20250902APPLICATION.pdf

RECEIVED
September 2, 2025
IDAHO PUBLIC
Preston N. Carter, ISB No. 8462 UTILITIES COMMISSION
Megann E. Meier, ISB No. 11948
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
14168.18[19094717.1]
Attorneys for Intermountain Gas Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
In the Matter of the Application of Case No. INT-G-25-05
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
for a Determination of 2024 Energy APPLICATION
Efficiency Expenses as Prudently Incurred
Intermountain Gas Company("Intermountain"or"Company"),a subsidiary of MDU
Resources Group,Inc.with general offices located at 555 South Cole Road,Boise,Idaho,pursuant
to the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission("Commission"), 1)submits its
2024 Energy Efficiency Annual Report and 2)makes application to the Commission for an order
designating$4,466,551 of 2024 Energy Efficiency expenditures as prudently incurred.
Please address communications regarding this Application to:
Preston N. Carter Lori A. Blattner
Megann E. Meier Director—Regulatory Affairs
Givens Pursley LLP Intermountain Gas Company
601 W. Bannock St. PO Box 7608
Boise, Idaho 83702 Boise, Idaho 83707
[e-mail] [e-mail]
[e-mail] [e-mail]
[e-mail]
APPLICATION PAGE 1 OF 13

I. INTRODUCTION
Intermountain is a gas utility,subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission,engaged in the
sale of and distribution of natural gas within the State of Idaho under authority of Commission
Certificate No. 219,issued December 2, 1955, as amended and supplemented by Order No. 6564,
dated October 3, 1962.
Intermountain provides natural gas service to the following Idaho communities and counties
and adjoining areas:
Ada County-Boise,Eagle,Garden City,Kuna,Meridian,and Star;
Bannock County-Arimo,Chubbuck,Inkom,Lava Hot Springs,McCammon,and Pocatello;
Bear Lake County - Georgetown and Montpelier;
Bingham County-Aberdeen,Basalt,Blackfoot,Firth,Fort Hall,Moreland/Riverside,and
Shelley;
Blaine County-Bellevue,Hailey,Ketchum, and Sun Valley;
Bonneville County-Ammon,Idaho Falls,Iona,and Ucon;
Canyon County-Caldwell,Greenleaf,Middleton,Nampa,Parma,and Wilder;
Caribou County-Bancroft, Grace, and Soda Springs;
Cassia County-Burley,Declo,Malta,and Raft River;
Elmore County-Glenns Ferry,Hammett,and Mountain Home;
Fremont County - Parker and St. Anthony;
Gem County-Emmett;
Gooding County-Gooding and Wendell;
Jefferson County-Lewisville,Menan,Rigby,and Ririe;
Jerome County- Jerome;
Lincoln County- Shoshone;
Madison County - Rexburg and Sugar City;
Minidoka County-Heyburn,Paul,and Rupert; Owyhee County -Bruneau and Homedale;
Payette County-Fruitland,New Plymouth,and Payette;
Power County-American Falls;
Twin Falls County-Buhl,Filer,Hansen,Kimberly,Murtaugh,and Twin Falls;
Washington County-Weiser.
Intermountain's properties in these locations consist of transmission pipelines,liquefied
natural gas storage facilities,compressor stations,distribution mains,services,meters and
regulators, and general plant and equipment.
APPLICATION PAGE 2 OF 13

II. BACKGROUND
In the Company's General Rate Case No.INT-G-16-02,Intermountain petitioned the
Commission for authority to begin a residential Energy Efficiency Program. The Commission
granted the Company's request in Order No. 33757.
Subsequently,in Case No. INT-G-17-03,the Company requested authority to implement
Rate Schedule EE—Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program,which outlined the program
offerings,and Rate Schedule EEC-RS—Energy Efficiency Charge,which established a charge to
fund the program. In Order No. 33888,the Commission approved both rate schedules effective
October 1, 2017.
In Case No. INT-G-19-04,Intermountain requested that the Commission approve the
Company's 2017-2018 EE Program expenses as prudently incurred. In Order No. 34536,the
Commission approved the prudency of the expenses with several conditions attached. Those
conditions were to commission a third-party Evaluation,Measurement and Verification(`BM&V")
study,review and update the avoided cost calculation with the Energy Efficiency Stakeholder
Committee("EESC"),immediately and continuously monitor,evaluate,and update its Energy
Efficiency Program incentives with the best available data,and discontinue the 80%AFUE
condensing fireplace incentive.
To allow all interested customers to participate in the Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate
Program,and to continue to grow the Program,Intermountain requested authority to revise Rate
Schedule EEC-RS ("EEC-RS")from$0.00367 to$0.02093 per therm in Case No. INT-G-19-05.
The Commission approved the requested revision in Order No.34454,effective October 1,2019.
Order No. 34941 in Case No. INT-G-20-04 authorized the Company to implement a
Commercial Energy Efficiency program in Rate Schedule EE-GS and established a funding
mechanism for program costs in Rate Schedule EEC-GS ("EEC-GS"). The Commission directed
APPLICATION PAGE 3 OF 13

the Company to develop an EM&V plan,file an Annual Commercial Energy Efficiency Program
Report,include representatives from the GS-1 rate class in its EESC,and immediately and
continuously monitor,evaluate,and update its Commercial Energy Efficiency Program incentives
with the best available data. The Company launched its Commercial Energy Efficiency Program on
April 1,2021,consisting of incentives for commercial space heating and commercial kitchen
equipment.
In Case No. INT-G-20-06,Intermountain requested that the Commission approve the
Company's 2019 EE Program expenses as prudently incurred. In Order No.34980,the Commission
approved the prudency of the expenses. The Company also requested significant changes to the
program based on its first ever EM&V study that was filed as part of the case. The Commission
approved the proposed modifications effective April 1,2021. The Commission also ordered the
Company to continue to review its avoided costs and update its avoided cost calculations based on
the review,and to immediately and continuously monitor,evaluate,and update its EE Program
incentives with the best available data.
In Case No. INT-G-21-03,Intermountain requested that the Commission approve the
Company's 2020 EE Program expenses as prudently incurred. In Order No.35313,the Commission
approved the prudency of the expenses. The Commission ordered the Company to continuously
monitor,evaluate and update its Energy Efficiency Program incentives with the best available data
using the most accurate evaluation method to do so. The Commission acknowledged the overfunded
rider balance of$1,318,197 and permitted the Company to carry forward the balance to meet
anticipated increased Program participation,with the understanding the Company would seek
adjustment if increased participation does not materialize.
APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 13

During program year 2021,the Company retired,modified,or added residential program
incentives as approved in Order No. 34980.
In Case No. INT-G-22-03,Order No. 35663,issued on January 13,2023,the Commission
approved the prudency of the 2021 Energy Efficiency Program expenses. The Commission
identified improvements to be made for future DSM pruriency filings,specifically directing the
Company to directly assign Energy Efficiency Program costs to either the appropriate residential or
commercial program,when possible,and to provide explanations when costs are not assignable.
The Commission directed the Company to use a billing analysis to evaluate program
performance for the Furnace and Whole Home measures,while giving the option for the Company
to submit argument and evidence to justify other empirical analysis as part of its annual DSM
prudency filing.The Commission directed the Company to submit an RFP for a third-parry contract
to conduct an impact evaluation with billing analysis for Whole Home and Furnace measures using
April 1,2021 through 2022 for the Whole Home and 2021 through 2022 for the Furnace program
year data,to be included with its 2023 prudency filing.
The Commission also approved the Company's proposal of the following treatment of
avoided costs:to update the transportation component of avoided costs as an exhibit to IRP filing,to
no longer file avoided cost calculations as exhibits to the annual DSM prudency filing,to update all
avoided costs as exhibits to IRP filing,and to base cost-effectiveness testing off the avoided costs in
place at the time of program planning.
In Case No. INT-G-23-06, Order No. 36245,issued on June 27,2024,the Commission
approved the prudency of the 2022 Energy Efficiency Program expenses.The Commission required
that the Company's next prudency filing include an EM&V with a billing analysis covering Whole
Home Tier I and Whole Home Tier II, Furnace and Smart Thermostat measures as well as
APPLICATION PAGE 5 OF 13

providing sufficient information to justify the EUL of its Smart Thermostat measure. The
Commission directed the Company to explore ways to reduce labor expenses related to offering the
EE Programs and to develop and follow a schedule for regular internal audits.
Case No. INT-G-24-05, filed December 20, 2024 and supplemented on June 6, 2025, is
still under deliberation at the time of this filing. Therefore, due to the timing of these cases, the
Company will not have had an opportunity to address any action items resulting from an Order in
that case.
III. 2024 PRUDENCY FILING
The Company's 2024 Energy Efficiency Annual Report ("Annual Report") is included as
Attachment 1 to this Application and incorporated by reference. The Annual Report of the
Company's seventh program year provides a review of the Company's Energy Efficiency Portfolio,
which consists of the Residential Program and the Commercial Program. The report outlines
revenues, expenditures, cost-effectiveness, and performance by measure for each Program. A
review of outreach and educational activities, and discussion of future plans complete the Annual
Report.
IV. REVENUES
The EE Program expenditures are funded through collections from customers via Energy
Efficiency Charges. During the 2024 program year,the EEC-RS of$0.01564 per therm was reduced
to$0.01149 effective October 1,2024. Total Residential Program revenues for calendar year 2024
were$3,989,432. Attachment 1 at 5.
During program year 2024, the EEC-GS of$0.00320 funded the Commercial Program
from January 1, 2024 through September 30, 2024. Due to an over-collected balance, Company
decreased the collection rate to zero. The revenue for January through October 2024 was
$294,202. Attachment 1 at 23.
APPLICATION PAGE 6 OF 13

V. EXPENDITURES
Expenditures for the Residential and Commercial Programs combined for January 1,2024
through December 31,2024 were$4,466,5 5 1. Of this amount,$3,449,724,or approximately 77%, is
for energy efficiency rebates paid directly to residential and commercial customers. Residential
rebates accounted for$3,394,896 and Commercial rebates accounted for$54,828 of the total.
Attachment 1 at 5 and 23.
In addition to the amount spent on energy efficiency rebates,the Company incurred
$1,016,828 of administrative expenses for labor program delivery and special studies. As a
Portfolio,this was approximately 3 percent less than 2023 expenditures.The Company spent
$143,410 on an Evaluation, Measurement and Verification study ("EMV")in 2024.Labor
expenses as a percent of rebate dollars paid decreased by almost 2 percent from 2023.
Using the same procedure established and applied to 2023 expenses,the Company based the
2024 expense allocation on the distribution of service starts between the residential and commercial
sectors recorded in the Company's Construction Tracking system. In 2023,there were 7,730
residential service starts and 688 commercial sales starts or a 92%and 8%split between residential
and commercial activity.Labor costs were assigned based on this analysis(92%to the residential
program and 8%to the Commercial program)through an automatic standard labor distribution
through the Company's payroll system. Utilizing employees that work on both the residential and
commercial programs is the most cost-effective approach until the Portfolio grows to a size that can
accommodate separate staff for each Program.
Any expense that could not be directly assigned was also allocated 92%to the residential
program and 8%to the Commercial Program.
APPLICATION PAGE 7 OF 13

In 2024, the Company stopped used a third-party software for its online application
process and replaced it with an internal product ("ERA")that allows customers to access the
rebate application from their online customer account. This provides a more secure data transfer
of customer information by eliminating a third-parry software provider. Additionally, this
process will reduce the need for data entry from the rebate processing team and eliminate the
extra steps of customer validation since customers are required to login to their online account
and all required data and support documents are submitted by the customer. As ERA is further
integrated with internal systems in 2025, customers as well as the Company's customer service
agents will be able to see the status of the customer's rebate in their online account,which will
provide a better customer experience and should reduce time spent on customer calls.
VI. DEFERRAL BALANCE
The Residential Program began the year with an over-collected deferral balance of
$1,352,769 and ended 2024 with an over-collected balance of$1,027,286.The Company filed an
application in Case No. INT-G-24-03 to reduce the Residential Energy Efficiency Charge("EEC-
RS")to more accurately match on-going revenues with expenses and reduce the over-collected
balance. The Commission approved the Company's request in Order No. 36337 to reduce the
EEC-RS from$0.01564 per therm to$0.01149 per therm.Attachment 1 at 5.
The Commercial Program began the year with an over-collected balance of$891,719, and
ended 2024 with an over-collected balance of$1,034,285. Similar to the Residential Program, the
Company also requested in Case No. INT-G-24-03 to reduce the Commercial Energy Efficiency
Charge("EEC-GS") from$0.00320 per therm to $0.00000 per therm. Attachment 1 at 23. This will
stop the balance from growing as the Company works to revise and update the program.
APPLICATION PAGE 8 OF 13

VII. AVOIDED COSTS
In accordance with Order No. 35663,the Company no longer files avoided cost calculations
as exhibits to the annual DSM prudency filing. All avoided costs are updated as exhibits to IRP
filings.
VIII. COST EFFECTIVENESS
Intermountain reports the cost-effectiveness of its Portfolio based on two industry standard
metrics:the Utility Cost Test("UCT")and the Total Resource Cost("TRC"). The UCT measures
cost-effectiveness from the utility company's perspective and takes into consideration avoided
supply costs,program administration costs,and incentives paid by the utility. The TRC measures
cost-effectiveness from the customer's perspective and focuses on avoided supply costs,program
administration costs and net participant costs. Although both are common industry metrics for
measuring cost-effectiveness,the Company relies more on the UCT because it measures the cost-
effectiveness of items directly under the Company's control. Exhibit No. 1,attached and
incorporated by reference, outlines the cost-effectiveness for the Programs and for each individual
rebate offered.
As previously noted, Case No. INT-G-24-05 (the 2023 prudency case), is still open at the
time of filing this application. For 2024 residential cost-testing,the Company used the same
process utilized for the 2023 prudency evaluation cost testing,which was recommended and
conducted by a third-parry consultant in an EM&V analysis as required by Order No. 36245. This
process was based on evaluated savings results from the deemed savings and modeling evaluation
methods.' For the measures for which billing analysis was conducted—the 95%AFUE furnace,
'Intermountain continues to believe that the cost-testing approach recommended in the EM&V is appropriate.In
accordance with Order NO. 35663,Intermountain set forth the facts and argument to support this approach in Case
No. INT-G-24-05.See Case No.INT-G-24-05,Application at 8-9;Company Reply Comments at 6-9.Instead of
repeating those facts and argument here,Intermountain incorporates them by reference.
APPLICATION PAGE 9 OF 13

Whole Home I and II, and the smart thermostat—the Company also conducted cost testing based
on billing analysis. Exhibit 1,page 22.
IX. STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
The Energy Efficiency Stakeholder Committee("EESC")has been a valuable resource for
the Company as it builds the Energy Efficiency Program. Following a proposal from the November
2023 meeting,the EESC decided to meet more frequently to provide regular updates on topics like the
rider balance,rebate performance,promotions and outreach, and special studies.As outlined in the
Annual Report, Intermountain hosted four EESC meetings to address both the Residential and
Commercial Program. The meetings included good representation from a variety of groups
including representatives from the Commission Staff,the Governor's Office of Energy and
Mineral Resources,a not-for-profit residential home builder,home energy raters,and city and
county representatives involved in energy efficiency and sustainability with familiarity of both
the residential and commercial sectors.Minutes from the four meetings are included in Attachment 1,
Supplement 3 and incorporated by reference.
X. COMMERCIAL PROGRAM PLANS
In 2024 energy efficiency funds were allocated to funding a portion of the Energy
Services Representative ("ESR")position and is reflected as such in the program cost-
effectiveness testing conducted in this case. In 2025, in order to grow the Commercial Program,
the Company redirected the allocation of one FTE worth of labor funding from the Energy Services
Representative allocation to instead fund a full time Energy Efficiency Analyst.The new analyst is
dedicated to commercial customer outreach and energy efficiency awareness for commercial
customers. The ESRs will only have responsibility for Residential Program promotion going
forward.
APPLICATION PAGE 10 OF 13

To implement additional savings opportunities identified in the 2023 CPA, the Company
commissioned the Evaluators to develop a Commercial Technical Reference Manual ("TRM"),
included as Attachment 1, Supplement 2 and incorporated by reference, to provide an agreed
upon foundation for program planning which is an approach similar to the proposal submitted for
the Residential Program. In addition to the development of a Commercial TRM, the Evaluators
also conducted a process evaluation which is included as Attachment 1, Supplement 1 and
incorporated by reference. The process evaluation included recommendations to improve
program awareness,program cost effectiveness, and identified barriers to participation as
outlined on page 25.
XI. INTERNAL AUDITS
In Order No. 36245, the Commission ordered the Company to "develop and follow a
schedule for regular internal audits."After receiving the Order in June 2024, Intermountain
shared the requirement with the MDU Resources' Internal Audit Director and an internal audit
was completed on August 25, 2025 with no findings noted, and no follow up required. Internal
Auditing will audit the Energy Efficiency Program on a three-year rotation going forward. The
next audit will be conducted in 2028.
XII. MODIFIED PROCEDURE
Intermountain requests that this matter be handled under modified procedure pursuant to
Rules 201-204 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. Intermountain stands ready for
immediate consideration of this matter.
XI II. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Intermountain respectfully petitions the Idaho Public Utilities Commission as follow:
a. That the Commission issue an order designating$4,466,551 of 2024 Energy Efficiency
expenditures as prudently incurred,
APPLICATION PAGE 11 OF 13

b. That this Application be heard and acted upon without hearing under modified
procedure, and
c. For such other relief as this Commission may determine just and proper.
Dated: September 2, 2025.
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
By. By:
Lori A. Blattner Preston N. Carter
Director—Regulatory Affairs Attorney for Intermountain Gas Company
Intermountain Gas Company Givens Pursley LLP
APPLICATION PAGE 12 OF 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 2, 2025, I caused to be served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document to the person(s) listed below by the method indicated:
Commission Staff Via Electronic Mail
Monica Barrios-Sanchez, Commission Secretary [e-mail]
Idaho Public Utilities Commission [e-mail]
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
Jeffrey R. Loll [e-mail]
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
Preston N. Carter
APPLICATION PAGE 13 OF 13

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
CASE No. INT-G-25-05
EXHIBIT No. 1
2024 COST EFFECTIVENESS
(23 PAGES

Introduction
Intermountain's Energy Efficiency Program (EE Program) offers individual customers a way to
lower their usage and monthly energy bills. It additionally benefits all customers by ensuring
resources are used efficiently which delays the need for expensive system upgrades and
additional supply contracts,thereby keeping costs low for everyone. Cost-effectiveness testing
is vital to ensuring the Company's EE Program is in fact a least-cost resource, and is integral to
the design, implementation, and success of the EE Program.
Cost-Effectiveness and Methodology
Intermountain's objective is for all rebates to have benefit/cost ratios of one or greater for the
Utility Cost Test(UCT).The UCT measures cost-effectiveness from the utility company's
perspective and takes into consideration avoided supply costs, program administration costs
and incentives paid by the utility.
Rebates undergo cost tests at several stages: preliminary design, implementation, and an
annual review. For a different perspective, cost-effectiveness of rebates is also evaluated based
on the customer's perspective using avoided supply costs, program administration costs and
net participant costs, or the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC). However,the TRC is not the
primary cost test used for decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of rebate offerings. In
calculating the UCT and TRC, Intermountain relies on the calculations outlined in the California
Standard Practice Manual and the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency's (NAPEE)
Understanding Cost Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs:
Best Practices, Technical Methods, and Emerging Issues for Policy-Makers.
Cost-effectiveness of EE Program rebates are reviewed annually.The results are reported in
the annual report and reviewed with the Energy Efficiency Stakeholder Committee (EESC).
Rebate performance, cost-effectiveness, market insights, and lessons learned are taken into
consideration when deciding whether to continue, revise or retire a rebate.
Assumptions
In calculating cost-effectiveness for each rebate and for the Program as a whole,the Company
relied upon several assumptions as well as studies provided by independent third-party
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 1 of 23

sources.The section below discusses the key inputs used in calculating cost-effectiveness and
the assumptions and sources used.
Energy Savings
Energy savings for each rebate are calculated by multiplying each rebate's gross annual therm
savings by the total number of rebates issued.The Residential therm savings used are
evaluated savings based on the deemed savings evaluation methodology from the 2024 EM&V
study. The Commercial therm saving used are from the Dunksy DEEP model as filed in Case No.
INT-G-20-04, Order No. 34941. The energy savings are then valuated based on the Company's
Avoided Cost.The Avoided Cost is used both to economically evaluate the present value of the
therms saved over the life span of the measure and to track the performance of the EE
Program. A more in-depth discussion of the Avoided Cost calculation and its components can
be found in Case No. INT-G-22-03, Exhibit No. 1 which was originally filed as Exhibit No. 5 in
Intermountain's Integrated Resource Plan (Case No. INT-G-21-06).
Rebate Costs
Total rebate costs are calculated by multiplying the value of each rebate by the number of
rebates issued for the year.
Equipment&Installation Cost
The incremental equipment and installation costs are inputs to the TRC cost test and were
provided by the CPA.These costs represent the incremental purchase and installation costs the
participant will pay between a base case measure and a higher efficient alternative.These
costs are not offset by the amount of the rebate received by the participant.
Program Delivery&Administration
Program delivery and administration costs are direct assigned to their respective program,
either residential or commercial, when they can be specifically identified. For example,the
expense of a residential builder mailing list is charged to Residential Program delivery and
administration costs. After all direct costs are assigned,the remaining pool of program and
administration costs, are split between the residential program and commercial program based
on a respective 92/8 split.This 92/8 split was developed after re-evaluating the company's
expense allocation. An analysis of service starts by the ESRs tracked in Construction Tracking.
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 2 of 23

Real Discount Rate
The real discount rate is used to account for the time-value of money and accurately compare
costs.The real discount rate is based on the Company's tax-affected weighted average cost of
capital.The calculation of the real discount rate can be found in Case No. INT-G-22-03, Exhibit
No. 1, Page 11. Per Case No. INT-G-22-03, Order No. 35663,the Company will update the
discount rate and inflation rate within the avoided cost filing in the IRP.
Inflation Rate
An inflation assumption is used in cost-effectiveness testing to convert nominal,forward-
looking costs into real dollars.The company assumes an inflation rate of 3.15%.
Net-to-Gross
Net-to-gross (NTG) is a ratio that adjusts the therm savings of rebates and/or programs, so
they solely reflect energy efficiency gains that are the direct result of energy efficiency
programs.The NTG deducts therm savings resulting from free-ridership, or savings that would
have occurred regardless of the program. It also increases therm savings to account for
spillover, or savings that occurred but were not counted by the program, as well as therm
savings resulting from market transformation. Unfortunately, estimates of net savings require
making sweeping assumptions to model a theoretical scenario where the EE Program did not
exist. Because of the difficulty in accurately calculating NTG percentages,the Company used an
NTG of 100%for all rebate and program cost-effectiveness analysis. Intermountain also
performs a sensitivity analysis for each rebate that determines the minimum allowable NTG
ratio where the rebate would remain (or become) cost effective under the Utility Cost Test.
Results
The Company performed cost-effectiveness testing at the program level and the individual
measure level.To be consistent with the 2023 filing which is pending a final order at the time
of the writing of this report,the Company conducted 2024 cost-effectiveness testing consistent
with the methodology used in the 2023 filing.The Company has provided cost-effectiveness
testing using the 2024 EM&V evaluated savings based on modeling evaluation for the Whole
Home Tier I and II and the deemed savings methodology for the rest of the residential
measures.
Under the deemed savings methodology,the Residential Program cost testing resulted in a INT-G-25-05
Exhibit I to Application
UCT ratio of 1.2.The furnace, storage water heater and smart thermostat were not cost Page 3 of23

effective with UCT ratios of 0.9, 0.9 and 0.7, respectively. Program changes to address measure
that were not cost effectiveness have already been proposed.The Company has proposed to
reduce the furnace incentive amount and retire both the storage water heater and smart
thermostat offerings.The Commercial Program had a UCT ratio of 2.3. Neither the Fryer or
Griddle were cost effective with UCT ratios of 0.9 and 0.2, respectively.
The Company also provided a program summary report of cost effectiveness results based on
2024 EM&V billing analysis Whole Home Tier I and II,furnace and smart thermostat measures,
found on page 23 of this exhibit.
EM&V Schedule
The Company provided the EM&V schedule included in Case No. INT-G-24-05.The dates on
the schedule include the changes proposed for 2025 and future program evaluations. Future
evaluations will be dependent on when the proposed 2025 program changes can be
implemented, as well as working with a 3rd party evaluator to determine if there is sufficient
data to provide meaningful evaluation, especially after a program change. Should the
implementation of a TRM be incorporated into the Program,the Company will plan to update
the TRM with each evaluation.
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 4 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
2024 UCT Results
Therm Annual Therm
Rebate Savings* Savings UCT Benefits UCT Costs UCT Ratio
Whole Home Tier 1 183 6,405 $ 70,256 $ 34,679 2.0
Whole Home Tier 11 110 191,840 $ 2,104,293 $ 1,379,228 1.5
Furnace-95%AFUE 44 177,408 $ 1,688,435 $ 1,777,475 0.9
Combination Boiler-95%AFUE 168 504 $ 5,102 $ 2,673 1.9
Boiler-95%AFUE 103 1,339 $ 14,687 $ 11,581 1.3
Water Heater(<55 gallons) 25 675 $ 4,832 $ 5,558 0.9
Water Heater(>55 gallons) 2 4 $ 29 $ 412 0.1
Tankless Water Heater Tier 1 59 68,676 $ 753,307 $ 484,040 1.6
Tankless Water Heater Tier 11 48 192 $ 2,106 $ 1,563 1.3
Smart Thermostat 21 71,169 $ 454,491 $ 643,624 0.7
518,212 $ 5,097,539 $ 4,340,833 1.2
'Evaluated savings are based on deemed savings and modeling methodology.
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Commercial Energy Efficiency Program
2024 UCT Results
Therm Annual Therm
Rebate Savings Savings UCT Benefits UCT Costs UCT Ratio
Condensing Unit Heater 409 $ $
Boiler Reset Control 1,212 $ $ - -
High-Efficiency Condensing Boiler 3,034 21,240 $ 232,976 $ 62,504 3.7
Fryer-Energy Star Certified 508 8,128 $ 55,103 $ 60,060 0.9
Steamer-Energy Star Certified 1,054 - $ - $ - -
Griddle-Energy Star Certified 76 76 $ 515 $ 3,154 0.2
29,444 $ 288,594 $ 125,718 2.3
Residential and Commercial Portfolio 547,656 $ 5,386,133 $ 4,466,551 1.2
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 5 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
Whole Home Tier I-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results*
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 6,405 Utility Cost $ 70,256 $ 34,679 2.0
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 160,125 Total Resource Cost $ 70,256 $ 77,274 0.9
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 70,256
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 900 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count 35
Total Rebate Costs R $ 31,500 Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 2,117 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21 49%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ 74,095
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - [']Allocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ 3,179 [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 3,179
*2024 Evaluated Savings
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 6 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
Whole Home Tier II-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results'
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 191,840 Utility Cost $ 2,104,293 $ 1,379,228 1.5
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 4,796,000 Total Resource Cost $ 2,104,293 $ 3,850,476 0.5
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 2,104,293
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 700 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count 1,744
Total Rebate Costs R $ 1,220,800 Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 2,117 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21 66%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ 396929048
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - �'Wlocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ 158,428 [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 158,428
*2024 Evaluated Savings
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 7 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
Furnace-95%AFUE-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results'
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 177,408 Utility Cost $ 1,688,435 $ 1,777,475 0.9
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 3,548,160 Total Resource Cost $ 1,688,435 $ 5,636,099 0.3
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 1,6889435
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 350 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count 4,032
Total Rebate Costs R $ 1,411,200 Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 1,307 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21 105%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ 5,269,824
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - �'Wlocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ 366,275 [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 366,275
*2024 Evaluated Savings
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 8 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
Combination Boiler-95%AFUE-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results*
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 504 Utility Cost $ 5,102 $ 2,673 1.9
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 11,088 Total Resource Cost $ 5,102 $ 10,839 0.5
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 5,102
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 800 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count 3
Total Rebate Costs R $ 2,400 Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 3,522 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21 52%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ 10,566
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - �'Wlocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ 273 [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 273
*2024 Evaluated Savings
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 9 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
Boiler-95%AFUE-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results*
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 1,339 Utility Cost $ 14,687 $ 11,581 1.3
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 33,475 Total Resource Cost $ 14,687 $ 16,339 0.9
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 14,687
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 800 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count 13
Total Rebate Costs R $ 10,400 Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 1,166 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21 79%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ 15,158
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - �'Wlocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ 1,181 [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 1,181
*2024 Evaluated Savings
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 10 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
Storage Water Heater(<55 Gallon)2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results*
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 675 Utility Cost $ 4,832 $ 5,558 0.9
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 8,775 Total Resource Cost $ 4,832 $ 12,983 0.4
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 4,832
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 115 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count 27
Total Rebate Costs R $ 3,105 Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 390 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21 115%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ 10,530
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - �'Wlocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ 2,453 [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 2,453
*2024 Evaluated Savings
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 11 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
Storage Water Heater(>55 Gallons)2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results*
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 4 Utility Cost $ 29 $ 412 0.1
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 52 Total Resource Cost $ 29 $ 962 0.0
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 29
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 115 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count 2
Total Rebate Costs R $ 230 Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 390 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21 1420%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ 780
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - �'Wlocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ 182 [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 182
*2024 Evaluated Savings
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 12 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
Tankless Water Heater Tier I-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results*
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 68,676 Utility Cost $ 753,307 $ 484,040 1.6
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 1,716,900 Total Resource Cost $ 753,307 $ 2,200,940 0.3
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 753,307
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 325 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count 1,164
Total Rebate Costs R $ 378,300 Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 1,800 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21 64%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ 2,0959200
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - �'Wlocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ 105,740 [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 1059740
*2024 Evaluated Savings
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 13 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
Tankless Water Heater Tier II-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results*
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 192 Utility Cost $ 2,106 $ 1,563 1.3
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 4,800 Total Resource Cost $ 2,106 $ 4,971 0.4
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 2,106
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 300 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count 4
Total Rebate Costs R $ 1,200 Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 1,152 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21 74%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ 4,608
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - �'Wlocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ 363 [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 363
*2024 Evaluated Savings
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 14 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
Smart Thermostat-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results`
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 71,169 Utility Cost $ 454,491 $ 643,624 0.7
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 782,859 Total Resource Cost $ 454,491 $ 1,012,775 0.4
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 454,491
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Average Rebated Amount�'l $ 99 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count 3,389
Total Rebate Costs R $ 335,761 Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 208 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[31 142%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ 704,912
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expenses[21 $ - [']Rebates pay the full cost of the individual thermostat up to a maximum of$100.
Direct Costs $ 307,863 [21Allocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 307,863 ["Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
*2024 Evaluated Savings
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 15 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Commercial Energy Efficiency Program
Condensing Unit Heater-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) - Utility Cost $ - $ -
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) - Total Resource Cost $ - $ -
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ -
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 1,500 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count -
Total Rebate Costs R $ - Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 2,889 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ -
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - [']Allocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ - [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ -
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 16 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Commercial Energy Efficiency Program
Boiler Reset Control-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) - Utility Cost $ - $ -
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) - Total Resource Cost $ - $ -
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ -
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 350 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count -
Total Rebate Costs R $ - Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 612 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ -
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - �'Wlocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ - [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ -
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 17 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Commercial Energy Efficiency Program
High Efficiency Condensing Boiler-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 21,240 Utility Cost $ 232,976 $ 62,504 3.7
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 530,988 Total Resource Cost $ 232,976 $ 78,677 3.0
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 232,976
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Average Rebated Amount�'l $ 5,975 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count 7
Total Rebate Costs R $ 41,828 Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 8,286 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[31 27%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ 58,001
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expenses[21 $ - [']Rebates are based on the capacity of the unit.
Direct Costs $ 20,676 [21Allocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 20,676 [31Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 18 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Commercial Energy Efficiency Program
Fryer-Energy Star Certified-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 8,128 Utility Cost $ 55,103 $ 60,060 0.9
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 97,536 Total Resource Cost $ 55,103 $ 48,060 1.1
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 55,103
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG+(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 800 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG+(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count 16
Total Rebate Costs R $ 12,800 Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 50 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21 109%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ 800
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - [']Allocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ 47,260 [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 47,260
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 19 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Commercial Energy Efficiency Program
Steamer-Energy Star Certified-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) - Utility Cost $ - $ -
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) - Total Resource Cost $ - $ -
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ -
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 1,100 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count -
Total Rebate Costs R $ - Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 635 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ -
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - �'Wlocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ - [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ -
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 20 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Commercial Energy Efficiency Program
Griddle-Energy Star Certified-2024 Cost-Effectiveness Results
Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Energy Savings Value Test Benefits Costs Ratio
Annual Energy Savings(therms) 76 Utility Cost $ 515 $ 2,954 0.2
Lifetime Energy Savings(therms) 912 Total Resource Cost $ 515 $ 2,954 0.2
Present Value of Energy Savings S $ 515
Costs Equations &Assumptions
Rebate Costs Value Utility Cost Test =S x NTG_(R+A)
Rebate Amount $ 200 Total Resource Cost Test =S x NTG_(I x NTG+A)
Rebate Count -
Total Rebate Costs R $ - Real Discount Rate 3.51%
Inflation Rate 3.15%
Equipment&Installation Costs Net-to-Gross(NTG) 100%
Incremental Cost Per Unit $ 360 Net-to-Gross Sensitivity[21 574%
Total Equipment&Installation Costs 1 $ -
NOTES
Program Delivery&Administration
Overhead Expensesl'l $ - �'Wlocated based on percentage of portfolio rebate count.
Direct Costs $ 2,954 [21Minimum NTG value where rebate remains cost-effective under UCT.
Total Program Delivery&Administration Costs A $ 2,954
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 21 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
2024 UCT Results
Therm Annual Therm
Rebate Savings* Savings UCT Benefits UCT Costs UCT Ratio
Whole Home Tier 1 38 1,330 $ 14,589 $ 34,679 0.4
Whole Home Tier 11 38 66,272 $ 726,937 $ 1,379,228 0.5
Furnace-95%AFUE** 32 127,008 $ 1,208,766 $ 1,777,475 0.7
Combination Boiler-95%AFUE 168 505 $ 5,110 $ 2,673 1.9
Boiler-95%AFUE 103 1,345 $ 14,757 $ 11,581 1.3
Water Heater(<55 gallons) 25 680 $ 4,868 $ 5,558 0.9
Water Heater(>55 gallons) 2 4 $ 30 $ 412 0.1
Tankless Water Heater Tier 1 59 68,723 $ 753,818 $ 484,040 1.6
Tankless Water Heater Tier 11 48 190 $ 2,088 $ 1,563 1.3
Smart Thermostat** 28 94,892 $ 605,988 $ 643,624 0.9
360,949 $ 3,336,951 $ 4,340,833 0.8
'Therm Savings Values are evaluated savings
Billing Analysis Values
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Commercial Energy Efficiency Program
2024 UCT Results
Therm Annual Therm
Rebate Savings Savings UCT Benefits UCT Costs UCT Ratio
Condensing Unit Heater 409 $ $
Boiler Reset Control 1,212 $ $ - -
High-Efficiency Condensing Boiler 3,034 21,240 $ 232,976 $ 62,504 3.7
Fryer-Energy Star Certified 508 8,128 $ 55,103 $ 60,060 0.9
Steamer-Energy Star Certified 1,054 - $ - $ - -
Griddle-Energy Star Certified 76 76 $ 515 $ 3,154 0.2
29,444 $ 288,594 $ 125,718 2.3
Residential and Commercial Portfolio 390,393 $ 3,625,546 $ 4,466,551 0.8
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 22 of 23

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROPOSED EVALUATION PLAN 2025-2028
Energy Efficiency Program 2025 Proposed changes 2026 2027 2028
Residential Measures:
Whole Home Tier I Implement IGC TRM I P
Whole Home Tier II Implement IGC TRM I P
Combination Boiler for Space and Water Heat Implement IGC TRM I P
Furnace Implement IGC TRM I P
Boiler Implement IGC TRM I P
Storage Water Heater Retire
Tankless Water Heater Tier I Implement IGC TRM I P
Tankless Water Heater Tier II Retire
Smart Thermostat Implement IGC TRM I P
TRM Review X
Commercial Measures:
Condensing Unit Heater Process Evaluation Develop TRM I P
Boiler Reset Control Process Evaluation Develop TRM I P
High-Efficiency Condensing Boiler Process Evaluation Develop TRM I P
Fryer Process Evaluation Develop TRM I P
Steamer Process Evaluation Develop TRM I P
Griddle Process Evaluation Develop TRM I P
TRM Review X
Evaluation Type: 1=Impact, P=Process, O= Other
INT-G-25-05
Exhibit 1 to Application
Page 23 of 23

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
CASE No. INT-G-25-05
ATTACHMENT 1
2024 ANNUAL REPORT
(34 PAGES

Nw,
OF
3
AINTERMOUNTAIN' Energy INT-G-25-05
GAS COMPANY
A Subsidiary of MDU Resources Group,Inc. Efficiency Attachment 1 to Application
In the Community to Serve

Y
Ali
;'
.01
j
r
'
7N 4'
R- y
y
INT-G-25-05 1
Attachment 1 to Application

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
" INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
\ �+ COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
J RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM . . . . . . . . 5
RESIDENTIAL REBATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
WHOLE HOME TIER I INCENTIVE
WHOLE HOME TIER II INCENTIVE
FURNACE INCENTIVES
BOILER— 95%AFUE INCENTIVE
COMBINATION BOILER —95%AFUE INCENTIVE
SMART THERMOSTAT INCENTIVES
STORAGE WATER HEATER INCENTIVE
TANKLESS WATER HEATER
ENERGY EFFICIENCY OUTREACH
AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CUSTOMERS
BUILDERS AND THE HOME BUYING COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM . . . . . . 23
COMMERICAL REBATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
T CONDENSING UNIT HEATER INCENTIVE
BOILER RESET CONTROL INCENTIVE
HIGH EFFICIENCY CONDENSING BOILER INCENTIVE
FRYER — ENERGY STAR CERTIFIED INCENTIVE
STEAMER— ENERGY STAR CERTIFIED INCENTIVE
GRIDDLE — ENERGY STAR CERTIFIED INCENTIVE
COMMERCIAL PROGRAM OUTREACH,
AWARENESS AND EDUCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
ENERGY EFFICIENCY STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE. . . .29
SECURING AN ENERGY EFFICIENT FUTURE . . . . . . . . . .29
ENERGY EFFICIENCY: NEXT STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
6
Pw
INT-G-25-05
B Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2024 Annual Report for Intermountain Gas Company outlines the continued growth and performance of its
Energy Efficiency Programs,which serve both residential and commercial customers.The Company applied the
same cost-effectiveness testing methodology from the previous year, using updated savings data from the 2024
Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V)study. Participation in rebate programs increased for the sixth
consecutive year,with over 10,000 rebates issued,a 22.5%increase over 2023. The Company deemed both the
Residential and Commercial Programs cost-effective,with Utility Cost Test(UCT) ratios of 1.2 and 2.3, respectively.
The Residential Program saw strong engagement across a variety of rebates, including Whole Home incentives,
high-efficiency furnaces, boilers,smart thermostats, and water heaters.While some measures like smart thermostats
and furnaces had lower cost-effectiveness,others,such as Whole Home Tier I and tankless water heaters,
performed well. Outreach efforts were expanded through digital campaigns, in-person builder and contractor
events, and a new DIY weatherization video series,which helped increase web traffic and customer engagement.
The Commercial Program,though newer and slower to gain traction,showed promise with high cost-
effectiveness in select rebates like high-efficiency boilers. However, a process evaluation revealed challenges
including low awareness, limited contractor involvement. Recommendations included enhancing marketing,
formalizing contractor engagement, and expanding rebate offerings to better meet business needs.
Looking ahead,the Company plans to implement a Trade Ally Program to strengthen contractor
relationships,expand its rebate portfolio, and continue leveraging partnerships with industry organizations
to stay at the forefront of energy-efficient technologies.These efforts aim to secure long-term,cost-
effective energy savings and support a more energy-efficient future for Intermountain's customers.
�I
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
J& "w-
-r
now
I
- r.7Jy
1NT-G-25'05y Ira••
Attachment 1 to Appli *,,��

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 3
INTRODUCTION
At the time of writing of this report, Case No. INT-G-24-05 is still under consideration.Any Orders that are to come from
that case are still unknown.To maintain consistency,the Company used the same approach as in the 2023 annual
report to prepare this report. For cost-effectiveness testing,the Company used the evaluated savings from the 2024
Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM&V)study,just as it did for the 2023 cost-effectiveness analysis:for the
Whole Home Tier I and Tier II incentive,evaluated savings are based on a modeling analysis,for all other measures,
evaluated savings are based on a deemed savings analysis.
Customers have continued to increase their participation in the rebate program for the sixth year in a row. In 2024,
Intermountain paid a total of 10,437 rebates to customers across the Residential and Commercial programs combined,
marking a 22.5% increase from the previous year.At the Program level, both the Residential and Commercial Programs
were cost-effective with a Utility Cost Test(UCT) ratio of 1.2 and 2.3, respectively.
As part of its regular planning, implementation, and evaluation cycle,the Company commissioned an Evaluation,
Measurement and Verification (EM&V)study for the Residential Program.After applying updated unit energy savings
estimates,the Company found that four residential measures had a UCT below 1.0. Using the updated evaluation data
the Company submitted a program revision that is awaiting approval at the time of writing this report.The Company
also proposed using the IGC Technical Reference Manual,which is designed specifically for the Program.
In addition to the Residential EM&V and Process evaluation,the Company commissioned a Process evaluation for
the Commercial Program.The Commercial Process evaluation was started in 2024 and was complete in 2025.The
Company is actively implementing the process evaluation's recommendations which primarily focus on improving
program marketing and outreach and contractor engagement.
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

4 INTRODUCTION
COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING METHODOLOGY
Intermountain's objective is for all rebates to have benefit/cost ratios equal to or greater than one,when measured
by the Utility Cost Test(UCT).The UCT measures cost-effectiveness from the utility company's perspective and takes
into consideration avoided supply costs, Program administration costs,and incentives paid by the utility. Rebates
undergo cost tests at several stages: preliminary design, implementation,annual review, and during the Evaluation,
Measurement and Verification study(EM&V.)The cost-effectiveness of rebates is also evaluated based on the
customer's perspective using avoided supply costs, Program administration costs, and net participant costs in the Total
Resource Cost Test(TRC.)The TRC is not the primary cost test used for decisions regarding the inclusion of rebate
offerings. In calculating the UCT and TRC, Intermountain relies on the calculations outlined in the California Standard
Practice Manual and the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency's(NAPEE), Understanding Cost-effectiveness of
Energy Efficiency Programs: Best Practices,Technical Methods, and Emerging Issues for Policy-Makers.
As an entire Portfolio,the Residential and Commercial programs combined,the portfolio achieved a UCT of 1.2.
To conduct Program-level cost-effectiveness testing for the respective Programs,the Company directly assigned
expenses to the Residential and Commercial Programs. For example,any expenses related to residential customer
outreach,such as the customer engagement activity or participation in the Building Contractors Association (BCA)were
charged to the Residential Program expense account. Likewise, all expenses related specifically to the Commercial
Program activities, like the commercial customer survey development,were charged to the Commercial Program
expense account.
If an activity or expense related to both the Residential and Commercial Program, Intermountain allocated the
expenses between the Residential and Commercial Programs. For example, professional membership fees to the
Association of Energy Service Professionals,which provided training on topics relevant to general energy efficiency
program management,such as cost-effectiveness, rather than a topic specific to a particular program,were allocated
between the Residential and Commercial Program.The allocation method was applied to other expenses such as
promotional give away items used at both residential and commercial events,equipment cleaning of booth kit items
used at both commercial and residential events,and expenses related to participation in industry groups like GTI
Energy and the Association of Energy Service Professionals(AESP)that address both commercial and residential
topics. This expense allocation was updated to reflect the activity of the programs,'shared expenses were split by a
92%allocation to the Residential Program and 8%allocation to the Commercial Program.The allocation was based on
the recorded service-starts for the residential and commercial sectors.
Program outreach and education activities for both the Residential and Commercial Energy Efficiency Programs are
outlined in this report. Together,the Residential Program and the Commercial Program make up the Energy Efficiency
Portfolio.Any Program level discussion or reporting will specify Residential or Commercial Program. For simplicity,
Program reporting is separated into two distinct sections which cover Program funding, Program cost-effectiveness,
individual measure cost-effectiveness, as well as Program outreach, awareness, and education.
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 5
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
Residential customers fund the Residential Energy Efficiency Program
through the Energy Efficiency Charge(EEC-RS), a monthly per therm Revenue $ 3,989,432
charge.As of December 31, 2024,the Company had an over-collected Program Expenses
EEC-RS Program balance of$1,027,286.To address this overcollection Residential Rebates 3,394,896
and align collections with rebate growth,on October 1, 2024,the EEC- Labor 687,127
RS was reduced from $0.01564 per therm to $0.01149 per therm.The Program Delivery 91,803
Company will continue monitoring rider balance fluctuations to maintain Special Studies 141,090
rate stability and prevent excessive over-or under-collection.Table 1 Market Transformation -
provides detailed information on the 2024 Rider balance.
Total Program Expenses 4,314,916
2024 Rider Deferral
Over/(Under)Collection (325,483)
Prior Year Rider Balance
Over/(Under)Collection 1,352,769
Rider Account Balance
Over/(Under)Collection $ 1,027,286
Table 1 Residential Rider 2024
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

6 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
RESIDENTIAL REBATES
Whole Home Tier I Incentive
The Whole Home Tier I incentive provided residential customers a $900 rebate for new construction homes that met
the following criteria:
• HERS rated
• Air sealing at or below 3 ACH at 50 Pa
• Ceiling insulation at or above R-49
• Ducts and air handler located inside conditioned space or duct leakage to outside of less than 4 CFM25/100 ft2 CFA
• Furnace efficiency at or above 97%AFUE
The Company received 35 qualifying applications for this incentive during the 2024 Program Year.The 2024 impact
evaluation resulted in 183 therms per unit,or 6,405 annual therm savings. Based on the evaluated savings,the
incentive was cost-effective under the UCT analysis,with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.0.The TRC ratio was 0.9.
Figure 2 illustrates the year over year comparison of the number of incentives issued in 2024 compared to 2023.
Whole Home Tier 12023 vs 2024
4D 2023
2024
3b
3U
25
c
0
U 2U
N
a
m
o:
15
10
S
0
WHOLE HOME TIER 1
Rebate Type Name
Showing 2 of 2 data points
Figure 2 2024 Whole Home Tier 12023 vs.2024
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 7
Whole Home Tier II Incentive
The Whole Home Tier II incentive provided residential customers a $700 rebate for new construction homes that met
the following criteria:
• HERS rated
• Air sealing at or below 4 ACH at 50 Pa
• Ducts and air handler located inside conditioned space or duct leakage to outside of less than 4 CFM25/100 ft2 CFA
• Furnace efficiency at or above 95%AFUE
There were 1,744 Whole Home Tier II rebates paid. The 2024 impact evaluation reported savings of 110 therms per unit,
or 191,840 therms attributable to the Whole Home Tier II rebate.The evaluated savings were cost-effective under the
UCT analysis with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.5.The TRC ratio was 0.5.
A year over year comparison of the Whole Home Tier II incentives issued in 2024 compared to 2023 is shown in
Figure 3.
Whole Home Tier 2 2023 vs 2024
2K • 2023
2024
L�K
c
0
O
U 1K
d
a
a
m
o:
SO
Rebate Type Name
Figure 3 2024 Whole Home Tier 12023 vs.2024
Out of the 62 home builders that received a whole home rebate, 50 builders opted to also install at least one stack-on
rebate. Stack-on rebates are the addition of a smart thermostat,water heating measure, or both,stacked on a Whole
Home rebate.Approximately 69%of all whole home rebates received at least one stack-on rebate. Figures 4 and 5
illustrate the stack-on rebates added to the Whole Home incentive. For Whole Home Tier I, builders most frequently
stack on a smart thermostat. Similarly,for Whole Home Tier ll,the most common stack-on is smart thermostat,followed
by the combination of a smart thermostat and a tankless water heater.
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

8 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
Whole Home Tier 1 Stack-on Rebates Issued (2024)
8
7
G
t s
c
O
U
0
C
O
U
W
F 3 3
2
1 1
0
whl tankless tier 1 and tstat slack-on whl tankless tier 1 stack-on whl smart thermostat stack-on
Stack-on—
Showing 3 of 3 data points
Figure 4 Whole Home Tier I Stack-On Rebates
Whole Home Tier 2 Stack-on Rebates Issued (2024)
aOU
714
/OJ
60
t 5ou
c
O
Y
u
n 400
c
0
O
U
m
,00 300
224 229
200
100
18
2
a
wh2 storage water heater wh2 storage wh and tstat wh2 tankless tier 1 stack-on wh2 tankless tier 1 and tstat wh2 smart thermostat stack-on
stack-on stack-on stack-on
Stack-on-
Showing 5 of 5 data points
Figure 5 Whole Home Tier II Stack-On Rebates
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 9
Furnace Incentive
The furnace incentive provided residential customers with a $350 rebate for the installation of a high-efficiency natural
gas furnace with a minimum efficiency rating of 95%AFUE.There was a total of 4,032 furnace rebates issued by the
Company in 2024.The evaluated per unit therm savings based on the deemed savings approach for the furnace was
44 therms per unit,or 177,408 therms attributable to the Furnace rebate.The evaluated savings under the UCT analysis
resulted in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.9.The TRC was 0.3.
Figure 6 is a year over year comparison of the number of incentives issued in 2024 compared to 2023.
Furnace - 95%AFUE 2023 vs 2024
4 5K 2023
2024
4K
3.5K
3K
2.5K
o�
V
ro
'a
2K
1.5K
1K
500
0
FURNACE-95%AFUE
Rebate Type Name-
Showing 2 of data points
Figure 6 Furnace Rebates 2023 vs.2024
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

10 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
Boiler - 95%AFUE Incentive
The boiler incentive provided residential customers with an $800 rebate for the installation of a high-efficiency boiler
with a minimum efficiency rating of 95%AFUE.The Company issued 13 rebates in 2024,for total annual therm savings
of 1,339 therms.The evaluated savings under the UCT analysis resulted in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.3.The TRC was 0.9.
Figure 7 is a year over year comparison of the number of incentives issued in 2024 compared to 2023.
Boiler- 95%AFUE 2023 vs 2024
a 2023
2024
12
IO
8
c
0
O
U
d
a
a
w
� 6
4
2
0
BOILER-95%AFUE
Rebate Type Name-
Showing 2 of 2 data points
Figure 7 Boiler Rebates 2023 vs 2024
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 11
Combination Boiler — 95%AFUE Incentive
The combination boiler incentive provided residential customers with an $800 rebate for the installation of a high-
efficiency combination boiler with a minimum efficiency rating of 95%AFUE.There were three rebates issued by the
Company in 2024.The 2024 impact evaluation reported savings of 168 therms per unit, or 504 therms attributable
to the Combination Boiler rebate in 2024.The evaluated savings were cost-effective under the UCT analysis with a
benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.9.The TRC was 0.5.
Figure 8 is a year over year comparison of the number of incentives issued in 2024 compared to 2023.
Combination Boiler- 95%AFUE 2023 vs 2024
5 2023
2024
c
0
O 4
w
'm
a
d
o:
3
2
1
0
COMBINATION BOILER-95%AFUE
Rebate Type Name—
Showing 2 of data points
Figure 8 Combi Boiler 2023 vs.2024
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

12 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
Smart Thermostat Incentive
The smart thermostat incentive provided residential customers with up to a $100 rebate for the installation of an
Energy Star Certified thermostat. Program Terms and Conditions do not allow for incentive payments to exceed the
amount paid for equipment. In 2024 a total of 3,389 thermostat rebates were issued by the Company.The 2024
impact evaluation savings based on deemed savings approach was of 21 therms per unit,or 71,169 therms attributable
to the Thermostat rebate.The evaluated savings under the UCT analysis resulted in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.7.The
TRC was 0.4.
Figure 9 is a year over year comparison of the number of incentives issued in 2024 compared to 2023.
Smart Thermostat 2023 vs 2024
4K • 2023
0 2024
bK
3K
2 oK
c
0
O
U 2K
m
`a
N
o:
1.5K
1K
500
0
SMART THERMOSTAT
Rebate Type Name-
Showing 2 of 2 data points
Figure 9 Smart Thermostat 2023 vs 2024
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 13
Storage Water Heater Incentive
The storage water heater incentive provided residential customers a $115 rebate for the installation of a storage water
heater with a minimum efficiency rating of 0.68 UEF.A total of 29 water heater rebates were issued by the Company in
2024.The Company did not differentiate the water heater incentive by tank size,although to evaluate savings, rebated
water heaters were sorted by tank size: greater than 55 gallons and equal to or less than 55 gallons. Evaluated savings
based on the 2024 impact evaluation were 25 therms per unit for water heaters equal to or less than 55 gallons, and
two therms for water heaters with tank size greater than 55 gallons.The federal standard for storage water heaters
over 55 gallons is more stringent than storage water heaters with smaller storage sizes, resulting in very low savings.
Together,the evaluated savings for storage water heaters was 679 therms.The evaluated savings under the UCT
analysis resulted in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.9 for storage water heaters equal to or less than 55 gallons and 0.1 for
storage water heaters over 55 gallons.The TRC was 0.4 for storage water heaters equal to or less than 55 gallons and
0.0 for storage water heaters over 55 gallons.
Figure 10 is a year over year comparison of the number of incentives issued in 2024 compared to 2023.
Storage Water Heater 2023 vs 2024
3b 2023
2024
30
2]
c
O
U
m
m
a
m
Iu
0
STORAGE WATER HEATER
Rebate Type Name
Showing 2 ut 2 Wtl p-,l
Figure 10 Storage Water Heater 2023.vs 2024
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

14 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
Tankless Water Heater Incentive
The Tankless Water Heater Tier I incentive provided residential customers with a $325 rebate for the installation of
a condensing tankless water heater with a minimum efficiency of 0.91 UEF.There were 1,164 rebates paid in 2024.
Evaluated savings from the 2024 impact evaluation resulted in 59 therms per unit,or 68,676 therms of evaluated
savings.The evaluated savings were cost-effective under the UCT analysis with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.6.The TRC
was 0.3.
Figure 11 is a year over year comparison of the number of Tankless Water Heater Tier I incentives issued in 2024
compared to 2023.
Tankless Water Heater Tier 12023 vs 2024
1.4K 2023
i 2024
12K
1K
800
c
0
U
N
a
m
� G()0
400
2DO
0
TANKLESS WATER HEATER TIER I
Rebate Type Name-
Showing 2 of 2 data paints
Figure 11 Tankless Tier 12023 vs.2024
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 15
The Tankless Water Heater Tier II incentive provided residential customers with a $300 rebate for the installation of
a condensing tankless water heater with a minimum efficiency of 0.87 UEF.There were four rebates paid in 2024.
Evaluated savings from the 2024 impact evaluation resulted in 48 therms per unit for the Tier II tankless water heater,
or a total of 192 therms attributable to the rebate.The evaluated savings under the UCT analysis resulted in a benefit-
to-cost ratio of 1.3. The TRC was 0.4.
Figure 12 is a year over year comparison of the number of incentives issued in 2024 compared to 2023.
Tankless Water Heater Tier 2 2023 vs 2024
2023
2024
a
u
c
0
0
U
N
a
s a
1
0
TANKLESS WATER HUkTER TIER II
Rebate Type Name
�:�,-',a-ins:?r-1�ca.,.�.�u•.s
Figure 12 Tankless Tier 2 2023 vs 2024
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

16 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
ENERGY EFFICIENCY OUTREACH AND
EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
In 2024 the Company actively promoted Program incentives and energy saving resources to residential customers,
builders,contractors, and the communities in the Intermountain Gas service territory.
Guiding Questions
The Company regularly updated and gathered feedback from the Energy Efficiency Stakeholder Committee(EESC)
throughout the year.An independent third party also provided additional guidance by conducting a Process Evaluation.
Below is a summary of guiding questions and considerations the Company has received from these groups and used
to guide efforts to promote the IGC EE Residential Program.
• How have we implemented lessons learned from previous outreach activity?
• How do we measure success in our outreach activities?
• How do we increase outreach and available program information to customers and contractors?
Residential Program Outreach Highlights
• From 2023 to 2024,five of six IGC EE Residential web pages had increases in web traffic. Increases in traffic varied
between 16%and 61%.
o The Whole Home Rebate web page had the largest increase in page traffic at 61%,followed by the savings
calculator and energy saving tips page with 54% increases in web page traffic.
• 2 days of in-person meetings were conducted with area home builders and contractors in Pocatello.
• The Company partnered with Treasure Valley Habitat for Humanity to create a Do-It-Yourself(DIY) home
weatherization instructional video series to provide customers with a timeless educational resource for home
energy savings.
Customers
The Company used multiple methods to promote energy efficiency resources, aligning with customers' communication
preferences, and increasing program awareness among both new and existing customers. Below here is a summary of
2024 outreach with IGC Customers:
• The Company included the Energy Efficiency Program brochure with new customer letters, reaching 26,159 new
customers.
• The Company posted monthly on social media to share energy saving tips and rebate information.
• Each quarter,the Company emailed residential customers who subscribed to energy efficiency related topics,
ranging from 192,000 to 195,000 subscribers each quarter.
• Over 500 customers participated in the annual customer engagement activity: "Watch and Win" Sweepstakes, by
watching the instructional home weatherization videos.
• The Company placed Energy Efficiency Program ads in over 330,000 copies of Parade of Homes and Real Estate
Magazines distributed throughout the service territory.
The 2023 Easy Savings Kit campaign inspired the launch of the 2024 DIY weatherization campaign. Survey responses
about the Energy Savings Kits showed that customers wanted more instructions for installing DIY home weatherization
measures. Based on this feedback,and given the popularity of video-based content,the Company partnered with
Treasure Valley Habitat for Humanity to create a series of six videos,1-2 minutes in length,which provide customers
with a step-by-step demonstration of how to install DIY home weatherization measures. The Company hosts these
videos on its Energy Saving Tips page as a permanent resource for customers.
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 17
To promote the availability of this new resource, `
Watch and Win
the Company hosted the"Watch and Win" With Treasure Valley Habitat for Humanity and Intermountain Gas!
Sweepstakes throughout the month of September. Leakywindows?Draftydmm?Join moamournain Gas and the home building
I
expe ary how-to rts at Habitat for Humanity to learn how to weatherize your home with our ideos!e v
For this Sweepstake opportunity, residential ii� 9' '
1 Vote for the video you found nom beneficial for a chance to win I of 5$100 gift
customers were invited to watch the six videos _ tardy
.IIIII!
Go to www.ln[gas.com/saving-aps/or wan the QR rode below with a mobile
and vote for the one they found most beneficial to device.
be entered in the sweepstakes.At the end of the ° • °
sweepstakes,the Company randomly selected five °
winners to receive a $100 gift card.The Company
promoted the sweepstake opportunity via bill Be the first to know!
insert and e-bill insert to all residential customers 1
and shared through weekly social media posts Opt in to Energy Efficiency email updates to receive energy
savings tips and stay up to date on program offerings.Sign
during the sweepstakes period.The Company into your online account to subscribe to Energy Efficiency Ual ++�
email notifications today! r,m
sent an additional notice about the sweepstakes
to email subscribers. Following the sweepstakes
the videos garnered almost 3,000 views in total,
and 548 qualifying entries were received. On the Figure 13 Watch and Win Bill Insert
bill insert used to promote the sweepstakes,there
were 73 recorded QR code scans.The Company will continue featuring the Home Weatherization video series in
future program promotions as a customer resource.The 2024 bill insert is provided in Figure 13. Since customers must
actively subscribe to receive emails related to saving energy,the bill insert included a call to action to subscribe to
receive energy saving related topics.
In 2023,the Company began sending quarterly energy efficiency email notifications to customers and tracked
performance by collecting open rates,click through rates,and percentage of subscribers from its residential customer
base.The Company uses this data to evaluate the effect of email messaging on customers making an energy-efficient
choice and applying for an IGC rebate. See Table 2 for a summary of email performance for residential customers in 2024.
Residential
Date #Sent Open Rate CTR #of Customers Subscribers
Q1 3.19.24 192,987 39% 23% 384,508 50%
2024 Q2 6.18.24 193,200 52% 0.9% 385,872 50.1%
Q3 9.10.24 193,694 54% 1% 387,364 50%
Q4 1 12.10.24 1 195,557 1 56% 1 2% 1 392,064 1 50%
Table 2 2024 Customer Email Performance by quarter
Based on information from Questline Digital's 2024 Energy Utility Benchmarks Report'emails regarding Program
Promotions,such as those from an Energy Efficiency Program, return open rates of 43.58%on average and click
through rates with an average of 0.66%. Intermountain's email campaigns performed better than the industry average
on open rates,3 of the 4 months, and better than the industry average on click through rates for all 4 months.
Additionally, as indicated in the 2024 Process Evaluation, email is the most preferred method of communication for IGC
customers. In a survey of IGC rebate recipients,71.7%of the respondents indicated email as their preferred method
of communication as seen in figure 14. Due to Company customer communication policies, customers must opt-in
to receive energy saving themed email.The Company will continue to promote encouraging customers to opt-in to
energy efficiency email notifications alongside promoting available rebates.
INT-G-25-05
1 Utility Benchmarks Report-Questline Digital Attachment I to Application

18 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
Email 71.7%
Bill inserts 43.5/o
IGC website/customer portal 40.8%
Mailed information 23.8%
Social media 22.9%
Community events � 10.3%
Community fliers 5.8%
Webinars M 2.7%
Billboard 1 0.9%
Text message 1 1.3%
Radio 1 0.9%
Don't know 1 0.4%
Prefer not to answer 1 0.9%
0.0% 10.09/6 20.00/6 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.00/6 70.0% 80.0%
Figure 14 Preferred Communication Style,2024 Process Evaluation
To better understand the effectiveness of outreach methods,the Company asks rebate applicants how they heard
about the Program. Figure 15 illustrates the number of responses to the question `how did you hear about the
program'.The increased number responses of"bill insert" in October and November,the months immediately following
the September bill insert distribution,suggest the"Watch and Win"sweepstakes was effective in getting customers to
take an energy saving action.
"How did you hear about the Program?"Responses- Equipment Replacement- Las...
The responses customers gave for how they heard about the program by month,for the previous year
10000% • Bill Insert
• CommunrtyEvenl
• Direct Mad
• Egmprnont Doaler/Installor
olh«
E
L
i
o nc
0
� • lMobsrte
U
U
m
0
25 00%
000%
Jan Apr Jul Oct
Figure 15."How did you hear about the Program?"
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 19
The number of rebate submissions received through the customer webapp is another indicator of rebate activity.
Figure 16 below shows weekly rebate submissions through the customer webapp.The increase in web applications
following quarterly customer emails, shown by the spikes in the months of March,June,September, and December,
indicate email is also an effective method of raising program awareness and increasing customer participation in taking
an energy saving action.
Weekly Customerwebapp Submissions Monitoring web traffic through
]0
the IGC EE web pages serves
6o ag as another indicator of program
a2 awareness among customers.
ao This year the company noticed
44 44
an increase in total annual web
40 38 traffic for 5 out of 6 EE residential
E 32 33
30 3o web pages,with increases in web
30 2a \$4 \s2 20 traffic between 16%and 61%. Pages
17 23 1
/� �0
2017 /1 18 � such as the appliance rebate page
p �a ° te
a a ' 14 '° ,2 a�1 ' ` \a and energy saving tips pages
/ a experienced spikes in activity when
p i featured during outreach efforts
Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 Ju101 Aug of Sep o1 Oci o1 Nov 01 Dec01 Jan of
such as the Customer Engagement
weerN sueminan Dale. }
Showing 44 pf 44 d-points fpr 2024
Activity and quarterly customer
Figure 16 Monthly Rebate Applications via Customer WebApp
emails in March,June,September,
and December. IGC EE web pages not directly highlighted in email campaigns or other promotional activity experienced
simultaneous increases in web traffic at these times, indicating further interaction with program materials following
promotional activity.Tables 3,4, and 5 contain web page traffic information for EE residential web pages in 2024.
IGC EE Appliance Rebate Web Page Visitors by IGC EE Energy Savings Tips Web Page Visitors By
Month Month
2500
3500
L
o 2 2000 0 3000
m 2500
0 1500
0 2000
>
m 1000 > 1500
° 1000
500 a
a
0 500
E a 0
z' 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec E Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month Z Month
Table 3 IGC EE Appliance Rebate Page Visits by Month Table 4 IGC EE Energy Saving Tips Web Page Visits
Residential IGC EE Web Page Visitors By Month
1400 —
0 1200
ro l000
o goo
> 600 —
T 400 —
0
v 200 —
E 0
Z Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Table 5 IGC EE Residential EE Web Page Visits
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

20 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
Builders and the home buying community
The Company actively promoted the Program by partnering with state-
wide and local Building Contractor Associations.The Company attended I xea ate,
meetings, hosted informational tables at BCA events,and leveraged ESR
connections to build and maintain relationships with local home builders ua
across the service territory.See the summary of outreach conducted with
home builders in 2024 below:
Ene i Y
• Hosted an information table during the Idaho Falls Parade of Homes, in w ouNTaN Q Eff�c �Y
the garage space of a home receiving an Intermountain Gas rebate to Figure 17 Idaho Falls Parade Home Display
interact with Parade visitors, Figure 17
• Participated in the Builder's Expo,and a builder exclusive event, in Idaho
Falls and Canyon County
o Canyon County attendance: 32 builders
o Idaho Falls attendance:14 builders. i!
• Information table placed at 3 State BCA Meetings, approximately Smart r,°°ha,de,.
a gas ao Energy[fficenry,Inc co c L tear_
250 in attendance at each meeting.
• Hosted a booth at each Local BCA golf tournament where available. . "may
o Attendance ranged between 70-230 BCA members,
including multiple builder interactions at each tournament. Each
.
tournament provided opportunities to interact with builders 4�
learning about the Program for the first time and maintain r
relationships with builders who have previously received IGC
rebates. •`
• Energy Efficiency messaging in Parade of Homes Magazine throughout 'a en1 Ka°r:o:wo M ,,, 1
o0:
the service territory with over 330,000 print issues distributed and online
�1%.y;vnOUMeN o EffcencY 0��®0
copies available, Figure 18
• IGC EE and ESR co-hosted in-person meeting held with 22 Pocatello Figure 18 Energy Efficiency 2024 Parade
area builders to inform on Company updates and overview of EE rebate of Homes Ad
program, Figure 19
In 2024 there were 62 builders who received a Whole Home rebate,a
decrease of four builders from 66 in 2023.The Company continues to
explore ways to reach builders that are not members of a building contractor
association.
Contractors
Contractors continue to be a main source of information for customers to
learn about program offerings.This is supported by both responses to the T =;
question `how did you hear about us?' on residential rebate applications
and the 2024 Process evaluation as shown in Figures 14 and 15.To continue
developing Program awareness with contractors the Company maintained Figure 19 Pocatello Builder and Contractor
existing methods of outreach and is considering new opportunities for Meeting
bolstering the partnership between the Program and contractors that are
covered in the`What's Next'section later in this report.
In 2024,the Company saw a 21%increase in participating residential
contractors from 196 in 2023,to 237 in 2024. Out of the 237 participating
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 21
contractors in 2024,124 were identified as returning contractors from 2023. Contractor outreach is summarized below:
• In-person interactions with contractors through Building Contractor Association events at golf hole sponsorships, or
at in-person meeting attendance hosted in partnership with the ESR team.
• Promoted educational Gas Heat Pump webinar to all participating contractors identified on rebate applications
through email communications.
• Mailed a postcard to all participating contractors highlighting tips to successful customer rebate applications
addressing things like frequently overlooked info.The postcard is shown in Figure 20.
• Partnered with ESR to host an in-person meeting in Pocatello for 14 contractors to provide operational updates and
promote the rebate program.
asAN W__ A
You're there for your
customers,we're here for you.
Quick tips for successful rebate applications:
• The equipments model and serial must be on the
invoice.
• Include the BTU input,operational status,and
efficiency Secure per its equipment being replaced.
• Secure permits and final inspections before
-. customers submit applications.
• Visit Intgas.com/saveenergy for rebate
r{{ applications and full program details.
Energy
^GAS COMPANY AIN' Q Efficiency
.—MERMS00mil Aft
Figure 20 2024 Contractor Postcard
Community
The Company used community outreach to promote energy efficiency at large public events and support organizations
that share its commitment to energy-saving practices. Below is a summary of the Company's community-wide outreach
in 2024:
• Advertising with Idaho Falls Spud Kings:
o Video board, ribbon board, and printed program advertising at 39 regular season games
• Video and ribbon board ads displayed 20 times per game.
• 6,000+ print programs distributed during games, Figure 21
• 150,229 total season attendance
• Pocatello Portneuf Environmental Fair with over 3,000 in attendance.
• KIND Pocatello Community Coloring Book: energy saving-themed coloring page distributed to 7,000 elementary
grade students.
11111111111-1110
THE AFFORDABILITY` Yr'�
V
ENE Y
HAT
TR�� EFFICIENCY
wlth Intermount Gas Energy
® N'fA1N W Efrjue^CJ
G SAFETY w�Vp j4 V C
' 'P ��CQQQ��rv, - 705
cr111111n® n_^° ^µ axon
AttAac ent 1 to App tcation
Figure 21 Energy Efficient Ad Figure 22 2024 Portneuf Environmental Fair Figure 23 Pocatello KIND
9 9Y Y 9 9
Idaho Spud Kings Coloring Book

22 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
What's Next?
The Company recognizes contractors as key partners in delivering energy efficiency to our customers. Because
customers often view them as energy experts,contractors play a critical role at the point of decision. In 2025 the
Company plans to expand contractor participation in the energy efficiency program by launching an outreach
campaign and establishing a trade ally network. The outreach campaign aims to raise awareness,while the trade
ally network will function as a membership-based organization offering benefits such as a streamlined application
portal and a contractor directory on the Intermountain Gas website to foster stronger relationships and more effective
communication with HVAC and plumbing contractors.
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 23
COMMERCIAL ENERGY
EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
The Commercial Program was approved by the Commission and went into effect as of April 1, 2021.All customers who
received natural gas under the Company's GS-1 rate class were eligible to participate in the Program through 2024.
The Commercial Program offers rebates on natural gas equipment meeting specific high-efficiency requirements and
can be applied to replacement equipment, conversion from other fuel sources, and new construction.
Commercial customers fund the Program through the Energy Efficiency Charge(EEC-GS) rider, a monthly per therm
charge to commercial customers.As of December 31, 2024,the Company had an over-collected EEC-GS Program
balance of$1,034,285. Due to slow uptake of the Commercial Program,the Company filed to decrease the EEC-GS
rate. On October 1, 2024,the EEC-GS was reduced from $0.00320 to$0.00 per therm. In 2024,the Company paid
out$54,828 directly to customers in the form of incentive rebates. Table 6 provides full details of the 2024 commercial
rider balance.
In this section, 2024 performance and cost-effectiveness,are covered for each rebate. Commercial Program outreach,
promotion, and education activities are also included.
COMMERCIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
The UCT for the Commercial Program was 0.9,with a TRC ratio of 1.
Rebates 2024 Commercial Rider Balance
Condensing Unit Heater Incentive Revenue $ 294,202
The Condensing Unit Heater incentive offered customers a $1,500 Program Expenses
rebate for the installation of a high-efficiency unit heater with a Commercial Rebates 54,828
minimum efficiency rating of 90%AFUE.The Company received no Labor 82,381
applications for the installation of this piece of equipment in 2024. Program Delivery 12,108
Special Studies 2,320
Boiler Reset Control Incentive Market Transformation -
The Boiler Reset Control incentive offered customers a $350 rebate
for the installation of a boiler reset control.The Company received no Total Program Expenses 151,637
applications for the installation of this piece of equipment in 2024.
2024 Rider Deferral
Over/(Under)Collection 142,566
High Efficiency Condensing Boiler Incentive
The High Efficiency Condensing Boiler incentive offered customers Prior Year Rider Balance
a $4.50/kBTUh incentive for the installation of a high-efficiency Over/(Under)Collection 891,719
condensing boiler with a minimum efficiency rating of 90%Thermal
Efficiency(TE)and a minimum input of 300,000 BTU.The Company Rider Account Balance
issued seven rebates in 2024.
Over/(Under)Collection $ 1,034,285
Table 6 Commercial Energy Efficiency Rider
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

24 COMMERCIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
The incentive was cost-effective under the UCT analysis,with a cost-effectiveness ratio of 3.7.The TRC ratio was 3.0.
Figure 24 is a year over year comparison of the number of incentives issued in 2024 compared to 2023.
High Efficiency Condensing Boiler 2023 vs 2024
•zoza
zoz4
3
2
t
0 sm
HIGH EFFICIENCY CONDENSING BOILER
Rebate Type Name-
Showina 2 et 2 da WInls
Figure 24 High Efficiency Boiler Rebates 2023 vs.2024
Fryer—ENERGY STAR Certified Incentive
The Fryer incentive offered customers an $800 incentive for the installation of an ENERGY STAR Certified Fryer.The
Company issued 14 rebates during 2024.The UCT for the fryer was 0.9 and the TRC was 1.1. Figure 25 is a year over
year comparison of the number of incentives issued in 2024 compared to 2023.
Fryer- ENERGY STAR Certified 2023 vs 2024
2023
9 2024
V
5
0
FRYER-ENERGY STAR CERTIFIED
Rebate Type Name-
Showing 2 of data points
Figure 25 Commercial Fryer Rebates 2023 vs.2024
Steamer—ENERGY STAR Certified Incentive
The Steamer incentive offered customers a $1,100 incentive for the installation of an ENERGY STAR Certified Steamer.
The Company received no applications for the installation of this piece of equipment in 2024.
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 25
Griddle—ENERGY STAR Certified Incentive
The Griddle incentive offered customers a $200 incentive for the installation of an ENERGY STAR Certified Griddle.
The Company issued one rebate during 2024; no rebates were issued for this rebate in 2023.The UCT for the griddle
was 0.2 and the TRC was 0.2.
COMMERCIAL PROGRAM PROCESS EVALUATION
In 2024,the Company commissioned the first process evaluation of the Commercial Program.The study began in
2024 and concluded in 2025.The full report can be found in Supplement 1: Commercial Process Evaluation Report.
The Evaluator identified four key findings from the study:z
1. Limited Program Awareness:Only 42.9%of nonparticipants were aware of IGC's rebate offerings,
indicating a need for more effective marketing strategies.
2. Low Contractor Involvement:There is no formal contractor program, leading to confusion and low
engagement. Contractors play a crucial role in rebate awareness but are not well-informed about the
program.
3. Customer Engagement Barriers: Many nonparticipants were unsure about rebate availability for their
equipment, and tenant businesses face additional hurdles in discussing energy upgrades with landlords.
4. Verification Challenges:Verification of installed measures relies on self-reported data due to low survey
response rates, limiting the ability to confirm installations and assess program impact. Of the 48
participants, customers that received a commercial rebate,selected for the survey sample,only three
responded to the evaluator's survey despite multiple attempts.
The Evaluator concluded that the IGC Commercial Energy Efficiency Program faces significant challenges in customer
participation, contractor engagement, rebate verification, and marketing effectiveness. Despite these challenges,there
are clear opportunities for improvement. Enhancing marketing efforts,formalizing contractor engagement, improving
rebate verification,and expanding rebate offerings can help increase participation and overall program effectiveness.
The conclusions of the study resulted in four main recommendations for the Company:
1. Enhance Marketing and Outreach: Develop targeted communication strategies for decision-makers and
leverage contractor networks to improve awareness.
2. Formalize Contractor Engagement: Establish a trade ally program and provide clearer rebate application
guidance to ensure contractors accurately communicate incentives to clients.
3. Improve Rebate Verification:Strengthen participation incentives for customer surveys. Explore
opportunities to enhance ERAS tracking capabilities. Collecting more data points through ERA at the time
of rebate approval could save having a future evaluator contact and collect additional data from
participants.
4. Expand Rebate Offerings:Consider adding rebates for commonly requested but currently ineligible
equipment and develop custom rebate pathways for larger commercial projects.
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application
2 Supplement 1:Commercial Process Evaluation,p.21

26 COMMERCIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
The Evaluator submits that by implementing these recommendations, IGC can increase participation,strengthen
contractor engagement, improve rebate verification, and enhance customer satisfaction, ultimately ensuring that its
Commercial Energy Efficiency Program is more effective and impactful.
COMMERCIAL PROGRAM OUTREACH, AWARENESS
AND EDUCATION
In 2024,the Company used print, digital, and in-person outreach methods to promote awareness of the Commercial
Energy Efficiency Program among commercial customers, business owners, and industry partners such as commercial
HVAC/plumbing contractors,architects,and property developers.A summary of the outreach activities conducted for
the Commercial Program in 2024 is outlined in the following sections.
Guiding questions
The Company used feedback from the Energy Efficiency Stakeholder Committee to guide promotional efforts for the
coming year. Guiding questions for 2024 commercial outreach are outlined below.
• How do we promote Commercial Program resources to the right commercial decision makers more effectively?
• How do we measure success in our commercial outreach activities?
Commercial Program Outreach Highlights
• The Company launched a three-stage pilot program to survey commercial customers.
• 60,000+print copies of publications containing Commercial Program ads in the following areas:
• Idaho Business Review print and digital publications
• Book of Lists--12,000 print copies with online edition
• Earth Day edition of monthly publication-7,400 print recipients
• AIA Annual Publication, Design Awards Program, and Build a Better Idaho Program
• Buy Idaho Directory-30,000 print copies.
• Idaho Falls and Pocatello Chamber Magazine Advertising:
• Pocatello- 5,000 print copies.
• Idaho Falls-6,000 print copies.
• Annual sponsorship of the Idaho Chapter of the American Institute of Architects(AIA) including various
points of recognition, outlined later in this report.
• Sponsorship of the Idaho Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning's
(ASHRAE) annual Technical Conference with approximately 200 attendees composed of HVAC
professionals and engineers.
• Quarterly emails sent to commercial customer subscribers.
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 27
To learn more about commercial customers'equipment usage and energy efficiency preferences,the Company
designed a commercial customer survey.The survey aimed to identify the business decision makers for that customer
of record, and the building operators or facility managers who are familiar with the building equipment.To incentivize
participation in the survey, respondents were offered a $10 e-gift card as a thank you for their participation.The survey
was deployed in three stages, releasing the survey to incrementally larger groups of customers with each deployment.
Figure 26 illustrates how the survey was released in a 3-stage process to progressively larger groups of customers.
• Stage 1: Mailed postcards with survey invitation to 500 of the largest commercial gas consumers.The postcard is
featured in Figure 27 and 28. This resulted in one survey response.
• Stage 2:The survey invitation was emailed to all the commercial customers who subscribe to energy efficiency
topics.There were approximately 36,000 subscribers at the time the email was sent. This effort generated 32
responses.
• Stage 3: The third round of survey invitations was sent as a bill insert in the month of November and resulted in
one response.
The survey asks specifically for the building
operator or facilities manager to take the
0 0 survey. These responses will be used to
build a database of commercial customer
Pilot:500 recipients Opt-in Customer Bill Insert:all
from top 20%of users Email:—8,500 commercial contacts and related information about the
(Sent week of 8.6) recipients customers facility operations,such as the equipment
(Sent week of 9.24)
used on-site, enabling for more targeted
and customized future communications.
Figure 26 Commercial Customer Survey Deployment
The survey was designed to learn about the customer and will be able to be used for the foreseeable future. Given
the initial low response rate,the Company plans to continue to promote the survey as an avenue to engage with
commercial customers about energy saving opportunities.The Company will also reconsider if the $10 survey incentive
is enough to be effective.The 2024 Commercial Process evaluation indicated a higher incentive should be considered
to drive participation.4
calling all facilities Managers!
♦t Let's Work Together:
t1♦1 t+ Tell us how roar business uses natural€ you
m s want learn how better helping
you save money and energy.Scan below to take our survey
Y for a Chance to win a$10 Gift Card! about your natural gas equipment and receive a$10 e-gift card r
as a thank you for your time!
If you are having trouble accessing the survey,or have any other
v� questions,please email us at saveenergy®Intgas.com
a
R
AINTEWv10UNTAIN © eney ❑ `
GAS COMPANY
f i Y
Figure 27 Commercial Customer Survey Postcard(front) Figure 28 Commercial Customer Survey Postcard(back)
Engaging with industry organizations such as AIA and ASHRAE are known routes of interacting with members of the
design process for commercial building projects such as architects and property developers. In 2024 AIA held their
first`Build a Better Idaho' Construction Symposium, a weeklong educational seminar for engineers,architects, and
commercial contractors focusing on energy usage and sustainability in modern building practices.The Company
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application
4 Supplement 1:Commercial Process Evaluation,p.23

28 COMMERCIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
leveraged sponsorship of this event to promote the Commercial Program among attendees at a commercial-focused,
energy-focused event,see Figure 29.The Company received this promotion through AIA's annual sponsorship
structure which includes the list of benefits shown below.
• EE promotion in AIA Annual Membership r
Directory, Build a Better Idaho Program,and Design with success in mind.
newsletters to the membership of over 430 Choose energy efficient natural gas today._
people,390 of which being architects.
• Promotion of Gas Heat Pump webinars in -+ o
newsletters to AIA members -
• Recognition as AIA annuals sponsor on AIA
g p L;A W,
social media, marketing materials,and press Contact Intermountain Gas before your next project to learn how
using energy efficient natural gas can benefit your business.Visit
release relating to sponsored events www.intgas.com/saveenergy for complete Commercial energy ❑� .+
efficiency program incentives,offers,and ways to save.
• Verbal recognition as AIA annual sponsor INTERMOUNTAIN' Energy incgas.com
Acycoy O w Efficiency ®�
during Design Awards Conference and
Build a Better Idaho Construction Symposium r �'t
T THANK OU FOR ATTENDING:
HA
The Company also promoted the Commercial Program
to ASHRAE through sponsorship of their Technical
Conference with just under 200 member attendees.
As a sponsor,the Company gained visibility through "J
logo placement on conference signage and recognition
during session focused on commercial HVAC and >
engineering practices.The Company also hosted an
information table at the annual ASHRAE golf tournament. 1,100
As a hole sponsor,the Company engaged one-on-one AveIdaho
with tournament participants to promote the program,
many of whom are HVAC and design professionals.As Figure 29 Energy Efficiency Ad,Build a Better Idaho
shown in figure 30.
oil Q' ;
x ;
^�NToRM00NT41N' ^ Energy
efficiencyy
a.
�e
Figure 30 Interactive Hole Sponsor at ASHRAE
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

2024 ANNUAL REPORT 29
Commercial IGC EE Web Page Visitors By Month The Company monitors website traffic and email performance to
t zoo gauge customer engagement with energy efficiency initiatives.
c 180
2 160 Like the Residential Program,the Company emailed notifications
IiZ lao to commercial customers who opt-in to receiving energy saving
o izo 9 gY g
> too themed emails. Email sent to commercial customers produced
v ao
eo40 noticeable spikes in web traffic during the months of March,
zo September, and December.Tables 7 and 8 illustrate annual web
Z o page traffic and quarterly email performance.The call to action
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month to subscribe to EE email notifications remains a priority for the
Table 7 2024 Webpage Visits for Commercial Energy Efficiency Company in future outreach activities.
Commercial
Date #Sent Open Rate CTR #of Customers Subscribers
Q1 3.19.24 8,364 59% 3% 36,228 23%
2024 Q2 6.25.24 8,523 41% 0.8% 36,188 23.6%
Q3 9.24.24 8,769 44% 2% 36,145 24%
Q4 12.10.24 8,808 45% 1% 36,611 24%
Table 8 2024 Commercial Customer Email Performance
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE
In 2024, Intermountain held four meetings with the Energy Efficiency Stakeholder Committee(EESC).To ensure
more consistent and comprehensive updates,the Company increased the number of meetings from two to four
annually. Following a proposal from the November 2023 meeting,the Company followed a standardized agenda for
each session.The standard meeting agenda items included: a safety moment, updates on rider balances and rebate
performance, outreach and promotion efforts, program administration, special studies,and other special topics. EESC
meeting transcripts are provided in Supplement 3: EESC Meeting Notes.
SECURING AN ENERGY
EFFICIENT FUTURE
Intermountain actively explores cost-effective energy-saving solutions for immediate implementation while also pursing
future-focused technologies. In 2024,the Company chose not to renew its membership in the North American Natural
Gas Heat Pump Collaborative but remained active in two member driven groups focused on advancing innovative
energy-saving technologies at various stages of development.
• The Emerging Technology Program (ETP). Governed by GTI Energy, is a membership-based utility collaboration.
The collaboration works to "accelerate the commercialization and adoption of energy efficient technologies," and
"provides expertise for program planning, implementation and assessment as well as tailoring initiatives to meet
regional needs,support pilots and custom programs"5
INT-G-25-05
5 Emerging Technology Program•GTI Energy Attachment I t0 Application

30 COMMERCIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
• Through MDU Resources Group, Intermountain maintains corporate membership in the Energy Solutions Center
(ESC). ESC is a non-profit organization that promotes energy-efficiency natural gas solutions for use by residential,
commercial, and industrial energy users. ESC also creates educational and marketing materials, case studies
and training manuals to "enhance the success of those utility customer service professionals responsible for
enhancing customer productivity, efficiency, reliability and comfort"Through corporate membership,the Energy
Efficiency team is an active member of the Gas Heat Pump Consortium,a member driven group whose objective
is to "prepare communication and marketing outreach materials as well as studies and tools to alert and educate
end users,engineers,architects,consultants, installers, contractors and trade allies about higher efficiency, lower
carbon HVAC options"
The Intermountain Energy Efficiency team participated in the Spring and Fall ETP meetings.These sessions are
dedicated to updates on the market readiness of emerging technologies, as well as the status and outcomes of
natural gas equipment pilot assessments and demonstrations for residential and commercial HVAC,water heating and
commercial food service.
The EE team is an active member of the ESC Gas Heat Pump Consortium (Consortium). Participation in the Consortium
is available to EE staff through the MDU Resources corporate membership. Participation in the Consortium provides
the Company access to member-only resources, like updates from gas heat pump manufacturers,case studies and
reports, and member utility success stories.
The Technology and Mark Assessment Forum (TMAF) is an additional member-only resource utilized by the Company.
This is a conference held twice a year,focused on the latest gas solutions, marketing, customer outreach and energy
efficiency topics for utility professionals.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY: NEXT STEPS
The 2024 Process Evaluations for both the Residential and Commercial Programs provided the Company with several
actionable recommendations.While evaluated separately,the recommendations for each program were very similar.
The Company has already developed a plan to implement these recommendations:
• Enhance Marketing and Outreach Strategies:The Company will continue to hone communication strategies and
improve marketing efforts. Messaging will focus on the energy saving potential of equipment upgrades.
• Formalize contractor engagement: Recognizing contractors as key partners,the Company will expand contractor
participation through an outreach campaign and the development of a Trade Ally Program.The goal of the outreach
campaign will be to raise awareness about the program with HVAC and plumbing contractors.The Company will
explore creating a membership-type organization with more structured contractor participation guidelines,and
membership benefits like optional training and informational webinars to educated contractors on rebate offering.
The Company also plans to launch a streamlined application portal for contractors and inclusion in a contractor
directory on the Intermountain Gas website,creating for more robust relationships and contractor communications.
• Expand Rebate Offerings and improve alignment with Business needs: The Company will use its new technical
reference manuals to guide the design of cost-effective rebates, including offerings tailored to commercial
customers using residential-size equipment
As our need for energy grows,the need to maximize our current resources becomes increasingly more important.
The Company will continue to strive to secure cost-effective savings for Intermountain's residential and commercial
customers, and work towards an energy efficient future.
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 to Application

INTERMOUNTAIN
GAS COMPANY
A Subsidiary of MDU Resources Group,Inc.
In the Community to Serve®
Intermountain Gas Company
555 S Cole Road
Boise, ID 83709
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
0 © O 0
Attachment I o Application

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
CASE No. INT-G-25-05
ATTACHMENT 1 - SUPPLEMENT 1
PROCESS EVALUATION OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
COMPANY COMMERCIAL PROGRAM REBATES
(65 PAGES

Process Evaluation of
Intermountain Gas Company
Commercial Program Rebates
SUBMITTED TO: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
SUBMITTED ON: APRIL 30, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC.
ADM Associates, Inc Intermountain Gas
3239 Ramos Circle PO Box 7608
Sacramento, CA 95827 Boise, ID 83707-1608
916-363-8383
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 1 of 65

Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary....................................................................................................................5
1.1 Program Description...................................................................................................................................5
1.2 Evaluation Objectives.................................................................................................................................5
1.3 Summary of Methods.................................................................................................................................6
1.4 Key Findings and Recommendations..........................................................................................................6
2. Methodology.............................................................................................................................8
2.1 Participant and Nonparticipant Surveys.....................................................................................................9
2.2 Data Sources&Marketing Materials Review...........................................................................................16
2.3 Staff In-Depth Interviews..........................................................................................................................17
2.4 Market Actor In-Depth Interviews............................................................................................................17
2.5 Reporting..................................................................................................................................................17
3. Evaluation Findings..................................................................................................................18
3.1 Program Design & Implementation..........................................................................................................18
3.2 Program Marketing&Outreach...............................................................................................................19
3.3 Customer Participation & Experience ......................................................................................................21
3.4 Market Actor Engagement& Management.............................................................................................23
3.5 Quality Control Practices..........................................................................................................................25
4. Conclusions& Recommendations.............................................................................................27
4.1 Findings and Recommendations ..............................................................................................................27
4.2 Future Research........................................................................................................................................31
AppendixA: Participant Survey........................................................................................................32
Appendix B: Nonparticipant Survey..................................................................................................47
Appendix C: Contractor Interview Guide...........................................................................................63
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................63
Program Experience and Perceptions.....................................................................................................................63
ProgramSatisfaction...............................................................................................................................................64
Perceptions of Market(Optional,Time Permitting)...............................................................................................65
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................................65
INT-G-25-05
Tables of Contents and Tables Attachment 1 - Supplement 7
to Application
Page 2 of 65

List of Tables
Table 2-1: Survey Sampling Goals and Precision ........................................................................................10
Table 2-2: Survey Sample Achieved and Precision .....................................................................................11
Table 2-3 Participant Survey Completion Compared to Goals (n =3)........................................................12
Table 2-4 Nonparticipant Survey Awareness by Measure (n = 182) ..........................................................12
Table 2-5 Participant and Nonparticipant Survey Firmographics...............................................................13
Table 2-6 Contractor Firmographics...........................................................................................................14
Table 3-1 Awareness of Incentives by Measure Type.................................................................................20
Table 3-2 Marketing Materials Seen by Respondents................................................................................21
INT-G-25-05
admenergy.com 13239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 9 2jk.�63S �mentiy
to Application
Page 3 of 65

List of Figures
Table 2-1: Survey Sampling Goals and Precision ........................................................................................10
Table 2-2: Survey Sample Achieved and Precision .....................................................................................11
Table 2-3 Participant Survey Completion Compared to Goals (n =3)........................................................12
Table 2-4 Nonparticipant Survey Awareness by Measure (n = 182) ..........................................................12
Table 2-5 Participant and Nonparticipant Survey Firmographics...............................................................13
Table 2-6 Contractor Firmographics...........................................................................................................14
Table 3-1 Awareness of Incentives by Measure Type.................................................................................20
Table 3-2 Marketing Materials Seen by Respondents................................................................................21
INT-G-25-05
admenergy.com 13239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95,§?ZAr2jk.�63S �ment'Y
to Application
Page 4 of 65

L Executive Summary
1.1 Program Description
This report presents the findings of a process evaluation of Intermountain Gas Company's (IGC)
Commercial Energy Efficiency Program,which launched in 2021 to support businesses in adopting
energy-efficient technologies. While IGC's residential program is well-established,the commercial
offering has faced lower-than-expected participation, due in part to limited customer awareness, a lack
of offerings tailored to small businesses, and challenges in reaching facility-level decision-makers.To
address these barriers, IGC has implemented quarterly email campaigns, in-person outreach events,
targeted advertising, and customer surveys to expand reach and gather feedback. Additionally,they are
exploring a trade ally program to strengthen engagement with contractors and expand program
accessibility.
The program currently provides rebates for energy-efficient equipment, focusing on plug-and-play
solutions that are easy to administer. IGC has recently transitioned to ERA(Enterprise Rebate
Application) software for improved tracking and is working to refine marketing, outreach, and program
design based on customer feedback. Looking ahead, IGC plans to expand program offerings, hire a
dedicated energy efficiency analyst, and explore early-stage energy efficiency integration in commercial
building design.This evaluation aims to identify key barriers, opportunities for program growth, and
strategies to enhance participation and cost-effective energy savings for IGC's Commercial Program.
1.2 Evaluation Objectives
The evaluation objectives for the process evaluation focus on assessing and improving the Commercial
Program's effectiveness, particularly in encouraging energy-efficient installations and customer decision-
making.The key objectives include:
1. Understanding Program Operations& Effectiveness
■ Assessing program design, administration, implementation, and delivery.
■ Evaluating overall program effectiveness and identifying areas for improvement.
2. Measuring Customer Satisfaction & Market Response
■ Evaluating customer satisfaction with the program and utility staff.
■ Identifying barriers to participation and reasons for non-participation.
■ Understanding how the program influences long-term customer behavior regarding energy
efficiency.
3. Enhancing Program Strategies
■ Refining marketing materials to target key customer segments effectively.
■ Adjusting marketing strategies to improve program outreach and engagement.
4. Ensuring Data Accuracy&Validity
■ Triangulating data across multiple market actors (program staff, contractors, participants,
and non-participants)for comprehensive insights.
■ Conducting verification of installed energy efficiency measures through customer surveys.
INT-G-25-05
Tables of Contents and Tables Attachment 1 - Supplement
to Application
Page 5 of 65

■ Identifying significant differences among participant groups.
5. Providing Actionable Recommendations
■ Suggesting changes to program structure, management, design, delivery, and target
groups.
■ Offering specific recommendations for improving participation, satisfaction, and cost-
effectiveness.
1.3 Summary of Methods
The process evaluation involved six key tasks:
1. Surveys: Collecting data from participants and non-participants via web-based and phone-based
surveys.
2. Program Material Review:Analyzing marketing and tracking materials to assess clarity and
effectiveness.
3. Staff Interviews: Conducting in-depth interviews with program staff to gather insights on
program administration and potential improvements.
4. Market Actor Interviews: Interviewing participating and non-participating contractors to assess
effectiveness and barriers.
5. Interim Reporting: Providing ongoing updates and insights to ensure transparency and
continuous improvement.
6. Final Report: Summarizing findings, providing clear and actionable recommendations, and
ensuring accessibility for various audiences.
1.4 Key Findings and Recommendations
The evaluation of Intermountain Gas Company's (IGC) Commercial Energy Efficiency Program identified
significant gaps in participation, awareness, and contractor engagement, as well as opportunities for
process improvements.
Key findings include:
■ Limited program awareness: Only 42.9%of nonparticipant survey respondents were aware
of IGC's rebate offerings. Despite marketing efforts, only 37.2%of respondents recalled
seeing program materials.
■ Low contractor involvement:There is no formal contractor program, and many applicants
mistakenly use residential rebate forms, indicating confusion about program structure.
Additionally, one contractor reported that 95%of their customers learn about the rebates
from them rather than from IGC, indicating contractors play a crucial role in this awareness.
■ Customer engagement barriers:83.3%of nonparticipants were unsure whether rebates
were available for their equipment, and 84.5%of tenants had not spoken with their
landlord about energy efficiency upgrades, highlighting communication and decision-
making challenges.
Evaluation Report 6
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 6 of 65

■ Impact of rebates on participation: While actual participation remains low, rebates are a
strong motivator, with 86.7% of nonparticipants stating that awareness of rebates makes
them more likely to consider efficiency upgrades.
Recommendations include:
■ Enhance marketing and outreach by developing more targeted communications for
decision-makers and leveraging contractor networks to improve awareness.
■ Formalize contractor engagement by establishing a trade ally program and providing
clearer rebate application guidance.
■ Improve data tracking and rebate verification by refining the ERA system fields to capture
more detailed project data, offering stronger incentives to increase survey participation,
and implementing more structured customer follow-ups—such as timely post-installation
check-ins or outreach, which could occur closer to installation, and, when feasible, include
in-person verification.
■ Expand rebate offerings or tailored outreach to better align with business needs, including
potential new measures based on contractor and customer feedback.
For a more detailed discussion of these findings, including additional data insights and expanded
recommendations, please refer to Chapter 4: Conclusions & Recommendations.
Evaluation Report 7
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 7 of 65

2. Methodology
A process evaluation gathers information from a variety of sources, including program staff, installing
contractors, nonparticipating contractors, program participants, and non-participants (collectively
referred to as market actors).To increase the validity of the findings, it is necessary to gather data from
multiple sources and then "triangulate"the data or compare across multiple groups.This methodology
increases the overall validity of the findings. It should also address a variety of issues, including:
■ Program design;
■ Program administration;
■ Program implementation and delivery;
■ Customer satisfaction; and
■ Market response.
ADM conducted a well-designed and implemented process evaluation for each of the measures offered
in the Commercial Program, which included:
■ Measuring level of customer satisfaction;
■ Improving understanding of target population to tailor marketing materials towards
customer segments;
■ Refining and refocusing marketing strategies to increase program effectiveness;
■ Identifying barriers to program participation;
■ Providing recommendations for changing the program's structure, management,
administration, design, delivery, operations, or target; and
■ Helping program designers and managers structure programs to improve program
participation and satisfaction while achieving cost-effective savings.
The process evaluation focused on documenting the effects that the program activity had on
encouraging installations of energy efficiency measures or influencing the customer to make an energy-
efficiency decision. The key program metrics documented in these process evaluations include:
■ Overall awareness as well as awareness of the program and its measures;
■ Verification of installed measures through customer surveys;
■ Determination of significant differences between and among participant groups;
■ Assessment of customer satisfaction with the utility staff and the overall program;
■ Reasons for not participating;
■ Determination of whether the program has led to lasting changes in customer behavior
regarding energy efficiency or influencing customer decision-making; and
■ Areas for program improvement.
The focus of the process evaluation activities is to gain a better understanding of program operations,
assess the overall effectiveness of program operations, and identify areas for program improvement.
The key elements for the evaluation were split into the following tasks:
Evaluation Report 8
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 8 of 65

■ Task 1: Collect survey data from participating and non-participating customers;
■ Task 2: Review current program materials and current program tracking methods;
■ Task 3: Collect data from staff;
■ Task 4: Collect data from participating and nonparticipating market actors;
■ Task 5: Deliver interim reporting of evaluation results and status; and
■ Task 6: Deliver draft and final report.
2.1 Participant and Nonparticipant Surveys
This task focuses on gathering information from participants and nonparticipants of the program. Data
collection activities are in the form of survey-based data collection (web-based and telephone-based
surveys).
For each measure,the Evaluator used IGC tracking data to contact the full census of participants—
although the participant population was quite small (N=48), limiting the number of responses collected.
Surveys were conducted to assess participant satisfaction with measures, satisfaction with the program
and IGC altogether, and obtain critical firmographic or operating characteristics from the perspective of
the commercial facility. In addition,ADM surveyed a sample of nonparticipant customers to assess
barriers to entry and awareness of program offerings.The Evaluators programmed all surveys using an
industry-standard survey platform, Qualtrics.
The participant and nonparticipant survey instruments and their tabulated results are provided in
Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
2.1.1 Sampling
ADM's evaluation sampling strategy aimed to capture a representative sample of participant and
nonparticipant experiences with the Intermountain Gas Company Commercial Energy Efficiency
Program.The EM&V plan proposed a census-based approach for participant surveys and structured
sampling for nonparticipants and contractors.The Evaluators provide the following sampling guidance
used to estimate sampling goals for each process evaluation effort.
2.1.1.1 Sampling Methodology
The Evaluators used the following equations to estimate sample size requirements for each the
participant and nonparticipant survey goals. Required sample sizes were estimated as follows:
Equation 2-1:Sample Size for Infinite Sample Size
n — (ZXCV\2
d
Equation 2-2:Sample Size for Finite Population Size
n
no =
1 + \NJ
Evaluation Report 9
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 9 of 65

Where,
■ n =Sample size
■ Z =Z-value for a two-tailed distribution at the assigned confidence level.
■ CV = Coefficient of variation
■ d = Precision level
■ N = Population
For a sample that provides 90/10 precision,Z= 1.645 (the critical value for 90%confidence) and d=0.10
(or 10% precision).The remaining parameter is CV, or the expected coefficient of variation of measures
for which the claimed savings may be accepted. A CV of.5 was assumed for this program due to the
homogeneity of participation', which yields a sample size of 68 for an infinite population. Sample sizes
were adjusted for smaller populations via the method detailed in Equation 2-2.
The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieves a sampling precision of±10%at 90%statistical
confidence—or"90/10 precision"—to estimate the percentage of projects for which the claimed savings
are verified or require some adjustment.
The Evaluators developed the following samples for each surveyed group using Equation 2-1 and
Equation 2-2.The Evaluators ensured representation in each the participant and nonparticipant
populations.
Table 2-1:Survey Sampling Goals and Precision
I I Sample Goal
Customer Group Population Assumed (With Finite Precision at •0
Response
Participants 48 15% 30 90%±9.29%
Nonparticipants 16,201 115% 68 90%±9.96%
*Assumes sample size of 68 for an infinite population, based on CV(coefficient of variation)=0.5,d(precision)=10%,Z(critical
value for 90%confidence)=1.645.
The table above represents the number of customers in each the participant and nonparticipant groups
in the IGC Idaho service territory.The Evaluators ensured representation of customers in the survey
sample goals.
2.1.1.2 Survey Sample
The Evaluators conducted web-based surveys for the Commercial Energy Efficiency Program participants
and nonparticipants in PY2024.The sampling plan targeted ±10% precision at a 90%confidence level for
both groups.Table 2-2 summarizes the achieved sample size and precision levels.
1 Assumption based off California Evaluation Framework:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploaded Files/CPUC_Publ ic_Website/Content/Uti lities_and_I ndustries/Energy/Energy_Programs/De
mand_Side_Management/EE_and_Energy_Savings_Assist/CAEvaluationFramework.pdf
Evaluation Report 10
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 10 of 65

Table 2-2:Survey Sample Achieved and Precision
RespondentsI Achieved
Customer Group Population � Contacted � . .
90%Cl
Participants 48 46 3 6.5% 90%±46.47%
Nonparticipants 16,201 8,091 182 2.2% 90%±6.07%
Despite contacting nearly the entire participant population,the small group size and low response rate
limited the ability to achieve the 90/10 sampling goal for participants. As a result, in-service rate
estimates for this group should be interpreted with caution. In contrast,the nonparticipant sample
exceeded expectations and met the target precision.
The findings from these activities served to provide insights to customer journey and satisfaction with
the utility and program for the participants, as well as awareness of program offerings for the
nonparticipants.
2.1.1.3 Final Sampling& Data Collection Outcomes
■ Nonparticipant Survey:A total of 182 nonparticipant respondents completed the survey,
out of a population of approximately 16,201 commercial customers delivered to the
Evaluators.The survey was distributed to 8,091 email addresses, of which 534 messages
bounced, resulting in 7,557 successfully delivered invitations. While the original goal was to
collect 68 responses,the Evaluators allowed all contacted customers to respond, ultimately
exceeding the target.The responses provided valuable insight into program awareness,
participation barriers, and rebate effectiveness.
■ Participant Survey: Out of a total population of 48 program participants, 3 completed the
survey, falling short of the original goal of 30 responses. Email invitations were sent to 40
participants, while 6 additional contacts without email addresses were reached by phone.
Due to the low response rate,the survey provided only limited insights into customer
satisfaction, rebate usability, and decision-making influences.
■ Contractor Interviews: Four contractors representing HVAC, plumbing, restaurant
equipment, and commercial gas cooking equipment sectors were interviewed to assess
program engagement, barriers, and potential improvements.
■ Program Staff Interviews: Interviews were conducted with IGC staff members responsible
for program design, outreach, and administration to gather perspectives on program
effectiveness, operational challenges, and marketing efforts.
2.1.1.4 Achieved Sample
The nonparticipant survey goal was 68 nonparticipant survey responses in order to achieve 90 percent
confidence at±10% precision (90/10),which was exceeded with 182 completions. The contractor survey
goal was six respondents; 19 contractors were contacted, but only four in-depth interviews were
ultimately completed, offering qualitative insights into engagement challenges and program
improvement opportunities.The participant survey fell short of its target,with only three completions
Evaluation Report 11
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 11 of 65

out of a population of 48 program participants. A total of 46 participants were contacted-40 by email
and six by phone—but response remained limited, providing only minimal insight into customer
satisfaction and rebate usability.
Table 2-3 Participant Survey Completion Compared to Goals(n=3)
Participant Participant Actual Achieved
Measure Population Survey Goal Responses(n) Precision at
0
ENERGY STAR Certified Fryer 38 23 0
ENERGY STAR Certified Griddle 0 0 0
ENERGY STAR Certified Steamer 1 1 0
High Efficiency Condensing Boiler 9 6 3 ±46.47%
Condensing Unit Heater 0 0 0
Boiler Reset Control 0 0 1
Total 48 30 4
Table 2-4 Nonparticipant Survey Awareness by Measure (n=182)
Measure Type Sample Size(n)
Heating and Hot Water Equipment Incentives 2 1.8, 78
Kitchen Equipment Incentives 41.0% 78
Control Incentives(Boiler Reset Controls) 58.4% 77
2.1.1.5 Firmographic Overview of Respondents
To provide additional context for the findings, firmographic data was collected for participants,
nonparticipants, and contractors.These tables provide insight into:
Business size and facility characteristics (square footage, number of locations).
Decision-making authority(whether respondents could approve efficiency upgrades).
Industries represented (e.g., restaurant owners,facility managers, HVAC contractors).
These findings offer valuable context for understanding how different business types and contractors
interact with the program.
Evaluation Report 12
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 12 of 65

Table 2-5 Participant and Nonparticipant Survey Firmographics
Nonparticipants 'Participants
Facility Size
Less than 5,000 sq ft - 46.7%
5,001 to 10,000 sq ft - 24.7%
10,001 to 20,000 sq ft - 9.3%
20,001 to 50,000 sq ft - 3.3%
More than 50,000 sq ft - 6.6%
Not Sure - 8.2%
Primary Job Role
Proprietor/Owner - 40.6%
Other financial/administrative position 33.3% 18.3%
Manager 66.7% 13.9%
President/CEO - 11.1%
Chief Financial Officer - 5.0%
Other(specified roles) - 6.7%
Energy Policies in Place
Responsible energy manager 66.7% 19.2%
Defined energy savings goals 66.7% 9.9%
Energy efficiency policy for purchases 66.7% 13.2%
Carbon reduction goals 66.7% 7.7%
Facility Type
Single location - 61.3%
Part of multi-location company 100.0% 24.9%
Headquarters of multi-location company - 12.2%
Gas Billing
Billed directly by Intermountain Gas 100.0% 97.8%
Handled by third party or included in rent - 1.1%
Not sure - 1.1%
Decision-Maker for Energy Upgrades
Business owner 33.3% 68.8%
Operations or facility manager 33.3% 16.5%
Sustainability/Energy manager - 0.6%
Other(landlord, board, committee, etc.) 33.3% 14.2%
Preferred Contact Method
Email 100.0% 63.0%
Mail - 20.2%
Phone Call - 4.6%
Other - 8.7%
Evaluation Report 13
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 13 of 65

Table 2-6 Contractor Firmographics
Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 Contractor 4
Industry Type Restaurant HVAC Plumbing Gas Cooking
Equipment Equipment
Job Role Owner Project Manager Owner Technician
Years in Industry 10+ 15+ 20+ 5+
Experience with IGC Somewhat familiar Occasionally refers
Rebates but rarely uses Unfamiliar customers Unfamiliar
them
How They First Not aware of Through another Heard about them
Learned About IGC Through customers program contractor but never used
Rebates
Restaurant owners Would like an easier Customers want
Rebate Process don't have time to rebates for
Challenges navigate N/A rebate process at generators, but they
applications point of sale aren't covered
Preferred Support More program Dedicated Upstream rebate
for Contractors education contractor support model Trade ally program
line
Willingness to Open to learning Neutral—would Strong support for
Attend Training Yes, if convenient but unfamiliar with attend if offered trade ally network
trade ally programs
2.1.2 Survey Instrument Development, Programming, Testing, and
Implementation
Participant surveys were used in the process evaluation to understand customer satisfaction of program
participation, evaluate program design and administration, and assess program implementation and
delivery.
In addition,the Evaluators surveyed a sample of nonparticipant customers to assess barriers to entry
and awareness of program offerings. Commercial customers who completed the survey were sent a $25
gift card incentive as a thank you for providing insight to the program. The Evaluators developed the
survey instrument for review and comment by IGC staff prior to fielding surveys.ADM has an in-house
survey research center that supports all survey-based data collection efforts.This survey research center
is dedicated solely to energy efficiency-related efforts and is comprised fully of full-time ADM staff.
We understand that to encourage high response rates, a mixed mode for participant surveys must be
deployed, involving web-based surveys and phone-based surveys to recruit customers without email
addresses.The Evaluators developed, programmed, and deployed the surveys for this evaluation effort.
The Evaluators ensured these surveys took most respondents 10 minutes or less to complete while
addressing all research topics identified in the scope of work in order to mitigate customer survey
fatigue.
The Evaluators provided the following drafted documents to IGC staff for review: initial
recruitment/introductory email (for customers with valid email addresses); follow up emails (for
Evaluation Report 14
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 14 of 65

nonrespondents); phone script used to introduce programmed survey through telephone delivery; and
draft and final web and telephone survey instruments.The Evaluators thoroughly tested survey
programming to ensure that all appropriate batteries of questions were displayed correctly according to
the logic of the survey and allowed IGC staff to conduct primary testing as well. Each customer in the
sampling plan was contacted up to three times—via email or phone—until the sampling goal was met or
the outreach window closed.
Survey recruitment was accomplished through multiple modes of recruitment, specifically:
■ Send initial email invitation
■ Send two reminder email invitations, several days apart
■ Telephone-based surveys for customers without email addresses
To maximize response rates,the Evaluators included proven-effective language in the recruitment
scripts that the Evaluators staff developed for use in survey recruitment, based on language used in
public radio pledge drives.The key to the "pledge drive" language is asking the recipient if they "can be
one of the people who help us achieve our goal" number of responses.This language has been shown to
increase response rates to online surveys above and beyond what is accomplished through the elements
described above. We hypothesize that it does so because it frames the request in the context of group
or collective action,thus inhibiting thoughts that undermine self-efficacy.
2.1.3 Coordinated Efforts
We recognize that in all data collection activities, it was necessary that the Evaluators coordinate efforts
with IGC staff regarding customer contact and conduct research in such a manner as to minimize the
time impact on IGC's customers participating in this evaluation. We endeavored to facilitate a strong
sense of coordination and collaboration with our clients through multiple avenues, including:
■ Client review of interim and final work product:We included IGC in the review process for
recruitment email and telephone messaging, survey instrument development, and interim
and final reporting. Messages included contact information for the customer call center,
along with contact information for a senior project manager at ADM.
■ Involving IGC staff in the QA process for data collection: We have in the past involved our
clients in the data collection process for an EM&V effort through multiple channels.
The Evaluators involved IGC staff in the survey process by inviting client input during survey
development, including the opportunity to review and suggest edits before deployment. Staff also
previewed the survey through the participant experience by reviewing the Qualtrics links prior to
launch.
The Evaluators worked with IGC to instruct their call centers on answering customer inquiries regarding
ADM's role as the EM&V contractor to ensure transparency and reliability to customers and to preserve
IGC's customer relations with commercial customers.The Evaluators maintained a 'do not contact' list
for customers that have expressed a desire to be removed from call lists for future EM&V work. For
many commercial programs, however, maintaining a 'do not contact' list will not compromise the
process evaluation efforts.
Evaluation Report 15
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 15 of 65

2.2 Data Sources & Marketing Materials Review
Our second task was to conduct a review of all program materials.This review included the review of
the program website(s),the program marketing and outreach materials, key marketing metrics,
implementation manuals, program planning documents, previous evaluation reports, and other relevant
materials.The purpose of this review is to assess if the program marketing materials have a clear call to
action and identify whether there are any gaps in program materials.
The findings from this review are abridged and included in an overall assessment of the efficacy of
current program materials,which are summarized in this report. Moreover, these findings informed the
development of the in-depth interview guides for program staff, as well as the surveys with customers
and contractors.
At the outset of the process evaluations, it is important to review each program database to ensure that
previous recommendations regarding development of a data dictionary and adequate tracking of key
data have been implemented. However,this report represents the first process evaluation conducted
for IGC's Commercial Energy Efficiency Program.As such, for this task, our team also reviewed the
databases to ensure that they conform to industry standards. Our team summarized the key data from
the program database by the following types of metrics, as appropriate:
■ Total participation rates by measure type, geography, and other key demographics; and
■ Summaries of key contractor data including identification of top and bottom-performing
contractors.
For each of the six measures offered and evaluated through the program, the Evaluators received the
following materials from IGC:
■ Program-level marketing materials;
■ Program-level implementation materials and procedures;
■ Program tracking data for each of the measures completed between April 1, 2021 and
October 31, 2024;
■ Project-level documentation, including rebate application forms, equipment specification
documents, equipment invoices, and project installation documents;
■ Customer contact information; and
■ Contractor contact information.
ADM ensures that all staff with access to these files have signed the required non-disclosure agreements
(NDAs)with specific requirements for handling utility customer information (UCI) and that our data
transfer and storage methods follow IGC requirements.
The Evaluators were also proactive in scheduling meetings to answer data issues and communicate data
concerns, and to discuss nuances of customer identifiers and data dictionaries.This ensured the
deliverables were timely and accurate and prevented issues surfacing further into analysis tasks.
Evaluation Report 16
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 16 of 65

2.3 Staff In-Depth Interviews
The process evaluation overall focuses on gathering information from a variety of sources.This task
includes conducting in-depth interviews with program staff.
These in-depth interviews were conducted via telephone and addressed the key process evaluation
objectives.The evaluation interviews focused on the program history, design, identifying areas for
improvement, "lessons learned", and the overall effectiveness of the program.These interviews were
open-ended, in that there was a discussion guide, but responses were not limited to a specific set of
choices. Moreover, all respondents were promised confidentiality throughout the interview process to
assure that these findings truly reflect program operations and activities.The results of these interviews
are summarized in this report.
2.4 Market Actor In-Depth Interviews
The process evaluation overall focuses on gathering information from a variety of sources.This task
includes conducting in-depth interviews with market actors.
Our team fielded contractor in-depth interviews to both participating and non-participating installing
contractors.These interviews focused on identifying areas of program effectiveness, overall satisfaction,
and identifying barriers to program participation. Commercial contractors who completed the
interviews were sent a $50 gift card incentive as a thank you for providing insight to the program.The
program staff provided the list of all participating contractors; however,the actual respondents remain
confidential.The results from these interviews are summarized in this report, and the interview guide
used for these conversations is included in Appendix C.
2.5 Reporting
ADM and IGC staff held regularly scheduled weekly telephone conference calls during which ADM's
project management team provided updates regarding evaluation progress.Throughout the process
evaluation, the Evaluators remained in constant communication with IGC.
Our report provides key findings and results from the evaluation in the Executive Summary,which are
provided in bulleted lists and tables with intuitive captions.These findings are woven together to
develop recommendations for future improvement.The Evaluators also provided a list of specific, clear,
actionable, and prioritized recommendations that are supported by the findings; recommendations
include estimates of the required effort that may be incurred by IGC, installing contactors, and
stakeholders.
Evaluation Report 17
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 17 of 65

3. Evaluation Findings
3.1 Program Design & Implementation
According to program staff,the Commercial Energy Efficiency Program was launched in 2021 as an
expansion of IGC's existing residential energy efficiency efforts. Staff noted that, since its inception,the
program design has remained largely unchanged, with its primary focus on rebate incentives for
equipment replacement.
Program staff highlighted several challenges in implementation:
■ Low participation rates remain a primary concern, with staff attributing this to difficulties in
reaching the correct decision-makers within businesses.
■ The initial program design did not account for small commercial customers, meaning that
some businesses found the available rebates did not align with their needs.
■ With limited staffing, the program is structured around "plug-and-play" solutions that are
easier to administer but may not fully serve the broader commercial market.
Findings from the nonparticipant survey suggest low adoption rate of energy efficient measures in the
past three years:
■ Smart thermostats (16.5%)were the most installed measure followed by high-efficiency
water heaters (10.2%) and ENERGY STAR dishwashers (6.3%). However, none of these
measures are currently eligible for IGC rebates.
■ Adoption of ENERGY STAR fryers,griddles, condensing boilers, and boiler reset controls
remained below 1%, suggesting low market penetration and awareness of current program
offerings.
■ Over 21%of respondents installed non-rebate-eligible equipment such as windows, siding,
and skylights. While these measures are not currently included in IGC's rebate offerings
and may not be identified in the program's savings potential,their frequency of installation
may indicate a misalignment between rebate offerings and some customer investment
priorities.
■ Some businesses upgraded potentially relevant but currently unsupported measures,
including digital thermostat conversions and wall insulation.
■ Notably, 27.1%of businesses rated their insulation quality as poor, suggesting that
insulation improvements may be a priority for many commercial customers but are not
currently incentivized through the program.
■ Several respondents were unsure whether they had installed energy-efficient equipment,
highlighting a need for improved outreach and education.
■ Low participation in key rebate-eligible measures suggests an opportunity for targeted
marketing and expanded program alignment with observed business needs.
These results confirm staff concerns that businesses are not widely adopting energy-efficient
equipment.To address these concerns, staff indicated that IGC has:
Evaluation Report 18
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 18 of 65

■ Worked with the Evaluators to develop a Technical Reference Manual (TRM) for additional
commercial measure offerings to improve program structure.
■ Prepared to file a program revision to create a more robust and accessible commercial
offering.
■ Planned to hire an additional energy efficiency analyst dedicated to commercial customer
engagement and program operations.
3.2 Program Marketing & Outreach
Program staff described their current marketing strategies,which focus on digital outreach, industry
partnerships, and direct engagement at events. Key marketing efforts cited by staff include:
■ Quarterly email campaigns sent to all commercial customers to raise awareness of
available rebates.
■ Advertisements in industry publications, including a full-page ad in the Idaho Business
Review's "Book of Lists".
■ Sponsorship of industry events, including hosting a golf hole at networking tournaments.
■ Targeted outreach through the Association of Architects to engage commercial building
professionals.
■ Webinars offered through the Energy Solutions Center, which program staff noted are free
for members and serve as an educational tool for potential participants.
■ Digital engagement tracking, using QR codes and click-through rates to measure customer
interaction with outreach materials.
Despite these efforts, staff acknowledged that engagement has been lower than expected,with low
survey response rates and limited direct customer feedback.To improve outreach, staff indicated that
IGC is developing a more comprehensive advertising campaign informed by demographic insights.
All three program participants interviewed reported seeing IGC marketing materials prior to
participating in the program.Two recalled viewing the program website, and one reported receiving a
marketing email. Participants generally found these materials somewhat or very helpful. One participant
said the materials significantly influenced their decision to participate, another felt slightly influenced,
and the third reported no influence. Respondents noted that information about rebate offerings and
environmental or energy efficiency benefits were particularly impactful. Due to the small sample size,
these results are not generalizable to all program participants.
3.2.1 Awareness of the Program & Available Measures
Responses from the nonparticipant survey indicate that 42.9%of nonparticipant respondents were
aware of the program,while 57.1% had no prior knowledge.The nonparticipant average awareness
across all rebate-eligible measures was low across the board.The breakdown is as follows:
Evaluation Report 19
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 19 of 65

Table 3-1 Awareness of Incentives by Measure Type
Measure Type Not aware(%) Sample size(n)
Heating and hot water equipment incentives 21.8% 78
Kitchen equipment incentives 41.0% 78
Control incentives (boiler reset controls) 58.4% 77
These findings confirm program staff concerns that businesses are not familiar with available incentives
and suggest that marketing efforts are failing to reach potential participants —in part because outreach
often does not reach the individuals responsible for making energy efficiency upgrade decisions.
3.2.2 How Businesses First Learned About the Program
Nonparticipants primarily learned about the program from direct mail and utility bill inserts,while
participants learned about the program from the website and marketing emails.
Figure 3-1 displays the top five sources of program awareness for nonparticipants.
Figure 3-1 Top Five Sources of Program Awareness for Non-Participants(n=77)
Word of mouth 14.3"
Conversation with a contractor 14.3"c
Email from Intermountain Gas 15.6"
Utility bill insert 16.9"1
Print mail
0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of Participants
Nonparticipants who learned about the program through word of mouth were asked to rate the
information's sentiment on a 1-5 scale.The average score was 3.7, indicating that word-of-mouth
information about the program was generally neutral to positive.
3.2.3 Marketing Material Effectiveness
Survey findings suggest that marketing materials have been viewed by some nonparticipant customers,
but their impact is limited. Of the 78 nonparticipant customers who answered the question, only 37.2%
(n=29) indicated that they had viewed any program marketing materials. Among those who viewed
materials,the breakdown is as follows:
Evaluation Report 20
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 20 of 65

Table 3-2 Marketing Materials Seen by Respondents
ParticipantsMarketing Material Type %Nonparticipants %
Mailed flyer or brochure 48.7% 0.0%
Intermountain Gas Company email 32.4% 33.3%
Intermountain Gas Company website 18.9% 66.7%
Intermountain Gas Company social media 0.0% 0.0%
Findings indicate that social media outreach is not currently effective, while mailed flyers and emails are
the most commonly viewed forms of marketing communication.
Nonparticipants who viewed marketing materials were asked to rate their helpfulness on a 1-5 scale.
Figure 3-2 demonstrates these results.
Figure 3-2 Helpfulness of Marketing Materials(n=29)
3.75
3.7
3.7
3.65
3.6 3.6
3.6
3.55
3.5 3.5
3.45
3.4
3.35
The material helped me The material encouraged me The material explained The material guided me
understand program to participate in the program rebate amounts of potential through the application
eligibility savings process
Participants rated the materials more helpful than nonparticipants, with all three individuals describing
the application guide in particular as very helpful.These findings suggest that while program materials
are helpful for customers, they are not highly effective in driving participation.
3.3 Customer Participation & Experience
Program staff noted that customer participation in the commercial program has been significantly lower
than expected. Findings from both the nonparticipant survey and contractor interviews provide further
insight into awareness levels, decision-making barriers, and customer engagement with marketing
materials and rebate applications.
■ Contractors generally agreed that rebates are a strong motivator for customers, but
awareness gaps and upfront cost concerns remain barriers.
Evaluation Report 21
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 21 of 65

o Contractor 3 (Commercial Gas Cooking Equipment)stated that rebates make
efficiency upgrades financially feasible, while Contractor 4(HVAC& Plumbing)
observed that rebates often encourage customers to pursue multiple efficiency
upgrades simultaneously.
o Contractor 1(Restaurant Equipment Sales&Installation), however, noted that
some restaurant owners still choose non-ENERGY STAR equipment due to lower
upfront costs and a desire to avoid the time and effort associated with the rebate
process—opting instead for immediate, out-of-pocket purchases over pursuing
rebates.
■ The nonparticipant survey reinforced these findings:
0 83.3%of respondents were unsure whether rebates were available for their
equipment upgrades, indicating a communication gap.
0 86.7%of respondents stated that awareness of rebates would make them more
likely to install energy-efficient equipment,suggesting a need for improved
outreach.
■ All participants and most nonparticipating respondents were satisfied with
Intermountain Gas Company as their natural gas service provider, indicating that low
participation is unlikely due to concerns about the company's reputation.
According to program staff, initial survey responses indicate that cost savings and energy reduction
are primary motivators for participation.These insights came from IGC's internal commercial customer
survey, which received about 30 responses despite a broad email distribution and incentive offer. Staff
noted that the low uptake was likely due to the survey reaching administrative contacts rather than
facility decision-makers. Despite the small sample size,findings suggest an opportunity to improve
outreach efforts and better align program offerings with business needs.
Evaluation Report 22
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 22 of 65

Figure 3-3 Nonparticipant Satisfaction with Intermountain Gas Company(n=182)
56.0;
40.0%
30.0%
19.2% 20.3%
20.0%
10.0•00
3.3%
0.0%
Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied
Contractor perspectives on the application process also varied:
■ Contractor 3 actively assisted customers with rebate applications, particularly Spanish-
speaking clients, who often face language barriers in the process.
■ Contractors 1 and 4 did not typically complete applications for customers but noted that
most customers found the process manageable.
■ Contractor 4 described the application as"very straightforward,"stating that customers
rarely opted out if their project qualified.
Paper applications remain widely used,with Contractors 3 and 4 preferring them over online
submissions.
The findings in this section reinforce the need for:
■ Expanded direct outreach to decision-makers, ensuring rebate opportunities reach those
with purchasing authority.
■ More compelling marketing efforts,focused on cost savings and simplified participation.
■ Greater engagement with landlords, as tenant businesses may not have full control over
energy efficiency upgrades.
■ Improved accessibility, including support for non-English speakers and customers with
other access needs, to ensure equitable participation across business types.
3.4 Market Actor Engagement & Management
Program staff noted that engagement with market actors, including contractors, industry professionals,
and other stakeholders, is currently limited, which may be contributing to low program participation.
Findings from both the nonparticipant survey and contractor interviews further highlight gaps in
contractor involvement, customer decision-making challenges, and opportunities to improve outreach
and training.
Evaluation Report 23
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 23 of 65

3.4.1 Marketing & Awareness Gaps Among Contractors
■ No formal contractor program currently exists,though licensed contractors are required
for installations. Staff confirmed that there is no additional verification process beyond
ensuring contractors hold an active Idaho license.
■ Limited contractor engagement may be contributing to low program participation, as
many potential market actors may be unaware of available incentives or unclear on how to
participate.
■ Contractor 2(Plumbing& Heating) had limited knowledge of the program and had only
recommended rebates to one customer. In contrast, Contractor 4 (HVAC& Plumbing)
estimated that 95%of their customers learned about rebates from their company rather
than from IGC directly.
■ Contractor 3 (Commercial Gas Cooking Equipment)also emphasized the importance of
proactive communication, especially for supporting Spanish-speaking customers through
the rebate process.
3.4.2 Opportunities for a Trade Ally Program & Training
■ Several interviewed contractors expressed support for a Trade Ally Program to help
improve training and rebate access.
o Contractor 1(Restaurant Equipment Sales & Installation) actively sought rebate
training and believed in-person and email communications were most effective for
learning about program offerings.
o Contractor 4 specifically advocated for a formal Trade Ally Network to ensure that
contractors stay up to date on rebate requirements and that new technicians
receive adequate training.
o Contractor 3 expressed neutral interest, saying they would attend training if
offered, but did not see an urgent need.
o Contractor 2 was unfamiliar with trade ally models but open to learning more,
suggesting an opportunity for awareness-building.
3.4.3 Reaching Decision-Makers & Addressing Barriers
■ Findings from the nonparticipant survey suggest that contractors are not always guiding
customers toward rebate-eligible upgrades. One in five respondents (21.3%) reported
installing "Other" non-rebate-eligible equipment, including siding, windows, and
thermostats.
■ Reaching the right decision-makers remains a significant challenge. Only 50%of
nonparticipant respondents reported full authority over energy-related upgrades.This
highlights the importance of contractor engagement, as many energy decisions may fall to
landlords or other organizational leadership.
Evaluation Report 24
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 24 of 65

■ Commercial tenants face additional hurdles: 84.5%of nonparticipant respondents had not
discussed energy upgrades with their landlords, suggesting many businesses may lack
control over equipment choices or building improvements.
■ Contractor 1 noted that restaurant owners often do not have the time to engage with the
rebate process, further emphasizing the need for simplified access and clear contractor
support.
■ Contractor 2 recommended establishing a dedicated contractor support line to reduce
wait times and improve communication about program requirements.
3.4.4 Recommendations for Market Actor Engagement
To address the above challenges and leverage contractors more effectively, evaluators recommend the
following actions:
■ Develop a trade ally program to provide structured contractor training, rebate guidance,
and improved outreach.
■ Establish a contractor support line to provide faster response times and clearer program
guidance.
■ Expand contractor engagement efforts, ensuring regular updates on rebate offerings and
better communication on program changes.
■ Strengthen outreach to landlords, as many tenant businesses lack control over energy
efficiency decisions.
These strategies would help increase contractor awareness, improve rebate adoption, and enhance
overall program effectiveness by leveraging contractors as key partners in promoting energy efficiency.
3.5 Quality Control Practices
Program staff described ongoing improvements in tracking and quality control processes, including a
shift in 2023 from manual Excel-based tracking to the internally developed Enterprise Rebate
Application (ERA) system. ERA houses rebate data, applies eligibility checks, and connects to a reporting
tool used by staff to extract and review program information. Customers can also submit applications
online by logging into their utility accounts, which helps validate applicant identity.
As a relatively new system, ERA represents a shift toward more centralized and automated rebate
processing. Given current participation levels, it may take time to fully assess the system's effectiveness
in supporting program operations and data reporting.
Additional quality control challenges remain:
■ Verification of installed measures currently relies on self-reported data from participant
surveys, as there is no formal site-based QC process in place. However, low response rates
from participating customers (n=3) limit the ability to confirm installations and assess
program impact.
Evaluation Report 25
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 25 of 65

■ The nonparticipant survey revealed that eight percent of businesses are uncertain who
provides their facilities' natural gas services, making it more difficult to verify rebate-
eligible measures.
■ Marketing effectiveness is tracked using digital engagement metrics,such as QR code
scans and click-through rates,though engagement with the program website (18.9%) and
emails (32.4%) remains low, making it difficult to assess whether outreach efforts are
leading to applications.
Program staff are considering refinements to improve rebate verification, enhance customer
engagement in surveys, and strengthen tracking methods to ensure accurate reporting of energy
efficiency upgrades.
Evaluation Report 26
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 26 of 65

4.Conclusions & Recommendations
4.1 Findings and Recommendations
The Intermountain Gas Company Commercial Energy Efficiency Program faces challenges in customer
participation, contractor engagement, rebate verification, and marketing effectiveness, but there are
clear opportunities for improvement.
4.1.1 Findings
Key findings are detailed below:
Limited Program Awareness and Marketing Effectiveness
■ Finding 1.1: 42.9%of nonparticipant survey respondents were aware of IGC rebates,while
37.2% recalled seeing program materials. (Recommendation 1.1, 1.3)
■ Finding 1.2: Among nonparticipants who did recall seeing materials,48.7%viewed a
mailing or flyer, while 32.4%saw an email. Participants cited the program website as a key
and influential source (Recommendation 1.3).
■ Finding 1.3: Word-of-mouth had a mixed impact: 14.3% of nonparticipants first learned of
rebates this way, but the average sentiment score was 3.7 out of 5, indicating generally
neutral to positive messaging with room for improvement in clarity and reach
(Recommendation 1.3).
Low Contractor Involvement and Market Actor Confusion
■ Finding 2.1:There is no formal contractor program, and many rebate applicants mistakenly
use residential forms, suggesting contractors are not well-informed on the commercial
program application process and requirements (Recommendation 2.1, 2.2).
■ Finding 2.2: Contractor 4 estimated that 95%of their customers learned about rebates
from them rather than IGC directly, demonstrating that contractors play a crucial role in
rebate awareness (Recommendation 1.2, 2.1).
■ Finding 2.3: Contractor 2 had minimal program knowledge and had only recommended
rebates to one customer, reinforcing the need for stronger contractor education and
engagement and program offerings for additional relevant measures (Recommendation
1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.1).
■ Finding 2.4: Only 50%of nonparticipant respondents had full decision-making authority
over energy-related upgrades, highlighting the need for better outreach to financial and
operational decision-makers (Recommendation 1.1).
Customer Engagement Barriers and Verification Challenges
■ Finding 3.1: Survey participation remains low, limiting IGC's ability to verify installed
measures and track customer satisfaction (Recommendation 3.1, 3.3).
Evaluation Report 27
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 27 of 65

■ Finding 3.2: 83.3%of nonparticipants were unsure whether rebates were available for the
equipment they were considering, indicating a major communication gap
(Recommendation 1.1, 1.2).
■ Finding 3.3: 84.5%of tenant businesses had not spoken with their landlords about energy
efficiency upgrades, suggesting that rental status is a significant barrier to participation
(Recommendation 1.1, 1.2).
■ Finding 3.4: Rebates are a strong motivator, with 86.7%stating that awareness of
incentives would make them more likely to install energy-efficient equipment
(Recommendation 1.1, 1.2).
Process and Data Tracking Improvements in Progress
■ Finding 4.1:The transition from Excel-based tracking to ERA software represents an effort
to centralize rebate applications and improve verification. However, staff are still assessing
its full impact on accuracy and efficiency (Recommendation 3.2, 3.3).
■ Finding 4.2: Marketing effectiveness is currently measured using QR code scans and click-
through rates, but engagement remains low, making it difficult to determine whether these
efforts directly increase participation (Recommendation 3.3).
Potential Gaps in Rebate Offerings
■ Finding 5.1: Insulation quality may be a concern for many businesses, with 27.1%of
respondents rating their insulation as poor(Recommendation 4.3).
■ Finding 5.2: Some respondents requested rebates for equipment types not currently
covered, indicating potential demand for expanded incentive categories(Recommendation
4.1, 4.2).
■ Finding 5.3: Contractor 4 noted increased customer interest in rebates for generators, an
equipment type not currently supported by IGC's program (Recommendation 4.4).
■ Finding 5.4: Contractor 3 suggested an upstream rebate model, where equipment
distributors offer rebates directly at the point of sale,to simplify participation and improve
adoption of energy-efficient equipment(Recommendation 4.5).
4.1.2 Recommendations
The evaluators provide several recommendations for improvement:
Enhance Marketing and Outreach Strategies
■ Recommendation 1.1: Develop targeted communication strategies for financial and
operational decision-makers, rather than general business contacts. In addition to
improved marketing efforts, this may include an effort to contact commercial customers to
document key decision-maker contact information connected to the energy account.
■ Recommendation 1.2: Expand contractor-focused outreach efforts, including training
programs and improved rebate application guidance to ensure they accurately
communicate incentives to clients, understand current offerings and program
Evaluation Report 28
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 28 of 65

requirements, and have a clear understanding of the rebate application process for
commercial customers.
■ Recommendation 1.3: Leverage more effective marketing channels—such as direct
business outreach, industry associations, and in-person networking—and consider
integrating a contractor bonus incentive into the planned Trade Ally Program. Many
utilities offer contractor bonuses to boost program participation and visibility; for example,
NorthWestern Energy(MT) offers$500 per heat pump water heater installation,while
Consumers Energy(MI) provides up to a 30% incentive bonus for early commercial project
completion.Ameren Illinois adds 5%to electric project incentives and 2%for gas, capped at
$10,000. Adopting a similar structure could encourage IGC contractors to promote eligible
measures, complete more projects, and participate in training—supporting broader market
engagement and improved program outcomes.
Formalize Contractor Engagement
■ Recommendation 2.1: Establish a trade ally program to educate contractors on rebate
offerings and streamline the rebate process.
■ Recommendation 2.2: Implement more structured contractor participation guidelines,
including optional training, informational webinars, or program registration.
■ Recommendation 2.3: Create a dedicated contractor support line to reduce wait times,
improve communication, and provide technical assistance on rebate applications.
Improve Rebate Verification and Data Collection
■ Recommendation 3.1: Consider strengthening participation incentives for future evaluation
surveys that include questions about completed upgrades or installation status. In this
process evaluation, a small number of participant survey responses (n=3) included self-
reported installation information, which may offer a supplemental perspective in the
absence of a formal verification process. If this type of information is desired in future
evaluations, earlier outreach and stronger incentives may help improve response rates.
■ Recommendation 3.2: Explore opportunities to continue enhancing ERA's tracking
capabilities to support program reporting and verification needs over time.As participation
grows, additional detail captured earlier in the application process may help reduce
reliance on follow-up outreach and improve the efficiency of data collection for future
evaluations.
■ Recommendation 3.3: Consider implementing simple, post-installation follow-up options to
help confirm whether upgrades were completed.These could include automated customer
emails, optional photo documentation uploads, or brief contractor attestations. While not
a substitute for site-based verification,these low-burden strategies could provide
additional insight into measure completion in cases where in-person quality control is not
conducted.
Expand Rebate Offerings and Improve Alignment with Business Needs
■ Recommendation 4.1: Consider adding rebates for commonly requested but currently
ineligible equipment to increase participation, such as weatherization measures.
Evaluation Report 29
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 29 of 65

■ Recommendation 4.2: Develop custom rebate pathways for larger commercial projects,
allowing for tailored incentives.
■ Recommendation 4.3: Consider adding rebates for weatherization upgrades and/or
increase education around insulation-related energy savings, as 27.1%of businesses rated
their insulation as poor.
■ Recommendation 4.4: Assess feasibility of expanding rebates to include high-demand
equipment like generators, based on Contractor 4's feedback.
■ Recommendation 4.5: Evaluate an upstream rebate model, as suggested by Contractor 3,
to simplify rebate access and increase energy-efficient equipment adoption.
By implementing these recommendations, IGC can increase participation, strengthen contractor
engagement, improve rebate verification, and enhance customer satisfaction, ultimately ensuring that
its Commercial Energy Efficiency Program is more effective and impactful.
Evaluation Report 30
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 30 of 65

4.2 Future Research
As the Intermountain Gas Company(IGC) Commercial Energy Efficiency Program evolves,future
evaluation efforts should focus on improving data collection, such as decision-maker contact
information and nature of facility operations (e.g. hours of operation, business type nuances, or usage
patterns), expanding contractor engagement, and refining rebate tracking to ensure the program
effectively meets customer needs. A key priority is addressing low participation rates in both the
program and evaluation activities. While the current evaluation provided valuable insights from
nonparticipants, participant response rates remained low. Future studies should explore alternative
data collection strategies, such as increasing survey incentives, integrating post-rebate follow-up
interviews, or leveraging contractor feedback—such as installation logs, project records, or brief check-
ins with installers—to help validate installation rates.Additionally, qualitative research—such as focus
groups or in-depth interviews with participating businesses—could provide deeper insight into decision-
making processes and program barriers.
Another priority is assessing the long-term impact of program changes, particularly the effectiveness of
enhanced contractor engagement efforts, marketing refinements, and potential adjustments to rebate
structures. If IGC establishes a Trade Ally program, future evaluations should measure contractor
awareness, participation, and satisfaction to determine whether it improves program uptake.
Additionally, as the ERA system is further integrated into rebate processing, an evaluation of data
accuracy, processing efficiency, and customer experience will be necessary to determine whether it has
streamlined program operations. Finally,given that many nonparticipants were unaware of available
rebates,future evaluations should test new outreach strategies, such as industry-specific marketing
campaigns or direct engagement with financial decision-makers,to identify the most effective methods
for increasing program participation.
Evaluation Report 31
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 31 of 65

Appendix A: Participant Survey
Q2 -Our records indicate that your facility at [Field-ADDRESS] received a rebate for the [Field-
MEASURE]through Intermountain Gas Company's Commercial Energy Efficiency Program in [Field-
YEAR].
% Count
1 Yes 100.0% 3
2 No, I received a rebate BUT the address is incorrect. Please provide the correct 0.0% 0
address
3 No, I received a rebate BUT the year is incorrect. Please provide the correct year 0.0% 0
4 No, I did not receive a rebate 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Q3- Please confirm the measures that you installed:
Question Yes No Don't know Total
1 ENERGY STAR certified fryer 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 2
2 ENERGY STAR certified griddle 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 2
3 ENERGY STAR certified steamer 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 2
4 High efficiency condensing boiler 100.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3
5 Condensing unit heater 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 2
6 Boiler reset control 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 2
Q4- How did you first learn about Intermountain Gas Company's Commercial Program?
# Answer % Count
1 Mailed information from Intermountain Gas Company 0.0% 0
2 Utility Bill message 33.3% 1
3 Utility website 0.0% 0
4 Email from Intermountain Gas Company 33.3% 1
5 Newspaper or magazine article or ad 0.0% 0
6 Industry organization newsletter 0.0% 0
7 Intermountain Gas Company booth at in-person event 0.0% 0
8 Radio or television ad 0.0% 0
9 Social media (i.e., Facebook, Instagram,Twitter/X,TikTok,etc.) 0.0% 0
10 Contractor/Trade Ally 0.0% 0
11 Word of mouth (friend,family,colleague, neighbor, etc.) 33.3% 1
12 Intermountain Gas Company account representative 0.0% 0
13 Previous participation 0.0% 0
96 Other-please specify 0.0% 0
98 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Evaluation Report 32
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 32 of 65

Q5-Why did you decide to participate in the program? Please select all that apply.
# Answer % Count
1 Save money on energy bills 30.0% 3
2 Improve the comfort of the facility 20.0% 2
3 Conserve energy and/or protect the environment 20.0% 2
4 Get free or discounted equipment or services 20.0% 2
5 Recommendation from a utility representative 10.0% 1
6 Recommendation from a contractor 0.0% 0
96 Other—please specify 0.0% 0
98 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 10
Q6- Did you view any Intermountain Gas Company marketing material or advertisements about the
program rebates and services before participating in the program?
1 Yes 100.0% 3
2 No 0.0% 0
Tota I 100% 3
Q7 -What materials did you view? Please select all that apply.
1 Intermountain Gas Company email 33.3% 1
2 Intermountain Gas Company social media post 0.0% 0
3 Intermountain Gas Company website 66.7% 2
4 Intermountain Gas Company mailing or flyer 0.0% 0
96 Other—please specify 0.0% 0
98 Don't know/Don't remember 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Evaluation Report 33
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 33 of 65

Q8- Please rate how helpful the following marketing materials were for each of the listed purposes.
. . not
Not Somewhat helpful Somewhat Very receive
# Question helpful helpful nor helpful helpful this Total
unhelpful material
The material
helped me
1 understand 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 66.7% 2 0.0% 0 3
program
eligibility.
The material
2 encouraged me 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.3/° 1 66.7/ 2 0.0%° 0 3
to participate in
the program.
The material
explained
3 rebate amounts 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 66.7% 2 0.0% 0 3
and potential
savings.
The material
guided me
4 through the 10.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 3 0.0% 0 3
application
process.
Q9-To what extent did the marketing materials influence your decision to make the energy efficiency
improvements or purchase the energy-efficient products you got a rebate for?
# Answer % Count
1 Not at all 33.3% 1
2 Slightly 33.3% 1
3 Moderately 0.0% 0
4 Significantly 33.3% 1
5 Completely 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Evaluation Report 34
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 34 of 65

Q10-Which aspects of the marketing materials influenced your decision to participate in the
program? Please select all that apply.
1 Information about the rebate offer 50.0% 2
2 Details on the benefits of the product or service 0.0% 0
3 Trust in Intermountain Gas Company 0.0% 0
4 Clarity and appeal of the marketing presentation 0.0% 0
5 Recommendations or endorsements included in the materials 0.0% 0
6 Environmental impact or energy efficiency information 50.0% 2
7 Other—please specify 0.0% 0
Total 100% 4
Q13-Who installed the project-qualifying equipment or efficiency upgrades?
1 My own staff 0.0% 0
2 A contractor who we have worked with before 33.3% 1
3 A new contractor that you had not worked with before 66.7% 2
4 Other—please specify 0.0% 0
98 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Q15- How did you find the contractor who implemented the measure(s)you installed through the
commercial program?
# Answer % Count
1 The contractor was someone you've worked with before 33.3% 1
2 Through a personal contact(friend,family, colleague,etc.) 33.3% 1
3 Internet search 33.3% 1
96 Other—please specify 0.0% 0
98 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Evaluation Report 35
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 35 of 65

Q16-Please rate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding your
experience with your contractor.
11 Neither
# Question Strongly Somewhat agree Somewhat Strongly Don't Total
disagree disagree nor agree agree know
disagree
The contractor
1 was courteous 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 3 0.0% 0 3
and
(professional
The work was
2 scheduled in a 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 3 0.0% 0 3
reasonable
amount of time
The time it
took to
3 complete the 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 66.7% 2 0.0% 0 3
work was
I Ireasonable
Q18-Did you have any difficulty getting the equipment or material that you received a rebate for?
1 Yes 0.0% 0
2 No 100.0% 3
Total 100% 3
Q19-What was the primary difficulty you had?
Count 1 It was unavailable and needed to be ordered 0.0% 0
2 It took a long time to get it delivered 0.0% 0
3 It was hard to find a contractor 0.0% 0
4 Other—please specify 0.0% 0
Total 0
Q20- How long did you have to wait to get the equipment?
# Answer % Count
1 Less than a week 0.0% 0
2 1-2 weeks 0.0% 0
3 3-4 weeks 0.0% 0
4 More than a month 0.0% 0
Total 0
Evaluation Report 36
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 36 of 65

Q21-Which of the following people worked on completing your application to receive the incentives?
Please select all that apply.
# Answer % Count
1 Myself 60.0% 3
2 Another member of your company 0.0% 0
3 Contractor 40.0% 2
4 An equipment vendor 0.0% 0
5 A designer or architect 0.0% 0
6 A program representative 0.0% 0
7 Other—please specify 0.0% 0
8 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 5
Q22-Did you use the web-based online application, or did you complete and submit the PDF
application through mail or fax?
# Answer % Count
1 Online application 33.3% 1
2 Submitted PDF application 66.7% 2
3 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Evaluation Report 37
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 37 of 65

Q23-Please rate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding your
experience with the rebate application process.
StronglyNeither
# Question •mewhat agree Somewhat StronglyDon't
disagree disagree nor •
disagree
Finding the
1 application 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 66.7% 2 0.0% 0 3
forms was easy
Completing the
2 application was 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 66.7% 2 33.3% 1 0.0% 0 3
easy
The time it took
3 to approve the 0.0% o 0 0 0 0
application was 0 0.0% 0 33.3/0 1 0.0% 0 66.7/0 2 0.0% 0 3
acceptable
The information
on how to
4 complete the 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 66.7% 2 0.0% 0 3
application was
clear
Providing the
required
invoices or
5 other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 1 0.0% 0 3
supporting
documentation
was easy
The overall
6 application 0.0% o 0 0 0 0
process was
0 0.0/0 0 33.3/0 1 0.0/0 0 66.7/0 2 0.0/0 0 3
smooth
Q40-In this section,we will ask you about the boiler(s)you installed. How many boilers did you
install?
• Count
1 Number of units: 100.0% 3
Total 100% 3
Evaluation Report 38
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 38 of 65

Q41-Why did you select the model/type for your boiler(s)?Select all that apply.
# Answer % Count
1 It was a good price 0.0% 0
2 There was a rebate for it 0.0% 0
3 It costs less to operate 14.3% 1
4 It's good for the environment 14.3% 1
5 It was all that was available/only choice 0.0% 0
6 The contractor recommended it 28.6% 2
7 The retailer recommended it 0.0% 0
8 It had features I wanted 0.0% 0
9 It was the right size or design for my business 14.3% 1
10 It was the brand I wanted 14.3% 1
11 It had an ENERGY STAR label 0.0% 0
12 Other—please specify 14.3% 1
13 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 7
Q42-What was the main purpose of the boiler(s)you installed?
# Answer % Count
1 Replacement of a failed unit 100.0% 3
2 Replacement of a working unit 0.0% 0
3 An addition to increase capacity 0.0% 0
98 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Q43-Why did you replace a working boiler?
Count 1 Thought old equipment was about to fail 0.0% 0
2 To increase capacity 0.0% 0
3 To reduce my monthly gas bill 0.0% 0
Total 0
Q44- If you had not received the rebate,what efficiency level would you have chosen for your
boiler(s)?
% Count
1 Higher efficiency 66.7% 2
2 Same efficiency 33.3% 1
3 Lower efficiency 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Evaluation Report 39
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 39 of 65

Q50- In this section,we will ask you about the boiler reset control(s)you installed. How many boiler
reset controls did you install?
# Answer % Count
1 1 Number of units: 100.0% 1
Total 100% 1
Q51-Why did you select the model/type for your boiler reset control(s)?Select all that apply.
1 It was a good price 0.0% 0
2 There was a rebate for it 0.0% 0
3 It costs less to operate 0.0% 0
4 It's good for the environment 0.0% 0
5 It was all that was available/only choice 0.0% 0
6 The contractor recommended it 100.0% 1
7 The retailer recommended it 0.0% 0
8 It had features I wanted 0.0% 0
9 It was the right size or design for my business 0.0% 0
10 It was the brand I wanted 0.0% 0
11 It had an ENERGY STAR label 0.0% 0
96 Other—please specify 0.0% 0
98 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 1
Q52-Did this new boiler reset control replace a previous boiler reset control?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 0.0% 0
2 No 0.0% 0
98 Don't know 100.0% 1
Total 100% 1
Q53-Why did you replace a working boiler reset control?
# Answer % Count
1 Thought old equipment was about to fail 0.0% 0
2 To increase capacity 0.0% 0
3 To reduce my monthly gas bill 0.0% 0
Total 0
Evaluation Report 40
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 40 of 65

Q54- If you had not received the rebate,what efficiency level would you have chosen for your boiler
reset control?
# Answer % Count
1 Higher efficiency 100.0% 1
2 Same efficiency 0.0% 0
3 Lower efficiency 0.0% 0
Total 100% 1
Q55- Based on your experience with the program, are you considering upgrading or installing
additional equipment?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes,within the next year. 66.7% 2
2 Yes, but more than a year from now. 33.3% 1
3 No planned upgrades. 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Q56-What type of equipment are you considering? Please select all that apply.
# Answer % Count
1 ENERGY STAR certified fryer 0.0% 0
2 ENERGY STAR certified griddle 25.0% 1
3 ENERGY STAR certified steamer 0.0% 0
4 ENERGY STAR certified convection oven 0.0% 0
5 ENERGY STAR certified combination oven 0.0% 0
6 ENERGY STAR certified dishwasher 25.0% 1
7 High efficiency storage tank water heater 0.0% 0
8 High efficiency tankless water heater 0.0% 0
9 95%AFUE natural gas furnace 0.0% 0
10 Gas heat pump 0.0% 0
11 Condensing unit heater 0.0% 0
12 High efficiency condensing boiler 50.0% 2
13 Boiler reset control 0.0% 0
14 Smart thermostat 0.0% 0
15 Pipe insulation 0.0% 0
16 Attic insulation 0.0% 0
17 Floor insulation 0.0% 0
18 Duct sealing 0.0% 0
19 Air sealing 0.0% 0
20 High efficiency windows 0.0% 0
21 Other—please specify 0.0% 0
Total 100% 4
Evaluation Report 41
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 41 of 65

Q57-Did your participation in the rebate program make you more likely to consider rebates for
future upgrades?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 66.7% 2
2 No 0.0% 0
98 Don't know 33.3% 1
Total 100% 3
Q58-To your knowledge,are there currently rebates available for the equipment you're considering?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 0.0% 0
2 No 0.0% 0
98 Don't know 100.0% 3
Total 100% 3
Q61- Please rate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding your
experience with the program participation process.
D.
# Question Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very know/ Total'
dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied D.
A remember
The program
representative
1 that assisted 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 66.7% 2 33.3% 1 3
you with your
project _
The facility
assessment or
other
2 technical 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 1 3
services
received from
the program
The
equipment
3 that was 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 3 0.0% 0 3
installed
The range of
4 qualifying 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 2
equipment
The steps you
5 had to take to I 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 3 0.0% 0 3
get the
Evaluation Report 42
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 42 of 65

program
rebate
The amount of
time it took to
get the
6 program 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.3/0 o 1 66.7/0 0 2 0.0%0 0 3
rebate after
your project
was
completed
Intermountain
7 Gas Company 0.0% 0 0.0% ° o o °
as your gas 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 3 0.0/ 0 3
provider
8 The program 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 01 33.3% 1 66.7% 2 0.0% 0 3
overall
Q63-What is your primary job title or role?
Count 1 Facilities manager 66.7% 2
2 Energy manager 0.0% 0
3 Other facilities management/maintenance position 0.0% 0
4 Chief Financial Officer 0.0% 0
5 Other financial/administrative position 33.3% 1
6 Proprietor/Owner 0.0% 0
7 President/CEO 0.0% 0
8 Manager 0.0% 0
9 Other-please specify 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Q64- Does your company have any of the following policies or procedures in place at [Field-
ADDRESS]?
# Question Yes No Don't
know
1 A person or persons responsible for monitoring or 66.7% 2 33.3% 1 0.0% 0 3
managing energy usage
2 Defined energy savings goals 66.7% 2 33.3% 1 0.0% 0 3
3 A specific policy requiring that energy efficiency be o 0 0
considered when purchasing equipment 66.7/0 2 33.3/0 1 0.0% 0 3
4 JCarbon reduction goals 1 66.7% 1 21 33.3% 1 11 0.0% 0 3
Evaluation Report 43
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 43 of 65

Q65- Does your company rent or own the facility at [Field-ADDRESS]?
# Answer % Count
1 Rent 0.0% 0
2 Own and occupy 100.0% 3
3 Own and rent to someone else 0.0% 0
4 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Q66-Which describes your facility at [Field-ADDRESS]?
# Answer % Count
1 Your company's only location 0.0% 0
2 One of several locations owned by your company 100.0% 2
3 The headquarters location of a company with several locations 0.0% 0
4 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 2
Q67-Which of the following best describes how your organization is billed for gas used at this
location?
1 We are billed directly by Intermountain Gas Company 100.0% 3
We are NOT billed directly by Intermountain Gas Company; our gas bill is o
2 handled by another part of our company or a third-party service 0.0% 0
3 We are NOT billed directly by Intermountain Gas Company; the cost for our gas 0.0% 0
is included in our rent/lease
4 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Evaluation Report 44
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 44 of 65

Q68-What type of building is the facility at[Field-ADDRESS]?
Count 1 Industrial/manufacturing 0.0% 0
2 Agricultural 0.0% 0
3 Warehouse or distribution center 0.0% 0
4 College or university 0.0% 0
5 School K-12 33.3% 1
6 Government building 33.3% 1
7 Fast food restaurant 0.0% 0
8 Restaurant(not fast food) 0.0% 0
9 Grocery 0.0% 0
10 Hospital 0.0% 0
11 Health clinic 0.0% 0
12 Small office 0.0% 0
13 Large office 0.0% 0
14 Lodging 33.3% 1
15 Gathering space 0.0% 0
16 Retail 0.0% 0
17 Parking garage 0.0% 0
18 Vacant lot 0.0% 0
19 Other—please specify 0.0% 0
20 Don't know 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Q69-Who in your business is responsible for energy efficiency equipment and upgrades? Please
select the best match.
% Count
ffi
1 Business owner 33.3% 1
2 Facility manager 33.3% 1
3 Operations manager 0.0% 0
4 Sustainability or energy manager 0.0% 0
5 Other—please specify 33.3% 1
Total 100% 3
Evaluation Report 45
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 45 of 65

Q70-What is the best way to contact this person about additional program offerings related to
energy efficiency? Please select all that apply.
# Answer % Count
1 Phone call 0.0% 0
2 Email 100.0% 3
3 Mail 0.0% 0
4 In-person drop-in visit 0.0% 0
5 In-person events 0.0% 0
6 Organization newsletters(e.g.ASHRAE) 0.0% 0
7 Other—please specify 0.0% 0
Total 100% 3
Evaluation Report 46
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 46 of 65

Appendix 6: Nonparticipant Survey
Q2-According to our records, Intermountain Gas Company provides natural gas service to the facility
located at [Field-ADDRESS]. Is that correct?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 81.7% 183
2 No, I did not receive the service. 14.3% 32
3 Don't know 3.6% 8
4 No, I receive the service at my facility, BUT the address is incorrect. Please 0.4% 1
provide the correct address.
Total 100% 224
Q3 -To the best of your knowledge, has your company or organization replaced or upgraded
equipment that requires natural gas to operate in the past three years?
1 Yes 16.3% 30
2 No 83.7% 154
Total 100% 184
Q4-What types of gas-powered equipment upgrades has your company or organization replaced or
upgraded in the past three years? Please select all that apply.
# Answer % Count
1 Space heating 37.5% 18
2 Water heating 22.9% 11
3 Clothes drying 8.3% 4
4 Manufacturing equipment 8.3% 4
5 Kitchen equipment(e.g.fryer,griddle, steamer) 6.3% 3
6 Swimming pool heating 4.2% 2
7 Other—please specify 12.5% 6
Total 100% 48
Evaluation Report 47
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 47 of 65

Q5 - More specifically,did your company or organization install any of the following equipment in the
past three years? Please select all that apply.
# Answer % Count
1 ENERGY STAR certified fryer 0.8% 1
2 ENERGY STAR certified griddle 0.8% 1
3 ENERGY STAR certified steamer 0.0% 0
4 ENERGY STAR certified convection oven 3.1% 4
5 ENERGY STAR certified combination oven 0.0% 0
6 ENERGY STAR certified dishwasher 6.3% 8
7 High efficiency storage tank water heater 10.2% 13
8 High efficiency tankless water heater 4.7% 6
9 95%AFUE natural gas furnace 7.1% 9
10 Gas heat pump 2.4% 3
11 Condensing unit heater 2.4% 3
12 High efficiency condensing boiler 0.8% 1
13 Boiler reset control 0.8% 1
14 Smart thermostat 16.5% 21
15 Pipe insulation 7.1% 9
16 Air sealing 2.4% 3
17 Duct sealing 3.9% 5
18 Ceiling insulation 7.9% 10
19 Floor insulation 1.6% 2
20 Other—please specify 21.3% 27
Total 100% 127
Q6- Did you receive an incentive for any of that equipment?
count 1 Yes,we received an incentive from Intermountain Gas Company 6.7% 2
2 Yes,we received an incentive from some other entity—please specify 0.0% 0
3 No 93.3% 28
Total 100% 30
Q7-Before taking this survey,were you aware that Intermountain Gas Company provides incentives
and services to assist its customers with energy efficiency improvements?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 42.9% 78
2 No 57.1% 104
Total 100% 182
Evaluation Report 48
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 48 of 65

Q8-When did you hear about those rebates or services?
# Answer % Count
1 In the past two months 11.5% 9
2 3 to 6 months ago 5.1% 4
3 More than 6 months ago 47.4% 37
4 Don't know 35.9% 28
Total 100% 78
Q9 - Please rate your awareness of each of the following Intermountain Gas Company's Commercial
Energy Efficiency Program offerings. For offerings you have no prior knowledge of, mark"1." If you
are fully aware of an offering's participation requirements and benefits, mark"5."
CompletelyNot at
# Question all Somewhat' Moderately Very don't
aware aware aware aware aware know
Heating and
hot water
equipment
incentives:
Rebates for
1 condensing 21.8% 17 28.2% 22 32.1% 25 9.0% 7 6.4% 5 2.6% 2 78
unit
heaters,
high-
efficiency
condensing
boilers
Kitchen
equipment
incentives:
2 Rebates for 41.0% 32 28.2% 22 17.9% 14 3.8% 3 2.6% 2 6.4% 5 78
fryers,
steamers,
griddles
Control
3 incentives: 58.4% 45 11.7% 9 13.0%o 10 6.5/0 0 5 3.9/0 0 3 6.5/0 0 5 77
Boiler reset
controls
Evaluation Report 49
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 49 of 65

Q10-How did you first learn about those offerings?
# Answer % Count
1 Mailed information from Intermountain Gas Company 19.5% 15
2 Utility bill message 15.6% 12
3 Utility website 11.7% 9
4 Email from Intermountain Gas Company 14.3% 11
5 Newspaper or magazine article or ad 1.3% 1
6 Radio or television ad 0.0% 0
7 Social media (i.e., Facebook, Instagram,Twitter/X,TikTok,etc.) 1.3% 1
8 Contractor 2.6% 2
9 Word of mouth (friend,family, colleague, neighbor,etc.) 14.3% 11
10 Intermountain Gas Company account representative 1.3% 1
11 Previous participation 0.0% 0
12 Other—please specify 1.3% 1
13 Don't know 16.9% 13
Total 100% 77
Q11-Did you view any Intermountain Gas Company marketing material or advertisements about the
program rebates and services?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 37.2% 29
2 No 62.8% 49
Total 100% 78
Q12-What materials did you view? Please select all that apply.
# Answer % Count
1 Intermountain Gas Company email 32.4% 12
2 Intermountain Gas Company social media post 0.0% 0
3 Intermountain Gas Company website 18.9% 7
4 Intermountain Gas Company mailing or flyer 48.6% 18
5 Other—please specify 0.0% 0
6 Don't know/Don't remember 0.0% 0
Total 100% 37
Evaluation Report 50
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 50 of 65

Q13-Please rate how helpful the marketing materials were for each of the listed purposes.
Neither I . . not
# Question Not Somewhat helpful Somewhat Very receive Total
helpful helpful nor helpful helpful this
unhelpful material
The material
helped me
1 understand 0.0% 0 20.7% 6 17.2% 5 37.9% 11 24.1% 7 0.0% 0 29
program
eligibility.
The material
encouraged
2 me to 3.4% 1 10.3% 3 37.9% 11 27.6% 8 17.2% 5 3.4% 1 29
participate
in the
program. _
The material
explained
rebate
3 amounts 3.4% 1 17.2% 5 24.1% 7 27.6% 8 27.6% 8 0.0% 0 29
and
potential
savings.
The material
guided me
4 through the 10.3% 3 6.9% 2 37.9% 11 20.7% 6 17.2% 5 6.9% 2 29
application
process.
Q14-Was the information you received from friends,family, or colleagues positive or negative? Using
the scale below,where 1 is very negative and 5 is very positive, please mark your response.
# Answer % Count
1 Very negative 0.0% 0
2 Somewhat negative 0.0% 0
3 Neutral 45.5% 5
4 Somewhat positive 18.2% 2
5 Very positive 18.2% 2
98 1 don't know 18.2% 2
Total 100% 11
Evaluation Report 51
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 51 of 65

Q15-Which of the following best describes the type of work that your organization does?
# Answer % Count
1 Industrial/manufacturing 10.1% 21
2 Agricultural 3.4% 7
3 Warehouse or distribution center 5.3% 11
4 College or university 0.5% 1
5 School K-12 0.5% 1
6 Government building 1.0% 2
7 Fast food restaurant 1.4% 3
8 Restaurant(not fast food) 2.9% 6
9 Grocery 0.0% 0
10 Hospital 0.5% 1
11 Health clinic 6.8% 14
12 Small office 20.3% 42
13 Large office 0.5% 1
14 Lodging 1.4% 3
15 Gathering space 0.5% 1
16 Retail 14.0% 29
17 Parking garage 0.0% 0
18 Vacant lot 0.0% 0
19 Other—please specify 29.5% 61
20 Don't know 1.4% 3
Total 100% 207
Q16-We understand it is not always possible to make improvements and energy efficiency upgrades
to your business'facilities.Which of the following best describes your authority to make decisions?
# Answer % Count
1 No authority; as a renter, I am not permitted to make any repairs, 11.5% 21
improvements,or upgrades
2 Some authority; as a renter, I am permitted to make some 26.9% 49
improvement or upgrades
3 1 Full authority; I am the owner of the business' building and equipment 41.8% 76
4 Full authority; as part of my rent agreement, I am required to 8 2% 15
maintain/repair equipment
5 Other—please specify 8.2% 15
6 Don't know 3.3% 6
Total 100% 1 182
Evaluation Report 52
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 52 of 65

Q17-Which of the following is your business responsible for paying at [Field-ADDRESS]? Please select
all that apply.
# Answer % Count
1 Gas 36.0% 178
2 Electric 35.6% 176
3 Water 27.7% 137
4 None of the above 0.2% 1
5 1 don't know 0.4% 2
Total 100% 494
Q19- Please mark each appliance or equipment type your organization has that uses natural gas.
# Answer % Count
1 Space heating 36.0% 114
2 Water heating 34.7% 110
3 Clothes drying 6.3% 20
4 Manufacturing equipment 4.7% 15
5 Kitchen equipment(e.g.fryer,griddle, steamer) 6.9% 22
6 Swimming pool heating 2.8% 9
7 Other—please specify 8.5% 27
Total 100% 317
Q20-What do you feel is the largest natural gas consumer in your business?
# Answer % Count
1 Space heating 59.9% 103
2 Water heating 16.3% 28
3 Clothes drying 2.3% 4
4 Manufacturing equipment 3.5% 6
5 Kitchen equipment(e.g.fryer,griddle, steamer) 2.9% 5
6 Swimming pool heating 3.5% 6
7 Other—please specify 11.6% 20
Total 100% 172
Q21-You mentioned your company replaced or upgraded equipment that required gas in the past
three years. Did your company work with a contractor to complete these replacements or upgrades?
# Answer % Count
1 Worked with a contractor 78.6% 22
2 Company self-installed the equipment 3.6% 1
3 Both 10.7% 3
4 Don't know 7.1% 2
Total 100% 28
Evaluation Report 53
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 53 of 65

Q22-In the past year has your company worked with an architect,design engineer, or other type of
contractor to consider undertaking any equipment upgrades or replacements?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 12.1% 22
2 No 81.9% 149
98 Don't know 6.0% 11
Total 100% 182
Q23-When discussing past or planned equipment replacements with an architect,design engineer,or
other type of contractor did they mention any of the following?
Not
FIF__ applicable-
Question Yes NoTotalDon't organization
know has not
talked to
contractors 1 High-efficiency equipment options 38.1% 8 28.6% 6 33.3% 7 0.0% 0 21
2 Energy-efficiency incentives available 5.0% 1 60.0% 12 35.0% 7 0.0% 0 20
from Intermountain Gas Company
3 Energy-efficiency incentives available 20.0% 4 50.0% 10 30.0% 6 0.0% 0 20
from some other source
Q24-Are you interested in or planning to replace any of that equipment in the future?
QuestionInterested Not
Planning to but not interested
replace planning to
replace
1 Space heating 9.8% 11 33.0% 37 57.1% 64 112
2 Water heating 3.8% 4 29.2% 31 67.0% 71 106
3 Clothes drying 5.9% 1 5.9% 1 88.2% 15 17
4 Manufacturing equipment 13.3% 2 33.3% 5 53.3% 8 15
5 Kitchen equipment(e.g.fryer, griddle, 9.5% 2 33.3% 7 57.1% 12 21
steamer)
6 Swimming pool heating 11.1% 1 33.3% 3 55.6% 5 9
7 Other-please specify 0.0% 0 28.6% 6 71.4% 15 21
Evaluation Report 54
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 54 of 65

Q25-Are you planning to replace that equipment with similar efficiency equipment, higher efficiency
gas equipment,or electric equipment?
QuestionSimilar Higher
equipment gas equipment
1 Space heating 29.1% 25 equipment 69 8% 60 1.2% 1 86
2 Water heating 34.2% 26 59.2% 45 6.6% 5 76
3 Clothes drying 61.5% 8 30.8% 4 7.7% 1 13
4 Manufacturing equipment 33.3% 3 66.7% 6 0.0% 0 9
5 Kitchen equipment (e.g. fryer, griddle, 23.5% 4 70.6% 12 5.9% 1 17
steamer)
6 Swimming pool heating 50.0% 4 50.0% 4 0.0% 0 8
7 Other-please specify 50.0% 5 40.0% 4 10.0% 1 10
Q26-You indicated that you are planning on replacing your gas equipment.What is your timeline for
replacing that equipment?
5 years D. not
# Question Less than 1-3 3 -5 or plan to Don't Total
i one year years years more replace know
1 Space heating 27.3% 3 36.4% 4 18.2% 2 9.1% 1 0.0% 0 9.1% 1 11
2 Water heating 25.0% 1 25.0% 1 0.0% 0 25.0% 1 0.0% 0 25.0% 1 4
3 Clothes drying 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0
4 Manufacturing 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1
equipment
Kitchen
5 equipment (e.g. 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 2
fryer, griddle,
steamer)
6 Swimming pool 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1
heating
7 Other-please 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0
specify
Q27-When was the last time your heating or cooling system was serviced?
# Answer % count
1 Less than one year 50.0% 91
2 One-to-three years 19.2% 35
3 More than three years 12.6% 23
4 Don't know 18.1% 33
Total 100% 182
Evaluation Report 55
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 55 of 65

Q28- How well insulated would you consider your organization's walls,windows,and doors to be?
# Answer % Count
1 Well insulated 17.1% 31
2 Reasonably insulated 48.1% 87
3 Poorly insulated 27.1% 49
4 Don't know 7.7% 14
Total 100% 181
Q29-Are you considering upgrading or installing additional equipment?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes,within the next year 2.2% 4
2 Yes, but more than a year from now 14.4% 26
3 No planned upgrades 83.4% 151
Total 100% 181
Q30-What type of equipment are you considering upgrading or installing? Please select all that apply.
# Answer % Count
1 ENERGY STAR certified fryer 0.0% 0
2 ENERGY STAR certified griddle 0.0% 0
3 ENERGY STAR certified steamer 1.3% 1
4 ENERGY STAR certified convection oven 0.0% 0
5 ENERGY STAR certified combination oven 1.3% 1
6 ENERGY STAR certified dishwasher 1.3% 1
7 High efficiency storage tank water heater 6.3% 5
8 High efficiency tankless water heater 10.0% 8
9 95%AFUE natural gas furnace 15.0% 12
10 Gas heat pump 1.3% 1
11 Condensing unit heater 2.5% 2
12 High efficiency condensing boiler 2.5% 2
13 Boiler reset control 1.3% 1
14 Smart thermostat 11.3% 9
15 Pipe insulation 7.5% 6
16 Air sealing 10.0% 8
17 Duct sealing 11.3% 9
18 Ceiling insulation 7.5% 6
19 Floor insulation 5.0% 4
20 Other—please specify 5.0% 4
Total 100% 80
Evaluation Report 56
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 56 of 65

Q31-Does your awareness of the rebate program make you more likely to consider rebates for future
upgrades?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 86.7% 26
2 No 6.7% 2
3 Don't know 6.7% 2
Total 100% 30
Q32-To your knowledge,are there currently rebates available for the equipment you're considering?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 6.7% 2
2 No 10.0% 3
3 Don't know 83.3% 25
Total 100% 30
Q33-Would knowing that a rebate is available make you more likely to install higher-efficiency
equipment?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 41.1% 74
2 No 21.7% 39
3 Don't know 37.2% 67
Total 100% 180
Evaluation Report 57
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 57 of 65

Q34-Are you interested in learning more about the following equipment for your organization?
Please select all the equipment you or your organization may be interested in replacing or upgrading.
# Answer % Count
1 ENERGY STAR certified fryer 1.9% 5
2 ENERGY STAR certified griddle 1.2% 3
3 ENERGY STAR certified steamer 1.2% 3
4 ENERGY STAR certified convection oven 3.1% 8
5 ENERGY STAR certified combination oven 1.2% 3
6 ENERGY STAR certified dishwasher 2.7% 7
7 High efficiency storage tank water heater 7.8% 20
8 High efficiency tankless water heater 12.1% 31
9 95%AFUE natural gas furnace 10.5% 27
10 Gas heat pump 6.2% 16
11 Condensing unit heater 3.9% 10
12 High efficiency condensing boiler 1.9% 5
13 Boiler reset control 0.8% 2
14 Smart thermostat 10.9% 28
15 Pipe insulation 3.1% 8
16 Air sealing 6.6% 17
17 Duct sealing 5.8% 15
18 Ceiling insulation 7.4% 19
19 Floor insulation 3.1% 8
20 Other-please specify 8.6% 22
Total 100% 257
Q36-How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Questi.
don'tSomewhat Strongly I ro
d Strongly Somewhat
�
c'isagree disagree agree agree know
is a
Intermountain
Gas
Company's
incentives do
not cover
enough to
1 justify high 2.2% 4 4.5% 8 45.3% 81 10.1% 18 4.5% 8 33.5% 60 179
efficiency
equipment
purchase,
versus
standard
It would take
too much time
2 and resources 4.4% 8 15.0% 27 38.3% 69 12.8% 23 5.6% 10 23.9% 43 180
to participate
in
Evaluation Report 58
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 58 of 65

Intermountain
Gas
Company's
energy
efficiency
program
My
organization is
3 not concerned 18.3% 33 22.2% 40 35.0% 63 8.9% 16 5.0% 9 10.6% 19 180
with reducing
its gas usage
My
organization
has already
4 done 11.7% 21 19.4% 35 37.8% 68 12.2% 22 6.7% 12 12.2% 22 180
everything it
can to improve
its efficiency
Energy
5 efficiency 5.0% 9 2.8% 5 17.2% 31 18.9% 34 50.0% 90 6.1% 11 180
saves money
My
organization is
not very
6 concerned 21.2% 38 26.8% 48 29.6% 53 12.8% 23 2.8% 5 6.7% 12 179
about the
amount of
energy it uses
My
organization is
too busy to
7 worry about 19.0% 34 19.0% 34 33.5% 60 18.4% 33 3.4% 6 6.7% 12 179
making
energy-related
improvements
Scarce energy
supplies will
8 be a major 6.1% 11 7.8% 14 37.4% 67 18.4% 33 17.9% 32 12.3% 22 179
problem in the
future
We know of
steps that we
9 could take to 2.8% 5 10.6% 19 39.7% 71 23.5% 42 8.9% 16 14.5% 26 179
reduce our
energy use
10 We intend to 6.7% 12 8.4% 15 48.6% 87 15.1% 27 6.1% 11 15.1% 27 179
reduce our
Evaluation Report 59
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 59 of 65

energy use in
the next 12
months
Q37-How trustworthy is Intermountain Gas Company a source of information about saving energy in
your business?
# Answer % count
1 Very untrustworthy 6.6% 12
2 Somewhat untrustworthy 4.4% 8
3 Somewhat trustworthy 27.5% 50
4 Very trustworthy 43.4% 79
5 1 don't know 18.1% 33
Total 100% 182
Q38- How satisfied are you with Intermountain Gas Company as your natural gas service provider?
Please use a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied)and to 5 (very satisfied).
# Answer % Count
1 Very dissatisfied 3.3% 6
2 Somewhat dissatisfied 1.1% 2
3 Neutral 19.2% 35
4 Somewhat satisfied 20.3% 37
5 Very satisfied 56.0% 102
Total 100% 182
Q40-What is the approximate total square footage of the facility or facilities that your company or
organization owns or leases in [Field-UTILITY]territory?Your best guess is fine.
# Answer % Count
1 Less than 5,000 46.7% 85
2 5,001 to 10,000 24.7% 45
3 10,001 to 20,000 9.3% 17
4 20,001 to 50,000 3.3% 6
5 50,001 to 75,000 2.2% 4
6 75,001 to 100,000 1.6% 3
7 100,001 to 250,000 1.1% 2
8 250,001 to 500,000 1.1% 2
9 500,001 to 1,000,000 1.6% 3
10 More than 1,000,000 0.0% 0
11 Not sure 8.2% 15
Total 100% 182
Evaluation Report 60
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 60 of 65

Q41-What is your primary job title or role?
Count 1 Facilities manager 3.9% 7
2 Energy manager 0.0% 0
3 Other facilities management/maintenance position 0.6% 1
4 Chief Financial Officer 5.0% 9
5 Other financial/administrative position 18.351( 33
6 Proprietor/Owner 40.6% 73
7 President/CEO 11.1% 20
8 Manager 13.9% 25
9 Other—please specify 6.7% 12
Total 100% 180
Q42- Does your company have any of the following policies or procedures in place at [Field-
ADDRESS]?
D.
Question
1 A person or persons responsible for monitoring or 19.2% 35 73.1% 133 7.7% 14 182
managing energy usage
2 Defined energy savings goals 9.9% 18 83.0% 151 7.1% 13 182
A specific policy requiring that energy efficiency be o 0 0
3 13.2/0 24 78.0% 142 8.8/0 16 182
considered when purchasing equipment
4 Carbon reduction goals 7.7% 14 82.4% 150 9.9% 18 182
Q43-Which describes your facility at [Field-ADDRESS]?
# Answer % Count
1 Your company's only location 61.3% 111
2 One of several locations owned by your company 24.9% 45
3 The headquarters location of a company with several locations 12.2% 22
4 Don't know 1.7% 3
Total 100% 181
Q44-Which of the following best describes how your organization is billed for gas used at this
location?
# Answer % Count
1 We are billed directly by Intermountain Gas Company 97.8% 178
We are NOT billed directly by Intermountain Gas Company; our gas bill is o
2 handled by another part of our company or a third-party service 0.5/ 1
3 We are NOT billed directly by Intermountain Gas Company;the cost for our 0.5% 1
gas is included in our rent/lease
4 Don't know 1.1% 2
Total 1 100% 1 182
Evaluation Report 61
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 61 of 65

Q45-Who in your business is responsible for energy efficiency equipment and upgrades? Please
select the best match.
# Answer % Count
1 Business owner 68.8% 121
2 Facility manager 8.0% 14
3 Operations manager 8.5% 15
4 Sustainability or energy manager 0.6% 1
5 Other—please specify 14.2% 25
Total 100% 176
Q46-What is the best way to contact this person about additional program offerings related to
energy efficiency? Please select all that apply.
# Answer % Count
1 Phone call 4.6% 8
2 Email 63.0% 109
3 Mail 20.2% 35
4 In-person drop-in visit 0.6% 1
5 In-person events 1.2% 2
6 Organization newsletters (e.g.ASHRAE) 1.7% 3
7 Other—please specify 8.7% 15
Total 100% 173
Evaluation Report 62
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 62 of 65

Appendix C: Contractor Interview Guide
Introduction
Objective: Establish rapport and gather contextual information about the contractor and their business.
1. Can we start with your role and your business?
2. What type of work does your company specialize in?
3. How did you/your company become involved with the programs that Intermountain Gas
Company offers?
o Follow-up: How did you first learn about Intermountain Gas Company?
o Follow-up:What methods do you find most effective for learning about Intermountain
Gas Company's programs? (e.g. email, phone calls, in-person meetings, events)
o Follow-up: Have you worked with any other utility programs on similar projects?
• If yes: Which electric or natural gas utility programs have you worked with?
• Follow-up: How did you learn about those programs?
• Follow-up: How frequently do you participate in those programs?
Program Experience and Perceptions
Objective: Gather information on how they became involved with the program and how a typical job
works.
4. Can you describe how customers usually learn about the program and how the communication
process typically unfolds?
o Consider: When working with an Intermountain Gas Company customer, do you
generally inform them about Intermountain Gas Company's program, or do they
typically contact you about it first?
o Follow-up: If they contact you, how do customers typically find out about the program?
S. Are there aspects of the program that prevent customers from going through the program and
completing the energy efficiency projects?
o Follow-up: Do you think Intermountain Gas Company could help overcome these
barriers? If so, how?
o Follow-up: Do you typically complete the application for the customer?
• If the customer completes it themselves: Do they find the application
manageable? Easy?
Evaluation Report 63
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 63 of 65

o Follow-up:When speaking with the customer, do they seem interested in additional
energy efficiency improvements that are available?
• Or, do they already seem satisfied with their current space and water heating
needs? Do you recommend any additional upgrades when speaking with the
customer and visiting the facility? (If yes, probe about whether they consider
program offerings, or what information they use to determine
recommendations)
6. What role do rebates and incentives play in customers' decisions to move forward with
projects?
o Follow-up: Do incentives motivate customers to install high-efficiency products, or
would they have done so anyway? (If the incentive was not available, would the
customer have purchased standard efficiency products?)
o Follow-up: Do customers add measures they hadn't initially planned for after learning
about additional incentives?
o Follow-up:Are customers using financing in any of these projects?And if so, is your
business providing financing?
o Follow-up:Are most customers first-time participants, or have they used the program
before?
7. Can you think of any reasons why a customer might choose not to participate in the rebate
program even if their project qualifies for a rebate?
o Follow-up: Do you recall this happening with any of the commercial customers you
installed equipment for?What proportion of your project does this occur?
o Follow-up: Do customers opt out because they want to install equipment that doesn't
meet program requirements? How often does that happen?
o Follow-up:When you have participated in the program, did you apply using a paper
rebate or the web interface?
o Follow-up: Have you encountered any issues with the current application options for
IGC's rebates? (i.e.,the project involves multiple equipment upgrades, which does not
qualify for rebates when combined)
Program Satisfaction
Objective: Gather information on contractor satisfaction and perceived benefits of the program.
8. How satisfied are you with Intermountain Gas Company's communication and overall program
process?
o Follow-up: How do you feel about application review, payment, and timeline?
Evaluation Report 64
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 64 of 65

o Follow-up:Any challenges IGC could address for contractors or customers?
o Follow-up: Do commercial rebates meet customer needs, or are any key measures
missing?
9. Would training on installations or program offerings be helpful?
o Follow-up: Would a trade ally network be beneficial? Do you participate in others?
10. What industry organizations do you follow(e.g. ASHRAQ?Are they a good way to share
program materials?
Follow-up: Is IGC staff response time and support sufficient?
Perceptions of Market (Optional, Time Permitting)
Objective: Identify emerging technologies and opportunities for Intermountain Gas Company's program.
9. Are there any new or emerging technologies you think Intermountain Gas Company should
include in their program offerings?
1. Follow-up: Do customers frequently ask about incentives for measures not currently
offered?
2. Follow-up: Would an upstream program be beneficial? Do you have experience with
upstream commercial programs?
10. Do you think Intermountain Gas Company is missing any services or offerings that would benefit
customers or contractors?
o Follow-up: What proportion of your customers are retrofit vs. new construction?
o Follow-up: What proportion are converted residences vs. schools, restaurants,
manufacturing,warehouses, or other?
o Follow-up: Do you face barriers in reaching the right personnel at facilities for energy
efficiency decisions?
Conclusion
11. Thank you for speaking with us today. Is there anything else you would like to add that we
haven't discussed?
12. Before we wrap up, could I get your email address so we can send you the$50 Digital Gift Card?
Evaluation Report 65
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 1
to Application
Page 65 of 65

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
CASE No. INT-G-25-05
ATTACHMENT 1 - SUPPLEMENT 2
COMMERCIAL TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL
NATIVE SPREADSHEET PRODUCED SEPARATELY)

INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
CASE No. INT-G-25-05
ATTACHMENT 1 - SUPPLEMENT 3
EESC QUARTERLY MEETING TRANSCRIPTS
(155 PAGES

® Energy
INTERMOUNTAINEfficiency
GASCOMPANY 0
A Subsidiary of MDU Resources Group,Inc.
Intermountain Gas EESC Quarterly Meeting Transcripts
Contents:
• Q1 Meeting Transcript
oIntroductions ........................................................................ P.3
oSafety moment ..................................................................... P. 9
o Parking Lot topics ................................................................. P. 9
oRider Balance ........................................................................ P. 13
o Rebate performance .............................................................. P. 20
o Promotions Update ............................................................... P.22
o Program Administration ........................................................ P. 31
o Special Studies: EM&V ........................................................... P. 33
• Q2 Meeting Transcript
oIntroductions .................................................................................... P.39
oSafety moment ................................................................................. R46
oParking Lot topics .............................................................................. P.47
oRider Balance .................................................................................... P.47
o Rebate Performance .......................................................................... P.48
o Promotions Update .......................................................................... P.51
o Program Administration ................................................................... P.57
oSpecial Studies ................................................................................ R60
• Q3 Meeting Transcript
oSafety moment ................................................................................... P.65
oParking Lot topics ............................................................................... P.66
oRider Balance ...................................................................................... P.66
oPromotions ......................................................................................... P.67
o EM&V Impact Evaluation Presentation—ADM Associates, Inc. ............. P.72
■ Introductions/agenda ............................................................... P.72
■ Evaluation Objectives .............................................................. R73
■ General Methodology .............................................................. P.74
■ Impact Analysis Results and evaluator recommendations ..... P.76
INT-G-25-01
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 1 of 155

■ Storage Tank Water Heater ...................................................... P.77
■ Tankless Water Heater Tier 1 &2 .............................................. P.82
■ Boiler ....................................................................................... P.83
■ Combination Boiler ................................................................. R84
■ Smart Thermostat ................................................................... P.84
■ Furnace ................................................................................... P.91
■ Whole Home Tier 1 &2 ............................................................. R98
■ Next Steps and Questions........................................................ R117
• Q4 Meeting Transcript
oSafety Moment ..................................................................................... P.123
oSpecial Studies .................................................................................... P.124
o Technical Reference Manual(TRM) ...................................................... R125
oAvoided costs ....................................................................................... P.126
o Furnace Suggested Changes ................................................................ P.126
o Smart Thermostat Suggested Changes .............................................. R133
o Storage Tank Water Heater ................................................................. P.134
o Tankless Water Heater Tier 1 &2 ........................................................ P.139
oBoiler .................................................................................................. R142
o Combination Boiler ............................................................................ R143
oWhole Home Tier 1 &2 ....................................................................... P.144
oCost Testing Summary ....................................................................... P.146
o Program Update Summary ................................................................. P. 151
oNext Steps .......................................................................................... P.152
INT-G-25-0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 2 of 155

Q1 EESC Meeting: February 15, 2024
Wold, Kathy 0:03
Use a raise hand function orjump in.
Just let us know and we'll be watching the chat and I'm looking for hand raises as well, so.
Some general meeting rules for this afternoon.
You're right.
Hey, so to begin for this afternoon, we've got our agenda here.
We'll do some quick introductions.
We'll pause for safety moment.
We have some parking lot topics, so those were things that came up in the last meeting and
we wanted to circle back on some more explanations on those questions from the last
meeting, we'll get an update on the writer balance and rebate performance as well as
update from the promotion side of the house and some program administration updates.
And then we'll talk a little bit about social studies and that'll kind of wrap up our our
afternoon meeting here.
OK, So what do quick introductions and I'll just kind of do a roll call style and I'll go down
the list of folks as they appear on my participant list here.
Wold, Kathy 1:12
Of course, this last weekend we had the Super Bowl.
It was the most watched Super Bowl with 123.4 million viewers.
So as I call your name today, maybe if you'll share your name and organization and let us
know if you watch the Super Bowl, you watch the ads.
You didn't watch or you watched for Taylor Swift, so I'll go with the first person on my list
here.
And that's Lori.
Blattner, Lori 1:43
Hi everyone.
Laurie Blattner.
I'm the director of regulatory affairs and energy efficiency for Intermountain UM, and I
actually watched the Super Bowl football and ads.
Wold, Kathy 1:55
INT-G-25A
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 3 of 155

Alright, great.
Thanks, Lori.
All right, Jason.
Jason Talford 2:02
1 surging with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
Umm, I happen to be in the same room as when a Super Bowl was playing.
I wasn't really watching anything and one of the people at at the group there recommended
a drinking game for every time they talked about Taylor Swift.
Jason Talford 2:19
1 gotta go take a shot on work hours now.
Wold, Kathy 2:22
I'm busy day.
Yes, great.
Alright, thanks.
How about Kevin?
Kevin Keyt 2:29
In afternoon everybody.
My name is Kevin keyt.
I'm with PUC.
Yes, I did.
Watch the Super Bowl.
I did enjoy the ad and I could have done without Taylor Swift as I'm not a swifty.
Wold, Kathy 2:41
Excellent.
Alright.
Thanks, Kevin.
How about Kimberly?
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 4 of 155

Kimberly Loskot 2:47
1 am Kimberly last Scott with the Idaho PUC and I only watched the Super Bowl for the
halftime show.
Wold, Kathy 2:54
Ohh OK, I missed that one.
Yes, good.
Alright, the halftime show.
Perfect.
All right.
How, Laura?
Laura Conilogue 3:03
Hi, I'm Laura with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and I did not watch the Super
Bowl, so.
Wold, Kathy 3:11
E OK, great.
OK, how about Lauren?
Lauren Marcus 3:19
Hi, I'm Lauren.
I'm the sales manager for Arcgis.
I did watch the Super Bowl.
I was really just there for usher and Taylor Swift though, but I watched the whole thing.
Wold, Kathy 3:31
There we go.
Great.
Alright.
Thanks.
Good to have you, Matt Bandimere.
MATT VANDERMEER WITH MOMENTUM LLC 3:39
INT-G-25-0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 5 of 155

Ohm momentum here in Idaho and I did watch the Super Bowl.
I did watch the ends and I could care less about Taylor Swift.
Wold, Kathy 3:50
OK.
MATT VANDERMEER WITH MOMENTUM LLC 3:51
OK.
Wold, Kathy 3:52
Fair enough.
Thanks Matt.
Min park.
Park, Min 3:58
Yes, Min Park with Intermountain gas.
I watched the Super Bowls.
I did not watch dads, though.
Wold, Kathy 4:05
Alright, great.
Thanks men, Preston.
Scantling, Preston 4:11
Hi there I'm calling.
I'm an energy efficiency analyst here at Intermountain Gas, and I watched the Super Bowl
for the first time in a few years, which usually, you know, I haven't been watching it as much
in the past.
I watched the ads as well.
Wold, Kathy 4:23
All right, great.
Alright, Selena.
INT-G-25-A
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 6 of 155

Selena 4:33
Hi, Selena O'Neal, Ada County.
Wold, Kathy 4:35
Yeah.
Selena 4:36
I'm the editor specialist and I did watch the Super Bowl and the ads with my family.
We had a really good time.
I think it would have been even better if Taylor Swift had been the halftime entertainment.
Wold, Kathy 4:51
Alright, great.
Thanks, Elena.
OK, we have next set.
Seth Welty 4:57
Hi, I'm Seth.
I manage our utility programs with Arcgis and I was definitely watching.
Football was written for the 49ers.
Wold, Kathy 5:05
Alright, great, Thomas.
Thomas Jensen 5:18
Did you say Thomas?
Wold, Kathy 5:19
Yes.
Yeah.
Thomas Jensen 5:20
Ohh, I'm sorry, I'm still not used to answering that full name anymore.
7
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 7 of 155

Wold, Kathy 5:21
Yes,yes, that's alright.
Thomas Jensen 5:27
1 did watch the Super Bowl, but I have to confess I watched the first few minutes and I
tuned in towards the end of the halftime to see how it was going.
Then I waited till the end of the fourth quarter that because my homes.
So and when they went to overtime, looked at the session,you could kind of see what was
going, but I I admit I I watched the abbreviated version live and then yeah, I look for Taylor
when when I was tuned in.
Wold, Kathy 5:40
Oh.
Yeah.
All right, great.
Thank you, uh Kody.
Thompson, Kody 5:59
Yeah, Kody Thompson with Intermountain Gas.
And I watched the Super Bowl football and ads.
Wold, Kathy 6:05
Alright, great will.
Will Gehl 6:11
1 will go with the city of Boise.
I watched the Super Bowl football and ads and mostly in interested in the Super Bowl
snacks.
Wold, Kathy 6:19
Perfect.
Yes, I wish that should have been another category.
We're just here for the snacks.
Yeah. Great.
INT-G-25-0q
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 8 of 155

Thanks everybody for sharing.
Did we get everybody?
I that's all I have on my participant list, but do we have anybody?
Maybe who's calling in that?
I'm not seeing as showing up there.
Anybody we missed?
No.
OK, not hearing anything.
Alright, great.
Well, thank everybody for introducing yourself.
I noticed some new names, some new folks, so we're glad to have you join us.
Thanks for being here today.
Thanks for everyone joining.
I'm going to turn it over to min for our moment of safety.
Park, Min 6:56
Yes.
So this would have probably been more useful a couple weeks ago when we had that cold
period, but I figured it wouldn't be a bad idea to go over in case we get another one.
So 5 tips to staying safe in the cold?
The first tip is to where outdoor clothing and layers.
This can be extremely useful when you get indoors so that you're not contemplating
whether to have one big code on and sweat, or take it off and be cold.
The second tip is to eat healthy, nutritious meals, giving your body the nutrition it needs will
allow it to stay healthy and run properly.
The third tip is my favorite and Cody's favorite as well is to limit your time outdoors.
The best way to stay warm is to just avoid the cold altogether.
The 4th tip is to move around, but don't get fatigued.
This will help blood circulation and keep you warm and lastly always carry a cell phone
that's charged for emergencies.
Wold, Kathy 8:02
Alright, great.
Thank you, man.
OK, we're going to go back and revisit some of our parking lot topics that came up from the
Last meeting.
And I'm going to kick this off here.
INT-G-25-0?
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 9 of 155

One of the first questions we had was about the commercial rider balance.
Is this a lot relative to program spending?
And the answer is kind of yes and no.
We want to avoid changing that collection rate around a lot.
And so, umm uh, this is the same rate that when we started the program, we have not made
any changes to the rate yet.
By the same token, we haven't had enough participation to know if this is the right rate.
The uptake in the commercial program has been pretty slow so far, so we're still trying to
determine if that collection rate is the proper rate.
We do have some future plans for the commercial program that may help reduce that over
collected balance and we we'll talk a little bit more about things that we have going on in
the commercial program as we get into this meeting today.
So I'm hopefully that is helpful.
It's a yes and no.
Is is that high for relative to to program spending, but we'll talk a little bit more about
commercial program here in this meeting.
And the second parking lot question was how many rebates were denied in 2023?
And I'm going to turn this over to Cody for more explanation.
Thompson, Kody 9:27
Yeah.
So of all applications submitted in 2023, nineteen percent of those were denied for a
number of reasons of which are listed in the chart here.
If we exclude the portion that was for duplicated equipment, which is something that we
don't really have a lot of control over that metric versus education around things like not
meeting program requirements for some of these other things, the total number of denied
rebates and accounting for 16% of total rebates applied for it, this is uh, slightly higher than
2020 twos rejections at about an 8% increase of rejected in total.
That said, we are seeing duplicate equipment trending down.
Again, that's something that just a little bit of our control, we have seen a decrease in
applications being returned to customers with no response as well.
That's gone down by 8% compared to 22.
And when we say a an application was, uh, returned to a customer with no response, that
means that they submitted an incomplete application in some shape or form, whether it's
missing information, there's permits, outstanding things of that nature.
We've reached out to them on the front end, giving them some time to rectify those with us
before sending the application back to them if they don't get back to us within the time
INT-G-25 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 10 of 155

frame we set, then it does go back to them.
They have an additional time frame to correct that and send it back to us.
So we are seeing a decrease in ones that get sent back to customers because of that
outstanding information.
We don't hear anything like that one down about 8%.
UM non calling non qualifying equipment submissions has increased by 6% compared to
2022 with those non qualifying equipment submissions over half about 55% of the non
qualifying equipment was our storage.
Water was for the storage water heater rebate and that was why, umm, as we were seeing
that trend up in 2023, we did send that email focused on water heating rebates.
Smart thermostats are the second most rejected rebate we're seeing there.
That's primarily due to customers applying for programmable or non Energy Star certified
Wi-Fi thermostats that have been installed and then for our miscellaneous category that
covers a multitude of reasons that aren't captured directly in the system like some of these
others are.
And I say not captured directly, the system will identify a duplicate directly.
It identifies when it's sent back to a customer without any kind of response and so on, and
so the things that fall under miscellaneous category are things like used equipment that's
been installed, customers who requested that we remove the rebate from consideration
because they weren't able to provide that but support or they didn't want to continue after
receiving that contact with us and reached out and told us so equipment that was installed
prior to the rebate or potentially even the program existing things of that nature.
I will be working on a standardization in our system for some of those so that we can do
better reporting all those in the future.
As far as how some of those break down as well, so we can better understand ones that
don't fall in these other standard categories that we have.
Wold, Kathy 12:42
Thanks, Corey.
Any questions about that?
All right.
In our last parking lot, question was last meeting we talked about sending out customer
communications through customer emails.
When folks opt in to receive energy efficiency emails, and one of the questions was how
much does the customer emails cost and how do we know it's cost effective the the range,
the expenses that we have when we send a customer email varies.
In 2023, it was anywhere from $40 to $142, and this is because the company has a
INT-G-25 1
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 11 of 155

allowance of emails that they send with their current email provider.
And so in a month that energy efficiency sends a customer communication, if we by
sending that email, push the company outside of that allowance, that goes into a per email
fee structure.
And so anytime that we're pushing outside of that allowance for, you know, normal
business as usual for energy efficiency communications, then those expenses are picked
up by energy efficiency and those expenses will actually hit the energy efficiency rider.
So that's why that rate kind of varies and then we don't measure cost effectiveness
necessarily as a per project like a per email send, but we measure the cost effectiveness as
a program.
So when we're thinking about is it cost effective, we're thinking about some things like that
will add in some expense where you know in this case we're communicating directly with
customers.
So we're not buying a particular list like buying a vendor list or, umm, some kind of
subscription list, but we're directly communicating with customers and also working within
our corporate resources of having the email sent through our corporate or or company
email system.
So hopefully that helps answer those questions about our email send expenses.
Yeah, Jason.
Jason Talford 14:49
Yeah, thanks.
UM, so on the topic of the fees, if you go over, I mean obviously the range is, let me start by
getting my head around this is that$40 per email or is that per like set of emails?
Wold, Kathy 15:04
Good question.
It's for the whole send like so if we had it when we go outside of the monthly email
allowance then it pushes the into a per email structure.
So we'll pay that per email fee for energy efficiency sends.
So it's kind of depends on how much email the the company is sending out for that month.
But anytime we're pushing outside of that monthly allowance and incurring additional
expenses, that's where E is gonna pick up those additional expenses.
So we're not impacting what's kind of, I guess like in the base uh customer email sends.
Jason Talford 15:46
INT-G-25 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 12 of 155

OK.
And then the, I guess the more the follow up question I was going for, but I needed to make
sure I was clear getting there is is how how often does that happen that you're going past
the the allotment so to speak and incurring fees for additional emails?
Wold, Kathy 15:52
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I think in I have to go back and look in 2023, but we sent emails once 1/4 and I think
there were two quarters that we had incurred additional expenses for particularly for email
sends.
I can double check on that too.
Jason Talford 16:23
Yeah.
Yeah, I think that be an interesting follow up item.
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 16:26
OK.
Great.
Anyone else?
OK.
We'll go on to new business.
I'm going to turn this over to Cody's and talk about the writer balance.
Thompson, Kody 16:40
Yeah.
And this.
Uh.
This slide should be pretty familiar to those that were here for the previous meeting we had
with just one additional data point of where the residential writer balance ended.
Uh.
As of the end of the year, so we did end at 1,378,686, collected at the end of the quarter.
Umm I it is trended downwards from quarters one and two with that part of the uptake and
trend we're seeing there is of course we're in the heating season again.
INT-G-25 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 13 of 155

So more guests being used than what we're seeing in porters two and three.
So we are continuing to to keep an eye on and and monitor that and evaluate whether that
continues to be the correct rate to charge charge.
So we are keeping an eye on that as that does trend up and down.
Wold, Kathy 17:39
Well, Jason,yeah.
Jason Talford 17:40
They're Cody.
Before you move on from that slide, I was trying to raise my hand, but you scooted along.
Thompson, Kody 17:41
Jason yeah.
Jason Talford 17:46
Umm, could you UM, help me understand that starting balance?
From what I remember in.
One of the reports that came in recently, I couldn't tell you which one I thought the I thought
the year end balance for 2022 was a bit lower than that.
Thompson, Kody 18:13
It it shouldn't be.
I'd have to look and and see what we put out there and reported that that 914,000 balance
is and and I can go back and look, but that should be the the balance that was reported at
the end of 22 for residential.
So that should be,yeah, that should be the over collected amount.
We had at the end of 22 going into the year before we had any collections in 23.
Jason Talford 18:39
OK, alright.
Yeah, maybe we can look into that.
I I think it's just a useful.
Tool if it to can kind of compare to the the rest of the quarters there to see that change.
INT-G-25 OS
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 14 of 155

Wold, Kathy 18:51
Umm.
Thompson, Kody 18:51
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah.
And and I'll double check on my end as as well like it should be that number of if it's.
If it's inaccurate, it is user input error on my part.
Ah, but I can definitely go and double check too.
Wold, Kathy 19:07
OK, great explorer.
Laura Conilogue 19:12
Hi so I was looking at what could that be a total rider balance instead of residential is that
residential and commercial?
Writer balance.
Wold, Kathy 19:26
No, these are this is just residential.
Yeah, we have two separate balances for, one for commercial and one for residential.
Laura Conilogue 19:33
Hmm.
OK.
Yeah, because I thought from the from the.
The table that I was looking at, it looked like the ending balance in 2022 that I saw for
residential is 450,000.
Thompson, Kody 19:53
Yeah.
Laura Conilogue 19:54
INT-G-25 P
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 15 of 155

And then the commercial was 463 like that.
So those together would be.
Thompson, Kody 19:58
Yeah.
I'm yeah.
I'm I'm pulling that up as we speak.
Me.
Look here and that's on me for not getting those numbers, but that's a mistake.
That was perpetuated back when we did that last quarter as well.
Uh, so yeah, it does look like that.
That is the case that they're combined. Yes.
So accurate.
Laura Conilogue 20:19
OK.
Thompson, Kody 20:21
Yeah.
To accurately state the beginning writer balance as we went into 2023 where we ended
2022, it is 450,521.
1 apologize for that error.
I should have gone back to the source of truth and vetted that, rather than assuming that I
had it correct when we met last, so I apologize for that.
Laura Conilogue 20:36
1 want reduce.
Yeah, no problem.
That was just, I think both Jason are like, wait a second, that's a lot higher than we thought.
Wold, Kathy 20:45
Yeah.
Laura Conilogue 20:46
So that's what what happened.
INT-G-25 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 16 of 155

Thompson, Kody 20:46
Yeah.
Laura Conilogue 20:47
So, OK, thank you.
Wold, Kathy 20:49
Great.
Good catch.
Thankyou.
Kevin Keyt 20:52
Kody Kevin, if you've got the numbers in front of you, could you just read them down?
What the actual residential was please.
Thompson, Kody 21:00
Yeah, 1 1 can.
Even I can even put it in the chat if that be helpful.
Kevin, would that be more beneficial than reading it aloud?
Kevin Keyt 21:09
That'll work.
Thankyou.
Thompson, Kody 21:10
OK.Yeah.
Wold, Kathy 21:18
Do you want me to go into the commercial or are you are you?
You're updating the chat.
Thompson, Kody 21:23
I'm updating the chat.
17
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 17 of 155

Wold, Kathy 21:25
OK.
Thompson, Kody 21:26
Let me.
See, now that we've got this, let me just vet 2023.
I'm fairly sure that I reported the correct number there, but if I got it wrong once, I don't
want to trust that I got it right on the back end there.
So let me just make sure that 1.3 million number is correct as well.
Take Me 2 seconds here.
OK.
Yeah, that that ending balance of the the 1 billion three, 78,000 is correct as was reported
for residential for 23.
Wold, Kathy 22:00
OK.
Thompson, Kody 22:07
Yeah, we don't have any other questions.
I think we are good at doing the commercial.
Uh and I, 1 did put the right starting number there with the 463,938 fifteen for their like Kathy
mentioned, it has turned it up to that 865,800.
We are continuing to monitor that there are those additional activities that we talked later,
but it is primarily low participation that's continued to drive that up.
Wold, Kathy 22:37
Yeah, Jason.
Jason Talford 22:40
Yeah.
So I think we touched ohh, there's camera.
Thankyou.
I think we touched on this with the parking lot item, but it sounded like you were gonna
defer it to here.
INT-G-25 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 18 of 155

So I think this might be the right home for it.
I think it might be useful for both the the residential and the commercial.
Umm, what did their actual expenditures turn out for for 2023?
Just, you know, not to say if it you know if it's too high or too low, it's an instant.
You know problem, but just to inform you know what?
How does this balance compare?
Thompson, Kody 23:19
Yeah.
As far as ohm, yeah, as far as what expenses have been, yeah, get those.
Jason Talford 23:24
Umm.
Thompson, Kody 23:56
Yeah.
So for residential and I'll drop this in the chat as well.
But residential total expenses in 2023 was 3,774,000 and $39.00 and commercial total
commercial expenses was $72,318.
Jason Talford 24:20
OK.
Thanks.
Thanks for for running those checking on that.
Thompson, Kody 24:24
Yeah.
Jason Talford 24:26
Yeah, that I think that gives the right sense of scale.
That was 720 in change.
Is that right?
No.
You'll put it in the chat you go do that.
INT-G-25 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 19 of 155

Thompson, Kody 24:33
7072 and change, but I'll put it in chat,yeah.
Jason Talford 24:36
All right.
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 24:39
Thanks Cody.
Anything else on the writer?
OK, it's going here.
Are you still crunching numbers or referring to charts?
Thompson, Kody 24:56
1 just typed them in.
Yeah,yeah,yeah, I know.
Wold, Kathy 24:57
Are you ready?
OK, alright.
Thompson, Kody 24:59
We're good to go.
Wold, Kathy 24:59
1 was gonna turn this off.
Whenever you're ready, I'll let you from in.
Is going to give us an update on rebate performance for 2023.
Thompson, Kody 25:08
Yeah.
And so these are just some some preliminary numbers as we're coming out of 23.
Just looking at how residential rebates have performed, we had a 7% increase in paid
rebates compared to 2022.
INT-G-25-�9
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 20 of 155

So we are still seeing Ward rebates here over year as we continue to offer these 61% of all
residential rebates were paid out for homes identified as new construction.
That is, uh.
That includes new construction homes that had just qualifying appliances that were, you
know, furnaces, water heaters, thermostats, as well as homes that meet our whole home,
new construction program criteria as well.
UM, as far as uh, looking at those a little bit separately, the number of whole home rebates
that were issued out is 1 8% higher compared to 2022.
So we did see 8% more applications for the whole home, new construction rebates and
then new construction appliance rebates stay pretty steady.
There was a 1% increase there and then we have the the chart here just kind of shows how
where where we're seeing some of that growth in the areas, all of our territories except
Boise didn't see more rebates in 23 than 22.
We did see a a marked increase of 54% participation in Idaho Falls compared to 22.
We did have a secondary energy service Rep that was new, hired on in November of 22 and
we did see an increase in rated homes.
So we think that those two things have then a factor in what led to the increased
participation in that district of our service territory.
Wold, Kathy 27:04
What the commercial?
Thompson, Kody 27:04
Uh for?
Yeah.
For commercial, we saw 15% decrease in the number of commercial rebates issued.
Now that sounds like a big number, but it's it's a 5 application difference between 2022 and
23.
So we received 5 less applications.
You know, it's it's hard to talk in percentages with.
These are significant numbers with how few applications we are receiving there the
majority of applications that we received were for Energy Star fryer installations and we saw
the most of those commercial rebates redeemed in our Pocatello district.
And then we had a total of five applications that were denied on the commercial side, all
the applications that were denied for commercial customers were furnaces that were
installed at customer rate locations.
Two of these applied under the residential rebate application.
INT-G-25P
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 21 of 155

The other three listed them under the high efficiency condensing boiler rebate, but then
had furnaces installed and so unfortunately because we don't have a furnace offering and
we weren't able to rebate out any of those pieces of equipment.
Wold, Kathy 28:10
Any questions on rebates?
We'll go on to promotions update from Preston.
Scantling, Preston 28:22
Thanks, Kathy.
Yeah.
So to start, so to kick this off again, we'll put this up between our residential and
commercial programs and we'll start the residential section with our Q4 email, which we
sent on November 28th.
We sent this out post post Thanksgiving before Christmas, so we stuck with the holiday
theme.
Kind of making that seasonal on time of your connection there and had a list of all of our
available repeats on that email.
So we can go ahead to the next one where we'll compare our Q4 and Q3 emails.
Yeah, that's emails speak.
You know, there's a lot of different factors that go into that.
One, be it be it email, it's going into people.
Some spam filters, trash, trash folders, etcetera.
People opting out of emails as a whole so we're so we're we're working with the the
customer experience team to continue with evaluate where where the you know the
fluctuations in the email send numbers are coming from.
But we did have a slightly higher open rate.
We had a 13% increase in our open rate for Q4 email and an 18% increase in our click rate
for the Q4 email with 59 and 22% respectively.
And according to our to our customer communications team, one of the reasons for this
much higher click rate was due to the new umm subject lines that they've been that they've
been implementing.
This is an area in the past where we haven't had as much control.
This is something that customer communications has taken on more themselves because
they know what to put in that subject line.
That's gonna get it passive spam and trash filters for most people.
See emails so with some new processes that they've been putting in there.
INT-G-25
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 22 of 155

We've had great success with our Q4 email.
Alright.
And we've also been continuing the sponsorship of in person events throughout throughout
Q4.
We sponsored or or.
I mean going into the start of 2024 here, we sponsored the Idaho Home Builders
Association with our board meeting here in Boise on January 31 st, which this was in this
was a statewide I'm building contractors Association update where representatives from all
the bcas around the state came.
We had a great turn out from NBC's here in our service territory.
So it was nice to catch up with some of the some of the organizers from those areas and
hear about what they've been doing in their in their respective territories regarding
customer member outreach and education.
So always good to stay informed there and make sure they're aware of our program.
We also sponsored the Snake River Valley Building Association Builders Expo, which is a
mandatory meeting for builders who are entering the period homes and builders were able
to come by and by working with one of our energy service reps in our business development
department carry, she brought in a flyer that was alerting builders of some upcoming
operational and procedural updates for Intermountain.
So she was able to do some outreach there to pull the builders in and give them some
updates.
And on the way, we were updating them a better program.
So that's a good that's a good program reception there and spreading around some
updates.
Yeah.
No, go ahead and move on to our professional highlights for 2024.
This is kind of a broad scale update on what we're on on.
What our year is gonna look like for the residential program as far as promotions go, we're
gonna be continuing our online communications, which have proved to be which which
which have been a been effective in the past.
We were going to be continue our customer emails and you know quarterly and we're also
gonna do our monthly social media post.
Ohh, we're gonna be continuing to do our print ads and all the parade of homes,
magazines, city chamber magazines and real estate guides will be sponsoring events
through the building contractor associations and the city chambers.
This includes the point of environmental affair, which is down in Pocatello, as well as a
couple economic summits throughout the year.
And then we also have as a special project for this year, we're going to be doing some
INT-G-25 P
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 23 of 155

promotions on our customer web app, which I believe will be a touched on a little later, but
we're gonna be doing a bill insert and all customer email which which will go out of the
scope of our normal quarterly emails because our normally quarterly emails only go to OPT
in customers.
But this this email for the customer web app will go to all Intermountain customers.
So we'll have, we'll have, we'll have a, you know, proper reach there.
And along with that will send out the builder to let people know of that when it comes up.
So more to come there and if there's any questions there, feel free, but if not, we'll go ahead
and move.
Move ahead.Thanks.
Alright, so I wanted to take a moment to talk about our 2023 energy our our energy savings
kits.
This is our customer engagement activity for 2023 and in the last part of the year.
Last year, we sent out a survey to evaluate the performance of this of this promotion that
we did.
And if you remember, we ended up sending out 100 energy savings gets to randomly
selected winners.
And of those that we sent sent those kits out to, we sent out a survey to each one of them to
evaluate the installation rates and overall satisfaction with the kit itself.
We got a 12% response rate through that which through a quick Google search we see that
most you know you know a lot of surveys that go out will average in the six to 15% response
rate.
So pretty, pretty satisfied with our response rate, there seems like it's flying within average
expected survey response results or rates.
So yeah, pretty happy with that.
There the we we were able to see that we had high installation rates for some of the items
including the foam, the foam tape, weatherstripping and the V seal weatherstripping.
We had some really good feedback there from from people and seeing how I'm seeing the
race of these products being installed, obviously those ones seem to be taking up really
well and we also got some good feedback on customers attitudes towards kids as a whole.
Some of them,you know, some of them might include or install the products right away.
Some of them will end up waiting a little while for them, and we also had a couple of
requests for different or,you know, quote unquote better instructions where they wanted
potentially video instructions on how to implement the products or or just a different
format altogether.
This question here from Kevin.
INT-G-25M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 24 of 155

Kevin Keyt 34:18
Yeah.
For the customers that did respond and did install, are you able to see an appreciable
difference in their build number of terms?
Did it make a difference?
Scantling, Preston 34:32
Uh and Kathy, my lean on you a little bit here, but we were not measuring therm savings on
this project.
Wold, Kathy 34:40
Yeah, we didn't.
Kevin Keyt 34:41
OK.Thank.
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 34:42
Yeah.
Thanks Kevin.
Scantling, Preston 34:46
Who?
Thanks.
And if there is no more questions, are we?
Oh yeah, and then we had a couple.
Jason Talford 34:50
Oh, I'll jump in with the question here.
Wold, Kathy 34:52
Yeah.
INT-G-25:R
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 25 of 155

Scantling, Preston 34:52
Yeah.Yeah.
Go for it.
Jason Talford 34:54
Ah, so on on the previous slide.
Umm, I read the bulk point of high installation rates for the following items and then on the
next section there in the feedback that some of the kits.
Uh, the customers received the kits but will wait to install the products and and that seems
perhaps slightly contrasting of high installation rates with their not installing them.
Scantling, Preston 35:17
Umm.
Jason Talford 35:24
So I was hoping you could kind of help me separate those ideas and little bit more behind
it.
Scantling, Preston 35:27
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's totally fair.
I think I think that was probably something like of a specified a little bit more.
There were, there were certain products like the phone type, weather stripping that we saw
100% installation on through our survey of the 12 response.
So we had and then there were other products that did not seem to receive as high of
installation rates.
So I think for for some of the products themselves, there were prolonged periods of delays.
But for some products they were able to be readily installed, which again kind of showed us
which products were resonating really quickly and which ones weren't.
And there were and then there were some customers that just kind of stated that overall to
bring me slow.
Jason Talford 36:06
INT-G-25:N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 26 of 155

Do do you know what other products?
Kind of had that delay attached to them.
Scantling, Preston 36:11
Let me pull.
I remember the I remember the window installation specifically was one that was a little
slower to update just because it was a it.
It might have been a larger installation process.
It just a little bit more expensive, but yeah, the the window, the window insulation was the
biggest one stood out.
Jason Talford 36:25
Great.
OK.
Thank you so much.
Scantling, Preston 36:30
No worries.
Thankyou.
You know, we had a couple of quotes in the next slide from for from the from the survey
respondents just on the products, the whole there, there a couple really good notes there,
just saying that they had problems that they didn't know how to address.
So getting a variety of products in hand where they didn't have to go out and think of, you
know, the right product to go find, they found it very helpful because they could just sit
there and try much solutions.
So that seemed to be very helpful for people that didn't know exactly what to use to solve
their weatherization programs or problems.
And then there was also some some feedback given on just the fact that people did enjoy
the the fact that case like this could potentially save them money.
So they're they're also appreciative for the fact that they can have the ability to do a
Delaware project that can save that money.
If there is no questions there, we'll move on to the commercial side of things for
promotions.
Thanks.
And then this is like this is a copy of the Q4 email that we sent for commercial customers.
Again, this for option customers.
INT-G-25 35
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 27 of 155

We send 8674 of these and if you wanna.
Ohh yeah, I guess we're gonna stay on this one.
Pardon me.
There we were unable to get the statistics for relating to the click rates and open rates for
this email because we had some technical difficulties with our communications
department.
There were some.
There were some difficulties around around the time frame that was required to to
ascertain those stats, so didn't end up getting the the stats for that one, but we have a
process in place that will make sure that we can get those sets in the future.
There is no questions there.
We'll go ahead and do the next one.
Yeah.
And then this is kind of an overview for our 2024 commercial program planning or a
promotional.
There we go.
Yeah.
So for online communications,you're gonna continue with our quarterly customer emails
for commercial, we're gonna continue a sponsoring events in person through the
Association of of Architects through ashtray and through city Chambers.
These have been,you know, we've been doing them in the past, so we're going to continue
with these in the future where we've had good connections and we're gonna do a whole on
promotional push regarding our commercial commercial customer survey, which we're
going to be doing a bill insert, Bill Onsert another email for the book has and the social
media post which all those have been in progress with our design team.
So we're working on getting those wrapped up and we'll have a have, we'll have more of an
update on the commercial survey later in the presentation.
Wold, Kathy 39:11
Gonna jump back to that slide and jump in here on the commercial.
Scantling, Preston 39:13
Yeah.
Wold, Kathy 39:14
INT-G-25-M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 28 of 155

Yeah.
Thanks, Preston.
Scantling, Preston 39:16
No worries.
Wold, Kathy 39:16
Uh, yes, Preston mention.
We're gonna launch a customer survey for commercial customers.
Try and learn more about the equipment that they have in their buildings.
If they have a certified building operator at their location, we have been working with the
Integrated Design lab, the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab to come up with the
survey.
So we're currently in the last stages of that,just finalizing the survey and we're working on
an incentive for the survey takers so that we can hopefully you get a good high response
rate and get some good valuable information about our commercial customers.
So I'm trying to learn more about how they use natural gas gauge to their interest in energy
efficiency.
You know, asking questions about if they have any upcoming remodeling, any projects,
opportunities where we can elevate the conversation about energy efficiency at the time of
those kind of projects.
So we hope to get that launched in April just as we kind of put the finishing touches on the
survey and also the incentive tied with that survey, which is going to be like a $5 gift card
where they can go to a vendor and select which vendor they wanna get their$5 gift card
from.
So just hammering out the final details there and I am also in the process of working with
vendors to help on the design of the commercial program.
Specifically, we'd like to explore the commercial custom program and so we just have our
new CPA done.
The avoided costs have been updated.
We're getting ready to do this commercial survey of customers and so I feel like a lot of
pieces are there that we can work with a vendor to help us, umm, kind of really figure out
the design of the commercial program.
UM, due to kind of the low response rate that we've gotten so far, really figure out what is
going to resonate.
What opportunities are there to work with commercial customers to save some money and
energy?
INT-G-25:P
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 29 of 155

So those are some upcoming things that we have going with our commercial customers.
Yeah, Kevin,jump in.
Kevin Keyt 41:28
I'm trying to connect some dots here, Kathy, I think, he said earlier in the presentation,
where requests were denied, that there may have been commercial customers who
applied for a furnace rebate.
Wold, Kathy 41:31
Yeah.
Kevin Keyt 41:42
So where my head went with that is I'm thinking the little tiny mom and pop restaurant that
is a commercial customer who actually has residential sized space heating.
Would it make sense in those cases that a rebate for a residential sized furnace be
available for them?
Wold, Kathy 41:56
Yes.
Kevin Keyt 42:06
Or am I way overstepping the connecting the dots?
Wold, Kathy 42:06
Yes.
No, you're way ahead of us, Kevin.
Actually, that was one of that's some of the feedback actually that we got from customers,
commercial customers, but also from our energy services Rep team is the feedback that
there are commercial customers that are small enough, they're on the commercial rate,
but they use residential sized equipment.
And so that was one of the kind of the holes that we identified that needed to be addressed
and that was addressed by guidehouse in our most recent CPA.
So that is something that we're looking at is what kind of measures can be implemented
into the current offering so that we can capture some of those folks just as you've
described smaller on commercial, but indeed use residential sized equipment.
INT-G-25 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 30 of 155

Kevin Keyt 42:47
And itself.
OK, great.
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 42:55
Yeah.
Thank you for that.
Yeah.
Other questions about commercial.
OK.
We'll move on here.
Next thing, I'm just gonna give a quick uh probank program admin update.
As we mentioned in the last meeting, we implemented a rebate processing software in
House to help us get awayfrom using Excel spreadsheets.
We actually have a processing software that was developed by our in House IT folks.
It's called era, and we're going into phase two of that.
And the second phase was going to allow us to step away from using a third party vendor
software for our online applications and customers will now be able to sign into their
customer account and apply for a rebate directlyfrom their customer account.
This will auto populate a lot of the information that we need from the customer, which will
be kind of a nice streamlining option both for the customer and for us.
So as internal processing, we won't have to do the data entry to to fill out all those fields
and it'll be you know we don't have to validate against the customer database because we
know they're coming in through the customer portal.
So and in addition to that, customers will be able to see the status of their rebate when
they sign into their customer account.
So we'll continue to accept rebate applications by paper by PDF.
You know they can snail mail, they can email us.
But this online portal through the customer account will allow us to streamline both for the
customer and for the rebate processing folks.
So we're going to be sending out a bill, insert all customer bill insert as well as an email in
March actually.
And when this will go live for our, for our customers.
So I'm trying to keep improving that rebate process and making sure that we provide the
INT-G-25 01
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 31 of 155

easy button for customers and make it easy for them to apply for a rebate.
OK.
Laura Conilogue 45:09
Uh, sorry, I've got a quick question.
Wold, Kathy 45:11
Yeah.
Laura Conilogue 45:12
Did this is Laura.
Did you say?
Wouldn't you think this will be done?
Wold, Kathy 45:15
This is going to launch in March.
Laura Conilogue 45:17
Not much.
Oh, nice.
OK, great.
Wold, Kathy 45:18
Yeah.
Yeah.
Laura Conilogue 45:19
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 45:19
So she'll see customer communications will come out in March as well.
So yeah. Great.
INT-G-25 R
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 32 of 155

Laura Conilogue 45:23
Perfect.
Wold, Kathy 45:23
Thanks, Laura.
Any other questions about that?
I pause and I forget.
It takes people a second to find their unmute button and then I'm just moving on, so I'll try
and give him long enough pauses, but do jump in when needed.
So appreciate that.
OK, special studies.
I'm going to turn this over to min for an update.
Park, Min 45:48
Yeah.
So sorry for Ian and B, we are currently in the beginning stages.
We will be working with Adm and Associates to conduct a study and this impact evaluation
is slated to be finished around the beginning of July, barring any setbacks.
Wold, Kathy 46:16
Yeah.
And I think our original plan was to do impact evaluation on the whole home furnace and
smart thermostat.
And we'll actually also be adding in the water heating measures for the study.
So they will be doing evaluation on all of those measures for this round of EMB.
So yeah, expanding the scope just a little bit.
Any questions about human being?
Jason Talford 46:43
OK.
Wold, Kathy 46:44
Yeah, Jason.
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 33 of 155

Jason Talford 46:44
Yeah, hoping I could just hear a little bit more about the including the water heating.
I want to say in the past prudence evaluation, we had a comment about the timing of
evaluations based on participation.
So are you seeing in a lot of increased participation in 2023 for the water heaters and that's
why we're tossing that in or is there something else moving there?
Wold, Kathy 47:13
Yeah.
So that is part of our conversation that we have with Adm was we were seeking kind of their
expert opinion about did we have enough there to actually evaluate and they're feeling is
yes, that there were enough measures, enough rebates in the water heating categories to
evaluate.
So that's why we rolled it into this study here, along with the the furnace, whole home and
smart thermostat.
Yeah.
Good.
OK.
Thanks for asking.
Yeah.
Any other questions about MB?
Jason Talford 47:47
1 guess just one more quick confirmation and women mentioned that that's gonna the
estimate of the beginning of the July, the beginning of the July.
It's an important, very important Sheila.
And how does that that timing align with when you expect to file your?
The next prudence case is that gonna be coming in beforehand.
Wold, Kathy 48:12
1 think that we'll do those together.
We'd like to file the MBA along with the prudency filing.
I think that was the intent was to have them file together.
Jason Talford 48:20
INT-G-25 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 34 of 155

Excellent.
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 48:22
OK.
Yeah.
Anything else?
All right.
Umm, I might mention too that part of the evaluation will be doing some surveys.
So for our energy raters that are on the line, you may were of course give you some,you
know, warning of who it might be so that you're not missing any communications going to
spam or anything.
But they may be reaching out for surveys.
On that.
So on your experience with the program, so we'll make sure that folks will be aware when
those communications come out if they do so.
Ah, OK.
Any other questions about the program that we can answer for folks today?
Comments, questions.
Jason Talford 49:19
Yeah, alljump in here.
Wold, Kathy 49:21
Yeah.
Jason Talford 49:23
Sorry, sorry, Kevin.
I just went straight forward.
Sorry, your hand popped up.
There was one piece that I wanted to revisit here.
Uh, with the commercial rider balance.
Thank you Cody for for running around and and catching numbers for us on the fly.
I know that that's always super fun, but it it is well appreciated.
I was.
I was noodling off to the number that he had in the chat there.
INT-G-25 R
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 35 of 155

The $72,000 uh for 2023 expenses.
And I held that up to the the writer balance of 865,000.
1 think that that's something of a concerning balance for the commercial that for the
commercial rider balance, I mean, you know, assuming things stay safely, I think that can
the balance could fund the program for a lot of years based off of just that balance alone.
Now, obviously,you're gonna be doing things to help reduce that, and that's great and
wonderful and you know, appreciate you doing that.
But I think even if that expenditure increases, it might still well, it's got a long way to go
before it makes a dent in that size.
So I think that would be something to consider moving forward is if that commercial rider
needs an adjustment.
Umm, but to your point, Kathy, very early and we don't wanna give whiplash on this.
You know, in general, when we run a writer balance we well, uh.
Adjust its such that it will become zero across three years.
So it's a fairly gradual transition and it shouldn't scare anybody too dramatically.
Wold, Kathy 51:12
Umm, no, I appreciate that.
Yeah, I think you know we've talked a little bit about a custom program for a little while.
We know that a custom program is where you can really secure those therm savings and in
my participation at some of like the ashtray and the AIA conferences I've met a few folks
contractors who are out there doing these kind of custom projects for Idaho Power.
And they said, you know, we see opportunities for gas savings.
We're there for Idaho power, but we do see, you know, potential for for gas.
And so we would love to see you have a custom program.
So that's that's kind of where we're going that we know there's some potential there.
There's potential with different equipment that's been identified in the CPA.
So and we are working to and have a more robust offering so that we can secure those
therm savings.
And I think the introduction of a commercial program could probably quickly address some
of that over collected balance.
So, but definitely something that we will keep an eye on to not let that that grow too over
collected so.
Appreciate that.
Kevin, did you have a question?
INT-G-25 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 36 of 155

Kevin Keyt 52:26
Jason stole my Thunder and I was.
Wold, Kathy 52:27
Oh, OK.
Kevin Keyt 52:29
1 was just gonna articulate it a little different and and ask the question is,what are the
triggers that you're considering of when you will consider adjusting that writer?
And I think you spoke to him.
Sothankyou.
Wold, Kathy 52:42
OK.
OK, good.
Good, good.
All right.
Any other questions or comments for this afternoon?
Give everybody time to find their unmute.
OK, alright.
Well, if there's nothing else for this afternoon, we'll keep it short and sweet and our our
thanks to the entire committee for joining today and we always appreciate your feedback
and comments.
I don't know.
Let's see here.
I got one more slide.
Next meeting May 16th.
All right.
So I will be sending out again a save the date calendar request.
Watch for that and we'll look forward to meeting with everybody in May.
Jason Talford 53:33
Alright, thank you all.
37
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 37 of 155

Wold, Kathy 53:34
Thanks everybody.
Wil Gehl 53:35
Thanks everyone, it's.
Scantling, Preston 53:36
Thanks everybody.
Thompson, Kody 53:36
Thank you everybody.
Lauren Marcus 53:37
Think.
Laura Conilogue 53:38
Thankyou.
Thomas Jensen 53:42
Thankyou.
INT-G-25 R
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 38 of 155

Q2 EESC Meeting: May 22, 2024
Wold, Kathy 3:23
Good afternoon, everybody.
Welcome to the energy Efficiency Stakeholder Committee meeting.
Looks like we have a couple folks that are.
You're supposed to join us, so we'll give them a minute and then we'll go ahead and get
rolling.
Jason Talford 3:43
Yeah.
I thinkjust for your knowledge, we're not gonna see a tailor or Kevin today.
Wold, Kathy 3:48
OK.
Thankyou.
I appreciate that.
Not Kevin, because he's retired, right?
Jason Talford 4:00
That's correct.
He's left us all behind.
Wold, Kathy 4:01
Yeah,yeah.
Jason Talford 4:06
He's doing well, so all the best.
Wold, Kathy 4:08
Ohh, good, good, good.
Jason Talford 4:08
You well.
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 39 of 155

Wold, Kathy 4:21
Alright, well looks like we have a few more folks, but maybe they can just join us as they're
able.
Cody will watch the.
Thomas Jensen 4:29
Which?
Wold, Kathy 4:31
Waiting room and let folks in.
That'd be great.
And we'll just keep on timing and respect over on time and get get going here.
So again, thanks for joining the Intermountain Gas Energy Efficiency Stakeholder
Committee meeting.
This is our Q2 meeting.
I think the there we've probably saw the notice I had a new thing in teams that I could have
the meeting recorded automatically as we start the meeting.
So we are recording.
Feel free to jump in at any time with any questions you may have.
Raise your hand or jump in there and then.
Otherwise, we'll mute everyone for now.
OK, quick overview of the agenda.
We'll do some introductions.
We'll take a moment for a safety moment.
We'll address parking lot topics.
Those were outstanding things from the previous meeting.
We'll do a review of the writer balance, give an update on the writer balance and an update
on rebate performance, as well as an update on promotions and then umm, a brief update
on some program admin and social studies.
OK, for introductions today, if you would share your name, your organization and anything
that you would write a 10 out of 10.
So we'll just start with the folks that I have on my attendance list here and the first one
coming up is Jason.
Jason Talford 6:01
INT-G-249
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 40 of 155

Right.
Jason Talford with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
I gotta go with a little bit of dry humor and say water.
It's pretty great.
It's used for a lot of things.
If you don't like water,you can put stuff in it that stuff.
Wold, Kathy 6:12
No.
Perfect.
We'll take it.
Alright, how?
Kimberly.
Kimberly Loskot 6:22
Kimberly oscott.
I'm a technical analyst with the PUC and I'm so sorry I did not hear the question.
Wold, Kathy 6:30
Ohh,just anything that you would rate a 10 out of 10.
Kimberly Loskot 6:36
Umm, sleeping in on the weekend?
Wold, Kathy 6:41
Yeah, it's definitely Al0.
I like it.
Thanks, Kimberly.
Let's see how much Laura next.
Laura Conilogue 6:49
Hello.
I'm Laura channel with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
I'm an auditor and something I would write 10 out of 10 1 guess.
INT-G-25-V
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 41 of 155

Go along with like Kimberly's theme is my bed.
I really, really like that.
Wold, Kathy 7:03
Yeah, sounds perfect.
Alright, great.
Well, let's see.
Here we have Lauren, Lauren, Marcus.
Lauren Marcus 7:13
No, hi.
I am Lauren Marcus.
I'm with Arcgis and I am gonna piggyback on what was already said, but sleeping in on the
weekends is definitely a 10 out of 10, specially if my baby sleeps in.
Wold, Kathy 7:24
Perfect. Alright.
Ah, OK.
Great.
Thankyou.
Alright, Michael.
Michael Shepard 7:33
Hi, I'm Michael Shepherd with Neighborworks Boise and I would have to say that view out
my office window is a 10 out of 10.
I get to look, I get to look at the Boise River all day long.
Wold, Kathy 7:40
Nice.
Ohh lovely.
I like that.
Great.
Definitely a 10 out of 10.
Alright, how about men?
INT-G-25M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 42 of 155

Park, Min 7:53
Min Park your mountain gas.
I'm a, say fried chicken.
Wold, Kathy 7:58
Did you say fried chicken?
Park, Min 8:00
Yeah.
Wold, Kathy 8:01
Alright, great.
OK.
Thanks man. Preston.
Scantling, Preston 8:07
Hi Press and Scantling with Intermountain Gas.
And I'm kind of picking back, piggybacking off men here again, and I'm going to say the
grilled beef burrito from Fiesta chicken, it's very good.
Wold, Kathy 8:18
All right, let's see.
Next we have Selena.
Selena 8:25
Hi, Celina O'Neill.
Ada County operations I'm energy specialist and 10 out of 10 would be the Blimpie vest
which I had this week.
Wold, Kathy 8:34
Nice, alright.
INT-G-25 V
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 43 of 155

Selena 8:34
OK.Yeah.
Wold, Kathy 8:39
Great.
Selena 8:39
3.
Wold, Kathy 8:39
Next we have Seth.
Seth Welty 8:42
Hi, I'm Seth wealthy with Arcgis third party rating company.
My 10 out of 10 would be the Timberwolves right now.
Since I'm here in Minnesota, so hoping they beat The Mavericks tonight.
Wold, Kathy 8:49
All right.
There you go. Nice.
Great.
Let's see here, Thomas.
Thomas Jensen 9:01
Thomas Jensen, is that it?
OK, sorry, I fall asleep to the name Thomas.
Wold, Kathy 9:03
Yes.Yeah.
Thomas Jensen 9:05
1 think I I'm Tom Jensen with Arcgis and and work with Seth and 10 out of 10 for me would
be.
INT-G-25-OS
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 44 of 155

I think I'll go with the water theme and say water or rivers and lakes ocean, but without pee
fast, that'd be a 10 out of 10.
Wold, Kathy 9:21
All right.
And it's Tom, I'll remember that.
Thomas Jensen 9:23
Tom, that's fine.
Wold, Kathy 9:24
OK, great.
Thanks for joining next, Cody.
Thompson, Kody 9:29
Yeah.
Cody Thompson, Intermountain Gas company.
And I guess today I'm gonna give the smell of fresh cut grass a 10 out of 10.
Wold, Kathy 9:37
Oh, nice.
Alright, great.
I think I know everybody here, but Kathy Wolf and I'm the manager of the energy efficiency
program for Intermountain, 10 out of 10.
I just did a quick Mother's Day trip to Phoenix and it was 96 degrees and 96 degrees.
To get the 10 out of 10 for me, I'm ready for some warm weather so.
Great.
OK.
Did we miss anybody?
Did I not have anybody on the attendance list here?
Jump in if I miss someone.
Alright, OK, we'll get going here.
Next up, we'll have our safety moment.
I'm going to turn over to Preston.
INT-G-25-0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 45 of 155

Scantling, Preston 10:17
Thanks, Kathy.
Ye p.
So I just wanted to go over a little bit of wildlife safety tips for safety moment this meeting.
Since it's starting to heat up outside and it's very busy, time for a wildlife,you know, give it
deer, elk, Turkey, ducks and geese.
All like I've seen all these from my house here in Boise.
So I think these are all applicable even if you're in a rural area or in a suburban area like me.
So obviously one of the biggest ones is observed from a safe distance and try not to touch
the animals.
That's always one of the best things,just to keep your distance away from them, to keep
your safety of what?
Getting sick or anything.
Research the area that you're in for common cautions.
Again, whether you're in a suburban or an yeah, rural or suburban area, there is always a
bunch of different hosts of different animals that are there, so make sure you just research
and know what might be around you when you're out in different areas or when you're at
home avoiding feeding, wildlife and store food and or.
Yeah, sorry, avoiding feeding wildlife and storing food and waste properly, especially when
you're out camping, food and waste is one of the things that attracts animals to your area
and can also kind of teach them to depend on humans for getting food.
So always kind of keeping all that stuff stored safely to make sure that animals don't
become dependent on us for food.
Sticking to paths, which is always good for preserving the area that's around you and not
trampling A the small shrubs grass that's around you always applying bug spray.
I think that's a great thing for this time of year, especially with more water, warm skills
coming out and just being aware of your surroundings when you're driving through wooded
areas or anywhere that animals might use as travel corridors because animals can
oftentimes be in the way your car.
So always just keeping a good eye out there and that is our safety moment for this meeting.
Wold, Kathy 11:53
INT-G-25M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 46 of 155

Great.
Thanks, Preston.
OK.
Next, we're going to move on to parking lot topics.
This was from our last meeting we had for Q1 and we had a question about our email
expenses and how many times we send customer communications each quarter.
And then anytime that we go over kind of the corporate allowance of emails, that's when
we incur charges to the energy efficiency portion.
And so the only time that we had email expenses for 2023 was for the August email send
and that was for$39.69.
And we'll move on to the writer balance update.
I'm going to turn this over to Cody.
Thompson, Kody 12:43
Yeah.
Uh, so with the residential rider for 2024, we started with a balance of 1,378,600 eighty 668
and it quarter one with 2,320,000 hundred 2811 collected.
First quarter 2024 did outpaced first quarter 2023 in terms of rebates being paid out.
Even so, the right balance has continued to climb in spite of that.
So we are planning to file a change of the energy efficiency charge with an effective date
October 1 st.
And then commercial rider for, oh, I didn't update that to say 2024.
It's my apologies there.
That should be phoning 24 numbers.
It's 865,881 is what we started the year with at the end of Q124 we ended with 982,593 and
44.
We continue to see low uptake for rebate offerings and we are planning to file for a change
on the energy efficiency charge for commercial effective October 1 st as well.
Wold, Kathy 13:52
Right.
Thompson, Kody 13:52
And.
INT-G-25-V
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 47 of 155

Wold, Kathy 13:53
Unless there's any questions, we'll move on to rebate performance update.
Thompson, Kody 14:00
Right.
Hearing none, these next few slides are going to compare Q 12023 performance to Q
12024.
Like I mentioned on the residential side, we have seen that the number of rebates issued
did outpace what we saw during the comparable quarter comparable quarter the previous
year.
So this slide is just showing our furnace thermostat tier one takes water tears into whole
home Tier 2 rebates and showing the the difference in update there.
Uh, with this increased uptake, one thing we think may be a reason why we're seeing
increased participation comparing those quarters is the customer communications that
we did start doing quarterly.
OK, go ahead and go to the next one, Kathy and just show the rest of the residential
offerings.
Uh, these ones are the ones that have a little bit smaller of redemption as part of why they
got separated.
As you can see, all of them are pretty close to one another, having met where we were as a
queue as the end of Q 12023 or slightly exceeding them like with the boilers.
And then for our commercial rebates, here's our performance.
Again,just comparing the quarters, we've seen one less prior as at the end of Q124 as we
did in 2023 and as of the end of Q 12023, we had not seen any high efficiency condensing
boilers for the year.
So that's why you're not seeing any data there, whereas we've received four as of the end of
Q1 for 2024.
Wold, Kathy 15:45
OK.
Yeah, Jason.
Jason Talford 15:49
Great.
Thanks Cody.
INT-G-25-63
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 48 of 155

I had a I think two small questions for you here.
I'll start with the commercial.
Once we already on it, I just wanted to confirm that we're only seeing 2 measures, 2 rebates
here.
Is that because there's no participation in the other offerings?
Thompson, Kody 16:09
Correct.
Yeah.
We haven't seen any of the other offerings as of this point in and there weren't any other
offerings that had been redeemed in 2023 as well.
So the only thing that had been redeemed in 2023 as the enqueue one was the Friar.
We didn't see anything else then and then in 2024 the fryer and boiler is all that we've seen
for commercial.
So the other ones not being presented is because we hadn't received anyone in Q1 for
either of those years.
Jason Talford 16:36
Great.
Thankyou.
And then on the previous slide, the yeah, that one right there.
Thankyou.
At risk of stepping on what may come later in your presentation, are we gonna see, uh,
we're going to get any information on?
These measures, if there's anything being planned for them to do differently or do market
differently or uh.
Whatever is next for these ones.
Thompson, Kody 17:09
Yeah, all all the for to to Kathy on that.
If she has anything she was share this point for that.
I know there's some stuff later in the slides, but yeah, I'll for to Kathy on that one.
Wold, Kathy 17:23
Yeah, sounds good.
Yeah.
INT-G-25M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 49 of 155

Thanks for the question.
You mean just in terms of the lower performance that we're having so far in Q1?
Is the company planning to do any additional marketing or changing of anything as far as
the incentive goes?
Jason Talford 17:38
Not.
Not Even so much is to say lower performance.
It's just a it's about equal and the participation numbers are,you know,just you know,
what, 6710?
Yeah.
Anything to increased participation or otherwise.
Wold, Kathy 17:54
Yeah.
So for I'll talk a little bit more about in the commercial program next steps here, maybe a
little bit later as far as some of these other measures, umm,you know we're trying to
increase our customer communications so that folks get used to hearing from us every
quarter and really the past year we've been trying to focus on us particular topic each
quarter.
So like last year, we did a water heating focused uh communication both to customers and
that went and form of a customer email and we also did an outreach to umm contractors
specifically water heating contractors, plumbing contractors.
So that really helped the uptake in the water heating measures.
So we'll continue to do things like that that are reaching out to customers, making sure that
they're one aware of the program, but also trying to add some education in there about how
often you should replace your water heater, those sorts of things that help folks with tips
about their equipment that they may have in their home and getting them to apply for a
rebate, making high efficient.
Jason Talford 19:04
OK.
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 19:09
Any other questions on rebates?
INT-G-25 P
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 50 of 155

Alright.
We'll turn to our promotions update and I'll turn it over to Preston.
Scantling, Preston 19:23
Thanks, Kathy.
Ye p.
So we can go ahead and thank you.
Ye p.
So here we'll see our comparison between our Q1 and Q 42023 residential email.
You'll see that for Q1 we had a 39% open rate, 23% click rate and 190 two 987 emails sent.
So so a little under what we saw for last time, but we're continuing to monitor the stats
around these emails and continuing to work with the customer experience team to make
sure that we create personalized content for our customers and that they're continuing to
see these messages.
There's no.
Yep, we'll go ahead and do the next one.
We've also been continuing our event participation with local BCA's with different
community organizers around the around the area.
So on the top picture there you'll see our sponsorship from the Snake River Valley building
building contractor associations, economic summit.
This was an event where they were presenting forecasts on the home building industry, kind
of some of the economic forecast relating to that and we had our logo on the presentation
screen and brochures around this event.
So lots of good exposure there to a bunch of the different builders and other building
contractors association members there.
We also sponsored the eastern Idaho Home Builders Association Associates Showcase,
which was a gathering of builders for the upcoming parade of homes.
Every builder that's going to be participating in the parade of homes for Idaho Falls came to
this event.
There were fourteen of them in attendance there and got some good, good interactions
with builders there who still some of them have been hearing about the program for the first
time.
So getting some good exposure there with builders and for the bottom one, this was the
Portneuf Valley environmental fair out in Pocatello and I worked with our Energy service Rep
down there, Ashley, to bring a booth down and do some community wide outreach here.
We handed out a lot of swag items here.
A lot of seed packets and little coloring books for the kids that came by.
INT-G-25 01
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 51 of 155

So we had some really good community interactions here with about 3000 attendees.
This is an Earth Day celebration, by the way.
If I didn't mention that earlier, yeah.
So that's a little summary of our events for this past year.
If we can go into the next one, if there's no questions on that.
And we've been continuing our ad placements and a bunch of different publications
around our service territory.
We have, we've been participating in the Chamber, magazines.
We've been doing real estate magazines.
We've been doing more ads with the Idaho Business Review.
The Earth Day edition for the Idaho Business Review, which came out this past April, and
we will continue to put our ads in the afraid of homes magazines for each parade of homes
around our service territory.
On the top picture there you'll see the ad that we placed in the Idaho business.
Review this was an Earth Day centered ad, so that came out to all of the Idaho Business
Review subscribers there, which you can see the number of print copies and online visits
displayed there and on the bottom picture there on the right we'll see the 2024 full page ad
that we have designed and this is the ad that we're putting in chamber magazines, real
estate magazines and parade homes magazines.
Each of these ads were also equipping this year with a trackable QR code, so later in the
year, we'll be able to track some of the traffic from these ads and hopefully get some good,
good metrics from how many people have been saying these and scanning through our
websites.
So if there's no questions there, we can go on to the next slide.
We've also been continuing our monthly social media posts.
We have a few here, a few examples from our Earth Day post from a post that was
promoting the Portneuf Valley environmental fair after the fact, showing the picture that we
had there and some more winterizing tips.
Go to the next one.
Thanks, Ann.
This is a unique error.
I shouldn't say unique, but this is another event that we hosted down in Pocatello this year.
I was excited to go down there and work with our Energy service, Rep Ashley, who I
mentioned earlier.
We came together to host an informational meeting for builders and contractors down the
Pocatello area.
We had about 50 builders and contractors in total come to this event.
We hosted 2 meetings and one on April4th, one on April 9th, and these were down at the
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 52 of 155

Pocatello district office down in Pocatello.
But yeah, so we we had kind of a joint presentation here.
Ashley was presenting on a lot of kind of procedural updates for Intermountain Gas with
the way they work with contractors and developers for getting line installations created.
And then since we had everyone in the room, I wanted to kind of coopt our efforts and take
that time to talk a little bit about the benefits of energy efficiency and about how builders
and contractors can't participate in the program.
And again, we had we've after after this meeting has concluded, Ashley's been continuing
to work with these people and she's been getting some good, positive feedback from built-
in contractors, saying that they were happy to learn about the rebate program and about
him and about some of these procedural updates that Intermountain had been have been
releasing.
They were.
They were also really happy to get an in person event with us.
They they expressed appreciation for seeing, you know, people's faces in person rather than
doing something online.
So we we were thankful to them for that positive feedback and we've even heard back from
a couple builders and attended that we're looking to submit applications for rebates.
So we're continuing to listen for more feedback and looking for more opportunities to work
with our ESR community or ESR team in the future.
If you have any questions on that event, feel free, but I believe this wraps up the residential
section of the promotions update.
And we'll dive on into the commercial side.
I'll take this first slide and then Kathy will take after this.
But if you remember from last time, we're gonna do a Q4 and Q1 email comparison here.
This is our Q4 email that we sent for commercial, which was kind of holiday themed and if
you remember the last time we weren't able to get the stats from this due to some
technical difficulties with our customer experience team.
But we have the stats from this new one here, which we sent 8485.
We had a 59% open rate and a 3% click rate, which is consistent with other commercial
emails that we sent for 2023 as well.
So if you have any questions there, feel free to ask.
But without further ado, I'll hand it over to Kathy for the rest of the commercial section.
Have.
Wold, Kathy 25:26
Unmute myself.
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 53 of 155

Scantling, Preston 25:26
There you go.
Wold, Kathy 25:27
Alright, thank you.
Ohh great.
So some next steps for our commercial program, we are getting readyto launch our
commercial customer survey.
We'll be sending out a postcard and also maybe following up with some email to learn
more from our commercial customers about what kind of gas equipment they have.
How interested are they and energy efficiency and really one of the main things we hope to
gain with the survey is reaching the building operator or the facilities manager.
Uh, we've been sending out commercial rebate information to the customer contacts that
we have at the at the companies that the customers, commercial customers locations.
But I think what we're typically getting is probably the admin person or the accounting
person, so not necessarily someone who knows a lot about the building or about the
equipment in the building or that the messages rebates really resonates with that person.
And so we really like to attempt to reach the building operator or the facilities manager with
the survey.
So the call out is on the postcard is specifically to those folks.
So umm, the on the postcard, but then also once you access the survey, the first question
is asking about are you the building operator and then it'll default to.
If no, we try and ask for who would be the closest person to being the building operator.
So really, making a concerted effort to try and capture who those folks are so that we can
start those communications and relationship building with folks that are in that role at the
commercial customer accounts.
So that will be going out soon.
We're working on our send list.
We've got the survey developed.
It'll be an online survey and then, thanks to some recommendations from the stakeholder
committee last time, we'll also be offering an incentive to get folks to take the survey.
We've been sharing it with a couple of folks internally just to get their thoughts on the
survey and it's not short, which we know is a challenge.
But in order to get enough information, we're asking folks to give us a little bit of their time.
And in exchange, uh will enter them in a drawing to win $100 gift card and we'll give away
several gift cards, so hopefully that will be enough of a an exchange or an incentive for them
INT-G-25 OS
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 54 of 155

to take the survey and share a little bit of information with us.
And so we're going to do this in a kind of a limited release and see how it goes.
See how it works?
Things that we may need to fine tune.
See what kind of a response rate we get.
So we'll be launching that care probably in the next month or so.
Any questions about commercial or promotions?
Jason Talford 28:24
Hey there Ada question for you, Kathy.
Wold, Kathy 28:24
Umm yeah.
Jason Talford 28:28
On your slide there it I I'm gonna.
I'm gonna kind of reengaged the question from earlier.
You're slide mentioned that there are gauge interest in EE and upcoming projects.
Wold, Kathy 28:42
Umm.
Jason Talford 28:44
And So what are the upcoming projects?
Wold, Kathy 28:46
Yeah.
So that's something that we're asking in the survey.
Sorry, that wasn't clear there a couple of things that we asked in the survey is you know how
familiar they are with the rebate program.
Jason Talford 28:50
Umm.
INT-G-25 R
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 55 of 155

Wold, Kathy 28:55
Are they interested in learning more about energy efficiency and energy saving
opportunities?
And then do they have any upcoming projects, any kind of remodels or equipment
replacement that they're doing, so that hopefully we can jump in and that point where we
see that they're getting readyto do a project or readyto do equipment replacement and
just make sure that they're aware of energy saving opportunities through Intermountain?
Jason Talford 29:04
OK.
Wold, Kathy 29:17
Yeah, good question.
Jason Talford 29:18
OK.
Wold, Kathy 29:18
Sorry, that wasn't clear there.
Jason Talford 29:19
So it's the customer projects, not the not the utility got it.
Wold, Kathy 29:20
Hmm.
Yes, exactly.
Jason Talford 29:22
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 29:23
Yeah.
Thanks for asking.
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 56 of 155

OK, alright.
We'll move on to the program admin update and we'll go over to Cody.
Thompson, Kody 29:36
Yeah.
So I gotta give a little bit of an update on our customer web app.
When we met last time we talked about that this was something that we were working on
and going to be deploying soon.
We did deploy it mid March, so customers are now able to apply for rebates through their
Intermountain Gas Online account directly.
Previously we were using a third party for processing online application forms, so by moving
it internally,you know we're removing that third party provider, reducing risk to customer
data going forward because all of that data is now received and have directly by
Intermountain.
Umm the data also populates automatically with some of their customer information,
which streamlines the applying process as well as the internal processing, because that
data comes in directly to us where we've got correct addresses and information tied to our
system to ensure they are customer and brought indirectly.
We do still have where applications can be submitted by email or through the Postal
Service with our standard paper application form that we've got available since we've
deployed this, we have averaged about 15 applications submitted per week that is on par
with what we were seeing with the old process.
So customers have just continued on as they did before.
So it hasn't led to any disruption or?
Reduction in Customer submissions through an online method.
Another enhancement that came of this is that customer information on our internal side
as far as applications are concerned, does get sent in a limited capacity to the call center.
So if someone calls and talks to an agent of the call center to say, did you get my rebate?
The agent can see that we have received a rebate and communicate that to the customer
directly as well.
Laura Conilogue 31:30
So I have a question real quick.
So does it.
I mean, have you gotten any feedback yet from any customers saying this was really
helpful, that they that they like this app or, you know has, has there been any feedback
57
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 57 of 155

about it or or even from I guess you guys like people, someone from Intermountain Gas, if
they're like pulling up applications now is information easier for them to find?
Thompson, Kody 32:00
Uh, yeah, yeah, I'll say.
On the internal side, it has made things easier in the sense that the old online service we
were using, we had to manually enter in the data into our system where it's all imported in
directly.
So we it just requires review that the data is accurate, correct and we have what we need to
proceed with one from the customer side of things.
We haven't really received a whole lot of feedback.
The the biggest indicator we have there is just that the number of submissions is on par
with what we were seeing before through that method.
Laura Conilogue 32:35
Cool.
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 32:38
I'll add we have from an internal side we can see when a customer starts a rebate
application and it maybe isn't getting finished and finally like pushed the submit button so
it gets pushed through to us.
So Kody has been doing some proactive outreach to these customers just to say, hey, we
see that you started an application, do you need help?
Is there something where you just looking and gives a couple of options so that we know
whether a customer needs help applying?
Or maybe they were just kind of poking around, and so it's now sitting out there in this sort
of status of incomplete and they can withdraw it or tell us that no, I wasn't really applying.
I was just looking and so you can delete that.
And so we have tried to do some proactive communication with folks as we see some of
those rebates out there.
Laura Conilogue 33:29
That's.
Yeah, that sounds like it's working really well then.
INT-G-25 P
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 58 of 155

Wold, Kathy 33:33
Yeah.
Trying to give customers the easy button, so hopefully we're achieving that through the web
app so.
E any other questions about the customer web app before I move on?
Yeah, Jason.
Jason Talford 33:50
Yeah, I'lljump in.
I think in the previous EESC we had a we had a slide on a rejected rebates and.
Some statistics on like if theywere denied or if they were returned or something like that.
Is it?
Do we have data on how that's changed since you've deployed that or is it maybe a bit
early?
Wold, Kathy 34:20
I'll defer to Kody, but I would.
Yeah, I'll.
I'll defer to you, Kody.
Thompson, Kody 34:24
Yeah, I'll, uh, I'll, I'll say yeah, maybe a little early to see how that may have changed.
Wold, Kathy 34:31
Yeah.
Thompson, Kody 34:31
1 could definitely pull in and get some numbers.
And just kind of see when we meet next to see how that's kind of evolving and changing,
that's something I do have access to.
See and track uh.
But nothing that I have readily available for you today.
Jason Talford 34:48
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 59 of 155

Yeah, no worries.
Thankyou.
Thompson, Kody 34:50
Yeah.
Wold, Kathy 34:56
OK, alright.
We'll move on to special studies, and I'm gonna turn this over to min.
Park, Min 35:03
Ye p.
Uh,just have a couple updates on the MB where working with Adm and we have an
estimated final report expected July 12th of this year and we'll file with the next prudency
filing.
It is uh, tentatively expected to be presented the findings in July by Adm, and we're also
going to be conducting a process evaluation which may not be done at the same time as
the impact evaluation, and we don't plan to hold the prudency filing for the process
evaluation final report.
Wold, Kathy 35:45
Thanks, men.
Any any questions about human me?
Jason Talford 35:51
Yes.
So a question on on the process evaluation was that is, is that kind of paired with the
impact like ADM's running them simultaneously or are they kind of a separate and
valuation?
I'm I'm seeing a nod, Kathy. So.
Wold, Kathy 36:09
Yes, that's they're two separate.
We have two separate scope of work defined for the impact evaluation and the process
evaluation.
INT-G-25 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 60 of 155

We felt like the impact evaluation was the higher priority, so they were working on that one
first.
Anything else?
OK.
We're we're going.
Any other questions about the update this quarter?
Laura Conilogue 36:52
1 guess this is Laura from the PC and a back to the EM and V update.
So if you're getting the final report July, when do you thinkyou'll start making updates to
programs that you've you know that that might be suggested from the EMV?
When do you think?
Yeah.
Wold, Kathy 37:16
Yeah.
Laura Conilogue 37:17
Like will we see maybe some of those updates when we get the prudency filing or do you
think it will be?
Too soon?
Wold, Kathy 37:26
That's a good question.
Laura Conilogue 37:27
By the time you file.
Wold, Kathy 37:28
Yeah, I think we'll want to probably absorb the results of the human V impact evaluation
and do presentation with the stakeholder group to determine kind of how to move forward
and any kind of program changes that we want to make.
We'd certainly want to preview that with the stakeholder committee as well.
Umm, when we make some changes, I guess we have to think about uh timing.
Like if we were gonna retire an offering or bring on a new offering, how to most logically do
INT-G-25 A
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 61 of 155

that?
I guess so, but we will certainly keep the stakeholder committee involved in that process.
Laura Conilogue 38:11
OK, cool.
So we can expect kind of a presentation about this and July or August or something cool.
Cool.
Wold, Kathy 38:17
Yeah.
Yeah, we'll definitely have Adm join to present the results of the study.
So we'll have a chance to ask them some questions and hear from them directly and then
think about how to what do we do with the results like, yeah, So what is the study mean?
Laura Conilogue 38:28
I'm nice.
OK, great, great.
Wold, Kathy 38:35
Yeah.Yeah.
Good.
That's a good segue, Laura here, cause the next meeting is sort of a question mark right
now.
So and the study is underway, Adm is working on that.
And you know, barring any challenges that they have with any of the data or any hang ups
that we have in scheduling, it's anticipated to be done in July.
And so we wanna coordinate with Adm to be able to present those results.
And so we will get notice out on the next meeting just as soon as we possibly can.
I just don't have it Date: to put out there on the calendar yet, so we'll do that just as soon as
we know it and make sure that that works for the stakeholder committee.
Umm.
Right.
Well, we'll keep it short and sweet.
Today I put a lot of time on the calendar.
I never know how many questions or how much we'll have there, so we'll keep it short and
sweet today and less anybody has any other questions.
INT-G-25 R
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 62 of 155

That's really all we have from our side today.
OK, great.
OK, hearing none, please feel free to reach out to us anytime with any questions or
feedback you have for the program.
Otherwise, watch for a calendar request from me about the next meeting and we'll hear
from Adm and results of the study and go forward from there.
Jason Talford 40:07
Alright, thank you for your time everybody.
Wold, Kathy 40:07
OK.
Jason Talford 40:08
Have a good day.
Wold, Kathy 40:08
Thanks everybody.
Laura Conilogue 40:09
Yeah.
Wold, Kathy 40:09
Appreciate it.
Laura Conilogue 40:10
Thanks, Kathy.
Thomas Jensen 40:10
Thankyou.
Laura Conilogue 40:10
Thankyou.
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 63 of 155

Scantling, Preston 40:11
Thanks everyone.
Wold, Kathy 40:11
Thanks for joining.
Thompson, Kody 40:11
Thanks everyone.
Kimberly Loskot 40:12
Thankyou.
Michael Shepard 40:14
Thankyou.
Lauren Marcus 40:15
Thankyou.
INT-G-25 0
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 64 of 155

Q3 EESC Meeting: August 27, 2024
Wold, Kathy 0:06
Alright, so we'll start this morning.
We have a lot to cover.
So we will start with a safety moment.
We'll address parking lot topic from last meeting.
We'll have an update on the writer balance and some upcoming promotions, program
promotions, and then we'll kind of jump into the meat of this meeting, which is a
presentation on the EMV impact evaluation from Adm Associates.
So we'll get started.
I turn it over to Cody for our safety moment.
Thompson, Kody 0:38
Yeah.
So uh this morning wanted to focus a little bit about insect borne illnesses.
You know, we've got West Nile in the valley and temperatures get a little bit milder, so most
might be spend more time outside in the evenings or the patio when they're more active.
So some tips to help prevent some of those insect stings and bites would be to wear clean,
Light colored clothing that covers as much light as possible.
Make sure you're sharing bathing daily and avoiding these perfume soaps, shampoos and
deodorants.
Know uh.
Have to loans or perfumes.
Make sure you got clean and dry work area.
Make sure you're doing daily skin checks and use insect repellent with 20 to 50% DEET on
your exposed skin.
If you happen to be in a field where you use fire resistant clothing like some of our text do,
there is a recommendation not to apply deep products, but there are other uses out there,
so just be safe out there.
Do what you can to avoid getting bit by bugs as you enjoy your your barbecues and evening
activities.
Wold, Kathy 1:42
Thankyou, Cody.
We'll jump into some parking.
INT-G-25 R
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 65 of 155

We actually just had one parking lot topic from last meeting and since we were trying to be
efficient and save on time this meeting, we didn't do our typical icebreaker introduction
activity.
So if you have to jump in with a question, maybe introduce yourself.
Just say who you are in the organization you're with.
Just so we're all aware, appreciate that.
OK.
So I'll turn it back over to Cody for the parking lot topic from last meeting.
Thompson, Kody 2:14
Yeah.
So we had a question about whether the amount of rejected rebate applications had been
had changed since the customer web app had been implemented.
It's a little bit early to say whether that's had any great impact on applications during
second quarter.
We did receive 30 fewer applications that were rejected then quarter one, which is about a
10% decrease.
That said, the primary purposes of the web app have been to provide a more secure
application method for customers wanting to apply online.
By removing the use of a third party software and to provide an easy self serve application
through their customer online account.
Wold, Kathy 2:51
Great.
Alright, thanks Cody.
All right, we'll turn to the writer balance update and again, back to Cody.
Thompson, Kody 3:05
Yeah, top heavy meeting for me this morning.
Yeah.
So for the residential rider writer balance, we did end quarter two with 1,919,667 and $0.40
over collected.
You can see that as a downward trend from quarter one, but where we are still above the
beginning of the year balance halfway through the year, we did file to for a decrease for the
residential rider balance.
And same thing with commercial.
cc
INT-G-25 0
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 66 of 155

Those youth, even in these, shouldn't be any surprise.
That's continued to trend upwards, ending quarter two with $1,029,904.74 over collected
and we have filed to reduce this collection rate as well.
Wold, Kathy 3:56
Alright, thanks for the update there, Cody.
All right, I'm going to turn it over to Preston for update on some upcoming promotions.
Scantling, Preston 4:05
Thanks, Kathy.
Ye p.
So I'm gonna start today with our residential promotion promotions update.
I am doing kind of a brief promotions update today since we have a lot to cover, but just
wanted to let everyone know really briefly that we are continuing with our ongoing
promotional activities such as involvement in the building contractor associations around
all of our different service areas and including the parade of homes which we've been very
involved in.
Also, keep keeping on keeping up with our quarterly customer emails as well as our social
media presence.
So without further ado, I'lljump into one of our more unique offerings for this year, which is
our annual customer engagement activity.
We try to do 11 activity every year which combines a little bit of education for our
customers along with along with a little bit of an incentive or prize.
And this year, we partnered with the Church Valley Habitat for Humanity to create a 6 video
video series which shows the page visitors how to complete DIY home weatherization
products or products.
Sorry, this includes projects such as doing doing a firmware like foam tape, weatherization
or sorry foam tape, weather stripping.
Ohh like a like a plastic window seal or a window film for extra insulation as well as
replacing your furnace filter and each one of these videos is about one to two minutes long
and then customers or visitors will come in and vote for the video that they find most
beneficial to them.
And then as a prize for this, we were giving away one of five $100 gift cards to fuel their
upcoming projects.
So.
So yeah, again, that's five separate gift cards of$100 in value.
And Yep, we have all this going up on the Tuesday following Labor Day, so this upcoming
67
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 67 of 155

weekend, once it's over, that'll be when this launches and then it'll be running through
October 4th.
And we are promoting this through a social media post.
We're doing a social media kind of campaign.
We're doing a bill insert, which is the document that you see here on the screen, and we're
also doing an all customer email as you can see on the bill insert here.
We're also promoting the opt in email notifications to help bolster our email subscriber rate
and make sure that those emails are still going to plenty of people here in the valley.
And yeah, we're really happy to be partnering with Habitat for Humanity on this project and
doing a little Co branded promotions.
So if you have any questions about that or any of the other ongoing activities, feel free.
Let me know, but we can go ahead and hop on to the commercial side.
And same thing over here.
We're keeping it brief, but we're still doing our regular our regular outreach activities such
as quarterly customer emails and event participation through organizations like ASHRAE
and for upcoming activity over here, we are doing a we're doing a commercial customer
survey which is which is asking all of our commercial customers about how they use
natural gas and about their their interest in energy efficiency programs.
And for this, we started with a pilot to to go out to 500 customers just to get a general sense
of how the how the server is gonna go and any interest.
And from here, we're going to be exploring how we roll this out to all customers with our opt
in email customers, as well as a bill insert.
And I see a question here from Taylor.
Taylor Thomas 7:09
Yeah, it's, it's on the the last slide.
I was just curious as because you're saying you're doing a cobranded with Treasure Valley
Habitat for Humanity.
So what exactly is the Habitat for Humanity providing in this instant?
Or they just helping you make the videos or you just talk about that a little bit more please.
Scantling, Preston 7:28
Ohh yeah yeah absolutely.
So so Habitat for many provided the on screen talent for the videos, so they had one of their
members of their home repairs program.
His name was Jake, who's a great guy to work with, and he is going to be the guy that is on
INT-G-25 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 68 of 155

screen doing all these on home repair programs and kind of walking everyone through the
process of installing home weatherization products.
Taylor Thomas 7:48
Thankyou.
Scantling, Preston 7:49
No worries.
And the oh, yeah.
And I should also mention there that the videos will be living on our savings tips page, but
will also be living with Habitat for Humanity as well.
They'll have full access to post and share those videos.
Wold, Kathy 8:01
Why?
Scantling, Preston 8:06
Yeah, that was happening earlier too.
Wold, Kathy 8:06
Sorry my screen's going a little crazy.
I apologize, I don't know why it is doing this.
My goodness.
OK, sorry.
Give me just a moment having some technical difficulties here.
Jason Talford 8:28
They Preston this Jason Talford with the PUC.
Uh.
Maybe I'll fill the gap by asking you a question then, uh, so this is this is the for the
residential side.
Scantling, Preston 8:32
Yeah.
No, no worries.
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 69 of 155

Jason Talford 8:39
That's a a marketing activity or you claiming any savings on those DIY or?
Energy saving tips.
I know how many of you reports is fairly similar to that.
Scantling, Preston 8:49
Yeah.
Hmm.
Yeah.
Yeah, we are not claiming any energy savings on this project.
Jason Talford 8:55
OK.
Scantling, Preston 8:55
This is more of a promotional activity to get everyone on board and do a little bit of
education.
Jason Talford 9:00
Yep,just bear.
Thankyou.
Scantling, Preston 9:02
No worries.
Yep.
And then as I mentioned there for for a second,just to keep the whole thing moving.
Oh, perfect.
Yep, we're doing our survey so, so, so every respondent to our survey is gonna be sent a $10
E gift card as a thank you for their time.
And as a little bit of incentive for completing the survey and getting more information about
our commercial customers.
So if there was any information that was missed from earlier, feel free to ask.
But yeah, that kind of covers what we're doing for commercial customers at the moment.
INT-G-25 09
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 70 of 155

Wold, Kathy 9:36
Right.
Great.
Thanks, Preston.
Yeah.
Scantling, Preston 9:39
No worries.
Wold, Kathy 9:39
As you mentioned, we're just kind of focusing on a more brief update from the program right
now, so we can jump into a special presentation.
And but if you have any questions, certainly don't hesitate to reach out to the umm, any
other Department energy efficiency department at any time.
So, OK, we're going to turn our attention to special studies.
Please.
And as I mentioned, we have a presentation from a PM on the Emin V so this is kind of the
alphabet soup part of the program where we use a lot of acronyms and abbreviations.
So just a little quick review here.
EMV stands for evaluation, measurement and verification, and EMV is just one part of the E
Life cycle.
So that life cycle consists of program planning, program implementation and finally
program evaluation.
So here we are at evaluation.
Internally, we continue, we continually evaluate how the program is doing, but we also
Commission an independent third party to conduct a formal evaluation of the program.
So this is the second formal evaluation for our program and as we prepare to Commission
the study, we reviewed past orders and comments and as well as the evaluation methods
that other Idaho utilities are using.
So we really tried to model what they're doing in an attempt to be in line with what the other
Idaho utilities are doing and what the Commission wants to see.
So with that, I will turn it over to Adm to present the results of the impact evaluation.
All stop sharing here and we'll let you take control.
INT-G-25 01
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 71 of 155

Melissa Kosla 11:19
Right.
Wold, Kathy 11:23
From here.
Melissa Kosla 11:24
Thankyou.
OK.
UM, can you all see the presentation?
OK, great.
Wold, Kathy 11:36
Yeah.
Melissa Kosla 11:37
Yeah.
Good morning, everyone.
Scantling, Preston 11:37
Ye p.
Melissa Kosla 11:38
Thank you, Kathy, for the introduction and thank you all for dedicating time out of your day
to listening to our presentation of the impact evaluation results.
Today, we're going to briefly outline our research goals, deliverables, methodology, and
results across several the residential measures.
Before we get into that, I'd like to 1 st just go through some brief introductions on the Adm
team.
Although this slide shows the organization of the entire team working on this impact and
process evaluation for today's meeting,just me and Adam are on.
My name is Melissa Kosla.
I'm a director at Adm Associates.
I've been here for about 7 years and have been managing several program level and
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 72 of 155

portfolio level impact and process evaluations in the region so that the Pacific Northwest,
including I'd hope power Avista and in around gas previously and also the Regional
Technical Forum.
So we have some experience there, Adam, would you like to introduce to yourself?
+18*******62 12:45
Hi, Adam Thomas.
I'm a principal at Adm Associates, so then with the Fergusons 2008 and I serve in the A in
executive and advisory will over our work in Idaho, Washington and Oregon.
Melissa Kosla 13:04
Thank you, Adam.
And today we'll be going over UM in around gases evaluation objectives for this evaluation
period.
The general methodology, the impact evaluation results and our recommendations for
claim savings moving forward for each rebate type.
Based on our findings and precedence in the region.
And if you have any questions, feel free to jump in as we're going through with the topic, I
think that'll be easier for conversation.
So for the evaluation objectives for this evaluation period, which covered August 2021
through December 2023, we were, we quantified verified natural gas savings within 9010
confidence and precision for each measure associated with realization rates.
By comparing these verified savings against the claimed and expected savings from
Intermountain Gas, our next objective was to report our findings in a formal report with
recommendations for each measure moving forward, and then finally, we also wanted to
develop a TRM that Enron gas could use to reasonably estimate claim savings for these
measures moving forward in future program years.
These unit energy savings values will be applicable to the program and Intermountain Gas
customers with historical observed distribution of participation to prevent any deviations in
realization rate in the future program years.
So for this tier I'm development, for each measure we will define the current state and
federal regulations that may affect eligibility.
We will define the baseline and efficient values for each equipment type.
We'll identify the data sources and inputs used in these calculations in a formal format,
and the methodologies outlining the final methodology and the calculation, and we'll have
the value of the average participant savings using weighted inputs from the program
tracking data for each measure.
INT-G-25 P
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 73 of 155

We'll also include inputs for cost effectiveness, such as measure life and incremental and
maintenance costs relevant to Idaho.
So we're aware that there are certain methodologies or hosted by the Commission to
assess some of the measures we're going to discuss in the next few slides.
At the same time, there was an opportunity to provide provided to explore additional
methods that display statistical rigor and our defensible and supported in the evaluation
industry and are used by other utilities in Idaho, as Kathy mentioned.
So with this in mind, we prioritized methodologies that currently are and have been used
for the same or similar measures incentivized by other utilities in Idaho, such as Idaho
Power Avista and Rocky Mountain Power.
We prioritize the methods that align with the methods used by the these utilities in the
same regulatory landscape to be compared and contrasted on equal ground.
So during this literature review, we confirmed that the perspective HVAC and water heating
measures evaluated in Idaho used the RTF workbooks and other applicable terms with
deemed savings.
We also found that the residential new construction programs implemented in evaluated in
Idaho are evaluated using modeling software by comparing the as built home against
current IECC code with Idaho amendments.
Umm.
And I'll get into some of these details more later, but this includes Idaho Powers residential
new construction program and Rocky Mountain powers residential whole homes program.
So these two methodologies, the deemed savings and the modeling have long standing
precedence in program evaluation in Idaho and in this presentation today will summarize
Intermountain Gases impact evaluation results using these methods.
So although we'll be summarizing the verified savings through deemed and modeled
methodologies in line with other Idaho utilities, we did conduct a billing now sees for some
of these measures.
In this slide, we briefly outline our methodology for that billing analysis.
We conducted a billing nalysis per each of the measures, but not all of them displayed
sufficient participation through the 2021 and 2023 program years.
The measures that had sufficient data included the 95%furnace and the smart thermostat
measures, so the steps for this analysis were to 1 st conduct some data cleaning by
identifying homes that had isolated measure installations.
We then match the participant billing data to nonparticipant customers by matching on
energy consumption trends prior to the rebated measure equipment installation.
This is prevents the score matching, which reduces bias in the treatment effect by trying to
recreate a randomized control trial design.
We then conducted some validity testing to verify that the matched participant and
INT-G-25 OS
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 74 of 155

nonparticipant group bills in the pre period show no statistically significant differences in
monthly usage.
We did this by using a T test for each month and we then ran a pre and post period billing
data regression model that matched the participant and nonparticipant group which
quantifies the treatment effect.
That difference between those two groups in the pre and post period, so using this
treatment effect we then.
Evaluated the extrapolated annual treatment effect in the participant group.
Yeah, I see a hand up, Jason.
Jason Talford 19:40
Very briefly, I just wanted to make sure I captured a point, right.
Not all measures had sufficient participation.
It was the furnace and smart thermostat that did.
Melissa Kosla 19:50
Right, correct.
Jason Talford 19:52
OK.
And those are the only ones.
Melissa Kosla 19:54
Yes.
Jason Talford 19:54
Great.
Thankyou.
Melissa Kosla 19:56
Umm.
And we'll get into some more of those numbers matter, yeah.
Taylor Thomas 20:00
One quick question, sorry.
INT-G-25 P
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 75 of 155

What will you get into?
Why you couldn't do a billing analysis on the whole home later on?
Melissa Kosla 20:09
Yes.
Yeah,yeah.
Taylor Thomas 20:09
Yeah.
Thankyou.
Melissa Kosla 20:11
So we'll get into more details on each of those measures in the next slides and just some
background on the other methodologies we used and just in general, the billing analysis
steps, umm, so separate from the billing analysis, we also calculated verified savings for
each measure through deemed savings and engineering algorithms using regional inputs.
We reference the Regional Technical Forum unit, energy savings workbooks and the Illinois
Technical Reference Manual version 12.
For this process, we first selected a random sample of projects from each measure that
met 9010, verified that the tracking data summarized the projects accurately, and then
assign the correct savings values from the RTF so to and and also to more accurately
assess savings in the inner round gas service territory.
We utilize the participants observed billing data to calculate the participants effective full
Load heating hours, which effectively weighs the RTF savings to the actual observed heating
requirements from Idaho or from in around gases participants and then for all the other
regional inputs like Delta T, he and heating degree days, we referenced RTF workbooks
which calculate which is calculated by the RTF using the regional inputs.
We then used this random sample verification to calculate a sampled realization rate and
then apply that realization rate to the population.
OK, so although a lot of you may be familiar with the Regional Technical Forum already, I'll
just briefly outline the organization as it is referenced several times in our presentation, the
RTF is a technical advisory committee created by the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council and they were funded to develop standards to verify and evaluate energy efficiency
savings in the Pacific Northwest region, which includes Idaho,Washington, Oregon and
Montana.
The RTF utilizes sales data throughout the entire region.
INT-G-25 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 76 of 155

Utility program data and program evaluation results from previous reports in the area to
produce regional level verified savings for measures that are being rebated in the by the
utilities in the area.
Currently they have savings values for over 80 measures, but they always explore additional
measures to integrate into their workbooks as well.
Many utilities currently fund the RTF research goals, such as Puget Sound, Idaho Power,
Pacific Power, Avista, Seattle Gas and many more.
So it's a very useful resource for evaluation in the area.
Our team has directly included RTF supported values in our evaluation reports for several
of the clients I just listed as well.
OK, so now that we have some more background and about the methodologies we are
going to be going over the measure level savings and our recommendations for each
measure moving forward.
So the first on the list is the residential storage tank, water heaters.
Intermountain Gas incentivizes for a storage tank.
Water heater is less than or equal to 55 gallons and larger than 55 gallons.
The RTF assigns savings for this measure by identifying whether the equipment is
condensing or non condensing and powered or nonpowered with the non condensing
Energy Star storage tanks, water is displaying RTF savings of about 25 therms and the
condensing Energy Star units at 55 therms O in our document verification we found that
most of the rebated water heaters were non condensing.
By assessing each model numbers are documents.
So we compared the 38 therms claimed for this measure to the 25 therms verified for this
measure.
For the smaller size, which leads to about a 66% realization rate.
Umm, we found that the majority of the water heaters that are larger than 55 gallons did not
meet Energy Star qualifications, which led to significantly lower savings for this measure as
we see here with the 5.5% realization and the claim savings for some background were
estimated using the Mid Atlantic TRM which defines different efficient and baseline values
than the RTF does.
But one of the main differences that the RTF incorporates is something called the market
practice baseline.
That means that the baseline efficiency for each of the measures represents the average
efficiencythat a customer in the region would have installed had they not participated in a
program.
So this is calculated using regional sales data rather than the minimum federal baseline for
Efficiency for that measure.
Umm.
77
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 77 of 155

And also to answer the question about not having insufficient data for billing analysis for
this measure there were only about 80 rebates completed across the storage tank.
Water heaters to conduct a robust billing analysis.
We require at least 100 a 150 participants after billing, cleaning data steps are completed,
so this didn't meet that requirement.
That requirement.
So there weren't enough customers or billing data to compare and a billing analysis.
+18*******62 26:35
I'm Melissa.
I just wanna add one time.
This is Adam Thomas at Adm I just wanna add a quick item about the above 55 gallons.
Melissa Kosla 26:39
Yeah.
+18*******62 26:42
A large issue of the savings for this was also that at that size a much more stringent federal
code because it takes effect, essentially eroding about 90% of the savings potential.
And that is a main driver of,you know, of of an average being applied across system types.
Why there is such a stark difference between the you know, a deflection point?
Tapping the 55 gallon Mark, which culminates in a recommendation we're writing of
excluding those models from the program going forward at that size and above as
essentially having been,you know, fully addressed by federal code rather than requiring a
program intervention.
Melissa Kosla 27:31
Yeah, Taylor.
Taylor Thomas 27:33
Umm, I think you said you had 88 customers.
After the billing cleaned up.
So how many customers did you like?
Do you eliminate when you're cleaning up the data, I guess.
INT-G-25 0q
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 78 of 155

Melissa Kosla 27:46
Bella's 88 customers at the outset, so after the billing data cleaning steps there would be
fewer than that.
I don't have that number on me right now, but it maybe would have reduced by 40%this
based on pre period requirements and post period requirements.
Taylor Thomas 28:08
So on average, if you were to do a study on this, you'd probably need about 100 and 4000
and 50 participants to do a billing analysis on this.
Melissa Kosla 28:19
Yeah, somewhere around that number.
It would depend the number of customers that would drop wouldn't be consistent year to
year, but having that many at the outset would be a good indicator.
Taylor Thomas 28:23
No.
Melissa Kosla 28:33
You could try a billing analysis.
Taylor Thomas 28:36
Thankyou.
Melissa Kosla 28:39
Yeah.
And thank you, Adam, for that clarification.
I was going to detail that in this slide, but you beat me to it.
So based on our findings for this measure, we know worries.
+18*******62 28:49
Alright.
INT-G-25 P
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 79 of 155

Melissa Kosla 28:52
We recommend that Intermountain Gas align.
There is storage tank, water heater, umm, claim savings energy to the Regional Technical
forum workbooks.
And because the larger than 55 gallon storage tank water heater is have much more
stringent energy efficiency requirements than the smaller water heaters, the opportunity
for savings is to reduce significantly by about 90% as Adam said.
And therefore, we recommend that Intermountain Gas remove incentives for the large
storage tank water heaters and this action will effectively follow the natural market
transformation already taking place in the region.
We also recommend that Intermountain Gas consider tiered incentives offerings for
condensing versus non condensing water heaters, since the condensing heaters save over
two times the energy then the non connecting water heaters.
Before I move on to the next measure, are there any more questions?
Yeah, Jason.
Jason Talford 30:01
Yeah, I'lljump in with one.
Actually, the previous side, the final bullet point on the left there, one of 17 sampled larger
than 55 gallon water heaters.
This uh Energy Star or RTF standards required is that.
I'm trying to wrap my head around that is that to say that only one of the 17 sampled water
heaters?
Met the requirements of the rebate.
Melissa Kosla 30:33
Not of the rebate.
So the RTF has measure specifications that may be different than the way that the program
is set up.
So the RTF may have like more stringent requirements than the program, but since they
evaluate the energy savings based on.
Sometimes to higher requirements than the way that we evaluate to those measures would
have to meet those requirements as well.
So for this, the program didn't exactly align with the RTF standards.
For example, the program doesn't require it to be Energy Star certified, so if we align it with
INT-G-25 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 80 of 155

the RTF then that meets on the rebated sample only meets one or one project met that
requirement.
Jason Talford 31:28
OK, I think I got it.
+18*******62 31:29
And it it's also the case.
Jason Talford 31:30
Appreciate it.
+18*******62 31:31
It's also the case that to meet Energy Star above 55 gallons is incredibly difficult, again
because of how much more stringent the code is to begin with.
So to be above that code is at 55 at above 55 gallons is is exceedingly difficult for a model
to align with and so that's why the item identified in the slide here by Melissa is strictly for
the large category.
Melissa Kosla 32:02
Yes.
And the lower category all of them were verified to be Energy Star.
That's why the verified savings per unit is 25.2 therms which is exactly in line with the RTF
average value.
Taylor Thomas 32:20
Do we know how many of the participants had water heaters above 55? Don't.
Melissa Kosla 32:30
Yeah.
So it looks like almost half of them, 36 out of the 8886.
Taylor Thomas 32:40
Yeah.
INT-G-25 01
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 81 of 155

Melissa Kosla 32:48
I'll move on to the tankless water heaters.
Umm.
So Intermountain Gas incentivizes tankless water heaters using a tiered approach.
The RTF assigns regional savings for this measure based on whether the equipment is
Energy Star certified or not.
Non Energy Star certified water heaters are assigned 46 therms per unit while Energy Star
certified is assigned 60 therms per unit.
So compared to the claimed savings of 65 and 58 therms per unit respectively, the
realization rates we found for this measure was 90 and 82%for a tier one and Tier 2.
The claim savings were previously estimated using Efficiency mains term.
Umm.
And for this measure, we also recommend to align with other utilities in the region that in
around gas estimate claim savings using the RTF water heater workbooks moving forward.
Umm, there were only a few measures.
There were a number of projects that didn't meet Energy Star, but it didn't look like it
doesn't look like it affected too much of the varified savings as we see for tier one it's about
59 which is close to 60 and then Tier 2 at 47.
So some of those did meet Energy Star.
And so for our recommendation for this measure, we recommend in round gas, remove the
Tier 2 incentives which like the storage tank, water heaters will encourage customers to
follow the natural market shift as that's already occurring.
Finally, we also recommend that Intermountain Gas consider offering a tiered incentive
approach instead of for unit energy or UEF Efficiency.
Aligning that measure specification with the RTF workbook based on whether or not they
are Energy Star certified because they do show differing unit energy savings values.
Before I move on to boilers, are there any questions for this measure?
OK.
Umm so for the boiler measure?
Jason Talford 35:18
Turn me, Melissa.
Melissa Kosla 35:18
Umm yeah.
INT-G-25 R
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 82 of 155

Jason Talford 35:19
1 did find it question, sorry I wanted to get this in before we took off.
Melissa Kosla 35:23
Yeah.
Jason Talford 35:25
So previously you'd mentioned that sample size is a consideration.
Did the tier one with 1500 rebates have enough samples to, uh, make a full analysis?
Or did that get paired down too much?
Melissa Kosla 35:43
Yeah, there, there were enough participants to conduct a billing analysis, but for this
measure specifically, we didn't find any statistically significant differences between the
participating and non participating group.
So therefore, we couldn't verify savings based on that method.
Jason Talford 36:02
OK.
Thankyou.
Melissa Kosla 36:08
Thank you for the question.
And then umm, so for the boilers, umm, and the combination boilers, which we'll be talking
about next, there are no defined RTF savings.
Therefore, to evaluate this measure, we utilize the engineering algorithms used in across
several technical reference manuals specifically for this case, we reference the Illinois TRM
version 12.
Although we use the Illinois team engineering algorithms, we pulled regional inputs where
applicable from other RTF workbooks such as the AFUE baseline market practice baseline.
The EFLH assumptions were estimated using actual participant, customer billing data and
for this measure we verified average measure savings at 103 therms per unit, which is
about 65% of the claim savings value of 159 therms per unit.
The claim savings were estimated using the Illinois Tiem version 7, so we used a more
INT-G-25 R
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 83 of 155

updated version of that same workbook and umm for this measure we recommend claim
savings in the future estimated using the updated version 12 Illinois TRM with RTF inputs.
So it's more applicable to Intermountain Gas customers and.
The EFLH verified by the evaluator, which will be using in the term development.
Any questions on boilers before I moved to combination?
OK.
Umm, so same thing with combination boilers.
We used the Illinois Tiram with regional inputs, UM, regional inputs for this one also
included delta temperature and UM also the UEF baseline.
So for this measure, we verified average measure savings at 168 therms per unit, which is
about 108% of the claim savings value of 155.
The claim savings were sourced again from the Illinois TRM.
The differences between those input values differ by the EFLH value and then the baseline
assumptions, so we recommend claim savings in the future.
Our estimated usingthe RTF inputs and EFLH verified bythe evaluator.
Again, same as boilers to remain consistent across the measures and within the region.
OK, so I'm assuming we'll have a lot more discussion in the next three measures, which is
the smart thermostats, the furnaces and the whole home rebates.
So these three measures were specifically discussed in previous conversations where
additional evaluation methodology exploration would be considered.
So before we dig into the results for the smart thermostat measure, I thought it would be
useful to refer you specifically how the other utilities in Idaho evaluate this measures, since
it is a common measure throughout the Idaho portfolios.
In this chart, we can see that Idaho Power and Avista evaluate their smart thermostat
measures using the RTF connected thermostat.
Workbooks claimed savings are also defined using this resource.
Umm, which make the realization rates lack deviation too far from 100%.
Adm has conducted these evaluations for Idaho at power and Avista Utilities as well.
Furthermore, the Rocky Mountain Power utility evaluates savings for smart thermostats
using deemed savings from the technical Reference library.
3A Pacific Oratorium, and therefore this is there's precedence for this measure to be
evaluated using deemed savings values.
Additionally, the last row in the table summarizes how the RTF estimates its regional
savings values, which includes a meta analysis of several different evaluations in the region
to produce a single value applicable to the utilities in the region.
So now that we have some background on the precedence of evaluation methods for this
measure, we summarize here the results of two distinct analysis that we had run for this
measure.
INT-G-25 K
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 84 of 155

Method One summarizes the deemed savings values which reference the RTF workbooks
and the then method 2 summarizes the billing analysis savings by comparing participant
customer billing data to nonparticipant customer billing data before and after that
installation.
So the RTF assigns about 24 to 27 therms per unit depending on heating zone of the home.
Umm.
We found the average savings for the participants to be less than 21 therms using the RTF
solely because a number of these smart thermostats pamplets didn't meet the RTF
requirements.
Specifically, the requirement it didn't meet was occupancy sensors and we do see this
issue a lot for other utilities as well.
Since this requirement isn't typically a requirement in program implementation
implementation, it's only a requirement in the RTF workbooks.
On the other hand, we found that billing analysis resulted in over 27 therms per unit, which
does align very closely with the RTF savings.
Umm.
And because there is a presence for that RTF Dean savings for this measure for this
measure as well, we recommend Intermountain Gas use the RTF workbook to evaluate
savings in the future.
And it is.
Uh, I'm glad they kind of align and in savings values as well.
So that kind of shows that there is, umm, observable savings in the household energy
consumption reduction.
Umm, so a little bit more detail about the billing analysis of these smart thermostats.
Umm, one of the reasons we recommend the RTF workbooks moving forward is because
although this measure is highly used by Intermountain Gas customers, there is large
participation in this program with about 2000 customers applying for a rebate between
2021 and 2023.
Many of the participating customers do not have sufficient pre period billing data to remain
in the billing analysis.
We can see this the fact with the highlighted blue row.
Umm, where we see a large portion of the treatment group drops from the cleaning steps,
which requires at least nine months of prepared data.
So we see a reduction of about 58% of those treatment customers and although the
measure, the regression model does show a good fit as displayed by the adjusted R-
squared value on the table and the right, the analysis shows that we are effectively
quantifying half of the typical customers savings, half of the customers that don't have that
nine month pre period data requirement are being left out of this evaluation effectively.
INT-G-25 R
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 85 of 155

And therefore there's potential for this bias in the analysis that we are unable to correct for
or reverse the sharp decline in the number of homes without nine months of prepared data
are essentially buying biasing.
This analysis we're only looking at customers with consistent occupancy and therefore
we're effectively removing customers that have recently moved into their home or
customers who have recently purchased new construction homes.
It also requires the assumption that the billing now SIS results quantified from the homes
with consistent occupancy and existing homes also applies to customers that do not have
consistent occupancy, which is simply not the case.
Renter homes are not consistent and behavior with long standing occupancy homes umm
and in occupancy does not occur randomly.
So those are some of the of the reasons supporting our recommendation for moving
forward with RTF savings for this measure.
We recommend to align evaluation methods with other Idaho Power or Idaho utilities and
use the RTF workbook.
This allows for programs to be treated equally in Idaho and allow comparison across the
utilities with methods that are supported by all parties, and this this aligns with the savings
that we displayed in the previous slide was savings at 21 therms per unit for this measure.
Before I move on to the furnace measure, are there any questions about the smart
thermostats?
Yeah, Jason.
Jason Talford 46:07
Sure.
I had a few here, so maybe I'll throw out one or two and then and I want to make sure I don't
dominate the time and other people find their questions that I'll let them take the stage.
Ah, I wanted to.
Uh start.
That's uh, that's the last slide.
That phrase, potential bias that is unable to be reversed or rectified.
I wanted to get a little clarification.
Is that bias that?
Uh, implicit to the fact that we're running a billing analysis?
Or is that bias that's introduced by program design?
I guess I have a bit of knee jerk reaction to it and I'm curious if.
Changes in program design could counteract that bias.
INT-G-25 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 86 of 155

Melissa Kosla 47:05
Right.
So for a lot of downstream measures, well, the typical, the ideal experimental method to
evaluate unbiased treatment effect is to use a randomly randomized control trial, which is
you take a group of customers,you randomly assign them into treatment or control group.
Half of them get treatment, half of them don't, and that way you can verify that these
customers are randomly distributed.
There's no customers that are self selecting into the treatment group for downstream
measures.
We, like, we just can't do that unless somebody signs up for a rebate and you deny them if
deny half of them effectively.
So the way that a billing analysis tries to recreate that randomized control trial is to create a
control group after the fact.
Umm.
Which we can try our best to reduce bias as much as possible by, umm.
Propensity score matching or matching the treatment pre period energy consumption
behaviors to nonparticipating customers, but we can't completely eliminate that bias.
There's going to be behaviors and characteristics that we just don't have data for.
Umm.
And things that potentially are unable to be quantified.
Umm.
So just billing analysis with that experimental post hoc design includes that type of bias.
And then additionally, there's an additional bias introduced because over half of the
customers don't have sufficient pre period billing data, which means that some of the
customers are different from other customers and we can't include all of those customers
in this billing analysis.
+18*******62 49:01
It's been I would just wanna note here.
Melissa Kosla 49:02
So there's like a.
+18*******62 49:04
Sorry, I'm looking at something.
87
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 87 of 155

Melissa Kosla 49:06
Yes, go ahead.
+18*******62 49:07
So that the RTF workbook values are based off of, you know, a somewhat of a meta analysis
of a larger number of billing data studies in the region.
They're not,you know, some to the wind engineering algorithm.
And So what we've kind of gleaned from our results here is that.
The the results of the billing analysis for smart thermostats that we had found put things in
the in the,you know, relative universe of the values output from, you know the RTF
workbooks and some of the items that you know Melissa is describing in terms of,you
know when you're you have to remove,you have to remove households because of lack of
data etcetera, etcetera.
You know when you get to absolute large enough numbers at the scale of sort of the whole,
you know, region of values examined when going into something like the RTF deemed
workbooks, it's it you start being able to overcome those to a greater degree than you can
when looking at a single utility in isolation.
And you know, I look at the table values of our method one and method two of which is
Looking at the RTF and then looking at the Intermountain specific customers.
And I conclude that what's happening with Intermountain is within, you know, again within
reasonable boundaries of what's happening, you know, of of, of where our Tfl-found
savings values to land.
And that's without.
And knowing who we had to exclude, but seeing that what's left is still within reasonable
boundaries of that, that's kind of one of the, you know, reasons why we see some value in in
you know use sourcing savings based off of the the meta analysis of regional savings that
went into the into these workbooks.
Jason Talford 51:10
OK.
Thankyou.
So I guess to to kind of recap, Melissa, what I'm hearing is that there is some bias from the
evaluation methodology because it couldn't be that randomized control trial, but there's
also.
The the exclusion of some participants because of the the data requirements, so it's a little
bit of both.
INT-G-25 R
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 88 of 155

+18*******62 51:31
Yeah, I am a little bit of both.
Melissa Kosla 51:32
Right.
+18*******62 51:34
It's more so who we excluding and by the nature of you know the constraints of the study,
we have a very good sense of what a smart thermostat says in a home that is consistently
occupied.
And when you think of a a type of home that is versus isn't consistently occupied, you know
the the that factor is not demographically random.
Jason Talford 52:00
Umm yeah.
And and yes to your to your points there.
I yeah, I I think that's all well taken.
More so, I just wanna make sure I capture them all this summary properly.
I think your your final point that the RTF value and the billing analysis came out.
Uh.
Within reasonable boundaries, as you said,yeah, they're they're pretty close together.
So I think that kind of helps away a lot of the concerns.
Melissa Kosla 52:36
Yeah.
Great.
Umm yeah, there are those two introduced biases that are kind of common with billing
analysis.
The first one is very common with billing analysis.
The second depends on the customer group.
So for this customer group, we found that because half of the customers don't have pre
period billing data, they're most likely new move INS or new construction homes.
Umm, we can't effectively quantify or extrapolate the savings to all the customers?
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 89 of 155

Jason Talford 53:14
Yeah.
Can I?
Yeah, actuallyjust answered another one of the questions I had been sitting on it.
Is that it?
Melissa Kosla 53:19
No.
Jason Talford 53:19
Reasonable conclusion.
It's maybe build that's or.
Umm,you know, it's a smart thermostat and a new build.
Umm.
With this kind of analysis that you're running account for interactions with a little bit later
than the whole home program.
Melissa Kosla 53:40
Umm so for this billing analysis we focused on only isolated smart thermostat installation.
So this wouldn't interact with any other rebates.
Any other rebates, savings.
Was that your question?
Jason Talford 53:57
Yeah, that's exactly it.
Preciate it you can have.
Melissa Kosla 53:59
OK.
Jason Talford 54:02
Let's see.
Yeah, I only have one more, but I'll make sure to leave the floor open for a few seconds.
INT-G-25 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 90 of 155

Melissa Kosla 54:14
Yeah, I think you can go ahead.
Jason Talford 54:17
Appreciate it.
Wanna be conscious of that?
Melissa Kosla 54:20
Yeah.
Jason Talford 54:21
Did the evaluation that you ran distinguish between?
Contractor installed and self installed smart thermostats.
Melissa Kosla 54:33
For this, umm, billing analysis, we did not and then for the umm RTF workbook those values
are the same for installed and contractor installed self installed.
Jason Talford 54:54
Gotcha. Life.
Ink.
That's all I had for you.
Appreciate that the answers.
Melissa Kosla 55:00
Yeah.
Thankyou.
OK.
So next we'll move on to the Umm 95% Fe furnaces.
So here we summarized the results of.
Sorry.
Umm, the way the other utilities in Idaho evaluate their HVAC programs, HVAC measures is
through the RTF teams savings workbooks as well.
None of the these utilities incentivized for a natural gas furnace furnaces specifically, but
INT-G-25 A
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 91 of 155

they do incentivize for other space heating measures using the RTF or, in the case of Rocky
Mountain power, using the deemed savings from the TRL.
Therefore, there's also precedence for this measure to be evaluated using deemed savings
values.
UM, the RTF quantifies their regional savings values using an aggregation of several seem
modeling results or meta analysis.
Also, billing analysis that quantify a single savings value applicable to the region.
So depending on the measure it it differs what methodology they use to quantify that
value.
Umm, but for the RTF.
For the natural gas furnaces, I believe those are calculated using seem modeling.
And so for the results of the furnace rebates, UM, we summarize the two distinct analysis
we run for this measure.
Again, measure one is the deemed savings result using the RTF workbooks and method two
is using the billing analysis.
By comparing participant and nonparticipant billing data, the RTF assigns 27 to 55 therms
per unit for our natural gas furnaces.
Depending on the Efficiency tier and heating zone of the home, umm, we found the average
savings for the participant to be about 44.
Therms using this team savings workbook, the 87 therms claimed value was calculated
using the Illinois Tier M version seven so the main difference between those two values is
the difference in baseline energy efficiency assumptions.
The RTF uses the market practice baseline, which is a quite a bit higher than the minimum it
federal standard efficiency UM, while the Illinois Tier I'm uses that met federal minimum
standard.
For the method two, we found that the billing analysis resulted in 32 therms per unit UM,
which is again kind of in the same ballpark as that that RTF savings.
And because there is precedence for the RTF Dean savings for this measure, other Idaho
utilities are also using deemed approaches for their space heating measures.
We also recommend that Intermountain Gas use the RTF workbooks to evaluate savings for
this measure and getting into some of the again details of the billing analysis results similar
to the smart thermostats.
Umm, that introduced bias of reduction of treatment group customers after requiring nine
months of pre period billing data.
We also see this effect where the treatment group drops by about 60%from that cleaning
step.
And again, although the model shows a good fit as displayed by the user .77 adjusted
square value, umm, this analysis that we're displaying here effectively quantifies half of the
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 92 of 155

typical customer savings.
The other half of the typical customer, we're not really sure what their savings estimate
would look like because they are not included in this analysis similar to the previous
measure.
So.
There's also that bias introduced to this billing analysis for the smart for the furnaces, many
of the homes lack sufficient prepared billing data due to new construction or new move in
customers.
So therefore the same conclusion we came to for the smart thermostats.
We recommend that Intermountain Gas align the umm the verified savings to other Idaho
utilities and use the RTF workbook to estimate gas savings for this measure.
Again, this allows programs to be comparable and contrasted between the utilities that
offer similar measures and this recommended approach aligns with the savings verified
savings that we provided in the previous slide, summarizing savings at about 44 therms per
unit for the 95%furnaces.
Before I move on to a whole homes, are there any questions about this furnace analysis?
Jason Talford 1:00:28
Sure.
I'll jump in with one.
So just as a.
Melissa Kosla 1:00:31
Yeah.
Jason Talford 1:00:34
It's for a Saturday.
Check for me it may be a redundant question.
That's fine.
You can tell me it's redundant and all except that, uh, is all of the difference that we're
seeing between the RTF and the billing analysis attributable to that, that data bias that
we're seeing or are there other factors that are and pushing those verified therm savings
apart?
Melissa Kosla 1:01:04
Yeah, it could.
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 93 of 155

There could be other characteristics that attribute to that difference in savings between the
RTF and our observed billing analysis results.
Some of them are unquantifiable in existing data.
Some of them are just larger factors that could be affecting the particular evaluation period
could be affecting the particular participant group.
There could be a number of factors.
The one that we are able to identify is the.
The lack of sufficient pre period data for large number of the customers?
Umm, so it could be a difference in the participating group.
Perhaps the UM the billing now sees used in the RTF savings are.
Have a larger sample size so it kind of reduces those biases, whereas we're kind of limited
by the participation in the past two years.
Umm, that was just a long winded way to say there could.
There could be more affecting it more than the pre period requirement.
Jason Talford 1:02:21
Fair enough, could be more, but identifying, I imagine, can be difficult.
I think in this way you're more knowledgeable than these.
I'm just kind of curious it.
How would that bias change if?
There was an analysis run on.
Specifically.
I guess not new construction.
It's an existing home.
There is a reasonable amount of pre period billing data.
Would that eliminate the the bias that we're seeing here?
Or at least I guess it wouldn't eliminate it, because those houses still exist.
Melissa Kosla 1:03:11
Right.
So if we wanted to quantify the typical savings for a customer that is in an existing home
that has been in the home for at least a year or two, then the billing analysis results would
effectively quantify that.
But because a large portion of the purchase pants don't reflect those characteristics, we
can't really reasonably alley that value to the population.
So there if we wanted to quantify, if we wanted to say like the typical savings for an existing
customer is about 32 therms, we could say that.
INT-G-25 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 94 of 155

Jason Talford 1:03:41
Umm.
Melissa Kosla 1:03:53
Because that's who's included in this analysis.
Jason Talford 1:03:56
So I'm definitely getting a little bit hypothetical on if you need to rein me in, that's fine.
Melissa Kosla 1:04:02
No, no worries.
Jason Talford 1:04:03
Umm would it be possible if?
Or have you seen this, or would there be any obvious issues with splitting?
Uh, for example.
This case, the natural gas furnace into two measures, a new construction actually gas
furnace to be held separately in A and I guess more of a replacement measure for existing
homes.
Melissa Kosla 1:04:33
That is a consideration that could be.
Umm.
Explored for the RTF savings, there aren't really any differing there's no specification for
either Umm installation method it's they include both of those in the seem modeling
analysis, so they would effectively be verified to have the same savings, but if that's
something that is needed on the implementation side.
Umm, that wouldn't be an issue.
Yeah, I see Lori's hand.
Blattner, Lori 1:05:13
Hi Melissa ohm.
And and Jason, I just wanted to say don't feel bad about asking questions cause this is your
chance.
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 95 of 155

So.
So we really appreciate the questions.
Umm, one thing to keep in mind.
And.
And we're gonna have more discussions on program design.
You know in the future, based based on these recommendations, but just to keep in mind.
One of the things that customers if they're if they're going to be upset about the program, I
think one of the things that could trigger that frustration would be if it seems like we're
treating, you know, regular customers differently than.
Umm.
Contractors or,you know, people building homes.
And so I'm not saying that we wouldn't consider,you know, a new construction rebate
different from a A retrofit, but that's one of the things that we'll want to that we'll wanna talk
through is how that would be perceived by customers.
So just a just a thought.
Jason Talford 1:06:31
Yeah.
No, that's a good consideration.
But yeah, I agree, that's something too.
I think explored point taken, we'll explore that later. Thanks.
Melissa Kosla 1:06:42
Yeah.
You have questions, Taylor?
Taylor Thomas 1:06:46
Yeah, mostly.
Do you mind going back just one slide?
Melissa Kosla 1:06:52
Was that the previous slide?
Taylor Thomas 1:06:52
Uh, so I guess this is just a general question about ADM's practices around residential
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 96 of 155

programs.
I'm seeing a common theme hereon the first kind of bold point in the all the sub bullets
underneath that of recommending of using deemed savings.
Because of these reasons, for residential programs is that a general practice across most
residential programs at Adm recommends due to some of these biases that you have here.
+18*******62 1:07:21
So there's two, there's.
There's two questions there.
There's when you're doing an analysis like this.
Sorry, sorry, Melissa for jumping in, but I haven't subscribed.
Melissa Kosla 1:07:31
Yeah, go ahead.
+18*******62 1:07:33
OK, umm, there's two different types of questions of this.
You could be answering one.
Are you trying to say this is the savings that happened in the program over this period
versus 2?
Are you trying to say this is the estimate that should be used on an ongoing basis?
And those two questions can be approached methodologically similarly, but and there's
there's some subtleties there that kind of need to be captured, because if you're, if you're
able to take all the customers in the program and do a billing analysis, I mean,you don't
really and say, OK, we've measured the savings over this cohort over this year.
We don't care if it's biased because or if this is, there's a bias in this group because we
know we're measuring this group adequately.
OK, great.
But if you're trying to say that doesn't necessarily mean that's the value you want to
recommend for deemed savings long term going forward as a planning value.
If you have reason to think that the group you've analyzed isn't representative year over year
of what's coming ahead, and so your question about our practice really sort of depends on
what's the research goal.
Is it purely to look back in history or is it to make a recommendation for future planning?
Or if it's both, then sometimes we have to talk through some of these nuances because it
kind of we could be giving them a stake in impression of, you know, of of holding 2
97
INT-G-25-05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 97 of 155

conflicting truths, 1 on the left hand, one on the right when they're both true.
But just for a different purpose.
Taylor Thomas 1:09:06
Yeah.
Thankyou.
I appreciate that and it's just a general question.
I mean, ultimately all you get a lot of billing analysis results and you adjust accordingly to
maybe a new deemed number and that's why the RTF pulls a lot of that data from other
regional other regions within Idaho and Oregon and Washington and helps get a better
estimate for the region.
So I was just curious and I appreciate the response.
Melissa Kosla 1:09:32
Yeah.
+18*******62 1:09:32
No problem.
Melissa Kosla 1:09:33
Thankyou foryour question.
+18*******62 1:09:33
And yeah, I would say,yeah, I'm definitely more inclined on saying, you know, if you just
wanna measure a population and be done with it, you can look more insularly.
But if you're trying to plan for ongoing for the future, well, a larger regional body starts
adding more value.
Melissa Kosla 1:10:01
Yeah.
Any other questions before I move on to the whole home?
OK, so this is the final measure we're going to be discussing today.
Umm, in 2021, the whole home rebates underwent requirements and incentive change
instead of requiring homes to meet a certain HERS rating.
Additional, more impactful requirements were incorporated to lead to proven energy
INT-G-25 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 98 of 155

savings.
This so these requirements in a tiered approach are listed on the Inner Mountain website
and are currently in effect.
Same for both tiers, they must be hers rated.
They must have for Tier 1 below Ache 3 and for Tier 2 below 4.
The duct air handlers must be located in condition space and then for tier one it requires a
97%furnace and for Tier 2 and 95%furnace.
So for this we see most of the whole home rebates Meeting Tier 2 rather than tier one
almost solely because the difficulty to purchase a 97%furnace. Umm.
And just some background, the other utilities in Idaho also offer program new residential
new construction programs for customers.
Idaho Power offers a rebate to townhomes and condos and also single family homes,
similar to Intermountain Gases program.
Avista offers incentives for purchasing Energy Star manufactured homes.
Rocky Mountain offers both of those.
So single family homes on a tiered approach and then also manufactured homes, the
manufactured homes, umm we evaluate that prevista there's an RTF workbook for that that
uses the modeling for evaluating those savings.
Those savings are much more predictable because they're are less variations in
manufactured home construction on the single family home residential new construction
side.
These utilities evaluate those programs using REM rate software or Ekotrope software.
Essentially, the homes construction details are used as inputs to a software modeling
things like furnace efficiency, window, you value, ceiling insulation, wall insulation, air
sealing values.
Those inputs are modeled against a typical occupancy and whether really values
dependent on the home location and they're modeled against the Energy ICC code with
Idaho amendments.
So that's how other utilities evaluate their whole home programs.
The Regional Technical Forum on that last row also created a new homes protocol which
defines the modeling methodology that is recommended.
The appropriate software tools and then outlines the current codes for each of the states in
the service territory.
So this really lays the groundwork for evaluating new construction programs in the region
approved by the RTF and therefore all the utilities that fund the RTF.
Therefore, this is the kind of precedence where moving forward with for modeling and
evaluating this program.
Yeah, Jason.
INT-G-25 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 99 of 155

Jason Talford 1:13:35
As a brief aside.
I will curious where the timeline for this portion of the evaluation is.
Did it capture?
The August 20th RTF meeting.
They had information specifically about their new homes protocol.
It I don't know if it was in time to be included in the evaluation, that's all.
Melissa Kosla 1:14:02
Umm, we were evaluating the 2021 through 2023 program years.
Are you asking if that conversation was in effect during those rebates?
Jason Talford 1:14:13
Uh.
Umm, no, it would be part of the evaluation when it was running.
When it was said, you know intaking this data and drawing these comparisons between the
different utilities and RTF, and because they recently had new information on new homes
protocol and I'm not sure if it's reflected.
Melissa Kosla 1:14:25
Ohh sure.
I'm not sure about that either.
I'll have to check the.
Effective date for that workbook and what updates were made.
Jason Talford 1:14:46
Yeah, the the workbook itself, the protocol hasn't changed.
But it was, and they they had some evaluations from other, uh, other states.
I think the Oregon and Wisconsin that, umm, kind of set them in a new direction so.
Melissa Kosla 1:15:03
OK.
So maybe they're moving forward with the meta analysis at some point.
INT-G-21-00
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 100 of 155

Jason Talford 1:15:10
Absolutely.
It sounds like it may not have made it in that.
That's. That's alright.
Melissa Kosla 1:15:16
OK.
Yeah, I'll double check that.
Jason Talford 1:15:18
Thankyou.
Melissa Kosla 1:15:20
Yeah.
Thankyou.
Umm.
OK.
So umm.
For the whole homes rebates, the billing analysis was a bit more of a difficult approach
because there's no prepared data to match similar homes to each other.
That introduces essentially another layer of the bias, because we can't effectively tell if the
customer the control customers are similar to the participating customers, we're unable to
tell they have similar behaviors.
Umm, we're working with limited housing characteristic data, so that introduces another
Layer of bias.
Umm, these are also new construction homes, many of which we found that have account
numbers that are still associated with the builder company and therefore are likely
unoccupied.
So or are still being renovated to the customers preference.
They're not the customer.
Purchasing the home hasn't moved in yet, and so exploring a billion Alexis for this measure
in specific the unoccupied homes leads would lead to deflated energy consumption and
also we wouldn't be able to verify the match of those participating customers and non
participating customers the same way that we're able to do with these smart thermostats
and the furnaces.
INT-G-21 A
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 101 of 155

So it lacks that layer of validity and introduces another layer of bias that we can't really
measure and can't, uh, fixed.
Umm the modeling approach, however implemented by the other Idaho utilities, can
overcome these biases by modeling the homes construction to typical occupancy and
typical behaviors.
So what would the home be saving once it's fully occupied?
Umm, it's also matched with the weather dependent variables with the heating and climate
zone.
Umm.
Therefore, with this approach with the modeling approach, we're able to model the energy
savings the home would have if it's not sitting empty in the Builders hands.
If it's fully occupied and homes that are are customers that are typical to the region are
occupying these homes and using it the way a normal home would be used.
So for the evaluation results for this measure, we summarize the modeling approach
results.
We incorporated the homes modeling files in Ekotrope and compared component level
consumption against the same home, but built to code standards.
So the IECC 2018, this is a.
This method is in alignment with other Idaho utility residential new construction evaluation
methods.
We found that Tier 1 displayed 114% realization rate and Tier 2 displayed 85%.
Realization.
Tier one only saw three rebates.
Umm.
Completed across the three year period.
UM, so a larger majority of customers are meeting that Tier 2 requirement.
We recommend this modeling approach in future impact evaluations to validate claim
savings, but moving forward in order to claim the savings for a projected years, we will
create a tiram section using the evaluation results from this analysis so that can be
periodically readjusted based on impact Ryan results.
And again aligning yes, go ahead.
+18*******62 1:19:21
And.
Ohh, I just wanted to add one thing as far as the one examining you know non non program
homes, one of the main sources of difficulty as well is it's not the same set of Builders
INT-G-21 9
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 102 of 155

doing program versus non program homes and so you can have some inconsistency in
builder practices that makes that comparison of the problematic.
Melissa Kosla 1:19:53
Yeah, that's a good point.
OK.
So again, aligning the evaluation methodologies with the Idaho, the utilities that are in
Idaho allow for residential and new construction programs to be evaluated with the same
measuring stick.
Comparing results and implementation practices among those programs and allowing for
Learning across each other's programs for that reason, and in addition because of the
introduced bias that would result from exploring a billing analysis, we recommend
following the RTF new Homes protocol, which details the modeling approach we use in this
analysis.
This and it sounds like the that protocol is, umm, consistently being reviewed and updated
by the parties that fund the RTF as well.
Any questions on that whole home?
Umm recommendations are analysis.
Jason Talford 1:21:16
It works.
It's like I'm the guy again.
Out Taylor had it.
Melissa Kosla 1:21:19
No worries.
Jason Talford 1:21:20
Taylor,you get in there?
I asked too many questions.
Taylor Thomas 1:21:23
You know, I it's I I have questions going through my head and I'm trying to understand
everything he kind of said as to why a billing analysis couldn't be done.
Umm.
INT-G-21-00
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 103 of 155

And mostly trying to understand it because it was ordered forth e company to conduct a
billing analysis specifically forth is program.
Umm, so when you're looking at, I guess I'm trying to understanding of how many non
program homes that were new construction that there might have been within that and that
is that even data that you can get within the company service territory?
Melissa Kosla 1:22:04
Yeah.
So that data is umm available just having customers or accounts that are newly created or
and and then also pulling a permit data or new construction home data from Redfin or
Zillow.
We can identify new construction homes that aren't present in the program.
Yeah, that that is available.
Taylor Thomas 1:22:35
So I guess I'm trying to understand why as to why we couldn't and I think he kind of walked
through it.
But I'm not fully grasping as said why you couldn't use that as a model to compare savings
for the program participants in this program for someone that maybe didn't.
I understand you mentioned you know different builders have different standards.
Umm.
But I'm just trying to get an understanding of that a little bit better.
Melissa Kosla 1:23:03
Yeah.
So that is something that we explored, but we didn't post the findings of that exploration
here because the just the prerequisites for the billing analysis have so many introduced
biases that we tried to present our findings here that are most in line with other Idaho
utilities, umm.
And therefore the recommendation that we would have moving forward, it's not something
that's impossible, it is something that wouldn't display results that are in line with the.
Observe savings.
If we were to see these whole homes fully occupied and.
Have a valid comparison group.
Basically, there's there's not a way for us to validate that control group savings.
A more robust approach would be comparing pre and post, but since that's not available
INT-G-21 0
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 104 of 155

for the participants in this group because there is no prepared data, the only way to do that
is to model that savings based on the homes construction and typical occupancy.
Using these software programs.
Does that answer your question?
Taylor Thomas 1:24:25
So kind of I think with like the occupancy, I know you're it's you're not really sure when
some of these homes are occupied in theory.
Wouldn't you be able to kind of tell when these homes are occupied based on the billing
data?
Melissa Kosla 1:24:42
Right.
So there is the opportunity to do that.
There are.
It's kind of hard to define that cutoff line as well, like when when would you say a customer
is using enough to be using? Uh.
Typical, say, typical energy consumption.
What if this customer is just a lower energy consumer?
What if they're higher energy?
Consumer, we're not really able to tell what their typical behavior is because we don't have
any data supporting that.
Also, it's really hard to get information of when these homes were fully occupied separate
from like just the handoff between the builder and the new account owner.
Taylor Thomas 1:25:29
And then just I guess it's just one comment and I know you mentioned a couple of times,
you know looking at other Idaho utilities in their current practice.
And I guess just my comment on that is yes, a lot of other Idaho utilities may be using a
deemed savings, but ultimately we we still go through evaluators and do billing analysis to
verify that there's deemed savings and accurate.
Umm, so just a general comment like while the current practices they're using adeem
savings, we're still doing billing analysis multiple times throughout the life cycles of these
programs to verify that these team savings are accurate representation.
INT-G-21 n
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 105 of 155

+18*******62 1:25:59
Uh.
Melissa Kosla 1:26:09
Right.
+18*******62 1:26:09
For, for for new homes specifically, it's not happening.
The billing analysis that was they comparing program homes against non program homes.
I mean, I I'm open to the possibility that I've missed something, but in my review of at least
the publicly available information on evaluation reports, you know, done by some other
other entities that have been hired in the past, this type of analysis, you know, the new
homes are pretty consistently having verified savings reported based off of energy
modeling, comparing their performance to minimum code.
And that's so yes, the other measures do receive billing analysis some, some of which,
many of which have been performed by us.
But the new homes is sort of a a a, a different area.
Uh, and specifically, and this is a pretty common,you know, industry wide you know
phenomenon or you know fundamental pieces that you know new construction has a
Longer lag time before you can say there is primary data to be used.
I mean, it's even worse with commercial new construction in terms of that you have to, you
know, engage in hypotheticals.
But residential as well and so.
Umm,you know?
Anyway, that's that.
That that was, that's just been my finding,you know, on the electric side, the most recent
evaluation I was able to find of new residential single family, new construction efficiency
was using the approach that that has been specified specified here like an energy model
output.
Melissa Kosla 1:28:01
1 think an important clarify.
Taylor Thomas 1:28:01
If they thank you for that and I guess just understandable and that my comment is more
INT-G-21 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 106 of 155

general across the board for all measures you mentioned longer lag times.
Do you generally know how long of lag times that is until you can kind of reliably use that
data?
+18*******62 1:28:24
So my in my experience is you know you can for residential new construction when you
know from when the home is considered built,you oftentimes need three years before you
could say I have a year of steady state occupancy data for a commercial,you could be
Looking at five years or more, especially if it's something like an office space that needs that
needs time to lease out space.
Taylor Thomas 1:28:49
OK.
Thank you for that information.
Melissa Kosla 1:28:51
Umm yeah, I think.
Uh, important clarification or point to your question, Taylor Umm specifically for this
measure is this isn't considered deemed savings for the whole homes rebate.
This is a specific program participation level evaluation, so a lot the way that the whole
home or new construction programs are evaluated instead of using a billing analysis like
you said, to see if those deemed savings are in line with the program savings every so
often.
This is the way that that happens for residential new construction homes and it's basically
the residential new construction version of a billing analysis.
We're looking at the homes actual construction built in the actual program year for that
actual customer and then comparing it to the.
Residential building code, so it's not a general statement of saying like this program is
having this amount of savings.
We're actually looking at individual homes that were rebated and sentenced through this
program.
And then to confirm what you were saying, every so often billing analysis is completed.
Typically, to see if those deemed savings values for other measures like the furnaces are
smart thermostats are in line with with the RTF savings.
So we do see that and do that as well.
Umm yeah, Jason.
INT-G-21 05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 107 of 155

Jason Talford 1:30:30
Right.
I wanted to return to somethingyou were talking about with Taylor.
You mentioned that you were unable to validate control the the control group, but a little bit
earlier you're you would said that data is available.
And I guess I want to do exploring that a little bit more because I don't that kind of seems
counter to me of if billing data is available for a control group.
And also I assume that the company has umm data when a customer initiates service,
either overtaking an existing.
You know, existing service that was maybe under a, A, a landlord or a a builder and how
couldn't that data be used to validate that control group and say here's when they started.
Here's what their consumption is afterwards.
And.
Melissa Kosla 1:31:32
Right.
Yeah.
Umm so billing data for that nonparticipant group is available.
The reason why I said that we're unable to validate that control group is because although
we have billing data, there's no real information that we could gather at this point that
would be able to.
Say conclusively that the treatment group and the control group are similar.
Umm, because we only have post period data for a new construction homes and in the
post period data we're trying to identify that treatment effect.
So we want the treatment and control group post period data to have a difference where we
don't want them to have any differences as the prepared data which simply doesn't exist
for billing data and new construction.
Therefore, we would supplement that with other characteristics like square footage of the
home number of bedrooms.
Umm.
Zip code location.
Even if we had all that information, there would be several characteristics that we wouldn't
be able to reduce bias in, such as their behavior.
So their energy consumption behavior, there's no data that we would be able to kind of
aggregate or or collect that would be able to show that kind of information the same way
INT-G-21-00
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 108 of 155

that pre period billing data can.
Does that kind of answer your question?
Jason Talford 1:33:07
Yeah,yeah, I think I'm.
I'm starting to understand the.
Howyou're struggling didn't make a group that you can properly compare. Umm.
It it's starting to jog my memory. I think.
For what I was referring to a little bit earlier with the RTF meeting, I think Energy Trust of
Oregon had a way that they compared them, but it may have also been in perfect but and
struggling to draw that up so.
Melissa Kosla 1:33:40
OK.
Yeah, I'll definitely look into that because that sounds interesting.
Jason Talford 1:33:45
Yeah. OK.
So I guess to kind of summarize that point of why billing analysis wasn't performed, it was
that seems to be the main driver is that there was no way to match a control group to the
treatment group.
Is that accurate?
Melissa Kosla 1:34:06
Yeah, that's one of the main reasons.
Also, another reason was even if we were able to validly match a control group to the
treatment group, it wouldn't be quantifying typical year savings just because many of those
homes would otherwise be unoccupied or have very, umm, low energy consumption.
That's not typical for when they're fully occupied, so therefore the lower energy
consumption throughout the year would lead to lower opportunity for savings.
So we even if we were able to validate a control group, we're not sure that that's what the
savings would look like for a typical home.
Whereas the modeling approach overcomes those, UM, uh, those issues by modeling
against uh, typical occupancy and typical behaviors and in space heating and water
heating usage.
INT-G-21-00
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 109 of 155

+18*******62 1:35:12
Two also, I know that Energy trust study you're referring,you know they they did a study but
it was like alike a 10A study of 10 years of program implementation.
And so there was definitely a a rather expansive effort.
I don't recall it in full detail in full, you know, gory detail here, but that's something and or
the program requirements that would went into their homes.
What have you?
I I will say you know most.
New construction programs are on sort of a HERS rated basis like you know you know
achieve this HERS score to qualify for the program in response to our last cycle of
evaluation work and in response to our recommendations, Intermountain changed the
program requirements away from being HERS, driven to do these items in your home to
produce natural gas savings because a lot of the elements of a, HERS score are not natural
gas savings producing.
And so I would want to, sorry, it was someone asking a question.
Melissa Kosla 1:36:13
The.
No, sorry.
I was agreeing with you.
+18*******62 1:36:20
Ohh OK.
Ohh.
OK, OK.
So when we examine other studies, I would want to just make sure that that that is that that
is noted that there requirements were changed because this is in keeping with you know
the utility cost test of the primary screening mechanism.
The program was redesigned to be programmed that performs better under a utility cost
test framework versus if you're examining,you know the policy framework and you know
the motivations of energy trust of Oregon.
They're, you know, they're looking to produce a more of a societal range of benefits with a
with, you know, so you know, more avenues of Efficiency are considered on the benefit side
and therefore more paths to,you know, complying with program requirements are
available.
INT-G-21 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 110 of 155

Jason Talford 1:37:18
Umm yeah, that makes that makes sense.
Appreciate the context.
I guess I have a few more questions.
Melissa Kosla 1:37:32
Yeah, go ahead.
Jason Talford 1:37:34
In the comparison to other utilities. Uh.
Idaho Power and Avista had 100% realization rates from their evaluations.
But Rocky Mountain Power had a 88% net to gross ratio.
And I'm wondering if you're comparison had some information on why they had that ratio
typically I've seen.
Net to gross ratio is of 100% because if the program didn't exist then there would be no
savings.
Melissa Kosla 1:38:10
1 know that for Rocky Mountain power they applied that 88% net to gross ratio across their
entire portfolio.
So not only the whole homes program, but all the other programs that they offer, I didn't
Look into too far about how they calculated that.
I think it was referenced from a previous impact evaluation for the company.
Yeah, I don't have very many details surrounding that.
+18*******62 1:38:38
lam, I know sometimes due to a lack of participants because of their small territory for a
Rocky Mountain power, Idaho.
What happens in Utah gets uh slapped onto Idaho and they call it a day.
Yeah.
You know, in case of, you know there are results were a larger sample size was achievable
in Utah than Idaho.
And so I would want to look to see if that was, if that was done in some of these cases.
INT-G-2M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 111 of 155

Jason Talford 1:39:13
Yeah.
Yeah, that's that's fair enough.
I appreciate that.
I think I wouldn't want to ask you to go poking too deep into Pacificorp stuff for
Intermountain Gas evaluation.
So I think that's plenty.
Melissa Kosla 1:39:24
Right.
Jason Talford 1:39:29
1 appreciate the contact.
+18*******62 1:39:29
But I'm just, you know, I'm.
I'm just we're we're adding bullets to our after meeting follow up items and off or for for one
to be omitted as office.
Yeah, we're forever grateful.
Jason Talford 1:39:40
Yeah.
There you go.
You're welcome.
Melissa Kosla 1:39:42
People.
Jason Talford 1:39:43
All charge you for it. Later.
Melissa Kosla 1:39:45
Yeah.
INT-G-21 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 112 of 155

Jason Talford 1:39:45
Uh, I think I had.
One more here and arkins back to I think.
The an idea that Taylor had of of billing analysis to inform are deemed saving.
Reasonable and accurate are they?
They're reasonable approach to that and specifically with regards to that RTF new Home
Standard protocol is you know it states that it's unclear how well modeling corresponds
with actual energy savings and they recommend you know program evaluations to validate
those savings so.
I guess even with all the biases that are involved, would a billing analysis still provide some
measure of validation to address that uncertainty?
+18*******62 1:40:49
I'm sorry, go ahead.
Melissa Kosla 1:40:51
He's there.
There would be definitely some, umm helpful information for the magnitude and the sign of
the coefficient of treatment just to see if they're the customers in the treatment group are
definitely say have lower energy usage than the customers that didn't participate in the
program.
Again, like the magnitude and direction can't.
We can't fully say with confidence that those are indicative of the program effect, because
those groups may be.
Differing for other reasons, we want to try to isolate that treatment effect and we can't
really.
Jason Talford 1:41:34
But can I ask for a clarification magnitude and sign of coefficient of the treatment group is?
Melissa Kosla 1:41:39
Yes.
INT-G-21 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 113 of 155

Jason Talford 1:41:41
Would that not translate to how much savings and if they are saving therms, OK.
Melissa Kosla 1:41:48
Yes,yes, exactly.
+18*******62 1:41:52
And you know, because it's it's the comparison against non program homes is very difficult
and with So what you know if you look back far enough and you could say we have homes
that steady state you could look at bills and say what's what's the actual annual build use
of these new homes and you know how does that compare to what the model predicts the
build use of these new homes are and that could be something to say you know are the
models producing something within you know reasonable you know boundaries or
reasonable realm of reality.
Of what an occupied homes gas consumption looks like the point the the issue from there
then becomes a an A matter of comparison, though I would still say even in that case you
would then want to take the the same customers and compare the efficiency of the new
home against the minimum code rather than against a non program home.
So if there is a use case for billing data for new homes, it would be specifically for the
purpose of saying you know.
Are are, are, are, the, are the models reasonably accurate in estimating what you know a a
four bedroom 2 bathroom?
Two story home built in Boise consumes per year.
Under this, you know, under the this you know with these energy efficiency improvements.
Melissa Kosla 1:43:22
Yeah.
And like you were saying, Adam, that there might be a lag effect for occupancy of those
homes, maybe looking at homes that were previously rebated several years ago to see what
their occupants or their consumption is, umm, a few years after that movement date would
be useful too.
+18*******62 1:43:47
And that would require some weather adjusting because you know that you have to look at
that specific years heating degree days compared to a model output, you know which is
INT-G-21 OS
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 114 of 155

based off of typical meteorological year.
So you have to do some some adjusting, but that's pretty straightforward.
Melissa Kosla 1:43:57
Right.
+18*******62 1:44:01
Umm.
Does this is what I'm describing?
Making sense?
Jason Talford 1:44:06
Yeah, I think I got what you're makes sense.
It's less of a comparison to a non participant and it's just a a long term comparison to the
model of the billing actually match the model.
Is that where that little bit earlier you had that five year?
Five years of data.
+18*******62 1:44:24
Ohh 333 year for Residential 5 plus for commercial.
Jason Talford 1:44:28
Uh, three, so is that where that number comes from?
In order to do that kind of analysis you you need approximately 3 years.
+18*******62 1:44:37
Yeah,you got a home, basically, you know.
Yeah.
In general, borrowing a 2008 S you know recession where builders were sitting on homes
for years.
Barring that, which hasn't been the case for quite some time.
Ohm, as I understand, the home in Idaho sells relatively quickly these days that you know,
to account for time, the Builders holding it.
Ohh I do account for you know time of transfer time of relocation then accumulating data
by living in the home.
INT-G-21 P
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 115 of 155

Yeah, three years after it's built, you have get you,you have data that you might consider be
able to safely consider steady state and we have a year of we have a year of this is what the
occupied homes usage looks like.
Melissa Kosla 1:45:36
Also, I know that the RTF likes to compare against market practice baseline, so maybe one
of the updates to their new homes protocol will be identifying.
Jason Talford 1:45:36
He kept.
Melissa Kosla 1:45:47
Umm, a.
A baseline that's more similar to non program homes rather than the ICC baseline.
So that's some additional research that could be done on a region wide approach as well
that which could help improve those modeling results they comparing against non program
homes rather than code.
Jason Talford 1:46:17
OK.
Yeah.
Thank you all for the question.
For your answers, I think I think I'm finally out of questions.
I appreciate all all the answers that you had.
I know that that was a lot.
Melissa Kosla 1:46:27
Yeah, no worries.
If you have more, we're happy to help clarify.
+18*******62 1:46:34
Yeah, and and and for for some.
For some weird reason reason we find this we we find the subject matter.
You know, actually fun so.
INT-G-21 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 116 of 155

Melissa Kosla 1:46:43
It really is.
It really is.
And well, that was the whole home rebate was the last topic of our presentation.
So I guess if there's no other questions that we can help answer, I'll bring it back to you,
Kathy.
Wold, Kathy 1:47:08
Great.
Alright.
Well, thank you, Melissa and Adam, I appreciate your time and walking through us through
all the results and I appreciate all the questions.
I I feel like that was a really good, robust discussion about the results and I appreciate
everyone asking their questions.
While we have the experts here to chat with us.
So, umm, so next steps.
I think what we need to do is get the final EM&V report and the TRM which will allow us to do
a follow up meeting with the stakeholder committee.
We'd like to bring to the committee the suggested program changes that are resulting out of
this EM and V study.
Uh, and have a discussion about that and then timeline wise, let's see file for prudency
combined with the program changes and we would look for a January 1 st effective date.
I think if we're going to do some program changes that January 1, timeline would be an
optimal time to implement something new where it's right on the program.
Uh year on the program year so.
Yeah,Taylor.
Taylor Thomas 1:48:23
So can you give me a rough timeline of when you would expect to meet again with the
stakeholder group and when you would expect to make it filing in order to meet that January
1 effective date?
Wold, Kathy 1:48:34
Yeah.
So I just a quick look at the calendar.
INT-G-21 05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 117 of 155

I was gonna do maybe a poll here to see if September 19th or September 26th would be
potential meeting dates to bring the committee back together.
And I can send out a poll and we can just kind of do a a poll on which date works better or if
folks know now if they if I'll take all feedback.
Taylor Thomas 1:49:02
The whole would be better for our side and it's so you'd point to meet around then and then
in hopes of making a filing with the Commission went.
Wold, Kathy 1:49:04
OK.
I would say in October.
Taylor Thomas 1:49:13
In October.
Wold, Kathy 1:49:14
Yeah.
Taylor Thomas 1:49:16
And do you plan to make?
So that's the filing for different program changes.
When would you make your prudency filing for the current uh 2023 same time?
Wold, Kathy 1:49:26
Same time, yeah, we would file 2023 prudency along with any suggested program changes.
Taylor Thomas 1:49:34
OK.
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 1:49:36
Yeah.
INT-G-21 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 118 of 155

Blattner, Lori 1:49:38
Taylor, can I askyou a question?
Umm I I'm curious procedurally and and you guys can think about it a little bit too.
It seems to me like it might make sense to file prudency as one case and then file program
changes as a separate case, but I'm curious if you'd rather have it wrapped into one case.
Wold, Kathy 1:49:54
Umm.
Taylor Thomas 1:50:02
It's a good question.
I mean, typically yes, but.
Most a lot of the reasons for changing the programs or lumped into the evaluation which
was directly ordered to be included in the prudency filing.
So I'd I have, I would have to get back to you.
I can email you back on that.
It could talk internally what might be best?
Umm, typically.
Blattner, Lori 1:50:27
Yeah.
Taylor Thomas 1:50:27
Yeah, probably.
It'd be better to do it separate, but it's so lumped into your previous prudency filing that it
might be easier to just do it in that case.
Blattner, Lori 1:50:37
OK.
Taylor Thomas 1:50:37
Umm, so I'll, I'll get back to you on it.
Blattner, Lori 1:50:38
INT-G-21 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 119 of 155

Yeah.
Just let let me know cause we won't need to know until we file, but whichever way it's easier
for you guys to process that, I think.
Taylor Thomas 1:50:48
Yeah.
But I would say that if we're getting a filing in October and trying to reach a January 1
effective date, that's that's a really tight timeline on our side.
And it would be very unlikely that we'd be able to meet that.
Blattner, Lori 1:51:05
Do you think?
I guess that was part of my question on filing him separately.
Would it be possible to implement the program changes by January 1 st even if the
prudency review wasn't complete?
Taylor Thomas 1:51:23
In theory you can do that.
I I would still say though, that a lot of the program changes are tied to the evaluation that
was presented today and an October timeline.
Umm, if you filed in October and asking for a January 1 effective date really only gives us
enough time to maybe ask one.
Maybe two sets of production request and I would anticipate we would probably have more
than that.
Umm, so it's still be tight on our side to try and reach that and then given current other
dockets we have on other rate cases in house, I'm not sure the Commission could reach
that umm given their schedules.
Blattner, Lori 1:51:53
Right.
Taylor Thomas 1:52:08
So I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying it would be pretty tight.
Blattner, Lori 1:52:13
INT-G-25 9
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 120 of 155

I guess another thing you guys might think about too then is if you wanna give us the
recommendation on effective date for program changes.
I mean, we're the January 1 st was just to keep from having a a kind of that split program
here that we've had to deal with.
But I'm also not opposed to,you know it April 1 st or June 1 st or you know whatever we need
to do to make it work.
So maybe that's something you could also just kind of think about and then we could either
talk again in September in that meeting or you can just send us an email and let us know.
Taylor Thomas 1:52:56
How that works, I'll I'll think on it a little bit and not get back to you.
Blattner, Lori 1:53:00
OK. Bye.
I appreciate that.
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 1:53:08
OK.
Any other questions?
Comments before we close for this morning.
OK. Hearing none.
We'll adjourn for today again.
Thank you all for this great discussion.
And thanks to Melissa and Adam from Adm for presenting results today, I'll send out a poll
and potential meeting dates.
Melissa Kosla 1:53:33
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 1:53:35
So watch for more from us.
OK.
Thanks everyone.
INT-G-25P
Attachment I - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 121 of 155

Jason Talford 1:53:40
Thankyou all.
Melissa Kosla 1:53:41
Thankyou.
Scantling, Preston 1:53:41
Thankyou.
Laura Conilogue 1:53:41
Thankyou.
Blattner, Lori 1:53:42
Thankyou.
Taylor Thomas 1:53:42
Yeah, thanks.
+18*******62 1:53:42
They're on.
Thompson, Kody 1:53:42
Everybody.
Melissa Kosla 1:53:43
Have a great day.
Scantling, Preston 1:53:44
Thanks.
INT-G-25-33
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 122 of 155

Q4 EESC Meeting: September 26, 2024
Wold, Kathy 0:04
If you have questions, raise your hand anyway you need to get our attention.
Please do that at any time.
It's no bother for me if you jump in at anytime so.
Alright, so our agenda this afternoon, we're gonna take a moment for a safety moment as
we start our meeting.
And then we're gonna jump into the proposed residential program changes.
We'll talk more about that in depth, but I'm gonna turn it over to Preston for our safety
moment.
Scantling, Preston 0:35
Kathy. Yep. So I just figured that it would be a good time since I've been feeling the first
breath or two of winter to. Yeah, the first breath or two of winter come along to do some
general winter safety tips.You know, it's a good time right now.
To prepare so that way you're not left at the last second having to do a bunch of stuff to get
ready for the cold weather that's coming up.
So yeah, one of the big things we're talking about here is just what weatherproofing your
home against the cold, making sure you're not having a lot of leaks coming in from the
outside. Obviously making your home a little bit warmer during the winter.
That's good for your health all around.
Preparing yourself for exposure in winter weather as well, making sure you're dressing
warmly and just preparing for any potential you know weather events that are going to be
outside, whether that's precipitation or just cold weather, wind. So making sure we're
prepared on all fronts.
There, there's a lot of different car preparation tips which I'm not gonna go too far in depth
on, but making sure that all the necessary fluids and and parts in your car are up to date
and topped off and ready to go for any places that you're going.
To be while while you're outside. And then this is also very,very good time to be aware of
any downed power lines because of these weather events, there might be some some
down power lines which might impact travel or you know,just getting around places from
day to.
Day, so make sure we're we're aware of those and contacting local.
And emergency services and that's needed.
INT-G-25-P
Attachment I - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 123 of 155

So that's about all for our safety moment today and I'll go ahead and turn it back over to
you, Kathy.
Wold, Kathy 1:56
Alright, thanks.
I'm not ready to start thinking about winter.
But thanks for helping us. Be prepared, Preston.
Scantling, Preston 2:03
We can.
We can slowly start easing into it, right?
Wold, Kathy 2:06
There we go. Yes.
Scantling, Preston 2:06
Is a good time to slow slowly start that.
Wold, Kathy 2:08
Yeah.
Thompson, Kody 2:09
I'm just glad we're having to think about summer as much.
Wold, Kathy 2:12
There we go. Nice shoulder runs.
Scantling, Preston 2:12
Exactly. Not worrying about smoke either.
Wold, Kathy 2:16
Great. All right.Thanks, Preston.
All right. So we'll go ahead and jump into the kind of the meat of the meeting this
afternoon. 11
INT-G-25M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 124 of 155

And we want to dedicate this time to talk about special studies.
As many of you might remember, we had Adm and associates join us last meeting.
They talked about the impact evaluation that they did and presented all the results from
that meeting and I just put up this picture here again of the energy efficiency evaluation life
cycle.
So we've run the program, we've done an evaluation of the program and now we're kind of
into this planning part of the cycle here and that's what we're going to talk about today is
how do we use these results to inform program planning going forward.
OK.
So the first thing we did with the results from Adm was that we use the evaluated savings to
run the cost effectiveness testing from the 2023 program.
So you can see we updated all of the the therm savings there that were evaluated, therm
savings from the impact study and on the cost effectiveness. Uct ratio you can see here
that.
Some measures were more cost effective.
Some were less, but since Adm didn't evaluation of all the measures, this was an
opportunity.
For us to review all the measures at this time and make any updates, changes and in some
cases, retirements of certain measures.
So we're gonna walk through those today.
So as we start thinking about program planning, we look back through some of the orders
and some of the history of the program. And one of the things that came up was that the
Commission staff had encouraged the company to explore other acceptable invited basis
for deem saving.
Such as the Regional Technical Forum we shared this with Adm as well.
And from that we commissioned a study with Adm to create a technical reference manual
for Intermountain Gas.
So the technical reference manual would provide the deem savings estimates for energy
savings for the residential portfolio.
And these would include or the TRM was based on historical implementation rates of
measures, measures that we plan to have in the program for the coming year. And then they
also include an assessment of whether or not it the measure is appropriate candidate for
deem savings. So we.
Can just put anything in there.
Had to be something that matched a deem savings approach.
OK.
So the manual the Adm created for Intermountain is intended to facilitate the cost
effectiveness, screening, planning, tracking and the energy savings reporting for the
INT-G-25
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 125 of 155

residential program. It's intended to be a living document, so this will be updated with the
the stipulated values that are relevant to industry rese.
And impact evaluation findings.
So this will be an ongoing living document that we'll use for the residential program.
OK.
So we'll go through the proposed program changes by measure and for each measure we'll
present the EM NB results. The recommendations from the evaluators and then based on
the technical reference manual that was produced, will present the proposed rebate
changes and compare those to the existing program and.
How that'll change going forward?
Before we do that, before we jump right into each measure, I think I'm gonna turn it over to
min.
Who's gonna talk to us a little bit about avoided costs?
Give us a little refresher course on avoided costs because this will be an important part of
the program planning discussion going forward.
Park, Min 6:08
Yeah. So the void costs just briefly.
It's just the estimated cost to serve the next unit of demand.
So it's essentiallyjust the incremental cost that can be avoided through energy, energy
conservation.
But yeah, like in order 35663, it states that the Commission approves the company's
proposal to update all avoided costs as exhibits to IRP filings.
So basically you can see that.
Charts there or tables on the left is the 2021 IRP, which we use those numbers for previous.
Uct numbers and then on the right is the 2023 IRP, which was the most recent one.
So those are the numbers we currently use for our UCT values.
So you can see the avoided costs numbers went up, went up quite a bit. So that will play a
role in the numbers that we're going to discuss.
Uh. Later here.
Wold, Kathy 7:15
Great.
Alright. Thanks man.
OK.
So with that, we'll jump into our first measure here and these I just took the results slides
from Adm and incorporated them into the presentation today for easy reference of the
INT-G-25
Attachment I - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 126 of 155

results from the impact evaluation.
So you can see here that they did both the billing analysis and the RTF analysis here for
savings there were claim savings of 87.
The RTF verified savings was 44.
And the recommendation from the evaluators was to utilize an RTF gas furnace workbook.
For unit energy savings for claim savings going forward.
So what we did is we applied the guidance from the TRM to redesign the furnace rebate
with all of the updated inputs provided by the TRM and we'd keep the energy or the
minimum efficiency requirement the same.
So it still be for 95 afue furnace. The therm savings updated to 46 incremental cost of$277
a measure life of 21.5 years. And then this was the only measure where the incentive
remained the same. So.
It's currently 350 and a plan is to keep it at$350.00 going forward.
So on this slide,you can see the 2023 program.
Rebate design and then the proposed changes for 2025 and this is one of those cases
where it was important to remember Min's presentation about the avoided costs because it
would make sense here that you see the therm savings for the current program at 87.
And it's being cut almost in half.
You'd expect that to change the incentive.
That would be cost effective, but in the case where the avoided costs have increased by
enough, keeping the incentive level the same was a result of the cost testing there using the
new and updated avoided costs.
Yeah, Jason.
Jason Talford 9:27
Hey, thank you, Kathy.
I had a quick question here on on the previous slide.
The sorry, not the previous slide.
The one before the one with the evaluation results we've got.
Wold, Kathy 9:38
Yeah.
Jason Talford 9:40
22 numbers here 43 numbers.
We've got the RTF workbook of 44.2 therms per unit. The building analysis 31.59 and then
INT-G-21 35
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 127 of 155

we've got the RTF gas UES between 27 and 55. I'm hoping you can help me translate those
numbers to.
To the 46th term is that you've arrived at.
Wold, Kathy 10:10
Yes.Yeah, great. Thanks for asking.
So the RTF ues this is what the RTF has for deem savings for a gas furnace.
Currently, that's a regional technical forum. If I'm throwing around a bunch of letters and
abbreviations here, please call me out and I'm happy to explain some of those.
It's a little bit like alphabet soup.
So when Adm ran the impact evaluation, they did a billing analysis on the claim savings for
Inmountain gas.
Also applied a deem savings approach as if we had been using the RTF. This is based on
their recommendation. The evaluation method that is being used by a more standardized
evaluation method used that's being used throughout the utilities and in Idaho.
So this was an attempt to standardize the evaluation so that it would be the same as other
utilities are using.
So that's the RTF number.
There is 44.The 31 is the.
And then the 27 to 55 are the deem savings that are claimed by the RTF right now.
Does that help?
Jason Talford 11:27
Yeah, I think that's a good explanation of what those are, but I'm still not seeing 46 in those.
Yeah, sorry.
Wold, Kathy 11:32
Oh wait, OK.
Oh,you asked me one more question.
Yes, thank you.
Sorry, yes.
Thank you for reminding me, OK.
So those numbers are the evaluated savings that Adm found.
But then they also incorporated.
The impact evaluation that they just did and the inputs into the RTF and they customized
the formula for deem savings for Intermountain Gas to come up with this 46 therms.
INT-G-25-M
Attachment I - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 128 of 155

So that's where that's coming from.
They looked at the RTF. All the inputs that go into the current deem savings formula.
And then they customize it based on the participation and the historical savings that
intermountain's been claiming for this measure.
So that's the customized savings amount for Intermountain.
Jason Talford 12:25
OK.
Great. So they they that was part of the evaluator and and that would that also explain.
The RTF workbook 27 to 55 and the evaluators coming out at 44.
That would. Is it the same?
Wold, Kathy 12:43
Right. So part of this 46 therms is.
Jason Talford 12:43
OK. Oh.
Wold, Kathy 12:48
Adm looked at the historical participation for furnaces, for Intermountain Gas, and they
Looked at a mix of the 95 and the 97 furnace to see how many were we were rebating over
the time period. I think April 2021 through 23 and so this.
46 Therms is a blended number.
Weighted by past participation.
Of the savings between a 95 furnace and a 97 furnace.
So that's part of the customization that's happening in that.
Igc trm.
Jason Talford 13:27
You stole a question out of my mouth.
Wold, Kathy 13:29
Oh.
INT-G-25-P
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 129 of 155

Jason Talford 13:29
1 was gonna ask what the customization was and that sounds like it was exactly right.
Wold, Kathy 13:32
Ye p.
Jason Talford 13:33
Are there any other?
Wold, Kathy 13:33
Ye p.
Jason Talford 13:37
Customizations to the the formulas that we should be aware of or is that the extent of it?
Wold, Kathy 13:42
That's the main thing is that they looked at history and participation for the Intermount gas
program in order to incorporate that, I think in the water heating measures, they looked at
things like inputs like groundwater temperature and customize those for the Idaho Service
territory versus a regional number.
Jason Talford 13:44
OK.
Wold, Kathy 14:01
That the RTF may use.
Any other questions about the furnace?
Katie O'Neil 14:14
1 have a quick question, Kathy and sorry I'm new to this meeting.
Wold, Kathy 14:16
Yeah.
INT-G-21 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 130 of 155

Katie O'Neil 14:19
My name is Katie O'Neill. I'm with the city of Boise.
Wold, Kathy 14:22
Welcome.
Katie O'Neil 14:23
Thankyou.
Here I'll turn my camera on.
I thinkjust to to make sure I'm understanding correctly, nothing about your forecasted
usage is changing.
There's nothing that's that's that would cause people to to be using more or less natural
gas.
It's just that the models have been updated and that's what's leading to the 87 to 46 therm
difference. Is that correct?
Wold, Kathy 14:44
Correct.
Katie O'Neil 14:45
OK.
Thank you so much.
Wold, Kathy 14:46
Yes.Yeah, thanks. Thanks for joining.
Hey anyone else?Yes.
Jason Talford 14:52
Kathy, I think I might have another question for you. Just to verify for me, 'cause,you have it
highlighted here when when you mentioning incremental cost that is incremental cost to
the customer, right for upgrading to that higher efficiency furnace, OK.
Wold, Kathy 14:55
Yeah.
INT-G-21 01
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 131 of 155

Right, that's correct.
Yep, that would be from the baseline furnace to an upgraded to the 95% afue furnace.
Jason Talford 15:18
OK.
Great. It's a.
It's a wonderful tidbit to know, but perhaps for Katie's sake, nice to meet you, Katie.
I knew Brad Whosing failed pretty well.
Spoke with him often.
As far as the utility cost test, that shouldn't make any any impact there.
OK, sharing the same brain cell.
Love it.
Wold, Kathy 15:41
OK.
All right, great.
Thanks for those questions.
All right.
Anyone else on furnace before we go to the next one?
Kyeah.
Blattner, Lori 15:55
Kathy, maybe just to point out that the the reason we include incremental cost is just
because we do run the the total resource cost the TRC, even though we don't, we don't do
program planning really or evaluation around it.
It's just another metric to kind of.
I guess take a look at or another tool in the toolbox.
So that's I think that's why that metrics included.
Wold, Kathy 16:22
Thankyou.
Additional explanation helps. Thanks Laurie.
Jason Talford 16:33
1 think I have one more question for you.
12
INT-G-25 0
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 132 of 155

I apologize.
I'd like to give a moment for everybody else to step in if they need to.
Wold, Kathy 16:37
No, it's alright.
Jason Talford 16:44
So I'm comparing that 46 therms to the 31.59 from the billing analysis.
And my understanding is that that 46 therms is what you're using in your in your new TRM
as a deemed savings.
But that still highlights a difference that the billing analysis, the savings that are what it says
the savings are realized on your system is different from what you're using as you're
deemed savings.
Could you help me get those numbers in line?
Is there any changes that you're making that may help with that in the future?
Wold, Kathy 17:26
So I think some of the changes are that we will be using the inputs that are in the workbook
in the RTF. That's where they the basis for the the RTF claim savings came from.
We have yet to receive the work with actual like Excel workbook from Adm.
So we'll be using that for tracking.
So I think that we'll have some improved tracking on this particular measure that will help
us with these claim savings and securing those claim claim savings.
Jason Talford 18:04
K.
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 18:05
Help. OK.
Well.
We'll move on to smart thermostats and again this is the the results from the Adm study
here.
You can see both the RTF savings, the billing savings and then the current RTF deem savings
amount 2724 to 27 therms so.
INT-G-21 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 133 of 155

In this case, the billing analysis terms came up a little higher than the RTF terms.
Analysis But kind of right in there in line with the rtfs.
Uh.
24 to 27 therms.
OK, so from the TRM guidance, the current program is just Energy Star certified thermostat.
What we would need to do going forward is add on these parameters to the energy to the
Energy Star certified thermostat.
So A7 day programmable Wi-Fi enabled occupancy detection.
So we'll have some additional requirements to.
Our smart thermostat rebate in order to meet those deem savings.
So here's the proposed.
Rebate design Energy Star qualified with additional requirements. A 26 therms an
incremental cost of 165 measure life of seven years and incentive of$50.
So this is a case where you see the therm savings being reduced and then also the S note of
will also be reduced.
Questions about the smart thermostat.
Jason Talford 20:05
Kathy is Jason.
You may have said this.
Those parameters, those were from the where they were recommended by the EM and V. Is
that correct?
Correct.
Wold, Kathy 20:14
These parameters that are being added on to the rebate design actually come from the
RTF.
Jason Talford 20:18
Mm hmm.
Wold, Kathy 20:21
To be in line with the RTF. Those will be incorporated into the TRM for IGC as well.
Any other questions on smart thermostat?
All right. We'll move on to the storage tank water heater.
So here are the results for the storage water heater.
INT-G-21 M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 134 of 155

One thing that we did not differentiate in our original offering was the kind of the, I guess the
difference between 55 gallon and greater size or a 55 gallon and smaller size water heater.
And that made a difference in the.
Claimed or the verified savings.
The evaluated savings so.
Than 55 gallons was coming back with a evaluate savings of 25 therms but very little therm
savings for the greater than 55 gallon so.
The current RTF is 25 therms per unit and Energy Star condensing.
Storage water heater is 55 therms and the evaluators recommended utilizing the RTF water
heater workbook for claim savings moving forward.
This I think this is the same thing I put in a kind of a duplicate slide here, but the federal
standard for greater than 55 gallon storage water.
Hank Water Tank heater is more stringent than the heaters with smaller sizes, so that was
one of the reasons for the the.
Fewer savings with the greater than 55 gallon.
So we looked at the storage, heater, storage, water heater, RTF.
Guidance.
And the energy efficiency requirement would be a .81, uef Energy Star qualified 35 or 33
therms an incremental cost about$1800.
And when we did our cost testing, the cost effectiveness level came in at an incentive of
$200.
So based on the cost testing and the history that we've had, the TRM guidance is used is to
use the Energy Star qualified version 5.0 which is that .81 uef efficiency, minimum
efficiency.
Intermountain has historically had very low participation in the storage water heater.
It's been a .68 uef and a 115 rebate. The new recommended efficiency is .81 Uef, which is a
pretty big jump up in efficiency and.
Effectiveness testing level of$200 for the rebate, we anticipate that they'll be like no to low
participation, so.
For this particular measure, we're recommending that we retire a rebate for the storage
water heater participation at this level just seems very unlikely at this high efficiency level.
And then also this lower incentive level.
Any questions about the storage water heater?
Jason Talford 24:02
Kathy, yeah.
So just to be clear,you're the the recommendation is to retire the storage tank water heater
INT-G-2�0
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 135 of 155

as in its entirety.
I think you had.You had the other recommendation to offer a tiered incentive for
condensing noncondensing.
Are condensing noncondensing wrapped U together in the current incentive?
Wold, Kathy 24:30
Yes, we looked at the Energy Star qualified version 5.0.
This .81 uef was the guidance there and I think just even if it was condensing or non
condensing, that jump up in efficiency where we've had such low participation at even the
Lower uef, it just seemed unlikely that.
Increasing from 115 to $200.00 would really encourage participation at this level.
Jason Talford 25:02
When you were in the.
In the RTF workbooks for this, what was the baseline uef assumption for a storage water
heater?
Wold, Kathy 25:13
Oh, I'd have to go back and look.
Jason Talford 25:16
1 don't either. That's totally fair.
Wold, Kathy 25:17
Yeah.
Jason Talford 25:18
1.
I guess to be a little bit more constructive, I'm kinda wondering 0.68 uef.
Is surprisingly low.
I don't have these numbers off the top of my head either.
I'd have to go pee. Just just alongside you.
I'm curious if the.
The the baseline, the the building code or the, you know, actual standard by manufacturers
is maybe already above that. And that may explain.
INT-G-21 N
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 136 of 155

Wold, Kathy 25:52
OK.
Brian Bennett 25:52
Hello.
Jason Talford 25:55
Low participation. If you can't get to one of those.
Brian Bennett 26:00
I jump in there.
Jason Talford 26:01
Sure.
Brian Bennett 26:03
K.
So the basic efficiency on most installed water heaters is 6/2.
It is.
Quite a dollar purchase jump from .2 to .68.
On our Energy Star qualified homes.
Over here, I'm over in southeast Idaho.
They are installing the .6 fours which complywith the model. It's not ideal.
But it's OK .68.
Is the $200.00 rebate versus the cost of the energy savings?
For the construction process just isn't justifiable.
You're not going to get anybody to do that.
The next reasonable jump would be above 90%where we do the condensing.Then we can
actually show enough energy savings for them to.
To participate in that, but that .68 is just in an awkward position in the food chain where it's
not really viable.
You still have the expensive beevant and other stuff required for the installation, with none
of the overwhelming benefits of a condensing unit.
INT-G-21 05
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 137 of 155

Wold, Kathy 27:24
Thankyou.
That was Brian Bennett, the energy auditor from Idaho Falls, right.
Jason Talford 27:32
That was a great answer.Thankyou.
Blattner, Lori 27:32
Thankyou.
Wold, Kathy 27:34
Thankyou.
Brian Bennett 27:34
It's me.
Wold, Kathy 27:35
Yes.Thanks Brian.
Good to have you.
Go ahead, Lori.
Blattner, Lori 27:39
Brian and Chris on the .81, is it this kind of the same issue 'cause you mentioned you don't
see significant benefits till you get to the .9 or greater?
So do you concur that we have the same issues with .81 as we would at .68?
Brian Bennett 27:56
Yeah.Yeah, because we haven't changed the installation standard.We're we're putting in a
more expensive tank, but we still have.
We still have to bring in combustion air.We still use the expensive bee vent venting that is
significant, more significantly, more difficult to get through a building structure than the
PVC venting.
And the again, the incremental savings are not that much because.
Whenever we're using these tanked water heaters, what we're mostly paying for is to have
INT-G-21 R
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 138 of 155

hot water ready to use.
So it's getting the the the main players are the contractors and they don't seethe dollar
return value on that because they're the reward to them isn't significant enough.
In appraisal value, if there's a if, we could find a wayto get it reflected in an MLS, these
things could be wonderful.
But since that isn't currently part of the procedure in the.
Uh.
Appraisal process. They have their overhead.
They're basically a burden for the contractor.
Blattner, Lori 29:11
So that's really helpful.
That seems to.
Kind of support what Kathy was saying as far as maybe just retiring this altogether.
Brian Bennett 29:23
Throwing support and education towards the fully condensing systems.
Is is probably a much more reasonable.
Resource and building codes are heading that way more and more so.
Starting to drift the ship.That direction will probably give us greater returns in the long run
versus honestly investing in what is currently old technology.
Wold, Kathy 30:05
Any other questions on this one?
OK.
We'll move on to the tankless water heater.
Program had two tiers of the tankless water heater.
These were .87 uef and a .91 uef offering.
See here that the evaluators recommend using the RTF water heater workbook for the
tankless water heater offering going forward.
They recommended that we discontinue the lower efficiency .87 Tier 2 incentive and then
focus on the higher efficiency equipment.
But they did.
They did recommend offering a tiered incentive for Energy Star qualified versus the non
Energy Star qualified tankless water heater.
So we took a look at this.
INT-G-21 0�
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 139 of 155

And the tankless water heater non Energy Star qualified.
These were both .95 uef based on the TRM.
The savings were a little bit different between the non Energy Star qualified and the Energy
Star qualified the non Energy Star qualified cost testing resulted in a $300.00 incentive.
And we did a little bit more looking into this one.
And the efficiency requirement of .95 non Energy Star qualified.
We only found three tankless water heaters listed in the RE directory of certified products
and that's where we go to for looking for verification on energy efficiency of products. There
were only three tankless water heaters that met this criteria for non Energy Star certified
and we've never seen.
Any of those water heaters.
In our being rebated in our program in the history of the program.
So they were brands that we had not heard of and had not seen ever in the program.
So in addition, when we did the cost effectiveness, it was, it would require participation
Level of about 600 units for it to be cost effective at that$300.00 incentive level. And so our
recommendation here is to not offer this particular.
Tankless water heater non Energy Star qualified.
We would instead do is focus on this tankless water heater.
Energy Star qualified .95 uef.
Savings of 50 therms incremental costs of about$800.20 year, useful life and incentive
cost tested at$400.
So here you can see the comparison between the previous or the what's currently in place.
This is the tier 1.91 UEF compared to the proposed changes for the 2025 program.
We would be changing almost every input on this particular measure from the efficiency
requirement to the therm savings and the increased incentive.
Any questions on the tankless?
Jason Talford 33:29
Yeah, quick one.
If I'm not mistaken, the Energy Star qualification for a tankless water here requires .9 uef as
part of the qualification. Is there a reason to have?
Those separated or I guess better? Is there an impact to separating them at all?
Wold, Kathy 33:53
Impact to separating oh from .91 to .95 or for .90.
INT-G-249
Attachment I - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 140 of 155

Jason Talford 34:00
No.
Thompson, Kody 34:00
Where we've listed .95 and and Energy Star there Jason, is that what you're asking?Where
we've we've delineated the two there?Yeah.
Jason Talford 34:04
Yeah. Having them separately,yeah.
Wold, Kathy 34:08
Gotcha. Thanks, Cody.
That's a good question.
I don't know.
The answer to that was the guidance from the TRM that it be Energy Star qualified.
I think from a like a verification standpoint and also from a customer communicating that
to customers pointing to an Energy Star qualified product also simplifies things.
Does that? Does that help?
But I don't know exactly.
The answer to that Jason.
Brian Bennett 34:43
So again, the the .95 is the efficiency of the unit, the Energy Star qualification just simply
means that it was put through the stringency testing.
For Energy Star and you'll find it listed on the website as a recommended product so.
I just like to back up that yes, it's more of a marketing tool than anything else.
That, but it provides that little bit of extra distinction.
This is the new hot thing over here in Southeast Idaho.
We're seeing a lot of the upper level builders moving to this style of equipment and I think
over the next three years we'll see it start trickling down into the entry level homes
because.
When we show the fact that we can recover.
Up to,you know, 15 square feet of mechanical room space to convert into.
Actual livable space.
INT-G-241
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 141 of 155

There's an extra dollar value added to these just by providing that space for more
marketable purposes other than mechanical space.
Jason Talford 36:00
Yeah, Brian, I I completely agree with where you're going.
You put a, you put the shiny yellow Energy Star tag on it and people go, oh, wow, look at
that, right?
And and I think that's a very similar vein to where my question was coming from.
From somewhat tangential of the idea of simplicity from the customer perspective, they
need to meet a .9 uef and an energy stall qualified well if Energy Star qualified has the .9 uef
built in, you can just sayjustjust put it Energy Star qualified in there.
So long as those two align, I think it does the same thing with less burn to the customer.
Wold, Kathy 36:43
Gotcha. Now I'm tracking with you.
Thankyou.
Yes. Anything we can do to simplify for customers, I'm all for it.
Thanks everyone.
OK.
Next one was the boiler.
The evaluated savings for the boiler were a little bit lower than the claim savings here at 103
therms evaluators recommended utilizing the Illinois TRM for the measures that.
Are not provided by the RTF. The Regional Technical forum. The evaluators use the Illinois
TRM for deem savings calculations.
So the TRM with TRM guidance, the boiler incentive would look like this.
It would be the same 95% afuea 159 therms.
See here.
Incremental cost of 1166, 1 think I got that wrong.
I did OK.
Sorry, this slide.
This shows the comparison of the 2023 program compared to the 25 changes, 2025
changes and this would incorporate the lower therm saving estimate, new incremental
cost, new measure life and then the incentive for this one actually increases from 800 to
1000.
Dollars.
Questions about the boiler.
K.
INT-G-25-b3
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 142 of 155

We'll move on to the commie boiler.
Combi boiler, in this case the verified savings came in a little bit higher than the claim
savings.
Same recommendation for the Combi boiler as with the boiler, which is to utilize the Illinois
TRM with RTF inputs for the Intermountain Gas program.
And once we incorporated those,you can see the changes here, the 2023 program, the
efficiencywould remain the same, but we would update the inputs to the unit savings,
incremental cost measure life. And in this case the incentive would increase from $800 to
15.
$100.
Any questions about the commi?
Jason Talford 39:28
Kathy, maybe not a question specific to the Combi boiler, but.
You know it.
I think this is you going to wrap few others but the combination boiler I think is the only one
of the measures that has an updated.
Therm savings.
That's exactly equal to the results of the evaluation.
And I guess that's maybe what I would expect to see.
So it kind of contrast why for the other measures, some of them aren't off by much to be
fair, but they're all a little bit different.
And now I'm kind of wondering why.
Wold, Kathy 40:12
Yeah.
So I would say for the boiler, Combi boiler, combi boiler I think is one of the fewest rebates
we've paid on a measure.
So there wasn't a lot of historical information program information for evaluators to use
that they would use to customize this particular measure at all.
So they looked at the few that we did have and anything there that seemed relevant to
customize the TRM for Intermountain Gas would have been incorporated in there.
But I I believe it's because we had so few of them that there there probably wasn't much
there to use from a historical perspective.
INT-G-21 V
Attachment I - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 143 of 155

Jason Talford 40:57
Great.Thank you.
Wold, Kathy 41:06
So we'll move on to the whole home rebates.
This is the new construction rebate.We have two tiers of this, the tier one and the whole
home Tier 2 evaluators found that the methodology for evaluating the whole home program
was already in line with the ITR, with the RTF New Homes Protocol. So that was the EV.
Method that was used by on the evaluators for Intermountain Gas and is also employed by
other utilities in Idaho.
So, since this these rebates were already in line with the new homes protocol for the RTF,
the whole home requirements will not be changing for whole home tier one or whole home
Tier 2.
These requirements will remain the same.
And then you can see for whole home Tier 1.
The inputs that will be changing the annual therm savings, incremental cost measure life
and then the incentive when we did a cost test on this one, the incentive would increase
significantly from $900 to$1500.
Then for whole home Tier 2 same thing.
This one the therm savings were reduced from 1:28 to 110 therms and then the incremental
cost and measure life and incentive were also changed.
But the incentive here would change from $900.
Oh, I'm sorry.
This should be $700.00 an error in my spreadsheet or PowerPoint there.
Sorry, should be changing from 700 to 1000.
So that would be an increase in incentive there as well.
Questions about whole home.
MATT V 42:54
1 have a.
I have a quick question, so if the.
The tankless water heater changes efficiency.
Does it matter on the whole home?
Tankless water heater program.
144
INT-G-25-65
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 144 of 155

Wold, Kathy 43:13
Well, that's a good question, Matt.
Sorry, that was Matt van der Meer, from Momentum energy rating, right?
MATT V 43:20
Yes.
Wold, Kathy 43:21
Thanks Matt.
Based on the evaluators.
Analysis I don't think this changes because these were the inputs that they used to
calculate the evaluated savings and then also to line up with the RT FS new homes
protocol.
So for that reason, no, they won't change.
MATT V 43:45
OK.
Wold, Kathy 43:50
For these measures, sorry, you're asking me about the tankless, though, right?
Yes. So if they want to do a tankless add on, we would, it would have to meet the new
efficiency measure.
Sorry, I missed that part of your question.
MATT V 44:02
Nope, that's fine.
Wold, Kathy 44:03
Yes. So the yeah, any tankless water heater would have to meet the minimum efficiency of
the new new offering.
MATT V 44:12
OK.
INT-G-25-0
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 145 of 155

Wold, Kathy 44:13
Yeah. Thanks.
Good question.
Any other questions about?
OK.
So the cost testing that we did after incorporating all the inputs from the TRM is outlined
here.
We use the admin budget that was used for our recent energy efficiency charge filing, so we
are still waiting on the final order on that, but we use the budget to forecast for the energy
efficiency charge and we applied that to the 2025 program planning cost.
Effectiveness testing.
So you can see here all the measures come in around 1.0 for cost effectiveness testing,
which is how.
We help set the rebate amount. The incentive amounts here.
Questions about that.
One question I did want to bring to the committee is this change for the whole home.
Incentive going up from $900 and $700.
Those would be increased to$1500 and $1000. As we mentioned earlier, this is largely
being driven by the increased avoided costs and so with homes, I feel like it's much more
involved. The new construction measure is much more involved.
For builders than it is, say, a piece of equipment,you know, a a furnace or a tankless water
heater. And if it makes sense to increase these incentives.
Given that the next IRP cycle will be looking at avoided updating avoided costs again,
granted, no one knows what those avoided costs will do, what gas prices will do? But does
moving those incentive levels around like that create issues for builder participation?
And we cost tested these at the lower levels. The UCT ratio came in at around 2.0 for the
whole home tier one and a 1.5 for the whole home Tier 2.
So if we were to keep those the same, it would be very cost effective.
But trying to anticipate maybe any unintended consequences that that may have by moving
those incentive levels around?
Jason Talford 46:59
Kathy, I'll jump in with some feedback for that.
Wold, Kathy 47:02
Yeah.
INT-G-21M
Attachment I - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 146 of 155

Jason Talford 47:03
Thank you for putting that out there.
I can't speak too much.
From from builder participation I mean if it's worth it for them, they'll go for it. Not not.
But what I can say from the avoided cost perspective, you're absolutely right.
It's hard to know, but from the.
The avoided cost that you showed earlier in the presentation.
Those costs definitely do drop overtime.
And you actually kind of preempted a question I was gonna ask you is.
Working with those numbers because they're what we have, they will be updated. That's
fine.
You know what kind of other measures are being taken to future proof this because as
those.
Avoided costs drop.
I think from as high as $1.20 down to.
You know.
$0.70.
These UCT ratios seem like.
A drop in avoided cost could bring them under that cost effectiveness ratio pretty easily.
So the the robustness of the program to withstand and avoided cost changes something
important.
Wold, Kathy 48:35
Yes, thanks for that question.
We tried to look at our forecasted rebate count here and go with the more conservative end
of that.
So we try not to be like right on the bubble of being at 1.0. When we looked at our forecast
here for the participation numbers and really thought about how that could change if
avoided costs go down again then.
How might that change?
Program cost effectiveness, cost effectiveness.
So we really try to use some conservative forecast numbers.
In order,just like you were saying, to kind of.
Future proof those.
Blattner, Lori 49:16
INT-G-A-V
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 147 of 155

Hey, do you wanna go back to the of what it costs slide?
I know that's a long ways back.
Wold, Kathy 49:19
Sure. Yeah.
Give me a second.
There we go. There we go.
Blattner, Lori 49:31
So I just wanted to talk about something that Jason meant.
And so when you look at the?
Avoided costs in each.
Section.
Those are.
Those are going to go down overtime.
Because they're those future costs are discounted and so a better comparison is to
compare.
Across the rows. So you're year one to year one.
Rather than comparing within the same column, does that make sense?
So we're still at a significant increase in year 1 from 46 cents in the previous RP to$0.87
today.
But.
The $0.70 out in year 26 has is a discounted rate.
I don't know if that's helpful or not.
And I think the point.
I think the point that you're trying to make, Jason, is still.
And it's the question that we're kind of kicking around is we don't know what costs are going
to do in the 2025 IRP.
And so should we increase those?
Whole home rebates.
Dramatically.
Or,you know, maybe somewhere in the middle or maybe not. Change them at all.
You know that that was kind of the the question, I guess.
Jason Talford 51:29
Yeah,yeah, I think I understand what you're you're going for here and and like I said, I try to
INT-G-21M
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 148 of 155

preface that it's not a good comparison 'cause. We don't know what 2025 has, but.
The current best information we have forecasting out is that 2023 IRP avoided cost, so.
You know, potentially the 2026 version of this program would be missing out on savings that
the current program is currently getting.
That's all.
Blattner, Lori 52:07
So Brian and Matt is the, I mean I'm I'm sure that the.
Builders would like to see the increase.
Will it be frustrating for them?You know, in two years from now if they if we pull that back
because we because of what the costs have gone down.
Brian Bennett 52:34
This is Brendan.
Anytime this year, reduction in rebate, you know for these guys, the guys that I have that are
collecting the rebate and I'm sure Matt is seeing it also.
A lot of them are doing this because they have.
A quality standard that you guys have helped them build through the rebate programs.
And they do look at this as part of their budgeting proposition. And anytime you redo a
funding out of a budget, it's a little bit frustrating.
But also the things that this program is doing is it is helping building habits of construction.
So even if they are a little bit frustrated, in my opinion, the likelihood that they're gonna fall
out of doing what they've developed the habit to do.
Contractors or notorious for this is what we've done.
That's what we've always done.
That's what we're gonna do.
So once you can build that habit into them, having them fall backwards is probably not a
high potential.
I don't know, Matt.
What do you think, Sir?
MATT V 53:55
So I think.
With Energy Star changing so much next year.
They see this as a kind of a safety net, like oh, we, we're gonna be spending more money to
meet Energy Star.
INT-G-25-0
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 149 of 155

But when we do that, we still can use the Intermountain gas rebates to help us achieve
that.
And my thought process, I think Energy Star.
A lot of builders are gonna move away from Energy Star and this is just going to be a a better
benefit for them.
Because of the strict.
Building.
Ways they're gonna have to do it so.
If they do pull it back in two years, it's just gonna be one of those things that they know it.
It doesn't already.
It's not going to last forever.
They understand that.
I think while it's here to benefit.
Blattner, Lori 55:02
So it sounds like maybe the advantage of of increasing the rebates, potentially getting more
builders on board with some of these new methods might outweigh the disadvantages of
having to pull the rebate back some in a couple of years depending on what of what costs
do.
Brian Bennett 55:26
1 agree with that statement. Again, if we can get in that, get them in the habit.
They start marketing a standard you know, especially when we feed them or help them
build that brand. The quality of equipment we're installing is exceed exceeds the market
because.
Our it makes our home better because it makes your livings lifestyle better because.
So.
A part of what we do is help them build those marketing skills.
And I think that's a good place for, you know, Intermountain, Gas.
To to focus is.
Along with these rebates is if we can get those.
Little brochures or pamphlets or even just printed sayings that we can give to the the
Realtors that participate with our builders.
To to give them that differentiation. That makes it much harder for them to fall back away
from it once it's built into their brand.
So what we gotta do is use these tools to secure mindset along with product.
INT-G-21 P
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 150 of 155

Blattner, Lori 56:52
So that's really helpful.
Thank you very much.
Wold, Kathy 56:53
Yeah.
MATT V 56:55
And then the last thing I have is.
With certain loan companies like the F, the FDA and FDA loans, they will have to meet a
higher standard in building. So these things will.
You definitely helpful in those in those areas also.
Wold, Kathy 57:27
Thank you both.
Anyone else thoughts on whole home?
So then the last slide here is just highlighting the program updates based on the TRM. So
everything highlighted in yellow would be changing.
Based on the the current guidance for the Intermountain Gas TRM.
See that?
The furnace incentive is the only one that was not going to change.
Alright. Any other questions about?
Questions or thoughts or suggestions for program planning?
Jason Talford 58:35
Question for you, Kathy.
Wold, Kathy 58:35
OK.
Jason Talford 58:36
Do you know the time frame of when you're going to be getting the the work papers from
your evaluator to?
INT-G-21 01
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 151 of 155

Wold, Kathy 58:37
Yeah.
Jason Talford 58:46
Help inform.
That TRM and the program planning off of it.
Wold, Kathy 58:51
Yeah. I would expect to get that this week.
Yeah. I would expect to have that this week and we're just waiting on the actual the
workbook so that we can look at the tracking that needs to be done on those measures.
We've gotten the report, the actual TRM report with guidance, but not the Excel workbook
is.
What we're waiting on, I hope to have it this week.
Jason Talford 59:19
OK.
Yeah, I'm. I'm just kinda curious.
I was wondering if that's something that we as the as the committee could get.
To review when they're available.
Wold, Kathy 59:31
Yeah.
Blattner, Lori 59:37
1 think we'll plan to file that Kathy with the.
Application that you right?
Wold, Kathy 59:45
Yes, exactly.
Yeah, next steps would be that we would file the application for 2023 prudency along with
the EMNV final report.
So the results from the study, we would file the changes for the residential program along
with that, we're also working on developing a commercial TRM and then we would file
INT-G-21 0
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 152 of 155

changes for the commercial program as well.
So those are kind of our next steps.
To proceed for the program.
Questions about any of that.
Jason Talford 1:00:22
Yeah, I have two questions for you.
I know we've been super duper focused on, you know the results and the outcomes from
the residential EM and V but I'd love to hear an update on the commercial programs.
No, but I think it was two EE Cs ago that we had some information on it.
Wold, Kathy 1:00:46
Last.
Committee meeting. I think Preston reported that we were going to be deploying a
commercial customer survey. We worked with IDL on developing a survey and we sent out
a limited mailing, snail mail postcard to invite our commercial customers to participate in
the survey.
We're trying to target specifically our building operators and.
Reaching those folks is proving to be very difficult. I think most the mail most the billing,
most the communication goes to folks that are probably in like admin or the accounting
department.
And so we're trying to find the best way to reach the building operators.
So we did a limited mailing, snail mail and this month we will send out an e-mail to all of
our commercial customers.
That subscribe to energy efficiency messaging and that will include a link to go to the
survey.
And hoping to learn more about those commercial customers through the survey.
The survey includes asking questions about specific equipment that the customer uses.
Really trying to get in contact with the building operators or the facility managers so that
we're kind of talking to the right folks, but then also gauging their interest in learning more
about energy efficiency.
So if they have any upcoming projects, if they're exploring doing any upgrades, really finding
a way to proactively.
We work with those customers on any kind of energy efficient upgrades that they may be
wanting to explore or maybe don't even know that they wanna explore yet.
So those are a couple of things that been going on in the commercial program.
And then the next biggest thing is working on this TRM for commercial measures.
INT-G-21-50
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 153 of 155

So we wanna work on incorporating some of the energy saving measures that were
identified in the recent CPA and we'll specifically getting some measures into the offering
for those light commercial customers.
So, folks that are technically there on the commercial rate, but they use residential sized
equipment, we don't any offerings for them right now.
And so that was one area that we really wanted to address.
An area that we missed in our initial commercial offering.
Jason Talford 1:03:16
Great.Thank you. And then?
I guess is it after the survey when we might see more movement on a a potential for a a
custom projects type of.
Offering.
Wold, Kathy 1:03:32
Is one thing that we're working on as well. Is what that what the incentive or the incentive
calculation might be for custom project?
So yeah, I'm hoping that the survey will also help us identify those folks that,you know,
maybe aren'tjust doing an equipment upgrade, but are looking to do more of a custom
project.
I had gotten some feedback from some folks at I think it was an ASHRAE conference that
they are a vendor provider who does custom projects right now for Idaho Power.
And he mentioned that, you know, we see some opportunities for gas savings out there. If
you guys had a custom program, that's something that we can incorporate into doing, you
know, an electric and a natural gas project at the same time.
So there's definitely some potential out there.
So we do want to design what that custom incentive would look like. So hopefully we will
work on that. At the same time with the TRM is a custom option.
Any other questions about residential or commercial or energy efficiency in general?
Great.Well, great.
Well, I never know.
I wanna make sure I always leave enough time for a robust conversation.
I feel like we've had a really good discussion today.
And in my haste, I jumped over doing a icebreaker, which I'm kind of known for around here,
and doing some introductions.
So I promise that next meeting we will get back to doing that introductions and and some
kind of a little icebreaker to bring the committee together and start off the meeting.
INT-G-21 0
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 154 of 155

But unless there is anything else forth is afternoon.
We've wrapped up almost an hour early so.
I will give you some time back on your calendar.
Going once, going twice.
All right, we'll officially adjourn the meeting then.
Thanks everyone for your time and your expertise and your participation. I appreciate you.
MATT V 1:05:50
Thankyou.
Katie O'Neil 1:05:51
Thankyou.
Scantling, Preston 1:05:52
Thanks everyone.
INT-G-2�0
Attachment 1 - Supplement 2
to Application
Page 155 of 155