to the full set of 95 projects. An
outline of those sampled realization rates along with sampling counts and precision is presented below.
C&I Custom Evaluation 11

Table 2-3. Sampled Realization Rates by Stratum
. Project
SampledProjects .
Compressed Air 1 3 100.0% 0.00% 102.7%
Compressed Air 2 2 40.0% I 37.02% 100.0%
Compressed Air 3 1 10.0% I 110.24% 100.0%
EM 1 3 100.0% I 0.00% 101.3%
EM 2 2 25.0% 35.37% 100.2%
EM 3 1 25.0% 161.10% 100.0%
H VAC 2 25.0% 69.57% 98.7%
Other 2 50.0% 120.50% 100.5%
Process 2 22.2% 76.32% 102.6%
Refrigeration 1 2 100.0% 0.00% 99.3%
Refrigeration 2 2 40.0% 24.45% 100.0%
Refrigeration 3 3 27.3% 58.40% 100.0%
VFD 1 4 100.0% 0.00% 99.8%
VFD 2 2 22.2% 51.74% 100.0%
VFD 3 2 20.0% 45.75% 98.6%
Total 33 34.7% 8.35% 100.0%
The following section provides an overview of key results by stratum.
2.2 Results
After applying the realization rates from the 33 sampled projects to the 95 projects included in the full
C&I Custom 2023 tracking data, the Evaluators calculated verified annual electric savings of 60,835,515
kWh for a program-wide realization rate of 100.3%. Results split by end use are presented in the
following table.
Table 2-4. Savings Results by End Use
Project Annual Ex-Ante Savings Annual Ex-Post Savings Realization
End Use 'z
Compressed Air 18 10,270,520 10,435,446 101.6%
E M 15 6,052,774 6,100,376 100.8%
HVAC I 8 1,191,945 I 1,176,121 I 98.7%
Other 4 1,536,786 1,543,898 100.5%
Process 9 4,684,364 4,804,689 102.6%
Refrigeration 18 15,920,837 15,814,500 99.3%
VFDs 23 21,009,862 20,960,486 99.8%
Total I 95 60,667,088 I 60,835,515 I 100.3%
C&I Custom Evaluation 12

The Evaluators' impact evaluation of the Idaho Power C&I Custom program utilized a random stratified
sample based on the type of measure and annual energy savings. Ratio estimation is used to determine
precision (better than +/- 10% based on annual energy savings) at a 90%confidence interval across all
strata. Sample strata are bound by measure type and magnitude of annual energy savings such that
realization rates (the ratio of verified to reported savings)for projects sampled in each stratum are only
extrapolated to other projects within that stratum. Verification of sample precision, using each
stratum's contribution to variance, is then performed on the verified extrapolated annual energy savings
(kWh)for the program.
A total of 14 strata were defined for the program evaluation, five of the strata were found to have
realization rates greater or less than 100% (± a 0.5% margin).These five strata and the underlying details
of the projects driving their realization rates are provided in the sections below. In addition, while the
VFD 1 strata was found to have a realization rate of 99.8%, additional data was required to appropriately
verify savings for one of the projects. As such, details of that VFD 1 project are also presented below.
2.2.1 Compressed Air 1
The Compressed Air 1 strata includes all compressed air projects with annual energy savings greater
than 1,000,000 kWh.The ex-ante sample savings for this stratum are 6,115,242 kWh, making up 13.05%
of the sampled project savings.The Evaluators sampled the full population of projects for this stratum,
which amounted to three projects.The strata-level realization rate for the Compressed Air 1 stratum
was 103%with ex post sample savings of 6,280,168 kWh.Two of the sampled projects had non-100%
realization rates, project 2902 & project 2925.These projects are described below.
2.2.1.1 Project 2902
Project 2902 involved the installation of an oil-free three-stage 450 HP centrifugal compressor to
operate in conjunction with the already established compressor systems.This project had two
calculations submitted by the participant and contractor, with the participant's calculations being
utilized as expected savings, as it had estimated more conservative savings. Project documentation only
included the calculations for the savings submitted by the contractor,which were calculated using
monitoring data from November 13, 2022 to November 26, 2022 for the baseline period and June 27,
2023 to July 10, 2023 for the post-installation period to determine compressor energy consumption.
Project documentation noted the capability to record trend data for the compressors was also a part of
the project. It was also noted that there was a difference in the power recorded in the trend data and
calculating power using the equipment specifications,this difference was applied to reduce the average
power of the compressors by 7%.The project level realization rate for this project is 105%.The ex-post
savings calculations utilized the provided monitoring and trend data to determine baseline and efficient
consumption. Additionally, power was calculated alongside the trend data to create a ratio used to
reduce average compressor power draw,this resulted in a decrease in average power draw of 3%.
2.2.1.2 Project 2925
Project 2925 involved the replacement of(3)fixed speed air compressors with HPs ranging from 100—
175 HP with (2) 150 HP variable speed air compressors.The realization rate for this project is 98%.The
reason for the discrepancy is a difference in the hours of use utilized to determine savings. Monitoring
C&I Custom Evaluation 13

data from August 25, 2022 to September 7, 2022 for the baseline and April 20, 2023 to May 9, 2023 for
the post-installation period were provided which was used to determine the average power for the air
compressors.The ex-ante savings calculations assumed operation of 8,760 hours annually for both the
baseline and efficient conditions.The ex-post savings calculations also utilized the provided monitoring
data to determine a weighted average hours of use for both the baseline and efficient conditions.
2.2.2 EM 1
The EM 1 strata included projects falling under the scope of energy management with annual energy
savings greater than 500,000 kWh.The ex-ante sample savings for this stratum are 3,390,034 kWh,
making up 7.23%of sampled project savings.The Evaluators sampled the full population of projects for
this stratum, which amounted to three projects.The strata-level realization rate for the EM 1 stratum
was 101.3%with ex post sample savings of 3,432,860 kWh. One of the sampled projects had a non-100%
realization rate, project 3010.That project is described below.
2.2.2.1 Project 3010
Project 3010 involved the repair of air leaks for the compressed air system at the project facility.The
realization rate for this project is 103%.The reason for the discrepancy is a difference in the capacity to
power slope used in calculating the air leakage energy consumption for the baseline and efficient
conditions.The ex-ante calculations utilized a capacity to power slope of 0.85, however the source for
this value was not determined.The ex-post savings calculations utilized a value of 0.88 which was taken
from the Uniform Methods Protocol for VSD with unloading.
2.2.3 Process
The process strata included all projects with installed measures identified as being related to process
functions.There was no set kWh boundary for this stratum.The ex-ante sample annual energy savings
for this stratum are 1,781,791 kWh, making up 3.21%of sampled project savings.A total of nine projects
from the program population were included in the Process strata,with two of the projects in the
Evaluators' evaluation sample.The strata-level realization rate for the Process stratum was 103%with
ex post sample savings of 1,827,559 kWh. One of the projects, project 3031, had a non-100% realization
rate. Findings for this project are described below.
2.2.3.1 Project 3031
Project 3031 was a process equipment upgrade at a wastewater treatment plant.The project involved
the replacement of(2) 125 HP fixed-speed blowers with (2) 100 HP blowers with VFDs and installation of
blower controls that will reduce blower speeds based on wastewater flowrate.The project-level
realization rate is 106%.The ex-post calculations made a change to the efficient case hours of use for
the aeration blowers based on the monitoring data provided.Trend data for a year of blower operation
was provided,which was used to determine the blower's baseline energy consumption. Monitoring data
for the newly installed blowers was provided for a two-week period from March 17, 2022,to March 31,
2022.This data (excluding Blower 1 as it was not operable during the monitoring period) was used to
create a weighted average hour of use for all blowers based on their operation during the monitoring
period. The resulting hours of use was less than the assumed 8,760 used in ex-ante savings calculations.
C&I Custom Evaluation 14

For the air scour blower control upgrades,there were four air scour blowers, each serving an MBR tank.
However, only the power and speed from VFDs 1 &2 were provided,with the ex-ante calculations
utilizing the higher value for both VFDs 3 &4. For the ex-post calculations,the power of the air scour
blowers for tanks 3 and 4 was made to be the average power of the blowers for tanks 1 and 2 instead.
2.2.4 HVAC
The HVAC strata includes all projects with measures identified as being related to HVAC with no upper
or lower savings boundaries.The ex-ante sample savings for this stratum are 202,627 kWh, making up
0.43%of the sampled project savings.The program population of this stratum is eight, with two of the
projects being evaluated in the Evaluators' sample.The strata-level realization rate for the HVAC
stratum was 99%with ex post sample savings of 199,937 kWh. One of the sampled projects had non-
100% realization rates, project 3025. Findings for this project are described below.
2.2.4.1 Project 3025
Project 3025 involved some changes made to the HVAC equipment utilized at the project facility,
including the installation of a new VAV AHU with a supply fan VFD and HVAC control optimization.The
project level realization rate is 97%.The reason for the discrepancy is due to the ex-post savings
calculations utilizing TMYx weather data as opposed to the ex-ante savings calculations utilizing TMY3
data. Both sets of weather data are taken from Boise, ID, however it was determined that TMYx data, as
the most recent iteration of TMY data,would be more representative of a typical year for the project
facility.
2.2.5 VFD 1
The VFD 1 strata includes all VFD projects with annual energy savings greater than 1,000,000 kWh.The
ex-ante sample savings for this stratum are 15,951,175 kWh, making up 34.03%of the sampled project
savings.The Evaluators sampled the full population of projects for this stratum,which amounted to four
projects.The strata-level realization rate for the VFD 1 stratum was 99.8%with ex post sample savings
of 15,914,203 kWh. Project 2956 required additional project documentation to fully verify ex-post
savings. Findings for this project are described below.
2.2.5.1 Project 2956
Project 2956 involved the installation of(3) 125 HP variable-speed pumps to replace (3) 75 HP fixed-
speed pumps at the project facility. The Evaluators initially calculated savings using (3) 75 HP fixed-speed
pumps as the baseline condition, which yielded a realization rate of 36%. Project 2956 was large enough
that this 36% realization rate reduced the program-wide realization rate from 100.3%to 98.4%.
However, after reviewing these preliminary results, IPC was able to provide evidence that in conjunction
with installing variable-speed pumps,the facility capacity was also being upgraded. As such, ex-post
savings calculations were updated to use a baseline of(3) 125 HP fixed-speed pumps,which yielded a
final verified realization rate of 100%for the project.
C&I Custom Evaluation 15

2.2.6 VFD 3
The VFD 3 strata includes all VFD projects with annual energy savings less than 150,000 kWh.The ex-
ante sample savings for this stratum are 108,779 kWh, making up 0.23%of the sampled project savings.
The program population of this stratum is 10,with two of the projects being evaluated in the Evaluators'
sample.The strata-level realization rate for the VFD 3 stratum was 99%with ex post sample savings of
107,213 kWh. One of the sampled projects, project 2861, had a non-100% realization rate. Findings for
this project are described below:
2.2.6.1 Project 2861
Project 2861 involved the installation of(3)VFDs on refrigeration condensers for a grocery store.The
baseline conditions for this project were condenser fans running at full load, installation of the
condenser fan VFDs resulted in savings due to running at lower load based on outdoor air temperatures.
The project had a realization rate of 96%.The factor causing the realization rate discrepancy was a
difference in the weather data utilized to determine project savings. Ex ante calculations utilized TMY
data from Boise, Idaho, whereas the ex-post calculations utilized TMYx data from the Magic Valley
Regional Airport.TMYx data was chosen as the most recent iteration of TMY data, it should be more
representative of a typical weather year. Magic Valley Regional Airport is six miles from the project
facility as opposed to 130 miles from Boise, ID.
Ultimately the Evaluators found that ex-ante savings estimates closely matched ex-post calculations for
nearly all projects. Barring the minor differences outlined above, IPC's C&I Custom data collection is
extensive, and their savings calculations are accurate.
Based on our findings from the C&I Custom impact evaluation, the Evaluators recommend IPC
thoroughly review project materials to ensure all necessary inputs and assumptions are included in
project documentation. While most projects contained sufficient documentation, reviewing all project
materials to ensure each contains all relevant details on pre-retrofit and post-retrofit equipment as well
as facility operations and updates seems worthwhile.
The following section provides recommendations based on the Evaluators' process assessment of the
C&I Custom program.
3. Process Evaluation
Evaluators conducted a survey of Idaho Power Company's C&I Custom program participants from 2023
to gather feedback about customers' engagement with and experience of the program.The Evaluators
developed this survey after conducting an interview with IPC's C&I Custom program staff to ensure the
survey addressed program-specific questions and concerns. Tracking data included 70 unique contacts
with an email address and/or phone number. Participants were contacted via phone and/or email up to
four times and asked to complete a survey. In total, 14 customers (20.0% response rate) responded to
survey efforts and were included in the analysis.
C&I Custom Evaluation 16

3.1 Company Energy Policies
Most respondents noted their company had a staff member at their facility responsible for energy
monitoring and managing energy usage (78.6%, n=11). Many respondents also indicated their company
had defined energy savings goals (64.3%, n=9), carbon reduction goals (57.1%, n=8), and a specific policy
requiring that energy efficiency be considered when purchasing equipment (42.9%, n=6) (Table 3-1).
Table 3-1: Company Policies(n=14)
Company Policies % n
Person(s) responsible for monitoring or managing energy usage 78.6% 11
Defined energy savings goals 64.3% 9
Carbon reduction goals 57.1% 8
Specific policy requiring that energy efficiency be considered when 42 9°/ 6
purchasing equipment
When thinking about making energy efficiency upgrades or purchases, respondents indicated their
company considers the price, efficiency, and maintenance cost of the equipment,among other things
(Figure 3-1).
Figure 3-1:Factors Considered when Making Equipment Decisions (n=14)
Price of the equipment 85.7%
Efficiency of the equipment 78.6%
Operational or maintenance costs 71.4%
Design features 71.4%
Availability of incentives 64.3%
Availability of equipment 57.1%
Size - 21.4%
Return on investment 7.1%
Availability of financing options 7.1%
Most respondents indicated that their company refers to the simple payback period of a project when
deciding whether or not to install energy efficient equipment(71.4%, n=10) and that the desired
payback period is typically no more than three years (57.1%, n=8).
3.2 Program Awareness
More than half of respondents learned about the C&I Custom program because they had previously
participated in an Idaho Power Company energy efficiency program (57.1%, n=8); other awareness
sources include a contractor (14.3%, n=2), communication from Idaho Power(14.3%, n=2), utility
C&I Custom Evaluation 17

website (7.1%, n=1), and word of mouth (7.1% n=1). None of the respondents reported having concerns
about the C&I Custom program prior to their participation.
Half of the respondents indicated their company had previously participated in the C&I Custom program
(50.0%, n=7).Just over half of these respondents noted that their previous participation in the program
was a very important factor in their decision to participate again (57.1%, n=4).
3.3 Program Participation
All but one respondent indicated they received some level of technical services and assistance as part of
their participation in the program. More than half of respondents received a savings calculation (64.3%,
n=9), application assistance (57.1%, n=8), and/or a facility assessment (57.2%, n=8) (Table 3-2).Ten of
the 14 respondents completed the application themselves (71.4%, n=10); the remaining respondents
received application assistance from an Idaho Power representative (50.0%, n=7), another employee at
their company(50.0%, n=7), a contractor(42.8% n=6), and a designer/architect(7.1%, n=1).
Table 3-2: Technical Assistance Received(n=14)
Technical Assistance Received % n
Calculation 64.3% 9
Facility assessment 57.1% 8
Application assistance 57.1% 8
More than half of respondents used a contractor they had worked with before (64.3%, n=9) and per
Figure 3-2 most respondents were satisfied with their contractor across a variety of metrics.
Figure 3-2:Satisfaction with Contractor(n=14)
Time it took to complete the work was reasonable
Work was scheduled in a reasonable amount of time
Contractor was courteous and professional
■1 don't know ■1(strongly disagree) 2(somewhat disagree)
■3(neither agree nor disagree)■4(somewhat agree) ■5(strongly agree)
In general, respondents noted that the program application process was smooth, effortless, clear, and
easy(Figure 3-3). When asked how the application process could improve,three respondents expressed
some dissatisfaction citing long turnaround time for the verification process (14.3%, n=2) and confusion
navigating the application process without contractor assistance (7.1%, n=1).
C&I Custom Evaluation 18

Figure 3-3:Experience with the Application (n=14)
Overall application process was smooth 10.09 0'. 30.0% 40.0%
Providing the required invoices or other supporting
documentation was effortless 10.0° �'. �'. �'.
Information on how to complete the application was
clear
Time it took to approve the application was
acceptable ],Q0%10.0° 0'. 0'.
Using the electronic application was easy 1 Vy 0'. 50.0%
Finding the application forms were easy 10.05�. 0'. 50.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
■1 don't know ■(1)Strongly disagree (2)Somewhat disagree
■(3)Neither agree nor disagree■(4)Somewhat agree ■(5)Strongly agree
Eight respondents remember a program representative completing a post-installation project
inspection. In general,these respondents noted that the inspection was scheduled in a timely fashion
and that the inspection was efficient and courteous (Figure 3-4).
Figure 3-4:Inspection Experience(n=8)
The inspector was efficient EMh&% 0'.
Inspector was courteous MMr_5%
Scheduled in a reasonable amount of time M 12.5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■1 don't know ■(1)strongly disagree (2)somewhat disagree
■(3)neither agree nor disagree■(4)somewhat agree ■(5)strongly agree
Just over half of respondents noted that their company would have been financially able to install their
new custom measures even if incentives had not been available (57.1%, n=8); about one-third of
respondents indicated they installed more efficient products because of the incentives (35.7%, n=5).
Additionally,three respondents have installed additional efficient products since participating in the
custom program (Table 3-3).
C&I Custom Evaluation 19

Table 3-3:Additional Measures Installed Since Program Engagement(n=3)
Additional Measures % n
Controls 100.0% 3
HVAC equipment 100.0% 3
Motor systems 66.7% 2
Fans 66.7% 2
Pumps 66.7% 2
Lighting 66.7% 2
Building shell upgrades 66.7% 2
Compressors 33.3% 1
Air conditioning 33.3% 1
Variable frequency drives 33.3% 1
Refrigeration 33.3% 1
3.4 Program Satisfaction
Respondents were generally satisfied with the program (Figure 3-5). Three respondents expressed some
level of dissatisfaction with the program, citing project application, completion, and inspection delays.
Five respondents provided feedback for improvement; suggestions included simplifying the application
and program requirements (14.3%, n=2), providing clearer project timelines (7.1%, n=1), increasing the
availability of contractors (7.1%, n=1), and enhancing IPC staff communication and status updates (7.1%,
n=1). All fourteen respondents expressed satisfaction with Idaho Power as their service provider.
Figure 3-5:Program Satisfaction (n=14)
Program overall
Time it took to complete the project
Steps you had to take to complete your project
Range of qualifying equipment
Contractor's explanation of the program
Equipment installed
Proposal received from your contractor
Facility assessment or other technical services
Program representative that assisted you
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
r Don't know ■(1)Very dissatisfied ■(2)Somewhat dissatisfied
(3)Neutral ■(4)Somewhat satsified ■(5)Very satisfied
C&I Custom Evaluation 20

3.5 Firmographics
Respondents surveyed represented a range of facility types including industrial/manufacturing buildings
(50.0%, n=7), warehouses (14.3%, n=2), a school (7.1%, n=1), an office building (7.1%, n=1), a restaurant
(7.1%, n=1), a water treatment facility(7.1%, n=1), and a public utility(7.1%, n=1).All the respondents
indicated their company is directly billed by Idaho Power for their electricity usage.All but one
respondent noted that their company owns the facility that received upgrades (92.9%, n=13) and more
than half of respondents explained that their company owned multiple facilities (64.3%, n=9).
3.6 Conclusions and Recommendations
The following section summarizes the Evaluators' conclusions and recommendations based on the C&I
Custom survey results provided above.
Conclusion 1: Most respondents represented companies with company policies aimed at reducing
energy usage and improving the energy efficiency of their facilities (n=11).The responding companies'
policies ranged from specific energy saving and/or carbon reduction goals to stipulations requiring new
equipment to be energy efficient.
Conclusion 2:When thinking about making energy efficiency upgrades or purchases, respondents
indicated their company considers the price, efficiency, and maintenance cost of the equipment, among
other considerations. Simple payback periods were the most common financial consideration companies
look to when making equipment purchase decisions.
Conclusion 3:While many respondents (57.1%, n=8) suggested their company would have been
financially able to install new custom measures even if incentives had not been available, it is unclear if
they would have actually installed efficient measures. Indeed, about one-third of respondents indicated
they installed more efficient products because of the incentives (35.7%, n=5) and three respondents
have installed additional efficient products since participating in the custom program. Collectively,this
seems to suggest rebates play a key role in incentivizing customers to maximize the efficiency of
installed measures.
Recommendation 1: Financial considerations continue to be important to companies when
making equipment decisions. When promoting the custom program to potential customers, IPC
staff should continue to emphasize the payback period of equipment installations, as well as the
longer-term return on investment. IPC staff should also continue to provide materials that
display the range of available C&I Custom options to fit unique client considerations.
Emphasizing the breadth of custom efficiency options that IPC provides paired with the low
incremental cost of higher efficiency equipment should encourage C&I Custom program
participation.
C&I Custom Evaluation 21

Conclusion 4: In general, respondents indicated that the program application process was smooth,
effortless, clear, and easy; however, when asked how the application process could improve some
respondents expressed dissatisfaction citing long turnaround time for the verification process (14.3%,
n=2) and confusion navigating the application process without contractor assistance (7.1%, n=1).
Conclusion 5: Respondents were generally satisfied with the program.Three respondents expressed
some level of dissatisfaction with the program citing project application, completion, and inspection
delays. Five respondents provided feedback for improvement; suggestions included simplifying the
application and program requirements(n=2), clearer project timelines (n=1), increased contractor
availability(n=1), and enhanced IPC staff communication and status updates (n=1).
Recommendation 2:Although IPC provides customers with project timeline estimates, utility
staff should consider increasing their communication and project updates with customers, so
they are up to date on their applications' status and progress. Given that six out of seven
customers outlined that prior C&I Custom participation was somewhat or very important to
their current program participation, ensuring current customer satisfaction with IPC
communication could contribute to future program growth.
C&I Custom Evaluation 22

Impact and Process Evaluation of the 2023
Idaho Power Rebate Advantage Program
Prepared for:
Idaho Power
Delivered on:
January 10, 2025
Prepared by:
ADM Associates, Inc.
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
916.363.8383

Table of Contents
1. Overview..............................................................................................................................................4
1.1 Recommendations......................................................................................................................................5
2. Impact Evaluation.................................................................................................................................6
3. Process Evaluation ...............................................................................................................................7
3.1 Rebate Advantage Program Manager Interview........................................................................................7
3.2 Other Utilities' Manufactured Home Programs.........................................................................................8
3.3 Manufactured Home Literature Review...................................................................................................10
Tables of Contents ii

List of Tables
Table 1-1. Comparing NEEM 1.1 and NEEM 2.0 Technical Specifications....................................................S
Table 2-1: Rebate Advantage Savings by Home Type...................................................................................6
Table 3-1. Comparing Utility Manufactured Home Programs Offered in the Region ..................................9
List of Figures
Figure 3-1. Manufactured Home Price in the West Region by Month and Year........................................11
Figure 3-2. Manufactured Home Shipments to Idaho by Year...................................................................12
List of Tables/Figures iii

1. Overview
ADM Associates Inc. (the Evaluators) conducted an impact and process evaluation of Idaho Power
Company's (Idaho Power or IPC) 2023 Rebate Advantage program. Idaho Power's Rebate Advantage
program offers homebuyers a $1,000 rebate for purchasing an energy efficient manufactured home,
while dealer sales consultants are offered a $200 rebate. Manufactured homes are factory-built
residences that are transported and then installed on a permanent foundation. Not only are
manufactured homes substantially less expensive than stick-built homes, but they can also be built to
meet strict energy efficiency guidelines. For customers to receive a rebate from IPC, they must purchase
a manufactured home that is certified by the Northwest Energy Efficient Manufactured Housing
Program (NEEM), and is ENERGY STAR' qualified. NEEM certifications are a collaborative effort between
home builders, retailers, and utilities in the northwest.This group provides third party verification for
manufactured home energy efficiency standards. NEEM (i.e., NEEM 1.1 or ENERGY STAR) certified
homes have energy efficient air sealing, insulation,ventilation, and windows,while NEEM+ (i.e., NEEM
2.0 or ENERGY STAR with NEEM+) certified homes include more stringent weatherization requirements
and installation of additional energy efficient devices.A detailed outline of the differences between
NEEM and NEEM+certified homes can be found below in Table 1-1.
The Evaluators' analysis of the Rebate Advantage program was split into an impact and a process
evaluation.The impact evaluation involved verifying energy and relevant non-energy savings associated
with the 2023 Rebate Advantage program.The process evaluation meanwhile involved interviewing
Idaho Power staff, reviewing program materials, and conducting research to identify areas for program
improvement.
In 2023, 79 IPC customers participated in the Rebate Advantage program, 56 of whom installed NEEM
1.1 certified homes (one of which was also Eco-Rated') and 23 of whom installed NEEM 2.0 certified
homes.The Evaluators referenced the Regional Technical Forum's (RTF) Manufactured Homes UES
workbooks v.5.0 and v.5.1 to assign annual deemed savings to these customers.z The RTF is a technical
advisory committee that develops standards to verify and evaluate energy efficiency savings with a
focus on the Pacific Northwest.The Manufactured Home UES workbook v.5.1 was published on June 29,
2023, so all manufactured homes purchased prior to that date referenced v.5.0.Across these 79
customers the Evaluators calculated verified electricity savings of 213,743 kWh for a realization rate of
99.77%.This corresponds to average verified savings of 2,482 kWh per NEEM 1.1 certified home and
3,249 kWh per NEEM 2.0 certified home.The near-100% realization rate from this impact evaluation
suggests Idaho Power's ex-ante savings estimates are accurate and supported by PNW approved savings
sources.
The Evaluators' process evaluation yielded a variety of insights.The Evaluators conducted research on
other manufactured home program offerings in the PNW region and found that IPC offers similar
1 Eco-Rated is a NEEM distinction awarded to homes produced in factories with a strong commitment to minimizing the
environmental impacts of construction.
z https://rtf.nwcounciI.org/measure/new-manufactured-homes/
Rebate Advantage Evaluation 4

rebates to other utilities; however, unlike some other utilities IPC provides the same incentive for NEEM
1.1 and NEEM 2.0 homes.The Evaluators also conducted a literature review which identified seasonal
trends in manufactured home pricing; manufactured homes seem to be least expensive in March.The
literature review also revealed that manufactured home shipments to Idaho have been decreasing since
the late 1990s.This process analysis culminated in several key recommendations which are presented
below. Specifics on the impact and process evaluation are presented in the following sections.
Table 1-1. Comparing NEEM 1.1 and NEEM 2.0 Technical Specifications'
7--'Wlpecifications NEEM ver. 1.1,branded as ENERGY NEEM ver.2.0.branded as ENERGY
STAR STAR with NEEM+
Reference Path Insulation
Ceiling R-40 R-44(or R-40 with improved floor)
Walls R-21 standard framing R-21 Intermediate framing w/insulated
headers
Floor R-33 R-33(or R-33/52 with R-40 ceiling)
Windows U-0.35 U-0.25 (or U-0.28 w/added insulation)
Skylights U-0.50 U-0.50
Entry Doors U-0.19 U-0.19
Overall Average U-value 0.053 0.049
Building Tightness 5.0 ACH @ 50 Pa,via standard NEEM 4.0 ACH @ 50 Pa,via standard NEEM
measures measures
HVAC Measures
Duct System Mastic,0.06 CFM50/ft3 total Mastic,0.06 CFM50/ft3 total
Crossover duct R-8,elbows,tensioned straps R-8,elbows,tensioned straps
Thermostat Programmable Wi-Fi Connected "Smart"
Whole house ventilation 32 Watts,<1 Sone 17 Watts,<1 Sone
Lighting Not Specified LED Throughout
Appliances,ENERGY STAR Dishwasher Dishwasher and Refrigerator
Moisture Management Not Specified Building wrap&door/window flashing
1.1 Recommendations
Recommendations based on the impact analysis of the 2023 Rebate Advantage program include:
Reference the most up-to-date RTF Climate Zone workbook (currently version 3.2) when
assigning Heating and Cooling Zones for savings calculations.
Review the 2-7 kWh savings deduction that IPC applies to manufactured homes that do not have
an AC unit. If a valid source for this deduction cannot be identified, consider removing it.
Recommendations based on the process analysis of the 2023 Rebate Advantage program include:
3https://staticl.sq ua respace.com/static/5 b lOa9l989cl72d4391a b016/t/5c58d bc28165f5 be9d9e8503/1549327298845/N E EM_
Spec_Comparison_020419.pdf
Rebate Advantage Evaluation 5

■ Add a layer of quality control to the Rebate Advantage data review process to prevent and
correct data entry errors.
■ Regularly review trends in Census manufactured homes data to help improve program
performance and guide informational messaging to potential customers. For example, consider
sharing marketing materials in February to take advantage of the March slump in manufactured
home prices.
■ Review the content of marketing materials to ensure the materials address key barriers to
purchasing a manufactured home in order to help increase program participation.
2. Impact Evaluation
As detailed above,the Evaluators referenced the RTF Manufactured Homes UES workbooks v.5.0 and
v.5.1 to calculate the kWh energy savings and carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions associated with
purchasing energy efficient manufactured homes. The RTF released version 5.1 of the Manufactured
Homes workbook on June 29, 2023; therefore, savings were calculated using version 5.0 for all homes
purchased prior to that date and using version 5.1 for homes purchased on or after it.
In 2023,the 79 manufactured homes rebated by IPC achieved savings of 213,743 kWh and reduced
emissions by 50.24 tons of CO2.The Evaluators' savings calculations closely matched IPC's ex-ante
estimate of 214,236 kWh for a program-wide realization rate of 99.77%. A breakdown of savings by
manufactured home type is presented below. Most customers (71%) purchased a NEEM 1.1 certified
manufactured home, one of which was also Eco-Rated.
Table 2-1:Rebate Advantage Savings by Home Type
Manufactured Home Annual Ex- Annual Ex-Post Realization
Type Measure Count Ante Savings Savings(kWh) Rate
NEEM 1.1 55 138,362.73 136,935.52 98.97%
Eco-Rated NEEM 1.1 1 2,065.02 2,070.80 100.28%
NEEM 2.0 23 73,808.03 74,737.05 101.26%
Total 79 I 214,235.78 ,� 213,743.38,E 99.77%�
While the program-level realization rate was nearly 100%,there were some discrepancies in expected
and verified measure-level savings.The Evaluators identified two key differences between Idaho
Power's ex-ante savings calculations and the ex-post verified savings methodology. First, Idaho Power
seems to have referenced the RTF's Climate Zone workbook version 2.3 to assign customers to RTF
Heating and Cooling Zones. In contrast,the Evaluators referenced the most recent version of the
Climate Zone workbook (version 3.2), which was released on December 19, 2022.4 Version 2.3 and 3.2
have slightly different Heating and Cooling Zone assignment,which led to slightly different ex-ante and
ex-post savings estimates.The RTF assigns each zip code a Heating and Cooling Zone based on annual
heating degree days and cooling degree days, so as climate change drives changes in regional weather
4 https://rtf.nwcounci1.org/work-products/supporting-documents/climate-files/
Rebate Advantage Evaluation 6

patterns, Heating and Cooling Zone assignment may change as well.This difference in Climate Zone
assignment drove the 98.97% realization rate for NEEM 1.1 homes.
Second, Idaho Power seems to apply slightly different ex-ante savings values than those reported in the
RTF UES workbook for several customers. For example, Idaho Power reports ex-ante savings of 2,070.80
and 2,065.02 kWh for customers purchasing a manufactured home in Heating Zone 1 and Cooling Zone
3. Idaho Power confirmed that this difference in reported savings is based on a 2-7 kWh deduction
(depending on Heating Zone and Cooling Zone) for manufactured homes that did not have an AC unit.
The Evaluators did not find evidence that the RTF differentiates savings based on AC unit installation and
as such did not apply this deduction to ex-post savings calculations.These ex-ante savings deductions
were the primary driver of the 101.26% realization rate for NEEM 2.0 homes.
Ultimately,the 99.77% realization rate suggests that Idaho Power's Rebate Advantage savings estimates
align with those presented by the RTF. As highlighted above, the Evaluators recommend IPC consider
employing the most up-to-date RTF Climate Zone workbook(version 3.2) and removing the AC unit
adjustment from their savings calculations unless it can be supported by a reputable source.
3. Process Evaluation
The Evaluators conducted three main activities as a part of our process evaluation of IPC's Rebate
Advantage program.The first was an interview with the Rebate Advantage program manager.The
second was a review of similar manufactured home programs from other utilities in Idaho and Oregon.
The final activity was a brief literature review to identify key trends in the manufactured home market,
particularly in Idaho. Findings associated with these three process evaluation activities are outlined in
the following sections.
3.1 Rebate Advantage Program Manager Interview
The Evaluators interviewed IPC's Rebate Advantage program manager with the aim of learning more
about the Rebate Advantage program's past, present, and future goals, current implementation, and
areas of interest for future improvement from the perspective of the utility.The program's main goal is
to provide customers with an incentive to purchase an energy efficient manufactured home.
This program offers homebuyers a $1,000 rebate for purchasing a NEEM certified, ENERGY STAR®
qualified manufactured home,while manufactured home dealer sales consultants are offered a $200
rebate. By offering a rebate for purchasing a manufactured home certified by NEEM, IPC provides its
customers with an avenue for affordable energy efficiency.The Rebate Advantage program manager
characterized the Rebate Advantage as a "turnkey program," which yields consistent savings with a
relatively straightforward application and implementation process. Idaho Power assumes that the
program will continue to garner savings with this approach; however, staying abreast of trends in the
manufactured home market seems important to maximize program effectiveness.
The program is currently marketed with annual scheduled bill inserts for residential customers and
outreach to local manufactured home dealers, coordinated by the program manager.To apply for the
rebate,the dealer sales consultant or the homeowner must complete the rebate application and submit
Rebate Advantage Evaluation 7

required documentation to Idaho Power.These documents may be submitted through standard mail or
email. .All applications are then aggregated by the program manager into a project management
database. Currently,there is one staff member completing the manual data entry for the population of
applications.To minimize the likelihood of data entry errors,the Evaluators suggest implementing a
thorough quality control system that includes at least one additional staff member to ensure Rebate
Advantage tracking data quality.
Staff noted that the program participation decreased from 97 participants in 2022 to 79 in 2023;
however,this decrease may be due to increasing home interest rates and an increasingly competitive
housing market.Additional investigation into the impact of such market trends on program participation
seems worthwhile.The Evaluators highlight some market trends in the Manufactured Home Literature
Review section below, such as a limited supply chain for manufactured home components and mortgage
financing concerns. However, additional investigation into the price of specific building materials,trends
in interest rates, and the relationship between the stick-built and manufactured housing market could
provide IPC with useful insights for program improvement. Staying aware of trends in manufactured
home popularity(and related indicators) would help Idaho Power allocate funds to marketing in a
precise manner and assess the success of outreach. For example, if manufactured homes are increasing
in popularity but Rebate Advantage signups remain unchanged, that may indicate marketing is not
effectively reaching key customers. Furthermore, should manufactured homes continue to decrease in
popularity, having a finger on such key indicators would help make strategic decisions regarding future
program implementation.
The Rebate Advantage program manager outlined that since NEEM-certified manufactured homes are
highly energy efficient, customers rarely participate in other programs after purchasing their home.
However, some customers may install a heat pump if preferred..The Evaluators provide
recommendations regarding such heat pump installations in the subsequent section.
Because the minimum code requirements for manufactured homes will likely soon be updated from
current Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing (10 CFR Part 460)5 to
standards equivalent to NEEM 1.1, Idaho Power will likely incorporate NEEM 2.0 (NEEM+) efficiency
requirements for homes rebated through the program in future program years. Based on this and
research on other manufactured home programs in the Pacific Northwest,the Evaluators provide
recommendations for a tiered rebate program in the subsequent section.
3.2 Other Utilities' Manufactured Home Programs
In an effort to compare the Rebate Advantage program to similar programs,the Evaluators conducted
research on manufactured home programs offered by utilities in Idaho and Oregon.The Evaluators
investigated nine other utilities and the Energy Trust of Oregon to identify similarities and differences in
their manufactured home rebate programs. Specifics on manufactured home rebates by each utility
program investigated, including Idaho Power's program for comparison, are presented in Table 3-1.
5 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/31/2022-10926/energy-conservation-program-energy-conservation-
standards-for-manufactured-housing
Rebate Advantage Evaluation 8

Intermountain Gas, Dominion Energy, and the Salmon River Electric Cooperative do not seem to offer
rebates for manufactured homes based on publicly available information.The other seven utilities
reviewed offer rebates for electric manufactured homes; in addition,the Energy Trust of Oregon and
Avista Utilities both offer rebates for gas only manufactured homes.The manufactured homes program
rebates offered to Idaho and Oregon customers differ in terms of manufactured home fuel types as well
as minimum efficiency requirements. All eight utilities offer rebate incentives for both NEEM 1.1 and
NEEM 2.0 electric manufactured homes; however, Energy Trust of Oregon, Rocky Mountain Power, Fall
River Electric, and Bonneville Power Administration differentiate rebates based on NEEM classification
while Idaho Power, Avista Utilities, Northern Lights, and Kootenai Electric Cooperative do not. Rocky
Mountain Power also offers stack on rebates for customers who install a ductless heat pump in an
electric manufactured home..
Table 3-1. Comparing Utility Manufactured Home Programs Offered in the Region
Utility 6 nt1_F EM 2.0 Customer Incentive Retailer
as on y Nny Electric w/ Gas Incentive
ect!r1c "Pv electric DHP only
Idaho Power Company $1,000 N/A $1,000 N/A $200
Energy Trust of Oregon $500 $500 $1,100 $1,100 $300
Rocky Mountain
$800 N/A $1,050 $1,300 N/A $200
Power/Pacific Power
Fall River Electric $850 N/A $1,000 N/A $0
Avista Utilities $1,000 $600 $1,000 $600 $0
Bonneville Power
Administration' $1,000 N/A $1,400 N/A $0
Northern Lights $1,000 N/A $1,000 N/A $0
Kootenai Electric Cooperative $1,150 N/A $1,150 N/A $0
Despite some price differentiation based on manufactured home characteristics, utilities generally
provide close to a $1,000 rebate for purchasing a NEEM-certified manufactured home. Energy Trust of
Oregon offered the lowest incentive for a NEEM 1.1 gas or electric home at$500 while Bonneville Power
Administration offered the highest incentive for a NEEM 2.0 electric home at$1,400. While customer
rebates were similar among all utilities the Evaluators reviewed, IPC,the Energy Trust of Oregon, and
Rocky Mountain Power also provided a retailer incentive.
6 The Evaluators also investigated Intermountain Gas,Dominion Energy,and the Salmon River Electric Cooperative but did not
identify manufactured home rebate offers from those utilities.
'In addition to offering rebates to customers buying a new manufactured home,BPA also offers rebates to those replacing
manufactured homes built prior to 1976.
Rebate Advantage Evaluation 9

This review of manufactured home rebate programs in Idaho and Oregon suggests that IPC's Rebate
Advantage program is quite similar to other utilities; however,there are a few key differences which IPC
may consider implementing. First,the Evaluators recommend that IPC consider offering tiered rebates
based on whether customers purchased a NEEM 1.1 or NEEM 2.0 certified home. Homes with the more
stringent NEEM 2.0 energy efficiency requirements save more energy than homes built to meet NEEM
1.1 requirements. Given this and the fact that minimum code requirements will likely increase at some
point in the coming years, a tiered rebate system will allow IPC to encourage customers to consider
more efficient homes while also implementing incremental program updates to prepare for changes to
minimum Federal manufactured home standards. For reference, when compared to NEEM 1.1 homes,
NEEM 2.0 homes mandate improved insulation, building tightness, lighting efficiency, appliance
efficiency, and moisture management.'The full technical specification comparison table comparing
NEEM 1.1 and NEEM 2.0 requirements is presented in Table 1-1.
In addition to differentiating between NEEM 1.1 and NEEM 2.0 rebates, IPC may want to consider
adjusting the rebates offered to Rebate Advantage customers installing heat pumps. Given the relatively
moderate climate in Idaho and Oregon, and the consequent efficiency associated with heat pumps,the
Evaluators recommend IPC consider increasing incentives or marketing for customers installing NEEM
2.0 manufactured homes with heat pumps. .These modifications could help motivate energy efficient
behaviors and keep the program cost-effective by tailoring rebate incentives to verified energy savings
and long-term benefits.
3.3 Manufactured Home Literature Review
In addition to investigating other utilities,the Evaluators also conducted a brief literature review of
relevant data and publications relating to manufactured homes.Two key data sources identified were
the Census' manufactured homes survey 2024 dataset'and a 2024 report on barriers to use of
manufactured housing.10 This section outlines the Evaluators' key findings from these two sources.
The Census' manufactured homes dataset included information on the average sales price by region and
the annual total shipments to specific states. Findings from the first dataset are presented in Figure 3-1
and findings from the second are presented in Figure 3-2.The first dataset suggests that manufactured
home prices have been increasing since 2014, with a substantial jump in price occurring in July 2021.
This jump in prices is likely due to high inflation and supply chain shortages exacerbated by the COVID-
19 pandemic. While inflation-related price increases likely have little bearing on IPC's implementation of
the Rebate Advantage program, month on month variation in manufactured home prices may affect
program participation. Over the past 10 years, average manufactured home prices have been least
expensive in March ($101,500) and most expensive in November($111,750).
8 Technical Specification Comparison between NEEM ver. 1.1 and ver.2.0 from:
https://staticl.squa respace.com/static/5blOa9l989cl72d4391ab0l6/t/5c58dbc28165f5be9d9e8503/1549327298845/N EE M_S
pec_Co m pa ri so n_020419.pdf
9 https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/mhs/data/latest-data.html
io A Review of Barriers to Greater Use of Manufactured Housing for Entry-Level Homeownership from:
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/research/files/harvard_jchs_ba rriers_ma nufactured_housi ng_2024.pdf
Rebate Advantage Evaluation 10

With this trend in mind, IPC may want to consider sharing Rebate Advantage program materials with
customers and dealers in February each year. Customers are more likely to purchase a manufactured
home at a lower price; therefore, conducting market outreach and messaging to customers before the
lowest priced month may encourage increased participation. It is also possible that participation may be
influenced by other factors such as weather(e.g., customers might purchase a house in the summer to
avoid moving in freezing weather). Employing a data driven approach to sharing program materials with
customers could encourage higher participation in this program moving forward.
Figure 3-1. Manufactured Home Price in the West Region by Month and Year
$180,000
0 $160,000
$140,000 —dOo- -
a
m
o $120,000
x
m . ....
$100,000 - -
c
$80,000
d
va
> $60,000
a
c
0
m $40,000
m
3 $20,000
$
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Month
2014 —2015 —2016 —2017 —2018 2019—2020 —2021 —2022 —2023 ••••••10-year Average
Figure 3-2 highlights how manufactured home shipments to Idaho have been decreasing since the late
1990s. While the manufactured housing stock increased just after the COVID-19 pandemic, fewer than
700 manufactured homes have been shipped to Idaho every year since 2008.Assuming this trend in
sales may continue, IPC should consider reviewing the fixed costs of the Rebate Advantage program to
ensure it remains cost effective despite the decreasing popularity of manufactured homes.
Rebate Advantage Evaluation 11

Figure 3-2. Manufactured Home Shipments to Idaho by Year
4,000
0 3,500
ca
0 3,000
v
a�
� 2,500
in
E U00
0
1.500
u
1,000
c
�a
500
0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Year
The Evaluators also identified a relevant paper which summarizes a review of manufactured housing
published in January of 2024.This review highlighted that a variety of factors seem to contribute to
depressed production and sales of manufactured homes. While some of these factors, such as market
conditions and a limited manufactured home supply chain, are less relevant to IPC's implementation of
the Rebate Advantage program, others seem important to consider.The report explains that access to
mortgage financing and negative perceptions of manufactured home quality are two key barriers to
manufactured home purchases.To help assuage these concerns and thereby increase program
participation,the Evaluators recommend IPC consider providing resources for property mortgage
financing11 and highlighting the quality of modern manufactured homes in the annual scheduled bill
inserts used to advertise the program. Furthermore, including information on how long-lasting energy
efficient manufactured homes can substantially reduce customer bills seems worthwhile. Educating
customers through such methods has the potential to increase the program's participation and
effectiveness as well as further the proliferation of energy efficient manufactured homes.
Based on our interview with IPC staff and a subsequent benchmarking analysis and literature review,the
Evaluators recommend IPC consider the following updates for the Rebate Advantage Program:
■ Add a layer of quality control to their Rebate Advantage data review process to prevent and
correct data entry errors.
■ Regularly review trends in Census manufactured homes data to help improve program
performance and guide informational messaging to potential customers. For example, consider
ii https://www.ncic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/cfed-titling-homes.pdf
Rebate Advantage Evaluation 12

sharing marketing materials in February to take advantage of the March slump in manufactured
home prices.
■ Review the content of marketing materials to ensure they address key barriers to purchasing a
manufactured home in order to help increase program participation.
These recommendations provide IPC with actionable steps to improve the Rebate Advantage program
and thereby provide lower income customers with additional opportunities to save energy.
Rebate Advantage Evaluation 13

Impact Evaluation of the 2023 Idaho Power
Educational Distributions Program
Prepared for:
Idaho Power
Delivered on:
January 10, 2025
Prepared by:
ADM Associates, Inc.
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
916.363.8383

Table of Contents
1. Overview..............................................................................................................................................4
1.1 Recommendations......................................................................................................................................5
2. Welcome Kits........................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Results........................................................................................................................................................8
3. Student/Teacher Energy Efficiency Kits.............................................................................................11
3.1 Methodology............................................................................................................................................11
3.2 Results......................................................................................................................................................14
Tables of Contents ii

List of Tables
Table 1-1: Educational Distributions Measure Savings Sources...................................................................4
Table1-2. Program Details by Kit..................................................................................................................5
Table 2-1. Parameters from IPC's Student Kit Survey...................................................................................6
Table 2-2. Welcome Kit Savings Results with and without Adjustments.....................................................9
Table 2-3. Welcome Kit Savings by Program Enrollment Month..................................................................9
Table 2-4. Welcome Kit per Household Savings by Measure.....................................................................10
Table 3-1. Showerhead Savings Parameters by Fuel Type .........................................................................13
Table 3-2.Annual Student/Teacher Kit Savings..........................................................................................15
Table 3-4. Student/Teacher Kit Per-Household Savings by Measure.........................................................15
List of Tables iii

1. Overview
ADM Associates Inc. (the Evaluators) conducted an impact evaluation of Idaho Power Company's(Idaho
Power or IPC) 2023 Educational Distributions program. Savings were calculated separately for the
Educational Distributions' Welcome Kits and Student/Teacher Energy Efficiency Kits subprograms. As a
part of the Welcome Kits subprogram, IPC mails efficient LED lightbulbs and nightlights (along with a
greeting card and educational materials)to new customers 35-45 days after electric service begins at
their residence. Meanwhile,the Student/Teacher Kits subprogram provides fourth-to sixth-grade
students (and teachers) in schools within IPC's service area with educational materials and energy-
efficient equipment such as high-efficiency showerheads and furnace filter alarms. The Evaluators
calculated measure-level savings by applying program-and region-specific deemed savings and
engineering equations from the Regional Technical Forum (RTF), Illinois TRM v.11, and the New Jersey
TRM 2023.The Illinois TRM and New Jersey TRM were referenced for measures missing from the RTF.
An outline of savings methodology by measure is provided below in Table 1-1.The RTF is a technical
advisory committee that develops standards to verify and evaluate energy efficiency savings with a
focus on the Pacific Northwest. Measures without a savings source (i.e., N/A in the following table)were
not evaluated for energy savings in this analysis.
Table 1-1:Educational Distributions Measure Savings Sources
Deemed
LED lightbulbs RTF Residential Lighting Workbook v11.11
LED nightlights Illinois TRM 11.0—Residential Measures p. 351
Greeting card N/A
Educational flipbook N/A
High-efficiency showerhead Illinois TRM 11.0—Residential Measures p. 291
Furnace filter alarm New Jersey TRM 2023 p. 1173
Digital thermometer N/A
Flow-rate test bag N/A
Shower timer Illinois TRM 11.0—Residential Measures p. 290
Idaho Power shared 30,196 welcome kits in 2023 and reported savings of 975,987 kWh before adjusting
for abandoned and returned kits and 952,960 kWh after adjustments.The Evaluators calculated verified
savings of 1,744,428 kWh prior to adjustments and 1,702,624 after adjustments for a realization rate of
178.7%.This high realization rate was primarily driven by differences in the savings applied to LEDs by
IPC and the Evaluators. Idaho Power claimed per-bulb savings of 4.79 kWh while the Evaluators applied
savings of 19.90 kWh per LED after in-service rate adjustments.
Idaho Power shared 12,204 student kits and 342 teacher kits in the 2022/2023 school year and reported
ex-ante savings of 2,875,810 kWh. In contrast,the Evaluators reported ex-post verified savings of
1 https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/residential-lighting/
z https://www.ilsag.info/wp-content/uploads/IL-TRM_Effective_010123_v11.0_Vol_3_Res_09222022_FINAL.pdf
3 https://nj.gov/bpu/pdf/publicnotice/4.%20EE%20T2%20Technical%20Reference%20Manual%202023.pdf
Educational Distributions Evaluation 4

3,648,539 kWh for an electric realization rate of 126.9%.This difference in electric savings is primarily
driven by the fact that IPC did not claim savings for shower timers, while the Evaluators included shower
timer fuel savings in verified savings.The Evaluators calculated verified annual savings of 55.23 kWh per
shower timer for overall annual savings of over 680,000 kWh. Were the Evaluators to remove shower
timer savings from the verified total,the kits would yield an electric realization rate of close to 103%.
Table 1-2. Program Details by Kit
Subprogram
I Welcome Kits Welcome Kits 30,196 952,9604
Student/Teacher Kits Student Kits 12,204 2,817,742
Teacher Kits 342 58,068
Specifics on the savings calculations for the Welcome Kits and Student/Teacher Kits subprograms are
presented in the sections below.
1.1 Recommendations
Key recommendations based on the impact evaluation of the 2023 Educational Distributions program
are as follows.
Welcome Kit subprogram recommendations include:
■ Review the methodology used to calculate savings for LEDs, in particular consider applying first
year energy savings as opposed to an average of first year and subsequent year savings.
■ Given that LEDs will no longer garner savings in 2024, consider including additional energy
efficient equipment in welcome kits, such as smart power strips or low-flow showerheads.
Student/Teacher Kit subprogram recommendations include:
■ Use the results of the Student Kit survey to claim savings for shower timers.
■ Consider adjusting the projected increase in gas efficiency parameter in the filter whistle savings
equation. At a minimum, reviewing the source for the 0.92% used in ex-ante calculations (and
potentially adjusting that value to closer to 15%)seems worthwhile.
2. Welcome Kits
As outlined above,the Welcome Kits subprogram involves the delivery of energy efficient equipment
and educational materials to new IPC customers. More specifically, IPC mailed the following materials to
new customers:
■ Four 1100-lumen LED lightbulbs in kits delivered prior to July 1, 2023, and two 800-lumen LED
lightbulbs for kits delivered on or after that date.
■ Two nightlights
4 Savings after adjusting for abandoned and returned kits.
Educational Distributions Evaluation 5

■ A greeting card
■ A small flipbook containing energy-saving tips and information about IPC's energy efficiency
programs.
The Evaluators assumed that the greeting card and small flipbook had a negligible impact on customer
energy savings and instead focused on calculating the savings associated with the LED lightbulbs and
nightlights. As highlighted in Table 1-1,the Evaluators referenced the RTF Residential Lighting unit
energy savings (UES) workbook version 11.1 to calculate LED lightbulb savings and the Illinois TRM 11.0
to calculate nightlight savings. While savings were calculated for the four 1100-lumen LEDs, the two 800-
lumen LED bulbs were not assigned energy savings by either Idaho Power or the Evaluator.This is due to
the fact that 800-lumen LEDs would have been installed after the July 1, 2023 ban on incandescent bulbs
less than 45 lumens/watt.
2.1 Methodology
The Evaluators summarize the methodology for estimating verified savings for each of the kit
components in the sections below.As detailed in the following subsections,the Evaluators referenced
IPC's Student Kit survey for several key parameters in savings equations.A comprehensive list of those
parameters along with sanity check values for each parameter are presented below.The Evaluators
used these Student Kit survey parameters because they were specific to IPC customers as opposed to
the more general sanity check values.
Table 2-1. Parameters from IPC's Student Kit Survey
Survey Sanity Check
Value Value Sanity Check Description
Nightlight ISR 78.60% 60.00% School kit weighted average 1st year
I
_ nightlight ISR
Baseline Wattage for a 1050-1489�
Average reported LED baseline wattage 40.55 63.95 Lumen Bulb'
2.1.1 LED Savings
The Evaluators estimated savings for the 1100-lumen LEDs based on the standard engineering equation
presented below.
Equation 2-1. LED Electric Energy Savings
WattsBase — WattsEE
Annual kWh Savings = ( 1000 ) * Hours * ISR
Where:
■ WattsBase= Baseline lightbulb wattage=40.55 watts'
o The RTF lighting workbook reports baseline wattage of 63.95 watts; however,that is
based on NEEA and Bonneville market share data. Given that IPC's Student Kit survey is
6 IL TRM v11-volume 3 Residential,p.350
6 RTF UES Measures Lighting v11.1-Lamps_MeasureAssembly Worksheet
7 Average reported baseline wattage for light bulbs per IPC's Student Kit survey.
Educational Distributions Evaluation 6

specific to the Idaho Power region it seems more appropriate to use than the general
Pacific Northwest (PNW)value per the RTF.
■ WattsEE = Efficient LED wattage= 11 watts'
■ Hours=Average annual hours of operation = 845.6 hours'
■ ISR = In-Service Rate = 82.80%'o
To calculate a final annual LED kWh savings value,the Evaluators multiplied the "Annual kWh Savings'
value from the previous equation by the proportion of customers with electric heating and incorporated
a waste heat adjustment factor, as outlined below.
Equation 2-2. Adjust Lighting Savings for Waste Heat
Final Adjusted Annual kWh Savings = AkS + (AkS * ElecHeat * WHA)
Where:
■ AkS=Annual kWh savings from the previous equation
■ ElecHeat=The percentage of IPC customers with electric heat=38%11
■ WHA=Waste Heat Adjustment=-0.12 kWh per kWh of energy savings12
Prior to in-service rate (ISR) adjustments,the equation above yielded annual savings of 24.04 kWh per
light bulb.After an 82.80% ISR adjustment per the Student Kit survey,this was reduced to 19.90 kWh
per bulb for a total of 79.61 kWh per customer.As outlined above,the-0.12 kWh waste heat
adjustment was multiplied by 38%to account for the proportion of customers with electric heating per
the IPC's Student Kit survey.The Evaluators also applied a -0.0083 therm waste heat adjustment to the
58% of customers with gas heating per the survey,which yielded -0.12 annual therm savings per bulb
and -0.48 per customer.Across all customers this yielded -5,250 LED therm savings in 2023, suggesting
replacing incandescent bulbs with LEDs contributed to a slight increase in gas usage by IPC customers
driven by increased heating requirements due to less latent heat being produced by efficient LEDs.
While Energy Information Administration data suggests 35.4%of Idaho households use electric heating
and 51.4% use gas heating13, the Evaluators decided to use the proportions from IPC's 2022 End Use
Study which showed 31%of customers use electric heating and 58% use natural gas.The Evaluators
deemed that it was more appropriate to rely on IPC-specific estimates of electric and gas heating
proportions as opposed to more general Idaho-wide estimates.
2.1.2 Nightlight Savings
The Evaluators calculated the energy savings associated with nightlights by referencing the following
equation from the Illinois TRM 11.0.The equation is similar to the previous one used to calculate LED
savings, albeit with slightly different parameters such as the baseline and efficient bulb wattage.
8 Manufacturer information per Idaho Power.
9 Calculation based on average daily hours of use per RTF Residential Lighting workbook v.11.
10 For screw-based LED distribution as a part of an efficiency kit per the Illinois TRM 11.0 p.330.
11 Per the IPC 2022 End Use Study.
12 LEDs produce substantially less heat than incandescent bulbs,so this adjustment per the RTF Residential Lighting workbook
v.11 accounts for the increased HVAC usage necessary to account for that loss in waste heat.
11 https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=ID
Educational Distributions Evaluation 7

Equation 2-3. Nightlight Electric Energy Savings
WattsBase — WattsEE
Annual kWh Savings = ( 1000 ) *Hours * ISR * (1 — Leakage)
Where:
■ WattsBase= Baseline lightbulb wattage=4 watts14
■ WattsEE = Efficient LED wattage = 0.5 watts15
■ Hours=Average annual hours of operation =4,383 hours16
■ ISR = In Service Rate =78.6%17
o The Illinois TRM 11.0 does not present a nightlight ISR for welcome kits,the closest
available information is a school kit first year nightlight ISR of 60%.As such,the
Evaluators decided to employ the school kit ISR based on the IPC Student Kit survey
since it is specific to Idaho Power customers.
■ Leakage =Adjustment to account for the percentage of program nightlights that move out of
the Utility Jurisdiction =0%18
As with LED savings calculations, nightlight savings were adjusted to account for the loss in waste heat
per Equation 2-2.After this waste heat adjustment,the Evaluators found that each nightlight was
associated with 11.59 kWh savings for a total of 23.20 kWh per customer. Applied across all customers
this yielded total annual nightlight savings of 700,401 kWh. As with LEDs, the Evaluators calculated the
increase in gas usage associated with nightlights due to increased heating requirements.The Evaluators
determined that nightlights were associated with -0.06 therms savings per nightlight for a total of-3,522
therms saved in 2023.
2.1.3 Non-Energy Savings
The Evaluators calculated the CO2 reductions associated with Welcome Kits by multiplying kWh and
therms savings by the carbon intensity of kWh avoidance and therms per the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies website.19 Per the EPA, one kWh avoided is associated
with a reduction of 0.000699 metric tons of CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, one therm of natural gas savings
is associated with a reduction of 0.0053 metric tons of CO2 emissions.The Evaluators multiplied the
calculated electric and gas savings by these carbon intensity values and found that the Welcome Kits
were associated with a reduction of 1,172.9 metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2023.
2.2 Results
Idaho Power shared 30,196 welcome kits in 2023 and reported savings of 975,987 kWh before adjusting
for abandoned and returned kits and 952,960 kWh after adjustments.The Evaluators calculated verified
14 The Illinois TRM reports abase I in e wattage of 7,but Idaho Power confirmed 4 is correct for the installation of these nightlights.
15 Manufacturer information per Idaho Power.
16 Per the Illinois TRM 11.0 p.350.
17 Per the IPC Student Kits survey.
18 Given that welcome kits were shared with new IPC customers who were likely moving in to a new house or starting a 12-month
lease,the Evaluators assumed nightlight leakage was negligible.
19 https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references
Educational Distributions Evaluation 8

savings of 1,744,428 kWh prior to adjustments and 1,702,624 after adjustments for a realization rate of
178.7%. Savings results excluding and including adjustments for abandoned and returned kits are
presented in the following table.
Table 2-2. Welcome Kit Savings Results with and without Adjustments
Adjustments Kit Count Ex-Ante Savings Ex-Post Savings Realization Rate
(annual kWh) (annual kWh)
Excluding 30,196 975,987 1,744,428 178.7%
Including 29,492 952,960 1,702,624 178.7%
This high realization rate was driven by differences in the savings applied to LEDs by Idaho Power and
the Evaluators.This is clearly demonstrated in Table 2-3, which highlights how LEDs contribute to a
238.2% realization rate prior to July 2023, after which nightlights alone have a 96.6% realization rate.
Table 2-3. Welcome Kit Savings by Program Enrollment Month
Enrollment Month Kit Count Ex-Ante Savings Ex-Post Savings Realization Rate
(annual kWh) (annual kWh)
January 2,238 96,592 230,068 238.2%
February 1,690 72,940 173,733 238.2%
March 1,924 83,040 197,789 238.2%
April 2,847 122,877 292,674 238.2%
May 2,246 96,937 230,890 238.2%
June 2,170 93,657 223,078 238.2%
July 3,843 92,232 89,139 96.6%
August 2,930 70,320 67,962 96.6%
September 2,744 65,856 63,648 96.6%
October 3,267 78,408 75,779 96.6%
November 2,234 53,616 51,818 96.6%
December 2,063 49,512 47,852 I 96.6%
Total 30,196 975,987 1,744,428 I 178.7%
Average household electric savings by measure, with LEDs separated by install date, are presented in the
following table. While LEDs installed prior to July 2023 yielded ex-post savings of 19.90 per LED (for a
total of 79.61 kWh),those installed from July onwards achieved 0 kWh savings, substantially reducing
the average savings per household.
Educational Distributions Evaluation 9

Table 2-4. Welcome Kit per Household Savings by Measure
Measure Annual Annual Ex-Post Realization Rate
Savings(kWh) 7 Savings(kWh)
Measure Count in Ex-Ante
Welcome Kit
LED pre-July 2023 1 4 19.16 79.61 415.5%
LED July 2023 I 2 I 0 I 0 N/A
_ onwards
Nightlight I 2 I 24 23.20 'I 96.6%
Idaho Power and the Evaluators applied similar savings value for nightlights, 24 kWh and 23.2 kWh,
respectively,for a realization rate of 96.6%. However, based on tracking data, Idaho Power seems to
have claimed 19.16 kWh in savings from the installation of four 11-watt LED bulbs for per-bulb savings
of 4.79 kWh. In contrast,the Evaluators applied savings of 19.90 kWh per LED after in-service rate
adjustments. Idaho Power seems to have calculated 4.79 kWh per LED by taking a simple average of the
first year and subsequent year savings for"D/MT/OR_By request_General Purpose and Three-
Way_1050 to 1489 lumens" LEDs per the RTF Residential Lighting Workbook version 10.0.20 This differs
from the methodology the Evaluators employed in two key ways. First, IPC averages first year and
subsequent year savings instead of only applying first year savings. Given that welcome kit LEDs would
have been shared and installed in 2023, applying first year savings is more appropriate. Second, while
the RTF uses the same equation to calculate LED energy savings as the Evaluators, the RTF's parameters
are slightly more conservative. More specifically,the RTF employs the following parameters for first year
savings calculations:
■ WattsBase = 30.27 watts
■ WattsEE = 11.83 watts
■ Hours = 762.11
■ ISR= 74.1%
When compared to the Evaluators'verified inputs,the RTF employs a lower baseline wattage, hours of
use, and ISR, as well as a slightly higher efficient wattage. As such, it follows that the RTF's calculations
yield a lower annual savings estimate than the Evaluators'. While the RTF's savings calculations are
certainly a valid representation of the PNW,the Evaluators prioritized IPC customer-specific data from
the Student Kit survey, leading to results that should be more precise to the Idaho Power service
territory. Ultimately,this difference in LED savings calculation parameters is the driving force behind the
178.7%electric savings realization rate.
In addition to kWh savings,the Evaluators also assessed the therms savings and CO2 reductions
associated with IPC welcome kits.The Evaluators calculated that LED and nightlight installation was
associated with an annual increase of 8,771 therms due to the loss of waste heat from traditional
incandescent bulbs. While 8,771 therms may seem substantial, across 30,196 customers it averages out
to only 0.29 therms per customer per year.The Evaluators also calculated that the 2023 Welcome Kit
20 https:Hnwcouncil.app.box.com/v/ResLighting-v10-0
Educational Distributions Evaluation 10

program was associated with 1,172.9 metric ton reduction in CO2 emissions.This is equivalent to the
annual CO2 emissions from just over 250 typical United States passenger vehicles.zl
Overall, IPC's 2023 Welcome Kit program was associated with substantial electric energy savings and a
moderate reduction in CO2 emissions. Due to the July 1, 2023, ban on incandescent bulbs less than 45
lumens/watt, LED installations no longer contribute to energy savings. As such, future iterations of this
program are likely to save substantially less energy, since nightlights will be the only measure with
calculable electric savings. Should IPC wish to maintain similar kWh savings in 2024 onwards,the
Evaluators recommend IPC consider including additional energy efficient equipment in their welcome
kits, such as smart power strips or low-flow showerheads.
3. Student/Teacher Energy Efficiency Kits
As a part of the Student/Teacher Energy Efficiency Kits program, IPC provided fourth-to sixth-grade
students and teachers with kits containing the following energy efficient equipment:
■ Three 820-lumen LED lightbulbs
■ An LED nightlight
■ A high-efficiency showerhead
■ A shower timer
■ A furnace filter alarm
■ A digital thermometer for measuring water and refrigerator/freezer temperatures
■ A water flow-rate test bag
■ Reminder stickers
The thermometer and flow-rate test bag were used to inform the Student Kit survey and were not
energy efficiency equipment in their own right.As such the Evaluators did not calculate energy savings
for these tools. Similarly, reminder stickers were assumed to have a negligible impact on energy savings
and as such were not included in this impact analysis.The Evaluators calculated savings for the other
five measures as detailed in the Methodology section below.
In addition to sharing energy efficient equipment with students and teachers, IPC also shared a 22-
question survey with students that garnered 8,400 responses.The survey included key questions to
inform inputs to savings equations such as the fuel each household used to heat and cool their home,
the number of showers per household, and rates of measure installation to determine ISRs.The
Evaluators used the results of this survey, along with details from the RTF,the Illinois TRM, and the New
Jersey TRM, as inputs to measure savings equations.
3.1 Methodology
The Evaluators employed the same equations outlined in the Welcome Kits LED Savings and Nightlight
Savings sections above to calculate the savings associated with the LED and nightlight Student/Teacher
21 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle
Educational Distributions Evaluation 11

Kit measures. Of note, based on the Student Kit survey the Evaluators applied three different baseline
wattages and ISRs for the three LEDs included in the kits, as detailed below.
■ Bulb 1: Baseline wattage =40.01 watts, ISR= 85%
■ Bulb 2: Baseline wattage =40.97 watts, ISR= 69%
■ Bulb 3: Baseline wattage =40.68 watts, ISR=47%
These calculations yielded annual electric savings of 22.98 kWh for bulb 1, 19.29 kWh for bulb 2, and
12.87 kWh for bulb 3. Decreasing savings for each incremental bulb is typical, particularly so for bulbs
delivered in kits.While participants are likely to replace one light bulb,the increased time and effort
associated with additional installations contribute to decreasing ISRs and therefore decreasing savings
for each incremental bulb. As with the welcome kit calculations,the Evaluators also calculated the
increase in therms associated with reduced heat waste and applied carbon intensity values to kWh and
therm savings to determine CO2 reductions.
Nightlight savings calculations were identical to those conducted for the Welcome Kits program.These
calculations yielded electric savings of 11.89 kWh per nightlight and a 0.08 therm increase in natural gas
usage due to the reduction in lighting waste heat.
3.1.1 Showerhead (and Showerhead with Shower Timer)
The Evaluators calculated the savings associated with low-flow showerheads by employing the equation
presented below. Unless otherwise noted, parameters were sourced from the 2023 Student Kit survey.
Equation 3-1. High-Efficiency Showerhead Energy Savings
kWhsavings = %ElectricDHW
* ((GMPbase * Lbase - GMPlow * Llow) * Household * SPCD * 365.25/SPH)
* (8.33 * 1.0 * (ShowerTemp — SupplyTemp))/(RE * 3,412) * ISR
Where:
■ kWhsavings=Annual kWh savings
■ %ElectricDHW= Percentage of homes with electric water heaters=62.0%
■ GMPbase= Baseline Showerhead average flow rate = 2.21 gallons per minute (GPM)
■ GMP,.w= Efficient showerhead average flow rate= 1.7522
■ Lbase= Baseline shower length in minutes = 7.8 minutes21
■ Li.w= Efficient shower length in minutes= 7.8 minutes for customers not using a shower timer
and 5.79 minutes for those using one
■ Household=Average number of people per household =4.78 people
■ SPCD = Showers per Capita per Day=0.6724
■ 365.25 =Average days per year
■ SPH = Showerheads per household = 1.97 showerheads
■ 8.33 = Specific weight of water(lbs/gallon)
22 Manufacturer information from IPC
21 RTF Showerheads UES workbook v4.3 per https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/showerheads/
24 RTF Showerheads UES workbook v4.3 per https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/showerheads/
Educational Distributions Evaluation 12

■ 1.0= Heat Capacity of water(btu/Ib-F°)
■ ShowerTemp=Temperature of hot water= 128°F25
■ SupplyTemp=Average water supply temperature =56726
■ RE = Recovery efficiency of electric water heaters= 99%27
■ 3,412 = Btu/kWh conversion
■ ISR = In service rate =46.0%
In addition to calculating the electric energy savings associated with high-efficiency showerheads,the
Evaluators also calculated gas savings.The Evaluators substituted the percentage of homes with natural
gas water heating (29%)for%ElectricDHW,the recovery efficiency of gas water heaters (76%)for RE,
and 100,000 Btu/therm in place of 3,412 Btu/kWh.These fuel-specific parameters are outlined below.
Table 3-1. Showerhead Savings Parameters by Fuel Type
Parameter
Percentage of homes with water heating by fuel type 62.0% 29.0%
Water heater recovery efficiency 99% 76%
Btu to kWh or therms conversion 3,412 Btu/kWh 100,000 Btu/therm
In both kWh and therms savings calculations,the Evaluators weighted the Li.,, parameter to account for
the proportion of customers who had installed both a showerhead and a shower timer and those who
had only installed a showerhead. More specifically 85%of customers who installed a showerhead also
installed a shower timer, meaning the weighted average Liow shower length was reduced from 7.8
minutes to 6.09 minutes for these savings calculations.
3.1.2 Shower Timer Only
While the Evaluators calculated the savings associated with customers installing both a new showerhead
and a shower timer in the section above,they calculated the savings associated with only shower timer
installation separately.To do so, the Evaluators applied the same equation presented above; however,
the Li.was 5.79 minutes and an ISR of 25.9%was used to represent the proportion of customers using
shower timers without installing an efficient showerhead. Outside of those changes, kWh and therm
savings were calculated in the same manner as presented in the Showerhead (and Showerhead with
Shower Timer)section above.
3.1.3 Filter Whistle
The Evaluators calculated the energy savings associated with filter whistles(either used on a furnace or
air conditioning unit) by employing the following equation.
Equation 3-2. Furnace Filter Whistle Energy Savings
Annual therm Savings = CPheatingusage *Ef flmprov * ISR *Furnacelnstall
25 RTF Water Heaters UES workbook v2.1 per https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/residential-gas-water-heaters-O/
26 RTF Water Heaters UES workbook v2.1 per https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/residential-gas-water-heaters-0/
27 NREL Water Heating Report-https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fyl3osti/55475.pdf p.22
Educational Distributions Evaluation 13

Where:
■ CPheatingusage= Current practice annual heating usage =616.39 thermS28
o This was calculated based on a weighted average of the RTF single family heating zone
(HZ) specific heating usage outlined in the RTF UES Residential Gas Furnaces workbook.
Given that the Student Kit tracking data and survey did not contain address information,
the Evaluators referenced the Welcome Kit tracking data to determine the weights by
heating zone.The Evaluators have no reason to believe the distribution of IPC students
and teachers is significantly different than the distribution of new customers, as such
referencing Welcome Kit data seems appropriate. Furthermore,there are only minimal
differences in heating zone gas usage (600.11 therms-634.64 therms).The weights
were ultimately 77.8% HZ1, 19.4% HZ2, and 2.8% HZ3.
■ Efflmprov=The efficiency improvement from filter replacement= 15.0%2e
■ ISR = In Service Rate =31.8%30
■ Furnacelnstall = Percentage of customers installing their filter in a gas HVAC=42.6%"
In addition to calculating annual therm savings based on the above equation,the Evaluators also
calculated annual kWh savings for those customers using the filter whistle on their air conditioner(AC)
by replacing HVAC-related parameters with AC-related ones. More specifically,the Evaluators replaced
CPheatingusage with current practice cooling usage of 1,131.21 kWh32 and updated Furnacelnstall to
47.4%to reflect the percentage of customers installing their filter in an electric AC(per the Student Kit
survey).
3.1.4 Non-Energy Savings
After calculating the annual natural gas and electric savings associated with filter whistle use,the
Evaluators multiplied those values by the carbon intensity of each fuel to determine the associated CO2
reductions.This is the same methodology outlined in section 2.1.3 above. In addition to assessing CO2
reductions,the Evaluators also calculated the water savings associated with the showerhead and
shower timers. Showerhead and shower timer savings equations both rely on calculating the difference
in water usage between baseline and efficient technology and then applying the energy required to heat
water to that difference to determine energy savings.The Evaluators simply extracted the calculated
difference in water usage to report gallons of water saved by using showerheads and shower timers.
3.2 Results
Idaho Power shared 12,204 student kits and 342 teacher kits in the 2022/2023 school year and reported
ex-ante savings of 2,875,810 kWh and 55,220 therms.The Evaluators reported ex-post verified savings
28 RTF UES Residential Gas Furnaces v2.1-SavingsData&Analysis Worksheet per https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/residential-
gas-furnaces/
29 NJ TRM 2023-p.119 via Energy.gov(https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/maintaining-your-air-conditioner)
30 Student Kit survey
31 Calculation based on the Student Kit survey and the assumption that customers are equally likely to use the filter whistle on
their furnace or AC.
32 RTF UES Residential Central AC v2.2-SavingsData&Analysis Worksheet per https:Hrtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/high-efficiency-
residential-central-air-conditioners/
Educational Distributions Evaluation 14

of 3,648,539 kWh and 202,400 therms for an electric realization rate of 126.9% and a gas realization rate
of 366.5%. An outline of these ex-ante and ex-post energy savings is presented in the following table.
Table 3-2.Annual Student/Teacher Kit Savings
-Fr_7 Ex-Ante Ex-Post Electric Ex-Ante Ex-Post Gas
Role Electric Electric Realization Gas Gas Realization
Savings Savings Rate Savings Savings Rate
(kWh) (kWh) (therms) (therms)
Teachers 58,068 74,334 128.0% 1,115 3,674 329.5%
Students 2,817,742 3,574,205 126.8% 54,105 198,726 367.3%
Total 2,875,810 1 3,648,539 126.9% 55,220 202,400 366.5%
As an additional finding,the Evaluators also calculated both water savings (for the efficient showerhead
and showerhead timer measures) and CO2 reductions (for all measures) and found that the 2023
Student/Teacher Kit program saved 31,124,196 gallons of water and 3,623 metric tons of CO2 emissions.
Teachers were found to save 589,256 gallons of water and 71 metric tons of CO2. Students meanwhile
saved 30,534,939 gallons of water and 3,552 metric tons of CO2.
An outline of per-household energy savings by measure is presented below. This table highlights the
primary drivers of non-100% realization rates, with additional details provided in the following
paragraphs.
Table 3-3. Student/Teacher Kit Per-Household Savings by Measure
Ex-Ante Ex-Post Electric Ex-Ante Ex-Post Gas
7mor Measure Electric Electric Realization Gas Gas Realization
Savings Savings Rate Savings Savings Rate
(kWh) (kWh) (therms) (therms)
Showerhead 147.7 145.8 98.7% 3.454 3.034 87.8%
Shower Timer Only 0.0 55.2 N/A 0.000 1.150 N/A
LED Bulb 1 20.9 22.7 108.7% 0.000 -0.151 N/A
LED Bulb 2 17.4 19.0 109.1% 0.000 I -0.127 N/A
LED Bulb 3 11.8 12.7 107.8% 0.000 -0.085 N/A
Nightlight 12.1 11.9 98.2% 0.000 -0.079 N/A
Filter Whistle 21.0 25.6 121.8% 0.979 12.543 1281.0%
Total 230.9 292.9 126.8% 4.433 16.284 367.3%
The differences in ex-ante and ex-post savings are explained by a variety of different factors,the most
salient of which are outlined below. First, IPC did not seem to claim savings for shower timers while the
Evaluators did. The Evaluators calculated verified annual savings of 55.23 kWh, 1.15 therms, 687.54
gallons of water, and 0.04 metric tons of CO2 per shower timer.This culminated in overall annual savings
of 687,040 kWh, 14,300 therms, 8,552,661 gallons of water, and 556 metric tons of CO2. Were the
Evaluators to subtract shower timer savings from the verified total it would yield an electric realization
rate of 103%and a gas realization rate of 340.6%.This seems to suggest that including shower timers in
ex-post savings calculations is the primary driver of non-100% electric realization rates.
Educational Distributions Evaluation 15

In addition to shower timers, differences in filter whistle assumptions had a dramatic impact on savings.
While Idaho Power and the Evaluator had similar filter whistle electric savings estimates, Idaho Power
estimated ex-ante gas savings of 0.98 therms per household while the Evaluators estimated ex-post
verified gas savings of 12.54 therms per household.This substantial difference in savings is driven by the
fact that Idaho Power employed a projected increase in gas efficiency of 0.92%while the Evaluators
used a 15.0% increase.This 15.0% increase was sourced from the New Jersey TRM,which in turn
referenced an Energy.gov article on AC filter savings.33 This 15.0%figure is also supported by a separate
study on air filter savings which suggests a clean filter contributes to a 17.5% increase in HVAC
efficiency.34 Were the Evaluator to employ 0.92% instead of 15.0%, program-wide verified therms
savings would be reduced to 56,060 therms for an overall realization rate of 101.5%.
Lastly,the Evaluators explore the reason for differences between CO2 savings calculated by the
Evaluators and by a third party who previously evaluated the program. Importantly,these CO2
reductions are not reported or verified by IPC, instead they are additional findings to provide non-
energy context to the results.As compared to the third party who previously evaluated the program,the
Evaluators found an 81.1% realization rate for CO2 reductions.This realization rate seems to be primarily
explained by the prior evaluator applying greenhouse gas reductions of 0.29 metric tons of carbon
dioxide per showerhead while the Evaluators calculated reductions of 0.12 metric tons.The prior
evaluator outlined that they calculated greenhouse gas reductions by referencing the EPA's Greenhouse
Gas Equivalencies Calculator; however,when the Evaluators apply the EPA carbon intensity values
detailed in the Non-Energy Savings section above to the ex-ante savings estimates,they yield reductions
of 0.12 metric tons of CO2. It is unclear exactly where the 0.29 metric tons of carbon dioxide comes
from; however,that ex-ante estimate yields a 40%emissions realization rate for each showerhead which
contributes substantially to the program-wide 81.1% realization rate.The 40%emissions realization rate
for showerheads is somewhat offset by a 420% realization rate for filter whistles which is driven by the
0.92%vs. 15% issue detailed in the previous paragraph. Outside of those two measures, measure-
specific CO2 reduction realization rates range from 91.7%to 102%, suggesting good concordance
between the previous evaluators' and the current Evaluators' calculations.
In light of these key differences in shower timer and filter whistle savings,when calculating program
savings for future school years, the Evaluators provide the following recommendations:
■ Use the results of the Student Kit survey to claim savings for shower timers.
■ Consider adjusting the projected increase in gas efficiency parameter in the filter whistle savings
equation. At a minimum, reviewing the source for the 0.92% used in ex-ante calculations (and
potentially adjusting that value to closer to 15%)seems worthwhile.
Outside of these minor modifications, Idaho Power's savings calculations seem well-reasoned and
accurate. While the future School Kit program years will likely not yield substantial savings from LEDs,
the Evaluators predict the other measures included in the kits will contribute to considerable energy and
non-energy savings across IPC's service territory.
33 https:Hnj.gov/bpu/pdf/publicnotice/4.%20EE%20T2%20Technical%20Reference%20Manual%202023.pdf—page 119
34 https:Hdigitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=engtech_fac_pubs—page 7
Educational Distributions Evaluation 16

Supplement 2: Evaluation
OTHER REPORTS
Analysis Study Study/Evaluation
Report Title Sector Performed By Manager Type
2024 A/C Cool Credit Program End-of- Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Season Report
2024 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Annual Report
2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Program Report
Idaho Power Corporation Home Energy Residential Harris Harris Other
Report 2024 Final Program Summary
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program— Residential Tinker LLC Tinker LLC Other
School Year 2023-2024 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Residential,Commercial/Industrial, Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Performance,2002-2024 Irrigation
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 323

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 324 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

MA
IQAHO POWER,
A/C Cool Credit-2024 Analysis
March 1, 2025

Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-2024 Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary......................................................................................................................................... 1
ProgramOverview.......................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology................................................................................................................................... 2
Baseline Usage Calculation ....................................................................................................... 2
Non-Contributing Households.................................................................................................. 3
Results............................................................................................................................................. 4
FABLES
Table 1. ACCC participants and maximum actual and potential demand reduction ..................... 1
Table 2. ACCC event information.................................................................................................... 4
Table 3. ACCC non-contribution ratio............................................................................................. 4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1. 2024 Cycling Season..................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. 2024 event days—household average......................................................................... 5
March 1, 2025 Page ii

Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-2024 Analysis
SUMMARY
This report presents an analysis of the demand response events (events) called by Idaho
Power's A/C Cool Credit (ACCC) program during the summer of 2024. The program called a total
of five events that included 17,641 households. The maximum actual demand reduction at the
generator level during this period occurred on July 24, with a demand reduction of 1.24 kW per
participant and a total calculated actual demand reduction of 21.9 MW. In comparison, the
maximum potential demand reduction for the season was 24.0 MW, based on a generator level
reduction of 1.36 kW per participant at a cycling rate of 65%.
Table 1.ACCC participants and maximum actual and potential demand reduction
Maximum Actual Maximum Potential
Region Participants Demand Reduction Demand Reduction
Idaho 17,451 21.7 MW 23.7 MW
Oregon 190 0.2 MW 0.3 MW
Total 17,641 21.9 MW 24.0 MW
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
ACCC is a voluntary demand response program, through which residential customers in Idaho
and Oregon are eligible to earn a financial incentive for reducing their A/C load. The objective of
the program is to reduce demand on Idaho Power's system when summer demand for energy is
high or for other system needs.
Customers that have A/C units using a central air system or an air-source heat pump in good
working condition are eligible to participate. Customers participate by allowing Idaho Power to
cycle their A/C unit off and on during events via a demand response unit (DRU) that is installed
on or near their A/C unit. The cycling rate is the percentage of an hour the A/C unit is turned
off by the DRU. For instance, with a 50% cycling rate, the DRU will cycle the A/C unit off for
about 30 (non-consecutive) minutes of each hour.
Program event parameters are listed below (program parameters do not apply to system
emergencies):
• Events occur during the program season, June 15 through September 15 (excluding
weekends, Independence Day, and Labor Day)
• A minimum of three events will occur each program season
• Events can last up to four hours per day
• Events will not exceed 16 hours per week or 60 hours per season
March 1, 2025 Page 1

Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-2024 Analysis
In 2024 there were five events, four of which were cycled at 55% and one of which was cycled
at 65%.
The event cycled at 65% in 2024 coincided with high system load and hot temperatures. This
resulted in a large demand reduction, reaching 1.53 kW per household during the third hour of
the event.
S M T WTh F S S M T WTh F S S M T WTh F S S M T WTh F S
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 ® 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 m11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 22 23 m 25 26 27 18 M 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
30 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30
■ Event Day Ineligible Non-event — Proxy Day
Figure 1. 2024 Cycling Season
METHODOLOGY
Idaho Power continues to calculate ACCC program demand reductions using the evaluation
framework and evaluation tool created by ADM consultants as part of the 2021 impact
evaluation. This tool models demand reductions by using a variety of statistical methods to
determine each participant's hypothetical usage if there had not been a demand response
event that day. Additionally, the tool evaluates the number of households who did not
contribute a statistically significant demand reduction to each event. This section provides an
overview of the model steps, but a more detailed discussion can be found in ADM's 2021
program impact evaluation in Supplement 2 of Idaho Power's Demand-Side Management 2021
Annual Report.
Baseline Usage Calculation
To model participant energy usage at the household level, the evaluation tool requires four
primary data inputs: a list of participating demand response switches, hourly meter reads for all
participants for the cycling season, hourly weather reads for the service area, and the date and
time of all demand response events. By integrating these inputs, the tool accounts for the
unique energy usage patterns of each household.
Since each household is unique and may exhibit vastly different energy usage patterns, there is
no single statistical model that will perfectly fit every participant. Instead, the evaluation tool
March 1, 2025 Page 2

Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-2024 Analysis
tests five possible models to find the best fit for each household. These models fall into two
categories:
1. A weather-adjusted Linear Fixed Effect Regression (LFER) model. This is a regression
model that controls for variables including Cooling Degree Days, Heating Degree Days,
and hour of the day, and treats each household as an individual fixed effect.
2. A Customer Baseline (CBL) model tuned with various eligibility periods and offset
methods. The possible eligibility periods are 3-of-5 and 3-of-10, the latter of which
would mean that the model looks at the three highest usage days of the last 10 eligible
days. The offset factor determines how the model scales usage based on usage prior to
the event start. The possible methods are additive and multiplicative.
Model performance was assessed based on how well the model predicted the household's
energy consumption across four proxy days, which represent the hottest non-event days in the
season. Consumption during both proxy days and event days are excluded from the data set
used to train the household models.
The LFER model is the best fit for the largest number of participants. The final reported savings
are derived from a mixed model, which incorporates household level results based on the best
fitting of the five models for each participant. This approach ensures that baseline estimates
are robust to variance in household behavior.
Non-Contributing Households
A separate calculation within the ADM model provides an estimate of Non-Contributing
Households (NCH), or the number of households during each event that did not produce a
statistically noticeable demand reduction. This is an important metric for understanding overall
impacts of demand response efforts and for identifying characteristics of event days and
households that may prompt non-responsiveness. Importantly, NCH is calculated for
informational purposes and is ultimately independent of overall savings results, which include
all program participants whether responsive or not.
In some cases, a statistically non-responsive household may indicate a communication, switch,
or A/C unit failure, however there are other factors to consider. For example, occupants may be
away during an event or have temporarily changed the household's temperature set point. On
event days with cooler weather or lower cycling rates it is harder for the model to confidently
identify a demand reduction, as a result the NCH rate tends to be higher.
The model uses a three-step calculation process to identify NCHs:
1. The first calculation is a Cumulative Sum (CSUM) analysis, which is a technique that
evaluates the slope of a smoothed curve of energy usage data for the hours before and
March 1, 2025 Page 3

Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-2024 Analysis
during the event, and comparing the ratios of these slopes to determine if there is a
significant change in demand due to the event. Devices with a slope ratio less than one
are considered contributing devices.
2. The second calculation is the linear decrease analysis, which involves comparing the
consumption for the hour prior to the event to the consumption during the first hour of
the event. Devices that do not see a 10% reduction in this step are considered non-
contributing devices.
3. Finally, the model performs a check for signs of a snapback effect, which is the increase
above baseline usage that frequently occurs at the conclusion of a demand response
event as an A/C unit works to return to the household to normal set temperature.
Households that were labeled as non-contributing by the first two tests but show signs
of a snapback effect are reclassified as contributing households.
RESULTS
The following tables and figures display the outputs of the evaluation models. All demand
reduction numbers presented in the text and figures of this report are calculated at the
generator level.
For simplicity, only Treasure Valley temperature data is shown in the charts below. However,
the underlying baseline evaluation model utilizes weather reads from both the Treasure Valley
region and the Twin Falls/Pocatello region.
Table 2.ACCC event information
Event Date Event Time Peak Temperature Cycle Rate Average Reduction Total Reduction
Jul 10 5-8 p.m. 1077 55% 0.88 kW 15.5 MW
Jul 24 4-7 p.m. 104°F 65% 1.24 kW 21.9 MW
Aug 1 5-8 p.m. 102°F 55% 0.74 kW 13.1 MW
Aug 2 6-9 p.m. 105°F 55% 0.84 kW 14.9 MW
Aug 19 4-7 p.m. 957 55% 0.60 kW 10.7 MW
Table 3.ACCC non-contribution ratio
Event Date Non-Contribution Ratio
Jul 10 18.5%
Jul 24 12.7%
Aug 1 16.9%
Aug 2 11.8%
Aug 19 17.8%
March 1, 2025 Page 4

Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-2024 Analysis
Actual Baseline
3
2-
. .0
� •
1 - —
0-
III IN III I111 lip
�• � • i
3-
2-
.0 .0 . .0 •
1 — •
0
6 12 18 24
3
2
1
0
6 12 18 24
Hour
Figure 2. 2024 event days—household average
March 1, 2025 Page 5

2024 Flex Peak Program
End-of-Season Annual Report
March 1, 2025

Idaho Power 2024 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Program Parameters................................................................................................................. 2
ProgramResults.............................................................................................................................. 2
Overview................................................................................................................................... 2
CommittedDemand.................................................................................................................. 3
MeterData................................................................................................................................ 3
Demand Reduction Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3
RealizationRate ........................................................................................................................ 6
Flex Peak Load Reduction Calculation Definitions.................................................................... 9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2024 event summary results............................................................................................. 2
Table 2. 2024 Participant-Level Realization Rates by Event........................................................... 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. 2021-2024 program participant site counts by nomination size.................................... 3
Figure 2. Event day actual and baseline loads, July 11, 2024......................................................... 4
Figure 3. Event day actual and baseline loads, July 24, 2024......................................................... 5
Figure 4. Event day actual and baseline loads, August 2, 2024...................................................... 5
Figure 5. Event day actual and baseline loads, August 22, 2024.................................................... 5
Figure 6. 2024 average and maximum actual demand reduction achieved per event.................. 6
March 1, 2025 Page ii

Idaho Power 2024 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
INTRODUCTION
The Flex Peak Program (program) has been available to Idaho Power customers since 2009. The
program is a voluntary demand response (DR) program available to commercial and industrial
customers that can reduce their electrical energy loads for short periods during summer peak
days. This program, along with Idaho Power's other DR programs—Irrigation Peak Rewards and
the residential A/C Cool Credit program— help delay the need for new supply-side resources.
An overview of program costs, marketing, and operations in 2024 can be found in the
company's Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report. This end-of-season report provides
a supplemental analysis on program results and load reduction calculations.
BACKGROUND
At its inception in 2009 and until 2015, Idaho Power utilized a third-party implementer to run
the Flex Peak Program. In 2015, the company requested approval to implement the Flex Peak
Program internally.The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) approved the company's
request in Order No. 33292 and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC) approved the
proposal on April 28, 2015, in ADV 7/Advice No. 15-03.
As part of Advice No. 15-03, the OPUC adopted Staff's recommendation that the company file
an annual end-of-season report with information regarding the program. The company was also
directed by the IPUC in Order No. 33292 to file an annual end-of-season report detailing the
results of the program. In compliance with the reporting requirements, the annual end-of-
season report includes the following:
• Number of participating customers
• Number of participating sites
• MW of demand response under contract ("potential demand reduction")
• MW of demand response realized ("actual demand reduction") and invented per
dispatch
• Percent of nominated MW achieved in each dispatch event by participant
• Number of events called
• Total load reduced ("actual demand reduction") for each event
• Event duration
• Number of customers who failed to meet their load
• Participant attrition
• Changes in baseline methodology taken or anticipated
March 1, 2025 Page 1

Idaho Power 2024 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
Program Parameters
The program pays participants a financial incentive for reducing load within their facility and is
active June 15 to September 15, between the hours of 3 p.m. and 10 p.m. on non-holiday
weekdays. Customers with the ability to nominate or provide load reduction of at least 20 kW
are eligible to enroll in the program.
The parameters of the program are in Schedule 76 (Oregon) and Schedule 82 (Idaho), and
include the following:
• A minimum of three demand response events will occur each program season
• Events can occur any weekday (excluding July 4 and Labor Day) between the hours of 3
p.m. and 10 p.m. and last between two to four hours
• Events can occur up to four hours per day and up to 16 hours per week, but no more
than 60 hours per program season
• Idaho Power will provide notification to participants four hours prior to the initiation of
an event
• If prior notice of an event has been sent, Idaho Power can choose to cancel the event
and notify participants of cancellation 30 minutes prior to the start of the event
PROGRAM RESULTS
Overview
The results presented throughout this report are at the generation level and line losses of 6.5%
have been considered. Idaho Power called four demand response events in 2024. The
maximum realization rate achieved during the season was 85% during the event on July 24th
and the average for all four events combined was 64%.The realization rate is the percentage of
demand reduction achieved versus the amount of demand reduction committed for an event.
The highest hourly demand reduction achieved was 34.7 MW during the July 241" event.
Table 1.2024 event summary results
Event Nominated Demand Average Actual Demand Max Hourly Demand Realization
Event Date Timeframe Reduction(MW) Reduction(MW) Reduction(MW) Rate*
July 11 6-10 p.m. 40.4 24.7 27.4 61%
July 24 5-8 p.m. 40.6 34.4 34.7 85%
August 2 6-10 p.m. 40.4 23.3 24.9 58%
August 22 6-10 p.m. 38.4 19.3 21.1 50%
Average 39.9 25.4 27.0 64%
*Based on average demand reduction
March 1, 2025 Page 2

Idaho Power 2024 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
Committed Demand
Program participants are incented based on their committed demand nomination and are
expected to meet this reduction whenever an event is called. Program participants are allowed
to update their nomination before each week of the season based on their facility needs and
availability. Total committed demand reduction was 40.3 MW in the first week of the program
season, which increased to 40.6 MW in the fifth week of the season before lowering to 38.4
MW by the end of the season.
The program encourages a diverse range of facility types to enroll, so participant demand
ranges from less than 20 kW to over 1 MW. In 2023, 119 customers participated across 309
sites. These customers are categorized by nomination range on Figure 1.
225
200
200
175 159
■2021 ■2022
150
125 ■2023 ■2024
0
3 100
u° 75 66 60 75 72
52 52
50 29
26 25 24
25 9-8- 13 -8—
0 ILI
0-50 51-200 201-500 501+
Nominated Amount(kW)
Figure 1.2021-2024 program participant site counts by nomination size
Meter Data
After an event, interval metering data provides Idaho Power the ability to view a history of each
participant's demand before, during, and after events. The metering data is used to calculate
the demand reduction per site for each event, allowing Idaho Power to provide participants
with a report that showed their hourly baseline, actual usage, and reduction for each event.
Demand Reduction Analysis
Participants are incented primarily based on how their actual usage during an event compares
to a calculated baseline usage. The baseline usage is calculated according to a specific
methodology detailed at the end of this report. The program measures its overall event
March 1, 2025 Page 3

Idaho Power 2024 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
performance using the same participant-level baseline calculations, aggregated across all
participating sites.
The aggregated program actual and baseline demand during each event in 2024 are displayed
in figures 2 through 5.
Jul 11, 2024
200.0
180.0
-� 160.0
cv
140.0 6.
120.0
H
100.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
...... Baseline ♦Actual
Figure 2.Event day actual and baseline loads,July 11,2024
J u 1 24, 2024
200.0
180.0
160.0
to
140.0 .......
120.0
H
100.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
•••••• Baseline t Actual
March 1, 2025 Page 4

Idaho Power 2024 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
Figure 3.Event day actual and baseline loads,July 24,2024
Aug 2, 2024
200.0
180.0
-� 160.0
ro
0 140.0
p 120.0
H
100.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
•••••• Baseline t Actual
Figure 4.Event day actual and baseline loads,August 2,2024
Aug 22, 2024
200.0
180.0
160.0
co
140.0 •......••
ca
Q 120.0
H
100.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
—... Baseline Actual
Figure 5.Event day actual and baseline loads,August 22,2024
The total actual demand reduction achieved for the event is calculated as the difference
between the total baseline usage and total actual usage among program participants.
Reductions may vary for each hour of the event, so the program reports the average reduction
across all event hours as well as the maximum hourly demand reduction during the event
(Figure 6).
March 1, 2025 Page 5

Idaho Power 2024 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
40.0
35.0
34.4 34.7 ■Average Demand Reduction
■Max Demand Reduction
30.0
25.0 24.7 24.9
21.1
4_1 19.3
20.0
fu 15.0
40
10.0
5.0
11-Jul 24-Jul 2-Aug 22-Aug
Event Date
Figure 6.2024 average and maximum actual demand reduction achieved per event
Realization Rate
The realization rate is the ratio of achieved reduction versus expected or nominated reduction.
The program-level realization rate in 2024 was 64%, with a peak realization rate of 85%
occurring during the July 24 event.
Table 2 shows the participant-level program realization rates for 2024 based on average actual
demand reduction per event. Participants are anonymous and presented in no specific order.
Note that some participants have multiple participating sites. Realization rates are capped at
120% in this calculation.
Table 2.2024 participant-level realization rates by event
Participant July 11 Event July 24 Event August 2 Event August 22 Event
Number Realization Realization Realization Realization
1 23% 120.0% 14.6% 0.0%
2 3.4% 10.5% 2.7% 13.0%
3 41.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%
4 68.8% 120.0% 86.2% 32.8%
5 18.3% 21.0% 34.6% 0.0%
6 118.8% 115.0% 113.8% 108.8%
7 1.1% 4.2% 120.0% 98.1%
8 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
9 70.9% 37.7% 70.6% 51.7%
10 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%
11 5.0% 0.0% 38.6% 48.5%
12 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0%
13 41.1% 60.4% 98.0% N/A
March 1, 2025 Page 6

Idaho Power 2024 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
Participant July 11 Event July 24 Event August 2 Event August 22 Event
Number Realization Realization Realization Realization
14 120.0% 120.0% 120.0% N/A
15 0.0% 78.9% 0.0% 2.5%
16 45.8% 120.0% 71.7% 41.7%
17 83.9% 85.6% 0.6% 32.2%
18 0.1% 82.7% 89.6% 2.3%
19 0.0% 91.7% 53.0% 62.5%
20 120.0% 120.0% 120.0% 57.0%
21 51.0% 57.3% 17.0% 0.0%
22 43.0% 73.6% 120.0% 120.0%
23 0.0% 34.9% 1.9% 0.0%
24 86.7% 120.0% 120.0% 55.0%
25 50.8% 44.6% 71.7% 29.6%
26 0.1% 2.5% 0.8% 0.0%
27 0.9% 25.5% 0.3% 2.8%
28 7.8% 35.3% 0.0% 51.1%
29 31.5% 18.7% 113.5% 53.5%
30 38.0% 120.0% 120.0% 106.3%
31 120.0% 120.0% 120.0% 64.4%
32 11.8% 120.0% 32.5% 0.8%
33 85.1% 120.0% 74.5% 51.5%
34 0.3% 81.0% 3.7% 0.0%
35 66.9% 99.3% 78.1% 73.6%
36 117.5% 120.0% 33.8% 11.3%
37 120.0% 120.0% 0.0% 8.6%
38 0.0% 65.9% 66.0% 120.0%
39 120.0% 120.0% 120.0% 120.0%
40 51.0% 120.0% 45.1% 38.3%
41 79.8% 90.3% 91.9% 88.3%
42 5.3% 1.1% 6.8% 8.7%
43 96.3% 120.0% 120.0% 13.5%
44 3.8% 120.0% 0.0% 11.3%
45 120.0% 120.0% 91.1% 0.0%
46 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0%
47 3.5% 114.2% 0.0% 1.6%
48 1.2% 78.9% 37.4% 50.7%
49 50.0% 120.0% 74.2% 46.7%
50 98.9% 120.0% 120.0% 88.9%
51 25.0% 21.5% 26.7% 0.0%
52 9.3% 23.8% 0.0% 82.1%
53 0.0% 30.5% 96.1% 0.0%
54 5.1% 68.3% 120.0% 61.8%
March 1, 2025 Page 7

Idaho Power 2024 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
Participant July 11 Event July 24 Event August 2 Event August 22 Event
Number Realization Realization Realization Realization
55 74.7% 100.0% 81.1% 66.4%
56 120.0% 120.0% 84.0% 120.0%
57 41.2% 23.5% 11.4% 16.5%
58 1.8% 10.7% 0.0% 18.3%
59 10.8% 46.5% 1.9% 0.0%
60 20.4% 92.0% 88.9% 48.8%
61 54.8% 120.0% N/A 55.6%
62 13.0% 120.0% 2.0% 40.0%
63 2.1% 120.0% 2.5% 29.8%
64 85.3% 0.0% 8.1% 3.4%
65 120.0% 2.7% 120.0% 0.7%
66 39.2% N/A N/A N/A
67 120.0% N/A N/A N/A
68 0.0% N/A N/A N/A
69 51.2% 120.0% 87.2% 120.0%
70 11.4% 9.0% 33.9% 3.8%
71 75.8% 120.0% 5.9% 0.0%
72 10.6% 96.4% 31.1% 66.8%
73 99.0% 93.0% 120.0% 0.0%
74 11.2% 53.3% 4.1% 11.2%
75 2.0% 29.3% 27.0% 6.0%
76 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 12.3%
77 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.8%
78 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
79 3.0% 0.0% 14.9% 78.7%
80 32.5% 120.0% 0.0% 12.5%
81 39.6% 105.6% 31.8% 120.0%
82 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 12.8%
83 120.0% 120.0% 120.0% 120.0%
84 70.0% 7.7% 36.0% 79.4%
88 67.5% 120.0% 75.0% 56.4%
89 1.3% 120.0% 120.0% 120.0%
90 20.0% 83.8% 13.9% 15.0%
91 120.0% 120.0% 27.4% 120.0%
92 12.6% 42.6% 0.0% 0.0%
93 2.3% 120.0% 47.0% 114.1%
94 41.7% 88.4% 57.7% 80.0%
95 25.6% 19.2% 22.4% 0.1%
96 55.7% 0.0% 60.7% 38.6%
97 120.0% 56.5% 36.9% 120.0%
98 114.3% 120.0% 102.7% 80.3%
March 1, 2025 Page 8

Idaho Power 2024 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
Participant July 11 Event July 24 Event August 2 Event August 22 Event
Number Realization Realization Realization Realization
99 2.4% 2.0% 4.8% 0.9%
100 10.0% 120.0% 29.2% 44.2%
101 103.9% 33.0% 57.7% 63.1%
102 7.2% 120.0% 102.0% 1.6%
103 54.9% 86.7% 102.1% 43.2%
104 63.6% 98.8% 120.0% 70.8%
105 120.0% 120.0% 116.0% 68.3%
106 110.6% 109.9% 103.1% 109.0%
107 0.0% 33.9% 120.0% 0.0%
108 115.0% 116.6% 102.5% 51.0%
109 70.6% 47.9% 120.0% 120.0%
110 70.5% 120.0% 120.0% 120.0%
111 120.0% 120.0% 120.0% 86.3%
112 108.6% 108.6% 108.6% 97.9%
113 119.7% 120.0% 20.2% 11.3%
114 24.8% 0.0% 58.0% 0.0%
115 23.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
116 92.3% 110.1% 91.7% 0.8%
117 40.0% 62.2% 101.7% 116.9%
118 2.0% 30.8% 0.7% 3.0%
119 0.0% 0.0% 19.7% 7.6%
108 115.0% 116.6% 102.5% 51.0%
109 70.6% 47.9% 120.0% 120.0%
110 70.5% 120.0% 120.0% 120.0%
111 120.0% 120.0% 120.0% 86.3%
112 108.6% 108.6% 108.6% 97.9%
113 119.7% 120.0% 20.2% 11.3%
114 24.8% 0.0% 58.0% 0.0%
115 23.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
116 92.3% 110.1% 91.7% 0.8%
117 40.0% 62.2% 101.7% 116.9%
118 2.0% 30.8% 0.7% 3.0%
119 0.0% 0.0% 19.7% 7.6%
Flex Peak Demand Reduction Calculation Definitions
1. Event Day:
The specific day a Flex Peak event is initiated.
March 1, 2025 Page 9

Idaho Power 2024 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
2. Eligible Baseline Days:
The sequence of 10 weekdays immediately preceding the Event Day. This excludes holidays and
any days on which other Flex Peak events occur.
3. Eligible Event Hours:
The designated time window during which an event can be initiated, spanning from 3 p.m. to
10 p.m., as stipulated by the current tariff.
4. Select Baseline Days:
Among the Eligible Baseline Days, these are the three days that register the highest total usage
within the Eligible Event Hours.
S. Unadjusted Baseline:
An average of the demand, calculated hourly, derived from the three Select Baseline Days.
6. Adjustment Hour:
The specific hour earmarked for determining day-of adjustments. This is the hour immediately
preceding the hour that the participant received notice of the upcoming event.
7. Adjustment Ratio:
The ratio used to perform a day-of adjustment. Calculated individually for each participant and
Event Day. Defined as the actual use (kW) during the Adjustment Hour divided by the
Unadjusted Baseline use (kW) during the Adjustment Hour.
8. Adjusted Baseline:
This is derived by multiplying the Unadjusted Baseline on the Event Day by the Adjustment
Ratio. This value is applied uniformly across all 24 hours of the Event Day.
9. Capped Baseline:
A modified version of the Adjusted Baseline where value for any hour cannot exceed the peak
observed actual demand reduction within the Select Baseline Days or within the hours on the
Event Day prior to notification.
10. Incented Reduction
The demand reduction (kW) that will be used to determine participant incentives, and for
calculating program demand reductions. Calculated for each hour of an event as the Capped
Baseline minus actual use (kW).
March 1, 2025 Page 10

-UIQAHO POWER,
2024 Irrigation Peak
Rewards Program Report
March 2025
© 2025 Idaho Power

Idaho Power 2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
ProgramDescription....................................................................................................................... 1
InterruptionOptions................................................................................................................. 1
Automatic Dispatch Option ................................................................................................ 1
ManualDispatch Option..................................................................................................... 2
DispatchGroups........................................................................................................................ 2
Demand Reduction Analysis ........................................................................................................... 3
MeterData................................................................................................................................ 3
LoadLeft On Analysis................................................................................................................ 3
Maximum Potential Demand Reduction Results...................................................................... 4
Actual Demand Reduction Results............................................................................................ 5
Demand Reduction Results....................................................................................................... 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2024 season summary results........................................................................................... 1
Table 2. 2024 enrolled MW and participants by participation type............................................... 2
Table 3. 2024 enrolled MW and participants by dispatch group................................................... 2
Table 4. 2024 load left on by event ................................................................................................ 3
Table 5. 2024 peak potential load left on....................................................................................... 4
Table 6. 2024 season peak potential reduction.............................................................................. 5
Table 7. 2024 demand reduction by event and hour..................................................................... 5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. 2024 total program peak daily demand (as % of enrolled load) ..................................... 4
Figure 2. 2024 event day demand by dispatch group .................................................................... 6
March 1,2025 Page i

Idaho Power 2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Demand reduction calculation method...................................................................... 7
March 1,2025 Page ii

Idaho Power 2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
INTRODUCTION
The Irrigation Peak Rewards Program (IPR) is a voluntary demand response program available to Idaho
Power's agricultural irrigation customers since 2004. IPR pays irrigation customers a financial incentive
for the ability to turn off participating irrigation pumps on high energy-use days. Idaho Power estimates
future capacity needs through the Integrated Resource Plan and then plans resources to mitigate
shortfalls. IPR is a result of this planning process and the success of the program is measured by the
amount of demand reduction available to Idaho Power when summer demand for energy is high or for
other system needs.
During the 2024 season (June 15 through September 15), demand response events (events) were called
on six different days.Table 1 summarizes the high level results from the season.
Table 1.2024 season summary results
#Enrolled Total Enrolled Maximum Potential Maximum Actual Demand
Region Sites (MW) Demand Reduction (MW) Reduction(MW)
Idaho 2,481 372.4 257.0 199.4
Oregon 36 2.6 1.8 1.4
Total 2,517 375.0 258.8 200.8
Totals may not match due to rounding.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Interruption Options
IPR is available to all Idaho Power irrigation customers.There are two options for shut off: an automatic
dispatch option and a manual dispatch option.The program is limited to four hours per service location
from 3-10 p.m. (standard option) or for four hours during the period from 3-11 p.m. (extended option).
The program is limited to 16 hours per week and 60 hours per season.
Automatic Dispatch Option
The majority of pumps enrolled in the program participate via the automatic dispatch option,where the
shutoff signal is sent by Idaho Power at the start of an event and minimal engagement is required by the
participant. Sites that participate under this option are expected to reduce demand to zero for the
duration of an event.There are three ways a pump may participate automatically:
• Demand Response Unit (DRU). In this option, a DRU is physically installed on the pump and then
activated by sending a signal through the power line at the start of each demand response
event.
• Cellular Device (cell). In cases where a participant is unable to have a DRU installed, or has a
specific circumstance that would prevent a DRU from receiving a signal, a cell device is instead
installed to the pump.
March 1,2025 Page 1

Idaho Power 2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
• No Device. In cases where a pump is downstream of another pump that has a DRU or cell device,
it would be redundant to attach another device, so these pumps may participate without the
installation of any additional program hardware.
Manual Dispatch Option
Under the manual dispatch option, participants manually control how their pumps are turned off during
an event. Manual participants are required to nominate a demand reduction (kW) at the beginning of
the season and are expected to meet that nomination when an event is called. Table 2 provides a
summary of participation type for the 2024 season.
Table 2.2024 enrolled MW and participants by participation type
Dispatch Option Participation Type Total Enrolled(MW) #Enrolled Sites
Automatic Cell Device 8.7 44
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Automatic DRU 303.0 2,350
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic No Device 0.3 28
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Manual Manual Shutoff 62.9 95
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 375.0 2,517
Totals may not match due to rounding.
Dispatch Groups
Upon enrollment, a participant is placed into one of four dispatch groups: A, B, C or D. When an event is
called, a dispatch signal is sent to all participants of one or more dispatch groups. Event start times may
differ between groups.
Group D consists entirely of extended option shut-off participants. Most Manual Dispatch Option
participants are placed in dispatch group C. Otherwise, participants are placed into groups in a way that
aims to balance available demand reduction. A small number of participants within group C are expected
to manually shut off one hour before the rest of the group (Group Cl) or two hours before the rest of the
group (Group C2).Table 3 displays the size and participant count of each dispatch group. Enrolled kW is
displayed at the meter level.
Table 3.2024 enrolled MW and participants by dispatch group
Dispatch Group Total Enrolled(MW) #Enrolled Sites
A 93.8 655
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B 87.3 656
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
C 84.6 304
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D 109.3 902
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 375.0 2,517
Note:Totals may not match due to rounding.
March 1,2025

Idaho Power 2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
DEMAND REDUCTION ANALYSIS
Meter Data
In 2024, 98.6%of the 2,517 service points enrolled in the IPR program had meters capable of
transmitting hourly meter reads.The remaining participants, lacking AMI data, are instead estimated
based on the usage patterns of similar pumps.This estimation factors in the expected rate of DRU failure
during an event.
Among service points that do have hourly read capabilities, it is rare but possible for errors to occur in
the hourly data.This may occur for a variety of reasons including high system noise or issues at a
substation. From June 15 to September 15 of the 2024 season, 98.5%of meter data among IPR
participants was successfully relayed and stored in the company database.
Missing observations were filled in using an interpolation approach if there was only one missing
observation. Otherwise, if a meter had multiple consecutive data points missing, data was filled in via
extrapolation approach, utilizing usage patterns of similar pumps.
Load Left On Analysis
Load can be left on during an event for several reasons:
• Device failure.This can occur when a load-controlling device is not functioning properly or
otherwise fails to receive the curtailment signal at the start of the event.
• Opt Outs. Participants may choose to opt out of events, however they will receive a reduction to
their incentive for doing so. Idaho Power monitors the frequency of these opt outs.
• Small Load Left On. Some participants also have small non-pump loads connected to their meter
such as pivots, control panel load from cooling fans or other electronic controls, lights, or electric
fences that are left on during an event.
Table 4 presents a breakdown of the load left on for each event this season. Load is presented as a
percentage of enrolled MW that was left on by each failure type. For example, during the July 10th event,
approximately 12.2 MW of load was left on due to DRU failure, out of an expected dispatched load of
199.8 MW, resulting in a device failure rate of 6.1%. Manual dispatch participants do not have DRUB and
are not obligated to reduce load to zero, so they are excluded from this portion of the analysis.
Table 4.2024 load left on by event
Event Date Device Failure Opt Out Small Load Left On Total Left On Average MW On During the Event
7/10/2024 6.1% 3.0% 1.9% 11.0% 22.0
7/11/2024 8.4% 2.9% 3.3% 14.7% 16.5
7/24/2024 4.0% 0.7% 2.3% 7.1% 22.2
8/2/2024 2.7% 0.6% 1.5% 4.9% 15.3
8/19/2024 1.4% 0.0% 1.2% 2.5% 0.7
8/22/2024 2.8% 0.7% 1.8% 5.3% 15.2
Note:Percentages are based on load left on during event compared to total nominated MW.
March 1,2025 Page 3

Idaho Power 2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Table 5 presents the Load Left On rates used in calculating the season peak potential.These percentages
represent the expected load that would be left on during a peak-hour event with all dispatch groups
called.The results are based on averages of events called in the 2024 season,weighted by dispatch
group.
Table S.2024 peak potential load left on
Load Left On Type Percentage Peak MW Left On
Device Failures 5.0% 18.6 MW
Opt Out 1.4% 5.1 MW
Small Load Left On 2.5% 9.3 MW
Manual Load Left On 1.9% 7.1 MW
Total 10.7% 40.1 MW
Maximum Potential Demand Reduction Results
The maximum potential demand reduction is the theoretical demand reduction that would have
occurred if an all-group event were called during the peak window of the season.This number takes into
account the average number of device failures, opt-outs, and small load left on (see analysis above)
determined from actual events. This analysis is used to report capacity of the program and cost-
effectiveness.
The total enrolled load will always be higher than the actual season peak due to pumps operating on
different schedules.The Peak Day of the season is the day where the average usage among all program
participants between the hours of 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM is the highest.The realization rate (average
usage for all participants divided by total enrolled load) typically peaks in late June or early July and
fluctuates throughout the season, as demonstrated in Figure 1. In 2024,the peak occurred on July 4tn
with a coincident load of 298.8 MW, equating to a realization rate of 76.6%of total enrolled load.
100%
90%
80%
d
70%
60%
50%
N
0 40%
tY
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jun 15 Jul 15 Aug 15 Sep 15
Date
Figure 1.2024 total program peak daily demand(as%of enrolled load)
March 1,2025 Page 4

Idaho Power 2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
The maximum potential demand reduction is calculated based on the season coincident peak. It is
adjusted to account for the load that will not be curtailed due to device failures, opt-outs, and small load
left on. In 2024,these adjustments equaled 40.1 MW of load left on, or 10.7%of the total enrolled load.
This resulted in a maximum potential demand reduction of 258.8 MW for the 2024 season.Table 6
provides an overview of key season metrics.
Table 6.2024 season peak potential reduction
Load Realization
Load Type Amount Rate Description
Enrolled 375.0 MW 100.0% Combined load of all enrolled pumps
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season Peak 298.8 MW 79.7% Maximum program coincident peak on July 4th,2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Potential 258.8 MW 69.0% Season peak minus predicted load left on
Demand Reduction
Actual Demand Reduction Results
Calculating the performance of the program requires a comparison between usage before the event
(baseline usage) and usage during the event. See Appendix 1 for the definition of terms and calculation
method. Baseline usage represents the amount of demand that would have needed to be served in the
absence of an event.The baseline is calculated using the average of the first four hours of the five hours
before the dispatch group start time.The difference between the baseline usage and actual load left on
during an event represents the realized, actual demand reduction.Table 7 displays the load reduction
results for each event day.The demand reduction at generation level includes a 6.5%system loss.
Table 7. 2024 demand reduction by event and hour
Hourly Demand Reduction(MW)
Event Date Groups 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. 6-7 p.m. 7-8 p.m. 8-9 p.m. 9-10 p.m.
7/10/2024 A, D - - 67.5 133.9 132.9 132.1 60.2
7/11/2024 B,C - 2.8 66.2 105.4 105.6 99.7 39.3
7/24/2024 A, B,C,D 51.3 159.0 200.8 199.5 145.4 37.0 -
8/2/2024 A, B,C,D - 2.1 85.7 165.5 167.6 163.0 81.0
8/19/2024 C 1.8 15.6 48.5 49.2 45.7 33.1 -
8/22/2024 A, B,D - 40.0 73.3 113.5 113.1 73.3 40.0
Demand Reduction Results
The bar charts in Figure 2 show actual event day loads by dispatch group for the hours leading up to,
during, and after the event. A reduction in demand during the active event period is clearly shown on
the charts. On days when multiple dispatch groups were called, a gradual drop and subsequent rise in
system load is reflected, due to the staggered start/end times for the groups participating. Maximum
demand reduction occurred toward the middle of the event,when all groups were shut down; small
system load shown during the maximum reduction period is attributed to device failures, opt-outs, and
March 1,2025 Page 5

Idaho Power 2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
small load left on on during the event. Note that the Y axes are individudually scaled for each event to
improve visual clarity.
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
125,000-
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
0
200,000-
150,000
100,000
50,000 Dispatch Group
■ Dispatch Group A
Y 0
■ Dispatch Group 8
■ Dispatch Group C
150,000 ■ Dispatch Group D
100,000
50,000
0
50,000-
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000-
0
120,000-
80,000 -
40,000
0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Group C includes early-off Ct and C2 participants
Figure 2.2024 event day demand by dispatch group
March 1,2025 Page 6

Idaho Power 2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Appendix 1.Demand reduction calculation method
Abbreviations
ADO—Automatic Dispatch Option
AEL—Actual Event Load
AMI—Automated Metering Infrastructure
BL—Baseline Load (Baseline Usage)
DR—Demand Reduction
MDO—Manual Dispatch Option
MV-90—Specific Meter Package with Interval Data
Automatic Dispatch Option
The demand reduction for each pump is the difference between the calculated baseline load and the
actual demand during each hour of the event:
DRpump= BLpump-AELpump
The demand reduction for all pumps within a dispatch group is the total hourly reduction for each group
as calculated below:
DR -E DR + DR(groups) * Nominated DR
group- pump(groups 1-4) DR pumps with errors
nominated(groups)
Demand reduction for the automatic dispatch option was calculated as follows:
DRADO= F DRgroup
Manual Dispatch Option
Data utilized for manual dispatch option participants is AMI hourly usage, MV-90 interval data or data
logger interval metering data.
Demand reduction for the manual dispatch option is calculated as follows:
DR group=F DR urn AM,+I DR + DR(groups) * Nominated DR
pumps p p p pump MV-90 pumps with errors
DRnominated(groups)
The total demand reduction for the Manual Dispatch Option is calculated as follows:
DRMDO= I DRgroup
The total program actual demand reduction is calculated by summing the calculated reduction for the
Automatic Dispatch Option sites and the Manual Dispatch Option sites:
Total Program DR= DRMDO+ DRGroup
March 1,2025 Page 7

Utility Consumer
Analytics , Inc
Adaptive Consumer Engagement
Idaho Power Corporation
Home Energy Report 2024
Final Program Summary
Version
Updated: 3/4/2025
H/�A R R I S
V V A ANANSOMER
LVTICS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 1 of 30

Table of Contents
• Executive Summary 5
■ 1. Project Overview 5
■ 2. 2024: Summary of Results and Findings 7
■ 3. Program Attrition 10
1. Program Overview 14
0 1.1 Team Structure 14
0 1.2 Objectives 14
■ 1.2.1 Program Objectives 14
■ 1.2.2 Additional Objectives 14
0 1.3 Eligibility Screening 15
■ 1.3.1 Eligibility Screening 15
0 17
0 1.4 Evaluation, Measurement, &Verification Process 17
0 1.5 Customer Data Integration 19
0 1.6 Benchmarking Flags 20
0 1.7 Overview of Segmentation Used for 2024 Improving Tip Selection 21
0 1.8 Key Decisions 21
0 1.9 Vendor History 22
• 2. 2024 Program Results Detail 23
0 2.1 Objectives: Findings 23
■ 2.1.1 Energy Savings 23
■ 2.1.2 Year-to-Date average Savings Per Customer By Treatment Group 25
■ 2.1.3 2024 Combined Savings for Expansion Participants(T6)Vs. Pilot Participants
(T1234) 25
0 2.2 Email Reports 25
■ 2.2.1 Delivery, Open, and Bounce Rates 25
0 2.3 Additional Metrics 26
0 2.3.1 Attrition Rate Detail 26
3. Process Improvements, Lessons Learned, and Future Considerations 27
0 3.1 Process Improvements 27
0 3.2 Lessons Learned 27
0 3.3 Future Considerations 28
4. Appendices 30
0 4.1 Appendix A: Sample Home Energy Reports 30
■ 4.1.1 A-1. Sample eHER and HERs 2024 — 30
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 2 of 30

Revision History
� . = Description Author/Editor
Document Approval
This section acknowledges approval of the information presented within. Please use the track
changes feature to indicate any changes necessary before the plan can be approved.When ready
to approve, please indicate the version number being approved and complete the fields below.
This Idaho Power Company Home Energy Report 2024 Final Program Summary,version 1,
approved by:
Client Name:
Name, Title:
Signature
Date:
Client Name:
Name, Title:
Signature:
Date:
utility
Consumer
Analytics, Inc.
Name, Title
Signature:
Date:
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 3 of 30

Executive Summary
■ 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Energy savings due to behavioral changes in the home have traditionally been difficult to measure.
Home Energy Report(HER) programs rely on a randomized controlled trial (RCT)structure to
calculate energy savings and ensure program results are both unbiased and precise. The RCT
approach is the most commonly used approach for implementing HER programs in North America.
With this approach,we identify an eligible pool of customers based on the desired program
outcome and then randomly allocate a subset of customers into the treatment group who will
receive the behavioral intervention (Home Energy Reports)and the remainder into the control
group who will not receive the intervention.
We estimate average customer-level savings from the behavioral program by measuring the
difference in the average energy usage among the treatment group relative to the control group.
Program energy savings are the average customer-level savings multiplied by the number of active
treatment group participants.
Filters applied to identify customers who may participate in the program are based on
recommendations from the vendor, as well as Idaho Power's experience and pilot learnings. Due to
Oregon's small customer base, Idaho Power's(IPC) HER program is currently available only in Idaho.
Program Group refers to customers in the treatment group who are actively being treated with
reports.These customers, by default, are also part of the evaluation group.
Evaluation Group refers to customers in the treatment or control group and is factored into the
savings evaluations.Treatment customers in this group may or may not be actively receiving
reports. Customers in the treatment group but not in the program group remain in the treatment
group to maintain the RCT but are not actively treated for a variety of reasons discussed later in
section 3 of the report.
Customers in the evaluation group are broken into treatment and corresponding control groups. T1
through T5 were onboarded in 2017 and 2018 as part of the pilot. T6 became active in 2020.
• T1: customers with high winter use(electric heating)added in Year One
• T2: customers with high winter use(electric heating)added in Year Two
• T3: customers with high year-round energy use added in Year One
• T4: customers with medium year-round energy use added in Year One
• T5: customers with low year-round energy use added in Year One.
o Note:these customers were removed from the program in 2020 and received their last
report in February 2020
• T6: expansion of customers based on eligibility criteria determined after the pilot
The table below shows the number of customers in the treatment, control, and program groups at
the beginning and end of 2024. Customers are removed from both groups when they move out.
Table 1:2024 RCT and Program Group Participant Counts
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 4 of 30

Treatment Control Program
Net Jan 1 Net Jan 1
MM Diff Diff
4,509 4,454 55 I 1,137 1,121 16 I 5,646 5,575 71
3,968 3,909 59 I 625 615 10 I 4,593 4,524 69
4,624 4,597 27 I 2,760 2,740 20 I 7,384 7,337 47
2,178 2,178 17 I 2,043 2,030 13 I 4,221 4,191 30
3,369 3,599 40 142,455 41,795 660 I 46,094 45,394 700
80,214 79,399 815 10,879 10,746 133 91,093 90,145 948
Combined99,132 98,119 1,013 59,899 59,047 852 159,031 157,166 1,865
*T5 stopped receiving reports in 2020, so they are no longer in the Program Group. Residual savings
from T5 are still calculated for the PSR, so Treatment and Control counts are still tracked.
The Home Energy Reports included the following elements:
• Customer information: customer
name, address, and account ,Home Energy Report _
number
• Household energy-usage _ .
disaggregation: home usage is
separated into four loads (heating, `
air conditioning, lights &appliances,
and always-on) - ----- m �
Your 11e n&y.11 brc kd.7
• Targeted message(s): customized 31 V;�a
messaging to drive customers to .�� a'•i0 Elett Hannge p
3,050 •
kWh
relevant programs and the My - ss�o
Account portal k
• Social benchmarks: customer's
home energy use compared to
similar homes and efficient homes, designed to motivate savings
• Personalized savings recommendations:Tips for saving energy based on home
profile attributes, customer segmentation, and season
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 5 of 30

Table 2-2024 Report Delivery Schedule by Cohort
2024
Cohort Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
T1, T2, T3, T4, T6 U Q/ U U U Q1 U
■ 2. 2024: SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Main takeaways from 2024 are as follows.
Savings
The total savings calculated for 2024 are 18,678,791 kWh. Collectively, the savings for all waves
combined are statistically significant except for T-2. Although T-5 did not receive reports after
February 2020, when compared with their control group,they showed persistent savings. Excluding
the savings from T2, the program's overall annual 2024 savings are 18,187,631 kWh. With residual
savings from T2 included,the weighted average savings for all treatment groups was 190.21 per
customer or 1.24%.
Table 3:2024 Program Savings by T-Groups
Average Energy Cumulative Savings Percent Statistical
Savings in kWh per (all months, all Savings Significance
Customer households,
140.27 624,787 0.67% Y
125.65 491,160 0.63% N
335.84 1,543,839 2.25% Y
252.93 546,573 2.37% Y
48.97 176,246 0.67% Y
192.65 15,296,185 1.32% Y
Combined 190.37 18,678,790 1.29% Y
Groups
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 6 of 30

Table 4:2024 Home Energy Reports Delivered in 2024
of : •
Report #of
RecipientsCycle • Reports
Paper
Recipients Recipients Recipients Receiving Delivered
HERs
February T1,T2,T3, 165 44,647 46,144 90,956 137,100
T4,T6
T1,T2,T3,
June T4,T6 43,789 0 0 43,789 43,789
September T1,T2,T3, 49,652 0 0 49,652 49,652
T4,T6
October T1,T2,T3, 4,566 25,442 45,394 75,402 120,796
T4,T6
November T1,T2,T3, 2,532 37,649 7,134 47,315 54,449
T4,T6
December T1,T2,T3, 5,474 13,475 27,959 46,908 74,867
T4,T6
2024 Report Totals 106,178 121,213 126,631 354,022 480,653
Notes on Table 4:
• Total Reports Delivered is calculated by adding email only+paper only+(both email and paper
x 2).
• The participant count is based on the number of reports sent in the first report cycle of the year.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 7 of 30

Table 5:Year-Over-Year Home Energy Reports Delivered
PaperBoth
ProgramOnly • Only • Program
Recipients
and Email
Year Reports • •
PilotYear 1 of
T1,T3,T4, T5 N/A 149,546 N/A 23,914
(2017-2018)
Year 2 of
T T2,T3, T4,
Pilot T5 N/A 116,087 N/A 24,976
(2018-2019)
T1,T2,T3, T4, 257 488,545 N/A 127,313
T5,T6
T6 T2,T3,T4, 507 445,334 N/A 115,153
T6 T2,T3, T4, 578 406,587 98,570 104,826
T6 T2,T3,T4, 540 196,650 180,921 96,955
T1,T2,T3, T4, 121,213 126,631 90,956
T6
Total
• • N/A 1,882 1,923,962 406,122 N/A
Delivered
Notes on Table 5:
• T2 was launched in Year 2 of Pilot
• Email reports launched at the beginning of 2019
• T5 was discontinued in 2020. The last report they received was in February 2020
• T6 launched in May 2020, and customers received the first report in June 2020
• In August of 2022, we expanded email HERS(eHERs)to all customers with an email address.
• IPC pulled Total Reports Delivered data for Year 1 of Pilot(2017-2018) and Year 2(2018-2019)
• Uplight pulled Total Reports Delivered Data for 2020, 2021, 202Z 2023, and 2024
Email HER-Specific Statistics
In 2024, 232,809 total emails were sent. Of those, 206,365 emails were successfully delivered. The
total clickthrough rate(that is, the rate of clicks on links contained within the emails)was .5
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 8 of 30

■ 3. PROGRAM ATTRITION
Attrition Rates
The attrition rate measures the number of people removed from the HER program due to not
meeting program requirements(as specified below) or because participants chose to opt out.The
attrition rate in 2024 was 1.17%, with a total of 1,865 customers removed.These customers were
removed due to move-outs(affects both the Program and Evaluation Groups) and/or one of the
following reasons: opting out, incompatible location type*, incompatible property type**, or
unsupported rate code***.
Move-out removals affect the Evaluation Group (both treatment and control). Other types of
permanent removals, including customers who opt out of the program, remain in the evaluation
group to maintain the balance of the RCT even though they no longer receive reports.
*Customers with zip codes outside of the geographic parameters for similar home comparisons or those
categorized as insufficient location benchmarking are verified as incompatible locations.
**Pilot customers whose home types are single-family homes or manufactured homes are eligible to
receive reports. For T6, only customers whose home type is single-family homes are eligible to receive
reports.All other home types are considered incompatible property types.
***Customers whose rate code is 106(Residential Service On-Site Generation/solar).
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 9 of 30

Table 8.Year Over Year Attrition
Opt-Out C• Opt-Out
Attrition %
® 172 0.64% 12%
® 66 0.22% 15.15%
154 0.1% 9.4%
® 138 0.12% 7.82%
® 106 0.08% 6.92%
® 69 0.05% 4.83%
158 0.17% 1.17%
Year Over Year Savings Comparisons
Table 9:Year Over Year Savings Comparisons
Countof
jaffiw�w
_ Evaluation
N/A 3,281,780 23,914
N/A 8,444,746 24,976
• 1,445,666 1,734,800 1,237,313 881,080 67,831 5,017,703 10,427,940 127,138
• 183,325 981,868 1,378,427 740,448 100,575 13,382,802 16,767,446 115,153
• 781,761 238,339 1,113,894 612,969 259,616 17,728,033 20,734,611 104,826
• 49,817 729,671 1,152,331 464,213 269,686 15,071,413 17,737,130 99,132
• 624,787 491,160 1,543,839 546,573 176,246 15,296,185 18,678,790 98,119
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 10 of 30

Notes on Table 9:
• 2018-2019 savings and participant counts were sourced from IPC's DSM Reports and/or Pilot
Program Summary Reports(PSR). Only the aggregate savings for T1 - T5 were pulled.
• T5 transitioned to residual savings starting in March 2020.
• T6 launched in 2020.
• Note: We noticed swings in aggregate savings for T1 and T2. Uplight is investigating why this is
happening, and if changes are needed moving forward, they will be discussed with IPC.
Figure 1:Yearly Aggregate Savings
Yearly Aggregate Savings
2020 0 2021 2022 2023 0 2024
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
Ti T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Figure 2:Yearly Average kWh Savings Per Customer
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 11 of 30

Yearly Average kWh Savings Per Customer
2020 0 2021 2022 2023 0 2024
400
300
200
100
0 oil,
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 12 of 30

1 . Program Overview
0 1 .1 Team Structure
Since 2017, the IPC Home Energy Report program has been a joint effort between Idaho Power
Company, Utility Consumer Analytics I N. Harris Computer Corporation (formerly Aclara), and
Uplight(formerly Ecotagious). Uplight acquired Ecotagious in July 2019, and in June 2021, N. Harris
Computer Corporation acquired Adaptive Consumer Engagement(ACE)from Aclara Technologies.
0 1 .2 Objectives
■ 1.2.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The following business requirements were captured during an onsite meeting on August 22, 2019,
and documented in the contract as part of the design of this expansion from the pilot project:
• Maximize the total kWh saved, ensuring a UCT of>1 (with a buffer), and maintain high
customer satisfaction levels.
• Meet cost-effectiveness guidelines from a Total Resource Cost(TRC) and UCT perspective.
o >1 UCT+ buffer
• Maintain or enhance the current customer satisfaction levels.
• Maintain low opt-out rate
• Drive positive customer interactions
• Maintain low volume of program-related calls to the Customer Interaction Center
• Average annual savings of 1-3%
o So long as savings are detectable and statistically significant
• Encourage customer engagement with energy usage, including utilization of online tools
and lift for other EE programs.
■ 1.2.2 ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES
Monitor persistent savings of the T5 group
In the expansion program,T5 customers were removed from treatment because their overall usage
was low, and they had not achieved statistically significant savings in the pilot program. IPC would
like to continue to monitor their persistent savings going forward to determine if combining them
with the rest of the treatment population could yield additional combined savings. Because the T5
customers received reports through February 2020, the savings calculated using a
difference-in-difference methodology can be attributed to treatment in previous years.
IPC is working with its third-party consultant to identify an appropriate trigger to stop including T5
savings in the aggregate yearly savings estimate.
0 1 .3 Eligibility Screening
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 13 of 30

■ 1.3.1 ELIGIBILITY SCREENING
Eligibility screening for T1, T3, T4, and T5 was initially conducted in year one, and these groups
persisted into year two.
Eligibility screening for T2 was conducted in year one with the T1 group; however, heating source
data for these customers was
unavailable until year two, at Toblel0. 1010Expansion
which time they were Idaho only Required Idaho service addresses
AMI Data Required AMI data
re-evaluated for eligibility. Active only Removed all accounts without>12 months
active history
The eligibility criteria applied in Individual only Filtered out all non-individual accounts
Exclude Do Not Contact Filtered out do not contact list
years one and two were also used Net Metering and Master metered accounts(103) Removed all Net Metering and Master
in year three to determine the metered accounts(103)
Exclude non-English Removed all known language types other than
eligible participants in the T6 English
group. New criteria were added Comparable homes only Removed homes built prior to 1860,or more
than 6 bathrooms,or more than 8 bedrooms,
based on learnings from the pilot. and homes with<350fior>7000ft
Homes only Effectively excludes junk accounts(barn,shop,
For the expansion in 2020, all T5 garage,well,pump,etc.,etc.)
and C5 customers were removed Exclude manufactured homes Excluded all manufactured homes
Exclude multi-family Exclude Multi-family
from both participation and Remove duplicates Remove duplicates
eligibility based on savings results
from the two-year pilot.Additionally, a third party(DNV) randomly removed 29,369 customers from
the control groups for Pilot waves 1, 2, 3, and 4 to free them up for possible treatment in the
expansion.The analysis by DNV-GL determined how many customers could be removed from these
control groups while still allowing for statistical significance in calculating savings cumulatively
across all treatment groups.
In April 2020, eligibility screening was conducted to establish a new T6 group from the remaining
Idaho Power customers and those freed up from C1, C2, C3, and C4.
Idaho Power scrubbed the initial count of customers and applied the following filters:
IPC Applied Filters are Shown in Table 9
The criteria for culling customers during eligibility screening are shown in Table 9.
In late 2020, an issue arose where the benchmarking group for several treatment customers fell
below the required threshold of 100 homes.Although adequate benchmarking was part of the
initial criteria,the size of the benchmarking group during eligibility screening had been set too low.
This issue created a situation where customers remaining in the program could potentially receive
sporadic reports and have a negative customer experience.As a result, the vendor and IPC made a
joint decision to remove participants with inadequate benchmarks from active treatment.At this
time, the vendor also confirmed those customers remaining in the treatment had enough homes in
their respective benchmarking groups to provide quality data for subsequent reporting periods.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 14 of 30

Table 11: Criteria and Rationale for Culling Customers During Eligibility Screening
Priority
Order Criteria Filter Applied City Description
Provided by IPC;all customers with active status and AMI data for the
1 Initial Count 444,935 past 12 months.
Exduding Pilot T Groups and Excluding treatment and control customers carried over from pilot
2 CS 334,589 and all T5/C5 customers
Initial Count of Eligible
Customers Based on IPC Provided by IPC;all eligible customers after IPC scrubbed the
3 filters/scrub 171,923 population for using eligibility criteria"IPC Applied"
4 Active/MoveOut 167,812 No Longer Active and MoveOuts after 03012019
5 Sufficient Data(AMI,DST,XY) 166,412 AMI data complete for 13 months
Removed those with benchmarking data(home size and location)that
6 Benchmarking 165,204 caused them to have insufficient number of comparable homes
7 Floor Size 165,151 Non-zero and<7,000 SF
8 Bill Payer Occupied 148,329 Removed service zip codes that do not match billing zip codes
9 Negative Hourly AMI 147,935 Customers with negative AMI are likely to never see reports
10 >0 Usage Each Month 147,456 Every month should have some usage
11 Some kWh in past 9 months 146,161 163 kWh/month
12 Correct Rate Code 146,161
13 Remove Old VIPs 146,155
14 Savings Potential 106,51.11.1 Remove customers with less than 7,000 kWh of usage
15 Duplicates 108,498 2 duplicates removed
Customers that fall into a benchmarking cluster that does not have at
16 Additional Benchmarking 108,424 least 100 participants when AC flag is applied
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 15 of 30

Figure 3:Eligibility Funnel for 2020 Expansion
Year 3 Eligibility Funnel
Initial Count
Excluding Pilot T Groups an...
Initial Count of Eligible...
Active/MoveOut
Sufficient Data(AMI,DST,X11
Benchmarking
Floor Size
Bill Payer Occupied
Negative HourlyAMI
>0 Usage Each Month
Some Wh in past 9 of past...
Remove Old VIPs and new...
Savings Potential
Duplicates
Additional Benchmarldng :®
0
0 1 .4 Evaluation, Measurement, &
Verification Process
The treatment groups' energy savings were evaluated following standard industry-accepted
evaluation practices.The program was set up as a Randomized Control Trial (RCT), with a third
party(DNV-GL) randomly assigning the treatment and control groups.The evaluation employed a
difference-in-differences method,which allows for accurate evaluation of program-driven energy
savings.
Pilot Year One
In year one, appropriately sized treatment and control groups were created for each cohort,
assuming an attrition rate of 10 percent and allowing for statistically significant detection of energy
savings in excess of 1.2 percent in the treatment groups.To achieve this objective, all eligible
customers were placed in either the treatment or control group.
In year one, 27,000 customers were identified as initial program participants. After considering
exclusionary factors such as move-ins/move-outs and removing some potential T1 participants due
to a lack of adequate county benchmarks, the sample size at the time of the first report was 25,677.
Pilot Year Two
In year two, at the time the bimonthly and monthly groups were created, the total number of
customers in treatment groups was down to around 23,000, a net decrease from the previous year.
The changes made to the treatment groups were as follows:
1. The T2 group was added to the study.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 16 of 30

2. Move-outs were removed from all EMV treatment groups as a result of ongoing attrition
due to customers moving out over the course of year 1.
3. All groups were optimized to remove households with low savings potential.
The total number of customers in control groups in year two was 110,969 (down from 166,840 in
year one).The same changes made to the treatment groups were applied to the control groups:
1. A new control group was created to accompany the new T2 group.
2. Move-outs were removed from all control groups,the result of ongoing attrition due to
customers moving out over the course of year 1.
3. The control groups were similarly optimized to remove households with low savings
potential.
Households where residents moved out during the evaluation period were taken out of both the
treatment and control groups for the purpose of measuring energy savings. Customers who opted
out or did not receive reports due to being marked non-deliverable by the National Change of
Address database were left in both the treatment and control groups for the purpose of measuring
energy savings.
2020 Expansion
The treatment customers from the pilot continued treatment(except T5), and a new treatment
group and new control group were created to expand the number of customers in treatment.After
the optimization of the existing treatment groups was complete, a total of 18,492 customers were
identified as pilot participants eligible for treatment in year three. The following changes were
made to the pilot treatment customers:
1. The T5 treatment group was removed from participation because this group showed the
lowest propensity to save energy during the pilot.
2. All remaining treatment customers from the pilot(years one and two)were moved to a
consolidated quarterly treatment schedule.
3. The C5 control group was removed from eligibility for treatment.
The following changes were made to the pilot control groups:
The C1, C2, C3, and C4 control groups were reduced in size significantly. 75,973 customers were
randomly removed from these four control groups to free them up for inclusion in the T6
experimental design—that is freed up to be randomly allocated to T6 and C6 during the 2020
expansion.The number of customers removed from each control group was determined by
DNV-GL with consideration given to the impact their removal would have on the statistical
significance of calculated savings across all treatment groups. See Table 9 for a record of the
changes made to the C1, C2, C3, and C4 control groups.
Table 12: Reduction in Pilot Control Groups
Reduced New
Group Size Size
12,090 1,450
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 17 of 30

■ 5,024 800
35,194 3,520
31,995 2,560
In the spring of 2020, a new wave was created, with 108,498 in the treatment group (T6)and 14,744
in the control group (C6) based on eligibility criteria applied to the remaining population.
2022 eHER Expansion
In August of 2022, eHERs were expanded to all customers with email addresses. Customers in this
group received eHERs in addition to their standard paper reports. Before this, only customers who
had opted into eHERs received an eHER only.This substantially increased the number of eHERs
sent to each cycle. In 2021, before the expansion, a total of 507 eHERs were sent in the program
year. In 2022, that number increased to 99,148(a combination of August and November cycles).
This increased to 181,461 in 2023 (a combination of all four cycles).
0 1 .5 Customer Data Integration
In 2024, IPC faced delays in receiving the necessary Home Profile(HPU) data from an external data
provider,which led to challenges in reporting accuracy. Despite these delays, IPC and Uplight
decided to move forward with the report launch without the updated HPU files. However, after the
launch, concerns were raised about the accuracy of the data in the reports, which resulted in the
decision to pause all reports until the correct data could be received and properly mapped.To
address the immediate issue, Uplight used Experian data as a temporary solution and worked
closely with IPC to resolve the HPU file issues. Together,they ensured that more accurate reports
could be sent moving forward.While the delays and data inaccuracies caused a pause in reporting,
putting savings targets and report delivery goals at risk, the collaboration between IPC and Uplight
ultimately helped to improve the accuracy of the reports and minimize further disruptions.This
experience highlighted the importance of having reliable data sources and robust integration
processes in place to prevent similar challenges in the future. Moving forward, both IPC and Uplight
are committed to improving data validation steps and developing stronger contingency plans to
ensure that reporting can proceed smoothly even when data delays occur.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 18 of 30

0 1 .6 Benchmarking Flags
Benchmarking flags are used to cluster customers based on similar home properties for the
purpose of calculating peer comparisons and identifying how each treatment customer's usage
compares to the average and efficient homes of similar properties. In the pilot program,the flags
used to identify benchmarking clusters were 1) Home Size(square feet), 2) Home Type, and 3)
County. In the 2020 expansion, two additional flags were added, one for ESH and one for AC.
Figure 4-Peer Comparison Section
Here's how your home compares:
7­1
1,750 kWh 1,900 kWh F ,
1,000 kWh L MORE
Your home used about 90% more electricity
Efficient Average Your than efficient 1,000—2,000 ftz single-family
Home Home Home homes in your community.
■Average Homes:Average of 1,000—2,000 ft'single-family homes in Boise This costs OU an extra
County with some form of electric heat. y
■Efficient Homes:Top 25%of those homes. S470 per year.
Please note that charging an electric vehicle may affect your comparison.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 19 of 30

0 1 .7 Overview of Segmentation Used for
2024 Improving Tip Selection
Idaho Power and Uplight are always on the lookout for new ways to keep report messaging
personalized and fresh.This is a good way to drive additional customer engagement with the intent
of increasing program savings and participation. In 2024,the segmentation in Table 14 was used.
Table 14:Segmentation Used for 2024 Quarterly Home Energy Reports
Reportm
February Update Home Profile Data
June Air Conditioning Efficiency
September Air Conditioning/Update Home Profile Data
October Air Conditioning/Update Home Profile Data
November Air Conditioning/Update Home Profile Data
December Heating Efficiency
0 1 .8 Key Decisions
Included NCOA group (USPS undeliverables) in Program Group
The inclusion of USPS undeliverables in our Program Group went well in 2022 and is now part of
our permanent process.
Before May 2021, customers flagged as NCOA/USPS undeliverable were moved out of the Program
Group. Since they were retained in the Evaluation Group but no longer received reports, this
created the potential for diluting savings. In April, IPC compared the NCOA list with the mailing
addresses in IPC's system and found no explicable reason they should have been removed.At IPC's
request, Uplight developed a solution that allowed us to deliver reports to these participants and
keep them in the Program Group.
From the May report throughout 2021, Uplight paid first-class postage and worked with IPC and the
printer to break these customers into their own send list so they could continue receiving reports.
Immediately after implementing this process, improvement allowed us to treat an additional 128
customers in May 2021. IPC has not received HERS marked "return to sender" in any notable
quantity to date.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 20 of 30

0 1 .9 Vendor History
Time Period Idaho Power MiLubcontractor Consulting Support
A contractor
April 2017 Aclara: Ecotagious: DNV: Craig Williamson
Receives IPC data • Receives data from • Advice on C/T sizing,
and conveys to Aclara, produces and experimental design,
Ecotagious disseminates HERS etc.
Manages timeline using proprietary • Assigned C/T
and invoices IPC algorithms groups
November Uplight acquires
2019 Ecotagious
• Cory Knoll PM
June 2021 UCA Harris acquires Uplight:
August 2021 Aclara HER programs Thea Winch replaces DNV: Ken Agnew
Cory as PM • Advice on anything
May 2023 HERS move to related to
SilverBlaze, a division of experimental design
UCA Harris and savings
calculations
January 2024 Uplight:
• Receives IPC data, Auda Bell replaces
produces and Thea Winch as PM
disseminates HERS (December 2024)
using proprietary
algorithms
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 21 of 30

ram Results Detail
•
0 2.1 Objectives: Findings
■ 2.1.1 ENERGY SAVINGS
Cumulative Savings During Treatment Period
In total, we saw an average of 190.37 kWh savings per treatment customer.This added up to a total
combined savings of 18,678,790 kWh across all treatment groups as of December 31, 2024. Savings
calculations from all waves apart from T2 were statistically significant. See Table 3 for 2024 savings
per cohort.The aggregate savings with all treatment groups combined were statistically significant.
Additionally,the T5 treatment group was treated with home energy reports through February 2020
and continued to show persistent savings post-treatment.All treatment customers in 2023,
excluding the T5 post-treatment period, showed a total combined savings of 18,502,544 kWh
Table 15: 2024 Cumulative Savings Active by Cohort
T12346 Treatment Period:Jan 1,2024-Dec 31,2024
Avg kWh Savings per Average Savings Cumulative
Winter
140.27 0.91% 624,787
Winter 125.65 1.34% 491160
Year-Round - 335.84 1.67% 1543839
Year-Round - 252.93 2.26% 546573
• • 192.65 1.15% 15,296,185
• 190.37 1.47% 18,502,544
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 22 of 30

Table 16. 2024 Cumulative Savings by TS(inactive Cohort)
TS Persistent Period:Jan 1,2024-Dec 31,2024
Avg kWh Cumulative
Average
• . Savings per Aggregate
Customer Savings Savings
Year-Round -
48.97 0.67% 176,246
Table 17., 2024 Combined cumulative Savings for all Treatment Groups including T5
Avg kWh Average Cumulative
• • • -- -
ate
Customer Percent Savings
190.37 1.29% 18,678,790
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 23 of 30

■ 2.1.2 YEAR-TO-DATE AVERAGE SAVINGS PER CUSTOMER BY TREATMENT GROUP
Table 18: Average kWh Savings per Cohort(kWh)
mmmm����
d624,787 491,160 1,543,839 546,573 15,296,185
Notes on Table 18:
• Starting in 2023, we began pulling Year-to-Date Monthly Savings Reports
■ 2.1.3 2024 COMBINED SAVINGS FOR EXPANSION PARTICIPANTS(T6)VS. PILOT PARTICIPANTS(T1234)
The T6 group is much larger than other treatment groups and more closely represents the entire
Idaho Power customer base than any other group.T6 alone accounts for over 80% of the total
treatment group. Savings for T6 have ramped up and are performing well.
Compared to the pilot customer group, an analysis of savings within the expansion participant
group (T6)found that in 2024, T6 saved an average of 187.89 kWh per customer.T3 and T4
continue outperforming T6,while T1 and T2 have underperformed. In aggregate, the active pilot
cohorts saved an average of 192.64 kWh per customer, and T5 had a residual average savings of
46.97 kWh per customer. 2024 was the fourth full year where all waves were on the same report
schedule, and thus, we are beginning to look at the program group more holistically.
0 2.2 Email Reports
■ 2.2.1 DELIVERY, OPEN,AND BOUNCE RATES
In 2024, 232,809 total emails were sent. Of those, 206,365 emails were successfully delivered.The
total clickthrough rate(that is, the rate of clicks on links contained within the emails)was .58%.
In 2024, 119,970 total emails were sent. Of those, 98,772 emails were successfully delivered. The
total clickthrough rate(that is, the rate of clicks on links contained within the emails)was 7.4%.
We sent out emails on the Ecotagious platform until Feb 2024 and then switched to HOMER. In Feb
2024, 46,309 total emails were sent. Of those, 45,721 emails were successfully delivered.The total
clickthrough rate(that is, the rate of clicks on links contained within the emails)was 2.1%.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 24 of 30

0 2.3 Additional Metrics
0 2.3.1 ATTRITION RATE DETAIL
HER ATTRITION RATES
Table 21:T6 Attrition Rates in 2024
WM®®®®®®
Unique Touchpoints 90,956 43,789 49,652 75,402 57,681 46,908 364,388
Delivered
Total HERS Delivered 90,791 0 0 70,836 50,997 41,434 254,058
Total eHERs Delivered 46,309 43,789 49,652 49,960 29,531 33,433 252,674
Treatable Segment 134,904* 97,823 97,823 97,823 97,823
Size
Accounts Scheduled 72,917 80,661 80,776 70,637 64,442
Treatable with Bills 56,115 76,692 77,866 58,567 47,703
Treatable Paper NA** 0 80,596 62,505 56,659
Scheduled
Treatable email 72,917 57,690 53,324 50,227 45,904
Scheduled
Treatable Paper with a NA** 46,961 77,694 51,742 42,102
bill
Treatable email with a 56,115 54,781 51,289 41,645 33,976
bill
Welcome Letters 0 ') 26,088 10,806 221 37,115
Scheduled but Inactiv, NA*1 - 2,848 2,975 2,985
'COLD PLATFORM *DATA LOADED INTO THE SYSTEM WAS UPDATED AFTERJUNE, CAUSING SLIGHT DISCREPANCIES
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 25 of 30

3. Process Improvements, Lessons
Learned, and Future Considerations
0 3.1 Process Improvements
Addition of Customer Touchpoints Report
As part of ongoing efforts to enhance customer engagement and streamline internal processes, IPC
has implemented a new monthly Customer Touchpoints Report.This report tracks all interactions
with customers through the company's BEE program, allowing IPC to consolidate and centralize
data on communication with clients. The report includes details such as account number, customer
names, email addresses(for eHERs),the date of contact, and the type of report sent(HER or eHER).
By having Uplight provide a recurring report of all HERS and eHERs, IPC is now able to ingest this
data directly into their internal CRM system.This integration ensures that all customer touchpoint
information is stored in a single, easily accessible location, improving the visibility of customer
interactions and ensuring comprehensive tracking of engagement efforts.
This process improvement significantly benefits the program by facilitating better customer
relationship management, offering insights into communication patterns, and helping to identify
opportunities for further engagement. It also reduces the risk of missed follow-ups and ensures
that all customer interactions are consistently recorded and actionable.
0 3.2 Lessons Learned
In 2024 there were several lessons learned.These learnings serve as a way to identify future
program improvement opportunities.
Data Integration Challenges
During 2024, IPC encountered delays in receiving the necessary Home Profile (HPU) data from an
external data provider.As a result of these delays, IPC and Uplight decided to move forward with
the report launch without the updated HPU files. Following the launch,there were concerns raised
regarding data inaccuracies in the reports, which led to the decision to pause all reports until the
correct data could be received and properly mapped.This delay in receiving and integrating the
data caused a pause in all reporting activities, putting savings targets and timely report deliveries at
risk.The challenge highlighted the importance of ensuring that all data is accurate and properly
integrated before reports are finalized.
The experience reinforced the need for strong data integration processes and the importance of
having backup plans in place when faced with data delays. Moving forward, IPC and Uplight will
prioritize more thorough data validation steps and establish clearer timelines for data delivery,
helping to prevent similar issues from impacting future reports
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 26 of 30

T7 Launch
In 2024, the launch of the T7 wave was delayed due to new commission requirements. While
customer selection for T7 was ready, the necessary approvals were delayed.Additionally,the
previously discussed data ingestion issues also impacted the timeline, as accurate data integration
was essential for the successful launch of the wave. IPC worked to resolve both the approval
process and data concerns to move forward
As a result of these delays,the launch of T7 was postponed,which meant the program did not
meet the contracted number of report sends for 2024. Once T7 is launched, IPC and Uplight plan to
reforecast savings for the affected years and submit a change order to reflect the adjusted savings
due to the delay.
This highlighted the importance of aligning data integration with regulatory approvals to ensure
timely program launches. Moving forward, IPC and Uplight will continue to collaborate closely to
streamline both the approval process and data integration, minimizing the risk of delays in future
launches.
0 3.3 Future Considerations
Based on the findings from 2024, Utility Consumer Analytics/Uplight has the following
recommendations for enhancing the program in 2025 and beyond:
Accelerate T7 Launch to Meet Savings Goals
To ensure IPC meets savings goals in 2025, prioritizing the prompt and efficient launch of T7 is
critical.The delays in launching T7 in 2024 resulted in not meeting the contracted report sends,
which could directly impact savings. The decision to move forward with T7 should be made as
quickly as possible in 2025,with an emphasis on resolving any data and approval bottlenecks early
in the year. Once T7 is launched, Uplight will reforecast savings for the affected years and adjust
projections to reflect the new timeline.
Integrate Home Portal with Home Energy Reports
To improve the accuracy and timeliness of the data in home energy reports, it would be helpful to
connect the home portal to home energy reports in 2025.As Uplight has offered their portal as a
solution, integrating this functionality will allow for real-time updates to customer home profiles,
reducing delays and improving the quality of data provided to customers.
Strengthen Data Integration and Validation Processes
The challenges experienced in 2024 highlighted the importance of ensuring that data is both
accurate and integrated smoothly, so taking steps to improve these processes can help prevent
similar issues in the future.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 27 of 30

4. Appendices
0 4.1 Appendix A: Sample Home Energy
Reports
■ 4.1.1 A-1.SAMPLE EHER AND HERS 2024—
Your electric use over time Account Number:01298190a5
Jun 2023-Jun 2024
—You --Average --Effioent
500
i
ado ——__
I \
300
200
kWh JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
AVG F- 58° 64° 77° 71° 71° 58° 32° 41" 35° 37° 96° 51° 60°
Your use for this month has increased compared to the same month last year.Over the past year.you've spent $82 more
than the most efficient homes in your area.Want to reduce your use?Try these tips!
Take Action. Reduce your use.
Update Your Home Profile Data
Pro tip!Head to the Energy Savings Center in My Account to make sure your
home data is accurate on your Home Energy Report.
Register at idahopower_com.myaccount and fill out your Detailed Home Profile.
'_'AALy� Idaho Power Company Call:1.800-632-6605
��Lyy�yyYw�/R/��/pp P.O.BOX 70 Email:solutions(didahopower.com
MC rVYYLR Boise.ID 83707 Visit:Idaho 'HomeEner Re rt power.com gy po
Sample User
1234 STONE CREEK CT
COLUMBUS,GA 12345 THIS IS NOT A BILL
For overt'8.333 shoats of paper we prvH.a tree is planled ®Pnnted on 100%post-consumer recycled paper
41865717285
mow"" QAHO Home Energy Report Address 1234STONE-CREEK CT tt.com
06-POMR June 2024
May 1,2024-Jun 1,2024
24 Electric 557 kWh
Hello Sample User.
Great work!You're spending about the same amount as the most efficient

How does my home use energy?
P 0 Home Energy Report
OW 1234 STo••• Estimated Usage
Cooling 42%
Hello Sample User, Electronics 17%
Great work!You're spending about the same amount as the Kitchen 15%
most efficient homes in your area.There are ways you can save Lighting 4111111111111 13%
even more.Check out the tips below.
Hot Water 8
— Laundry 5%
May 1,2024-Jun 1,2024 Heating r <1%
Electric 557 kWh
Your electric use over time
How am I doing?
Dec 2023-Dec 2024
My Home Comparison You -•Average ••Efficient
$Electric
1,500
1 250
730
.�
557 kWh ,on:I
kWh AAI _ 7^ /
�' /
` , ..... '
Your Home Efficient Home I ,
Kwn DEC MAR JUN SEP DEC
*Who am I being compared to?
tt Square Footage AVG F-1 45° 56. 78 a 82 a 50 o
1,400.2,000
Your use for this month has increased compared to the same
ra Year Bulk tics Heating month last year.Over the past year,you've spent$82 more
1973.1983 Non-electric than the most efficient homes in your area.Want to reduce your
Edit home profile use?Try these tips!
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 29 of 30

How can I save more?
Take Action.Reduce your use.
,11 I
Save up to$190 per year.
Dress for the weather —When you're in your home,there is no dress code!
Update Your Home Profile Data
Dress casually and appropriately for the weather.Wear
a sweatshirt and cozy socks on a chilly day instead of Pro tip!Head to the Energy Savings Center in My
turning up the heat.If it's a warm afternoon,put on a T- Account to make sure your home data is accurate on
shirt and shorts and open the window to catch a breeze, your Home Energy Report.
rather than turning right away to your air conditioner.
Comfort doesn't have to cost money!
We compare yourhome to similarhomes in yourarea.The loweskonsun ing 15%of
homes in yourcomparison group makeup the Efli category.Increase the
accuacyofyourepothycompIiin uyorhome m�fie.
Call:1.800.671.6605
Save up to$66 per year.
Email:[e-mail]
Store hot coffee in a thermos or carafe Visit:idahopower.comlHomeEnergyReport
Coffee is not just for mornings anymore.To save money
and energy while savoring the rich flavors of your
favorite brew,turn off the hot plate on your coffee maker Idaho Power company
and transfer your coffee to a thermos or insulated P.O.Box 70
carafe.You'll save energy,and your coffee will stay hot Boise.ID 83707
and fresh for longer.
Mxfd]G®
e' You're receiving this email because you've signed up to receive updates from Idaho
Power.If you'd prefer not to receive updates v
click here from all.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 30 of 30

SCHOOL YEAR 2023 -2024
ANNUAL REPORT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program
Designed and implemented by Tinker LLC
ML
4 �
69%
v •
1 0POMRo

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
MESSAGE FROM
TINKER LLC
Joseph Thrasher
o
u-
Dear Mindi,
I'd like to express our sincere gratitude for selecting Tinker LLC to deliver
your Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program. It was truly a pleasure to work
with the educators, students, and parents in Idaho and Oregon. Your
continued support is invaluable to us, and we are honored to have the
opportunity to contribute to your educational initiatives.
Enclosed, please find the comprehensive report detailing the outcomes
of the program during the school year 2023-2024. We have dedicated ���
significant efforts to ensure its success, and we hope the results meet IF
your expectations. OWE
WMW
We are committed to maintaining the high standards of our programs
and are eager to continue our partnership with you in the coming years. i
If there are any specific areas you would like to discuss or if you require ■■R�
further information, please do not hesitate to reach out to us.
I : y Cheerfully,
r,
a
Joseph Thrasher
A.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Message from Tinker LLC 2
OVERVIEW
Executive Summary 4
DESCRIPTION
Program Description 6
OPERATIONS
Program Timeline 8
Program Materials 9
Program Content 12
Energy Efficiency Kits 13
Student Competitions 14
Teacher Recruitment 16
11111111111 11111111111111 OUTCOMES
I � � School Participation 17
�� III 111 11 Projected Savings 18
F �; 11 111 II 11
Student Assessments 20
011 11 111 111 11 11
NMInlulnuui!� ',
10�1 11 II 11 1 11 1 I'll 11
1 11 1111 I I11 1111 11 ! Student Pledges 22
11 It 11 1 11 1 1111 11
■ IIM /11/ HIM 11
1 ■ I II 1 Ir 111[I� ;;
. � +. Student Survey 23
i� if
Teacher Evaluations 26
Continuous Improvement 28
APPENDICES
Appendix A Student Kit Savings Calculations 30
Appendix B Teacher Kit Savings Calculations 37
Appendix C Participation Tables 38
Appendix D Participant Letters 50

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
School Year 2023-2024
Tinker LLC is pleased to submit this annual report describing the implementation and outcomes
of the Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program ("SEEK"). From August 2023 through June 2024,
Tinker LLC supported the energy efficiency education efforts in Idaho and Oregon through a
partnership with Idaho Power Company ("IPC").
The program was developed to educate students in
IPC's service area about energy efficiency through the
implementation of a locally-based education program within By the Numbers
schools. Tinker LLC and IPC staff developed curriculum that
included lessons, STEM activities, digital program resources,
student contests, teacher grants, and an Energy Efficiency 202
Kit containing energy-saving devices for each student. The schools participated
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program is known and marketed
to the schools as the EnergyWise Program. Program objectives
included the following: 385
participatedteachers
• Leverage classroom teachers from schools within IPC's
service area to provide their 4th - 6th grade students with
quality, age-appropriate instruction regarding the wise use 12y577
of electricity. students enrolled
• Encourage the wise use of electricity at home by engaging
students and their families in activities that support and 092F
reinforce energy efficiency and conservation concepts. 7F
• Provide age-appropriate tools to facilitate student kWh saved
participation and incentives to encourage follow through
for all Program participants, i.e., teachers, students, and 551 *94
parents. kWh per student kit distributed
• Cross-market IPC's other residential energy efficiency
programs as directed by IPC.
• Provide IPC with annual energy savings information in the 390*69
form of an annual program summary report based on kWh per teacher kit distributed
student responses.
• Enhance IPC's brand as a trusted energy advisor.
• Maintain or enhance IPC's customer satisfaction.
4

Tinker LLC managed all aspects of the program design and implementation, including school
recruitment, lesson development, day-to-day program management, and reporting.
Below are the program outcomes:
1. Curriculum. To support educational goals, Tinker worked with IPC staff to develop six lessons
specifically for Idaho Power students. Each lesson included locally-based information, teacher
resources, hands-on activities, and supported Idaho state education standards. Below is the
list of lessons developed:
• Natural Resources
• Electric Energy
• Energy-Water Nexus
• Peak and Off-Peak Time
• Electric Bill
• Efficiency and Conservation
2. School Participation. During the school year 2023-2024, 202 schools, representing 385
teachers and 12,577 students participated in the program. Each of these students received an
Energy Efficiency Kit and access to digital learning resources.
3. Knowledge Retention. To determine the baseline knowledge, students were asked to
complete a 10-question assessment before the program was introduced. After completing
the lessons, they completed a post-program assessment to determine the knowledge gained
through the program. The average pre-assessment test score was 63%. After completing the
lessons, the average test score was 85%--an increase of 22%.
4. Energy Efficiency Kits. A take-home Energy Efficiency Kit was provided to 12,577 students
and 385 teachers. Each contained products that can be used at home to conserve water and
energy. Students work with their parents to use the products and report on their actions.
5. Student Survey. At the close of the program, students are asked to complete a survey
detailing the actions they took and which products from the Energy Efficiency Kit they
installed. Surveys were received from 8,586 students. Based on the reported data, projected
savings from kits can be found below.
Green House Gas
Electricity Natural Gas Water Reduction
Annual savings per student kit: 551.94 kWh 4.54 Therms 1,907 Gals 0.44 Metric Tons
Annual savings per teacher kit: 390.69 kWh 3.21 Therms 1,350 Gals 0.29 Metric Tons
Annual program savings: 7,092,142 kWh 58,350 Therms 24,503,645 Gals 5,695 Metric Tons
Lifetime program savings: 35,127,034 kWh 1 583,501 Therms 1 245,036,455 Gals 27,930 Metric Tons
*The algorithms and data used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A & B
5

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
School Year 2023-2024
The Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program is a locally-based curriculum designed to teach fourth-,
fifth-, and sixth-grade school students about energy and how to use it wisely. Offered as a
completely turnkey program, Tinker managed all aspects of the program implementation.
Tinker designed and customized three lessons appropriate for fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade
students attending schools in IPC's service territory. Next, Tinker contacted fourth-, fifth-, and
sixth-grade teachers using a variety of communication tools to introduce the program and collect
enrollment commitments. Participating teachers, students, and parents were then provided
access to Tinker's online platform or web application.
Program Delivery
Delivered by classroom teachers, the curriculum fit seamlessly within the current classroom
setting. The curriculum included lessons that were designed to support Idaho and Oregon
state education standards, featured engaging digital content, and included hands-on activities.
Moreover, each lesson included resources such as video streaming content, online assessments,
and more.
Using resources from our web application,
teachers delivered the curriculum to their I liked the interactive activities
students. Students and parents were also and assessments - online
provided access to the web application, which lessons. I think it helped the •
included portals designed specifically for each engagement a little more
participating segment. the past. 11
IPC was provided with its own customized T. King,
version of the web application that displayed Lake Ridge ••
its logo at the top of each page and referenced
it throughout the pages.
6

The digital delivery of the program through the web application allowed for:
• Program Tracking. All program actions were tracked and recorded in real-time. The data was
analyzed and used to inform unique actions by program staff and published within an on-line
dashboard. IPC staff was supplied credentials to access the dashboard and encouraged to
follow program progress.
• Additional Engagement Opportunities. Other IPC related programs were promoted within
each relevant portal.
Upon completion of the lessons, students acquired new knowledge of energy efficiency, and
each student was provided an Energy Efficiency Kit containing energy-saving devices. During
the final lesson, students completed exercises using the devices included in the kit, giving their
families an opportunity to immediately and consistently conserve water and energy.
Throughout the program, students
completed simple surveys and assessments. The program notonly educates
This data was collected, analyzed, and the students and can •
summarized to gauge the curriculum's impact integrated with our current science
on students. At the close of the unit, students curriculum, but it provides parents
and parents completed a pledge to continue with resources • education t•
to conserve energy and water. become m• - aware of energy use
• conservation.
At the end of the school year, all data
generated from the lessons and any K. Platt, Teacher
predefined success metrics were collected to Middleton Heights
present in this Final Report.

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROGRAM TIMELINE
School Year 2023-2024
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Program Updates
Completed
Print&digital materials
published
Quality control checks
performed
Eligible school
information identified
Teachers introduced to
the program
Participation
commitments collected
Access to digital materials
+ granted
Materials and Kits
shipped
Communication with
teachers
Collection &evaluation of
program data
Program closed to
participation
Program data compiled
Ln
and analyzed
Final report developed
and delivered
8

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROGRAM MATERIALS
Phase 7:Launch
During the program, teachers, students, and parents were provided with a variety of resources
expertly designed to educate about energy efficiency and encourage energy efficient behaviors.
These resources, including the web application, a printed teacher guide, parent letter, and online
lesson materials, were customized to feature the IPC logo and brand. Each are described on the
following pages and below.
PROGRAMPARENT
—�� DIGITAL MATERIALS
participatingEnergyWise Parents of
students were provided
Enwgy Ed—ti�Progmm access to the parent portal through the web
Welcome! application. ' available resources the
< =eAevaom< `<.c.<«wm«<u:w«nww«wv:n«uam • •
A parent letter describing the
ne<m cue,ip,a« •
ram, its
goals, and the energy efficiency opportunities
available
Additional energyefficiency resourcesoffered
-s
by
Program• evaluation
l
' • I • the parents love this kits
which helps us •
et them on board for
TIP: • other programs/content.
HillsdaleH Kessler, Teacher
••
9

TEACHER PROGRAM RESOURCES
DIGITAL MATERIALS
Teachers were provided access to the teacher portal
EnergyWise through the web application. The available resources
Teacher Portal
included the following.
• Instructions to guide teachers through the
administration of the program
Supported Idaho state education standards
Letter to parents in English and Spanish
Lesson materials including:
o Lesson plans
0 •�° • o Digital slides for classroom presentations
o Online resources
o Video content
o Online homework exercises
o Assessments
Post-program Evaluation
• Student progress reporting
SUPPORTING PHYSICAL MATERIALS
Participating teachers were provided a printed
Turn aH'I�bts
waey0ReA0QA°°° Teacher Guide to support the digital resources.
The Teacher Guide included the following:
• Program goals
• Instructions to administer the program
Unit plan
Lesson plans
• • . Contest and mini-grant information
Answer keys

STUDENT PROGRAM RESOURCES
DIGITAL MATERIALS
Students were provided access to the student
EnergyWise portal within the web application. Resources
Po available included the following:
Instructions for installing the products
inside the kits
• Access to digital lessons and assessments
• Video contest information
• The student leader board
• Additional energy efficiency information
You SUPPORTING PHYSICAL MATERIALS
Participating students were provided a student
V workbook to support the digital resources. The
'rndnm°e student workbook included the following:
Classroom activity worksheets
Classroom assessments
The Energy Efficiency Kit product installation
guide and data collection forms

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROGRAM CONTENT
Phase 2:Implementation
The curriculum was developed specifically for students attending schools within IPC's service area.
This innovative curriculum was crafted with the following key objectives in mind:
1. Teacher-Centric Approach: Crafted to be seamlessly delivered by classroom teachers,
ensuring a smooth integration into the existing classroom environment.
2. Standards Alignment and 5E Model: Aligned with the State Education Standards, the
lessons are structured similarly to the 5E model, providing a comprehensive and locally-
relevant educational experience.
3. Engaging Lesson Plans: Each lesson plan was designed to foster dynamic class discussions,
encouraging active student participation.
4. Grade-Specific Content: Tailored content for each grade level ensures that students receive
age-appropriate and relevant information.
Within each grade level unit, the curriculum delves into essential topics:
• Natural Resources
• Electric Energy
Energy-Water Nexus
• Peak and Off-Peak Time
• Electric Bill
Efficiency and Conservation
• Energy At Home
To support each lesson, Tinker worked with IPC staff to include teaching resources, video
resources, hans-on activities, and homework exercises in the lessons.
At the conclusion of each classroom lesson, teachers had the option of assigning online
homework exercises that reviewed the content taught in the classroom. Tinker worked with IPC
staff to develop each homework exercise. These exercises included locally-based video content,
interactive activities, labeled graphics, flash card grids, and more. The extensive information in
each exercise was designed to be engaging and to maximize the knowledge retention of the
student.
12

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT
Phase 2:Implementation
A take-home Energy Efficiency Kit was provided to 385 teachers and 12,577 students. Each
contained products that can be used at home to conserve water and energy. Students work with
their parents to use the products and report on their actions.
Each kit contained the following items:
• Showerhead
• Two LED Lightbulbs
Two LED Night Lights � �► �
Shower Timer
• Digital Thermometer °
• Filter Whistle __OEM - �-
• Water Flow Rate Bag
• Reminder Stickers and Magnets
• Quick Start Guide Energy Efficiency Kit
• Water Bottle Decals
13

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
STUDENT COMPETITIONS
Phase 2:Implementation
A fun component of the Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program was the student competitions: the
Student Challenge, Video Contest, and Photo Contest.
Student Challenge
Each student that registered for the online activities were automatically entered into the Student
Challenge. As students progressed through the online portion of the program, they earned
points for each activity completed. In the web application, students followed their point progress
and competed with classmates. Below is a sample of these activities:
Action Points Earned
Complete the online homework exercises 4,000
Install the products from the Energy Efficiency Kit 4,000
Complete the student survey 4,000
Submit a video contest entry 1,000
Complete the online pledge 500
The five students that accumlated the most points were awarded
prizes. h
Photo Contest
Students were given the opportunity to participate in a product
photo contest. Students snapped a photo of a product installed
from their kit for a chance to earn points and win prizes. Photos
were uploaded through the Tinker web application. Eighty-three
entries were selected as winners and received prizes.
Photo Contest Submission
14

Video Contest _.. .a,_.
As part of the program, students were given the opportunity
to participate in a video contest. Students could create a Video Contest
short two- to three-minute video about energy efficiency for a
Top prim'.a oo points and a$ioo Amazon gift card
chance to win. Videos could be uploaded through the Tinker
web application. Three entries were selected as winners and
received prizes.
Objective
__,.n....aouei rdm.:wya°. yons,mu:e..m'n%+r.enwmme
Prize
.,wu...ow RM%aMnstco Nmm 9RcaG
Required
If The online or digital platform
was easy to use. My students
e .,,,.m.•.,,,qn au.....:.nn
Rutes
loved • at the points chart
looking .w�rya�.w ad"ucn..ew...r w.ap.:..,yz amanoti,w�
ma wrwa mom,�,am n ww.+d��
. see
their names.
v�i •++n�xap...ao ,,.
K. Strawser, Teacher
Melba Elementary School
U©
( �
1
Video Contest Submission
Video Contest Submission Video Contest
Submission
15

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
RECRUITMENT
Phase 2:Implementation
Starting in August 2023, Tinker initiated the planning phase for recruiting qualified teachers.
These eligible teachers were specifically those teaching within schools served by IPC. Tinker's
staff collaborated with IPC staff to develop outreach materials. Upon finalizing the outreach
materials, Tinker conducted thorough research on schools and teachers and actively began
recruiting eligible teachers to the program.
The program was introduced to teachers using various communication tools to secure
enrollment commitments. These tools included:
1 . Email templates
2. Phone scripts
3. Promotional flyer
4. Recruitment video
Teachers were encouraged to enroll using the online form. Tinker successfully secured
commitments from 385 teachers and 12,577 students. Recruitment activities concluded in April
2024.
Teacher Registration
Integrates with Current Curriculum
POWW
Teacher Recruitment Video
On-line Teacher Enrollment Form
16

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PARTICIPATION
Phase 2:Implementation
During the 2023-2024 school year, fourth-, fifth, and sixth-grade teachers were introduced to the
program and asked to participate. Commitments were received from 202 schools, representing
385 teachers and 12,577 students. The table represents participation in each region of IPC's
service territory.
Region State Teachers Students Total Kits
Canyon ID 68 2,182 2,250
Capital ID 160 5,276 5,436
Eastern ID 49 1,397 1,446
Southern ID 70 2,683 2,753
Western ID 23 699 722
Total Idaho: 370 12,237 12,607
Western OR 15 340 355
Total Oregon: 15 340 355
*Detailed participation data can be found in Appendix C
17

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROJECTED SAVINGS
Phase 3:Reporting
Through the program, 12,577 Energy Efficiency Kits were distributed to students. The kits were
packed with high efficiency products that when installed help to curb household water and
energy usage while reducing green house gas emissions. Students work with their parents
to install the products and report their actions. Using the data collected, we calculated the
projected resource savings. Projections are found below:
ReductionGreen House Gas
Electricity Natural Gas Water
Annual savings per 551.94 kWh 4.54 Therms 1,907 Gals 0.44 Metric Tons
student kit
Annual program savings 6,941,728 kWh 57,113 Therms 23,983,995 Gals 5,583 Metric Tons
student kits
Lifetime program 33,898,478 kWh 571,126 Therms 239,839,954 Gals 27,199 Metric Tons
savings student kits
*The algorithms and data used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A
Through the program, 385 Energy Efficiency Kits were distributed to teachers. Like students,
teachers are asked to install the products. However, unlike students, some teachers received
a kit in a prior school year or prior school years. To best estimate the projected savings from
the teacher kits, Tinker has applied a 25% discount to the kit savings for each year a teacher
previously received a kit. The table below depicts the percentage of savings applied to teacher
kits based on previous program participation.
Participating •- of
Years Teachers Applied
1 162 100%
2 79 75%
3 61 50%
4 83 25%
18

The factors that Tinker considered to determine the discount percentage were:
1 . Energy efficiency products within the kits have changed occasionally year-over-year.
Thus the entirety of the product savings for those products in which teachers have never
received can be counted.
2. Products such as the LED lightbulbs and showerhead can be used in others areas of the
home. Thus savings can be counted for those products.
Savings projections for the Teacher Kits are found below:
W Green House Gas
_IWElectricity Natural Gas Wat4JML_ Reduction
Average annual savings 390.69 kWh 3.21 Therms 1,349.74 Gals 0.29 Metric Tons
per teacher kit
Average annual program 150,414 kWh 1,237 Therms 519,650 Gals 1 1 1.64 Metric Tons
savings teacher kits
rage lifetime program 1,228,556 kWh 12,374 Therms 5,196,501 Gals 730.87 Metric Tons
savings teacher kits
*The algorithms and data used for these calculations can be found in Appendix B
Total projected program savings was derived by adding the projected savings from students and
teachers. The total projected savings is found below:
91r, Green House Gas
Electricity Natural Gas Water Reduction
Annual program savings: 7,092,142 kWh 58,350 Therms 24,503,645 Gals 5,695 Metric Tons
Lifetime program savings: 35,127,034 kWh 583,501 Therms 245,036,455 Gals 27,930 Metric Tons
19

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS
Phase 3:Reporting
To determine the effectiveness of the program, we collected pre- and post-program data to assess
changes in students' knowledge, attitude, and behavior with respect to energy efficiency. The outcome
is provided below.
PRE- POST- 22%
20
ASSESSMENT � ASSESSMENT •
ON THE AVERAGE ON THE AVERAGE AFTER PARTICIPATING IN
STUDENTS SCORED 63% STUDENTS SCORED 85% THE PROGRAM, STUDENTS
ON THE ' ON THE ' INCREASED THEIR TEST
PRE-PROGRAM POST-PROGRAM SCORES BY 22%
ASSESSMENT. ASSESSMENT.
National Average: 64i National Average: 83i National Average: 19i

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
LESSON ASSESSMENTS
Phase 3:Reporting
At the conclusion of each lesson, students were ask to complete a lesson assessment. The assessment
was designed to measure knowledge growth within the topic as well as the re-enforce the education.
The results are used to determine the effectiveness of each lesson. The table below contains the
average student score within each lesson assessment.
Lesson Assessment
Natural Resources 94%
Electric Energy 93%
Energy-Water Nexus 89%
Peak and Off-peak Time 88%
Electric Bill 87%
Efficiency and Conservation 92%
21

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
ReportingSTUDENT PLEDGES
Phase 3:
As part of the program students are asked to pledge four different ways they will save energy at home.
Below is a sampling of pledges collected:
"I pledge save energy by "1 pledge to save energy by "1 pledge to save energy by
turning off light when 1 leave using the items in the Idaho telling all my friends how to
a room." Power conservation kit." save energy."
.-
"I pledge save energy by "1 pledge to set my "I pledge to save energy
taking five-minute showers, thermostat to 65 degrees in by turning off myAC and
and use less water when 1 the winter and 78 degrees in heater and using the ceiling
ke a bath." the summer." fan instead."
.-nt
"1 pledge to save energy "I pledge to save energy by "1 pledge to save energy by
E!nt St
Studen
Student
u en
22
by unplugging my charger keeping my light off and changing my habits and
whenever I'm done charging opening the blinds to light unplugging things when
my devices" inside the room." aren't needed."
.-
"I pledge to shut the fridge edge to save energy "I pledge to save energy
when not in use." by doing the wash on the by intalling the night lights
weekend." from my kit instead of using
.-
a regular light."

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
STUDENT SURVEY
Phase 3:Reporting
At the conclusion of the program, students are asked to complete a survey detailing the actions they
took and which products from the Energy Efficiency Kit they install. Surveys were received from 8,401
students. The reported data can be found below.
1 Did you enjoy the program?
It was excellent 36%
Pretty good 43%
Neutral 14%
Not so great 4%
It was terrible 3%
2 Was the online content easy to use?
Yes 78%
No 22%
3 How many people(adults and children) live in your home?
5.00 People
4 Which type of fuel (energy) is used to heat water in your home?
Electricity 62%
Natural gas 33%
Propane 5%
5 Which type of fuel (energy)does your heater use in the winter?
Electricity 57%
Natural gas 32%
Propane 11%
6 Which type of air conditioner do you use in the summer?
Central A/C 72%
Window A/C 20%
We don't have one 7%
23

7 How many showers are in your home?
2.08 Showers
8 Did you install the high efficiency showerhead from your kit?
Yes 46%
No, but I will install 29%
No 24%
9 What was the water flow rate from your previous showerhead?
2.45 G.P.M.
10 What was the water flow rate when you installed the new showerhead from the kit?
1.59 G.P.M.
11 Did you use the shower timer from your kit?
Yes 65
No, but I will 20%
No 14%
12 How many LED nightlights did you install?
2 63%
1 22%
0 16%
13 Where did you install the first LED nightlight?
Bedroom 58%
Hallway 20%
Bathroom 12%
Kitchen 5%
Other(Specify) 5%
24

14 Which of the following best describes how you are using the first nightlight?
Using it, but did not replace any existing lighting 26%
Using it instead of overhead lights 35%
Using it instead of a floor/table lamp 9%
Replaced an existing nightlight 29%
Other(Specify) 1%
15 How many overhead lightbulbs are now NOT being used?
1 36.5%
2 16.7%
3 13.6%
4 9.4%
5 7.4%
6 5.6%
7 3.4%
8 2.8%
9 2.5%
10+ 2.0%
16 What is the wattage of the light bulb(s)you will NOT be using now that you are using the nightlight?
4 Watt 8.0%
5 Watt 12.5%
7 Watt 18.5%
8 Watt 7.9%
9 Watt 10.8%
10 Watt 2.1%
11 Watt 4.3%
12 Watt 4.0%
13 Watt 1.7%
14 Watt 2.1%
15 Watt 1.9%
16 Watt 1.1%
18 Watt 2.8%
19 Watt 0.4%
20 Watt 2.7%
30 Watt 0.7%
40 Watt 2.2%
50 Watt 0.6%
60 Watt 6.7%
75 Watt 2.8%
100 Watt 1.5%
120 Watt 1.3%
Other 3.4%
25

17 What type of bulb was in the nightlight you replaced?
Standard incandescent 47.0%
LED 52.9%
18 Where did you install the second LED nightlight?
Bedroom 58.3%
Hallway 20.4%
Bathroom 12.3%
Kitchen 4.5%
Other (Specify) 4.4%
19 Which of the following best describes how you are using the second nightlight?
Using it, but did not replace any existing lighting 26.8%
Using it instead of overhead lights 35.1%
Using it instead of a floor/table lamp 8.9%
Replaced an existing nightlight 29.2%
20 How many overhead lightbulbs are now NOT being used?
1 37.2%
2 16.3%
3 13.0%
4 9.5%
5 7.1%
6 5.8%
7 3.4%
8 3.0%
9 2.9%
10+ 1.7%
26

21 What is the wattage of the light bulb(s) you will NOT be using now that you are using the r
4 Watt 8.2%
5 Watt 12.5%
7 Watt 19.1%
8 Watt 7.9%
9 Watt 10.3%
10 Watt 1.9%
11 Watt 4.1%
12 Watt 4.0%
13 Watt 1.8%
14 Watt 2.0%
15 Watt 2.0%
16 Watt 1.2%
18 Watt 3.0%
19 Watt 0.4%
20 Watt 2.9%
30 Watt 0.7%
40 Watt 2.4%
50 Watt 0.6%
60 Watt 6.4%
75 Watt 2.4%
100 Watt 1.5%
120 Watt 1.2%
Other 3.3%
22 What type of bulb was in the nightlight you replaced?
Standard incandescent 47.0%
LED 52.9%
23 How many LED lightbulbs did you install?
2 62.9%
1 14.7%
0 22.4%
24 What was the wattage of the first lightbulb you replaced with the LED lightbulb?
43.49 Watts
27

25 What was the wattage of the second lightbulb you replaced with the LED lightbulb?
43.27 Watts
26 Did you use the digital thermometer?
Yes 49.6%
No, but I will 24.4%
No 26.0%
27 Did you raise or lower your water temperature?
Our water was the perfect temperature.We did not adjust the water heater temperature
78.4%
Our water was too hot! We lowered the water heater temperature
14.5%
Our water was not hot enough.We raised our water heater temperature.
7.1%
28 Did you install the furnace filter whistle?
Yes 32.8%
No, but I will 27.1%
No 40.1%
29 Did you use the sticker and magnet pack from your kit?
Yes 64.2%
No, but I will 19.1%
No 16.7%
30 Would you like to see this program continue?
Yes 85.0%
No 15.0%
28

29

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
TEACHER EVALUATION
Phase 3:Reporting
At the conclusion of the unit teachers were asked to complete a post-program evaluation. Outcomes
are below:
1. Did you enjoy the program?
It was excellent 44.30%
It was pretty good 50.63%
Neutral 4.43%
Not so great 0.63%
It was terrible 0.00%
2. How satisfied were your students with this program?
They thought it was AWESOME! 31.65%
They liked it 54.43%
It was ok 12.66%
They really didn't like it 0.63%
They thought it was terrible 0.63%
3. Did this program support the education standards in your grade level?
Yes 93.04%
No 1.90%
Unsure 5.06%
4. Was the online content easy to use?
Yes 81.01%
No 18.99%
4a. How could the online content be improved?
5. Which lesson was your favorite?
Natural Resources 34.18%
Electric Energy 10.13%
Energy-Water Nexus 10.13%
Peak and Off-Peak Time 17.72%
Electric Bill 8.86%
Efficiency and Conservation 11.39%
Course Review 2.53%
Energy At Home 5.06%
30

6. Was the program staff courteous?
Yes 83.54%
No 0.00%
Did not interact with program staff 16.46%
6a. Did the program staff effectively answer all of your questions?
Yes 99.24%
No 0.76%
7. What was your favorite thing about the program?
8. Would you change anything about the program? If so, what?
9. Would you like to see this program continue?
Yes 100.00%
No 0.00%
10. If offered, would you participate again next school year?
Yes 97.47%
No 2.53%
11. Is there anything else you'd like to share about the program?
12.To aid in continuous improvement of the program, select teachers serve in an advisory capacity.
Advising teachers are provided a stipend and meet twice per year. If asked, would you be willing to
participate as an advisor?
Yes 26.58%
No 34.18%
Maybe 39.24%
31

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
Phase 3:Reporting
32

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
Phase 3:Reporting
33

APPENDIXA
SHOWERHEAD RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
Reported Inputs(Exact Numbers Reported)
Average household size: 5.00 people
Showers per home: 2.08 showers
Previous showerhead flow rate: 2.45 gallons
Retrofit showerhead flow rate: 1.59 gallons
Percent of homes with electric water heat: 62%
Percent of homes with natural gas water heat: 33%
Retrofit showerhead installation rate: 46%
Participants using kits: 12,577 Kits
Assumed Inputs
Showers per day per person: 0.67 showers'
Average length of use: 8.2 minutes'
Percent of showerhead water that is heated: 73% hot water'
Temperature of incoming cold water: 55° '
Temperature of outgoing hot water: 120° '
Product life: 10 years2
Outcomes
Projected annual water savings for all households: 23,983,995.43 Gallons'
Projected annual electric savings for all households: 1,953,928.14 kWh
Projected annual natural gas savings for all households: 51,999.70 Therms
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households: 1,596.00 Metric Tons3
Projected lifetime water savings for all households: 239,839,954.30 Gallons'
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households: 19,539,281.40 kWh'
Projected lifetime natural gas savings for all households: 519,997.00 Therms'
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households: 15,658.00 Metric Tons3
34

APPENDIX A
SHOWERHEAD RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
1 WaterSense°Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. EPA,2010,Appendix A:Calculations and Key
Assumptions. Note:
Step 1 [(Previous showerhead flow rate-Retrofit showerhead flow rate)x Average length of use:8.2min x Showers
per day per person:0.67 x Average household size] _Full bathrooms per home=gallons saved per day
*Equation is divided by full bathrooms per home because we only provide one showerhead
Step 2 gallons saved per day x 365 days=gallons saved per year
Step 3 gallons saved per year x retrofit showerhead installation rate x participants=gallons saved per year program-
wide
2 Manufacturer
3"Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,June. 2024,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equival encies-calculator.
4 WaterSense°Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. EPA,2010,Appendix A:Calculations and Key
Assumptions. Note:
o KWh Required to Raise 1 Gallon of Water 652 F
[(1.0 Btu/Ibs x 2 F)(1kWh/3,412 Btus)/(1 gal/8.34 Ibs)x 652 F]/0.90=0.18 kWh/gal
5 WaterSense®Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. EPA,2010,Appendix A:Calculations and Key
Assumptions. Note:
o Therms Required to Raise 1 Gallon of Water 659 F
[(1.0 Btu/Ibs x 2 F) (1 Therm/99,976 Btus)/(1 gal/8.34 Ibs)x 652 F]/0.60=0.009 Therms/gal
35

APPENDIXA
LED LIGHTBULB #1 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate: 78%
Participants using kits: 12,577 Kits
Average watts used by the replaced bulb: 43.49 watts
Assumed Inputs
Remaining useful life of replaced bulb: 1,000 hours'
Watts used by the LED light bulb: 8 watts2
Hours of operation per day: 2.1 hours per day3
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households: 265,153.23 kWh
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households: 180 Metric Tons5
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households: 345,927.24 kWh
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households: 235 Metric Tons5
1 Remaining Useful Life(RUL)is 1/3 of useful life. Average Halogen useful life is 3,000 hours. Thus RUL is 1000
hours. (https://www.bulbs.com/learninglar/.aspx)
2 Manufacturer
3 "Regional Technical Forum."ResidentialLighting-vlO-O. Lamps StorageRemoval. General Purpose and Three
Way. 250 to 1049 lumens.Any-Res. Only
4{[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced- Wattage of LED light bulb)x Hours of operation per day x 365
Days]=1,0001 x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
5 "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,June. 2024,
https://www.epo.govlenergylqreenhouse-qos-equivalencies-calculator.
6{[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced- Wattage of LED light bulb)x Remaining useful life of replaced
bulb]=1,OOO)x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
36

APPENDIX A
LED LIGHTBULB #2 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate: 63%
Participants using kits: 12,577 Kits
Average watts used by the replaced bulb: 43.27 watts
Assumed Inputs
Remaining useful life of replaced bulb: 1,000 hours'
Watts used by the LED light bulb: 8 watts2
Hours of operation per day: 2.1 hours per day3
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households: 213,867.76 kWh
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households: 145 Metric Tons5
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households: 279,018.61 kWh
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households: 190 Metric Tons5
1 Remaining Useful Life(RUL)is 113 of useful life. Average Halogen useful life is 3,000 hours. Thus RUL is 1000
hours. (https://www.bulbs.com/learning/arl.aspx)
2 Manufacturer
3 "Regional Technical Forum."ResidentialLighting-vlO-O. Lamps StorageRemoval. General Purpose and Three
Way. 250 to 1049 lumens.Any-Res. Only
4{[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced- Wattage of LED light bulb)x Hours of operation per day x 365
Days]=1,0001 x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
5 "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,June. 2024,
https.11www.epo.govlenergy/greenhouse-qas-equivalencies-calculator.
6{[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced- Wattage of LED light bulb)x Remaining useful life of replaced
bulb]=1,OOO)x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
37

APPENDIXA
LED NIGHT LIGHT #1 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED night light installation rate: 84%
Average number of overhead lightbulbs that are NOT being used
now that they are using the nightlight: 2.93 lightbulbs
Average wattage of the light bulb(s) NOT used now that they are
18.26 watts
using the nightlight:
Participants using kits: 12,577 kits
Assumed Inputs
Product life: 8 years'
Watts used by the LED night light: 0.5 watts'
Average length of use: 4380 hours per year
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households: 2,452,568.11 kWh
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households: 1746 Metric Tons4
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households: 6,574,510.24 kWh
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households: 4682 Metric Tons4
1 Manufacturer
3{[((Average wattage of light bulb replaced x Number of lightbulbs replaced)- Wattage of LED night light))x
Hours of operation per day x 365 Days]=1,000)x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED night light installation rate
4 "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,June. 2024,
h ttps://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
38

APPENDIX A
LED NIGHT LIGHT #2 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED night light installation rate: 63%
Average number of overhead lightbulbs that are NOT being used 2.96 lightbulbs
now that they are using the nightlight:
Average wattage of the light bulb(s) NOT used now that they are
17.93 watts
using the nightlight:
Participants using kits: 12,577 kits
Assumed Inputs
Product life: 8 years'
Watts used by the LED night light: 0.5 watts'
Average length of use: 4380 hours per year
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households: 1,824,024.01 kWh
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households: 1732 Metric Tons4
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households: 4,837,873.35 kWh
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households: 4593 Metric Tons4
1 Manufacturer
3{(((Average wattage of light bulb replaced x Number of lightbulbs replaced)- Wattage of LED night light))x
Hours of operation per day x 365 Days]=1,0001 x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED night light installation rate
4 "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,June. 2024,
https.11www.epa.govlenergylgreenhouse-qas-equivalencies-calculator.
39

APPENDIXA
FILTER WHISTLE RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
Reported Inputs
Filter Whistle installation rate: 33%
Participants using kits: 12,577 Kits
Percent of customers with central air conditioning: 72%
Percent of customers using natural gas heat: 32%
Assumed Inputs
Annual energy(electricity) use by a central air conditioner: 4467 kWh'
Annual energy(natural gas) use by a central space heating or furnace 421 therms'
Projected increase in efficiency(electricity): 1.75% 3
Projected increase in efficiency(natural gas): 0.92% 3
Product life: 10 years4
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households: 232,186.73 kWh
Projected annual natural gas savings for all households: 5,112.94 Therms
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households: 184.3 Metric Tons5
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households: 2,321,867.34 kWh
Projected lifetime natural gas savings for all households: 51,129.41 Therms
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households: 1,841 Metric Tons5
1 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Web site:
http://www.eia.govl
z Idaho Power's 2022 Residential End-Use Study
3 Reichmuth P.E., Howard. (1999). Engineering Review and Savings Estimates for the Filter Restriction Alarm.
4 Provided by manufacturer.
5 "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,June. 2024,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
40

APPENDIX B
TEACHER KIT SAVINGS
Teacher Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
No. of Years Student Kit Savings Percentage Number of Total Annual
Participating Savings Applied Teachers Savings
1 551 .98 kWh 100% 162 89,420.62 kWh
2 551 .98 kWh 75% 79 32,704.76 kWh
3 551 .98 kWh 50% 61 16,835.36 kWh
4 551 .98 kWh 25% 83 11,453.57 kWh
Student Kit Savings x Savings Percentage Applied x Number of Total: 150,414.31 kWh
Teachers=Total Annual Savings
No. of Years Student Kit Savings Percentage Number of Total Annual
Participating Savings Applied Teachers Savings
1 4.54 Therms 100% 162 735.65 Therms
2 4.54 Therms 75% 79 269.06 Therms
3 4.54 Therms 50% 61 138.50 Therms
4 4.54 Therms 25% 83 94.23 Therms
Student Kit Savings x Savings Percentage Applied x Number of Total: 1,237.44 Therms
Teachers=Total Annual Savings
No. of Years Student Kit Savings Percentage Number of Total Annual
Participating Savings Applied Teachers Savings
1 1,906.97 Gals 100% 155 308,929.57 Gals
2 1,906.97 Gals 75% 83 112,988.13 Gals
3 1,906.97 Gals 50% 33 58,162.67 Gals
4 1,906.97 Gals 25% 71 39,569.68 Gals
Student Kit Savings x Savings Percentage Applied x Number of Total: 519,650.05 Gals
Teachers=Total Annual Savings
Total Annual No. of Teacher Average Annual
Savings Kits Distributed Savings per Kit kWh 385 kits 390.69 kWh
1,237.44Therms 385 kits 3.21 therms
519,650.05 Gals 385 kits 1,349.74 Gals
Total Annual Savings=No.of Teacher Kits Distributed=Average Annual
Savings per Kit
41

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Adams Elementary School 2 42 44
Capital ID Amity Elementary School 3 75 78
Capital ID Andrus Elementary 5 109 114
Capital ID Chaparral Elementary 3 84 87
Capital ID Chief Joseph Elementary School 1 25 26
Capital ID Chief Joseph School Of The Arts 1 24 25
Capital ID Christine Donnell School Of The Arts 3 86 89
Capital ID Cole Valley Christian School 1 95 96
Capital ID Collister Elementary School 4 92 96
Capital ID Compass Public Charter School 1 112 113
Capital ID Connections Academy And Icon 1 3 4
Capital ID Cynthia Mann Elementary 1 25 26
Capital ID Desert Sage Elementary 2 51 53
Capital ID Discovery Elementary 3 80 83
Capital ID Eagle Elementary 1 52 53
Capital ID East Elementary School 2 59 61
Capital ID Falcon Ridge Public Charter 1 86 87
Capital ID Foothills School Of Arts & Sciences 1 30 31
Capital ID Galileo Stem Academy 2 63 65
Capital ID Garfield Elementary School 4 106 110
Capital ID Glenns Ferry Elementary School 1 15 16
Capital ID Glenns Ferry Middle School 1 30 31
Capital ID Grace Jordan Elementary 2 55 57
42

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Hacker Middle School 7 205 212
Capital ID Highlands Elementary School 1 24 25
Capital ID Hillcrest Elementary School 2 48 50
Capital ID Hillsdale Elementary 4 128 132
Capital ID Hunter Elementary 3 96 99
Capital ID Inspire Virtual Charter School 1 65 66
Capital ID Joplin Elementary 1 50 51
Capital ID Koelsch Elementary School 1 29 30
Capital ID Lake Hazel Elementary 3 65 68
Capital ID Lewis And Clark Middle School 2 244 246
Capital ID Longfellow Elementary 2 46 48
Capital ID Lowell Elementary 1 24 25
Capital ID Maple Grove Elementary School 2 61 63
Capital ID Mcmillan Elementary School 1 41 42
Capital ID Meridian Elementary 3 68 71
Capital ID Montessori Academy 1 14 15
Capital ID Morley Nelson Elementary School 2 56 58
Capital ID North Elementary 5 113 118
Capital ID North Star Charter School 1 84 85
Capital ID Owyhee Elementary School 1 24 25
Capital ID Paramount Elementary 3 78 81
Capital ID Peace Valley Charter School 1 17 18
Capital ID Pepper Ridge Elementary 2 125 127
43

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Ponderosa Elementary School 1 22 23
Capital ID Prairie School 1 8 9
Capital ID Prospect Elementary 1 29 30
Capital ID Reed Elementary School 3 84 87
Capital ID Rimrockjr. Sr. High School 1 17 18
Capital ID River Valley Elementary 1 100 101
Capital ID Riverstone International School 1 35 36
Capital ID Rolling Hills Public Charter 1 30 31
Capital ID Roosevelt Elementary School 2 54 56
Capital ID Ross Elementary School 5 149 154
Capital ID Sacred Heart Catholic School 1 18 19
Capital ID Seven Oaks Elementary 4 119 123
Capital ID Shadow Hills Elementary 1 60 61
Capital ID Siena Elementary 2 102 104
Capital ID Silver Sage Elementary 2 49 51
Capital ID Silver Trail Elementary School 3 95 98
Capital ID Spalding Stem Academy 4 116 120
Capital ID St. Mark's Elementary School 1 40 41
Capital ID St. Mary's Catholic School 1 19 20
Capital ID Star Elementary 3 88 91
Capital ID Stephensen Elementary School 2 43 45
Capital ID Summerwind Stem Academy 1 75 76
Capital ID Taft Elementary School 1 31 32
44

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Trail Wind Elementary School 1 75 76
Capital ID Ustick Elementary 3 100 103
Capital ID Valley View Elementary School 4 80 84
Capital ID Victory Middle School 1 187 188
Capital ID Washington Elementary 1 25 26
Capital ID West Elementary School 3 85 88
Capital ID White Pine Elementary School 3 91 94
Capital ID Whitney Elementary School 3 72 75
Capital ID Whittier Elementary School 2 74 76
Total 160 5,276 5,436
45

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Canyon Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Canyon ID Birch Elementary School 5 123 128
Canyon ID Centennial Baptist School 1 22 23
Canyon ID Centennial Elementary 2 65 67
Canyon ID Central Canyon Elementary School 1 26 27
Canyon ID Desert Springs Elementary School 4 111 115
Canyon ID East Canyon Elementary School 2 125 127
Canyon ID Endeavor Elementary 1 28 29
Canyon ID Franklin D. Roosevelt Elementary 1 107 108
Canyon ID Greenhurst Elementary 2 45 47
Canyon ID Greenleaf Friends Academy 1 22 23
Canyon ID Heights Elementary 3 61 64
Canyon ID Heritage Community Charter 1 60 61
Canyon ID Idaho Arts Charter School 1 125 126
Canyon ID Iowa Elementary 1 85 86
Canyon ID Lake Ridge Elementary 4 88 92
Canyon ID Lewis And Clark Elementary 3 79 82
Canyon ID Lincoln Elementary School 1 26 27
Canyon ID Melba Elementary School 2 52 54
Canyon ID Middleton Mill Creek Elementary 6 131 137
Canyon ID Mosaics Public School 2 60 62
Canyon ID Notus Elementary School 1 27 28
Canyon ID Owyhee Elementary School 1 33 34
Canyon ID Park Ridge Elementary 1 45 46
46

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Canyon Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Canyon ID Purple Sage Elementary 1 24 25
Canyon ID Ronald Reagan Elementary 4 105 109
Canyon ID Sacajawea Elementary School 2 44 46
Canyon ID Sherman Elementary 1 90 91
Canyon ID Skyway Elementary 5 148 153
Canyon ID Thomas Jefferson Charter 1 34 35
Canyon ID Vision Charter School 2 67 69
Canyon ID Washington Elementary School 1 30 31
Canyon ID Wilder Elementary School 1 18 19
Canyon ID Wilson Elementary 3 76 79
Tota 1 68 2182 2250
47

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Eastern Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Eastern ID Aberdeen Middle School 1 50 51
Eastern ID American Falls Academy 1 12 13
Eastern ID Arbon Elementary School 1 5 6
Eastern ID Blackfoot Charter Elementary 1 56 57
Eastern ID Connor Academy 3 96 99
Eastern ID Donald D. Stalker Elementary 1 28 29
Eastern ID Fort Hall Elementary 1 16 17
Eastern ID Gem Prep Pocatello 1 46 47
Eastern ID Grace Lutheran School 1 30 31
Eastern ID Greenacres Elementary School 2 49 51
Eastern ID Holy Spirit Catholic School 1 6 7
Eastern ID I.T. Stoddard Elementary 2 50 52
Eastern ID Idaho Science And Technology Char- 1 18 19
ter School
Eastern ID Indian Hills Elementary 2 50 52
Eastern ID Inkom Elementary School 1 26 27
Eastern ID J.R. Simplot Elementary School 4 142 146
Eastern ID Leadore School 2 26 28
Eastern ID Lewis & Clark Elementary School 2 54 56
Eastern ID Pioneer Elementary School #291 1 39 40
Eastern ID Pocatello Community Charter 2 85 87
Eastern ID Ridge Crest Elementary 2 48 50
Eastern ID Rulon M Ellis Elementary School 2 56 58
Eastern ID Salmon Sda School 1 14 15
48

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Eastern Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Eastern ID Syringa Elementary School 2 33 35
Eastern ID Tendoy Elementary School 2 39 41
Eastern ID Tyhee Elementary School 3 87 90
Eastern ID Wapello Elementary 1 20 21
Eastern ID Washington Elementary School 1 27 28
Eastern ID Wilcox Elementary School 3 74 77
Eastern ID William Thomas Middle School 1 115 116
Tota 1 49 1,397 1,446
49

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Southern Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Southern ID Alturas Elementary School 2 65 67
Southern ID Bickel Elementary 1 42 43
Southern ID Bliss Elementary 1 6 7
Southern ID Buhl Middle School 1 100 101
Southern ID Camas County School 1 15 16
Southern ID Canyon Ridge High School 1 30 31
Southern ID Carey School 1 22 23
Southern ID Castleford School 1 25 26
Southern ID Dietrich School 2 41 43
Southern ID Downey Elementary School 1 18 19
Southern ID East Minico Middle School 2 152 154
Southern ID Ernest Hemingway Steam School 1 20 21
Southern ID Filer Intermediate School 3 74 77
Southern ID Gooding Elementary School 2 195 197
Southern ID Hailey Elementary School 2 40 42
Southern ID Harrison Elementary School 1 26 27
Southern ID Heyburn Elementary School 2 48 50
Southern ID Hilltop Sda School 1 9 10
Southern ID I.B. Perrine Elementary School 3 88 91
Southern ID Immanuel Lutheran School 1 15 16
Southern ID Jerome Middle School 2 176 178
Southern ID Lighthouse Christian School 2 29 31
Southern ID Murtaugh Elementary School 1 30 31
50

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Southern Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Southern ID North Valley Academy 1 16 17
Southern ID Oakley Elementary School 1 30 31
Southern ID O'Leary Middle School 1 105 106
Southern ID Paul Elementary School 1 27 28
Southern ID Richfield School 1 20 21
Southern ID Robert Stuart Middle School 2 270 272
Southern ID Rock Creek Elementary School 2 114 116
Southern ID Saint Edwards Catholic School 1 17 18
Southern ID Sawtooth Elementary School 2 48 50
Southern ID Shoshone Elementary School 2 42 44
Southern ID Stricker Elementary School 3 71 74
Southern ID Summit Elementary 13 376 389
Southern ID Syringa Mountain School 1 12 13
Southern ID Wendell Middle School 1 75 76
Southern ID West Minico Middle School 1 126 127
Southern ID Xavier Charter School 2 68 70
Total 70 2,683 2,753
51

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Western Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Western ID Barbara R. Morgan Elementary 1 67 68
Western ID Donnelly Elementary School 2 50 52
Western ID Fruitland Middle School 1 120 121
Western ID Garden Valley School 1 20 21
Western ID Horseshoe Bend Elementary 1 14 15
Western ID Kenneth J Carberry Elementary 3 75 78
Western ID Park Intermediate School 4 94 98
Western ID Riggins Elementary School 1 12 13
Western ID Shadow Butte Elementary 1 30 31
Western ID Treasure Valley Classical Academy 2 56 58
Western ID Westside Elementary School 6 161 167
Total 23 699 722
52

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Western Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Western OR Aiken Elementary School 2 55 57
Western OR Alameda Elementary School 1 75 76
Western OR Annex Charter School 1 9 10
Western OR Cairo Elementary School 1 24 25
Western OR Four Rivers Community School 1 30 31
Western OR Harper Charter School 1 25 26
Western OR Jordan Valley Elementary 2 14 16
Western OR Keating Elementary School 1 22 23
Western OR Slater Elementary School 3 55 58
Western OR Vale Elementary School (K-6) 1 17 18
Western OR Willowcreek Elementary 1 14 15
Total 15 340 355
53

APPENDIX D
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT
DER ELEMEkr ,
J
HR
HUNTER ELEMENTARY an Rd., Meridian,1 Idaho 4
MENTARYSCHOOL
2051 W.Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]
Principal:Jeff Christopherson E-mail:[e-mail]
Dear Idaho Power,
Thank you once again for the amazing energy program you
provided for my fourth-grade students. They love receiving
the kits and learning about how the can use energy wisely.
I look forward to this opportunity every year.
Sincerely,
Angela Zweifel
4th Grade Teacher
Hunter Elementary School
54

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
Tobey Huddlesion
Principal.,Directora Aiken Elementary School La Escuela Prlmana Aiken
thuddlestomaonlarlo 0
Kevin Capps
Vice Prine4pal.,SubdirWor 1297 W IdavAvenue
kcaoo<�ontari^..12,Qyy5 Ortaro.OR 9791.1
ShellyTerscn
Secretary t Ser,etaria --
r` POSITIVE
6aa�d•,•Hnpbery Every Sl�dent.Every day
Genmti'^:r Secretaria
Idaho Power Education Program
Tinker LLC
425 Western Rd. Suite 106
Reno, NV 89506
Dear Idaho Power,
Thank you so much for offering Aiken Elementary the opportunity to participate in your EnergyWise
Program!Through this program my fourth graders learned so much about energy in our community
and the importance of using it responsibly.
My students were super excited to start the program and had so many questions!With the curriculum
you provided we were able to navigate all the topics and get a deeper understanding of why and how
we need to conserve energy.
After we completed all of the lessons my class got to take ome their energy kits! I sent them home
on a Thursday and by the following Monday so many of m students had already started using many
of the items in the kit!
What a great way to teach our fourth graders such valuable lessons on how to conserve energy in our
community!
Thanks again for the wonderful opportunity,
7/�. $Qa,"and.4
Aiken Elementary School
Ontario, Oregon
Ontario School District is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
El Distrito Escolar de Ontario es un educador y empleador igualitario.
55

APPENDIX D
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
Miighfands Elementary School
3434 Bogus Basin 9f. Boise, IUD 83702
Phone:[phone] g7ax. 854-5051
i
911arch 7,2024
Dear Idaho(Power.
Our class really enjoyed receiving your energy wise gift dozes.The rook on theirfaces
was priceless!I appreciate alCof the learning materials that tie directCy into ourfourth
grade science curriculum about energy.
Thankyou so much for the time,planning,and the enormous effort that goes into an
undertaking of this magnitude.I hope to continue to participate in the program well
into the future.
Gratefully yours,
Eileen Beatty,914.Ed,N.B.C.T.
4th Grade 914asterTeacher
.ICghlands Elementary School
56

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
SEVEN OAKS ]E]LE VI ENTARY
1441 N. SEVENOA S WAY
EAGLE, ID 83616
Phone[phone] Allie Jacobs
Fax[phone] Principal
r trade TfAc�vr
57

-NI R®
Am&
pow
Historical DSM Expense and Performance
2002-2024

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs,
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost, Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
and Racoonse 11166
s
A/C Cool Credit
2003...................... 204 $ 275,645 $ 275,645 0.0
2004...................... 420 287,253 287,253 0.5
2005...................... 2,369 754,062 754,062 3
2006...................... 5,369 1,235,476 1,235,476 6
2007...................... 13,692 2,426,154 2,426,154 12
2008...................... 20,195 2,969,377 2,969,377 26
2009...................... 30,391 3,451,988 3,451,988 39
2010...................... 30,803 2,002,546 2,002,546 39
2011...................... 37,728 2,896,542 2,896,542 24
2012...................... 36,454 5,727,994 5,727,994 45
2013...................... n/a 663,858 663,858 n/a
2014...................... 29,642 1,465,646 1,465,646 44
2015...................... 29,000 1,148,935 1,148,935 36
2016...................... 28,315 1,103,295 1,103,295 34
2017...................... 28,214 936,272 936,272 29
2018...................... 26,182 844,369 844,369 29
2019...................... 23,802 877,665 877,665 24
2020...................... 22,536 765,020 765,020 19
2021...................... 20,846 751,989 751,989 27
2022...................... 19,127 829,771 829,771 20
2023...................... 18,714 1,987,623 1,987,623 20
2024...................... 17,641 169,241 169,241 22
Total........................... $ 33,570,720 $ 33,570,721
Flex Peak Program
2009...................... 33 528,681 528,681 19
2010...................... 60 1,902,680 1,902,680 48
2011...................... 111 2,057,730 2,057,730 59
2012...................... 102 3,009,822 3,009,822 53
2013...................... 100 2,743,615 2,743,615 48
2014...................... 93 1,563,211 1,563,211 40
2015...................... 72 592,872 592,872 26
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 1

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost" Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2016...................... 137 767,997 767,997 42
2017...................... 141 658,156 658,156 36
2018...................... 140 433,313 433,313 33
2019...................... 145 626,823 626,823 31
2020...................... 141 542,480 542,480 24
2021...................... 139 501,973 501,973 31
2022...................... 159 519,618 519,618 25
2023...................... 271 1,076,149 1,076,149 33
2024...................... 309 790,712 790,712 31
Total........................... $ 18,315,830 $ 18,315,830
Irrigation Peak Rewards
2004...................... 58 344,714 344,714 6
2005...................... 894 1,468,282 1,468,282 40
2006...................... 906 1,324,418 1,324,418 32
2007...................... 947 11615,881 1,615,881 37
2008...................... 897 1,431,840 1,431,840 35
2009...................... 1,512 9,655,283 9,655,283 160
2010...................... 2,038 13,330,826 13,330,826 250
2011...................... 2,342 12,086,222 12,086,222 320
2012...................... 2,433 12,423,364 12,423,364 340
2013...................... n/a 2,072,107 2,072,107 n/a
2014...................... 2,225 7,597,213 7,597,213 295
2015...................... 2,259 7,258,831 7,258,831 305
2016...................... 2,286 7,600,076 7,600,076 303
2017...................... 2,307 7,223,101 7,223,101 318
2018...................... 2,335 6,891,737 6,891,737 297
2019...................... 2,332 6,771,708 6,771,708 278
2020...................... 2,292 6,407,412 6,407,412 292
2021...................... 2,235 7,013,315 7,013,315 255
2022...................... 2,142 8,503,140 8,503,140 155
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2023...................... 2,439 8,299,830 8,299,830 188
2024...................... 2,517 8,778,184 8,778,184 201
Total........................... $ 129,319,300 $ 129,319,300
sidential Efficient
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot
2009...................... 96 202,005 451,605 409,180 18 0.031 0.086
2010...................... 104 189,231 439,559 364,000 20 0.044 0.103
2011...................... 131 191,183 550,033 458,500 20 0.028 0.081
2012...................... 127 159,867 617,833 444,500 20 0.024 0.094
2013...................... 215 237,575 992,440 589,142 15 0.032 0.132
2014...................... 179 251,446 884,211 462,747 15 0.042 0.148
Total........................... 852 $ 1,231,307 $ 3,935,681 2,728,069 15 $ 0.044 $ 0.138
Easy Savings:Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education
2015...................... 2,068 127,477 127,477 624,536 10 0.021 0.021
2016...................... 2,001 127,587 127,587 402,961 9 0.035 0.035
2017...................... 2,470 149,813 149,813 280,049 8 0.064 0.064
2018...................... 282 147,936 147,936 29,610 3 1.370 1.370
2019...................... 430 145,494 145,494 45,150 3 0.885 0.885
2020...................... 155 9,503 9,503 10,628 3 0.299 0.299
2021...................... 0 145,827 145,827 0 3 n/a n/a
2022...................... 267 152,718 152,718 22,755 5 1.448 1.448
2023...................... 99 146,232 146,232 46,109 3 1.068 1.068
2024...................... 130 154,646 154,646 70,589 3 0.763 0.763
Total........................... 7,902 $ 1,307,232 $ 1,307,232 1,532,387 8 $ 0.131 $ 0.131
Educational Distributions
2015...................... 28,197 432,185 432,185 1,669,495 10 0.026 0.026
2016...................... 67,065 2,392,884 2,392,884 15,149,605 10 0.016 0.016
2017...................... 84,399 3,466,027 3,466,027 21,187,261 11 0.016 0.016
2018...................... 94,717 3,180,380 3,180,380 16,051,888 11 0.019 0.019
2019...................... 95,528 2,880,467 2,880,467 10,805,474 11 0.025 0.025
2020...................... 97,228 3,106,820 3,106,820 9,481,801 11 0.038 0.038
2021...................... 47,027 449,790 449,790 2,931,280 10 0.019 0.019
2022...................... 49,136 1,086,813 1,086,813 3,741,954 10 0.037 0.037
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 3

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs,
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants UtilityCostb Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2023...................... 53,028 902,288 902,288 3,960,690 8 0.034 0.034
2024...................... 53,983 751,055 751,055 3,900,277 9 0.027 0.027
Total........................... 670,308 $ 18,648,708 $ 18,648,708 88,879,725 11 $ 0.026 $ 0.026
Energy Efficiency Packets
2002...................... 2,925 755 755 155,757 7 0.001 0.001
Total........................... 2,925 $ 755 $ 755 155,757 7 $ 0.001 $ 0.001
Energy Efficient Lighting
2002...................... 11,618 243,033 310,643 3,299,654 7 0.012 0.015
2003...................... 12,662 314,641 464,059 3,596,150 7 0.014 0.021
2004...................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
2005...................... 43,760 73,152 107,810 1,734,646 7 0.007 0.010
2006...................... 178,514 298,754 539,877 6,302,794 7 0.008 0.014
2007...................... 219,739 557,646 433,626 7,207,439 7 0.012 0.017
2008...................... 436,234 1,018,292 793,265 14,309,444 7 0.011 0.013
2009...................... 549,846 1,207,366 1,456,796 13,410,748 5 0.020 0.024
2010...................... 1,190,139 2,501,278 3,976,476 28,082,738 5 0.020 0.031
2011...................... 1,039,755 1,719,133 2,764,623 19,694,381 5 0.015 0.024
2012...................... 925,460 1,126,836 2,407,355 16,708,659 5 0.012 0.025
2013...................... 1,085,225 1,356,926 4,889,501 9,995,753 8 0.016 0.058
2014...................... 1,161,553 1,909,823 7,148,427 12,882,151 8 0.018 0.066
2015...................... 1,343,255 2,063,383 4,428,676 15,876,117 10 0.013 0.028
2016...................... 1,442,561 3,080,708 10,770,703 21,093,813 11 0.014 0.049
2017...................... 1,766,758 4,872,888 11,078,990 37,765,190 12 0.012 0.026
2018...................... 1,340,842 2,435,130 3,277,039 18,856,933 14 0.011 0.014
2019...................... 1,336,440 2,126,262 2,782,039 16,245,551 14 0.011 0.014
2020...................... 1,148,061 1,667,159 3,065,781 13,942,202 14 0.012 0.022
2021...................... 0 43,631 43,631 0 14 n/a n/a
2022...................... 370,739 534,982 714,445 1,728,352 15 0.030 0.040
2023...................... 184,950 294,197 402,523 883,491 15 0.032 0.044
Total........................... 15,788,111 $ 29,445,219 $ 61,856,285 263,616,205 9 $ 0.015 $ 0.032
Energy House Calls
2002...................... 17 26,053 26,053 25,989 20 0.082 0.082
2003...................... 420 167,076 167,076 602,723 20 0.023 0.023
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2004...................... 1,708 725,981 725,981 2,349,783 20 0.025 0.025
2005...................... 891 375,610 375,610 1,775,770 20 0.017 0.017
2006...................... 819 336,701 336,701 777,244 20 0.035 0.035
2007...................... 700 336,372 336,372 699,899 20 0.039 0.039
2008...................... 1,099 484,379 484,379 883,038 20 0.045 0.045
2009...................... 1,266 569,594 569,594 928,875 20 0.052 0.052
2010...................... 1,602 762,330 762,330 1,198,655 20 0.054 0.054
2011...................... 881 483,375 483,375 1,214,004 20 0.027 0.027
2012...................... 668 275,884 275,884 1,192,039 18 0.016 0.016
2013...................... 411 199,995 199,995 837,261 18 0.016 0.016
2014...................... 297 197,987 197,987 579,126 18 0.029 0.029
2015...................... 362 214,103 214,103 754,646 18 0.020 0.020
2016...................... 375 206,437 206,437 509,859 18 0.029 0.029
2017...................... 335 183,035 183,035 428,819 16 0.032 0.032
2018...................... 280 160,777 160,777 374,484 16 0.032 0.032
2019...................... 248 161,894 161,894 309,154 16 0.039 0.039
2020...................... 51 46,352 46,352 56,944 16 0.075 0.075
2021...................... 11 18,257 18,257 14,985 18 0.105 0.105
2022...................... 52 38,163 38,163 54,516 18 0.062 0.062
Total........................... 12,493 $ 5,970,354 $ 5,970,354 15,567,813 19 $ 0.033 $ 0.033
ENERGY STAR®Homes Northwest(gas heated)
2014...................... 282 195,372 22
2015...................... 69 46,872 22
Total........................... 351 $ 0 $ 0 242,244 22
Fridge and Freezer Recycling Program
2009...................... 1,661 305,401 305,401 1,132,802 8 0.041 0.041
2010...................... 3,152 565,079 565,079 1,567,736 8 0.054 0.054
2011...................... 3,449 654,393 654,393 1,712,423 8 0.046 0.046
2012...................... 3,176 613,146 613,146 1,576,426 8 0.046 0.046
2013...................... 3,307 589,054 589,054 1,442,344 8 0.061 0.061
2014...................... 3,194 576,051 576,051 1,390,760 6 0.062 0.062
2015...................... 1,630 227,179 227,179 720,208 6 0.048 0.048
2016...................... 1,539 257,916 257,916 632,186 6 0.062 0.062
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 5

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2017...................... 2,031 265,942 265,942 498,513 6 0.080 0.080
2018...................... 304 33,907 33,907 73,602 7 0.061 0.061
Total........................... 23,443 $ 4,088,069 $ 4,088,069 10,747,000 7 $ 0.062 $ 0.062
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program
2006...................... 17,444 17,444
2007...................... 4 488,211 494,989 1,595 18 27.344 27.710
2008...................... 359 473,551 599,771 561,440 18 0.073 0.092
2009...................... 349 478,373 764,671 1,274,829 18 0.034 0.054
2010...................... 217 327,669 1,073,604 1,104,497 20 0.025 0.083
2011...................... 130 195,770 614,523 733,405 20 0.018 0.056
2012...................... 141 182,281 676,530 688,855 20 0.018 0.066
2013...................... 210 329,674 741,586 1,003,730 20 0.022 0.050
2014...................... 230 362,014 1,247,560 1,099,464 20 0.022 0.075
2015...................... 427 626,369 2,064,055 1,502,172 20 0.028 0.092
2016...................... 483 594,913 1,404,625 1,113,574 20 0.040 0.040
2017...................... 654 597,198 1,433,357 1,138,744 15 0.041 0.099
2018...................... 712 585,211 1,686,618 1,556,065 15 0.029 0.085
2019...................... 681 499,179 1,512,183 1,412,183 15 0.028 0.084
2020...................... 1,019 606,559 1,911,792 1,839,068 14 0.033 0.103
2021...................... 1,048 635,182 2,223,826 1,365,825 15 0.044 0.157
2022...................... 1,080 666,016 2,414,026 1,310,260 15 0.050 0.180
2023...................... 1,035 624,047 1,987,191 1,040,069 16 0.056 0.180
2024...................... 622 519,004 2,241,416 819,224 16 0.062 0.180
Total........................... 9,401 $ 8,808,666 $ 24,630,555 19,476,262 17 $ 0.043 $ 0.119
Home Energy Audits
2013...................... 88,740 88,740
2014...................... 354 170,648 170,648 141,077 10 0.150 0.150
2015...................... 251 201,957 226,806 136,002 10 0.184 0.184
2016...................... 539 289,812 289,812 207,249 11 0.163 0.163
2017...................... 524 282,809 353,385 175,010 12 0.146 0.182
2018...................... 466 264,394 321,978 211,003 12 0.113 0.137
2019...................... 421 230,786 282,215 179,754 11 0.122 0.150
2020...................... 97 130,546 142,649 31,938 12 0.448 0.490
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Re uc ons eve ize osts
Annual Energy Peak Demand" Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2021...................... 37 70,448 75,461 3,768 11 2.173 2.328
2022...................... 425 184,858 239,783 28,350 11 0.771 1.000
2023...................... 337 230,011 274,124 11,329 13 2.156 2.570
2024...................... 235 158,287 216,146 19,407 12 0.942 1.286
Total........................... 3,686 $ 2,303,415 $ 2,681,867 1,144,887 11 $ 0.246 $ 0.286
Home Energy Reports Program
2018...................... 23,914 194,812 194,812 3,281,780 1 0.046 0.046
2019...................... 24,976 200,406 200,406 8,444,746 1 0.018 0.018
2020...................... 127,138 899,203 899,203 1004270940 1 0.081 0.081
2021...................... 115,153 970,197 970,197 15,929,074 1 0.057 0.057
2022...................... 104,826 964,791 964,791 20,643,379 1 0.044 0.044
2023...................... 96,901 883,505 8830505 17,659,087 1 0.047 0.047
2024...................... 98,119 832,115 832,115 18,596,812 1 0.044 0.044
Total........................... 592,112 $ $4,945,028 $ $4,945,028 94,982,818 1 $ 0.051 $ 0.051
Home Improvement Program
2008...................... 282 123,454 157,866 317,814 25 0.029 0.037
2009...................... 1,188 321,140 550,148 1,338,876 25 0.019 0.032
2010...................... 3,537 944,716 2,112,737 30986,199 45 0.016 0.035
2011...................... 2,275 666,041 2,704,816 917,519 45 0.038 0.155
2012...................... 840 385,091 812,827 457,353 45 0.044 0.093
2013...................... 365 299,497 10061,314 616,044 45 0.025 0.090
2014...................... 555 324,717 896,246 838,929 45 0.020 0.055
2015...................... 408 272,509 893,731 303,580 45 0.046 0.152
2016...................... 482 324,024 1,685,301 500,280 45 0.034 0.177
2017...................... 355 166,830 1,345,002 415,824 45 0.021 0.167
2018...................... 2,926 2,926
Total........................... 10,287 $ 3,830,946 $ 12,222,915 9,692,418 42 $ 0.026 $ 0.084
Multifamily Energy Savings Program
2016...................... 196 59,046 59,046 149,760 10 0.040 0.040
2017...................... 683 168,216 168,216 617,542 11 0.026 0.026
2018...................... 764 205,131 205,131 655,953 11 0.030 0.030
2019...................... 457 131,306 131,306 346,107 11 0.036 0.036
2020...................... 33 89,829 89,829 28,041 11 0.372 0.372
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 7

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand" Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost" Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2021...................... 0 68,973 68,973 0 11 n/a n/a
2022...................... 97 34,181 34,181 41,959 11 0.096 0.096
Total........................... 2,230 $ 756,682 $ 756,682 1,839,363 11 $ 0.049 $ 0.049
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program
2023...................... 0 23,974 23,974 0 11 n/a n/a
2024...................... 0 43,208 78,571 84,977 15 0.051 0.093
Total........................... 0 $ 67,182 $ 102,544 84,977 15 $ 0.080 $ 0.122
Oregon Residential Weatherization
2002...................... 24 -662 23,971 4,580 25 0.010 0.389
2003...................... -943
2004...................... 4 1,057 1,057
2005...................... 4 612 3,608 7,927 25 0.006 0.034
2006...................... 4,126 4,126
2007...................... 1 3,781 5,589 9,971 25 0.028 0.042
2008...................... 3 7,417 28,752 22,196 25 0.025 0.096
2009...................... 1 7,645 8,410 2,907 25 0.203 0.223
2010...................... 1 6,050 6,275 320 30 0.011 0.062
2011...................... 8 7,926 10,208 21,908 30 0.021 0.027
2012...................... 5 4,516 11,657 11,985 30 0.022 0.056
2013...................... 14 9,017 14,369 14,907 30 0.035 0.055
2014...................... 13 5,462 9,723 11,032 30 0.028 0.050
2015...................... 4 5,808 10,388 11,910 30 0.028 0.050
2016...................... 7 3,930 5,900 2,847 30 0.079 0.118
2017...................... 7 2,384 3,755 2,154 30 0.063 0.099
2018...................... 5 5,507 5,507
2019...................... 8 5,982 14,432 2,069 45 0.149 0.360
2020...................... 0 5,313 5,313 0 45 n/a n/a
2021...................... 0 4,595 4,595 0 45 n/a n/a
2022...................... 7 8,825 8,825 0 45 n/a n/a
2023...................... 3 7,860 7,860 0 45 n/a n/a
2024...................... 13 14,007 12,380 0 45 n/a n/a
Total........................... 132 $ 120,214 $ 206,700 126,713 28 $ 0.072 $ 0.124
Page 8 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Level ized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand' Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost° Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Rebate Advantage
2003...................... 73 27,372 79,399 227,434 45 0.008 0.022
2004...................... 105 52,187 178,712 332,587 45 0.010 0.034
2005...................... 98 46,173 158,462 312,311 45 0.009 0.032
2006...................... 102 52,673 140,289 333,494 45 0.010 0.027
2007...................... 123 89,269 182,152 554,018 45 0.010 0.021
2008...................... 107 90,888 179,868 463,401 45 0.012 0.025
2009...................... 57 49,525 93,073 247,348 25 0.015 0.029
2010...................... 35 39,402 66,142 164,894 25 0.018 0.031
2011...................... 25 63,469 85,044 159,325 25 0.024 0.033
2012...................... 35 37,241 71,911 187,108 25 0.012 0.024
2013...................... 42 60,770 92,690 269,891 25 0.014 0.021
2014...................... 44 63,231 89,699 269,643 25 0.014 0.020
2015...................... 58 85,438 117,322 358,683 25 0.014 0.020
2016...................... 66 111,050 148,142 411,272 25 0.016 0.022
2017...................... 66 104,996 229,104 214,479 45 0.025 0.055
2018...................... 107 147,483 355,115 284,559 45 0.027 0.064
2019...................... 109 156,748 355,897 353,615 44 0.023 0.052
2020...................... 116 180,422 437,263 366,678 44 0.031 0.075
2021...................... 88 173,193 309,790 235,004 45 0.046 0.083
2022...................... 97 167,622 402,649 255,541 44 0.043 0.104
2023...................... 79 137,100 159,600 214,236 44 0.042 0.49
2024...................... 109 176,734 477,292 283,227 45 0.042 0.115
Total........................... 1,741 $ 2,112,988 $ 4,427,015 6,498,747 39 $ 0.023 $ 0.047
Residential New Construction Program(ENERGY STAR®Homes Northwest)
2003...................... 13,597 13,597 0
2004...................... 44 140,165 335,437 101,200 25 0.103 0.246
2005...................... 200 253,105 315,311 415,600 25 0.045 0.056
2006...................... 439 469,609 602,651 912,242 25 0.038 0.049
2007...................... 303 475,044 400,637 629,634 25 0.056 0.047
2008...................... 254 302,061 375,007 468,958 25 0.048 0.059
2009...................... 474 355,623 498,622 705,784 25 0.039 0.055
2010...................... 630 375,605 579,495 883,260 25 0.033 0.051
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 9

k*46
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2011...................... 308 259,762 651,249 728,030 32 0.020 0.051
2012...................... 410 453,186 871,310 537,447 35 0.046 0.089
2013...................... 267 352,882 697,682 365,370 36 0.053 0.104
2014...................... 243 343,277 689,021 332,682 36 0.057 0.114
2015...................... 598 653,674 1,412,126 773,812 36 0.046 0.099
2016...................... 110 142,158 297,518 150,282 36 0.051 0.107
2017...................... 277 323,520 603,420 608,292 45 0.029 0.054
2018...................... 307 400,912 926,958 777,369 36 0.028 0.064
2019...................... 322 534,118 1,411,391 774,597 54 0.035 0.092
2020...................... 248 473,504 865,989 649,522 58 0.044 0.081
2021...................... 90 247,600 524,876 389,748 61 0.039 0.082
2022...................... 109 235,732 578,922 337,562 58 0.045 0.110
2023...................... 64 195,296 241,468 234,945 58 0.053 0.066
2024...................... 93 252,461 614,962 304,424 60 0.055 0.133
Total........................... 5,789 $ 7,252,890 $ 13,667,651 11,080,760 37 $ 0.046 $ 0.087
Shade Tree Project
2014...................... 2,041 147,290 147,290
2015...................... 1,925 105,392 105,392
2016...................... 2,070 76,642 76,642
2017...................... 2,711 195,817 195,817
2018...................... 2,093 162,995 162,995 35,571 20 0.307 0.307
2019...................... 2,063 147,750 147,750 35,727 30 0.235 0.235
2020...................... 0 28,490 28,490 52,662 30 0.038 0.038
2021...................... 2,970 184,680 184,680 44,173 40 0.269 0.269
2022...................... 1,874 128,856 128,856 39,595 40 0.218 0.218
2023...................... 2,462 262,344 262,344 11,199 40 1.571 1.571
2024...................... 736 78,302 78,302 0 40 n/a n/a
Total........................... 20,945 $ 11518,558 $ 1,518,558 218,927 33 $ 0.502 $ 0.502
Simple Steps,Smart Savings
2007...................... 9,275 9,275 0
2008...................... 3,034 250p860 468,056 541,615 15 0.044 0.082
2009...................... 9,499 511,313 844,811 1,638,038 15 0.031 0.051
Page 10 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2010...................... 16,322 832,161 1,025,151 1,443,580 15 0.057 0.070
2011...................... 15,896 638,323 1,520,977 1,485,326 15 0.034 0.080
2012...................... 16,675 659,032 817,924 887,222 14 0.061 0.075
2013...................... 13,792 405,515 702,536 885,980 12 0.041 0.071
2014...................... 10,061 227,176 302,289 652,129 12 0.031 0.041
2015...................... 9,343 139,096 397,898 770,822 10 0.018 0.053
2016...................... 7,880 153,784 379,752 577,320 11 0.025 0.063
2017...................... 12,556 191,621 484,380 900,171 11 0.020 0.051
2018...................... 7,377 90,484 133,101 241,215 12 0.034 0.050
2019...................... 5,729 90,499 123,541 271,452 11 0.032 0.043
2020...................... 6,894 99,141 98,629 148,404 12 0.073 0.073
Total........................... 135,058 $ 4,298,280 $ 7,308,320 10,443,274 13 $ 0.044 $ 0.074
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
2008...................... 16 52,807 52,807 71,680 25 0.057 0.057
2009...................... 41 162,995 162,995 211,719 25 0.059 0.059
2010...................... 47 228,425 228,425 313,309 25 0.056 0.056
2011...................... 117 788,148 788,148 1,141,194 25 0.042 0.042
2012...................... 141 1,070,556 1,07O,556 257,466 25 0.254 0.254
2013...................... 166 1,267,791 1,267,791 303,116 25 0.240 0.240
2014...................... 118 791,344 791,344 290,926 25 0.163 0.163
2015...................... 171 1,243,269 1,243,269 432,958 25 0.175 0.175
2016...................... 147 11323,793 1,323,793 621,653 25 0.130 0.130
2017...................... 164 1,108,862 1,121,071 604,733 23 0.115 0.117
2018...................... 141 1,022,471 1,022,471 571,741 23 0.112 0.112
2019...................... 129 957,626 957,626 504,988 23 0.119 0.119
2020...................... 27 208,715 208,715 47,360 23 0.338 0.338
2021...................... 7 57,656 57,656 12,591 30 0.317 0.317
2022...................... 27 205,788 205,788 48,233 30 0.307 0.307
2023...................... 12 87,719 87,719 18,184 30 0.347 0.347
2024...................... 18 112,944 112,944 25,784 30 0.326 0.326
Total........................... 1,489 $ 10,690,909 $ 10,703,118 5,477,635 24 $ 0.157 $ 0.157
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 11

k*46
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Window AC Trade Up Pilot
2003...................... 99 6,687 10,492 14,454 12 0.051 0.079
Total........................... 99 $ 6,687 $ 10,492 14,454 12 $ 0.052 $ 0.081
Residential—WeiIIIIIIII Assistance for Qualified Customers
WAQC—Idaho
2002...................... 197 235,048 492,139
2003...................... 208 228,134 483,369
2004...................... 269 498,474 859,482 1,271,677 25 0.029 0.050
2005...................... 570 1,402,487 1,927,424 3,179,311 25 0.033 0.045
2006...................... 540 1,455,373 2,231,086 2,958,024 25 0.037 0.056
2007...................... 397 1,292,930 1,757,105 3,296,019 25 0.029 0.040
2008...................... 439 1,375,632 1,755,749 4,064,301 25 0.025 0.032
2009...................... 427 1,260,922 1,937,578 4,563,832 25 0.021 0.033
2010...................... 373 1,205,446 2,782,597 3,452,025 25 0.026 0.060
2011...................... 273 1,278,112 1,861,836 2,648,676 25 0.036 0.052
2012...................... 228 1,321,927 1,743,863 621,464 25 0.157 0.208
2013...................... 245 1,336,742 1,984,173 657,580 25 0.150 0.223
2014...................... 244 1,267,212 1,902,615 509,620 25 0.184 0.276
2015...................... 233 1,278,159 2,072,901 529,426 25 0.179 0.290
2016...................... 234 1,254,338 1,870,481 722,430 25 0.129 0.192
2017...................... 196 1,269,507 1,721,632 654,464 30 0.134 0.182
2018...................... 190 1,254,630 1,795,301 641,619 30 0.136 0.194
2019...................... 193 1,264,767 1,890,584 639,880 30 0.137 0.205
2020...................... 115 1,361,163 1,703,879 218,611 30 0.432 0.540
2021...................... 161 1,177,366 1,668,566 289,353 30 0.253 0.371
2022...................... 147 1,277,717 2,024,735 272,647 30 0.338 0.535
2023...................... 162 1,216,848 1,924,928 305,675 30 0.289 0.455
2024...................... 157 691,825 1,553,095 366,428 30 0.299 0.474
Total........................... 6,198 $ 26,204,759 $ 39,945,118 31,863,063 26 $ 0.064 $ 0.098
WAQC—Oregon
2002...................... 31 24,773 47,221 68,323 25 0.027 0.051
2003...................... 29 22,255 42,335 102,643 25 0.016 0.031
2004...................... 17 13,469 25,452 28,436 25 0.035 0.067
Page 12 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Re uc ons eve ize osts
Annual Energy Peak Demand" Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2005...................... 28 44,348 59,443 94,279 25 0.035 0.047
2006...................... 25
2007...................... 11 30,694 41,700 420108 25 0.054 0.074
2008...................... 14 43,843 74,048 73,841 25 0.040 0.068
2009...................... 10 33,940 46,513 114,982 25 0.023 0.031
2010...................... 27 115,686 1470712 289,627 25 0.030 0.038
2011...................... 14 46,303 63,981 134,972 25 0.025 0.035
2012...................... 10 48,214 76,083 26,840 25 0.133 0.210
2013...................... 9 54,935 670847 24,156 25 0.168 0.208
2014...................... 11 52,900 94,493 24,180 25 0.162 0.289
2015...................... 10 36,873 46,900 20,595 25 0.133 0.169
2016...................... 12 35,471 63,934 230732 25 0.111 0.199
2017...................... 7 37,978 61,052 15,074 30 0.175 0.281
2018...................... 3 18,344 24,191 7,886 30 0.161 0.213
2019...................... 4 38,960 62,905 9,419 30 0.287 0.463
2020...................... 0 24,414 24,414 0 30 n/a n/a
2021...................... 1 9,473 21,586 1,752 30 0.375 0.854
2022...................... 0 3,778 30778 0 30 n/a n/a
2023...................... 5 100,194 190,341 8,585 30 0.839 1.594
2024...................... 2 -12,082 -9,761 1,023 30 0.757 0.926
Total........................... 254 $ 824,761 $ 1,276,167 1,112,453 25 $ 0.059 $ 0.091
WAQC—BPA Supplemental
2002...................... 75 55,966 118,255 311,347 25 0.013 0.028
2003...................... 57 49,895 106,915 223,591 25 0.017 0.036
2004...................... 40 69,409 105,021 125,919 25 0.041 0.062
Total........................... 172 $ 175,270 $ 330,191 660,857 25 $ 0.020 $ 0.037
WAQC Total............... 6,624 $ 27,204,790 $ 41,551,476 33,636,373 26 $ 0.063 $ 0.096
Co mercial
Air Care Plus Pilot
2003...................... 4 5,764 9,061 33,976 10 0.021 0.033
2004...................... 344 344
Total........................... 4 $ 6,108 $ 9,405 33,976 10 $ 0.023 $ 0.035
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 13

k*46
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits(Commercial Education Initiative)
2005...................... 3,497 3,497
2006...................... 4,663 4,663
2007...................... 26,823 26,823
2008...................... 72,738 72,738
2009...................... 120,584 120,584
2010...................... 68,765 68,765
2011...................... 89,856 89,856
2012...................... 73,788 73,788
2013...................... 66,790 66,790
2014...................... 76,606 76,606
2015...................... 65,250 65,250
2016......................
2017......................
2018...................... 1,652 146,174 146,174 442,170 10 0.034 0.034
2019...................... 2,629 161,945 161,945 569,594 10 0.029 0.029
2020...................... 1,379 103,678 103,678 258,368 11 0.047 0.047
2021...................... 906 74,617 74,617 296,751 11 0.029 0.029
2022...................... 334 22,770 22,770 48,758 10 0.059 0.059
2023...................... 1,117 55,563 55,563 190,827 6 0.054 0.054
Total........................... 8,017 $ 1,234,107 $ 1,234,107 1,806,468 10 $ 0.086 $ 0.086
New Construction
2004...................... 28,821 28,821
2005...................... 12 194,066 233,149 494,239 12 0.043 0.052
2006...................... 40 374,008 463,770 704,541 12 0.058 0.072
2007...................... 22 669,032 802,839 2,817,248 12 0.015 0.040
2008...................... 60 1,055,009 1,671,375 6,598,123 12 0.017 0.028
2009...................... 72 1,327,127 2,356,434 6,146,139 12 0.024 0.043
2010...................... 70 11509,682 3,312,963 10,819,598 12 0.016 0.035
2011...................... 63 1,291,425 3,320,015 11,514,641 12 0.010 0.026
2012...................... 84 1,592,572 8,204,883 20,450,037 12 0.007 0.036
2013...................... 59 1,507,035 3,942,880 10,988,934 12 0.012 0.032
2014...................... 69 11258,273 3,972,822 9,458,059 12 0.012 0.037
Page 14 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2015...................... 81 2,162,001 6,293,071 23,232,017 12 0.008 0.024
2016...................... 116 11931,222 4,560,826 12,393,249 12 0.014 0.033
2017...................... 121 2,433,596 4,265,056 17,353,820 12 0.013 0.022
2018...................... 104 21069,645 5,054,215 13,378,315 12 0.014 0.034
2019...................... 168 31548,476 5,292,835 20,640,334 12 0.015 0.023
2020...................... 119 21383,983 4,175,611 14,565,936 12 0.018 0.031
2021...................... 95 21691,171 4,160,999 17,536,004 12 0.017 0.026
2022...................... 88 21780,507 3,641,930 27,615,777 12 0.011 0.015
2023...................... 102 2,168,636 2,990,934 10,642,465 14 0.021 0.029
2024...................... 140 21168,636 2,990,934 10,642,465 14 0.021 0.029
Total........................... 1,685 $ 32,976,287 $ 68,745,429 237,349,476 12 $ 0.016 $ 0.032
Retrofits
2006...................... 31,819 31,819
2007...................... 104 711,494 1,882,035 5,183,640 0.8 12 0.015 0.040
2008...................... 666 2,992,261 10,096,627 25,928,391 4.5 12 0.013 0.043
2009...................... 1,224 3,325,505 10,076,237 35,171,627 6.1 12 0.011 0.032
2010...................... 1,535 3,974,410 7,655,397 35,824,463 7.8 12 0.013 0.024
2011...................... 1,732 4,719,466 9,519,364 38,723,073 12 0.011 0.022
2012...................... 1,838 5,349,753 9,245,297 41,568,672 12 0.012 0.020
2013...................... 1,392 3,359,790 6,738,645 21,061,946 12 0.014 0.029
2014...................... 1,095 3,150,942 5,453,380 19,118,494 12 0.015 0.025
2015...................... 1,222 4,350,865 7,604,200 23,594,701 12 0.017 0.029
2016...................... 1,577 5,040,190 8,038,791 28,124,779 12 0.016 0.026
2017...................... 1,137 4,343,835 12,500,303 23,161,877 12 0.017 0.049
2018...................... 1,358 5,990,179 16,253,716 34,910,707 12 0.015 0.042
2019...................... 1,033 6,281,056 17,700,769 42,674,418 12 0.013 0.037
2020...................... 630 31587,277 11,964,431 20,965,215 12 0.019 0.063
2021...................... 787 31826,750 11,486,766 21,181,022 12 0.020 0.059
2022...................... 525 41870,916 13,402,016 22,890,679 12 0.024 0.065
2023...................... 526 3,184,964 9,012,722 14,457,180 12 0.025 0.070
2024...................... 467 31289,506 9,590,236 12,066,417 12 0.031 0.092
Total........................... 18,848 $ 72,380,977 $ 178,300,397 466,607,300 12 $ 0.018 $ 0.044
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 15

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand' Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost, Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Holiday Lighting
2008...................... 14 28,782 73,108 259,092 10 0.014 0.035
2009...................... 32 33,930 72,874 142,109 10 0.031 0.066
2010...................... 25 46,132 65,308 248,865 10 0.024 0.034
2011...................... 6 2,568 2,990 66,189 10 0.004 0.005
Total........................... 77 $ 111,412 $ 214,280 716,255 10 $ 0.020 $ 0.038
Oregon Commercial Audit
2002...................... 24 5,200 5,200
2003...................... 21 4,000 4,000
2004...................... 7 0 0
2005...................... 7 5,450 5,450
2006...................... 6
2007...................... 1,981 1,981
2008...................... 58 58
2009...................... 41 20,732 20,732
2010...................... 22 5,049 5,049
2011...................... 12 13,597 13,597
2012...................... 14 12,470 12,470
2013...................... 18 5,090 5,090
2014...................... 16 9,464 9,464
2015...................... 17 4,251 4,251
2016...................... 7 7,717 7,717
2017...................... 13 8,102 8,102
2018...................... 0 1,473 1,473
2019...................... 11 7,262 7,262
2020...................... 2 1,374 1,374
2021...................... 3 4,401 4,401
2022...................... 12 7,493 7,493
2023...................... 7 6,402 6,402
2024...................... 4 6,419 6,419
Total........................... 252 $ 137,986 $ $137,985
Page 16 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Level ized Costs a
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost Resource Cost (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Oregon School Efficiency
2005...................... 86 86
2006...................... 6 24,379 89,771 223,368 12 0.012 0.044
Total........................... 6 $ 24,465 $ 89,857 223,368 12 $ 0.012 $ 0.044
Small Business Direct Install
2020...................... 139 339,830 339,830 780,260 9 0.058 0.058
2021...................... 452 1,032,056 1,032,056 2,421,842 11 0.062 0.062
2022...................... 680 11345,429 1,345,429 3,228,366 11 0.049 0.049
2023...................... 166 366,674 366,674 791,512 11 0.055 0.055
Total........................... 1,437 $ 3,083,989 $ 3,083,989 7,221,979 11 $ 0.051 $ 0.051
Small Business Lighting
2024...................... 9 45,700 49,843 22,967 12 0.230 0.251
Total........................... 9 $ 45,700 $ 49,843 22,967 12 $ 0.230 $ 0.251
IndustrialEL
Custom Projects
2003...................... 1,303 1,303
2004...................... 1 112,311 133,441 211,295 12 0.058 0.069
2005...................... 24 1,128,076 3,653,152 12,016,678 12 0.010 0.033
2006...................... 40 1,625,216 4,273,885 19,211,605 12 0.009 0.024
2007...................... 49 3,161,866 7,012,686 29,789,304 3.6 12 0.012 0.026
2008...................... 101 4,045,671 16,312,379 41,058,639 4.8 12 0.011 0.044
2009...................... 132 6,061,467 10,848,123 51,835,612 6.7 12 0.013 0.024
2010...................... 223 8,778,125 17,172,176 71,580,075 9.5 12 0.014 0.027
2011...................... 166 8,783,811 19,830,834 67,979,157 7.8 12 0.012 0.026
2012...................... 126 7,092,581 12,975,629 54,253,106 7.6 12 0.012 0.021
2013...................... 73 2,466,225 5,771,640 21,370,350 2.4 12 0.010 0.024
2014...................... 131 7,173,054 13,409,922 50,363,052 5.6 12 0.013 0.024
2015...................... 160 9,012,628 20,533,742 55,247,192 6.3 11 0.016 0.035
2016...................... 196 71982,624 16,123,619 47,518,871 16 0.013 0.026
2017...................... 170 81679,919 17,279,117 44,765,354 16 0.015 0.029
2018...................... 248 81808,512 16,112,540 46,963,690 16 0.014 0.026
2019...................... 257 111879,873 24,590,176 70,433,920 15 0.013 0.027
2020...................... 169 18,059,396 41,604,451 94,006,717 15 0.018 0.042
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 17

k*46
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2021...................... 135 8,608,903 22,552,383 53,728,267 13 0.017 0.044
2022...................... 106 81919,927 25,715,468 56,157,060 13 0.017 0.049
2023...................... 95 111359,176 26,228,419 60,667,088 14 0.019 0.044
2024...................... 126 91579,826 26,542,318 60,076,877 14 0.017 0.046
Total........................... 2,728 $ 153,320,489 $ 348,675,081 1,009,233,909 13 $ 0.017 $ 0.038
Green Motors Rewind—Industrial
2016...................... 14 123,700 7
2017...................... 13 143,976 7
2018...................... 25 64,167 7
2019...................... 12 117,223 8
2020...................... 10 56,012 8
2021...................... 4 12,172 20,430 8
2022...................... 9 3,424 19,851 8
2023...................... 17 11,915 63,538 8
2024...................... 3 2,118 7,990 8
Total........................... 107 $ 0 $ 29,629 616,886 7
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
2003...................... 2 41,089 54,609 36,792 0.0 15 0.106 0.141
2004...................... 33 120,808 402,978 802,812 0.4 15 0.014 0.048
2005...................... 38 150,577 657,460 1,012,883 0.4 15 0.014 0.062
2006...................... 559 21779,620 8,514,231 16,986,008 5.1 8 0.024 0.073
2007...................... 816 2,001,961 8,694,772 12,304,073 3.4 8 0.024 0.103
2008...................... 961 2,103,702 5,850,778 11,746,395 3.5 8 0.026 0.073
2009...................... 887 21293,896 6,732,268 13,157,619 3.4 8 0.026 0.077
2010...................... 753 21200,814 6,968,598 10,968,430 3.3 8 0.030 0.096
2011...................... 880 2,360,304 13,281,492 13,979,833 3.8 8 0.020 0.113
2012...................... 908 21373,201 11,598,185 12,617,164 3.1 8 0.022 0.110
2013...................... 995 21441,386 15,223,928 18,511,221 3.0 8 0.016 0.098
2014...................... 1,128 2,446,507 18,459,781 18,463,611 4.6 8 0.016 0.119
2015...................... 902 1,835,711 9,939,842 14,027,411 1.6 8 0.016 0.085
2016...................... 851 2,372,352 8,162,206 15,673,513 8 0.018 0.063
Page 18 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand" Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost, Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2017...................... 801 2,475,677 8,382,962 16,824,266 8 0.018 0.060
2018...................... 1,022 2,953,706 11,948,469 18,933,831 8 0.019 0.076
2019...................... 1,080 2,661,263 10,042,514 10,073,455 8 0.032 0.120
2020...................... 1,018 3,401,673 16,857,055 12,847,823 15 0.025 0.125
2021...................... 1,019 2,607,200 19,138,043 9,680,497 19 0.023 0.166
2022...................... 519 21080,027 14,083,686 6,937,855 18 0.027 0.179
2023...................... 643 1,708,967 14,744,378 4,558,425 12 0.042 0.361
2024...................... 628 11653,465 14,165,961 4,289,877 16 0.037 0.321
Total........................... 16,443 $ 45,063,906 $ 223,899,779 244,433,794 9 $ 0.026 $ 0.129
Green Motors Rewind—Irrigation
2016...................... 23 73,617 19
2017...................... 27 63,783 19
2018...................... 26 67,676 19
2019...................... 34 44,705 20
2020...................... 23 36,147 20
2021...................... 12 87,254 19,352 21
2022...................... 6 5,634 16,951 23
2023...................... 4 1,911 4,463 21
2024...................... 0 21
Total........................... 155 $ 0 $ $94,799 326,693 20
Other Proera
Building Operator Training
2003...................... 71 48,853 48,853 1,825,000 5 0.006 0.006
2004...................... 26 43,969 43,969 650,000 5 0.014 0.014
2005...................... 7 1,750 4,480 434,167 5 0.001 0.002
Total........................... 104 94,572 97,302 2,909,167 5 0.007 0.007
Comprehensive Lighting
2011...................... 2,404 2,404
2012...................... 64,094 64,094
Total........................... $ 66,498 $ 66,498
Distribution Efficiency Initiative
2005...................... 21,552 43,969
2006...................... 24,306 24,306
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 19

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2007...................... 8,987 8,987
2008...................... -1,913 -1,913
Total........................... $ 52,932 $ 75,349
DSM Direct Program Overhead
2007...................... 56,909 56,909
2008...................... 169,911 169,911
2009...................... 164,957 164,957
2010...................... 117,874 117,874
2011...................... 210,477 210,477
2012...................... 285,951 285,951
2013...................... 380,957 380,957
2014...................... 478,658 478,658
2015...................... 272,858 272,858
2016...................... 293,039 293,039
2017...................... 11759,352 1,759,352
2018...................... 1,801,955 1,801,955
2019...................... 2,119,820 2,119,820
2020...................... 11811,869 1,811,869
2021...................... 21226,910 2,226,910
2022...................... 21795,885 2,795,885
2023...................... 21511,829 2,511,829
2024...................... 21410,193 2,410,193
Total........................... $ 19,869,285 $ 19,869,285
Local Energy Efficiency Fund
2003...................... 56 5,100 5,100
2004...................... 23,449 23,449
2005...................... 2 14,896 26,756 78,000 10 0.024 0.042
2006...................... 480 3,459 3,459 19,027 7 0.009 0.009
2007...................... 1 7,520 7,520 9,000 7 0.135 0.135
2008...................... 2 22,714 60,100 115,931 0.0 15 0.019 0.049
2009...................... 1 5,870 4,274 10,340 0.0 12 0.064 0.047
2010...................... 1 251 251 0.0
2011...................... 1 1,026 2,052 2,028 30 0.035 0.070
Page 20 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost" Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2012......................
2013......................
2014...................... 1 9,100 9,100 95,834 18
Total........................... 545 $ 93,385 $ 142,061 330,160 14 $ 0.029 $ 0.044
Other C&RD and CRC BPA
2002...................... 55,722 55,722
2003...................... 67,012 67,012
2004...................... 108,191 108,191
2005...................... 101,177 101,177
2006...................... 124,956 124,956
2007...................... 31,645 31,645
2008...................... 6,950 6,950
Total........................... $ 495,654 $ 495,654
Residential Economizer Pilot
2011...................... 101,713 101,713
2012...................... 93,491 93,491
2013...................... 74,901 74,901
Total........................... $ 270,105 $ 270,105
Residential Education Initiative
2005...................... 7,498 7,498
2006...................... 56,727 56,727
2007......................
2008...................... 150,917 150,917
2009...................... 193,653 193,653
2010...................... 222,092 222,092
2011...................... 159,645 159,645
2012...................... 174,738 174,738
2013...................... 416,166 416,166
2014...................... 6,312 423,091 423,091 1,491,225 11
2015...................... 149,903 149,903
2016...................... 290,179 290,179
2017...................... 223,880 223,880
2018...................... 172,215 172,215
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 21

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2019...................... 160,851 160,851
2020...................... 223,731 223,731
2021...................... 483,067 483,067
2022...................... 300,175 300,175
2023...................... 371,316 371,316
2024...................... 313,680 313,680
Total........................... $ 4,493,525 $ 4,493,525 1,491,225
Solar 411 Schools
2009...................... 45,522 45,522
Total........................... $ 45,522 $ 45,522
VIM
Consumer Electronic Initiative
2009...................... 160,762 160,762
Total........................... $ 160,762 $ 160,762
NEEA
2002...................... 1,286,632 1,286,632 12,925,450
2003...................... 11292,748 1,292,748 11,991,580
2004...................... 1,256,611 1,256,611 13,329,071
2005...................... 476,891 476,891 16,422,224
2006...................... 930,455 930,455 18,597,955
2007...................... 893,340 893,340 28,601,410
2008...................... 942,014 942,014 21,024,279
2009...................... 968,263 968,263 10,702,998
2010...................... 21391,217 2,391,217 21,300,366
2011...................... 31108,393 3,108,393 20,161,728
2012...................... 3,379,756 3,379,756 19,567,984
2013...................... 31313,058 3,313,058 20,567,965
2014...................... 31305,917 3,305,917 26,805,600
2015...................... 21582,919 2,582,919 23,038,800
2016...................... 21676,387 2,676,387 24,352,800
2017...................... 21698,756 2,698,756 24,440,400
2018...................... 21500,165 2,500,165 25,666,800
Page 22 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs,
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2019...................... 2,721,070 2,721,070 18,368,135
2020 ..................... 21789,210 2,789,210 17,614,323
2021...................... 21977,678 2,977,678 16,818,788
2022 ..................... 21789,937 2,789,937 24,125,402
20231.................... 2,726,302 2,726,302 23,914,101
2024...................... 31372,515 3,372,515 23,914,101
Total........................... $ 51,380,233 $ 51,380,233 464,839,339
2002...................... 11932,520 2,366,591 16,791,100 0.0
2003...................... 21566,228 3,125,572 18,654,343 0.0
2004...................... 31827,213 4,860,912 19,202,780 6.5
2005...................... 61523,348 10,383,577 37,978,035 43.9
2006...................... 11,174,181 20,950,110 67,026,303 43.6
2007...................... 14,896,816 27,123,018 91,145,357 57.9
2008...................... 20,213,216 44,775,829 128,508,579 74.3
2009...................... 33,821,062 53,090,852 143,146,365 235.5
2010...................... 44,643,541 68,981,324 193,592,637 357.7
2011...................... 44,877,117 79,436,532 183,476,312 415.2
2012...................... 47,991,350 77,336,341 172,054,327 448.8
2013...................... 26,100,091 54,803,353 109,505,690 54.5
2014...................... 35,648,260 71,372,414 145,475,713 389.7
2015...................... 37,149,893 70,467,082 162,533,155 374.5
2016...................... 40,499,570 70,984,604 170,792,152 379.0
2017...................... 44,828,089 78,799,054 191,471,395 383.0
2018...................... 42,926,872 75,797,483 184,078,634 358.7
2019...................... 47,390,056 83,661,890 203,301,810 332.5
2020...................... 49,354,064 100,230,772 198,432,599 336.0
2021...................... 37,056,897 79,194,093 142,920,507 312.8
2022...................... 41,456,433 82,964,848 169,565,800 199.7
2023...................... 40,935,045 77,566,852 139,594,298 240.2
2024...................... 38,097,058 79,201,984 143,599,094 240.2
Total Direct Program.............................. $ 713,912,921 $ 1,318,082,318 3,034,511,385
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 23

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs a
Annual Energy Peak Demand' Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Indirect Program Ex�
DSM Overhead and Other Indirect
2002...................... 128,855
2003...................... -41,543
2004...................... 142,337
2005...................... 177,624
2006...................... 309,832
2007...................... 765,561
2008...................... 980,305
2009...................... 1,025,704
2010...................... 1,189,310
2011...................... 11389,135
2012...................... 1,335,509
2013...................... $741,287
2014...................... 1,065,072
2015...................... 1,891,042
2016...................... 21263,893
2017...................... 2,929,407
2018...................... 1,335,208
2019...................... 1,194,640
2020...................... 1,202,238
2021...................... 11296,605
2022...................... 1,507,146
2023...................... 1,044,428
2024...................... 21069,530
Total........................... $ 25,943,126
Total Expenses
2002...................... 21061,375
2003...................... 21528,685
2004...................... 31969,550
2005...................... 61700,972
2006...................... 111484,013
Page 24 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2007...................... 15,662,377
2008...................... 21,193,521
2009...................... 34,846,766
2010...................... 45,832,851
2011...................... 46,266,252
2012...................... 49,326,859
2013...................... 26,841,378
2014...................... 36,713,333
2015...................... 39,040,935
2016...................... 42,763,463
2017...................... 47,757,496
2018...................... 44,262,080
2019...................... 48,584,696
2020...................... 50,556,303
2021...................... 38,353,503
2022...................... 42,963,579
2023...................... 411979,473
2024...................... 40,166,589
Total2002-2024 $ 739,856,047
Levelized Costs are based on financial inputs from IPC's 2023 Integrated Resource Plan and calculations include line loss adjusted energy savings.
n The Total Utility Cost is all cost incurred by IPC to implement and manage a DSM program.
The Total Resource Cost is the total expenditures for a DSM program from the point of view of IPC and its customers as a whole.
Peak Demand is reported for programs that directly reduce load or measure demand reductions during summer peak season.
Peak demand reduction for demand response programs is reported at the generation level assuming line losses of 9.7%before 2023,7.6%in 2023,and 6.0%in 2024.
Savings are preliminary(under share estimates.Final results will be provided by NEEA in April 2025.
Page 25 Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2024
Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report Page 26